NC DOT reallocating $117 million for Piedmont Corridor projects

[Nathanael]

Mainly because buses need to be replaced much more frequently than LRT cars, by a factor of two or more, and because the incremental operating cost of an LRT service is lower than that for buses on a per seat/capacity basis.

Also, if you're looking at full costs, buses beat up the roadways. Busways have to be repaired and replaced more frequently and more expensively than railroad tracks. Often the bus system doesn't have to pay for this (it's "someone else's problem") but when they do pay for it, it becomes obvious.

Buses are cheaper than rail if you have low volumes (few trips per day, few passengers per trip), and much more expensive than rail if you have high volumes (many trips per day, many passengers per trip.) Rail is a high-volume solution which scales upwards cheaply. Buses are a low-volume solution which scales downwards cheaply. Look at your situation and decide which is appropriate -- usually if your city is big enough to seriously consider a large bus system, rail is appropriate.

 

[Guest]

You realize they have been through a frame-up complete rebuild. If they were "rolling museum pieces", NC would not use them, and they would probably be in a museum

NC literally bought some of them from a museum.

 

[jis]

Mainly because buses need to be replaced much more frequently than LRT cars, by a factor of two or more, and because the incremental operating cost of an LRT service is lower than that for buses on a per seat/capacity basis.

From a transportation engineering perspective, the appropriate mode for transit is dependent on a lot of parameters, not the least of which is the forecast ridership. Light rail is not always the correct choice for a given need, just as conventional bus, bus rapid transit, and heavy rail are not always the best choices. Stating that one mode is least expensive without considering all the factors that go into the cost equations for a route or system is simplistic and wrong.

I should have been clearer in stating that the phrase "good management" I used was intended to encompass that factor in the design and deployment decision phase. Of course you are right in what you say regarding the appropriateness of choice. The point is that for a certain expected traffic volume which overlaps some but is higher than what is appropriate for a bus solution, LRT comes out cheaper. There are similar overlapping traffic volume ranges between bus and van, and then between van and shared taxi on the lower end, and I suppose, and above LRT there would be heavy rail and commuter rail in a similar fashion.

 

[bgiaquin]

You realize they have been through a frame-up complete rebuild. If they were "rolling museum pieces", NC would not use them, and they would probably be in a museum

NC literally bought some of them from a museum.

Oh. :huh:

 

[jis]

NC can have a whole boatload of various Comet cars of various vintage from NJT for cheap to refit for service in NC.

 

[AlanB]

Yes, PRR60 is correct, simplistic statements like we started out with and I participated in, don't quite tell the whole picture. Light rail certainly would not be cheaper than buses if we were to run a train down every small street within a city. But of course we generally don't do that either and we should NOT start doing that. While I admit that it isn't a precise science, I find that a general rule is that if you need to run a bus every 15 to 20 minutes or less, then it may be time to start looking at rail.

Now, here's a few facts regarding my sweeping statement from earlier, and what I was basing it on. Out in Portland, OR in 2011 according to the National Transit Database they moved 215,384,677 passenger miles by LRT and 219,728,219 passenger miles by bus; basically the same. Yet to accomplish that, they spent $222,887,559 operating those buses and only $93,399,347 operating LRT. And it is thanks that that huge difference in operating costs that long term overall costs for LRT are lower than that for buses when including capital costs. Between 1996 & 2011 inclusive, Portland has spent $2.905 Billion all in on LRT. During that same 16 year period they've spent $3.111 Billion all in on buses.

And technically the above bus number isn't 100% correct either since the buses pay no fuel taxes and therefore aren't charged at all for their use of our heavily subsidized roads & highways.

Further helping as noted by Jishnu, is the fact that buses last 10 to 12 years while rail cars last 30 to 40 years. Plus, one needs many more buses than you need light rail cars. In Portland's case, they owned 600 buses and only 129 rail cars. Basically 6 times as many buses as rail cars. So while the cost of 1 bus is considerably cheaper than the cost of 1 rail car, the number of buses needed also helps negate rail's capital costs.

 

[battalion51]

Am I the only one that's confused about where they're going to find five single level cab cars? Unless they're going after NJTs Comets, or converting more F-40s to NPCUs I'd love to know where they're finding cab cars at. That'll certainly simplify the process of turning those trains around quickly if all they have to do is switch ends and do a brake test.

 

[Anderson]

It seems that (partly due to funding issues) passenger cars can last anywhere from 30-60 years. 15 of VRE's cars date from 1956, and it seems that Metra may have some similarly-aged equipment. The Comet IBs are 45 years old (albeit with substantial downtime), and the NC equipment is somewhere in the 45-50 year old range.

