Modern Transportation for the Virginias

Public Hears State Rail Plan

From VARP’s On Track newsletter, autumn 2008

By VARP President Michael Testerman

In July the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation presented its new Draft State Rail Plan at public hearings around the commonwealth: in Weyers Cave (at Blue Ridge Community College), Salem, Fairfax, and Chesapeake.

The Draft State Rail Plan purports to advance doable projects that serve as prelude to more substantive rail development in the years to come.

The commonwealth’s rail needs were allocated principally by corridors associated with highways: I-81, 35%; I-95 and I-64, 47%; Route 460, 10%; I-66, 5%; and ports, 3%.

It also identified specific rail needs by cost: the National Gateway (CSX), $48 million; the Crescent Corridor (NS), $1.6 billion; the Heartland Corridor (NS); $66.01 million; the Coal Corridor (NS), $12.1 million; the Port of Virginia, $178.9 million; and shortline railroads, $68 million (several shortlines are subsidiaries of, or lease tracks owned by, NS and CSX).

Each rail project has public benefits enumerated in terms of removed highway vehicles, gallons of fuel saved, and CO2 emissions reduced. For example, the $1.6 billion Crescent Corridor investment is estimated to remove 1.6 million trucks from I-81 by 2035, saving 227 million gallons of fuel and avoiding 674,000 tons of CO² emissions.

Phase 1 of the Heartland corridor, for $66.01 million, would double rail freight capacity in the US 460 corridor, remove 150,000 trucks annually, and cut 1.5 days of freight travel time between Norfolk and Chicago; it could support expanded passenger rail service between Washington, DC, and Bristol.

However, these funding amounts for itemized needs do not include money for purchasing rail passenger equipment or operating expenses. Projects, such as they are, involve infrastructure investments that immediately serve the freight operators and might benefit passenger trains that happen to use the same tracks; most notably Virginia Railway Express in Northern Virginia and Amtrak trains on the US-29 and I-95 and I-64 east corridors.

Several Rail Advisory Board members commented that the State Rail Plan remains a mostly project-driven document, rather than being strategic and responsive to changes in energy prices and public demands for more mobility choices.

Here are summaries of some of the hearings:

Weyers Cave, July 23

“Is ‘Iron Hot’ for Rail?” asked the Harrisonburg Daily News Record the next day. “Frank Nolen said the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation should take advantage of high gas prices. With people paying upward of $4 a gallon, it would be easy to drum up support for the department’s Statewide Rail Plan, said Nolen, president of the Shenandoah Valley Railroad, a short-line route that runs from Verona to Pleasant Valley, south of Harrisonburg. ‘I urge you to strike now while the iron is hot,’ he said … Nolen was among about 20 people gathered at Blue Ridge Community College” in response to “the first draft of the department’s nearly $5 billion plan … All who spoke at the meeting applauded the department’s efforts but raised concerns with certain aspects of the plan, especially funding.… The plan does outline some funding options, such as grants and public-private partnerships, to cut costs. One of the funding possibilities is to have ‘local jurisdictions’—such as cities and towns—help cover the cost of stations and tracks in their areas. That idea didn’t sit well with some participants in Wednesday’s meeting. It could be especially straining to small towns operating on limited budgets, said Meredith Richards, chairwoman of the Piedmont Rail Coalition …” She challenged Virginia Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer’s pronouncement that individual communities should jointly contribute the operating funds for the proposed additional Amtrak trains in Virginia. “The Interstate Highway System would be in bad shape if the federal government required local governments to cover the cost of their sections, Richards said.”

The Piedmont Rail Coalition was pleased, Richards said in her testimony, that Lynchburg-Washington was included in the plan as Phase I of the TransDominion Express and that capital improvements on the Norfolk Southern line from Lynchburg to Manassas are scheduled for 2010 in the Six Year Program, along with upgrades from Manassas to Alexandria. The coalition was also pleased to see Roanoke slated to receive passenger service in the plan.

