2.1 INTRODUCTION

North Carolina has many challenges from rapid growth that may stifle the state's prosperity. The State's population is expected to grow by over 30 percent in the next 30 years, while during this same period the urban areas in the State are expected to double in population³. At the same time, vehicle miles of travel is also projected to double⁴. In the meantime, land for expanding and building highways and airports is becoming scarce. Clearly, alternatives will be needed to ensure that this growth does not ruin the quality of life in the North Carolina.

Figure 2-1: Carolinian Ridership
Figure 2-2: Piedmont Ridership
Figure 2-3: Projected Growth Along NC Urban Corridor, 1990-2010

To achieve this balance between rapid growth and livability, North Carolina has begun to create balance in its transportation network. One component of these transportation improvements has been the reintroduction of passenger rail to the state and the planning for construction of a high speed rail network. In 1990, the State and Amtrak debuted the Carolinian train, which travels daily between Charlotte, Raleigh and New York. The Carolinian is one of the most successful conventional speed trains in the nation, carrying nearly 180,000 passengers in 1998 and recovering nearly 90 percent of its operating cost in North Carolina⁵. In 1995 the State began the Piedmont train. Ridership on the Piedmont (which runs between Raleigh and Charlotte) has increased 80 percent in two years, and the train has consistently rated the highest in customer satisfaction of any Amtrak train in the US. Overall, the passenger rail demand in North Carolina has increased dramatically in the recent past.

Introduction of additional passenger trains, however, will not be enough to meet the state's growing transportation needs. North Carolina's passenger trains travel through the "Piedmont Crescent," a corridor where 50 percent of the state's population resides within 30 miles of the railroad. The population in this same corridor is expected to grow over a third in 20 years and by over 50 percent in 30 years. To improve mobility and access along this corridor, the State has begun planning for construction of high speed rail along the route to provide faster, more efficient intercity rail travel. In 1991, the Charlotte . Raleigh . Richmond, VA . Washington, DC corridor (known as the Southeast High Speed Rail corridor) was designated as one of five national high speed rail corridors under the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In 1994, the State began a major planning effort to study the costs of and benefits of high speed rail to North Carolina, and began working with adjoining states on detailed studies for regional high speed rail. In 1997, Governor James B. Hunt's Transit 2001 Commission released their recommendations for a master plan for statewide transit improvements, including construction of the Southeast High Speed Rail corridor.

As North Carolina's growth continues to place demand on the State's transportation system, new solutions will be needed. The Southeast High Speed Rail corridor is the latest in North Carolina's transportation innovations. This report summarizes the planning efforts for the corridor and provides an overview of the State's implementation plan for this important project.

The Southeast High Speed Rail corridor (SEHSR) is an approximately 500 mile Federally designated high speed rail corridor running from Washington, DC through Richmond, VA, Raleigh, NC to Charlotte, NC. This corridor was one of five national high speed rail corridors designated for improvements to high speed status under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.⁶

The Rail Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied for and received funding from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under Section 1036 of ISTEA to conduct master planning for high speed rail passenger service from Charlotte to Raleigh and Raleigh to Richmond, VA. The State of Virginia is currently planning for high speed service between Richmond and Washington, DC under a separate study.

NCDOT subsequently contracted with Amtrak Engineering to coordinate and complete an assessment of the corridor. The work was managed by Rail Division staff with periodic review and coordination with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the Rail Sub-Committee of the North Carolina Board of Transportation and the North Carolina Rail Council. This information also has been incorporated into the Transit 2001 Commission's recommendations to the Governor on improvements to North Carolina's transit system.

The master planning elements make up a feasibility study designed to result in primary decision making. These planning program elements include:

• Engineering Evaluation, which identifies the possible speeds, alignments and costs, of the high speed route;
• Train Performance and Train Dispatch Simulation, which models the speeds of various conventional and high speed train sets on the route and determines potential freight and passenger train conflicts on the corridor;
• Environmental Screening, which finds any potential environmental problems with the corridor's proposed alignments;
• Station and Station Area Standards, which permit the proper planning and construction of high speed rail stations along the corridor;
• Demand Modeling, which projects passenger ridership and potential revenue from the high speed operations;
• Commercial Feasibility of the SEHSR, which determines the operational viability of the SEHSR, based upon projections of operating costs and projected revenues;
• Economic and Fiscal Impact Analyses which identify the economic and fiscal impacts of the construction and operations of the SEHSR system;
• Federal assessment of the corridor's feasibility, which projects the SEHSR's national level costs and benefits, while comparing them against other potential high speed corridors in the US;
• Cost Benefit Analysis, which compare the full costs and benefits of a high speed rail system;
• Public-Private Partnership Alternatives, which explain the possible state and private sector partnerships on ownership and operation of the SEHSR; and
• Analysis of Financing Alternatives, which explore the various cost centers, revenues, funding and financing scenarios that are possible with the high speed rail system.

This report summarizes the findings of the above planning efforts for the corridor and provides recommendations for further action.