That said, car capacity is a big advantage, since rail vehicles aren't bound by the sorts of turning radii that buses are. They still have limits, of course, but they're much more flexible limits...to get that sort of capacity on a bus, you need articulated equipment and stuff in that vein.

On the bus/rail question, my thinking is (generally) that:

(1) Rail does better for somewhat longer distances than buses.

(2) Buses are more appropriate for feeder lines into a rail system (LRT or commuter), if only to distribute parking in suburbs.

The thing is that unless you get bus frequencies below 30 minutes, the system becomes rather undesirable in terms of convenience of use. 15-30 minute frequencies on a line (which might nominally be 2-3 "routes") are a comfortable level IMHO...but once you get to the lower end of that range for most of the day, it's time to start looking at other options.

 

[xyzzy]

But one hears very little about expansion of the bus system. There is no sex appeal in that, apparently.

It's also more expensive, long term, than a light rail system.

Voodoo economics. If you run an NPV calculation that factors in the time value of money needed to construct the light rail system before the first fare is obtained, an expanded bus system is almost always less expensive than a light rail system.

But the larger issue in Raleigh is a relatively small employment base downtown. Charlotte is the polar opposite. In Raleigh, light rail is a Catch 22 because it won't go where most taxpayers travel and it has to be built before it can substantially influence the patterns of future development.

 

[AlanB]

But one hears very little about expansion of the bus system. There is no sex appeal in that, apparently.

It's also more expensive, long term, than a light rail system.

Voodoo economics. If you run an NPV calculation that factors in the time value of money needed to construct the light rail system before the first fare is obtained, an expanded bus system is almost always less expensive than a light rail system.

Nope, even that wouldn't change the results, merely delay the break even point by a few more years. Again, when something costs $100 Million more to operate every year, it doesn't take long to eat away at other costs. Even such hard to quantify costs like your time value of money.

 

[xyzzy]

But one hears very little about expansion of the bus system. There is no sex appeal in that, apparently.

It's also more expensive, long term, than a light rail system.

Voodoo economics. If you run an NPV calculation that factors in the time value of money needed to construct the light rail system before the first fare is obtained, an expanded bus system is almost always less expensive than a light rail system.

Nope, even that wouldn't change the results, merely delay the break even point by a few more years. Again, when something costs $100 Million more to operate every year, it doesn't take long to eat away at other costs. Even such hard to quantify costs like your time value of money.

Budget for Raleigh's bus system is about $20 million. Construction expense for Raleigh's light rail system is in the hundreds of millions. You do the math.

 

[George Harris]

The short story is that one of the major projects, a rail-rail grade separation in north Charlotte, has been canceled due to cost increases and the determination that it could not be completed by the 2017 deadline for spending the stimulus funds.

Poor Charlotte. This pretty much ruins the Piedmont plans for Charlotte.

- Add a 4th daily Piedmont in 2017,

Charlotte's existing station can't support the traffic.

- Complete the rail maintenance yard in Charlotte which will provide more storage space and allow a longer Carolinian consist.

This will not be used because it's south of the CSX crossing, and CSX won't agree to another crossing of its tracks.... which was why they were working on the grade separation project which just got defunded.

Some of your statements do not compute.

The crossing is between CSX and NS. Neither can control the number of trains the other runs over it. To be more clear, CSX cannot limit the number of trains that run on the NS track. Further, NS does not actually own those tracks. They have a long term lease. The owner is the North Carolina Railroad which is owned by the state.

Second, the station may be under sized, but adding trains is not likely to overwhelm it. There will simply be more times per day that it is full of people. Parking may be an issue, yes, but the station itself, probably not.

The grade separation is a good idea, and its absence will result in delay for some of the trains on both railroads, but its absence does not constitute a fatal flaw in the plan to run more trains.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Here is a little light reading, which looks at BRT, LRT and streetcars, from the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

The part relevent to this thread starts on page 17.

Because I can't copy and paste this document, I'll just quote from the conclusion, on page 152, which will surely raise a few eyebrows:

But, because the BRT corridors are cheaper to build and operate, [vs. LRT and streetcar systems] they leverage far more TOD [Transportation Oriented Development] investment per dollar of transit investment.

 

[AlanB]

Voodoo economics. If you run an NPV calculation that factors in the time value of money needed to construct the light rail system before the first fare is obtained, an expanded bus system is almost always less expensive than a light rail system.

Nope, even that wouldn't change the results, merely delay the break even point by a few more years. Again, when something costs $100 Million more to operate every year, it doesn't take long to eat away at other costs. Even such hard to quantify costs like your time value of money.

