# Draft of 2013 VA Statewide Rail Plan



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 1, 2013)

Here is a link to the draft copy of the 2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan.

Have fun! h34r:

Just on small tidbit to whet your appetite...

I guess upon reflection it is no surprise, but did you know that currently over 2/3 of CSX's capacity between Washington and Richmond is used for pax rail operations?


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2013)

On the Richmond/DC bit: Not really a surprise, particularly between ALX and WAS (where you have a _huge_ number of frequencies of Amtrak+VRE trains running). If I had to guess, CSX is basically shut down from about 7-9 AM NB. Just for the heck of it, a consolidated VRE/Amtrak timetable for a couple of selected stops shared by both:

Northbound Train Schedule
V322 V300 V302 V324 V304 A098 V326 V306 V328 V308 A086 V330 V310 V332 V312 A174 A020 A084 
RVR **** **** **** **** **** 0435 **** **** **** **** 0600 **** **** **** **** 0710 **** 0800 
FBG **** 0505 0515 **** 0540 **** **** 0605 **** 0630 0700 **** 0715 **** 0740 0810 **** 0858 
MSS 0511 **** **** 0551 **** **** 0621 **** 0647 **** **** 0726 **** 0756 **** **** 0835 **** 
ALX 0552 0607 0624 0634 0649 0655 0702 0712 0728 0738 0747 0808 0832 0837 0855 0914 0932 0950 
WAS 0618 0629 0652 0700 0714 0721 0730 0737 0755 0804 0815 0835 0847 0905 0909 0944 0953 1015 

A176 A094 A092 A080 A050 A090 A066
RVR **** 1104 1230 1412 **** 1725 1900
FBG **** 1204 **** 1512 **** **** 1957
MSS 1019 **** **** **** 1646 **** ****
ALX 1105 1300 1440 1606 1730 1910 2051
WAS 1120 1335 1514 1637 1806 1957 2120
Note the density of service: From 6:50 or so in the morning until just after 9 AM, there's really not much letup: 13 trains in just over 130 minutes. In that time, the longest gap between passenger trains is 20 minutes (0815-0835), followed by two 18-minute gaps (0737-0755 and 0847-0905). Honestly, those three gaps are probably the only ones long enough to pack a freight through NB. And yes, I included the Cardinal for completeness.

Edit: Ok, have a base post in so I can work more up at will. On the state rail plan:
(1) Just a bit of a point for snickering, but seeing VA stations served by the "Cardinal/Hoosier State" amuses me.

(2) Probably the most interesting info for me is on pages 3-17 and 3-18 (station on/offs). Aside from a brief bit of comedy (six Palmetto passengers O/D at Quantico...I think that was during one of those partial service suspensions where other trains have stops added), an interesting observation is that if you divide the traffic at Richmond by eight and treat the Silvers as one train rather than two, you get a rough division of Richmond's traffic.

-A lot of this is down to the Meteor's times, particularly NB (let's face it, you have to be almost masochistic to choose a 4:25 AM arrival into Richmond if you've got other options). On the other hand, I'm almost .1% of the ridership on that particular frequency...good God, when did I actually become a measurable share of an LD train's ridership?!?

-The Cardinal's ridership in CVS (and indeed the 29.8% of the Cardinal's ridership in VA) would seem to make a case for VA "Hoosier Stating" the Cardinal at least as far as Staunton. My best guess (based at least in part on the Card's PIP) is that the Cardinal actually produces a respectable portion of that business to/from the NEC as reverse-peak business.

--It would probably generate a lot more if it could get decent, reliable OTP.

-Also interesting on CVS: The Regional is "only" 2/3 of the business.

-Elsewhere, the note on total ridership on the LYH/CVS route is interesting (190k in FY11 between the Regional and the Crescent, it seems).

-On PTB: The lack of a morning train NB (that isn't the insanely early Meteor, at least) has probably suppressed ridership a bit here. I actually expect the Norfolk train to generate a respectable amount of ridership here 2-3 years out.

(3) Moving onto funding and schedules:
-I'm not surprised by the long timeframe to get the additional trains into Norfolk, but that really is a bummer.

-The I-64 corridor numbers are aggravatingly vague (it says "round trips" but doesn't specify a number).

--The Phase I-Capital funding...I'm going to have to ask about that. I'm not sure if that's "capital charges" (my best guess) or if it's some equipment purchase.

-The services in the western part of the state do make me snicker (just because of how hilariously low the operating subsidies over _years_ are compared to what we're used to seeing...there are corridors that would run through $2m vanish in six _weeks_, not six years).

-One thing I'm not quite clear on is whether or not the funding from earlier this year is accounted for. As best I can tell, it is *NOT* accounted for, since the $948m listed on page 5-1 would come out to around $35m/yr (not to mention the after-the-fact way that funding is mentioned in 5.3.1). Page 5-4 notes that they're dealing with an out-of-date SYIP.

-For what should be obvious reasons, I find the operating deficit estimates to be a bit high, at least based on ridership in the state. Unless you include the VRE in the totals, it seems like Amtrak Virginia isn't going to need a subsidy for a _very_ long time unless CSX/NS manage to pull a fortune out of the state. This goes for both the long-term estimates and the individual project estimates.

-Finally, SEHSR looks like a morass. It seems like a poor use of state-only funding considering the other alternatives (notwithstanding RVR-WAS improvements helping other things)


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2013)

Ok, just as a follow-up, I cannot for the life of me figure out where what portion of the money from this year is going. So that may or may not be paying for a decent amount of stuff in the mix there.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Ok, just as a follow-up, I cannot for the life of me figure out where what portion of the money from this year is going.


The bureaucrats have done their job well then!


----------



## afigg (Aug 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> -One thing I'm not quite clear on is whether or not the funding from earlier this year is accounted for. As best I can tell, it is *NOT* accounted for, since the $948m listed on page 5-1 would come out to around $35m/yr (not to mention the after-the-fact way that funding is mentioned in 5.3.1). Page 5-4 notes that they're dealing with an out-of-date SYIP.