“Ridership on the Piedmont corridor is estimated to increase to between 71,800 and 90,000 by 2030,” Richards said. “But without added frequencies or more seating capacity, the potential for Amtrak’s Crescent or Cardinal to grow in ridership is simply not there.” The trains are sold out weeks in advance and Virginia riders find it difficult to book reservations. The coalition was also concerned that the “plan is mute with respect to rail service for Danville.”

She offered suggestions for the Action and Funding Plan: “Break out the $206 million TDX capital costs into the separate phases of the plan, so that readers see the dollars required for each phase, in addition to the total” and similarly break down ridership projections by phases; also “make it clear that the track improvements for Phase I are already programmed for REF funding in the approved Six Year TIP.”

Here are excerpts from my comments on behalf of VARP: “Although the plan does not say much about passenger rail service in this part of the state, the subject is very much on local people’s minds. Both chambers of congress have recently passed bills that favorably authorize Amtrak’s operations and growth. The National Association of Railroad Passengers is conducting a multi-state campaign along the route of Amtrak’s Cardinal, seeking daily service and reliable performance. Concurrently, the Virginia Association of Railway Patrons has been very successful in our fundraising efforts to help support this campaign.… While the State Rail Plan discusses passenger rail, all available Rail Action Plan funds—such as they are—will go toward infrastructure improvements that benefit the profitable freight railroads, whether or not passenger trains use the tracks. We no longer have staff at the Department of Rail and Public Transportation specifically tasked with developing a rail passenger program or serving as a conduit for planning assistance with local governments, chambers of commerce and institutions of higher learning. How can citizens get Virginia’s rail planning process to reflect our priorities; from improving an existing passenger train, to providing a rail network that can carry significantly more people and goods, no matter the price or availability of imported oil, or its asphalt derivative?”

Salem, July 24

Every chair in the conference room at the Salem Civic Center was occupied during the public meeting. It took hours to hear everyone’s comments. “About 100 people and almost 40 speakers virtually unanimously endorsed rail solutions to Roanoke (and Bristol’s) empty passenger stations,” wrote Rail Solution Chairman, Rees Shearer. “Many speakers [including Roanoke Mayor Bowers] also endorsed a robust plan for expanding freight rail.” The Roanoke Times had printed an editorial favoring expanded rail service, and it had run a front-page story about the hearing. “The Bristol Herald Courier has been equally supportive,” noted Rees. “Virginia residents and state leaders must decide if the environmental protections and fuel savings are worth the investment,” said the paper in a July 17 editorial. “We believe the answer is ‘yes.’”

Here are excerpts from my comments on the Draft Statewide Rail Plan, presented on behalf of Rail Solution, a grassroots coalition of groups, local officials and citizens, who are promoting a substantial shift of transportation responsibility from highways to the rail mode in the Interstate-81 corridor spanning Pennsylvania to Tennessee: Department of Rail and Public Transportation Director Tucker has acknowledged “that intermodal freight is the means to divert trucks onto rails” and “that improving track speeds across corridors enables intermodal trains to attract more trucks off roads and these same speed and fluidity improvements for intermodal trains also benefit passenger trains.” Rail Solution agrees that the “Draft Statewide Rail Plan has been freight-project driven, despite a corridors approach. Even the infrastructure improvements for passenger operations disproportionately benefit the freight operators. One railroad in particular stands to receive the bulk of the Rail Action Plan investments.… Public investment in privately owned railroads is appropriate to obtain publicly beneficial services and capacity that the private sector’s business model does not financially justify.… Any state rail plan should be crafted to [complement] those of neighboring states, so rail corridors can be uniformly improved” and to complement “a national rail development program,” which “should be crafted to achieve a major shift in transportation responsibilities from highways to intermodal and intercity passenger trains.… Virginia has four major rail corridors where public improvements exceed the justifications for private investment:

