Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

Arlington wrote:I'm also back to totally not buying that it should take 6 years to get to ROA. Admittedly, NFK was mulled starting in 2004 (http://www.rich2hrrail.info/pages/mp_Press.html), but once they got serious, NFK took almost exactly 3 years (6 days under 3, actually) from Draft EIS to launch of service (http://www.rich2hrrail.info/pages/po_schedule.html). How long does a draft EIS take? Should take 1 year for 60 miles on existing ROW (and the alterntives-analysis is simple: nothing, 2nd LYH siding with more bus, or ROA with 1 or 2 sidings). So whole thing 4 years.

Something is wrong politically if it takes an extra 2 years beyond that. I'm thinking VA likes having LYH as a piggy bank from which it can shower favors on more-populous and swing-voting areas. This is where Amtrak should find a way to grab its own fat market out from under VA by building its own siding in LYH.

No one is arguing that it would take 6 years to get to Roanoke if money was not a constraint. In fact, the timeline that you suggest is pretty close to the timeline that ThirdRail7 suggested, except that you left out the "find money" years. If the Commonwealth wants service to Roanoke before 2018, it just has to find the money. Since it has shown no inclination to do so, many of us agree with the projections of 2018 (plus or minus a year) based on the backlog of obligated funds for the Rail Enhancement Fund.

As for Amtrak adding a second frequency on its own initiative to capture the "profit" from the Lynchburg route, that's not going to happen. Even leaving aside the fact that the reported surplus for the LYH route doesn't include the capital charge for equipment (yet, it is coming soon), the amount of the surplus is trivial compared to the capital investments that NS is going to demand for additional frequencies.

mkellerm wrote: Even leaving aside the fact that the reported surplus for the LYH route doesn't include the capital charge for equipment (yet, it is coming soon), the amount of the surplus is trivial compared to the capital investments that NS is going to demand for additional frequencies.

I'm pretty sure that because Virginia came late to the state-train biz, it got a more "free market" deal, where LYH's captial costs are already baked in, in the form of Virginia's past contribution of rolling stock (in other words, when LYH gets "charged" for its equipment, Virginia will, at the same time, get "paid" for its equipment). PRIIA, if anything, is going to make the older, bigger-loser routes in other states appear even less-deserving of the rolling stock they never paid for and therefore, will tend to incentivize sending more rolling stock to markets where it can produce a return (eg.LYH).

What kind of price tag is NS going to demand?

Reading through some news articles related to the Amtrak Lynchburg Regional I found an article that had the full quote from the VA DRPT. The statements made are even stronger than the initial impressions we got from the coverage on December 3.

Monday afternoon, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation released a statement from Director Thelma Drake.

"A capacity study will begin in 2013 that will further refine the needed improvements necessary to bring passenger rail from Lynchburg to Roanoke. Rail capital improvements to extend passenger rail to Roanoke are included in the out years of the six year improvement plan and no placeholder has been established yet for operational costs. Because of a change in federal law effective October 1, 2013, Virginia will be responsible for funding six Amtrak Regional trains, four Amtrak regional trains funded today by Amtrak and the two Amtrak trains funded today by Virginia. Much work remains to be done and progress is definitely being made, but there are too many unknowns at this time to project a service start date."

I read the above as, "We've got money set aside in our plans to make the required improvements but we aren't going to commit to operations until we know what the PRIIA funding formula is going to do to our budget. That concern aside we're going to Roanoke."

A plug from VA State Sen John Edwards (D-Roanoke)
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2013/jan/07/s ... r-2452833/
http://www.johnedwardsva.com/john_edwar ... enger_rail

I don't think that this was mentioned elsewhere, but Gov. McDonnell came out explicitly in favor of rail service to Roanoke as part of his big transportation funding proposal. Two relevant quotes from the linked fact sheet:

 In addition, Virginia’s passenger rail and transit funding needs are also growing.
o Beginning October 1, 2013, Virginia must assume all capital, maintenance and operations costs associated with Amtrak regional intercity passenger rail service pursuant to Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.
o In 2011, the General Assembly passed, and Governor McDonnell signed into law, legislation creating the Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund; however, no dedicated revenues were provided. Without dedicated revenues for intercity passenger rail, Virginia will need to divert revenues from other critical areas of need or shut down current passenger rail services.
o Additionally, transit ridership is up nine percent over the past three years, and new services such as the Norfolk Tide, the Lynchburg-Roanoke Amtrak Bus Bridge, and the expansion of VRE into Spotsylvania are increasing Virginia’s transit funding needs.

To help provide additional funding to passenger rail and transit, Governor McDonnell’s plan will increase the annual registration fee on motor vehicles by $15.

Half of the funds will be dedicated to supporting and expanding intercity passenger rail in Virginia. This includes providing service to Roanoke in Southwest Virginia.

If this were approved, it would generate approximately $55 million dollars a year for intercity operations and capital. That is a ton of money for state-supported service - probably more than all other states except California and Illinois - and given the impressive financial performance of the Virginia routes could go a long way. I believe that this would be in addition to the Rail Enhancement Fund revenues, which are shared with freight rail projects.