I was wondering when the VA State Rail Plan would be released, because it was supposed to be released early this year. If this *Draft *plan does not include the new Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund revenue stream from the state sales tax (have not really read the draft yet), then they must have decided to go ahead and release the draft with the intent of revising it to include the new funding and schedules in the Final draft. The revised FY2014 Six Year Improvement Plan with the faster expansion to 3 trains to Norfolk was issued at the end of June. Takes time to incorporate all that into a major planning document like this.

There is a lot of info to be gleaned on what projects are funded in the SYIP document posted on the finance page of the VA DRPT website. The FY2014 SYIP shows on page 75 that VA DRPT has $54 million for passenger rail in FY2014 that has not been allocated to any projects (because Roanoke extension spending does not ramp up until next year).


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2013)

A couple of thoughts on the SYIP:
(1) The posted losses for FY15 (I use FY15 because of the pre/post PRIIA numbers issue...FY14 for VA corresponds to July-13 through June-14 IIRC) run up one hell of a lot higher than Amtrak's MPRs. That's going to be a sincere question I have to raise at some point, since Amtrak shows all three routes in the black at the moment. That said, it does look like the losses get "held back" a bit for FY15 vs. FY14 due to some variables (Norfolk ramp-up, for example). Still, it's one heck of a drop to see the routes post a $7.7m contribution before their capital charge per the September 2012 Monthly Performance Report and then see them expected to post a $5.4-5.5m loss next year before capital charges. I'm going to blame differing accounting practices between Amtrak's pre-PRIIA stuff and what VA was actually able to work out "on the ground" with the seat charges north of WAS.
-Alternatively, it's quite possible that (as usual) fairly conservative assumptions are being used on the service costs versus revenues.
-In general, I do expect a modest ramp-up in ridership on the Norfolk trains as both times improve, people "get used" to the new service, and as it gets a "proper" station.

(2) Granted, the numbers are fuzzier further out because until this year VA wasn't expecting this much money to work with (no, really...this is a massive sum of money for any state to have secured, especially considering that this isn't a state with a massive pre-existing set of services to support), but it's still almost surreal to see a state with over $100 million in the rail budget awaiting allocation.
-The placeholder figure for funding growth is about 4%. Extrapolating this out into the '20s offers a /lot/ of money that can be used. Assuming 3.8% growth, the cumulative funding available through FY25 is $706.25m, of which only about a third has been allocated. The amount available through the 25-year time horizon of the state rail plan is...dizzying would be an understatement. Assuming a 3.8% growth rate, it's $2.179bn.

(3) On the service extensions, it looks like Roanoke should get a train by sometime in late 2016, maybe a little bit sooner (remember, FYs and CYs don't line up). Norfolk should get the other two trains in sometime in late 2017, though it does seem plausible that one might be extended sooner than the others. Still, this is a very nice schedule.

(4) Considering the sheer mass of money available, even assuming limited outside funding (i.e. minimal TIGER funds or equivalents, no national HSR program actually gets going, etc.), it seems like VA could fund quite a bit off of either "just" this cash or this cash plus whatever could be secured with RRIF financing backed up by this funding. $50m/yr can get you quite a bit in the short term.

(5) I know the budget bill put in an additional slug of money into a Mass Transit Fund. I'm not 100% sure of the parameters of this fund, nor am I sure whether VRE funding would come from the Mass Transit pot or the IPROC pot.
-There also seems to be a good deal of "outside" money running around under the Rail Enhancement Program/Fund up a few pages. My best understanding is that the Rail Enhancement Fund is a separate pot of money from IPROC, but which is also available for freight, intercity, and/or commuter rail projects. Or, to put it another way, there's even more money running around.

(6) Finally, looking at the budgeting...I'm honestly pulling my hair out at how long the RVR-WAS 90 MPH study is estimated to take (until FY19 to conclude the Tier II EIS, though the Preliminary Engineering study is concurrent with this...so that's /something/). Of course, poking around at an application for that, I get this report:
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/news/files/VA%20-%20SEHSR%20-%20RIC-WAS%20Segment%20-%20Application%20Form.pdf
(A) Interesting...apparently the max speed is, in fact, 69 MPH along the RF&P. More interesting is that apparently, the VRE folks are limited to 60 MPH. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
(B) It's also interesting to see CSX funding part of the 90 MPH MAS study (5% of the funding, or 1/4 of the non-federal match).
© However...even more fascinating is that on page five, the project lists 30 present frequencies. This would include the 9 Amtrak trains RVR-WAS (18) and 12 VRE frequencies FBG-WAS (VRE trains 300-313, save two...no idea if two of those got added relatively recently or not). Under the plan, Amtrak will get up to 32 frequencies (i.e. 16 round-trips, an increase of 7/day), with the other 32 frequencies noted presumably going to ramp up VRE service (something which does seem rather inevitable in the long run), likely including reverse-peak. Note that these figures (and most other notes, save a figure on page six) exclude trains running on the NS corridor, just those continuing down the RF&P.
-Note that 16 round-trips includes:
--9 to Hampton Roads
--4 to Charlotte
--3 LD (Star, Meteor, Palmetto)
Presumably the Auto Train is ignored in these proposals, since the 9+4+3 adds up to other reports I've seen.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 3, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> I guess upon reflection it is no surprise, but did you know that currently over 2/3 of CSX's capacity between Washington and Richmond is used for pax rail operations?


To me, it raises the question of why Viriginia sold its 20% interest in the RF&P (which it got from Conrail IIRC) to CSX.  It would have made more sense to buy the rest of it *from* CSX. But I guess in the 1980s and early 1990s Virginia state government wasn't thinking clearly about rail.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 3, 2013)

Anderson said:


> -Finally, SEHSR looks like a morass. It seems like a poor use of state-only funding considering the other alternatives (notwithstanding RVR-WAS improvements helping other things)


SEHSR is a North-Carolina-driven project. Unfortunately this is the problem with this "state-based" system for funding passenger rail. The project needs lots and lots of work in Virginia, but it primarily benefits North Carolina, so it doesn't happen.  This is the sort of idiocy you get from a lack of national thinking. The "generally agreed division" seems to have been that North Carolina will take care of Petersburg, VA southward, while Virginia will handle Petersburg to Richmond Main St and Richmond Main St to DC.

