Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Newport News NE Regional Service

Long Bridge is a critical chokepoint. 4 track bridge will call for 4 tracks from the bridge to the Virginia avenue tunnel bores. As well 4 tracks to Alexandria will help. Then the wok south of ALX is not quite as important as the split of Amtrak CVS trains and VRE trains to Manassas reduces the number of trains on the route to Richmond. IMHO Long bridge is close to the importance of the additional bores to NYP. A new Long bridge will at least separate the bridges into 2 2 track spans.

Warning: major ignorance of DC Area rail ops approaching. Please have emergency services standing by.

Has the notion of building infrastructure that would reroute some or all CSX operations around central DC ever been considered? Does much CSX traffic actually originate/terminate in central DC?

East, you'd have to go down the NEC, down the Pope's Creek Branch, car float or horrendously expensive movable bridge, reactivate 20 miles of lines from Dahlgren to Sealston, and probably an expensive reconfig / cross-Rappahannock bypass of Dahlgren Junction.

West, you'd go out the Old Main Line or the Met to Shenendoah Junction, south to Front Royal, and east to Manassas. All the lines exist, but likely don't have the capacity.

Either way, you're dealing with multiple railroads, hurting MARC, and looking at probably half a billion or so of infrastructure improvements to have it possible. It's a good thought and an interesting idea, but a nonstarter.

No, there's not a lot of freight business on CSX in the immediate DC area, but it is a vital connection between the ex-RF&P/SAL/ACL lines and the ex-B&O lines. Lots of freight traffic flows through. In fact, CSX is spending very significant money to eliminate the bottleneck of the single-track Virginia Avenue tunnel (they're putting in another bore so that it will be double track). They anticipate a lot more freight traffic going forward. As EGE suggests, there's no real alternative for north-south CSX traffic.

Station Aficionado wrote:No, there's not a lot of freight business on CSX in the immediate DC area, but it is a vital connection between the ex-RF&P/SAL/ACL lines and the ex-B&O lines. Lots of freight traffic flows through. In fact, CSX is spending very significant money to eliminate the bottleneck of the single-track Virginia Avenue tunnel (they're putting in another bore so that it will be double track). They anticipate a lot more freight traffic going forward. As EGE suggests, there's no real alternative for north-south CSX traffic.

Unless you swing through Front Royal as EGE suggested. However, if you were doing that you might as well continue through Hagerstown and Harrisburg. This is many, miles out of the way and that line is already congested.

Like it or not, CSX is utilizing the direct route. Unfortunately, when they closed POT yard, the ensuing bottleneck that resulted in ACCA being the main classification point has spread through out the region. Bennings YArd in Anacostia still provides much of your originating/terminating traffic but those cars will still go through ACCA if the good originate from the south which is why Long Bridge is such an issue.

That being said, what happens to the NPN service if CSX degrades the line so it doesn't have to comply with the PTC regulations and Amtrak doesn't want to foot the entire bill? Does all future service go to NFK with bus connections?

Well, the commonwealth just ponied up more money for the new NPN station. I would bet that they'll pay to keep the Peninsula Sub up to passenger standards if it comes to that. As for right now, there's been a bit of an uptick in coal shipments from Appalachia. Oil prices are up and may be headed higher. Hopefully, that will keep the volume of coal trains to NPN up for a while longer.

Was just looking at the map (I know, dangerous), and I wish that the designers of the I-664 tunnel/bridge had been foresighted enough to include provisions for a rail tunnel/bridge and a rail ROW from NPN to Bowers Hill. The highway right-of-way is just sitting there, beckoning!

Anyway. This break from me throwing resumes at the wall to see what'll stick has been your daily installment of "Derailed Train of Thought."

The on-again/off-again Third Crossing proposal does include a transit tube. Or at least it did when I was involved in VDOT's 2010 statewide planning process. Though it was unspecified whether it would be heavy rail, light rail, or (most likely) bus.

