# VA Railway Express is 20 Years Old!



## The Davy Crockett (Oct 21, 2012)

I've not seen this mentioned here at AU, but it seems worth a thread.

When VRE started in 1992 I was working in downtown DC. Some of my coworkers, who lived in Manassas at the time and did not strike me as rail commuters, stopped driving I-66 and rode the rails when service began. Even then, in its infancy, they loved it. Today Mrs. Crockett works near the ALX station and has a number of coworkers who rely on VRE to get to work from Fredericksburg and Manassas. Yet despite surging ridership, the future of VRE is uncertain due to funding issues. :wacko: Hmmm... Sound familar? 

Here are links to items regarding VRE:

A Powerpoint on VRE 

Article on $3 'step-up' tix to Amtrak

A VRE history

20 years of VRE article

A cloudy future?


----------



## Anderson (Oct 21, 2012)

My understanding is more or less that VRE's problems are a bit more complex than being "just" a funding issue. No small part of the problem is the lack of storage space at WAS; VRE covers something like 55% of operating costs with fares (I can't get at the document due to VIA download limits, but I recall it being something in this range), and a number of the trains are near, at, or quite possibly above capacity, especially on the Fredericksburg line (witness trains 303, 309, and 305 on the one hand, and 304 and 308 on the other). There are a few like this on the Manassas Line as well (330, 327, 329, and sort-of 331). Likewise, parking issues are a very major problem at a lot of the stations as I understand it. Adding the Spotsylvania station and the new garage is going to alleviate some of these problems, but it can't handle all of them, and some (train crowding issues) are likely to become worse as a result.

If VRE had more storage space at WAS, I think they could easily pack another half-dozen cars (if not another dozen and/or another equipment set) in. Absent the ability to do so, frankly, hiking fares is going to be necessary, at least on the super-peak trains that are already slammed. Cheap fares encourage ridership, but if the VRE simply cannot get space to store more cars, then that space needs to be rationed.

This isn't to say that a 28% fare hike all in one go is a good idea, but a steady above-inflation hike could easily get CR into the 60s before adding cars comes into the picture. Moreover, if they can actually get those cars but they do a ridership-managing fare increase on the most overcrowded trains...well, CR of 65-70% doesn't seem unrealistic for the VRE at this point.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Oct 21, 2012)

While I understand what your saying Anderson, losing almost $10,000,000 in Federal funding is a problem. For that is money which which could be used to alleviate some of the 'success issues' addressed in the links. Personally I would like to see in-revenue 'reverse commute' trains used to alleviate some of the crowding at the Ivy City yards at WAS.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 21, 2012)

VRE as of 2010 covered 51% of its operating costs via the fare box.


----------



## MattW (Oct 21, 2012)

What's keeping them from running a few reverse peak trains? That would alleviate crowding right there if they could turn on the platform. Run an inbound and outbound in the morning, it lays over at the suburban terminal, then returns to Washington in the early afternoon to turn on the platform and become an outbound peak train. Of course, I'm sure the freight railroads would want more $$$ for the extra slots, but do we know if it would cost more than adding the storage?


----------



## afigg (Oct 21, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> While I understand what your saying Anderson, losing almost $10,000,000 in Federal funding is a problem. For that is money which which could be used to alleviate some of the 'success issues' addressed in the links. Personally I would like to see in-revenue 'reverse commute' trains used to alleviate some of the crowding at the Ivy City yards at WAS.


According to the Washington Post article, the $9.6 million in federal funds are not actually gone, but is instead "are elsewhere in the budget of the Virginia Department of Transportation." Then it states "Federal legislation eliminated the traditional source of funding the fees, Connaughton said in an e-mail. “The Commonwealth will work with VRE to find a new source of paying for track access,” he said."

The Post article does not clarify at all which federal program the VRE funds were coming from and where the funds are now, but it may be too complicated to explain in a short article. Probably related to the new MAP 21 transportation authorization bill passed by Congress several months ago that restructured and revised many of the trans portion programs.

VRE is very successful and too important politically to the the Northern Virginia counties and cities to get jammed up because of a $9.6 million reallocation of federal funding.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> VRE as of 2010 covered 51% of its operating costs via the fare box.


I suspect it depends on whether you include interest there. In 2010 it was $30.27m in operating revenue vs. $52.59m in operating expense (57.56% CR), but if you add in interest expenses ($5.68m) as well, CR drops to 51.93% for FY10.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 22, 2012)

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > VRE as of 2010 covered 51% of its operating costs via the fare box.
> ...


The number I reported includes all expenses, not just those considered direct operating expenses.


----------

