Docstoc

RAIL PLAN - Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Document Sample
RAIL PLAN - Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Powered By Docstoc
					          FAMPO
     Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

                 RAIL PLAN




                         April 22, 2009

Continuing · Comprehensive · Cooperative · Transportation Planning
2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND FUNDING ............................................................................... 1
     Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 ................................................ 1
     Clean Air Act Amendments .................................................................................................... 1
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ................................................... 1
2009 Economic Stimulus Bill ......................................................................................................... 2
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ................ 3
STATE LEGISLATION AND FUNDING .................................................................................... 3
     Rail Revitalization Act of 1977 .............................................................................................. 3
     Rail Corridor Preservation Act of 1988 .................................................................................. 4
     Highway Trust Fund Law of 1989 .......................................................................................... 4
RAILROADS CURRENTLY SERVING THE FAYETTEVILLE AREA ................................... 4
     Amtrak .................................................................................................................................... 4
     Norfolk Southern .................................................................................................................... 4
     Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Company ........................................................................... 5
     CSX Transportation ................................................................................................................ 5
     Cape Fear Railways ................................................................................................................ 6
2030 GROWTH VISION PLAN .................................................................................................... 6
RAIL SUBCOMMITTEE ............................................................................................................... 7
REGIONAL EFFORTS .................................................................................................................. 8
LOCAL EFFORTS ......................................................................................................................... 8
     PROPOSED REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ................................................... 9
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 10
FAYETTEVILLE TRAIN OPERATIONS STUDY .................................................................... 10
SECURITY OF RAIL NETWORK .............................................................................................. 14
TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM ................................................................................................ 14
PLANNED SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR ................................................... 14
FUTURE RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 15
FAYETTEVILLE TO RALEIGH COMMUTER ROUTE .......................................................... 18
LIGHT RAIL/HERITAGE TROLLEY/MODERN STREETCAR .............................................. 21
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 21
IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 23
     ATTACHMENT 1-1 ............................................................................................................. 23
  ATTACHMENT 1-2 ................................................................................................................. 28
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 30
  Key Regional Points ................................................................................................................. 31
     Other Key Points ................................................................................................................... 33
  Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 34
  Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 35
     Minority and Native American Populations ......................................................................... 36
     10 Mile Buffer Population .................................................................................................... 36
     Social and Economic Impact - Pembroke to Charlotte ......................................................... 38



                                                                        3
0
INTRODUCTION
Railroads serve regional and national transportation functions and are an important part
of Cumberland County‟s integrated transportation system. There is increased interest in
rail as an economically efficient and environmentally sound mode to transport people
and goods in and around our area. Currently there are new and more stringent
regulations regarding the environment, which warrants the investigation of alternate
modes of transportation, that offer reduced emissions and greater fuel economies.


FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND FUNDING

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976
The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended in 1981,
provides federal funds (to a maximum of 70 percent of project costs) to states to
establish measures to preserve local rail freight.             Appropriate projects include
acquisition of branch lines, rehabilitation projects and construction of rail or rail-related
facilities (intermodal freight terminals, sidings and track relocation).

Clean Air Act Amendments
Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 require States to prepare information "regarding the
formulation and emission reduction potential of transportation control measures related
to criteria pollutants and their precursors". Control measures include programs for
improved public transit and programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel.
The addition of alternative modes of transportation like rail will prove to be beneficial in
numerous ways; one such way is in the reduction of automobile induced air pollution.
The North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources and the
Environmental Protection Agency recommend proactive approaches to improve air
quality.
        The EPA revised the previous NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards)
on March 12, 2008. The new standard for ground-level ozone, primary and secondary
8-hour standard, changed from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. As of July 12, 2008, the 4 th
highest 3 year design value for Cumberland County was 0.076 (for the 2006 through
2008 seasons). The monitors have since registered two more exceedances. There is a
good chance that this area will be designated non-attainment for ozone during the next
designation period scheduled for March 12, 2010. Efforts are being made to persuade
the EPA to allow another Early Action Compact for the new standards.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) requires that states use
ten percent of Surface Transportation Program funds for enhancement programs.
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors and rehabilitation of historic stations are
listed as eligible enhancement categories. The former Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
station (circa 1911), now known as the Amtrak train station, was nominated and placed
on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. A complete restoration has been
completed which was in part paid for by ISTEA enhancement funds. The ISTEA also

                                             1
helped to fund the revitalization of the old Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Railroad Depot (c.
1890) Fayetteville, now housing the Fayetteville Transportation Museum.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was established on June 9, 1998.
TEA-21 authorized Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway
safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003.

Rail Safety and Amtrak Funding Authorization Bill
On October 16, 2008 President Bush signed HR 2095, the Rail Safety Improvement Act
of 2008 including the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. The White
House news release stated, simply, “On Thursday, October 16, 2008, the President
signed into law: H.R. 2095, which authorizes appropriations for the Department of
Transportation‟s railroad safety and passenger rail activities and for Amtrak for Fiscal
Years 2009-2013; and revises statutory provisions related to railroad safety and
passenger rail activities.” The bill authorizes $13.06 billion over five years for
passenger rail.

2009 Economic Stimulus Bill
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
$9.3 billion total allocated for Rail
$8 billion for Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Rail – funds
remain available until September 30, 2014
    • Priority to intercity high speed rail projects
    • US DOT Secretary has 60 days after enactment to present a strategic plan to
        Congress for use of the funds to deploy high speed passenger rail system
    • Secretary has 120 days after enactment to issue guidance on grant competition
    • State Rail Plan requirement is waived
    • Federal share at option of recipient up to 100%
    • Wage rate laws apply
    • Buy America requirements apply
• $1.3 billion for AMTRAK
    • Funds remain available until September 30, 2010
    • $450 million set aside for capital security grants
    • $845 million set aside for repair, rehabilitation and upgrades
    • Awarded within 30 days of enactment
    • Projects completed within 2 years of enactment
    • No more than 60 percent of the non-security funds may be used in the Northeast
        Corridor
    • $5 million reserved for the AMTRAK Inspector General
(Source: NARC)




                                            2
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users
     SAFETEA-LU was established on August 10, 2005 and functions as an update to
     ISTEA. SAFETEA-LU authorized funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety
     programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.              Projects under
     SAFETEA-LU must meet the following criteria-
           Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
           enabling global competiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
           Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-
           motorized users;
           Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-
           motorized users;
           Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;
           Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,
           improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation
           improvements and State and local planned growth and economic
           development patterns;
           Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
           across and between modes, for people and freight;
           Promote efficient system management and operation; and
           Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

STATE LEGISLATION AND FUNDING
The state provides funding for rail projects through the amount received each year from
dividends paid to the state by the North Carolina Railroad Company. The North
Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) is a private corporation having a 200 foot right-of-
way, which runs from Charlotte through the Piedmont Crescent to the eastern part of
the state to Goldsboro and east to Morehead City on the coast, 317 miles long. NCRR
currently leases this right-of-way to Norfolk Southern Corporation who operates around
70 freight trains on the track daily. Money received from the lease to Norfolk Southern is
spent on track expansion and upgrades. The State of North Carolina is the sole owner
of the North Carolina Railroad Company and owns all of the stock as of 1998.
(www.ncrr.com)

Rail Revitalization Act of 1977
North Carolina's Rail Revitalization Act (1977) authorized the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to adopt and implement a state rail plan establishing
North Carolina's Rail Program. The Rail Program assists industries and communities in
planning and implementing rail projects and provides direct funding for a portion of the
non-federal share of program costs for railroad rehabilitation and purchase.




                                            3
Rail Corridor Preservation Act of 1988
The 1988 Rail Corridor Preservation Act (an amendment to the Rail Revitalization Act)
authorizes the North Carolina Department of Transportation to purchase rail corridors to
preserve critical rail service or to preserve abandoned rail corridors for future use. The
Rail Corridor Preservation Act was amended in 1989 to authorize the Department of
Transportation to condemn abandoned rail lines for future transportation use.

Highway Trust Fund Law of 1989
The Highway Trust Fund Law of 1989 provides funding up to $5 million for alternatives
to highway construction. This may include rail passenger operations, rail corridor
acquisition and management and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.