Also, at the risk of devolving too far into fantasy, my ideal connection between the Peninsula and the Southside involves taking the wye south of NPN, following the branch into Hampton, then hopping into the median of I-64 where it takes over the rail ROW, crossing Hampton Roads via a new HRBT, then following NS from Wards Corner into downtown Norfolk (via a restored wye leg at the Bay Colony junction). This way the line would also be useful for hypothetical commuter trains making local stops in Hampton and near the navy base. Much more local population than going via Bowers Hill, making the line potentially useful for local service in addition to intercity.

Norfolk's "Tide" is a light rail line, which might be extended east into Virginia Beach and north towards the Navy base. While Amtrak can get access to active rail line owned by the freight railroads ( CSX on the north and NX on the south), it's not going to be easy to pry active rail lines away from them. The "Tide" uses an abandoned rail line, and both Norfolk and Virginia Beach pay more for it than what its worth. So your idea does stray too far into fantasy land. I can see a light rail line being built across Hampton Roads after established light rail lines exist on both sides, with lines that approach it.
A whole new tunnel and viaduct will be needed to add a rail line in the median of I-64 HRBT.\, which was built atop the floor of Hampton Roads. So doing it within I-64 median will be virtually impossible, because VDOT would not want to risk disturbing the existing tunnels in any way, no one wants to see them flood if breached. It'll be better and eventually cheaper to just build a separate viaduct-tunnel for light rail when the time comes to build it, or include it within the third tunnel project.

Another likely scenario that isn't going to work is actually building rail transit through the Navy base. I don't think security will allow it - with a station within the base. At best, you'll see a station at one or both major gates, and a grade separated line through the base, either elevated above or as a subway under.

I should clarify that I lived in Hampton Roads the first 18 years of my life, so I am very familiar with the area.

I never suggested prying any rail lines away from CSX and NS. Just using them. Which is perfectly feasible for Amtrak to do for a couple trains a day. CSX's spur into Hampton is rarely used anyway. It would certainly be more complicated interacting with NS traffic to NIT in Norfolk, but the line is almost entirely double-tracked, and far from the busiest line Amtrak shares with them.

None of this has anything to do with the Tide though. If any rail connection is built across Hampton Roads, it will be commuter rail and/or Amtrak (VDRPT and the Hampton Roads TPO do have plans for eventual commuter rail on both sides of the James). Light rail would be a mistake, especially if built as an extension of the Tide. The Va Beach and naval base extensions would already make the line 26 miles long, which is really long for light rail. The current 7 mile route takes 26 minutes already. Extrapolating that, the 26 mile route would take over an hour and a half to traverse. Tying it in with the proposed Peninsula light rail (or even skipping Hampton and going straight from downtown Newport News out to Oyster Point and the airport) makes the line approximately 45-50 miles long - a 3 hour ride. For a trip that takes 50 minutes with no traffic, and Hampton Roads traffic is bad, but never that bad.

As for the HRBT, it's due for replacement anyway. The first tube opened in 1957, the second in 1976. VDOT has been planning its replacement for at least a decade now, with concepts ranging from a 'signature span' suspension or cable-stayed bridge (likely to get a Navy veto) to more tunnels. If they're replacing the facility anyway, they might as well include transit provisions.

I put a lot of thought into theoretical transit options in Hampton Roads while I was growing up, even getting involved with HRTPO, but it's becoming less and less relevant to this thread, so to tie it all back together:
I think it would be a good idea for VDOT to consider including rail in the HRBT replacement, allowing Amtrak to run to Norfolk via Newport News, while also laying the groundwork for future regional transit service.

DTP: I like your idea on the Hampton side up to & including the tunnel, as long as VDOT plans to create a fully-parallel crossing. If the structure allows, I even think you could reserve the old tunnels for LRT (westbound) and one track of heavy rail (eastbound - it has Hudson Tunnel 14' 6" clearances.) That gets you to Fort Wool and Rip Rap Island. On the east side, I also like your proposed use of NS track between Wards Corner and NFK. Where I'm lost is with the Fort Wool - Wards Corner segment. Do you plan to bridge from Rip Rap to Willoughby Spit and follow the exact ROW of I-64 down to Wards (beware the boaters on the spit), or to stay under, tunnel under the mouth of Willoughby Bay, and not pop up until you hit I-564 at NAS Norfolk?