Will this actually happen? Who knows, the main element of the proposal (eliminating the gas tax and increasing the general sales tax but not applying it to gasoline) is absolutely crazy from my perspective and might be enough to sink the whole thing. That being said, it is remarkable to see a conservative state governor proposing a dedicated funding source for intercity rail

mkellerm wrote:I don't think that this was mentioned elsewhere, but Gov. McDonnell came out explicitly in favor of rail service to Roanoke as part of his big transportation funding proposal.

Nice catch!

mkellerm wrote:Will this actually happen? Who knows, the main element of the proposal (eliminating the gas tax and increasing the general sales tax but not applying it to gasoline) is absolutely crazy from my perspective and might be enough to sink the whole thing. That being said, it is remarkable to see a conservative state governor proposing a dedicated funding source for intercity rail

It could very well be a popular enough proposal that it will indeed happen.

Regardless, $55 million/year in funding is a lot of money for trains that don't cost the State of Virginia anything to operate! Since this fund is being setup to fund both capital and operational expenses I would expect to see a pretty aggressive rail construction program to get funded if this change is approved. There are some obvious options, like the extension to Roanoke and additional capacity improvements on the former RF&P. Others, such as continued capacity improvements over the Buckingham Branch also will likely be an area of focus.

gokeefe wrote:Regardless, $55 million/year in funding is a lot of money for trains that don't cost the State of Virginia anything to operate! Since this fund is being setup to fund both capital and operational expenses I would expect to see a pretty aggressive rail construction program to get funded if this change is approved. There are some obvious options, like the extension to Roanoke and additional capacity improvements on the former RF&P. Others, such as continued capacity improvements over the Buckingham Branch also will likely be an area of focus.

Well, even assuming that Virginia service will turn a small surplus once its PRIIA rolling-stock-replacment-costs get loaded on to all routes (and so not need capital help for lease costs), I could eat up the first 9 years of $55m/year on just two projects:
$350m to upgrade NFK service to 90mph (EIS says $475m, but I'm assuming they did the first $150m to launch service)
$150m to extend LYH to ROA

Arlington wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Regardless, $55 million/year in funding is a lot of money for trains that don't cost the State of Virginia anything to operate! Since this fund is being setup to fund both capital and operational expenses I would expect to see a pretty aggressive rail construction program to get funded if this change is approved. There are some obvious options, like the extension to Roanoke and additional capacity improvements on the former RF&P. Others, such as continued capacity improvements over the Buckingham Branch also will likely be an area of focus.

Well, even assuming that Virginia service will turn a small surplus once its PRIIA rolling-stock-replacment-costs get loaded on to all routes (and so not need capital help for lease costs), I could eat up the first 9 years of $55m/year on just two projects:
$350m to upgrade NFK service to 90mph (EIS says $475m, but I'm assuming they did the first $150m to launch service)
$150m to extend LYH to ROA

And maybe that's exactly what VA intends. Not a bad deal considering they are looking at extra frequencies for NFK anyways.

gokeefe wrote: It could very well be a popular enough proposal that it will indeed happen.

Regardless, $55 million/year in funding is a lot of money for trains that don't cost the State of Virginia anything to operate! Since this fund is being setup to fund both capital and operational expenses I would expect to see a pretty aggressive rail construction program to get funded if this change is approved. There are some obvious options, like the extension to Roanoke and additional capacity improvements on the former RF&P. Others, such as continued capacity improvements over the Buckingham Branch also will likely be an area of focus.

There appears to be fairly good support for the VA Amtrak trains among many of the Republicans including Gov. McDonnell. I don't think this applies to VA Attorney General Cuccinelli, whose is a favorite of the social conservatives and the hard core Tea Party types, who is going to be the Republican candidate for Governor in the fall 2013 elections. If he gets elected, he could try to cut VA funding for Amtrak expansion. Cuccinelli went out of his way to attack the DC Metro Silver Line extension to Dulles Airport as a waste of money last year.

Do not assume that the VA Regionals will not cost anything to operate. The Norfolk train may have higher operating costs and not break even. Regardless of whether the trains break even, funds to cover potential losses have to be in an account and VA has to pay the Capital equipment charge. That said, if there is $55 million per year provided in addition to the rail funding that VDRPT already gets every year, that would make for a large enough steady annual funding stream to tackle a number of incremental upgrade projects for extension to Roanoke and for 3 daily trains to Norfolk.

Not only will Cuccinelli try to cut Amtrak expansion in VA, he will even attempt to
cut existing services, if there is any state funding involved. The Washington
Post ran an editorial last week that even the additional funding proposed by the
current Governor is inadequate to address Virginia's transportation needs. Any
prospects that Cuccinelli will address those needs are slim to none.