RAILROADS CURRENTLY SERVING THE FAYETTEVILLE AREA
Amtrak

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak
(www.amtrak.com), was established in 1970 to provide continued passenger service.
Two passenger trains, the Palmetto and the Silver Meteor, serve Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, Boston, NYC, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Richmond, Florence, Charleston, Savannah, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. In working
with Amtrak, the state of North Carolina created two-rail passenger trains to serve the
piedmont area of North Carolina. The Carolinian route connects New York to Charlotte
via Raleigh and Greensboro and began service in May 1990. Amtrak provides both
equipment and staff to operate. Ridership on this train has increased steadily since
service began with more than 180,000 passengers using the service to travel to or from
North Carolina each year. For the past several years, the Carolinian has been one of
Amtrak‟s top performing trains in terms of cost recovery. The Piedmont connects
Raleigh to Charlotte with daily round-trip service which began in May 1995. A third
Raleigh to Charlotte train will begin operation in the fall of 2009. While the service is
operated and staffed by Amtrak, all the equipment is state-owned and designed. North
Carolina supports both of these trains by reimbursing Amtrak for the in-state portion of
Amtrak administrative, operating, station and other costs. (www.bytrain.org)

Norfolk Southern

The Norfolk and Western Railroad originally started out as the Norfolk and Petersburg
Railroad but was renamed to Norfolk Western in 1882. Norfolk and Western operated
in N.C. VA. OH. and WV. In 1959, 64, and 76 other railroad companies merged with
Norfolk and Western to create a large network of Norfolk Western Railways. “Southern
Railway is the product of nearly 150 predecessor lines that were combined, reorganized
and recombined since the 1830s. The nine-mile South Carolina Canal & Rail Road Co.,
Southern's earliest predecessor line, was chartered in December 1827 and ran the
nation's first regularly scheduled passenger train - the wood-burning "Best Friend of
Charleston" - out of Charleston, S.C., on Christmas Day 1830. By 1833, its 136-mile line

                                            4
to Hamburg, S.C., was the longest in the world”. (www.nscorp.com) In 1982 Norfolk
and Western Railroad merged with Southern Railroad to form Norfolk Southern. This
merger was done to compete in the Eastern United States with what is now CSX
Transportation. (nscorp.com)

Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Company

The Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Company was chartered in 1902. The A & R was
established by John Blue to serve his family's turpentine and timber enterprises at
Aberdeen, North Carolina. It began its first passenger service to Fayetteville in 1912.
From 1920 to about 1950, Aberdeen and Rockfish ran self propelled cars referred to as
"railroad busses" or "jitneys" on their tracks from Aberdeen to Fayetteville to carry mail
from Moore and Hoke Counties to Fayetteville. With expansion of the highway system,
Aberdeen and Rockfish lost the mail contract to a bus service and the jitney service
ended. (www.aberdeen-rockfish.com)

CSX Transportation

CSX Corporation was founded in 1980 when Seaboard System Railroad and Chessie
System Incorporated merged. CSX Transportation was formed in 1986. “The CSX „A‟
line operates two main tracks through Fayetteville. The line runs from the South
Carolina state line to the Virginia state line and carries CSX‟s main north/south traffic.
CSX operates 30+ trains per day that pass through Fayetteville.

Adjacent to the „A‟ line and north of the Amtrak station is the CSX Milan Yard.
This is a large switching yard for CSX where outbound trains are made up. CSX also
receives interchange cars at Milan Yard and local trains will deliver these cars to NS
and A&R at the CSX Old Yard (also known as Williams St Yard) which is located
between Russell Street and Blount Street. The CSX Old Yard is made up of six (6)
tracks running north to south and is numbered from east to west (6-5-4-2-1/lead track).
Track 3 was removed many years ago because of deteriorated track conditions. CSX,
NS, and A&R utilize this yard for set off and pick up of interchange freight between all
railroads. All freight cars delivered to CSX and A&R are set off and picked up from the
Old Yard. NS sets off their interchange cars in this yard but picks up their outbound cars
from the NS yard which is adjacent to the CSX yard. CSX Fort Bragg trains usually
arrive from the south on the „A‟ line and are required to pull north into the CSX Milan
Yard. At present, CSX has approximately 25/30 trains a year (potential to increase) that
travel into Fayetteville en route to the Fort Bragg („AE‟ line). Because of required train
movements, the Fort Bragg trains cause a tremendous amount of highway traffic
blockage in the downtown area.

CSX does not have a direct connection track from the CSX „A‟ line coming from the
south to the Fort Bragg lead. Because of this, all trains bound for Fort Bragg must pull
north of the diamond (near the Amtrak station) into Milan Yard. Once the trains are
north of the diamond they then must make a reverse move back south past the Amtrak



                                            5
station and connect onto the CSX „AF‟ Vander spur line, which parallels both Ray
Avenue and Russell Street.

The Fort Bragg trains can be as long as 10,000 feet and have the potential to block
every cross street intersecting with Ray Avenue and Russell Street while this maneuver
is taking place. Once the head end of the Fort Bragg train is south (east) of the
diamond, the train can then access the lead track and go west to Fort Bragg. These
same trains, upon leaving Fort Bragg, must then repeat this same maneuver in reverse
order. In other words, a single Fort Bragg bound train blocks the downtown crossings
four times coming and going from the post.” These issues were addressed in a recent
study that is discussed on page eight. (Source: Fayetteville Train Operations Study November
2007, Gannett Fleming, Rail Safety Consultants)

Cape Fear Railways

Cape Fear Railways originated as the Fayetteville Street Railway and Power Company,
which were incorporated in 1906. In 1908, the Consolidated Railway and Power
Company succeeded the Fayetteville Street Railway and Power Company. North State
Power Company of Raleigh chartered Cape Fear Railways, Inc. in 1921. The streetcar
line was authorized to "operate street and suburban railway for the transportation of
passengers, mail, express, merchandise or other freight". By 1926, Cape Fear
Railways was operating its streetcar line between Fayetteville and Fort Bragg and the
railroad went under contract with the U.S. Army in 1930 to operate on and serve Fort
Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. A portion of the line between Skibo and along 401
Bypass and Fort Bragg Blvd to the reservation boundary, connecting to the A&R at the
Skibo interchange, was inactivated soon after the opening of the Cross Creek Mall.
Shortly after the end of the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) the entire on base track system
was upgraded from 95 lb. rail to 115 lb. rail, with all new ties and turnouts. In addition,
it‟s aging ALCO RS. 3 Locomotives were replaced with newly rebuilt EMD GP. 9
Engines.

2030 GROWTH VISION PLAN
The 2030 Growth Vision Plan Policies and Actions finalized in September 2008 was a
cooperative effort between all of the jurisdictions in Cumberland County, public
agencies and the community to devise a vision for the entire area. The plan addressed
seventeen vision statements:

   1.   A More Diversified Economy
   2.   Well Managed Growth
   3.   Infrastructure That Keeps Pace
   4.   A Balanced Transportation System
   5.   Community Oriented Schools
   6.   Expanded Parks & Recreation
   7.   Preserved Open Space & Rural Character
   8.   Quality Housing & Residential Development

                                                  6
   9. Compatible Commercial Development & Services
   10. Attractive Community Appearance & Image
   11. A Healthy, Sustainable Environment
   12. Vibrant Downtown Areas
   13. The Cape Fear River, A Regional Asset
   14. Public Safety Services Closer to the People
   15. Senior Citizens Well Served
   16. Intergovernmental Cooperation & Efficiency
   17. An Active, Involved Citizenry

As part of Vision No. 4 several policies were written to better address the local
aspirations for the regional transportation system and an action was formulated to
achieve the policies:


      Policy Area 4: A Balanced Transportation System
   Transportation facilities are the essential corridors of commerce and mobility. 2030 policies
   call for an efficient system of streets and roads, improved mass transit services, as well as
   more sidewalks, trails and bicycling facilities. The policies also recognize that the way in
   which we choose to lay out new roads and developments can have a profound impact in
   reducing automobile dependency and traffic congestion.

Policy 4.1: Opportunities to ENHANCE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
CONNECTIONS between Fayetteville and other parts of the state and region shall be
supported; such opportunities may include not only roadways but also COMMUTER
RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE between Cumberland County and other metropolitan
areas within the State.

Action 4.7: Seek funding sources to establish commuter-rail passenger service.
(Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) and the RPO to lead.)


RAIL SUBCOMMITTEE

In 1990, representatives from CSX Corporation, Amtrak, Aberdeen and Rockfish
Railroad Company, the City of Fayetteville Engineering and Traffic Services
Departments, the North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Program and other
citizens met to form a Rail Subcommittee. Through a series of meetings, the
Committee discussed issues concerning the railroad industry in Cumberland County
and adopted goals and objectives to be incorporated in the Rail Plan.

The Committee, as well as subsequent committees, addressed three major issues
concerning the railroad system in Cumberland County:




                                               7
      Traffic congestion in the Central Business District due to interference at grade
      crossings where frequent railway switching operations take place on the tracks
      that intersect Hay, Franklin and Russell Streets

      Improved station facilities needed to enhance the desirability of rail passenger
      service

      The need for countywide public transportation and future light rail transit

Overall goal:     “To provide fuel efficient, environmentally sound rail passenger and
freight service to the citizens of Cumberland County.”


REGIONAL EFFORTS
Inter-county and regional transportation goal: “To enhance and expand the system by
providing a clean, efficient, affordable, convenient and safe service.”
Objectives:

      Equitable distribution of costs for improvements and maintenance of crossing
      construction.

      Consolidation of existing rail facilities and corridors.

      Centralize terminal facilities; preserve all existing right-of-way; identify and
      protect proposed right-of-way.

