Charlotte Center City Streetcar Network

[SgtCampsalot]

 

Photos from CATS/Lynx Gold Line Phase II meeting 11/10/2015 at JCSU.

I like that it's going to the far side of JSCU! I hope this becomes a boon for their institution. 

Nice to finally see exactly where the airport line would spur off from. 

Thank you so much!!!

Edited November 12, 2015 by SgtCampsalot

[15895]

Wow! Those maps are very exciting. It makes me feel like the spacing between the eastern portion of the gold line is appropriately distanced out. I can't wait to see station designs.

 

Wonder which uptown station will be the main station. I feel like Trade/Tryon and CTC (And later on the future permanent Gateway station). I can't wait to see designs for the uptown stations. I hope the Trade Tryon is executed very well. Especially with the plaza conversions coming up.

 

 

[jednc]

I was in town this past weekend to see the Checkers play.  On Satrday after the game I went to uptown, and I must say, the streetcars look awesome.  

I still maintain my position that creating a 10 mile line is a mistake, but streetcar definitely has a place in the Charlotte transit picture.  I really wish that the city would reconsider the scope of the project and instead have multiple lines emanating from uptown (I.e. Midtown/CMC/QueensU, Freedom Drive, etc.).  I also hope the city will continue using the replica cars...they really look good and differentiate themselves from the Light Rail in a good way.  

Here's hoping Phase 2 comes quickly.

I like your plan much better and I completely agree about the replicas vs the modern street cars.

Edited November 12, 2015 by jednc

[Deleted.]

I like your plan much better and I completely agree about the replicas vs the modern street cars.

I think I'd cry if we keep the replica trolleys. I don't dislike them but I don't like them. Modern streetcars will make our city feel more modern, they will be quieter, smoother and faster, becuase they are more powerful so they will be able to accelerate faster. Anyway there wouldn't be enough vehicles for the route really, if we had only 3 vehicles there would probably be 30 min frequencies; that's why CATS is purchasing 7 vehicles for the Gold Line. 

 

Wow! Those maps are very exciting. It makes me feel like the spacing between the eastern portion of the gold line is appropriately distanced out. I can't wait to see station designs.

 

Wonder which uptown station will be the main station. I feel like Trade/Tryon and CTC (And later on the future permanent Gateway station). I can't wait to see designs for the uptown stations. I hope the Trade Tryon is executed very well. Especially with the plaza conversions coming up.

 

 

I think the station designs will be released late next year. They are going to be different from the current ones, but I assume they will be the basic shape and design. I and think Trade/Tryon, CTC and Gateway will be the main Uptown stations. And I agree with your hope about Trade/Tryon.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Piedmont767

[dubone]

I plan to go today, but it doesn't look like any actual news for people who have paid attention.  Those aren't even as precise of maps as they have had online for ever.   

 

This is an approved project just waiting for the appropriation to come through.   The decisions are already made.   You can dream of changes all you want (I still believe they should have turned onto 7th to Pecan when they had to suddenly rebuild Hawthorne Bridge and spend the money on a net new bridge over CSX @ Pecan.   But dreams are fun, but too late for this stage of this project.   We will definitely have new modern trains on order.  The question is whether they additionally continue to use the replica trains in the vehicle mix.   I absolutely think they should for low volume hours like weekends.  They are very photogenic and when used in ADDITION to the modern trams will be good branding for the line.  

 

Mainly, I don't advocate mothballing perfectly usable and nice vehicles just because we also have bigger ones.  

[kermit]

  The question is whether they additionally continue to use the replica trains in the vehicle mix.   I absolutely think they should for low volume hours like weekends.  They are very photogenic and when used in ADDITION to the modern trams will be good branding for the line.  

Mainly, I don't advocate mothballing perfectly usable and nice vehicles just because we also have bigger ones.  

I am frequently wrong but.... I believe that the modern vehicles have different boarding / platform heights than the replicas, meaning we will not see the two types mixed on the same route.

[ajfunder]

Charlotte Sun-Times is reporting the streetcar may have to close for 9 months to modify the platforms on the existing Gold Line. Any truth to this? The original source is WCCB.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ajfunder

[tusculan]

 

 

I like that it's going to the far side of JSCU! I hope this becomes a boon for their institution. 

Nice to finally see exactly where the airport line would spur off from. 

Thank you so much!!!

Thanks for the pictures. It is interesting the selection for the West line to the airport going down Cedar St. Cedar St. really has little development on it, and I don't understand the rationale behind choosing it, unless the only motivation is that the same trackage be used as the Gold line so as to get under the existing NCRR. As far as logical alternatives, I see two main ones.

Either the airport line would come into uptown on Morehead under the NCRR, then turn by Bank of America stadium where there used to be the trackage that went to the Charlotte Observer, heading north on Church street until Trade.

