Triangle Regional Transit

[Transplant]

Maybe you can better explain how this might work since I don't understand. A train can't go through other trains, and there are no pulloffs at the stations where a train can bypass a station.

[monsoon]

Well of course this won't work. First of all, anyone that would ride the train from the game would also ride the train to the game. Given that a train will hold 250 people and in the Triangle lead time is 15 minutes. Then at most over the period of an hour only 1000 people could be delivered to the stadium. And this assumes that nobody else is using the train. Realistically over the period of 1.5 hours around the start of the game you could deliver 1500 people but most likely there will be 700-800 going.

However assuming there were 2500 people that wanted to use the train to leave. Then using your scenario, to handle these people I would have to completely halt and disrupt service for at least an hour to move all the trains into position for the game to end. This would fall into the unacceptable scheduling issues that I mentioned above. Furthermore, because of safety reasons and the size of the platform, it's still going to take and unacceptable amount of time to load 10 trains at the arena. This type of system just doesn't have the bandwidth to do it.

In other words, it is an unrealistic scenario, and even then it will barely handle 10% of the potential ridership in the Stadium. Putting a station at this location just isn't cost justified based on ridership.

[citiboi27610]

Its amazing how strong many poster's opinions are and how unclear those opinions are. It may be difficult to word the posts well enough for everyone to understand but the conversation would go a lot better if everyone tried to be very clear on what they say.

A pre-phase to the first first phase red line plan might make the initial line more financially feasible. I thought the idea of a Downtown to Fairgrounds/RBC was a good one. Ridership could be high during certain times and would be an example of a working model for the triangle. That would never be enough though without a guarantee of future expansion to the full length of the Red Line.

What are the main obstacles holding back construction of the first phase? Financially, what can be done in addition to state and federal aid? What corners can be cut in hopes of getting a line running, until there is enough money for a full line? How can the cities involved and TTA promote the construction of a rail line in the Triangle? (It seems to be little support of any change in the Triangle.)

[sax184]

If there are 20 trains on the entire TTA system, you could position half of them at the Fair Grounds Station at the end of the event. Basically clear the entire line Forward off.

So, 1a)There is is normal service on all inbound traffic (yes some scheduling changes will be needed to accomadate this).

1b) there is NO service outbound from the station.

2) Position 5 cars on each track. 10 in total, 2500 capacity

3a) The first car in line for each direction goes to the furthest station

3b) The second car in line goes to the second furthest station and resumes normal service

3c) etc.

No trains would be taking a siding. Remember games typically get out late so service delays would be at a slow time anyway.

[monsoon]

What are the main obstacles holding back construction of the first phase? Financially, what can be done in addition to state and federal aid? What corners can be cut in hopes of getting a line running, until there is enough money for a full line? How can the cities involved and TTA promote the construction of a rail line in the Triangle? (It seems to be little support of any change in the Triangle.)

[tkd720man]

It's precisely those funding difficulties that make me think TTA should abandon the original Phase I design, and instead go with a starter route that traverses the distance between downtown and the fairgrounds/RBC. There's no reason why the facilities can't be built properly to accomodate local as well as express trains, and to handle gameday crowds at RBC/Carter-Finley. Add a third track, buy some extra cars to go in the middle of the train - whatever it takes, do it between downtown and the stadium area. Start with that and show proven ridership (which you will, for sure), and federal money for the rest comes 10X faster.

It already hurts the public image that the train doesn't serve the airport (I understand all of the issues related to that, so I'm not complaining on that point), but building a system that doesn't serve this stadium, either, is a complete joke and a waste of money.

The notion that it's impossible is a failure of imagination.

[monsoon]

The notion that it's impossible is a failure of imagination.

[vitaviatic]

Express trains wouldn't necessarily require a third track the entire length of the ROW. Strategically placed pocket tracks could achieve this. However, "express trains" are not needed for a 5-mile route, as would be DTR to RBC Center. Only if you are going to traverse, say, 20 miles, and eliminate 8 to 10 station stops at 1 minute apiece, would this even make sense. For a ten minute trip, it would not be either cost effective, or time effective.

[Transplant]

monsoon is right. What you are suggesting is, under the current TTA design, physically impossible.

....

If you have trains sitting on both tracks at one station, you have stopped all service in either direction between Raleigh and Durham, period. You can't operate trains "inbound" and "not outbound" in the Raleigh to Durham direction without taking away ALL service down the rest of the line from West Raleigh to 9th Street.

[monsoon]

Also, I haven't seen a answer to this question: will stations handle 1 car only?

If each station can handle 2 cars (2*250=500max/direction*2directions=1000people), the same 2500 people could be served using the current setup in 3 loads.

[Transplant]

You can't service many people at a facility such as this using Commuter Rail technology or even Light Rail. The only thing that could make a difference is electrified Heavy Rail, and there is no way that is going to be built in any city in North Carolina in the next 25 years if ever.