      Coordination of public transportation facilities with other modes of transportation.
      Strategies: Use of light rail in conjunction with the public transit system.

      Cooperative planning to eliminate the rail/motor vehicle conflicts.
      Strategies: Coordinate roadway construction with future rail plans; stress the
      location of public facilities convenient to rail facilities.

      Development of public education programs.



LOCAL EFFORTS

Intra-City Goal: “To maintain and expand our existing service through cooperative and
coordinated planning with state and local governments and agencies and with the
private sector.”
Objectives:

      Study and encourage new rail linkages.
                                              8
      Study ideas for financing implementation of light rail service.

      Coordinate State and highway planning with rail planning.

      Protect and enhance freight facilities.

      Coordinate industrial site placement with rail facilities.

PROPOSED REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

In 2001 NCDOT contracted with the Institute for Transportation Research and
Education (ITRE) and AECom Consulting to complete the Southeastern North
Carolina Passenger Rail Feasibility Study. (See Appendix Attachment 1-1)

This service would connect Wilmington to other areas of the state. The study analyzed
five alternatives over three routes:
    1) Wilmington to Raleigh via Goldsboro with no connections
    1a) Wilmington to Raleigh via Goldsboro with connection to the Carolinian and the
          Northeast Corridor
    2) Wilmington to Raleigh via Fayetteville with no connections
    2a) Wilmington to Raleigh via Fayetteville with connections to the Carolinian and the
          Northeast corridor
    3) Wilmington to Charlotte with no connections

Preliminary studies indicate that there is potential for future passenger rail service that
includes the Fayetteville area. Two of the five routes (1a & 2a) that connect to the
Northeast Corridor produced financial results similar to other short distance Amtrak
services that merit additional consideration; further detailed studies must be conducted
that will include forecast of potential ridership and revenue, estimates of operating
costs, track and signal improvements and conceptual plans for station renovations and
construction.

The Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization established a special
committee, the Regional Rail Task Force. This Task Force was formed to include
representatives of all counties within the proposed route with a purpose to provide
evidence of feasibility, where as the Southeastern NC Passenger Rail Service Regional
Plan Proposal was created. (See Appendix Attachment 1-2 for the Executive
Summary)

This committee was dedicated to promoting the passenger rail line through the
Fayetteville Area, whereby a resolution to support this effort was created and endorsed
from 28 government bodies and institutions from the area. This MPO feels that the
connection of one of the state‟s largest metro areas (located in the heart of the state)
with other major cities utilizing existing rail corridors, is the logical step in a true
interconnected, multi-modal regional transportation system.


                                             9
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
In 2002 the NCDOT Rail Division began the Traffic Separation Study for two of the
three rail lines in the Fayetteville Area, CXS and Norfolk Southern. The purpose of the
study is to work with communities to determine how best to separate railroad and
highway traffic that involves improvements and/or eliminating public grade crossings,
consolidations, improved warning devices, roadway improvements, and elimination of
sight obstructions; all techniques that will improve the safety of motorists, rail
passengers, and train crews. A total of 52 highway grade crossings were inspected. It
was recommended that 13 crossings be closed, and 26 other crossings were identified
as needing improved signalization and/or gates installed. As a result from stakeholders
committee meetings the following recommendations were revised:
    1. McLamb Drive crossing will remain open
    2. Dick Street crossing will remain open
    3. Alexander Street crossing will remain open
 Also under this study, it was recommended that a grade separation feasibility study
take place at West Russell Street and two areas of rail realignment that would enable
rail switching operations to take place at the Milan Yard, instead of the Williams Yard
downtown. These recommendations are listed as long-term (five to ten years). The
latter two of the recommendations will provide a safer downtown environment for
motorist and pedestrians alike, and will help alleviate congestion in the downtown area.


FAYETTEVILLE TRAIN OPERATIONS STUDY
Train-vehicle conflicts in the Central Business District prompted a study to be done on
how to alleviate the congestion caused by the trains. The Fayetteville Train Operations
Study was completed in March of 2008 by Gannett Fleming in association with Rail
Safety Consultants for the North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division in
cooperation with the City of Fayetteville. The purpose of the study was to document the
deficiencies with the current rail operations in Fayetteville (including the problems of
trains blocking various at-grade railroad/roadway crossings in the downtown and
adjacent areas), and to recommend changes to improve the efficiencies of all three
operating railroads and thereby also improve the automobile and pedestrian traffic flow
in Fayetteville. Through SAFETEA-LU the City of Fayetteville was able to secure an
earmark for $9,460,000 to implement recommendations made in the Fayetteville Train
Operations Study. The required state and local match consists of 20%. The projects
that are funded are listed in the State Transportation Improvement Program as P-4901
A, P-4901 B, and P-4901 C. Fayetteville is shown in figure A with all the rail lines that
serve the area. Figure B shows the location of the downtown projects.

P-4901 A: Construct railroad connector track between CSX „A‟ Line and „AE‟ Line (Fort
Bragg Spur). This connector track will provide direct south to northwest movement of
Fort Bragg trains to eliminate crossings of streets by trains and associated blockages.


                                           10
P-4901 B: Construct railroad connector track between CSX Williams St. yard lead and
A&R Railroad. This connector track will provide direct east to northerly movement of
trains to eliminate crossings of streets by trains and associated blockages by relocating
switching operations.

P-4901 C: Capacity and rehabilitation improvements to railroad yards near Williams St.
Railroad yards are to be improved to eliminate crossings of streets by trains and
associated blockages by making railroad switching operations more efficient.

Ethanol Plant
A $100 million ethanol plant will be up and running in summer of 2009 near Raeford.
The trains that will supply the corn for the plant are scheduled to travel through
downtown Fayetteville. The trains, about 65 to 75 cars, will pass through every four to
five days creating additional congestion downtown. Maiden Lane, Hay Street, and
Franklin Street should see delays lasting 10 to 15 minutes. The trains will also use
Aberdeen and Rockfish rail lines which cross many of Fayetteville‟s major roads,
Raeford, Cliffdale, and Skibo. The track improvements already scheduled for the
downtown area will help alleviate some of the congestion. Other mitigation strategies
may need to be explored.




                                           11
     Figure A




12
     Figure B




13
SECURITY OF RAIL NETWORK
Security of the rail network is important for many reasons. Maintaining a secure rail
network can be accomplished with many different techniques. Using personnel,
equipment, and different techniques along with current technology, can yield a rail
network that proactively deals with the security of the overall network. Components that
establish security for a rail network include;
        Video cameras
        Personnel strategically positioned and trained to detect and deter security
        breaches
        Upgraded railcars, train stations, and security workstations
        Improved communications between all personnel and security monitoring
        systems
        Airborne chemical analysis sensors
        Bomb resistant trash bins
These counter-measures can be used to protect not only the people and freight that
travel on the railway, but also the infrastructure and assets of the rail system itself.



TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM
In 1890 The Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley Railroad Company opened a depot, one of
the oldest stations in the state. This depot, listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, was refurbished in May 2006 and houses the Transportation Museum. Exhibits
reflect upon the transportation history of Fayetteville.


PLANNED SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR
In 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation designated five national high-speed
corridors across the country. The original Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor,
extending from Washington, D.C. through Richmond and Raleigh to Charlotte, has been
identified as the most economically viable high-speed rail corridor in the country. In
October 2002 the North Carolina and Virginia transportation departments completed a
Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, N.C.
portion of the corridor. This study identified one preferred route over nine possibilities.
Currently the second study phase, Tier II, includes more specific analysis along this
identified route. The service was expected to begin by 2010. This is no longer
possible. The engineering work may begin around 2010.

Figures 1 & 2 illustrate a proposed extension of the South East High Speed Rail
Corridor through Fayetteville. This option has not yet been studied; however it would
provide high speed rail service to Fayetteville, Florence and Charleston. With the
addition of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to the area in the coming years,
there is going to be an increase in demand for transportation to and from Washington,

                                            14
DC. Adding the third leg to the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor would help maintain
efficient transportation options for Fayetteville area residents and those visiting the area.
The increase in cost of gasoline, a struggling airline industry, and environmental and
security issues are making a case for an increase in rail based passenger travel. It is
important that future planning efforts work to advocate passenger rail possibilities.

FUTURE RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT

By grouping three rail options together, FAMPO may be able to garner mutual support
from different parties interested in a particular service area. Option 1 is a commuter rail
from Fayetteville to Raleigh (see figures 3 and 4). Option 2 is a Raleigh to Wilmington
via Fayetteville and Pembroke (University Route) intercity route (see Attachment 1-2).
Option 3 is a proposed third leg of the South East High Speed Rail Corridor that would
include Fayetteville, Florence, and Charleston, (pictured in figures 1 and 2). Grouping
these options together should also increase financing options, shorten construction
timelines and foster relationships between different agencies and governments so as to
work towards a common goal. Planning is underway for a multimodal transportation
center (MMTC) that will be located downtown. This facility will help link all forms of
transportation and serve as a central transportation hub for people traveling throughout
the Fayetteville area, or connecting with various rail transportation options.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Planning for future passenger rail service will be done in accordance with FAMPO‟s
Environmental Justice Plan.      According to the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT), there are three fundamental Environmental Justice principles:

   (1) Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health
       and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority
       populations and low-income populations.

