Charlotte Gateway Station and Railroad Improvements

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jayvee said:

Here's a bunch of images

Anyone else think the site map looks like a deconstructed version of Nascar Hall of Fame?

[15895]

11 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Anyone else think the site map looks like a deconstructed version of Nascar Hall of Fame?

I hate you....

I will always envision this now 

[Guest]

Personally I HATE the Jetsons mixed with CLT Airport look. 

[Scribe]

It's definitely not this:

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Scribe said:

It's definitely not this:

I'll probably never like it because of this.

[Matthew.Brendan]

So those are solar panels on the roof, yeah?

[Scribe]

^ LOL

[orulz]

So I gotta ask, is that parallel elevated greenway that is such a major component of this plan, actually going to be worth it? This is not so far from, and directly parallel to, Irwin Creek. I see the potential for a connection to the rail trail on the south end, but on the north end this looks like it just dead ends into ADM.

[queensguy06]

I have to echo what kermit touched on.  I feel the lack of platforms/train berthings is very short sighted, with not a lot of room in the way of future expansion when it will be necessary down the road.  While it says commuter rail is not going to be a part of this (which I think is another HUGE mistake), just one or two additional routes for this station and it will already be obsolete.

I'm glad they are trying to make this an iconic mixed use project - a la Denver Union Station - but it seems like they are neglecting the primary purpose for this project.  Hell, Denver Union Station has 7 or 8 berthings for future expansion; one is dedicated to the rail line to the airport.  The light rail has its own separate platforms not included in this.

[Merthecat]

Somehow to me the station seems sort of hidden behind all of the other planned development on the site.  I would like to see something at the intersection of Graham and Trade, whether that be an extension of the building, or a large sign, or something else, that announces the station's presence on the site.

[kermit]

23 hours ago, orulz said:

So I gotta ask, is that parallel elevated greenway that is such a major component of this plan, actually going to be worth it? This is not so far from, and directly parallel to, Irwin Creek. I see the potential for a connection to the rail trail on the south end, but on the north end this looks like it just dead ends into ADM.

I dunno, Irwin Creek Greenway is kinda far downhill and its sorta awkward to get from there to the center of town. It also just kinda stops at the graveyard. IMO we really need a traffic separated route through here and it makes sense (to me) to add a northern leg to the absolutely necessary path to the stadium.

Edited August 26, 2017 by kermit

[Popsickle]

4 hours ago, queensguy06 said:

I have to echo what kermit touched on.  I feel the lack of platforms/train berthings is very short sighted, with not a lot of room in the way of future expansion when it will be necessary down the road.  While it says commuter rail is not going to be a part of this (which I think is another HUGE mistake), just one or two additional routes for this station and it will already be obsolete.

I'm glad they are trying to make this an iconic mixed use project - a la Denver Union Station - but it seems like they are neglecting the primary purpose for this project.  Hell, Denver Union Station has 7 or 8 berthings for future expansion; one is dedicated to the rail line to the airport.  The light rail has its own separate platforms not included in this.

I completely agree with you about the possibility (really likelihood) of expansion in the future and the lack of space, it is very concerning.  I would like to see how they would expand in the future besides the addition of the mentioned third track in the presentation.  I feel that a transportation hub like this should be designed/engineered knowing that massive expansion will be needed in the future.  Unless the plan is another rail station in Charlotte, but the centralized location in the CBD makes this the "premier" location for all transportation, minus air, therefore it should be the spot for future growth.   

I do agree with the point you made about how commuter rail is not part of this project, seems very farsighted in my point of view.  Seems more of a "lets get this project done" solution, even though this project is 20ish years in the making.

Edit:  Also, I feel that the silver line, when build has to have a stop at this location, and move through uptown to the east, the street car is not enough to service this project for riders heading into uptown and points east/west.  The street car not having a dedicated ROW through uptown is a major hindrance to predictability and dependency.  

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Popsickle
Silver Line rant

[kermit]

^ I am also confused about where that separate commuter track would go -- I didn't see any mention of that in the doc but may have missed it.

[Popsickle]

4 minutes ago, kermit said:

^ I am also confused about where that separate commuter track would go -- I didn't see any mention of that in the doc but may have missed it.

I read through the document twice, and did a search for "commuter" and could find no pertinent information either, I don't think you missed it.  The most "relevant" piece of information I found, to paraphrase the stated info, that the future commuter line was not taken into planning consideration for size and scope of the building as it was not applicable.  Which I posted earlier and after a quick glance so did you., so I have no clue

[ajfunder]

While I would like to see a few more tracks, three is going to be more than enough for the foreseeable future. Gateway, unlike Denver will not be a stub end design meaning trains can pass through the station. This opens the door for staging at the Amtrak facility at Summit and trains don't actually need to dwell at the station for long prior to departure.