Budget for Raleigh's bus system is about $20 million. Construction expense for Raleigh's light rail system is in the hundreds of millions. You do the math.

$43.3 Million in 2011, the most recent year for which the NTD has data; $16.7 of which was devoted to capital needs. In just 16 years they've had to double their fleet of buses. With the continued growth of that area, that means that they will have to continue to increase the number of buses and therefore the overall expenses associated with the same.

Or they can be smart and get started on LRT now and slow the growth of the more expensive buses redeploying them to serve areas that aren't covered by LRT.

Again, I'm not talking about LRT being instantly cheaper. It will take time because as you point out, costs to build it are steep. But long term, 15, 20, 25 years from now Raleigh will find like every other city is currently finding, that they've spent less money on LRT than they've spent on buses if they do it right.

I only cited Portland, but other cities are seeing the same thing that Portland is. Portland, San Diego, & St. Louis are all places where it is easy to see because they move people the same distance as the buses. But even in cities where that isn't yet true, the trend can already be seen in the numbers. On average in this country it costs 60 cents per passenger mile to move people using LRT and 90 cents to move them using a bus. That difference eventually makes the difference up between the capital costs.

 

[battalion51]

The short story is that one of the major projects, a rail-rail grade separation in north Charlotte, has been canceled due to cost increases and the determination that it could not be completed by the 2017 deadline for spending the stimulus funds.

Poor Charlotte. This pretty much ruins the Piedmont plans for Charlotte.

- Add a 4th daily Piedmont in 2017,

Charlotte's existing station can't support the traffic.

- Complete the rail maintenance yard in Charlotte which will provide more storage space and allow a longer Carolinian consist.

This will not be used because it's south of the CSX crossing, and CSX won't agree to another crossing of its tracks.... which was why they were working on the grade separation project which just got defunded.

Some of your statements do not compute.

The crossing is between CSX and NS. Neither can control the number of trains the other runs over it. To be more clear, CSX cannot limit the number of trains that run on the NS track. Further, NS does not actually own those tracks. They have a long term lease. The owner is the North Carolina Railroad which is owned by the state.

Second, the station may be under sized, but adding trains is not likely to overwhelm it. There will simply be more times per day that it is full of people. Parking may be an issue, yes, but the station itself, probably not.

The grade separation is a good idea, and its absence will result in delay for some of the trains on both railroads, but its absence does not constitute a fatal flaw in the plan to run more trains.

That may or may not necessarily be true. Most railroad crossings are controlled by one railroad or the other, likely whoever was there first. This is all conjecture since I don't know the specifics on this particular situation. But let's say CSX's line was there first, then NCRR came along a few years later and said they wanted to build a line crossing CSX's. Most likely CSX would have to grant an easement with specific terms to NCRR. The terms of the easement could mandate a host of items, including how many trains a day they could put across the diamond, who would maintain control of the diamond, liability terms, and who pays for the maintenance of the diamond. At the end of the day this likely comes down to a lot of real estate and contract legalities, not just railroad operations.

 

[John]

and it seems that Metra may have some similarly-aged equipment.

Metra has 10 ex-CB&Q Bi-Level Gallery Cars numbers 740-749 that we're built in 1950. 700-739 we're retired in the mid-2000's when the 6100's and 8500 series cab-cars we're delivered.

 

[bgiaquin]

and it seems that Metra may have some similarly-aged equipment.

Metra has 10 ex-CB&Q Bi-Level Gallery Cars numbers 740-749 that we're built in 1950. 700-739 we're retired in the mid-2000's when the 6100's and 8500 series cab-cars we're delivered.

Are you sure there are only 10?

 

[afigg]

Am I the only one that's confused about where they're going to find five single level cab cars? Unless they're going after NJTs Comets, or converting more F-40s to NPCUs I'd love to know where they're finding cab cars at. That'll certainly simplify the process of turning those trains around quickly if all they have to do is switch ends and do a brake test.

Where NC DOT plans to get the 5 NPCUs from is a good question. I gather adding cab cars on the trainsets to reduce turnaround time and costs at Raleigh have been in the plans for some time. The FRA approved the reallocation of $4.8 million to refurb 5 cab control cars, coaches, 1 loco (with the $4.8 million probably in addition to funds that had been previously granted), so NC DOT must have a lead or contract for the 5 cab cars. With NC DOT paying, could Amtrak convert AEM-7s?

 

[battalion51]

I would think that converting the AEM-7s could be a bad idea. The weight of the converted F-40s has always been at issue, as they are extremely light without fuel, prime mover, electrical components, air compressor, etc. The AEM-7 would be even lighter if it was gutted...