   (2) Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
       transportation decision-making process.

   (3) Prevent the denial of, reduction in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by
       minority or low income populations.

Any future passenger rail routes under serious consideration must be analyzed for any
and all potential environmental justice impacts, benefits, or burdens.




                                             15
Figure 1 Proposed third leg addition (Fayetteville, Florence, Charleston, and
Savannah) to the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor.




                                        16
          To
          Charlotte
                                     Pembroke




                                                                       Wilmington




                                                       Proposed Routes
                                               Wilmington to Charlotte via
                                               Pembroke
                      To Savannah
                                               Raleigh to Savannah via Fayetteville

Figure 2
Figures 1 and 2 provided courtesy of Carolinas Association for Passenger Trains.


                                          17
FAYETTEVILLE TO RALEIGH COMMUTER ROUTE
As shown in figures 3 and 4, there are two routing options to establish commuter rail
service in between Raleigh and Fayetteville. Figure 3 shows the route passing through
Fuquay-Varina and Lillington. Figure 4 shows the route passing through Selma. The
maps project the 2010 populations that would be within ten miles of the rail line. Both
options currently have freight rail traffic.
       Selma - The CSX line that runs through Selma is operating near capacity which
       could limit future commuter rail traffic. The Selma route is 14 miles longer than
       the route via Fuquay-Varina, although the trip time is shorter via Selma, given
       current speed restrictions. If the proposed passenger route from Raleigh to
       Wilmington via Goldsboro was implemented, many potential passengers from
       Selma would use that service.
       Fuquay-Varina - The Norfolk Southern rail line that runs through Lillington and
       Fuquay-Varina has minimal freight traffic and could potentially support commuter
       traffic with some necessary upgrades to the track. Much of this track runs along
       US 401 which will be widened in some areas North of Fayetteville in the future.
       Planning for that widening project should take into account future commuter rail
       possibilities so that right of way acquisition for both projects can be grouped
       together.


                                    Core
                      Population    City         Hwy          Car Trip     Rail         Rail Trip
                      Served*       Pop. %*      Miles**      Times**      Miles**      times**
           Lillington 213,509       62           62           1:30         63           2:15
           Selma      335,470       51           79           1:30         77           1:35
          Table 1                            *source: NC Office of State Budget and Management, 2006
                        **source: Potential North Carolina Rail Corridors, NC DOT 1999


Table 1, above, compares the two routes. The „rail trip times‟ are based on current
track conditions. Both rails would have to be upgraded to handle passenger rail traffic.
The Lillington route might require slight realignment as well. If improvements were
made to handle passenger rail trips, the Lillington trip times could be around 1:10 to
1:15 long.




                                                   18
          Proposed Fayetteville to Raleigh via Fuquay-
                                                    HALIFAX
          Varina Passenger Route: 2010 Population
          Projection Figure 3
        GUILFORD
                             ALAMANCE     ORANGE   DURHAM                   FRANKLIN


                                                                                                                 EDGECOMBE
                                                                     WAKE                NASH


                                                                                  Raleigh
        RANDOLPH                                                                               WILSON
                                    CHATHAM

                          Fuquay-Varina
                                                                                                                                  PITT
                                                                      JOHNSTON
                                                                                                                GREENE
                                          LEE

                                                                                        WAYNE
   MONTGOMERY                Lillington     HARNETT
                            MOORE
                                                                                                                   LENOIR




ANSON                               HOKE                           Fayetteville                                               JONES
         RICHMOND
                                                                                                DUPLIN
                                                                       SAMPSON
                                                      CUMBERLAND

                     SCOTLAND

                                                                                       Map by MAN/FAMPO September 2008
           Lillington option 2010 Population                                                                             ONSLOW
                7,600 to 24,700                        Total 2010 population projection
                3,300 to 7,600
                1,400 to 3,300
                                        
                                        ROBESON        for the proposed passenger route:
                                                       1,237,666.
                                                                 BLADEN

                      0 to 1,400                       Source: Caliper Corp. 2006 Data
                all others




                                                             19
             Proposed Fayetteville to Raleigh via Selma
             Passenger Rail Line: 2010 Population
             Projection Figure 4
     GUILFORD
                         ALAMANCE        ORANGE      DURHAM                 FRANKLIN

                                                                                              NASH
                                                                                                                   EDGECOMBE


                                               Raleigh

    RANDOLPH                                                                                    WILSON
                                     CHATHAM
                                                     WAKE
                                                                                                                                  PITT

                                                                                                   Selma          GREENE
                                         LEE

                                                    HARNETT                                    WAYNE
                                                                             JOHNSTON
MONTGOMERY
                        MOORE
                                                                                                                      LENOIR




                                     HOKE                                                                                         JONES
     RICHMOND                                                           Fayetteville
                                                                                                 DUPLIN
                                                                        SAMPSON
                                                         CUMBERLAND
                 SCOTLAND

               Selma option 2010 Population                                                  Map by MAN/FAMPO September 2008
                                                                                                                         ONSLOW
                  7,600 to 24,700                        Total 2010 population projection
                  3,300 to 7,600
                  1,400 to 3,300
                                         
                                        ROBESON          for the proposed passenger route:
                                                         1,255,736.BLADEN

                        0 to 1,400
                                                         Source: Caliper Corp. 2006 Data
                  all others




                                                                 20
LIGHT RAIL/HERITAGE TROLLEY/MODERN STREETCAR
In 1999 Kimley-Horn Consulting Firm completed an Alternative Transportation Corridor
Feasibility Study requested through resolution by several local agencies including the
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Association. In summary, it was recommended
that historic trolley service could be viable if limited in scope and tied to major economic
development. Existing factors enhance the viability of local rail transit in the Fayetteville
MPO, one of which includes existing railroad right-of-way accessing significant activity
centers or areas that demonstrate development patterns necessary for light rail transit
to be effective. NCDOT Public Transportation Division and the City of Fayetteville have
planned to join efforts to follow-up with a historic trolley economic feasibility study. The
NCDOT granted Fayetteville money to conduct the study however, it was not done, and
the money was given back to the DOT.

Given current conditions; increase in gas costs, revitalization in the CBD, BRAC, and
rail based transit becoming an important component for cities with populations as small
as 200,000 to become world class, Fayetteville should consider following through on the
recommendation of the Alternative Transportation Corridor Feasibility Study by
completing a new rail transit feasibility study. The report stated that future studies
should be focused on the third alternative‟s route and the mode should be historic
trolley. The proposed route with highest potential for light rail or trolley operation was
based on the Alternative Transportation Corridor Feasibility Study done by Kimley-Horn
in 1999. Since the publication of the Alternative Transportation Corridor Feasibility
Study in 1999, several changes have occurred along the proposed light rail or trolley
route. It might be necessary in the future to evaluate modifying the route to
accommodate for the changes, as well as revisit/evaluate other corridors.


RECOMMENDATIONS

       Continue to support studies and actions that will reduce traffic congestion on
       roads by shifting demand to rail corridors.
       Establish a northbound Amtrak service that would originate in Fayetteville. This
       would improve on-time reliability and reduce travel time, thus attracting the
       Washington/Northeast Corridor military and business markets.
       Evaluate feasibility of reestablishing a passenger rail line thru Fort Bragg on the
       west side of Highway 87. A commuter train could provide service from Fort
       Bragg all the way to southern Lee County and the Harnett County industrial park.
       Plan for Multimodal Transportation Center to include future intercity/Amtrak
       passenger rail service which will be routed into the Central Business District via
       CSX‟s main line, as well as future rail based transit modes.
       Consider possibilities of future trolley or light rail service in the City of
       Fayetteville.
       Preserve existing rail corridor right-of-ways.
       Conduct a study that would analyze the feasibility of the three passenger rail
       options if they were grouped together; Option 1 is passenger rail service from

                                             21
      Fayetteville to Raleigh see figures 1 and 2. Option 2 is a Raleigh to Wilmington
      via Fayetteville and Pembroke (University Route) intercity route. Option 3 is a
      proposed third leg of the South East High Speed Rail Corridor that would include
      Fayetteville, Florence, and Charleston.

IMPLEMENTATION
Updated studies are needed to determine if current economic and social conditions
warrant funding for the proposed passenger rail services that would serve the
Fayetteville area. A study of the Fayetteville to Raleigh passenger route via either
Lillington or Selma may be funded and included in the Transportation Improvement
Program. FAMPO is requesting $300,000.00 for that study.