The other viable alternative is after going under 77 on Morehead, cross-over to the old P&N, across Cedar under the NCRR, and then either heading up graham or preferably down Graham one block and turning to Mint St, until meeting Trade. (I prefer this option as it would allow for easier future connectivity to a second southerly East-West uptown line running all the way on Stonewall over to Charlottetown or Kennilworth)

If we consider the potential stops for either of these two other lines, I think it is obvious that they have a higher demand and connectivity than the route selected. 

Current option: Along Morehead (McNinch or Clarkson) and along Cedar in the area of W 1st St.    (.83 miles to 77 from current track at corner of Cedar/Trade)

B: Morehead/Clarkson, BofA stadium, Church at W 1st, Church/3rd  (1.17 miles to 77 from Church/Trade, but includes old N/S ROW from Stadium to Church St. , about .1 mile)

C: P&N at Cedar, Graham at BofA/BB&T or following the second course Stonewall/Mint BofA stadium, BB&T at 3rd/Mint. (C1 - .90 miles,but ROW includes P&N for .1-.2; C2 - 1.03 miles, but ROW includes P&N .1-.2 miles)

I think it obvious that choice A is clearly the worst of these options.

[teeg]

Charlotte Sun-Times is reporting the streetcar may have to close for 9 months to modify the platforms on the existing Gold Line. Any truth to this? The original source is WCCB.

That was mentioned in Liz Millsaps Haigler's post not far back.  I'm adding that to the list of streetcar stuff that makes no sense to me.      

[southslider]

^No, the existing platforms (Phase 1) can be quickly raised to whatever height is needed for the new tram vehicles for level boarding.    However, once these platforms are increased in height, the replica trolleys can't serve the line anymore, since their doors open out.

[tusculan]

http://tinyurl.com/ocqechg

Upon reviewing my comment, I altered things a bit to see that there are a few more alternatives (8 in total) for the airport line that heads south from CityLynx and continues north of Morehead St. The link above is a map to the various options. 

I think I have perhaps a better grasp...that the alternative proposed supports J&W, but really its strong suit is sharing the Gateway stop. While I can see how this would seem to be a big factor, as here is a proposed major interchange of different transit types, that doesn't seem reasonable with the idea of this being an airport line. If people are riding from the airport, then they aren't going to want to just transfer out by the side of the street with their bags. I think to have this intermodal hub at Gateway requires a LRT or train to the airport. Thus, I don't think this warrants the trip down Cedar St. so as to preserve the same Gateway stop.

My favorite option is using the former P&N crossing under the NCRR to go up Graham street. It provides the fewest number of stops, but ones that would be popular and encourage usage - one stop at the South side of Gateway, between BB&T and Bank of America Stadium; and a second stop at the crossing of Cedar St.

[Nick2]

Quick question about the streetcars. I love them as much as the next guy and think they're awesome in their own way but why didn't they allocate that money spent on the streetcars to help fund another light rail line instead? Light rail is much more beneficial in the short and long runs for Charlotte. Or even to help fund heavy rail (one can only hope).

[southslider]

^Light rail lines typically use New Starts funding and cost more. The total BLE cost is around $1 billion.  Meanwhile, streetcars are cheaper and can use Small Starts. The total Phase 2 cost is $150 million.  Both projects are 50% funded federally, but still require local matches, about $250 million (each from CharMeck and NC) for BLE, but only $75 million for Phase 2. And while that local match for BLE comes from the Countywide half-cent sales tax, the match for Phase 2 does not.

In other words, Charlotte doesn't have the local match capacity for another New Starts project right now. And so if Charlotte is to keep building rail transit in the immediate future, streetcars make sense. Another light rail line can be considered once BLE is built, and once the picture on debt service or maybe more local funding improves.

Edited November 13, 2015 by southslider

[kermit]

^ and becuase the city recieved a $25 million stimulus-related grant that could only be used for 'urban circulators' (not light rail). This grant covered 2/3rds of the starter segment costs.

[Deleted.]

^ and becuase the city recieved a $25 million stimulus-related grant that could only be used for 'urban circulators' (not light rail). This grant covered 2/3rds of the starter segment costs.

We got that type of grant for Phase 1, but I'm pretty sure a SSGA, which is what Phase 2 is being funded with, can be used for anything including Light Rail. 

[Nick2]

I thought that the street cars were cheaper by a good bit but I was just wondering why they wouldn't save that money and use it for light rail which the city needs.The money received being allocated specifically for street car transit was kind of one of my guesses but I had no idea really.

I'm just glad Charlotte is moving along with transit.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Nick2

[Deleted.]

I thought that the street cars were cheaper by a good bit but I was just wondering why they wouldn't save that money and use it for light rail which the city needs. The money received being allocated specifically for street car transit was kind of one of my guesses but I had no idea really.

Becuase that's not allowed in the funding agreement. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Piedmont767

[kermit]

^ yes, small starts grant proposals can technically be used for LRT. However small starts awards are capped at $75 million and the total project budget (local matches plus the fed grant) must be less than $250 million. This amount of money does not buy much light rail.