Putting a station at a facility can add tens of millions to a project, if not more, and if it is only going to transport a few people, even the unrealistic 2500 a few times/year, then it just isn't going to happen. Nobody is going to approve money for that.

[tkd720man]

It isn't going to happen with the design point of using DMU's and the platforms used to service them.

[sax184]

Well we have answered that question but you apparently don't want to believe it.

[monsoon]

...

I thought this was a forum for discussing ideas..... guess not

[Transplant]

With the TTA rethinking the Rail plan now, what do you (forumers) think will be the outcome?

- Continue (or restart) the older plan

- New rail concept

- Scrap rail for something else

- ?

Thanks in advance.

[cophead567]

^i'd like to add to that

-how do you think it should be paid for? what is the current strategy?

i'm not quite clear on what is being done now after FTA denied funding.

[monsoon]

I said in 2001 there was not enough local funding for the TTA system and it would seem that turned out to be true. The area is going to need to create some kind of tax that will yield a lot more money than the $7M-$8M coming from the rental car tax. The precedent for this of course is the 1/2 cent sales tax in Mecklenburg for transit. That would be the easiest thing to get passed through the NC Legislature but it would require either 100% support from the local delegation or a referendum of the voters to pass. Once something such as that was passed, and it was generating $50M/year, then the funds could be used to back bonds that could be sold to pay for construction. It could conceivably be done without any funding from the FTA.

[tkd720man]

With the TTA rethinking the Rail plan now, what do you (forumers) think will be the outcome?

- Continue (or restart) the older plan

- New rail concept

- Scrap rail for something else

- ?

Thanks in advance.

[monsoon]

^I tend to disagree with that. The argument WAS made that building mass transit in the Triangle was an investment in the future and the argument was accepted by the public and local politicians way back in 1994 when the DMU demonstration train was demonstrated in the area. Where it went very wrong is with the TTA's implementation. They started with a $100M project, failed to get the necessary agreements up front, and then after 12 years of showing very little tangible results to the public, the project had ballooned to over $1B and eventually got cut off by the Feds.

In other words, the very transit agency that was supposed to bring this to the Triangle instead lost all of the good will they had for the project and now the Triangle is stuck with having to pretty much start out all over again on this issues. Not to mention that more than a decade and $120 million has been consumed in doing so. The transit critics do have some points to make in how this process has failed the people. Given the history of this line, the TTA should have started construction in 2000-2001 and once they had passed that point, it was all downhill from there.

All of this has been stated before in this thread. Maybe it is time to archive it and start another thread on where the system should go in the future.

[sax184]

I mostly agree with the above. The early assumptions of how the project would run (shared track) and the cost estimates were wildly unrealistic. The project cost also got battered by China's rise and the incredible run-up in concrete and steel prices over the last few years. (somewhere in the range of 30-50%, I believe) I think the N&O recently did an article on how NCDOT is struggling with this.

The only point I would add is that while there is not much that the public can look at for all the work done and money spent, there is a fully acquired rail corridor and a full set of plans for a 28-mile rail line through the middle of the region that parallels our most heavily congested highway. Neither of these things are "visible" compared to what was expected, but they are assets.

If the new rail plan includes any aspects of TTA Phase I, the region will be able to leverage the work done on Phase I and will hardly be starting from scratch.

[ChiefJoJo]

For those that said TTA Phase I is dead, I think you may have spoken too soon. Maybe it would not be feasible to build all of it in one single swoop, but as vitaviatic said, all it takes is a starter system to be developed to show the FTA that it is viable and then you could go back and implement other lines in the future. It is MUCH easier to get federal funding if you extending an existing rail project.

A pre-phase to the first first phase red line plan might make the initial line more financially feasible. I thought the idea of a Downtown to Fairgrounds/RBC was a good one. Ridership could be high during certain times and would be an example of a working model for the triangle. That would never be enough though without a guarantee of future expansion to the full length of the Red Line.

[vitaviatic]

Frankly, I don't see any other opition than to modify and build on the original TTA plan. That may be a letdown for many forumers who think that a complete rework utilizing a virgin corridor would be the saving grace. Tunneling through the airport looks great on paper, but once you get into the logistics of the thing, it's a bust.

To utilize a non-rail, non-existing corridor is madness and failure waiting to happen. Putting together a contiguous corridor between Raleigh and Durham, without impeding on protected areas such as Umstead Park, the airport itself, and numerous wetlands is nigh unto impossible. If you could do it, the cost would be astronomical -- the land acquisition costs alone might surpass that of the rail design and construction. The only alternative to existing rail corridors is to split up the ROW with an existing freeway, or to eliminate a road altogether and replace it with a train. Anybody want to try to wrestle NC-54 away from the people who have already built on it? Or send condemnation notices to over half the businesses on US-70 to tell them they are now encroaching on a transit right-of-way?