                                         22
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT 1-1

SOUTHEASTERN NC PASSENGER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Prepared by NCDOT, ITRE Institute Transportation Research & Education, & AECom
Consulting May 2001


Summary Report
Southeastern North Carolina
Passenger Rail Feasibility Study
May 2001

Introduction

Between July 1999 and February 2001 the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) studied the feasibility and desirability of restoring passenger rail service to
Wilmington. To complete this feasibility study, the NCDOT contracted with the Institute for
Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) and AECom Consulting (formerly KPMG).
The Institute for Transportation Research and Education conducted research and public outreach
activities to determine attitudes toward and interest in passenger rail service to
Wilmington. AECom Consulting (KPMG) forecasted potential ridership and revenue and estimated possible
operating costs for such service. While the studies initially focused on determining the need and desirability of a
Charlotte–Wilmington rail service, early travel surveys and interviews quickly showed there was a far greater
interest in a rail service that would give Wilmington residents interstate access to the Northeast Corridor and
Raleigh. Thus, the study was amended to include two potential passenger routes to Raleigh with connections to the
Northeast Corridor.
This summary describes and compares the routes that were analyzed and outlines the projected
ridership, revenues and costs for passenger rail service to Wilmington.
In analyzing ridership and travel time, the study assumed that necessary modifications would
be made to each of the routes. For each route, it was assumed that some signals would be
upgraded, curves elevated and passing sidings added or upgraded to efficiently accommodate
both freight and passenger trains on the route. For the Wilmington-Goldsboro-Raleigh alternate,
it was assumed that 22 miles of track would be restored between Wallace and Castle
Hayne. For the Wilmington-Fayetteville-Raleigh alternate, it was assumed that connecting
tracks would be built at the track intersections in Pembroke and Selma.
While significant capital investments will be needed to begin service on any of the possible
routes, specific needs and associated costs were not addressed in this feasibility study. Further
studies are needed to determine which infrastructure improvements are needed and estimate
the cost of making those improvements.

Resources
Ridership and Revenue Forecasts – AECom Consulting, McLean, Va. October 2000
Summary of Attitudinal and Business Travel Survey Responses; And Potential Economic
Impacts – Institute for Transportation Research & Education, Raleigh, NC. September 2000
Financial Summary for Passenger Rail Service to Wilmington
Darrell Smith, Jacksonville, Florida. December 2000




                                                            23
Cover photos: NC Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development & NC Department. of Transportation
200 reports were printed at a cost of 62¢ each.

Study Methods
The North Carolina Department of Transportation developed ridership and revenue forecasts for rail service to
Wilmington using information assembled for the Southeast High Speed Rail Study (1996) and Piedmont High Speed
Corridor Study (1996). The models used to forecast ridership demand incorporated factors such as comparative
travel cost, travel time, frequency and other travel characteristics. Due to the specific markets of interest in this
study, additional data about travel origins and destinations was collected along I-40 near Warsaw and US-74 near
Lumberton. More than 4,500 travelers were surveyed during two weekends in March 2000. Additional attitudinal
surveys were conducted in Wilmington during the October Riverfest and April Azalea Festivals. Also, local business
leaders and Chamber of Commerce members participated in surveys about business travel patterns. The study
analyzed five alternatives over three routes:
1) Wilmington to Raleigh via Goldsboro with no connections to other routes
1a) Wilmington to Raleigh via Goldsboro with connections to the Carolinian (and Northeast corridor)
2) Wilmington to Raleigh via Fayetteville with no connections to other routes
2a) Wilmington to Raleigh via Fayetteville with connections to the Carolinian (and Northeast corridor)
3) Wilmington to Charlotte with no connections to other routes




To evaluate and compare the alternatives, the studies estimated ridership and revenue performance for each route
using a combination of measures: total population, population density along the route, train speed and route length.
In general, ridership increases with higher and denser populations. Average speed and route length provide a
measure of how competitive passenger rail service is with other modes, particularly travel by car. Intercity passenger
rail generally is not competitive in short distance markets. Operating costs were estimated based on past



                                                                  24
performance of similar trains including the Piedmont and Carolinian. The estimated expenses include all normal
operating costs for passenger trains, such as: crews to operate the train, fuel, payments to the railroad for track use,
insurance, maintenance of equipment, station services and other associated costs. (Station costs incorporate expenses
for a staffed Wilmington station and an additional ticket agent in Raleigh, Fayetteville and/or Charlotte, depending
on the alternative.) Cost estimates assume equipment maintenance and some on-board services would be contracted
through other vendors (similar to Piedmont operations). The potential for Wilmington passenger trains varies among
alternatives, but is similar in route length, speed and number of passengers to the Piedmont corridor, while total
population and population density are about half that of the Piedmont route.

Alternative 1–Wilmington-Goldsboro-Raleigh - has the lowest total population but, combined with the shortest route
distance, it has the highest population per mile of the three alternatives (10-15 percent more than Alternatives 2 and
3) – though still significantly lower than the Piedmont corridor. This route provides a fairly direct path between
Wilmington and Raleigh, however, the average speed in this alternative is only 37 mph.
Alternatives 2–Wilmington-Fayetteville-Raleigh - and Alternate 3 are slightly longer routes than the Piedmont with
roughly half of the total population. The improved speed in Alternative 2 – an average 51 mph – allows a route that
is 40 percent longer to serve another metropolitan area while adding only 13 minutes to the three-hour and 30-
minute schedule for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3–Wilmington-Charlotte - is very similar to Alternative 2 in regards to these measures, with a route
distance of 188 miles and average speed of 49 mph.



Forecasted Results for Wilmington Passenger Rail Service
                      Alternative      Alternative 1a          Alternative 2    Alternative 2a      Alternative 3
                      1
   Route Length       132 mi.          132 mi.+ 531mi.         188 mi           188                 188 mi.
                                       (RGH-NYC)                                mi.+531mi.
                                                                                (RGH-NYC)
   Travel Time        3:30             3:30+9:52 (RGH-         3:43             3:43+9:52           3:50
                                       NYC)                                     (RGH-NYC)
   Average            38 mph           38 mph                  51 mph           51 mph              49 mph
   Speed
   Ridership          31,500           39,700                  34,700           43,700              28,500
   Revenue            $406,000         $980,000                $428,000         $1,033,000          $486,000
   Operating          $2,284,000       $2,284,000              $2,696,000       $2,696,000          $2,555,000
   Cost
   Operating          $1,878,000       $1,304,000              $1,663,000       $1,663,000          $2,069,000
   Loss (Subsidy)


All figures reflect North Carolina portion of the route only unless otherwise indicated.
Forecasted costs and revenues reflect annual estimates.

Study Alternatives

Alternative 1 and 1a–Wilmington to Raleigh via Goldsboro
The first alternative connects Wilmington to Raleigh via Warsaw, Goldsboro and Selma–a 132-mile route with an
average speed of 38 mph. The travel time between Wilmington and Raleigh would be 3 hours 30 minutes. (The
speed limits are largely determined by the condition of the railroad tracks.)

Sample Schedule
Alternate 1 (Wilmington–Raleigh only) &
Alternative 1a (with connection)
Southbound Northbound



                                                          25
6:05 am depart New York 9:55 pm arrive
10:20 am depart Wash. DC 5:55 pm arrive
3:26 pm depart Selma 12:42 pm arrive
4:22 pm arrive Raleigh 11:57 am depart
5:00 pm depart Raleigh 11:55 am arrive
5:45 pm depart Selma 11:10 am depart
6:15 pm depart Goldsboro 10:40 am depart
6:55 pm depart Warsaw 10:00 am depart
8:30 pm arrive Wilmington 8:25 am depart


Alternative 2 and 2a–Wilmington to Raleigh via Fayetteville
The second alternative connects Wilmington to Raleigh via Navassa, Lumberton, Pembroke, Fayetteville and
Selma–a 188-mile trip with an average speed of 50 mph. The travel time between Wilmington and Raleigh along
this route would be about 3 hours 45 minutes.
Sample Schedule
Alternate 2 (Wilmington–Raleigh only) &
Alternative 2a (with connection)
Southbound Northbound
6:05 am depart New York 9:55 pm arrive
10:20 am depart Wash. DC 5:55 pm arrive
3:26 pm depart Selma 12:42 pm arrive
4:22 pm arrive Raleigh 11:57 am depart
5:00 pm depart Raleigh 11:55 am arrive
5:45 pm depart Selma 11:10 am depart
6:27 pm depart Fayetteville 10:28 am depart
7:03 pm depart Pembroke 9:52 am depart
7:18 pm depart Lumberton 9:37 am depart
8:28 pm depart Navassa 8:27 am depart
8:43 pm arrive Wilmington 8:12 am depart

Alternative 3–Wilmington to Charlotte
The third alternative connects Wilmington to Charlotte via Navassa, Lumberton, Pembroke, Laurinburg, Hamlet and
Monroe–a 188-mile trip with an average speed of 49 mph. The travel time would be 3 hours 50 minutes.
Sample Schedule Alternative 3
Eastbound Westbound
5:30 pm depart Charlotte 12:20 pm arrive
6:05 pm depart Monroe 11:45 am depart
7:05 pm depart Hamlet 10:45 am depart
7:21 pm depart Laurinburg 10:29 am depart
7:40 pm depart Pembroke 10:10 am depart
7:55 pm depart Lumberton 9:55 am depart
9:05 pm depart Navassa 8:45 am depart
9:20 pm arrive Wilmington 8:30 am depart 4


The Results

Preferred Destinations
The travel surveys showed that business travelers from Wilmington journey most often to Raleigh,
Richmond/Washington, D.C., Florida, Philadelphia/New York City, Greensboro and Charlotte. Surveys also showed
that the majority of visitors come to the Wilmington area five times or more each year. Most of those visitors come
from the Triangle area, followed by the Charlotte and Triad areas. Residents from the Wilmington area travel most
often for pleasure to (in descending order): Asheville, Philadelphia/New York City, Richmond/Washington, D.C.,
Florida and Atlanta.