Virginia, however, has not really been making much of an effort to deal with the capacity improvements or the speed improvements needed from Petersburg to Richmond or Richmond to DC.



> (6) Finally, looking at the budgeting...I'm honestly pulling my hair out at how long the RVR-WAS 90 MPH study is estimated to take (until FY19 to conclude the Tier II EIS, though the Preliminary Engineering study is concurrent with this...so that's /something/).


Mmm-hmm.



> (A) Interesting...apparently the max speed is, in fact, 69 MPH along the RF&P. More interesting is that apparently, the VRE folks are limited to 60 MPH. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


I've read this before in multiple places. I believe it. I'm not sure what is limiting VRE's speeds; it could be the old passenger cars. Though I believe that CSX runs its freights at 60 MPH along the line and it may have demanded that VRE "stay in slot".
With existing speed limits of 69 mph, there is a reason that the 90 mph improvements would be a big deal on the RF&P.

Given the scale of the projects involved, it would probably be cheaper for Virginia to build its own pair of tracks from DC to Richmond than it will be to keep paying CSX for improvements over and over again. It's also worth looking at the future flood maps: certain parts of the RF&P are at severe flood risk and should be bypassed.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > I guess upon reflection it is no surprise, but did you know that currently over 2/3 of CSX's capacity between Washington and Richmond is used for pax rail operations?
> ...


There was a passing report at the time on...well, what we're talking about now (90 MPH MAS, hourly service, etc.). However, this was at the same time as VA threw together a report on 150 MPH rail service on the Peninsula, something that made _zero_ sense in any comprehensive context at the time. It's not that VA wasn't thinking about rail...they really just weren't thinking, period. Of course, I say that and...well, if CSX wound up with the other 80% it's likely that would have just been a mess and CSX might have been able to pressure a buy-out on some terms regardless.

I agree that it _might_ be cheaper for VA to put in its own tracks (there's been a $1.8bn project for that floating around for a while from what I can tell), but that has its own issues: Where do you put it in? What do you have to bulldoze to make it work? How do you get through Quantico? Do you share ROW territory anywhere (maybe around a few stations)? Do you end up moving the VRE stuff over and migrate all of that infrastructure to new stations? And so on.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 3, 2013)

69 mph? I thought the RR&P speed limit was 70 mph and had been for years. Their current signal system would allow 90 mph. the main problem with getting more speed out of the RF&P is curvature. Particular south of Fredericksburg the RF&P has a lot of curves that will keep the speed down.


----------



## afigg (Aug 3, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I agree that it _might_ be cheaper for VA to put in its own tracks (there's been a $1.8bn project for that floating around for a while from what I can tell), but that has its own issues: Where do you put it in? What do you have to bulldoze to make it work? How do you get through Quantico? Do you share ROW territory anywhere (maybe around a few stations)? Do you end up moving the VRE stuff over and migrate all of that infrastructure to new stations? And so on.


I'm looking at the track diagrams for the 3rd track project from Arkendale to Powell's Creek which were available on the VRE website when they had it on there for bids. The diagrams show the CSX ROW, which varies considerably in width, but is easily wide enough to accommodate 4 tracks through that 11 mile segment, including Quantico. The platforms at the Quantico stations are well inside the ROW. The ROW is pinched in a couple of locations by road bridges over the tracks which are noted in the document as requiring modification for the 3rd track. My guess is that the plan is to modify the bridges just enough to accommodate the 3rd track as a complete rebuild to make room for a 4 track line is out of scope of the funding.

The plan has been for a while to build 4 tracks from the Long Bridge through Alexandria station to at least AF interlocking. The ROW is wide enough to handle it. The alternatives for the Long Bridge Study included a number of variations on a 4 track bridge replacement with 2 passenger tracks and 2 freight tracks. Replace the Long Bridge and have dedicated 2 passenger tracks from the First St tunnels through L'Enfant to AF interlocking.

In the draft plan, there is this comment from CSX:



> CSX comment: CSX advocates the future separation of passenger and freight operations, particularly if passenger trains are expected to operate at speeds inconsistent with freight rail operations. CSX allows passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 79 miles per hour. At 90 miles per hour, however, passenger and freight operations must be separated to permit safe operations of both services. Short of separating the two types of operations, CSX is also a proponent of locating passenger stations on sidings, so that stopped trains do not interfere with freight trains operating on the mainline.


So perhaps the thinking on the plan for the 3rd track from ALX to Richmond is evolving to a long term concept to separate VRE/Amtrak operations from freight by building a 4 track line to Fredericksburg. 2 of the tracks for passenger trains which would be VRE and the state's responsibility to maintain. CSX leases that portion of the ROW for a nice annual payment. Yes, the VRE stations and platforms would have to be moved or rebuilt, but that is no biggie. Rebuilding overpass road bridges to make room for the 4 tracks would be more expensive. Between Fredericksburg and Richmond would be TBD. All speculative however. The nearer term focus is likely to be on building a 3rd track from Franconia to Fredericksburg, 4th track in ALX, and replacing or supplementing the Long Bridge which will be an expensive project.


----------



## afigg (Aug 3, 2013)

Anderson said:


> (2) Granted, the numbers are fuzzier further out because until this year VA wasn't expecting this much money to work with (no, really...this is a massive sum of money for any state to have secured, especially considering that this isn't a state with a massive pre-existing set of services to support), but it's still almost surreal to see a state with over $100 million in the rail budget awaiting allocation.


Have to keep it in perspective. A $100 million unallocated in the state road & highway budget is one or two medium to small scale road improvement or bridge projects. Still, VA DRPT has a nice annual steady revenue stream to work with. And with so little of that funding needed to cover the operating subsidies, they can put almost all of it into capital improvement projects.



