# Central/Northern VA HSR public Planning Meetings



## Ashland Train Enthusiast (Nov 1, 2014)

I didn't see anything about this here, so wanted to throw out a plug for several upcoming planning meetings for the DC to Richmond leg of the Southeast HSR, sponsored by the VA Dept of Rail and Public Transportation for public comment as part of their project to bring HSR to the commonwealth

These events are from 5 to 7:30, with a presentation at 6 at the following locations:

*Ashland* - Nov 5

Hanover Arts and Activities Center

*Richmond* - Nov 6

VA DMV, 2300 W. Broad St

*Fredricksburg* - Nov 12

Nat'l Museum of the Marine Corps, Quantico

*Arlington* - Nov 13

Westin Crystal City

I'll be at the Ashland one and probably the Richmond one if any other forum members are interested in meeting up.

Check out their site at www.dc2rvarail.com

~ATE


----------



## neroden (Nov 1, 2014)

I won't make it there. I really only have one thing to say, the same thing I say every time: they need tracks which are dispatched on behalf of the passenger operator, where a state (or commuter rail operation or Amtrak) pays the dispatching bill and has ultimate ability to decide who is doing the dispatching. This seems to be the only way to *reliably* get passenger trains the priority which is supposed to be required by federal law.

The top priority in that regard is probably a pair of passenger-priority tracks from DC to Alexandria. This requires a new Long Bridge and a massive reconstruction of L'Enfant Plaza Station, along with (probably) a number of other new bridges over roads, which makes it a big project. The second priority is probably passenger-priority tracks from Richmond Main Street to north of Acca Yard. The contention for track space seems to be a bit less on the rest of the route.

I would do the section in DC as follows, given unlimited budget. Starting from where the Amtrak First Street Tunnel tracks meet the CSX Virginia Avenue Tunnel tracks:

- Four tracks from 2nd St. to 4th St; two passenger tracks to the north, two freight tracks to the south

- spread out the north track onto new ROW (expanded embankment/bridges) from 4th St. to 6th St, allowing for a new high-level platform in between the two passenger tracks in that block.

- continue the new north track on new ROW (expanded embankment/bridges) from 6th St. to 7th St, turning the current low-level platform into an island platform.

- tracks "re-compress" into four closely-spaced tracks starting at Hancock Park (overgrade bridge work probably required)

- this continues under the 'lids' at L'Enfant Plaza and all the way along Maryland Ave (more overgrade bridge work)

- major undergrade bridge work over Maine Ave. SW (the pedestrian bridge probably needs to be relocated to make room for another 2-track railway bridge)

- major undergrade bridge needing doubling across the 'Washington channel' over the river

- and another over Ohio Dr. SW

- and another over the SW Freeway

- and the Long Bridge; the new bridge should be deliberately built higher to mitigate flooding

- and over the G W Memorial Parkway

- then there's room for 4 tracks from there through Alexandria all the way to the junction with NS, but CSX already has 3 tracks and may therefore demand a *5th* track in places.

- The passenger tracks should probably continue to be on the north side through Alexandria (though in some cases this would mean shifting the freight tracks south).

- Alexandria needs a connecting tunnel between the Metro Station and the VRE/Amtrak station.

It looks like it's possible to continue a pair of passenger-priority tracks south of there, but it's more complicated. It really looks easier to keep the passenger-priority tracks on the north/west side (again, shifting the freight tracks south/east in some cases). However, VRE seems to have preferentially built platforms on the south/east side for some reason; this should be OK as far south as Woodbridge, but troublesome south of there.

There's also a lot of flood-prone territory along the entire route which demands higher track elevation.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 1, 2014)

Is there going to be an "online meeting" with either a report or a presentation to look over? I want to get involved, but I'd like to know what they're considering...and Richmond is a 90 minute drive with no transit alternative, and I'm going to be spent on Wednesday/Thursday (we have an election here) and I'd rather not have to go up to NoVa to do a meeting.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 1, 2014)

Ok, let me revise the above: Route does not seem to be at issue (everything in SEHSR sticks to the ex-RF&P), but frequency likely will be. 9x daily to Hampton Roads, 4x daily to Charlotte, and 3x daily to Savannah/Florida (plus the Auto Train) would seem to be a bare minimum for the RF&P down to Richmond. More than that (for example, dedicated RVR-north trains, more frequencies to NC, etc.) seems possible to plan for, but what will actually happen is anyone's guess. Ditto planned track speeds.