[Deleted.]

^ yes, small starts grant proposals can technically be used for LRT. However small starts awards are capped at $75 million and the total project budget (local matches plus the fed grant) must be less than $250 million. This amount of money does not buy much light rail.

It can buy some RoW for streetcars though. For example in Toronto, one of their streetcar routes (510 Spadina) is all operated in a central, dedicated corridor along Spadina Avenue, which happens to be one of the busiest streets in Toronto. So it could help get projects such as the Silver Line going, perhaps in-traffic then RoW down Monroe? 

[southslider]

^Right, $250 million would only cover a rail line 25% as long as BLE, and then require 80% local match, since the Federal match is capped at $75 million.

Now, you might think, well wouldn't that work for a small rail project.  Perhaps, but the cost of extending to NoDa is a lot more expensive per mile for its short distance. So you'd still need to find an inexpensive, short extension. For that, I think another BLE to Ballantyne via 485 may work. NC could permit their right-of-way (in-kind, so also avoid their foolish $500,000 cap).  However, you still have to come up with the local dollars, or 50-80% of a $50-250 million Small Starts project.

Edited November 13, 2015 by southslider

[Deleted.]

^Right, $250 million would only cover a rail line 25% as long as BLE, and then require 80% local match, since the Federal match is capped at $75 million.

Now, you might think, well wouldn't that work for a small rail project.  Perhaps, but the cost of extending to NoDa is a lot more expensive per mile for its short distance. So you'd still need to find an inexpensive, short extension. For that, I think another BLE to Ballantyne via 485 may work. NC could permit their right-of-way (in-kind, so also avoid their foolish $500,000 cap).  However, you still have to come up with the local dollars, or 50-80% of a $50-250 million Small Starts project.

Well hopefully the $500,000 cap will be removed next year! Fingers crossed. 

[cltbwimob]

Forgive me for being Johnny come lately to the discussion about platform heights, but I do not understand the need for a change in platform heights.  The current replica trolleys at one point were in service on the blue line using the same platforms as the S70s which is a pretty standard low platform design.  Since the S70s are also being considered for streetcar phase 2, and since the current trolleys have in the past used the platforms designed for the S70, I would assume platform heights for the new and old vehicles would be the same.  Obviously the length may be different, but I don't think the heights are different.  Am I missing something?

[kermit]

Forgive me for being Johnny come lately to the discussion about platform heights, but I do not understand the need for a change in platform heights.  The current replica trolleys at one point were in service on the blue line using the same platforms as the S70s which is a pretty standard low platform design.  Since the S70s are also being considered for streetcar phase 2, and since the current trolleys have in the past used the platforms designed for the S70, I would assume platform heights for the new and old vehicles would be the same.  Obviously the length may be different, but I don't think the heights are different.  Am I missing something?

Actually the replica's had to stop at a different (lower) portion of the platform at the stops it shared with the Blue Line. The trolley portion of the platform was lower than the LRT platform so the vehicles never actually shared the same platform space at stations. The blue line platform extension process is removing these low platforms (at Stonewall at least).

I still can't fathom how Ron Tobler managed to keep the trolley infrastructure (separate platform sections, a siding and wires to the barn, three vehicles and extra stations at Tremont, Morehead and 9th street)  through that very painful funding process. I am actually kinda torqued that the trolley money stayed in the Blue Line budget but the rail-trail pedestrian bridge over 277 did not.

EDIT: You can see the difference in platform height at E-W station here: https://goo.gl/maps/YvD8totWwr52  (the Trolley stop is at the South end of the station)

Edited November 13, 2015 by kermit

[Deleted.]

Forgive me for being Johnny come lately to the discussion about platform heights, but I do not understand the need for a change in platform heights.  The current replica trolleys at one point were in service on the blue line using the same platforms as the S70s which is a pretty standard low platform design.  Since the S70s are also being considered for streetcar phase 2, and since the current trolleys have in the past used the platforms designed for the S70, I would assume platform heights for the new and old vehicles would be the same.  Obviously the length may be different, but I don't think the heights are different.  Am I missing something?

The replica trolley doors open outwards and IRC the streetcar version is lower to floor. So the doors wouldn't been able to open. 

[cltbwimob]

Actually the replica's had to stop at a different portion of the platform at the stops it shared with the Blue Line. This portion of the platform was lower than the LRT platform so they never actually shared the same platform space. AFAIK the platform extension process is rectifying this difference (at Stonewall at least).

I still can't fathom how Ron Tobler managed to keep the expensive trolley infrastructure (separate platform sections, a siding and wires to the barn, three vehicles and extra stations at Tremont, Morehead and 9th street)  through that very painful funding process. I am actually kinda tourqued that that money stayed in the Blue Line grant but the ped bridge over 277 did not.

Oh ok...Did not know that.