Anderson said:


> (4) Considering the sheer mass of money available, even assuming limited outside funding (i.e. minimal TIGER funds or equivalents, no national HSR program actually gets going, etc.), it seems like VA could fund quite a bit off of either "just" this cash or this cash plus whatever could be secured with RRIF financing backed up by this funding. $50m/yr can get you quite a bit in the short term.


If the TIGER grant program continues, VA DRPT is a good position to submit applications where the state will provide greater than the minimum 20% state contribution, say a 50% match, which would improve the chances of getting selected and effectively double their money for a specific project.



Anderson said:


> (5) I know the budget bill put in an additional slug of money into a Mass Transit Fund. I'm not 100% sure of the parameters of this fund, nor am I sure whether VRE funding would come from the Mass Transit pot or the IPROC pot.-There also seems to be a good deal of "outside" money running around under the Rail Enhancement Program/Fund up a few pages.


The FY2014 budget report shows the Mass Transit Fund capital projects going to buy a lot of buses. There are several transit projects in No VA other than the Silver Line, the Columbia Pike Streetcar and the Crystal Austral City to Potomac Yards transitway (to be a BRT line for the present). But I think the state contribution for those are or will come out of other parts of the state transportation budget. There are multiple parts to and players & boards in the state transportation spending which I don't pretend to come close to understanding how they all fit together.

PS. Spellchecker changed a mis-spelled Crystal to Austral (!)


----------



## Anderson (Aug 4, 2013)

That's true on perspective...but considering that most states' budgets are effectively zero for rail (or that the DRPT's budget is still well under $1bn for everything all told), it's a lot of money for this sort of thing. Of course, there are also some incidental projects (*coughparkingcough*) that could help out at several stations (anyone who's been to RVR lately can attest to the fact that the station there is getting swamped, and it's not the only station in this position).

As to the Mass Transit Fund...I'm not surprised. I think there are probably more than a few "quick fixes" that'll happen in the next year or two there (i.e. more buses, added operating support). And of course, there's also The Tide getting extended to the Oceanfront and the Broad Street project in Richmond which will likely get at least some money out of that pot as time goes on.

As you noted, a state match of 50% (or that match being a mix of state and local support) would make some projects more likely to get federal support. The other thing is that the state can promise operating support with more security now. There was some discussion that you've got a lot of projects where the issue isn't capital expenditures (which can be hashed out), it's securing operating support for the system that kills the project. Obviously, some of that has to be local...but a state match of 10-20% can make a BIG difference in whether a plan is considered to be financially sustainable.

As to the VRE/RF&P situation: In the long term, I agree that four tracks is the plan. In the short(er) term, three tracks to FBG would allow CSX one whole track to themselves, passenger ops one track, with a third track to be shared. Considering the nature of present (and likely future) passenger rail traffic flows, it seems likely that the two can work out a "juggling" arrangement that will keep everyone happy for a while. It also seems plausible that you could see "three tracks plus", where you'd start out with three tracks plus a mix of passing sidings as the basis for a fourth track plus some limited shared ops, and then just fill in the gaps as funding permits bridges to be fixed. Right now, for example, the only SB passenger train on the RF&P in the morning is 67, while the only NB trains at anything near peak hours are 80 and 90. If you had a dedicated passenger track, the morning and evening flows would use that track and you'd only have one or two trains to "slot around" going the "wrong way"...something that would probably be enough of an improvement for CSX to be more cooperative on allowing some limited additional reverse flow traffic. And if that track is accompanied by a few passing sidings...well, that's going to be X amount of additional interference removed from CSX's tracks.

Moving onto the FBG-RVR tracks, my best guess there is that you get some added passing sidings and call it a day, or maybe get another three-track mess. The main problem is that from Spotsylvania south to Richmond, I'm hard-pressed to see more than about 40 passenger movements being scheduled at any point in the next 15-25 years, and even getting there would assume that either:
(A) Something unexpected got beefed up at Amtrak; or
(B) A limited VRE extension to Richmond happened.

Edit: I had another thought...it's not that VA isn't moving forward. The problem is that VA's portion is tied up in EIS work and PE work. VA is on board with the project, since WAS-PTB can be justified in the context of service to Richmond and to Hampton Roads. And as far as I can tell, VA definitely wants _that_ project to go forward.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 4, 2013)

It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"

That said, I can't imagine that NC alone could pay for 110 mph Raleigh-Petersburg. It's even a stretch for NC to pay for 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh and track capacity for 5x daily service. If budgets remain tight, NC will throw all available money at intrastate service.

From the perspective of Virginians, it's unclear that SEHSR would serve any station between Petersburg and the NC-VA line. Note also that SEHSR would terminate at Richmond Main Street, and there would have to be separate projects to improve trackage from RVM to Acca and beyond. Not much point in 110 mph Raleigh-RVM if you run 20 or 30 mph RVM-RVR.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 5, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"
> That said, I can't imagine that NC alone could pay for 110 mph Raleigh-Petersburg. It's even a stretch for NC to pay for 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh and track capacity for 5x daily service. If budgets remain tight, NC will throw all available money at intrastate service.
> 
> From the perspective of Virginians, it's unclear that SEHSR would serve any station between Petersburg and the NC-VA line. Note also that SEHSR would terminate at Richmond Main Street, and there would have to be separate projects to improve trackage from RVM to Acca and beyond. Not much point in 110 mph Raleigh-RVM if you run 20 or 30 mph RVM-RVR.


It's pretty clear that there are plans to fix the RVR-RVM segment, at least per the Hampton Roads study. Even in the "base case", a decent amount of time gets cut off the time for Richmond-Newport News, which indicates at least some improvements there. The fact that the RVR-RVM segment is expected to ultimately serve the Norfolk trains as well (rather than just the two or three Newport News trains) suggests that this will get tackled...probably, however, as part of a more comprehensive Acca Bypass project that covers the S-line from RVR down to where it meets the A-line again.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 5, 2013)

What they need is a double-track route between RVR and RVM that's good for 50 mph at least, bidirectionally signaled with an intermediate double crossover. Will be interesting to see what actually gets funded.