                                                        26
Ridership and Revenue Estimates
AECom Consulting used the traffic/travel studies, along with existing information about rail in the Southeast, to
determine the potential ridership and revenue for the three routes under consideration. When the numbers were
calculated, the results showed that potential annual ridership ranged from 28,500 (Wilmington–Charlotte) to 43,700
passengers (Wilmington–Fayetteville–Raleigh with connections to the Northeast). The revenue variances were even
more dramatic with ranges from $406,000 to $1,033,000 annually.
The two routes that offered direct connections to the Northeast were projected to produce more than double the
revenues of the routes that did not have onward travel connections.
Each of the in-state routes evaluated generated less revenue than the current Piedmont due to the lower population
per mile. However, when the routes included connections to the Northeast, the Wilmington –Fayetteville–Raleigh
route was projected to attract about 43,700 passengers annually–comparable to the Piedmont’s annual ridership of
about 54,000. Also, with the greater trip length into the Northeast, the Wilmington-Fayetteville-Raleigh-with-
Northeast-connections route option was forecast to produce $1,033,000 in revenues.

Cost Estimates
Two cost estimates were developed for each route option. The first cost estimate assumed that Amtrak would
provide all necessary personnel and services to operate the route; the second cost estimate assumed that, similar to
the operation of the Piedmont, maintenance of equipment and onboard service (dining and beverage supplies and
personnel) would be contracted out.
Using the "contract out" options as examples, the Wilmington–Goldsboro–Raleigh alternative incurred lower
operating costs annually at $2,284,000 than did the other two options and thereby produced the lowest annual
operating loss of the three options at $1,304,000. While the Wilmington–Fayetteville–Raleigh route produced the
highest revenues, because of the circuitous route via Fayetteville, it incurred an annual operating loss approximately
$360,000 greater than the Goldsboro route. The annual operating loss of the Wilmington–Charlotte route because of
its lack of onward connections, was the highest of the three routes, at $2,069,000. The Charlotte route’s revenues
also were approximately one-half those of the two Raleigh options, when onward connections were factored in.

Recommendations
The preliminary feasibility studies indicate that there is potential for future passenger rail service to Wilmington.
While initial evaluations showed that none of the three proposed routes would provide a breakeven operation in the
near term, the two Wilmington–Raleigh routes that include connections to long distance trains produced financial
results similar to other short distance Amtrak services and merit additional consideration.
Based on the results of this initial feasibility study, the North Carolina Department of Transportation recommends
the next major steps toward service implementation:
1) conduct further studies to determine what capacity and safety improvements to existing tracks would be needed to
add passenger trains to the routes in question
2) begin discussions with CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads about operating passenger rail service over their
property to and from Wilmington,
3) begin securing property to develop a multi-modal station in Wilmington that would serve rail and bus passengers,
4) conduct an inventory of stations along the route alternatives,
5) work with the State Ports Authority to assess economic impacts of route alternatives, and
6) conduct additional attitudinal and travel surveys centered on Fayetteville.




                                                         27
ATTACHMENT 1-2


        SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
           PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
           REGIONAL PLAN PROPOSAL
                 “The University Route”
                   Executive Summary


                         FOR


     BLADEN, COLUMBUS, CUMBERLAND,
         HARNETT AND ROBESON
                COUNTIES




                      March 2004

                          28
                          The ―University Route‖




                                Cary
                                Cary
                                       
                                       
                                           Raleigh
                                           Raleigh
                                   Garner
                                   Garner
                                                       Selma
                                                       Selma




                                   Dunn
                                   Dunn


                   Fort Bragg
                   Fort Bragg
                                      Methodist College
                             Fayetteville
                            Fayetteville
                           
                                           Fayetteville State
                                              University

   Pembroke
   Pembroke
               
                        Lumberton
                         Lumberton                   UNC Wilmington

                                            Clarkton
                                            Clarkton
UNC Pembroke
                                             Acme
                                             Acme
                                                               
                                                               
                                                 Navassa
                                                 Navassa
                                                        Wilmington
                                                       Wilmington
          

Map Not to Scale
MC – FAMPO
March 2004




                                       29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Regional Rail Plan for the Southeastern Passenger Rail Study published in June 2002 outlined
several crucial differences between the two alternatives that are currently under study by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division. The Alternative One route, through
Goldsboro, would be the right choice if the only factor being considered were a second line to the
Wilmington Port for freight movement. With 28 miles of track missing and an average speed of
35 miles per hour, this alternative seems to be more conducive to moving freight rather than
people. Lower travel speed and the financial requirements to implement this route make this option
unattractive, when compared with the over 50 mile per hour speeds and existing infrastructure of
Alternative Two (referred to in this document as the ―University Route‖).

The University Route is the right choice for an intercity passenger rail line. Not only will this route
connect more populous metropolitan areas, several universities and higher learning institutions, it
will also provide a broader base of potential customers, due to the higher density of overall
population. The selection of the University Route will allow the state to be proactive in the
economic development guidelines that it has set, while meeting the needs of underserved,
economically disadvantaged citizens. The University Route will promote tourism along the rail line
and will make current lower tier counties more attractive to prospective employers. This route
selection will meet the intent of Title VI and the Environmental Justice Act by providing quality
transportation to large segments of minority populations. Implementation of the Southeastern
Passenger Rail Corridor through Fayetteville will ensure the connection of significantly populous
areas of the state to the proposed High Speed Rail Corridor and it will help air quality by providing
for an alternate means of transportation to the Capital in Raleigh and the coastal area in greater
Wilmington.

In order to meet the State’s long-range goal of an effectively networked transportation system that
would serve the greatest possible number of citizens, the University Route is without question the
most advantageous route. Should the State decide at a later time to connect Wilmington with
Charlotte, the University Route would greatly advance this effort because establishing passenger
service from Wilmington to Pembroke would provide for approximately half of the proposed route
from Wilmington to Charlotte.

Compelling, objective evidence exists for a decision to be made by the North Carolina Secretary of
Transportation to select the ―University Corridor‖ with stops in Fayetteville, Pembroke, Lumberton
and Navassa—for future intercity passenger rail service between Raleigh and Wilmington.




                                                  30
Key Regional Points

Regional Comparisons and other data from The Southeast Regional Rail Task Force Coordinating
Committee Report (June 2002):

                                        University Route:                           Alt. Route 1: Goldsboro
                                        Fayetteville
Social Impact:

Unemployment Rate1 (avg.)                              6.25%                                   5.73%

Total Population Affected2                            677,497                                 203,474
                                               (3X that of Goldsboro)
10 Mile Buffer                                        508,983                                 184,513
Minority Population                                     43%                                     37%
Native American3                                         8%                                     .4%
Economic Impact:
Tier System Incentives to
Attract Industry

• East-West Passenger Route                            Higher                                  Lower
                                               (2X that of Goldsboro)

      Military Needs
Strategic Location of Sizable           Yes                                                    Lower
Military Installation(s)
      Business Growth
Health Care Options
(for retired military and
                                                      Greater                                  Lesser
military families, seniors and
others)

                                                   Greater
                                                                                              Lesser
Higher Education Options                          4
                                           (FSU , UNC-Pembroke4&
                                                                                        (Mt. Olive College)
                                              Methodist College)


1
  Based on 3rd quarter of 2003 NC Department of Commerce Data as shown in Table 1. and Table 2. on page 6.
2
  Population obtained from 2000 Census Data
3
  Should the Lumbee Tribe gain recognition as a Native American Tribe, as advocated by Senator Dole and
Representative Mike McIntyre, The University Route would serve an even higher percentage of an underserved
minority.
4
  Both are constituent members (and minority campuses) of the Greater University of North Carolina. This route
effectively links four campuses of the state system.