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2014)

neroden said:


> The top priority in that regard is probably a pair of passenger-priority tracks from DC to Alexandria. This requires a new Long Bridge and a massive reconstruction of L'Enfant Plaza Station, along with (probably) a number of other new bridges over roads, which makes it a big project.


From what I have read, 4 tracks from the First Avenue Tunnel connection through L'Enfant to the interlocking west of Alexandria is the baseline plan. I saw a planning redevelopment proposal for the L'Enfant area a year or more back that had rendering showing 4 tracks through L'Enfant with, IIRC, a rebuilt station with a center platform for the passenger tracks on the north side. The plans for the Long Bridge replacement are all 4 tracks and the established plan is to add a 4th track in Virginia from the Long bridge to the interlocking.

The 4 track plan got a boost this week when the CSX Virginia Avenue tunnel replacement project received the Record of Decision from the FHWA which allows CSX to proceed with applications for construction permits. Washington Post: CSX gets federal agency’s clearance to rebuild aging rail tunnel in Southeast D.C. The replacement tunnel is to be a 2 track tunnel which could connect to 2 freight tracks leading from the replacement Long Bridge. Now it is up to DC DOT to issue the permits and the local NIMBYs may attempt to block the project by political means through the City Council.

With dedicated passenger tracks from First Avenue tunnel to AF interlocking, it would provide a connection point for future electrified or HSR line leading to Richmond. IMO, they should extend 4 tracks through the interlocking to at least south of Lorton because the route passes close to I-95 there. Could someday use the I-95 ROW or the edge of it for a true HSR corridor route heading south to Richmond if the existing ROW is not wide enough for 4 tracks to Fredericksburg.

BTW, the viewgraphs of the initial public meeting presentation are available on the study website through the On-Line meeting option. Pretty generic material at this stage.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2014)

This is almost uselessly generic stuff. I cannot even tell what they're actually looking at, scoping-wise. I've seen documents to indicate what they should be looking at (routings Doswell-Richmond, service frequencies, and probably train speeds), but it's not in their presentation.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2014)

Well, I had one of my phone calls today about this. The long and short of it is that the scoping information is vague for a reason: At least as far as the routing goes, the state is really just going through some motions to eliminate the BBRR routing (which, in addition to extensive work needed to bring the line up to proper condition, would skip RVR) from consideration for this project. Apparently some parts of the process expired due to a lapse of time...VA has, in a way, gotten hung up because there's _so much_ going on (three major projects).

The plan right now is "90/90/90": 90 MPH running (in keeping with the South of the James alignment choice, though I'm going to argue to try and work up 110 MPH...this is one of the few corridors where I think the Amtrak load seriously justifies it beyond "might be nice if we could" while the equipment already in use is obviously capable of it), 90 minutes WAS-RVR (obviously I'd like to see that knocked down as far as possible), and 90% reliability (i.e. OTP). At a bare minimum we're looking at 16 daily Amtrak trains WAS-RVR:
-3 to Newport News

-6 to Norfolk

-4 to North Carolina

-3 to Savannah/Florida

It's likely there will be at least one or two more trains thrown in, both because there's storage space at RVR for two trains right now and because of awkward hours for trains at Norfolk and so forth (if you try and force all trains to Norfolk/Newport News, you're rather likely to end up wasting a slot or two on an excessive number of awkward-hour trains that are basically glorified equipment moves). Basically you're looking at somewhere in the range of 16-20x daily trains between Richmond and Washington, depending on a bunch of stuff involving the slots being picked and whatnot.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 10, 2014)

6 Norfolk trains? That'll be amazing.

On that note (with apologies for the slight diversion), do you (or anyone else) know the status of planning for the Bowers Hill station? That's going to completely change how we visit the in-laws, and I can't wait to stop having to drive to Suffolk.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2014)

RyanS said:


> 6 Norfolk trains? That'll be amazing.
> 
> On that note (with apologies for the slight diversion), do you (or anyone else) know the status of planning for the Bowers Hill station? That's going to completely change how we visit the in-laws, and I can't wait to stop having to drive to Suffolk.