SEHSR would rebuild the S-line from the James River bridge to Centralia, add a 3rd track to the A-line between Centralia and the Appomattox River, and add a 2nd track across the Appomattox into Petersburg. The assumption is indeed that all Amtrak trains except the Auto-Train would run through RVM.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2013)

They can build it in stages. Eventually they will need double track. But for current levels of traffic it will be a definite overkill. For now a single track with perhaps one passing siding in the middle should more than suffice. If funds are truly limited even the passing siding can be postponed. They might as well spend the money to get the speed limit upto 80/90mph as far as track class goes, if they can. They could simply extend the RF&P Cab Signal all the way to the A-Line/S-Line junction too, via RVM.

It will just be like it has been between Albany and Schenectady. Yes there will be adverse effect on schedules, but it is better to have access than not to have access at all.At present we are talking of 5 to 7 trains a day each way.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 5, 2013)

Agreed, at present 5-7 but SEHSR (if it ever happens) adds 3 in each direction. 16-20 trains a day are too much to run over a single track line.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> Agreed, at present 5-7 but SEHSR (if it ever happens) adds 3 in each direction. 16-20 trains a day are too much to run over a single track line.


8 to 10 trains per day in each direction should be quite manageable with a passing siding or two. However, if a situation arises where further growth is contemplated beyond that then the gaps between the sidings should be filled in.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 5, 2013)

jis said:


> They can build it in stages. Eventually they will need double track. But for current levels of traffic it will be a definite overkill. For now a single track with perhaps one passing siding in the middle should more than suffice. If funds are truly limited even the passing siding can be postponed. They might as well spend the money to get the speed limit upto 80/90mph as far as track class goes, if they can. They could simply extend the RF&P Cab Signal all the way to the A-Line/S-Line junction too, via RVM.
> It will just be like it has been between Albany and Schenectady. Yes there will be adverse effect on schedules, but it is better to have access than not to have access at all.At present we are talking of 5 to 7 trains a day each way.


(1) I'm not sure the alignment from RVR-RVM will support much more than the 50 MPH range, nor that it would be efficient to run trains on that section up towards 90 MPH given the short distance involved. Mind you, I inherently assume that anything taking this route would be making both stops. South of RVM, though, I agree.

(2) RVM does present another issue: Right now, you have two tracks. The east track peels off to go to NPN. The west track continues south. At the moment, the west track does not have passenger service or access. Would the plan be to extend some sort of connection between, at the very least, the east track and the bridge to the south? Connecting the NPN spur to the west track as well would be a mess, but...at higher service levels, I don't see hosting all of those trains on one track. Alternatively, could the headhouse be renovated and set up to allow more service? I'm asking because I'm worried you could get a stack-up of trains if one gets out-of-slot there.

(3) To clarify, at the moment there are nine trains into RVR. That number could, in theory, go up a bit...assuming the full long-term Hampton Roads plans come to fruition, you'd have nine Regionals, 3 LD trains, and the Carolinian (13x daily). SEHSR basically adds three Carolinians, for 16x daily...which is probably close to the max you'd see on that line this side of the late 30s at the earliest. I'd point out that it's _plausible _Amtrak could choose to keep the three LDs on the A-line, though I don't see them doing this if adding RVM could add _any_ traffic to them, ease transfers, and/or keep the traffic load spread out.

(4) And that brings us to the potential traffic at RVM. At the moment, you're looking at about 35,000 O/D for two trains (or about 17,500/train). Assuming an arithmetic increase with all nine trains going to RVM, that would be around 157,500. Oddly, this actually sounds a bit low to me...all trains going there would likely "invent" a new downtown Norfolk-downtown Richmond market (one that is a bit clunky to work at the moment, as it involves a bus on one end or a cab on the other if you're coming from Norfolk), meaning you'd actually get turnover on trains at RVM rather than having almost all traffic going to/coming from points north. I also suspect a lot of traffic would switch over and cut the load on RVR as they've got more round-trip options out of RVM (since right now, you've likely got a lot of people who choose RVR for both legs since the other option is RVM for one leg and RVR for the other). It's also cheaper to get a cab (and feasible to walk) to RVM from a number of hotels. Such is not the case with RVR.

-Just as an addendum to this point: I don't see RVM supplanting RVR as the primary station for Richmond. It's likely to remain secondary. But I do see it becoming a significant secondary station as opposed to being so far behind...200k for RVM and 400k for RVR seems like a believable distribution of traffic in ten years.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2013)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > They can build it in stages. Eventually they will need double track. But for current levels of traffic it will be a definite overkill. For now a single track with perhaps one passing siding in the middle should more than suffice. If funds are truly limited even the passing siding can be postponed. They might as well spend the money to get the speed limit upto 80/90mph as far as track class goes, if they can. They could simply extend the RF&P Cab Signal all the way to the A-Line/S-Line junction too, via RVM.
> ...


Yep. My comment was mostly about RVM and south segment. RVR to RVM will never be able to get above 50/60 if that.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 5, 2013)

South of the James, the S-line rebuild would be 79 mph for the 11 miles to Centralia. I believe the plan also calls for 79 mph (except for the Appomattox River bridge) on all three tracks for the 18 miles from Centralia to where the Burgess Cutoff would be restored.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> South of the James, the S-line rebuild would be 79 mph for the 11 miles to Centralia. I believe the plan also calls for 79 mph (except for the Appomattox River bridge) on all three tracks for the 18 miles from Centralia to where the Burgess Cutoff would be restored.


That makes sense, unless one wants to take advantage of PTC to bump it up some. But then CSX is allergic to anything above 79mph, unless it is separate track for the higher speeds from tracks used by its freights.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 5, 2013)

I might be backwards on this, but I thought CSX was fine with 90 MPH and that it was NS who wanted a cap of 79 MPH? I remember this because it surprised me (as NS tends to be a bit more accommodating). Also, frankly, if VA is going to build separate tracks I have to wonder why they just don't throw down for 110/125 operation wherever possible...especially since I can't even begin to imagine the ridership that getting WAS-RVR under 90 minutes would begin attracting.