[Scribe]

Well, the 2009 Charlotte Gateway Station had commuter rail lines added on the west side of the NS freight lines... see the image below.
I think this option is still possible with the current setup. There is nothing that prohibits this option in the current plan.

 

Source: Environmental Assessment - Charlotte Gateway Station - March 2009

[Scribe]

And the 2017 MSAP actually points to this on page 17:

With the above, I would take it the plans/ideas from 2009 are not dead.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Scribe

[orulz]

Although they are mostly right about not needing waiting areas for commuters, the concourse and tunnel under the tracks should still definitely connect through to the commuter platforms.

[Scribe]

17 minutes ago, orulz said:

Although they are mostly right about not needing waiting areas for commuters, the concourse and tunnel under the tracks should still definitely connect through to the commuter platforms.

To be fair, they do say "commuter rail will be served by a separate platform that is not accessed through the main station building waiting room" They do not say that it will not  be connected to the building... 

I agree, it would be dumb to not give access to the commuter rail platform through the CGS.

[orulz]

I think the plan was to have the commuter platforms accessible from Trade Street only.

If you look at a map of the population density of greater Charlotte, it is pretty much a five pointed star, with Mooresville, Gastonia, Rock Hill, Monroe, and Kannapolis (maybe Salisbury) being the points. So that means that they really need to plan for enough tracks and platforms to support commuter trains in all five of those directions, even if none of them will be built right now. It makes sense for the Mooresville and Gastonia lines to be on a single island platform on the west side of the station, but commuter trains to Kannapolis, Monroe, and Rock Hill should really be on the east side sharing platforms with Amtrak, and in the future, high speed rail. IMO they should plan for an absolute minimum of four tracks for trains to stop at on the east side, not three. Six would be better still. Maybe in the future this could be accomplished by pushing the freight tracks further west, but at least it should be studied to make sure that expansion will be possible in the future, and that no buildings will be in the way.

[Scribe]

If you look at the 2009 plan, they had access to commuter platform from both Trade and 4th and a third arrow points to the CGS. Whereas Amtrak was only to the CGS.

I hope they do not screw this up.

[Popsickle]

I don't think we can compare the 09 plan to the "final version" that we are looking at and have wet dreams about what might magically come from it. From my opinion, it looks like this is what CATS/NCDOT wants to happen.(to get it done and over with) I don't like the plan at all, and think i think it needs revision. Looks like a Busch league play to me, and not a design/functionality for the future of the city.  

[southslider]

The newer site plan calls out access to Greenway but little to nothing about buses for a project supposedly led by CATS. How classicly Charlotte for priorities.

And way too many stairs. But if excluding those stinky bus people, why not also people in wheelchairs.

 

[Scribe]

2 hours ago, southslider said:

And way too many stairs. But if excluding those stinky bus people, why not also people in wheelchairs.

This is not the 1980's, there is such thing as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, so having to explicitly point it out on a conceptual design plan is silly.

The buses are all hosted on the South Block of the design starting on pg 33.

Quote

The South Block is intended to accommodate a local and intercity bus facility, including bus berthing areas as well as indoor waiting areas. The facility as illustrated could accommodate six intercity buses plus two ready slips, along with five local (CATS) buses. Buses enter the facility via Third Street, and exit the facility onto Fourth Street.

The bus facility would be located on the ground floor of a parking garage, which is sized to accommodate South Block parking needs, but also potentially a portion of Main Block parking needs. This MSAP proposes a seven-level garage. If a portion of the Main Block parking needs can be accommodated on the South Block, higher densities of development on the Main Block could be achieved. Bi-directional ramps access the garage from Third Street and from Fourth Street. A short pedestrian bridge would connect the second level of the parking garage to the elevated portion of the greenway along the rail corridor, thereby eliminating many pedestrian crossings of Fourth Street.

This MSAP further proposes to wrap the garage on the Graham Street and Fourth Street sides with an eight-story residential building. The parking requirement for the residential building is approximately 250 spaces, leaving 600650 spaces available to support Main Block development. The ground floor of the wrap building is intended to be
retail space.

 

[southslider]

^No, designing stairs as primary access points is so 1990, or pre-ADA. The ADA is a civil rights law against such discrimination. Those unable to climb stairs shall not have a significantly longer route in a public space, especially in new construction.

And bus connections should be a key feature worth calling out on the main site plan, especially for a project claiming to be a transportation hub.