I could be losing my mind but are we supposed to be able to post questions in the AMA for the rail chat? It says I have to wait a day in between posts.
You can totally ask questions now! You just have to wait a day in between posts on AMA threads.
I think that’s light rail not commuter rail, Sacramento is a small big city.
They run both side by side
You’re being strangely cryptic. Trolling?
And a Target isn’t density. Targets typically (not always, but most of the time) come with a very large parking lot and exist in a driving-oriented area. People generally prefer to drive to such places. So my point stands.
2 Likes
What does trolling mean?
So I think the answers GoTriangle gave in the AMA were mostly satisfactory. They definitely danced around a couple topics, but I suppose they have to for stuff they’re actively working on.
Personally, I’m little concerned that they’re not taking the idea of consistent all-day service seriously enough, but who knows. Maybe the idea is to finally get an actual greenlight on a build, and then make service plan adjustments as necessary. I suppose it’s not terribly hard to make headway changes once you’ve started building the track and stations.
Any initial thoughts from y’all?
Edit: Also, shoutout to @dtraleigh and @keita for making this happen, really appreciate it y’all!
12 Likes
Yeah mostly they actually answered the questions, which is good. They did not do much to lessen my worry that we locked too much into place when “Commuter rail” was decided as the mode nearly a decade?? ago, and somehow it’s become this juggernaut with too much momentum to steer significantly at this point.
3 Likes
They did mention that Phase 1 determined the need for full double-tracking regardless. That should make it a lot easier to increase headways post-build, I would think. But who knows.
3 Likes
A two track corridor is great, but it’s not everything when you have freight, commuter, and intercity trains all sharing those tracks. You still need to carefully plan timetables and infrastructure in order for it to work.
Honestly it sounds like the commuter rail (average speed of 35mph) could integrate well with freight trains, without the need for overtakes. It’s the (faster) intercity trains that have the potential to gum things up if/when they need to pass a commuter train or freight train.
It’s probably possible to do something like 2 commuter trains per hour, one amtrak per hour, and one freight per hour, on a purely two track corridor, but going much beyond that is likely to run into conflicts.
10 Likes
Currently lurking on a presentation to the GoTriangle Board of Trustees regarding the status of this project. An engineering consultant from STV is currently going through downtown Durham on Google Earth. Sounds like several bridge replacements are going to be required. Could be a major cost driver.
You can join this meeting or view the slide deck here.
5 Likes
Can you go in more detail about the development concepts for Durham? The link you posted has the actual slide deck (uploaded here for posterity)…
pres_gtcr_study_update_0.pdf (2.1 MB)
…but it does not seem to include the Google Earth previews you mentioned.
I’ll also make a separate comment with a summary of the slide deck, for those of y’all who don’t like jargon and/or are lazy.
A lot of it was still “we’re exploring this, we’re looking into that.” They did say that they’re trying to get as many bridges as they can to 14ft(?), which apparently is the minimum for tractor trailers to pass under. NCDOT apparently prefers 16-18ft, but that’s just not gonna happen. They mentioned that the problem with increasing bridge height is how it impacts nearby at-grade crossings. Likely will be a combination of lowering the roads while raising the bridges. Definitely looks like they’re planning to double-track the whole thing, even downtown Durham.
What I’ve learned so far is that the two biggest obstacles to this project are…
-
The infrastructure in Durham is going to be a nightmare. That being said, it sounds like several stakeholders (including NCRR) want improvements through this corridor regardless, so that could work in the project’s favor and maybe even bring additional funding (my speculation, not their words).
-
Norfolk Southern. They’re dragging their feet, not acting in good faith, and basically doing exactly what I’d expect from a Class I. NCRR, on the other hand, has been incredibly involved and helpful throughout the process. It sounds like the team is working on options to strongarm NS into getting them some data. Ultimately, it’s NCRR’s corridor and NS is a guest there, but the capacity modeling is critical.
Also, as I was typing this comment, a couple board members started prying about eco-friendly rolling stock. Another STV rep (very carefully) confirmed that DMUs are on the table, but they’re not focusing heavily on rolling stock until they make a decision about whether or not they’ll be pursuing high-level platforms. Said board members were very interested in the concept of running DMUs instead of locomotives. She did more or less confirm that electrification is not going to happen (no surprise).
Edit for one additional note: an STV consultant described downtown Durham as a web of tangled yarn. If you make adjustments to one crossing or bridge, it impacts nearly every other crossing and bridge. It’s a delicate balance.
10 Likes
Oh boy the Durham elements of GoTriangle and their oversized influence better not derail another rail project again. Let’s get the Garner to RTP portion going at least.