----------



## afigg (Aug 5, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"
> That said, I can't imagine that NC alone could pay for 110 mph Raleigh-Petersburg. It's even a stretch for NC to pay for 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh and track capacity for 5x daily service. If budgets remain tight, NC will throw all available money at intrastate service.
> 
> From the perspective of Virginians, it's unclear that SEHSR would serve any station between Petersburg and the NC-VA line. Note also that SEHSR would terminate at Richmond Main Street, and there would have to be separate projects to improve trackage from RVM to Acca and beyond. Not much point in 110 mph Raleigh-RVM if you run 20 or 30 mph RVM-RVR.


To be clear, the SEHSR is defined as extending from DC to Charlotte via Richmond and Raleigh. It is simply broken into 3 segments: DC to RVM, RVM to Raleigh (which has a Teir II EIS awaiting a ROD from the FRA), and then Raleigh to Charlotte.

There is a $2.9 million HSIPR grant to DC DOT for the PE and NEPA fpr the Long Bridge replacement study to cover L'Enfant Plaza to Arlington and a $44.3 million HSIPR grant (FY10 funding) to VA DRPT for the Alexandria to Richmond Main Street Station segment. So there is funding to carry the DC to RVM segment through a Tier II EIS. VA is in a position to spend state money on specific track and capacity projects from Alexandria to RVM. For the DC to RVM segment, VA DRPT is likely to prioritize projects that benefit VRE & Amtrak between ALX and Frederickburg (the state has awarded a contract to build a 3rd track from south of Frederickburg to the new VRE Spotsylvania station), RVR to RVM for NPN & eventually NFK trains. The Long Bridge replacement will require a significant federal funding component to happen - which it may get via the FTA.

For the segment south of RVM, there will be an approved FEIS and preliminary design. VA could proceed with specific projects for Sections AA, BB, CC in the FEIS which cover the RVM to Collier Yard segment. DRPT has already allocated $80 million which I believe is mostly going a new bridge across the Appomattox which is the biggest part of the Section CC upgrades. BTW, the price tag estimate for the 11.3 miles of Section AA from the RVM platform to Centralia is $245 million.

The rest of the SEHSR RVM to Raleigh segment over the mostly abandoned S-Line will require a substantial federal passenger rail funding program to happen and who knows when that is going to be.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 5, 2013)

It's my understanding that NS has consented to 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh as long as their views are taken into account during design of the improvements. Of course, Charlotte-Raleigh is a special case because the State of NC owns the railroad.

CSX reportedly is happy with 90 or 110 mph Collier-Raleigh because they'll be allowed to run freight over it... at slower speeds, of course. The restored S-line would de-load the perpetually congested A-line. What's unclear is how many sidings would have to be reinstalled on the S-line between Cary and Hamlet if the line is to carry through-freight again (in addition to 91/92 and the existing CSX local trains). But Collier-Raleigh is so far into the future that CSX isn't spending much time thinking about it. For that matter, CSX and NCDOT haven't even started to implement the A-line improvements in NC that were funded years ago.

As to 79 mph versus 90 mph RVM-Collier, I think it's a pragmatic view of benefit/cost analysis. Given reductions in speed for the Centralia interlocking, the Appomattox River bridge, the Ettrick station stop, etc, the additional 11 mph would not make much difference in running times between RVM and Collier.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 6, 2013)

afigg said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"
> ...


IIRC, when it came to Hampton Roads service, CSX said 90 would be fine while NS only wants 79. Of course, that may be a quirk of the routes and the potential passing siding situations.

Shifting back over to VA's stations, while a lot of them were lousy ten years ago, it's rather stunning looking at the march of ridership numbers since 2007. Really, vis-a-vis the national system the numbers are impressive...with some stations, it really has the feel of watching a flood tide inexorably rise. What is particularly stunning is the increases at stations on the Peninsula (which have seen no change in service over the last decade). Going down the WAS-NPN line, you get:

ALX: +73.7%

WDB: +41.9%

QAN: +28.1%

FBG: +30.4%

ASD: +86.2%

RVR: +47.3%

RVM: +174.4%

WBG: +40.4%

NPN: +41.4%

RVM is an obvious outlier, but at the start of FY07 service was relatively new. Parking at RVR can't be hurting RVM, either. After that, Ashland (another lower-ridership station) got a spike, followed by Alexandria (the only one to get two trains added). Most intriguing, though, is that the Peninsula stations (with no added service) got as much of an increase as the others did...assuming internal ridership is negligible, those three stations went from 151,171 to 230,265 (+52.3%). Basically, you've got about five cars full leaving RVM each day between the two trains.

Honestly, the 40-50% ridership hikes have probably been enough to make a touch-and-go parking situation a disaster, and a decent one touch-and-go. And I don't think this sort of march (especially since it seems to clearly go back a bit further) could have been foreseen given how the last 20 years had gone.

One common thread between the "hard spike" stations: Colleges. NPN serves CNU, ODU, NSU, and Hampton. WBG serves William and Mary. RVM serves VCU better than RVR does, though both can count for RU. ASD basically runs through the middle of campus. And woe betide the innocent traveler who tries to book on a day they all go on break...I've seen truly insane fares on those days just to get to DC, crowds over 150 at NPN and over 100 at WBG on a Saturday morning.

A rather worthwhile thought is how long this can continue before capacity becomes a problem. Parking is already a disaster at almost all the stations, though NPN can at least look to NFK as a bus feeder station. The thought of WBG trying to handle 100,000 passengers (or NPN trying to handle 200k) is kind of staggering. Probably more staggering, though, is that I could see these numbers starting to ramp up at the rate things have been going in VA. Going along with that is the fact that, as we've noted elsewhere, passenger service is moving into the black...and capacity constraints are becoming an issue (witness the Lynchburger, for example...I don't know how much room there /is/ for riders from ROA on it once they extend it, but there's probably not room to add another 50k to the train).


