• SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

  • General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

  • 288 posts
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  by Riverduckexpress
 
While discussions on this corridor comes up often, I don't think anybody posted this anywhere; I just found it recently myself. Last September, Georgia DOT quietly released a Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Charlotte-Atlanta segment of SEHSR. Tentatively stretching from Charlotte Gateway Station to Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, GDOT has narrowed down their options to three alignments: The existing Norfolk Southern Piedmont Division line used by the Crescent (Southern Crescent), improved to trim travel times; a high-speed ROW running down I-85, and a brand-new high-speed 'greenfield' ROW. The public commenting period has long passed. Next, FRA and GDOT will prepare a Tier 1 Final EIS with the alignment they've chosen (hard to imagine they won't pick the Southern Crescent route, especially given the rest of SEHSR), and after that the Tier 2 environmental review can begin. The Tier 2 environmental review will be more detailed, focusing on things like station locations and picking between two options for entering the Atlanta area (Norfolk Southern's line, or CSX's line). No telling when those will be.

Map of the three alignments and the two Atlanta approaches (yanked from this Powerpoint)
Image
Image

Comparison of the three options (from the Alternatives chapter, pg. 44)
Image
  by Jeff Smith
 
Given the cost disparities, they're going to have to make a value judgment: which proposal gives more bang for the buck? The I-85 proposal is very expensive compared to Greenfield. The "Southern Crescent" provides little ROI (return on investment); it's basically a net loss. Is the ROI on Greenfield realistic? In the other thread, we talked about a station at Hartsfield-Jackson; given the frequencies in Greenfield, it would be worth it.
  by RRspatch
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:00 am Given the cost disparities, they're going to have to make a value judgment: which proposal gives more bang for the buck? The I-85 proposal is very expensive compared to Greenfield. The "Southern Crescent" provides little ROI (return on investment); it's basically a net loss. Is the ROI on Greenfield realistic? In the other thread, we talked about a station at Hartsfield-Jackson; given the frequencies in Greenfield, it would be worth it.
If you look the three proposals even more closely this is what you'll find -

NS route is basically the path of least resistance. The railroad is all ready there. Adding a third and perhaps forth track wouldn't be that hard in most places.

The I-85 proposal would probably require a tunnel the last 20 or 30 miles into Atlanta. Going north there isn't enough room in the medium strip until you get past the I-85/I-985 split. South of that point I-85 is 8 lanes wide with buildings flanking both sides.

The Greenfield proposal would be cheaper to build construction wise but that's only after fighting NIMBY's for 10 to 20 years. Look at all the fun Texas Central has had here in Texas.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20