High-Speed Rail to Hampton Roads

If you reside, do business, or serve in the military in Hampton Roads, you have a special interest in the outcome of the planning for passenger rail service to our region. Rail involves major infrastructure decisions that will impact our economy for the next fifty years and beyond. Your views can influence the decision, and how to make your views known is explained below. In the meantime, Future of Hampton Roads believes there are critical issues that need clarification and emphasis if our region is to have the quality of high-speed rail system to which it is entitled.

First of all, some definitions
What is the nation’s passenger high-speed rail plan?
Should Hampton Roads be in the national high-speed rail plan?
How should Hampton Roads respond to the state’s rail plan for our region?
Important remaining issues
What citizens and companies can do
Want More Information?

First of all, some definitions

● HSR: High-Speed Rail. There are four design levels for passenger rail – Express HSR: 150+ mph; Regional HSR: 110-1150 mph; Emerging HSR: up to 90 or 110 mph; and Conventional Rail: up to79 mph and as high as 90 mph. Speeds are used only as a short-hand way of identifying the design levels. The design levels have everything to do with reliability, safety, the level of de-confliction between freight and passenger trains, quality of maintenance, and quality of service. The higher the design level, the better are these attributes. To be eligible for federal HSR funds, a system must be designed to reach at least 110 mph.

● Note: “High-speed rail” is not “light rail.”

● STAA: Surface Transportation Authorization Act, the funding reauthorization bill now being drafted. Congress is expected to include ongoing funding of $8.3 billion yearly for HSR, with 80% matching grants, but only for HSR systems that are “reasonably expected to reach 110 mph.”

● EIS: Environmental Impact Statement, the document used to evaluate alternative routes, design levels and speeds.

● VDRPT: Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, which prepares EISs.

● FRA: Federal Railway Administration, which issues draft EISs for comment and approves plans.

● ROD: Record of Decision, issued by FRA to approve a rail route and related engineering plans.

● SEHSR: The Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, running from Washington DC to Atlanta.

● R2HR: Rail to Hampton Roads, VDRPT’s passenger rail EIS for Hampton Roads.

What is the nation’s passenger high-speed rail plan?

In early 2009 the Obama Administration announced $8 billion in federal stimulus funds for planning and construction of ten HSR corridors in the United States, including the SEHSR. All the states promptly dusted off their plans and prepared funding applications to FRA. Hampton Roads then discovered that Virginia authorities, which had included our region in the SEHSR plan in 1996, later quietly dropped us out, and this was done without holding any of the 18 hearings on the SEHSR in our region. Thus the SEHSR as described in FRA’s final ROD in 2004 did not include Hampton Roads, making us arguably the most important major metro area not included on one of the main lines in the U.S. national HSR plan.

Should Hampton Roads be in the national high-speed rail plan?

Absolutely! Hampton Roads is the largest metropolitan area between Washington, DC, and Atlanta—indeed, it is the most populous metro area on the coast between New York City and Miami—as well as the third busiest port in the East, Virginia’s largest tourist destination and arts capital, and, most importantly, the nation’s largest set of military installations. Our potential rail ridership is larger than any other metro area in the SEHSR corridor. Our important region deserves a first class transportation system, including the best possible high-speed rail service.

Responding to our region’s outcry, VDRPT arranged for FRA to include Hampton Roads in the national plan for the SEHSR Corridor. Since July 2009 we now appear on the map.

At the same time, VDRPT issued R2HR, its preliminary draft of a passenger rail EIS for our metro area which describes alternative routes for the fed-required “HSR Extension” from the SEHSR main line to Hampton Roads. While our region, if included in the 2004 ROD, would have been an integral part of the main line, the best we are asked to settle for at this point is two spurs off the main line, one from Richmond to Newport News, the other from Petersburg to Norfolk. But only one of these is to be designated as HSR, while the other would be conventional rail.

Subsequently, on December 18, 2009, FRA formally issued the R2HR draft EIS, making it available for public comment on the several alternative proposals for passenger high-speed rail for Hampton Roads. The public comment period ends on February 11, 2010.Thereafter, VDRPT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board will submit Virginia’s final recommendations to the FRA forfinal approval, and they will follow that with a funding application.

How should Hampton Roads respond to the state’s rail plan and to this EIS for our region?

Anticipating the issuance of the EIS, the HRTPO held its first-ever meeting on rail planning on October 30, 2009. The HRTPO Resolution passed on that date made three fundamental assertions: It acknowledged the acceptance by Peninsula authorities of an upgrade of its conventional AMTRAK system; it designated the Southside corridor as the HSR route for Hampton Roads; and it specified that the Southside HSR route must have a speed category of 110 mph or higher. The HRTPO Resolution also approved hiring a consultant to assist with preparing the region’s official response to the EIS.

The existence of an approved formal HRTPO position shared among the elected leadership of the region who serve on the HRTPO Board is particularly critical to achieving our region’s HSR goals.