 

[Ryan]

MARC is planning on retiring some of their single level cars (which include cab cars) once their new multi-levels start rolling in, maybe NC is going to snag some.

 

[George Harris]

That may or may not necessarily be true. Most railroad crossings are controlled by one railroad or the other, likely whoever was there first. This is all conjecture since I don't know the specifics on this particular situation. But let's say CSX's line was there first, then NCRR came along a few years later and said they wanted to build a line crossing CSX's. Most likely CSX would have to grant an easement with specific terms to NCRR. The terms of the easement could mandate a host of items, including how many trains a day they could put across the diamond, who would maintain control of the diamond, liability terms, and who pays for the maintenance of the diamond. At the end of the day this likely comes down to a lot of real estate and contract legalities, not just railroad operations.

The norm is that the railroad who was there first sets the standards for the crossing: Rail size, specifics of the design, the type of control, which may be as simple as a 4 way stop all the way through very complex signals. Then the railroad who was there second has to maintain everything to the satisfaction of the railroad who was there first. This may actually mean that the railroad who was there first does some or all of the work and then sends the bill to the bill to the other.

The terminology: The railroad who was there first is referred to as "Senior" and the other as "Junior" This may not be universal, but I have heard these terms used.

These terms and requirements have nothing to do with who has the most traffic, but only who came first. Have no idea who did in Charlotte. Somewhat suspect it was NCRR.

 

[Anderson]

MARC is planning on retiring some of their single level cars (which include cab cars) once their new multi-levels start rolling in, maybe NC is going to snag some.

Somebody should go for them. Just wondering, but how much of an overhaul would be needed for those 60 cars to be useable as intercity cars a la the Arrow IBs?

 

[Ryan]

MARC just overhauled a bunch of them (although those are probably the ones they are keeping). Shouldn't be too much work, though they would need new interiors, the 3x2 bench seating wouldn't cut it. They're nice cars though, and should have some good life left in them. MARC just needs the capacity that the MLVs bring to the table.

 

[jis]

MARC is planning on retiring some of their single level cars (which include cab cars) once their new multi-levels start rolling in, maybe NC is going to snag some.

Somebody should go for them. Just wondering, but how much of an overhaul would be needed for those 60 cars to be useable as intercity cars a la the Arrow IBs?

They'd need new furnishings and fixtures + probably a thorough overhaul to give them a worthwhile life extension. So put it somewhere in the vicinity of .75 to 1.0 million each?
OTOH, if someone simply keeps them around as is and uses them just for overflow capacity mitigation, that is a different story ... sort of like what Amtrak does with leased NJT Arrow IIIs over the Thanksgiving weekend.

The again, maybe Amtrak could create a steerage class where all that is guaranteed is a commuter style seat and just use many of these cars as is leased from whoever wants to get into that business. There are many possibilities.

 

[Anderson]

MARC is planning on retiring some of their single level cars (which include cab cars) once their new multi-levels start rolling in, maybe NC is going to snag some.

Somebody should go for them. Just wondering, but how much of an overhaul would be needed for those 60 cars to be useable as intercity cars a la the Arrow IBs?

They'd need new furnishings and fixtures + probably a thorough overhaul to give them a worthwhile life extension. So put it somewhere in the vicinity of .75 to 1.0 million each?
OTOH, if someone simply keeps them around as is and uses them just for overflow capacity mitigation, that is a different story ... sort of like what Amtrak does with leased NJT Arrow IIIs over the Thanksgiving weekend.

The again, maybe Amtrak could create a steerage class where all that is guaranteed is a commuter style seat and just use many of these cars as is leased from whoever wants to get into that business. There are many possibilities.

(1) I'm not opposed to that idea as a competitor to cheap buses. I think I've mentioned the idea of a third-class/cattle car rail service somewhere before, and though I've also got to admit that the idea of spending four hours in a 3-2 commuter seat doesn't thrill me, I suspect there's a market for it among 20-somethings. The biggest issue would be folks getting those seats and then turning around and migrating to the cafe.

(2) I figured that you'd rip out the seats and put in "normal" Amtrak seats. I was more worried that you'd have to add toilets or something major like that. I ask in part because if VA/NC went in for the set, pairing the 60 MARC single-levels as one set of equipment with a batch of Amfleets for the rest should more or less eradicate their capital charges to Amtrak. PA, NY, VT, and CT would also be good candidates for the equipment (VA might lose out if their pooling agreement with Amtrak would be fouled), but adding those to the NEC fleet combined with the cars coming in from the Midwest would likely deal with capacity issues and expansion needs for a while.