4 Likes
It doesn’t sound like “the Durham elements of GoTriangle” are the problem, here. Instead, it sounds to me more like Durham County’s transit funding and Norfolk Southern are the bigger problems here, and Durham-based leaders are more keenly aware of that. It’s a subtle difference in semantics, but it makes a huge difference in how to solve this problem.
I’m not surprised, but I’m still a little disappointed to hear that. But I guess this is one of those times perfect can’t be allowed to be the enemy of the good (especially since it’s not like you can’t retrofit DMUs to have batteries, for example).
Also, I can’t say I’m shocked about “Durham [being] a web of tangled yarn”. The engineering design for those train tracks became one of the major flash points for Durham’s light rail project, so I’m not surprised it’s a problem here as well.
6 Likes
2 Likes
The biggest new piece of information with long-term impacts, in my eyes, is a new set of assumptions about how this project will be pulled off. As of now, GoTriangle is planning around starting construction in FY2026 (2026-2027) and finishing by FY2030.
GoTriangle wants the federal government to fund half of this, with 30% coming from a 35-year federally-backed loan program to be repaid using county transit funds, and the other 20% coming directly from the counties via cash and debts. Once trains are running, their operation and maintenance will be paid for using a mix of local funds, farebox revenues, and federal apportionment.
Remember: this is an assumption; it’s an educated guess with the information we have, so it can (and probably will) change as we develop the commuter rail project further and define more of the details.
Click on each category to read summaries about what they talked about.
Station-area and railroad planning: building it turns out to be harder than expected.
The slides mainly covered the area around two potential stops with existing Amtrak stations: Durham and Cary. Planners have come up with two ideas for each station on how to best make them work with commuter rail. It seems like they’re all focused on being walkable and integrated with nearby transit centers (read: bus terminals), as well as adding rail capacity on top of what’s available now.
Like @colbyjd3 said earlier, this will especially be tough for Durham because of its restrictive terrain. With Norfolk Southern being a pain in the neck, I’m curious as to how NCRR et al. can force them to get their shit together 
Legal stuff: we're sailing smoothly -but keep in mind this ain't that easy.
While we’re on the topic of how the sausage gets made, Slide 42 had a list of things that GoTriangle and stakeholders have to agree on before commuter rail can happen. If you look at what goes into it, it’s a nice reality check to see what it takes, and how this is much harder to pull off than building a highrise apartment:
The FTA only expects GoTriangle to keep stakeholders up-to-date, and be on the same page in terms of what they will and won’t do as a part of this project. They’ll sign a term sheet for an MoU in 2022 for how to implement the commuter rail project, and that’ll be revised as this project matures in the CIG pipeline.
Costs and funding: Wake and Durham counties need to have a hard conversation.
Here’s the cost curve that they expect:
Here’s a problem, though: with the way things are now, there’s 13% of the non-federal project costs that no one has stepped up to pay for. This is because Wake County’s adopted transit plan says it’ll pay for 67% while Durham says it’ll pay for 20%. One or both counties will have to change their transit plans to make up for this cost gap. GoTriangle staffers seem to be working with the counties now to find the best way to make that happen:
8 Likes
Our region needs to add long downtown elevated viaducts with retail beneath them to our infrastructure vocabulary.
It’s the only solution I can see working for Downtown Durham and for the future high speed / commuter rail line alongside West Street in Raleigh. Less expensive to build, less disruptive, and even a better end result than a trench. I think it could even readily meet DOT’s 16-18’ requirement. Somewhat counterintuitively, with viaducts, higher is BETTER when it comes to impacts, because it creates a more open feel and lets more light beneath.
Both would need to be wide enough for four tracks, and both would be about a mile long. Durham’s would stretch from Gregson to Fayetteville. Raleigh’s would be from Jones to where the high speed rail line crosses over Capital near Wade.
Cary is another matter. Not as important, for one, but given the context and the topography, I think a split-grade solution where the roads (Academy + Harrison) are raised, while the railroad is lowered halfway into a trench, could be best here.
12 Likes
As someone who knows next to nothing about engineering and could be totally off base here, I see two reasons why they may not be considering a viaduct in downtown Durham:
- They’d probably have to close the existing segment of track for that build, which would be a big “no” from NCRR.
- They’d have to do a significant amount of work to the existing Amtrak station, which I suppose they’re going to have to do anyway, but maybe not as much as they would from raising the track.
That being said, I agree that the S-Line north of downtown Raleigh is a prime candidate for a viaduct… I don’t really see any major obstacles with that one.
7 Likes