1. The Urban Crescent Corridor, paralleling I-95 through Virginia, with eastern branches from Richmond and Petersburg to Newport News and Norfolk, respectively. Amtrak president Alex Kummant is eager to add our Urban Crescent corridor to the Boston-to-Washington, D.C. Northeast Corridor, including electrification. CSX also has identified most of this Virginia segment as part of its I-95 Corridors of the Future rail initiative.
2. The Piedmont Corridor from Alexandria to Danville, which parallels US-29 and continues out of state to Atlanta, paralleling I-40 and I-85. Amtrak is ready to add a state-sponsored train on the segment between Lynchburg and Alexandria (DC).… the public is clamoring for this new train.
3. The Heartland Corridor, specifically that Virginia portion which parallels US-460 between Blacksburg and Norfolk, and which overlaps the Urban Crescent leg between Petersburg and Norfolk. Blacksburg is specifically mentioned because any 21st century multi-modal system should enable students and sports fans to reach major campuses if the built-out highway system allows them to do so now.
4. The I-81 Corridor rail line in Virginia, with uniform, high-performance engineering extending outside Virginia to Knoxville, Tennessee and to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“… the best way to assure the public that they are receiving tangible benefits from their investments will be to precondition the capital expenditures of the state’s Rail Action Plan on the provision of a new, or additional, round-trip passenger train frequency over tracks that receive public funding. Funding for providing these passenger services needs to be guaranteed by the time the Rail Action Plan funds go to contract.”

Fairfax, July 29

The board room of the Fairfax County Government Complex is huge; it made the audience of about 25 seem insignificant. The half-circle stage was far removed from the public seating, further distancing citizens from their public servants.

“The crucial issue under this plan is where Virginia’s public investment should be made,” said Lois Walker, former Alexandria council member and past president of Virginians for High Speed Rail. “The freight industry is for profit. It can afford to make the infrastructure investment needed to improve freight rail.” Passenger rail “is the area that requires the greatest public investment.… I urge this board to support a proposal to amend the Rail Enhancement Fund, so that it can be used to pay for additional Amtrak service and to allow the ticket revenue to satisfy the Rail Enhancement Fund’s mandatory match requirement.”

VARP secretary Dick Peacock described the throngs of new rail and transit users as the modern equivalent of the 1960s Freedom Riders. By using mass transit where it is available, we’re freeing the U.S. of foreign oil dependency, he said.

Former VARP board member Walter Loftin pointedly asked DRPT where Virginia ranks among states who have, but do not fund any, Amtrak service. Matt Tucker said there are about 14 states who do not support any of the Amtrak service they receive. Loftin challenged the Commonwealth to create better channels for communicating with, and receiving broad input from, the public into the whole rail planning process. He said Virginians pay some of the highest Amtrak fares per passenger-mile. The state should find ways to increase rider usage, from lowering Amtrak fares to using VRE equipment for special excursions to the State Fair and Washington Mall events.

Stewart Schwartz spoke on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. One of his themes was to reorder land-use policies before we extend commuter rail services, so we’re not just using this form of public transportation to encourage more sprawl. Schwartz said the total identified needs for rail across Virginia equaled the cost of a 20-mile Interstate improvement project in Northern Virginia. We can no longer afford to continue highway expansions, he said. “Rail and transit can buy more carrying capacity.” He also expressed concerns of the Virginia Transit Association: “Intercity passenger rail operating costs [should] be paid fully by the state (no local share), just as the state pays for interstate roads.… The Mass transit fund is already insufficient for transit service much less adding intercity passenger rail. Northern Virginia and Cities that already bear a heavy local share of transit funding should not have to pay a share of passenger rail as well. No other state requires local funding for intercity passenger rail.”

VARP member Ed Tenneyson said that from his experience in managing transit programs in Pennsylvania, Virginia should be more assertive in securing better on-time performance for VRE and Amtrak services. Tennyson also reinforced my testimony that electrifying our core rail network is economically feasible and will allow us to utilize the full technological advantages of the rail mode.

