Over or Under? SCDOT Considers Options in Major Railroad Project

by Skylar Laird, SC Daily Gazette
December 12, 2024

COLUMBIA — A solution to railroad-caused congestion in Columbia is inching closer to reality, with about as much speed as the long lines of train cars that drivers often find themselves waiting behind.

For decades, officials have talked about separating Assembly Street — a major thoroughfare in downtown Columbia — from the railroads that cross it as a solution to recurring traffic headaches and potential tragedies.

With roughly a quarter of the funding approved and designs narrowed down to three options, city and state officials say the project is finally gathering steam.

Trains for CSX and Norfolk Southern Railway traveling on tracks near the State Fairgrounds and the University of South Carolina’s football stadium can cause long delays near two of the city’s major tourist hubs. That’s not to mention the day-to-day holdups for people who live and work in those areas, officials said.

“Every day, we hear folks say, ‘When are we going to take care of those railroads?’” Clint Shealy, assistant city manager for Columbia, said during a Wednesday evening public information session.

Funding

Fixing the problem, which officials have discussed since the 1970s, will be a major undertaking.

Current estimates put construction costs somewhere between $275 million and $300 million, depending on which design option officials choose and when construction officially begins.

So far, the Department of Transportation has $50 million of that. Richland County voters promised another $25 million when they approved last month’s ballot referendum extending a penny sales tax.

Federal grants could make up the rest, Shealy said.

In denying previous requests for federal grants, officials said the city and state needed to pony up more money first. The money raised through a penny-on-the-dollar local sales tax should fill enough of that gap to start winning federal money, Shealy said.

“Things are falling right into place, funding-wise,” Shealy said.

Once the money is in place, the project can officially get underway. Any timeline as to when drivers can expect to no longer spend their days stuck behind trains will depend on when and if those grants actually come through.

In the meantime, the local and state partners are moving forward on selecting a design so that environmental assessments can begin — another prerequisite for federal funding, Shealy said.

The options

Right now, the big question is whether Assembly Street should go over or under the railroads.

One option involves lowering Assembly Street by about 18 feet and building a bridge over the top for trains.

That would likely be the most cost-efficient but most disruptive option, according to an analysis the state Department of Transportation presented during the Wednesday evening public comment event.

The department has two slightly different versions of that plan. The biggest difference is a slight variation in the path of the railroads tracks. Either way, a handful of homes and more than a dozen nearby businesses might have to relocate, based on the consulting firm’s preliminary findings.

The goal is to minimize the impact as much as possible. But with a project this big, it’s likely some buildings will have to go, officials said.

The other possibility is to have Assembly Street go over the railway. That would be more expensive but potentially less disruptive to the surrounding area, since most of the rail lines would stay in place.

Railroad crossings on Whaley Street and Rosewood Drive, one of the pinch points across from the Fairgrounds, would also remain untouched under that proposal.

The Department of Transportation is gathering public comments on the proposals to decide which option it will use moving forward. Anyone wanting to give their input can submit a comment form on the project’s website until Jan. 11.

Public officials expect to announce the final plan at another public meeting this spring, marking the next milestone in the project.

Public comment

Jane Chesnutt, a 61-year-old contractor, was among about 50 people who attended Wednesday’s session. She knows firsthand the project’s needed, she said.

Living near the university, she often gets stuck behind trains on Whaley or Huger streets, she said. While she hadn’t decided which option she preferred, something must be done, she said.

“This would solve a lot of problems,” Chesnutt said.

One advantage of lifting Assembly Street would be that Lincoln and Catawba streets could remain open, said some of the meeting’s attendees.

Closing the two streets would change the character of the area, said Vi Hendley, a member of the Mill District Alliance. Otherwise, the group overseeing three historic Columbia neighborhoods prefers the two latest proposals to those presented previously, she said.

“We’re generally very pleased, short the closure of Lincoln and Catawba streets,” Henley said.

Lincoln Street in particular is a popular pedestrian path for college students, said Regan Freeman, a member of the Cola Town Bike Collective. Losing that route would force students onto busier roads, increasing the potential for traffic accidents on an already dangerous road, he said.

“The rest of this is cool as hell, but you can’t close Lincoln,” Freeman told contractors.

On the bright side, he said, all three plans for the road include adding sidewalks to an area where people walking to bus stops and college students headed to Williams-Brice Stadium currently have to traverse the side of the road.

The Mill District Alliance has been involved in the project for years, offering opinions first on more than 20 different proposals the department presented in 2018, then on the nine options in 2020. Weighing the three possibilities Wednesday, Hendley was excited to see any forward movement on the project, she said.

“There is an end to this tunnel,” Hendley said.

SC Daily Gazette is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. SC Daily Gazette maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seanna Adcox for questions: [email protected].