It may not be everything to everybody, but the current alignment is the only way to go and stay within even light years of the original budget.

As for the Fairgrounds Station being cost-ineffective, I offer this. The Fairgrounds itself is a veritable treasure trough of inexpensive, if not free parking for DTR commuters on days the Fairgrounds is not in use for its primary function. True, it is somewhat farther from RBC than the ideal, but not so far as to be useless. An articulated circular bus could ferry spectators to and from with decent efficiency, if given a proprietary right-of-way of their own either via demarcated lanes on Blue Ridge/Westchase, or a shortcut through or around the Fairgrounds itself. As a reference, again in Denver, the light rail system feeds both Mile High Stadium Bronco games and hockey/basketball at the Pepsi Center. While the Pepsi Station is located immediately behind the arena, the Invesco Field at Mile High Station is located across I-25 from the stadium, connected only by a labyrinthian walkway, and still feeds upwards of 5,000 people per game into the facility. (It's truly amazing what people will do - and how far they will walk - in order to keep from paying for $25 parking!)

To clear up the confusion on capacity, the DMUs that were slated for TTA were a Korean knock-off of a Colorado Railcar design for which the specs are thus:

Single-level DMU w/ 98 seats (configured with a lavatory), and rated for 246 capacity, including standees, per car

Single-level Coach w/ 92 seats (ADA accessible, w/ lavatory), rated for 254 capacity, including standees, per car

I am not privy to the TTA specs, but normal protocol for transit is to design platforms for 3 to 5 units. Based on 3-car design, the numbers would run like this:

Two DMUs @ 246 max. capacity + 1 Coach @ 254 max. capacity = 746 max. deliverable pax. per 3-car consist

Each train separated by 3-minutes with standard signaling capacity (conservative); 12 minute headway for entire DTR to Fairgrounds route = up to 7 consists in circulation, with one scheduled service train remaining in service

7 special service consists x 3 pre-game trips each = 21 game trains x 746 pax. = 15,666 pax.

Now, would the real numbers look like this? I doubt it. But I would feel comfortable counting on 2,000 to 3,000 rail commuters from either Raleigh or Cary/Durham origins. The real problem is not station capacity. The trains can be evacuated and moved on within the 3-minute parameters. The main problem is seat capacity, and just how much you want to spend on vehicles to provide special service. In our calculations of rolling stock, and every vehicle in the fleet pressed into service, we would have 2 DMUs and 1 coach (1 consist) available for the schedule train (assuming a night or weekend game), and 4 DMUs and 2 coaches (2 consists) available for the special service/game trains at Stage 1 (basic service). So:

2 special service consists x 3 pre-game trips each = 6 game trains x 746 pax. = 4,476 pax.

To put it into perspective, that's about 25% of RBC's total capacity deliverable by a train/bus/walk combination per game. More than enough.

Crossovers placed at both the east and west ends of the Fairgrounds Station would easily enable this scenario, as well as provide blocking capacity for track maintenance and other contingency operations in west Raleigh. It gets a little more complicated when bi-directional trains enter Fairgrounds Station, but a pocket track placed at the west end anywhere close (even just beyond the area of the Hillsborough/Western split would work) would allow for sufficient staging.

Also in favor of the Fairgrounds Station is the proximity of several major antiquated industrial parcels that would command great prices, and thus be prime for major redevelopment as office or even residential.

Again, the point that I have been trying to hammer home with the entire rail transit scenario is that you need to see what could/will be there, rather than what is there. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense at all. That is presumably Cherokee's bread and butter business, to see ugly ducks and to turn them into swans.

[monsoon]

Each train separated by 3-minutes with standard signaling capacity (conservative); 12 minute headway for entire DTR to Fairgrounds route = up to 7 consists in circulation, with one scheduled service train remaining in service

Leadway for the TTA Phase I system is designed to be 15 minutes peak, 30 minutes off peak. There is absolutely no way to do 3 minute leadways with a DMU train.

I also believe there is a platform limitation that would prevent 3 cars from being used. I believe the maximum is 2 cars and this was being done for cost reasons.

Thus the numbers you state for capacity are way way off.

[orulz]

The signaling system for the TTA network is designed to accomodate at least 10-minute headways. If they wanted to, they could make the signal blocks shorter and closer together to safely allow for 5-minute (or less?) headways. It would make the line cost more, but there's no reason it physically can't be done, since the vehicles have pretty impressive stopping and starting performance.

[monsoon]

The signaling system for the TTA network is designed to accomodate at least 10-minute headways. If they wanted to, they could make the signal blocks shorter and closer together to safely allow for 5-minute (or less?) headways. It would make the line cost more, but there's no reason it physically can't be done, since the vehicles have pretty impressive stopping and starting performance.