At least each of these proposals use largely government-owned land, so instead of dealing with dozens of indignant landowners, you're just dealing with one indignant Naval bureaucracy

Mods: if this is getting too far afield, what with fantasy and TIDE LRT and Hampton Roads transportation planning, feel free to kick it out to General Discussion: Passenger Rail.

deathtopumpkins wrote:As for the HRBT, it's due for replacement anyway. The first tube opened in 1957, the second in 1976. VDOT has been planning its replacement for at least a decade now, with concepts ranging from a 'signature span' suspension or cable-stayed bridge (likely to get a Navy veto) to more tunnels. If they're replacing the facility anyway, they might as well include transit provisions.

Do you mean supplementation instead of replacement? Holland & Lincoln tunnels in NYC are from 1927 & 1937 and don't need replacing (AFAIK).

I'm glad you like the idea! My intention was to stay in the I-64 median to Wards Corner, yes - hopping over to NS around the salt shed either just west of the Tidewater Drive interchange, or at Wards Corner, depending on which is less destructive (one has to deal with the HOV lanes in the median, the other has to deal with Wards Corner businesses). With judicious use of retaining walls and a discrete bridge structure, there is plenty of room to bring a railroad up high enough to clear both 13th View and the Willoughby Bay channel. VDOT might have to figure something else out for the contraflow crossover between the bridge and 4th View though.

Since you mention it, I am a bit drawn to the idea if tunneling straight to the Naval Base now... provided that it doesn't interfere with the eastbound road tunnel. A station right on the base would be a much bigger draw for any local service than a station at Ocean View, and then you could tie straight into the NIT line along 564. I had been trying to limit myself to existing public ROWs but I think this might be a better idea, depending on feasibility.

Arlington wrote:Do you mean supplementation instead of replacement? Holland & Lincoln tunnels in NYC are from 1927 & 1937 and don't need replacing (AFAIK).

I do mean replacement, if possible. VDOT's concepts were a mixture of replacement and supplementation, and I think replacement would be very beneficial. Part of why we haven't replaced tunnels like the Holland and Lincoln are the historic nature of them. There's nothing historic about these tunnels. These tunnels also carry a major interstate highway with heavy truck traffic, and have fewer alternatives (e.g. the HRBT is frequently closed due to accidents. Depending on your origin/destination pairs the Monitor-Merrimac might be too far out of the way, and the decision point is much farther back, at least on the south side - if the tunnel were wider and included shoulders, a full closure might not be necessary every time. The HRBT and MMMBT are 6 miles apart, the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels are 2 miles apart. Both are also connected do each other fairly easily on each shore - the Hampton Roads tunnels are not). In the interest of both cleanrooming the site to more easily include rail, and bringing the crossing up to modern needs, I feel it would be better to replace them. Of course all of this is contingent on a cost-benefit analysis of doing so, which will probably favor building new, parallel facilities and then refurbishing the existing.

deathtopumpkins wrote:Of course all of this is contingent on a cost-benefit analysis of doing so, which will probably favor building new, parallel facilities and then refurbishing the existing.

I can't name an under-river vehicular tunnel that's ever been decommissioned. I'm thinking refurb is always the answer as in Baltimore &Boston.

Which is why I suggested building a new parallel tunnel adjacent (but not in the middle) of the existing tunnels. Just one new two lane tunnel on either side will allow the middle tunnel to be used either way during peaks, making the two lanes in that direction four lanes. Of course this will require building the necessary ramps at both ends of the bridge/tunnel to make it work - but it will be far cheaper than building an entirely new six, eight, or ten lane bridge tunnel. The new parallel tunnel could also be built large enough to allow rail - in which case I recommend building it on the west side of the existing bridge/tunnel.

I'm still inclined the rail under Hampton Roads should be a light rail line vs commuter rail. the last thing anyone would want is to see freight railroad cars with hazardous loads under Hampton Roads intermixed with passenger trains and automobiles. Light rail being non FRA compliant guarantees that will never ever ever ever happen!
The other solution to prevent that is to do what BART did under San Francisco Bay, lay down a gauge of track incompatible with freight railroad cars.