                                                         31
                                  University Route:
                                  Fayetteville                         Alt. Route 1: Goldsboro

Number of Counties Benefited                     6                                 3
Potential Served                                 14                                5
Low Wealth / Distressed
Counties Benefited by                          More                              Less
Infrastructure Improvement

Sizes of Towns & Cities Served                Larger                            Smaller

Use of the same track (in large
part) for future Charlotte-                     Yes                               No
Wilmington route

Costs to North Carolina to
complete Wilmington to
                                              Lower                             Higher
Charlotte and Southeast Rail
Corridor
Number of 21st Century
Community Counties Served                        2                                 1
(p. 8)

The selection of the University Route would help greatly in attracting industry (Fluor report 2003)
with an opening of east-west transportation alternatives. The Fluor Report, by Bob Schapercatter
(funding obtained by Congressman Hayes $330,000.00) cited a lack of east-west transportation
solutions as a limitation to attracting and recruiting industry. This is a most important factor. It
seems impossible to foster economic growth in this region without intercity rail connecting the
fifth and sixth largest metropolitan areas in the state.

Future Service: Good for North Carolina because half of the needed improvements to connect
Wilmington to Charlotte would be accomplished as part of the Raleigh to Wilmington route through
Fayetteville. Wilmington to Charlotte extension from Pembroke to Charlotte would aid many more
distressed counties. Total Population along this route: 1,050,307 and in 10 mile buffer 889,096
(39.3% minority). (App. 2)


Major Points in 2004
       Military needs are getting greater
          With outsourcing increasing by an average of 23-25%, there will be more civilian jobs
          available in the area. Additional job seekers from surrounding counties, Wilmington and
          Raleigh and others on The University Corridor will increase North Carolina’s



                                                32
           employment. With the availability of highly trained prospective employees (former
           military and spouses) it would also provide the best candidates to Raleigh or Wilmington
           from our military bases.

       Biotech Initiatives
          Since Fayetteville Technical Community College now offers courses in Biotechnology,
          potential jobs will be available in Raleigh and the Research Triangle Park (RTP) where
          Merck and 75% of North Carolina’s 149 biotech firms are currently located. The number
          of community colleges, colleges and university locations will best be connected through
          The University Corridor. Students—and prospective students—and faculty will benefit.

       Air Quality Issues
           With emphasis on air quality issues increasing daily, contribution to the reduction of air
           pollution and traffic congestion by an alternate mode of transportation is vital to our
           region. A favorable decision for this Corridor will only implement a sound strategy for
           the entire region.

Other Key Points

High Speed Rail

The U.S. Congress currently has bills in both the House and Senate that would benefit this area.
Fayetteville could be included in one of the proposed additions to the Southeast High-Speed Rail
Corridor (SEHSR), currently before the U.S. Congress (S.104 and HB.4545), connecting Raleigh,
Fayetteville, Florence, Charleston and Savannah. Utilizing the same route as the SEHSR Corridor
for a major portion of the Southeastern North Carolina Passenger Rail Corridor would represent a
significant cost savings in both construction and future maintenance. This alignment would also
permit access to the SEHSR Corridor from Wilmington. Major corporations want to locate where
transportation alternatives abound, both from access and quality of life perspectives. Inclusion in the
Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor can greatly increase our region’s national visibility and provide
another tool in our economic development toolbox.

Excerpts from Transit 2001 (published by NC DOT in 1997)

   a. ―We need to act now to provide more transportation options or traffic congestion and delays
      will stifle the economy.‖ (p.1)
               • Includes regional rail, high-speed, intercity rail passenger services

   b. ―The mission of rural and human service transportation‖ to all citizens in rural areas is ―to
      improve access to jobs, medical and human services, educational and training opportunities .
      . .‖ (p. 48)

   c. A study in Philadelphia and one in Chicago show total economic impact and the total cost
      reduction and cost avoidance in return to a region, county and state of transit services ―would
      be over $9.00 for every dollar spent.‖ (p. 42)

Cost Savings



                                                  33
      28 miles of track do not have to be replaced (or can either be replaced economically to
         support freight traffic only).
        Greatly reduces track improvements required to serve Charlotte (and Asheville) from
         Wilmington.
        Higher density population overall along this corridor.
        No major infrastructure improvements along this route in near term.
        Higher speeds and better topography
        The University Route (Alternative Two) is the most cost-effective choice

Conclusion

  The University Route (Alternative Two with stops in Fayetteville, Pembroke, Lumberton and
  Navassa) should be selected for passenger rail service to Southeastern North Carolina.

  The selection of the University Route is the most logical, both economically and financially
  sound. It is unbiased because it supports the greatest population (civilian, military and academic)
  and larger geographic region. It is long overdue and it will also implement several economic
  development plans initiated and supported by our State and Federal Elected Officials.

  A decision for the University Route will send a positive, optimistic message for future growth
  and livability to all of our diverse populations in the region, as required by Executive Order
  12898, the Federal Action to address Environmental Justice in minority and Low-Income
  population. It is the next logical step in meeting North Carolina’s public transportation needs.




                                                34
Appendix

This appendix includes socio-economic data to support this Executive Summary. The Source for the
Population and Minority tables is the Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data. Economic
indicators were updated with the 2004 Tier Designations and Counties Profiles for the 3rd Quarter of
2003, as administered by the North Carolina Department of Commerce.

Social Impact
On February 11, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 Federal Action
to address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income population. This executive
order stresses the importance of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that
“. . . No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” and expands it to
include the economically disadvantaged population. The following tables will compare
median family income and unemployment rates and rankings within the two corridors
being studied for passenger rail. The information included in the tables will also reiterate
the economic need of infrastructure for the Southeastern Passenger Rail Study Alternative
2.

       Table 1 - Alternative 1 (Raleigh-Goldsboro-Wilmington) economic indicators
                                                                           ANNUAL          LATEST
                                      MEDIAN
                                                                    NC  UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT
        COUNTY                     FAMILY INCOME
                                                                   RANK     RATE            RATE
                                       (2002)
                                                                            (2001)   (4th Quarter 2003)
Wayne                                  $45,300.00                    53                  5.4%     5%
Duplin                                 $38,200.00                    82                  6.3%    6.1%
Pender                                 $47,600.00                    46                  6.1%    6.1%
Source: Economic Development Information System, North Carolina Department of Commerce


       Table 2 - University Route (Raleigh-Fayetteville-Wilmington) economic indicators
                                                                           ANNUAL          LATEST
                                      MEDIAN
                                                                    NC  UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT
        COUNTY                     FAMILY INCOME
                                                                   RANK     RATE            RATE
                                       (2002)
                                                                            (2001)   (4th Quarter 2003)
Harnett                                $43,400.00                    61                   6.9%   6.2%
Cumberland                             $43,700.00                    60                   5.4%   4.9%
Robeson                                $36,900.00                    87                  11.5%    9%
Bladen                                 $32,100.00                    98                   7.4%   5.6%
Columbus                               $35,200.00                    92                   9.5%   7.2%
Brunswick                              $50,100.00                    34                   5.4%   4.6%
Source: Economic Development Information System, North Carolina Department of Commerce




                                                               35
  Although the University Route region includes the highest median family income incorporated in the
  comparison (Brunswick County), it also shows that the area income levels are well below the majority of
  the state counties and that the unemployment rate far exceeds the Alternative 1 rate.

  Minority and Native American Populations

       Table 3 - Alternative 1 (Raleigh-Goldsboro-Wilmington) minority population
                    Total                                         Native
                                 White      Minority     %                      % Native
   County       Population                                       American
                               Population Population Minority                   American
                   (2000)                                       Population
Wayne             113,329        69,452      43,877    38.7%        412           0.36%
Duplin             49,063        28,785      20,278    41.3%        113           0.23%
Pender             41,082        29,882      11,200    27.3%        201           0.49%
Total                     203,474          128,119    75,355       37.0%            726             0.36%
  Source: Census 2000 Redistricting Data




        Table 4 - University Route (Raleigh-Fayetteville-Wilmington) minority population
                     Total                                           Native
                  Population      White      Minority       %      American       % Native
    County          (2000)     Population Population Minority Population          American
Bladen              32,278        18,469       13,809     42.8%        657          2.04%
Brunswick           73,143        60,200       12,943     17.7%        494          0.68%
Columbus            54,749        34,737       20,012     36.6%       1,706         3.12%
Cumberland         302,963       167,093      135,870     44.8%       4,691         1.55%
Harnett             91,025        64,744       26,281     28.9%        794          0.87%
Robeson            123,339        40,460       82,879     67.2%      46,896        38.02%
Total                     677,497          385,703   291,794       43.1%          55,238             8.15%
  Source: Census 2000 Redistricting Data



  The 2000 Census data shows that a higher overall minority population would be served by the selection of
  University Route as the preferred route. Data also indicates that a high percentage of Native American
  citizens reside within the University Route region.