In addition, if you are a citizen of Hampton Roads, you have a special interest in the outcome of this important infrastructure decision, which will impact our economy for the next fifty years and beyond. Your views can influence the decision. How to do this is explained further below. In the meantime, Future of Hampton Roads believes there are some loose ends that need clarification and emphasis if our region is to have the quality of HSR system to which it is entitled.

Important Remaining Issues

The board of directors of Future of Hampton Roads (FHR) completely supports the HRTPO resolution of October 30 calling for upgrade of the Peninsula AMTRAK and designation of the Petersburg-Norfolk route as the Hampton Roads HSR system with speeds of 110 mph or higher. However, questions remain about the details of the plan to be adopted. FHR urges that the designated HSR system for Hampton Roads should have the following six characteristics:

1.The plan for Hampton Roads HSR should clearly describe an explicit long-term outcome that meets or exceeds the 110 mph minimum required to qualify for federal HSR funding. This final design should be explicitly documented in the Final EIS (FEIS). This is needed to ensure that any interim construction projects designed for slower speeds will be compatible with the long-term plan. This requirement will ensure that scarce transportation funds are not wasted on a short-term system that would have to be rebuilt. Along the way, we do not want to spend taxpayer money twice.

2.At a minimum, the long-term plan for the Southside HSR system should specify a level of engineering, quality of service, on-time-performance and reliability equivalent to that of the SEHSR main line. As now described on the Internet, this would provide a shared rail bed for both freight and passenger rail service using diesel-electric equipment at a maximum speed of 110 mph. However, the SEHSR system is being designed to allow for higher speeds in the future as conditions change. So should the long-term plan for Hampton Roads. The HSR extension line to Hampton Roads must be compatible with, and provide equivalent service as, the main line of the SEHSR corridor.

3.Funding for construction of the Hampton Roads HSR system should be given priority over SEHSR routes south of Petersburg. This preference is justified objectively by Hampton Roads’ status as a major port, Virginia’s largest tourist destination, and the nation’s “Pentagon South,” with a ridership likely to exceed any other SEHSR metro area. Virginia should recognize the merits of and focus on funding what we are calling “the HSR Crescent” from DC through Richmond and Petersburg to Norfolk.

4.The R2HR EIS should explicitly document a federal commitment to assess options for eventual through service both north and south at junctions with the SEHSR main line at Petersburg, and the choice of connecting station in Petersburg should be made with this criterion in mind. Travelers to and from Hampton Roads should not have to change trains to access the SEHSR main line.

5.The R2HR EIS should explicitly include a federal commitment to conduct an Alternatives Analysis and Tier I EIS for potential HSR passenger service to the southwest via Weldon NC to Raleigh. Connecting at Suffolk to the Petersburg-Norfolk HSR line, this additional HSR route is needed to service the population of Northeast North Carolina who are an integral component of the Hampton Roads metro area and to reestablish more direct contact with the NC Piedmont area. As a future concept, this additional track would create a HSR loop off the SEHSR main line similar to the loop already approved for Winston-Salem in NC.

6.The data used in calculating financial estimates for the various EIS alternatives should be updated. Much of it dates from 2004, excludes defense department input, and assumes a third crossing that is not likely to be built. Revised cost, cost-benefit analyses, and ridership estimates must be used in documents submitted to federal authorities if our region is to compete effectively with other metro areas for limited federal funds.

What Citizens, Organizations and Companies Can Do

FHR encourages individuals and organizations to explicitly support all parts of the HRTPO’s Resolution of 30 October and the recommendations outlined above. However, uniform presentations will not impress, and VDRPT officials will be most interested in comments that indicate how HSR will affect businesses or individuals personally.

A large attendance is encouraged at the three public hearings on the EIS.
Bring a friend! All begin at 5:30 p.m.
January 26 in Richmond, DMV office, 2300 West Broad Street.
January 27 in Newport News, City Center Conference Facilities, James and Warwick Rooms, 700 Town Center Dr.
January 28 in Norfolk, Half Moone Cruise and Celebration Center, One Waterside Drive

The opportunity to speak will be limited, but your presence will send a message loud and clear.

Whether or not you can attend one or more of the hearings, send your written comments to the VDRPT.
Make sure your letter or email will arrive before the end of the public comment period on February 11, 2010.
Reference the “Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Draft Tier I Environmental Impact Statement.” Written inputs must be mailed or e-mailed to:

VDRPT - Attn: Public Info Office
600 E. Main St., Suite 2102
Richmond, VA 23219
Email: drptpr@drpt.virginia.gov

Although not required, as a matter of your preference, you may want to send a copy to our regional HRTPO:

HRTPO – Attn: Public Info Office
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Email: kgrauberger@hrpdcva.gov

Want More Information?

Visit the following Web sites:

• Official description of the SEHSR Corridor: www.sehsr.org/faq.html

• Official information about the EIS process: www.rich2hrrail.info

• HRTPO information and projects: www.hrtpo.org

• Text of the HRTPO Resolution 10-30-09