GoTriangle Commuter Rail 2023 AMA

[keita]

I’ll take a stab at some questions, too. But before that, thank you, again, for willing to come back and talk to us, @GoTriangle!

I recognize that several of these questions are very blunt and probably difficult to answer. However, please know that as a regular GoTriangle rider (and as the person who helped facilitate this AMA), I mean this as a genuine question with no intentions except to strengthen our region’s chances of having serious mass transit infrastructure.

• Assuming that our counties decide GTCR should be pursued, why should Triangle residents (continue to) trust GoTriangle as an institution?

• And similarly, if the GTCR does proceed into project development, why is GoTriangle a good sponsor or lead agency for this project?

Click here for additional clarifications for the above question.

It sounds to me like there’s a default assumption that GoTriangle has to be the operating agency of the GTCR just because it’s the regional transit agency. However, some of us in this community wonders if this is true or useful. There’s some structural changes that you could imagine would let GoTriangle launch the project successfully -such sharing the lead role with a partner whose strengths are GoTriangle’s weaknesses.

For example, you could start a public-private partnership with a developer (somewhat like recent efforts by Florida’s Brightline) or even Norfolk Southern’s real estate division to optimize opportunities for transit-oriented developments (one key reason why transit companies in countries like Japan can be profitable without government intervention).

Alternatively, you could see how seriously our state wants to execute its state rail plan and public transportation strategic plan by passing the ball to the state. This could be done by transforming the NC By Train brand into a full-fledged, state-supported rail agency just like Virginia’s VPRA, New Jersey Transit, or Connecticut’s CTrail.

• The appendices’ assessment on where park and ride could be built listed something interesting: many of those sites are already owned by GoTriangle, and they are also included in the list of publicly-owned, potentially affordable housing-amenable pieces of land along the GTCR corridor. Despite this, the project’s cost estimates assume that every one of those sites except for the parking area next to Auburn’s station will only be surface lot parking. What’s the reasoning for that? And has GoTriangle pursued ways to do more with those pieces of land in the interest of this project?

• From your experiences so far, what have people with disabilities (and their allies) said about the design trade-offs implied as a part of this project’s cost estimates? If you haven’t talked to them about this specific issue (or similar ones) yet, could you tell us more specifics on how GoTriangle plans to tackle them?

Click here to see additional context for the above question.

In the last AMA from 2021, the topic of level boarding came up:

@GoTriangle

@jdb820

While @colbyjd3 explained the benefits of high platforms, has the benefit of cars accessible from low platforms […] been compared in contrast? They may be a bit more feasible in terms of cost and are largely proven.

There are no cars available in the market that would provide level boarding from the 8” low platforms required on mainline tracks in this corridor […] GoTriangle is working with partners […] to evaluate various ADA-compliant platform and station configurations for this corridor.

I noticed that GoTriangle worked on this in more detail (thank you!), and this is noted deep in the report’s appendix where there’s a discussion on how we could try to prefer 22/25/48-inch-high (level boarding-friendly) platforms over 8-inch-high (freight-friendly) ones.

@Greater Triangle Commuter Rail feasibility study phase 2 - appendix M p.36

[Train schedule simulations where GoTriangle built separate tracks for] level boarding at every station performed modestly better than [low-level platforms], with fewer negative impacts to freight traffic. However, [building stations in such a way] offers only modest quantifiable operational benefits to passenger trains […] the primary benefit is simply the provision of unassisted level boarding. […]

Both the assisted boarding and level boarding scenarios offer flexibility in rolling stock choices, as vehicles can be procured at a wide range of desirable vehicle floor heights and/or with assisted boarding equipment installed.

It’s also noted that gauntlet tracks could help build stations in space-limited parts of downtown and eastern Durham, but “there are no active gauntlet tracks on NS territory, and it has been advised by NCRR that NS strongly discourages the use of gauntlet tracks”.

With all of that in mind, it looks like one (of many) tough design-related decisions we’ll need to make in the future is whether (and how) the GTCR will provide level boarding for passengers with mobility challenges. It get that that seems inevitable, unfortunately, because of the complicated track constraints.

• What is general vibe of GoTriangle staff involved in this study on whether we’ll be able to move forward with more investments in this project and/or making something actually happen? Is the staff generally optimistic, internally? Or are y’all more cautious and wary of external stakeholders?