----------



## Paulus (Aug 6, 2013)

Rather than additional parking, shouldn't the emphasis be on additional local mass transit and thruway connections?


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2013)

I think both are needed and are complementary. I doubt that stations like Metropark or Hamilton in NJ would be as successful as they are if they did not have the massive parking structures. Both have excellent bus connections and are served by several routes. But the inherent problem with buses is that they cannot really go everywhere within the suburban sprawl that exists today. That is the current reality one has to account for while encouraging development of transit villages etc. This transformation where one could get away from providing for automotive users at multi-modal stations will take several decades to achieve.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 6, 2013)

During discussions of the design of the new station in Raleigh -- a situation not that different from Richmond, especially in regards to inadequate parking -- there were proposals to favor mass transit to the new station and therefore to provide even fewer parking places than the current station has. I believe the City and NCDOT look forward to mass transit someday, but for the time being "Cars R' Us" and that means a parking deck.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 6, 2013)

Both are complementary, yes. It's also worth noting that the catchment area for RVR is a lot larger than Richmond. I frequently drive in from Newport News, you've got people coming in from Charlottesville to go to Florida, etc. I can tell you that I sure as heck don't want to have to work in an additional bus timetable to my trip planning.

I agree that having a massive parking deck isn't a great solution (though it may be needed in cases like this). But there aren't many great solutions to problems like this...especially in cases like RVR where the station is far enough out not to be well-placed in the mass transit system. Also, for people from across town, asking them to take two buses to get to the train station is going to be about as popular as the TSA. To put this another way: People aren't going to completely abandon their cars. They're going to want to drive to the station to go on a trip, and you've just got to cater to that in some form if you want them to take the train...especially when you've got trains coming and going in awkward hours of the day/night that the transit system is largely off. Witness why I don't park at DCA when going to Montreal: The Metro shuts down at midnight(-ish) and I don't want to have to fork over for a cab to the airport. It's an extra complication that I don't need.

The other thing is that even if you get a good fraction of folks taking other options (friends driving, transit, etc.), you're still going to have a certain percentage that want/need to drive. If you add 200 riders/day at a station, you've probably got to get 50 of them parking spaces under the best of conditions (especially when you consider that a number of them need multi-day spaces).


----------



## Anderson (Aug 6, 2013)

Just some fun data compilation for the Regional corridors:


```
Year   NPN   WBG   RVM    RVR   ASD   FBG   QAN   WDB   FRN   ALX  |  BRK   MSS   CVS   LYH
2007  96473 41941 12757 234670 12909 61615 28078 15361 1695  97734 | ----  8178  48190 18744
2008 117154 49685 19360 275479 16497 52300 21113 10642 2598 120153 | ----  9644  53038 25383
2009 110226 48688 23576 256006 16634 54053 22114 10848 2694 120815 | ----  9204  52546 23641
2010 116229 47176 27520 266343 19163 56427 23560 11250 2103 139837 | 1156 16239  91707 58348
2011 122438 53056 32628 320239 22359 71110 31311 17612 ---- 161687 | 2967 20264 111602 76179
2012 136369 58894 35970 345657 24041 80320 35970 21794 ---- 169746 | 4099 23923 127524 86498
```


```
Year  NPN-RVM RVR-ALX LYH-MSS
2007  151171  452062   75112  
2008  186199  498782   88065  
2009  182490  483164   85391  
2010  190925  518683  167450  
2011  208122  624318  211012  
2012  231233  677528  242044
```


----------



## afigg (Aug 7, 2013)

Anderson said:


> One common thread between the "hard spike" stations: Colleges. NPN serves CNU, ODU, NSU, and Hampton. WBG serves William and Mary. RVM serves VCU better than RVR does, though both can count for RU. ASD basically runs through the middle of campus. And woe betide the innocent traveler who tries to book on a day they all go on break...I've seen truly insane fares on those days just to get to DC, crowds over 150 at NPN and over 100 at WBG on a Saturday morning.


Would be interesting if there were stats available on what percentage of the ridership growth over the past 6 years - in both VA and across the Amtrak system - is from colleges and university students (undergraduate and graduate). For the overall population, the number of annual miles driven, car ownership, percentage with driver licenses, etc are down for the under 25 group since 2006-2006. Quite pronounced change after decades of greater automobile use given the population size.

I should search for data on this, but I would expect that the percentage of college students with a car is down from what it was 10-15 years ago. Between the sluggish economy, higher gas prices, and the ever spiraling cost of going to an established college/university with increased student debt, many students from middle to upper middle class families are likely having to skip owning a car, even an old clunker. Which means more students who have to take the train, bus, or bum a ride from a student who does have a car to get back home.

Looking at the wiki list of Virginia colleges and universities, there are other colleges than just Virginia Tech in the Roanoke area. The extension to Roanoke is going to pull in a large customer base from the college set. Until there is a second train, Amtrak should plan to run extra - extra long Regionals to Roanoke for the peak college travel periods.

On the ridership growth at the stations, CVS and RVR capacity were not designed to handle this many. No easy fixes for RVR. I hope that when the Roanoke, Bedford Bristol", and new Newport News stations are designed, that they provide for enough parking and waiting room capacity to meet demand 15 years from now.

* Brain freeze, not going to see service to Bristol for some years, meant Bedford even though it wil be a minor station.

2nd edit: wording fix


----------



## Anderson (Aug 7, 2013)

I had lunch with a friend in the Williamsburg government, and we're going to try and see what we can do on the parking front for WBG. In some cases, though, the answer is probably going to have to be secondary stations: It's not in any plans, but a stop up near Toano would probably add some significant ridership with the suburban growth in that area (which is split between four counties that don't talk very well...James City has a growth plan, York sort of does, and I don't think that New Kent or Charles City are really planning at this point). We particularly mused on the room for commuter traffic from the Peninsula into Richmond with an earlier train. We're also trying to see what might be arranged with tourist packages (i.e. getting a discounted/included bus pass or a cut-rate CW pass which includes the bus when you come into town on Amtrak). Considering the demographics of Williamsburg's tourist markets (which center in the NEC), there's probably a lot of ridership to be had.