Here are excerpts from my remarks on behalf of VARP: “How does the Draft State Rail Plan respond to … emerging mobility challenges? Our measures of highway usage are huge, compared to what our rail system is handling now, and will in the near future, according to this plan.… We’re growing rail use but not in ways that are discernable to everyday citizens.… How can we make rail relevant to all the would-be users who don’t ship coal or long-distance containers? How can we make rail relevant to commuters, college students, business people and tourists—all of whom are flocking to passenger trains, where they exist, and who are clamoring for more service, where there is none or little—which characterizes most of Virginia? Most of this Draft State Rail Plan serves the standard business models of the private freight railroads and saves them a few dollars of their own investment that they can spend in other states.” Even without true high-speed rail, simply high-performance rail “can move 7,000 diverted trucks and over 8,000 passengers per day in every 500-mile” city-pair market. “That’s about 200 open-technology intermodal trains and 40 intercity passenger trains—all traveling between 70 MPH and 110 MPH on electrified, grade-separated [rights-of-way]. Don’t say it can’t be done because the Swiss are building such a system now.”

Chesapeake, July 30

The meeting in the board room of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission was attended by 12 citizens and 11 officials and staff. About five persons made public comments. The whole event was over in 50 minutes.

The spokesperson for Newport News said that the city was prepared to partner with the state to develop a new passenger station closer to the business district. Newport News wants to retain direct Amtrak service on the Peninsula.

Hampton Roads Transit Public Affairs Manager Tom Holden emphasized the concern of the Virginia Transit Association that the Transit Fund must not be used to subsidize new intercity passenger trains. Intercity passenger trains, he said, are a state and federal responsibility, just as the Interstate highways are.

Barry Bishop, speaking for the Greater Norfolk Corporation, along with private citizen Mark Perreault, both took DRPT to task for making no mention of direct passenger rail service to Norfolk in the plan. Several speakers have pointed out that there’s no correlation between passenger train frequencies and the projected doubling of population in Virginia’s Urban Crescent over the period covered by the State Rail Plan. Director Tucker said passenger rail service to South Hampton Roads would be addressed in the Rail Action Plan.

Here are excerpts from my remarks on behalf of VARP: “If there is one underlying theme among citizens at these hearings, it is that they want additional and improved intercity passenger rail services. Very few comments have pertained to the specific projects that DRPT has identified. The most frequently expressed concern is that the forthcoming Rail Action Plan will direct public money to infrastructure improvements that the private Class 1 railroads are perfectly capable of paying for, while passenger rail development remains uncertain and unfunded. Rail advocacy organizations continue to emphasize that Virginia must think strategically and plan for rail development that will supplant major road projects and fully capture all of the efficiencies that the rail mode is technologically capable of … Ideally the rail mode must be mainstreamed into transportation programs with reordered public planning and infrastructure-funding policies.… The types of publicly funded rail improvements DRPT identifies for [the Hampton Roads] region will mostly benefit conventional double-stack intermodal trains—‘land barges’—destined for long distance markets.… most Port of Virginia containers are destined for Eastern markets under 500 miles [away]. Our planned public rail investments are thus subsidizing a lucrative rail niche market, while upwards of 70% of the remaining container traffic will hit the highway system for shorter trips. The Commonwealth’s strategic planning should identify rail upgrades beyond the business models of the freight railroads and finance high-performance infrastructure that is mutually compatible for both passenger and open-technology intermodal trains serving nearby East Coast markets.… Both sides of Hampton Roads should be served by market-focused passenger trains; both regional and intercity.… State sponsored rail improvements on the Eastern Shore can encourage a big chunk of container traffic to avoid the road system altogether from port to market.”

The Department of Rail and Public Transportation had planned to publish funding recommendations for the rail projects at the end of September, but it announced on October 1 that release of the Statewide Rail Resource Allocation Plan would be delayed to allow time to incorporate the changing economic outlook.