  10 Mile Buffer Population

  The success of a new endeavor, particularly in mass transportation, depends not only on the availability of
  services, but also in the willingness of the public to use the services. Therefore it stands to reason that a
  higher pool of potential customers will be beneficial to the program. Table 3 showed that the total
  population for the Alternative 1 region is of 203,474, whereas the total population for University Route
  is of 677,497 (Table 4). The following tables will show the difference in population in the two alternative
  regions within a 10-mile radial buffer along the corridors. It was felt that a distance of 10 miles is not
  overwhelming if the services provide intercity transportation, with possible interstate connections,
  especially if complementing local mass transportation to stations available.




                                                       36
      Table 5 - Alternative 1 (Raleigh-Goldsboro-Wilmington) 10 mile buffer population
                                         10-mile                  10-mile
                                                   10-mile White              %
                    County              Population                Minority
                                                    Population              Minority
                                          (2000)                 Population
               Brunswick *                  12,013                 8,337               3,676             30.6%
               Duplin                       32,665                16,265              16,400             50.2%
               Pender                       25,976                18,135               7,841             30.2%
               Sampson *                     7,871                 3,967               3,904             49.6%
               Wayne                       105,988                63,728              42,260             39.9%
               Total                       184,513               110,432              74,081             40.1%
                * Brunswick and Sampson Counties are reported due to proximity to the rail corridor


      Table 6 - University Route (Raleigh-Fayetteville-Wilmington) 10 mile buffer
      population
                                         10-mile                  10-mile
                                                   10-mile White              %
                    County              Population                Minority
                                                    Population              Minority
                                          (2000)                 Population
               Bladen                       22,685                12,672              10,013             44.1%
               Brunswick                    17,220                12,216               5,004             29.2%
               Columbus                     16,147                 8,403               7,744             48.0%
               Cumberland                  286,374               157,268             129,106             45.1%
               Harnett                      33,888                23,919               9,969             29.4%
               Hoke *                       11,799                 6,491               5,308             45.0%
               Pender *                      3,017                 2,502                515              17.1%
               Robeson                     109,289                35,919              73,370             67.1%
               Sampson *                     8,564                 6,535               2,029             23.7%
               Total                       508,983               266,408             243,213             47.8%
                * Hoke, Sampson and Pender Counties are reported due to proximity to the rail corridor


Economic Impact
It is a well-known fact that a sound transportation infrastructure is the economic lifeline of an area. At a
time where unemployment is rising, budgets are being reduced and economic growth is at a stand still, the
prospect of an alternative means of transportation through depressed areas of the state provides hope for
the future.

On September 19, 2001, the office of the North Carolina Department of Commerce published a press
release outlining a new commerce initiative: the 21st Century Communities initiative, which focuses on
local economic vitality and progress. The ―. . . Criteria for participation included relative economic
distress, including rising unemployment and reliance on at-risk traditional manufacturing, as well as
committed community leadership, interest in the initiative and geographic distribution around the state ….
[and] examples of economic-development strategies that could emerge to help individual counties include
infrastructure improvement, downtown revitalization, workforce development and tourism planning . . .‖
(Excerpts from the September 19, 2001 press release). Ten counties received the designation, including


                                                               37
Columbus and Robeson Counties, which are located along the University Route Corridor. The
introduction of a passenger rail service would fulfill the guidelines set forth in the 21st Century
Communities initiative; infrastructure improvements would provide for an alternative mode of
transportation, while fostering the possibility of tourism expansion. Only one county along Alternative 1
(Duplin) has been designated as a 21st Century Community.

The State of North Carolina employs several methods to identify areas by economic prosperity. One of
the methods used is the Tier Ranking System. This system assigns a ranking of One to Five, with One
being the most economically distressed county. The object of Tier Ranking is to provide tax incentives to
employers that wish to locate in specified areas, with the highest tax incentives provided to companies
moving to lower tier counties, fostering economic development. The following tables show Tier Ranking
between the two corridors as a means to compare economic needs of the proposed rail services. Since
both routes originate in Wake County and traverse Johnston and New Hanover Counties, only the
intervening areas will be listed.
      Table 7 - Alternative One (Raleigh-Goldsboro-Wilmington) 2002 Tier Designation
              COUNTY               TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 5
    Wayne                                                             1
    Duplin                                                            1
    Pender                                                            1
    TOTALS                                   0           0            3            0           0

      Table 8 – University Route (Raleigh-Fayetteville-Wilmington) 2002 Tier Designation
              COUNTY                     TIER 1       TIER 2      TIER 3       TIER 4       TIER 5
    Harnett                                                         1
    Cumberland                                                                     1
    Robeson                                              1
    Columbus                                             1
    Bladen                                   1
    Brunswick                                                                      1
    TOTALS                                   1           2            1            2           0

Social and Economic Impact - Pembroke to Charlotte
     Table 9 - Extension to Charlotte 2004 Tier Designation
            COUNTY                TIER 1     TIER 2     TIER 3                 TIER 4       TIER 5
  Pembroke-Charlotte
  Robeson                                       1
  Scotland                            1
  Richmond                            1
  Anson                                         1
  Union                                                                                         1
  Mecklenburg                                                                                   1
  TOTALS                              2         2           0                      0            2

This portion of the rail corridor includes two Tier One counties (Scotland and Richmond) and one
additional Tier 2 county (Anson). This corridor will also connect UNC Charlotte to UNC-Pembroke and
UNC-Wilmington.


                                                    38
          Table 10 – Extension to Charlotte economic indicators
                                                                          ANNUAL          LATEST
                                        MEDIAN
                                                                   NC  UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT
          COUNTY                     FAMILY INCOME
                                                                  RANK     RATE            RATE
                                         (2002)
                                                                           (2001)   (4th Quarter 2003)
     Scotland                              $43,400.00                 61             10.1%                10.3%
     Richmond                              $42,600.00                 67              9.6%                10.1%
     Anson                                 $44,000.00                 59             10.4%                10.7%
     Union                                 $64,100.00                  7              3.8%                 4.2%
     Mecklenburg                           $64,100.00                  7              4.1%                 5.3%
  Source: Economic Development Information System, North Carolina Department of Commerce


   Even though the median income of these counties is higher than along University Route,
   the tier system recognizes that, as a whole, Scotland, Richmond and Anson counties are not
   wealthy, and they present a higher than average unemployment rate of 10.3%.
         Table 11 - Extension to Charlotte minority population
                      Total                                           Native
                                    White       Minority      %                    % Native
    County        Population                                         American
                                 Population Population Minority                    American
                     (2000)                                         Population
Robeson             123,339         40,460        82,879    67.2%     46,896        38.02%
Scotland             35,998         18,535        17,463    48.5%      3,197         8.88%
Richmond             46,564         30,193        16,371    35.2%       770          1.65%
Anson                25,275         12,519        12,756    50.5%       113          0.45%
Union               123,677        102,441        21,236    17.2%       475          0.38%
Mecklenburg         695,454        445,250       250,204    36.0%      2,439         0.35%
Total                    1,050,307            649,398           400,909         38.2%           53,890        5.13%
  Source: Census 2000 Redistricting Data
          Table 12 - Extension to Charlotte 10 mile buffer population
                                               10-mile                  10-mile
                                                         10-mile White              %
                           County             Population                Minority
                                                          Population              Minority
                                                (2000)                 Population
                     Robeson                    51,721               7,547             44,174     85.4%
                     Scotland                   35,015              18,098             16,917     48.3%
                     Richmond                   41,732              27,503             14,229     34.1%
                     Anson                      24,304              11,960             12,344     50.8%
                     Union                     110,649              90,612             20,037     18.1%
                     Mecklenburg               625,675             384,353            241,322     38.6%
                     Total                     889,096             540,073            349,023     39.3%

  The extension of the Southeastern Passenger Rail services from Pembroke to Charlotte will
  offer transportation to an additional population of over 1 million. The ten-mile radial
  buffer indicates that a population of 889,096, of which 39.3% is designated as minority, will
  have access to the rail


                                                                 39
40
                      PREPARED BY:

               FAYETTEVILLE AREA
       METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

              Mark Nottingham Principal Planner

                     In cooperation with

                    Donald Belk BRAC RTF
                  Maurizia Chapman FAMPO
                   Richard Heicksen FAMPO
  Gayle Nelson Fayetteville-Cumberland Chamber of Commerce
                       Luz Ross Citizen
Mark Regensburger Fayetteville-Cumberland Chamber of Commerce
        Donald Stewart Rail Advisory Council (NCDOT)




  THIS PROJECT WAS PARTIALLY FUNDED BY GRANTS
                      FROM
      THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
                       AND
       THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION




                             41
     FAMPO
Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization




               Historic Courthouse
               130 Gillespie Street
              Fayetteville, NC 28301
            fampo@co.cumberland.nc.us
             Telephone: (910) 678-7614
                Fax: (910) 678-7638
                  www.fampo.org




                        42

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:4/29/2013
language:Unknown
pages:46
tao peng tao peng fuzhou http://
About 1234567