Basically, the plan is ultimately to move Amtrak to the ex-Virginian from Suffolk (where the ROW basically overlaps the existing NS ROW) into Norfolk. The station is, as far as I know, still in the cards...its just that a station going in now would be useless once that happens.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 10, 2014)

Interesting, thanks. It looks like connections will have to be made getting onto the ex-Virginian right where they cross at 58, and then another to get off of it between 464 and Berkley Ave Extended (it looks like there used to be track there, but it's been pulled up).

The advantage of that would be a stop in P-town on the way in?

Hopefully that'll get done quickly and the Suffolk-area station can get built.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Interesting, thanks. It looks like connections will have to be made getting onto the ex-Virginian right where they cross at 58, and then another to get off of it between 464 and Berkley Ave Extended (it looks like there used to be track there, but it's been pulled up).
> 
> The advantage of that would be a stop in P-town on the way in?
> 
> Hopefully that'll get done quickly and the Suffolk-area station can get built.


In the shorter term, probably not (three stations in 20 miles is a bit of overkill), though if a commuter rail project gets going down there (and that's in the HRTPO's longer-term plans), an intermediate station is definitely plausible.

The main advantage is keeping the train out of NS's way as much as possible. The ex-Virginian isn't used by NS for through operations right now (it doesn't go through), so it involves less interference. Once you get past Bower's Hill and where the ROWs merge, I think they're just going to add track for passenger use. 6x daily is quite a bit, but it also probably only involves 3-4 passenger meets per day to manage.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Well, I had one of my phone calls today about this. The long and short of it is that the scoping information is vague for a reason: At least as far as the routing goes, the state is really just going through some motions to eliminate the BBRR routing (which, in addition to extensive work needed to bring the line up to proper condition, would skip RVR) from consideration for this project. Apparently some parts of the process expired due to a lapse of time...VA has, in a way, gotten hung up because there's _so much_ going on (three major projects).


I did not realize that the tentative decision to eliminate the ex-C&O routing from consideration never came to a closure before the ball was dropped.


> The plan right now is "90/90/90": 90 MPH running (in keeping with the South of the James alignment choice, though I'm going to argue to try and work up 110 MPH...this is one of the few corridors where I think the Amtrak load seriously justifies it beyond "might be nice if we could" while the equipment already in use is obviously capable of it), 90 minutes WAS-RVR (obviously I'd like to see that knocked down as far as possible), and 90% reliability (i.e. OTP). At a bare minimum we're looking at 16 daily Amtrak trains WAS-RVR:
> 
> -3 to Newport News
> 
> ...


Is the current ROW with some curve realignment actually capable of handling 110mph over any reasonably operable stretch? George Harris, seemed to think that it would be difficult. Of course I don't know enough details to know either way. Also, how much adjacent property is available at what price to realign curves would play into that equation.
There is BTW, also the Auto Train between RVR and LOR.

So in total it would be 20-30 freights (from the Virginian Avenue article quoted by afigg above) plus 16 to 20 passenger trains on the route?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 11, 2014)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I had one of my phone calls today about this. The long and short of it is that the scoping information is vague for a reason: At least as far as the routing goes, the state is really just going through some motions to eliminate the BBRR routing (which, in addition to extensive work needed to bring the line up to proper condition, would skip RVR) from consideration for this project. Apparently some parts of the process expired due to a lapse of time...VA has, in a way, gotten hung up because there's _so much_ going on (three major projects).
> ...


I'm not even sure how much straightening is capable to get up to 90 MPH (there are obviously some curves that can be eliminated, but I do not have a detailed map of the ROW/what could be achieved through buying a few acres of farmland here and there). A lot of the routing is only capable of 70 MPH, though a fair share of that is likely track conditions and not unfixable alignment.

I drew up some if-I-can't-attend remarks to send in. My understanding is that CSX is cooperative with 90 MPH, and I can easily agree with that as a shorter-term goal; what I'd like to see is the alignment put in a condition such that if CSX's management changes their tune down the line (how often have we seen wild gyrations in a company's attitude towards Amtrak?), we don't have to do a massive rebuild to shake some more speed out of things.


----------