Dick H wrote:Not only will Cuccinelli try to cut Amtrak expansion in VA, he will even attempt to
cut existing services, if there is any state funding involved. The Washington
Post ran an editorial last week that even the additional funding proposed by the
current Governor is inadequate to address Virginia's transportation needs. Any
prospects that Cuccinelli will address those needs are slim to none.

While I realize it's difficult to keep politics completely out of railroad discussions, can't we at least wait until the politician under discussion wins the primary and has a chance to actually win the election?
I would have posted a similar question about a mayoral candidate for Hawaii last fall, but I didn't because it was after the primary. He eventually lost the election, but one would have thought Honolulu Rail was breathing its last breaths with all the doomsday predictions and discussions here last fall.
The next election cycle is two years away, don't you think you all are politicalizing and fearmongaling a potential candidate much too early? Has he even thrown his hat into the ring (campaign) yet?

Dick H wrote:Not only will Cuccinelli try to cut Amtrak expansion in VA, he will even attempt to
cut existing services, if there is any state funding involved. The Washington
Post ran an editorial last week that even the additional funding proposed by the
current Governor is inadequate to address Virginia's transportation needs. Any
prospects that Cuccinelli will address those needs are slim to none.

He may try, but I believe he will fail and perhaps nearly instantaneously..."dead on arrival Sir..". Intercity passenger rail service in Virginia has had a transformative moment and become a non-partisan issue. When the folks at Liberty University are offering to build a train station that should tell you something about the state of affairs in VA.

electricron wrote: While I realize it's difficult to keep politics completely out of railroad discussions, can't we at least wait until the politician under discussion wins the primary and has a chance to actually win the election?
I would have posted a similar question about a mayoral candidate for Hawaii last fall, but I didn't because it was after the primary. He eventually lost the election, but one would have thought Honolulu Rail was breathing its last breaths with all the doomsday predictions and discussions here last fall.
The next election cycle is two years away, don't you think you all are politicalizing and fearmongaling a potential candidate much too early? Has he even thrown his hat into the ring (campaign) yet?

Yes, we don't want to venture much into Virginia politics, except to note that the presumptive Republican candidate for Governor could be against spending state funds on passenger rail. However, Virginia has its state elections in odd numbered years and the election for Governor and all the state House seats will take place this November. Virginia will have a new Governor a year from now. Virginia Governors are limited to 1 term, so McDonnell can't run for re-election. If the transportation funding issues are dealt with (well, to some extent) in the 2013 legislative session and a directed tax revenue stream in put into place specified to be spent for state rail projects, that will provide a large degree of protection from interference by the next Governor, unless he can get the legislature to change the allocation.

I need to look at the VDRPT 6 year budget plan. I think they are currently getting $50 to $60 million a year in state funds to spend on passenger rail, VRE, shortline rail (Buckingham Branch) projects.

afiggatt wrote:I need to look at the VDRPT 6 year budget plan. I think they are currently getting $50 to $60 million a year in state funds to spend on passenger rail, VRE, shortline rail (Buckingham Branch) projects.

What is planned for the Buckingham Branch? Both afiggatt and gokeefe have mentioned it recently. But trying to research it, It got exactly one line of text in the Amtrak 2010 NEC Infrastructure Master Plan. (which reads "Buckingham Branch Railraod - Passing Sidings and SIgnals" as a Capacity/Congestion project) and then one "call out" in a map [edit]the part, in green, between Richmond and Charlottesville[/edit]



MY QUESTION
Why is the Buckingham Branch in the NEC plan at all? Looks too "East-West" to add much to a North-South system. What has it got that NS hasn't got, except the *added* hassles of dealing with CSX to tie into the NEC? Is the idea that NEC trains would come south of DC on the CSX's RF&P and then cross to CVS as a "better" way of getting to CVS and LYH (and ROA)? Why would that be a better NEC train that going through Burke and MSS? Ok, you'd kinda/sorta pickup the VaTech and UVa kids getting home to the Fredericksburg/Lorton area, but is that worth it? Or is the idea to go WAS-CVS-RVR?

Has the need for Buckingham been overtaken by LYH's success via CVS? I'd think that Richmond would be sorry to lose any frequency that got diverted from it to serve CVS this way.

Off topic (unless its a way of helping "pay" for a combined project) the Buckingham Branch would also be a better routing for the proposed (by foamers) TransDominionExpress. The TDX proposal, in going via Appomattox, misses the chance to offer CVS-RVR service and to densify ROA-LYH-CVS. Here is the [url=http://www.tdxinfo.org/proposed-route-map/]The TDX Site Route Map[/img]. I'm thinking anyone taking the train from ROA (or beyond) to Richmond (RVR or RSM?) is not in such a big hurry that they'd need to rush there via Appomattox rather than going via the big CVS market.

THE TDX PROPOSAL

You're looking at the wrong part of the BBRR. The currently planned improvements are for the Cardinal route between C'ville and Clifton Forge. While the TransDominion proposal did (I think) envision service between C'ville and Richmond, that is but a glimmer in the eye right now.