However, the other thing we're looking at is ways to sell the train to college students and run up the score there. Considering how many campuses disbar freshmen and sophomores from having cars in conjunction with the car ownership trends you discussed, I suspect this market isn't being taken full advantage of quite yet.

I tend to agree...a Roanoke extension with times that actually work for college students (sorry, but the only option being an 0432 departure involving three hours on a bus is no bueno for what we're looking at) could probably run an extra 2-3 sections at times Tech goes on break. Heck, it might be worth talking to NS and Amtrak and seriously look at running a slow "extra" on those days after most classes get out...as well as pitching running connector vans to the student governments (much like they've run airport vans at W&M for years). Looking at the Lyncburger with a presumed extension to Roanoke/Blacksburg, I get the following along that route:
-Liberty (LYH): 56,625
-VA Tech (ROA): 31,006
-UVA (CVS): 24,391
-Lynchburg College (LYH): 2,643
-Roanoke College (ROA): 2,104

There are a number of others in the region as well, with miscellaneous student bodies (for example, I think you could make a case to run a connecting service on break days to Staunton/Lexington, to Radford, etc.) that could add another 10-15,000 students to your ridership pool. I'd note that I am ignoring commuity colleges for this list. Taking those "big three", though, you have 112,000 students. Even getting 2% of them onto the train would fill coach on four ten-car Regionals. 5% market share (a realistic longer-term goal IMHO...I'm thinking the "actual" share for such is 10% of students who would be taking those trains, presuming that half of students live somewhere other than NOVA or the NEC) would, at the moment, fill every outbound seat on a Regional for a week and then flood the Crescent and Cardinal. In short, even if you ran those trains at more-or-less freight speeds until they hit ALX/WAS, I think the market for such a service is readily there to be had, and given the relatively fixed nature of academic calendars I think you could plan for them with ease.

====================================

Moving back to parking, one answer may well need to be simply having a satellite lot and arranging to divert a public transit bus to run a connecting shuttle a few times a day, right before and after trains come and go. That seems likely for RVR, for example, and if they don't do the new NPN station right that's likely to be necessary for that to be run from the airport (a whopping three or four blocks away). NFK seems to have planned alright for the moment, but I sense a turf war down the road with Harbor Park. There's no way that 130 spaces is going to cut it for 3x daily trains, and so help them if they get their six-a-day with SEHSR and those ridership projections are anywhere near the mark. 130 spaces for a half-million riders? Even with the Tide, give me a break...this is NOT suburban New Jersey.

One of the biggest problems, though, is going to be forecasting ridership trends. Though it seems unlikely, if we repeat the last five years over the next five, you get rough totals of 353k on the Peninsula (nearly 200k at NPN and over 80k at WBG), 509k at RVR...you can see where this becomes a potentially toxic block for growing ridership in VA. I would honestly expect that it's already costing at least some growth, and VA can't be the only place with this particular problem.

================================

One final thought: It's likely that ridership on the Peninsula is at its highest levels since the mid-60s. The question of the late 50s is a bit less clear, since the population of the Peninsula in 1960 (as near as I can tell, at least) was about half what it is now, maybe a bit less. Even assuming much higher rail ridership per capita...that's a lot of ground to make up.


----------



## afigg (Aug 8, 2013)

Anderson said:


> There are a number of others in the region as well, with miscellaneous student bodies (for example, I think you could make a case to run a connecting service on break days to Staunton/Lexington, to Radford, etc.) that could add another 10-15,000 students to your ridership pool. I'd note that I am ignoring commuity colleges for this list. Taking those "big three", though, you have 112,000 students.
> ....
> 
> One of the biggest problems, though, is going to be forecasting ridership trends. Though it seems unlikely, if we repeat the last five years over the next five, you get rough totals of 353k on the Peninsula (nearly 200k at NPN and over 80k at WBG), 509k at RVR...you can see where this becomes a potentially toxic block for growing ridership in VA. I would honestly expect that it's already costing at least some growth, and VA can't be the only place with this particular problem.


On the college and university market for Amtrak, what is needed is a count of the students (undergrads and grads) who are more than 40-50 miles from home. Then a count of how many of them are in the wider NE corridor. If this was applied to all colleges - community, public, private - then one would have a handle on the market. For that matter, if Amtrak were do such a market survey for all the colleges in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states and map it, it would provide one guide on where, in an ideal scenario with real funding, intercity rail service should be expanded to. It is not just the college students, but major colleges & universities attract start-ups, R&D firms, faculty who I would venture are more likely to take a train along the NEC spine. Big thought for the day.
Virginia, by extending service to Roanoke, LYH, CVS, along with service to Richmond, WBG, NPN, NFK is doing a pretty good job of hitting the major colleges in the state. One exception is James Madison University, but a daily Cardinal with a faster trip time over the BBRR and a connecting bus to Staunton OR a bus from JMU to CVS might cover JMU to some extent.

On ridership and station growth, I doubt that we will see the same percentage growth over the next 5 years as the last 5. With only 6 trains, capacity constraints will limit growth until VA completes improvement projects. Once there are 3 daily trains to NFK (and The Tide extended to VA Beach), maybe a 3rd train to NPN, 2 to LYH and Roanoke, a daily Cardinal, station expansions, and ideally all the RVR trains also running through RVM, with improved trip times across the board, then there will be room to grow. Oh, also new single level coach and café cars for 10 to 12 car long trains for the peak periods. No problem.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 9, 2013)

The capacity situation is complicated. On the Lynchburger, assuming 9-car Regionals, somewhere around 44.8% of seats seem to be taken (though given in-state turnover it's a little lower than that), but that assumes uniform demand and what-have-you. In reality, we both know that demand bumps around quite a bit and that a certain share of seats simply can't be filled due to those variations. The other issue is net boardings at WAS and beyond, which will "lock out" a share of potential traffic. The Lynchburger is basically full ATM; this manifests in ridership inching up slowly but not doing much else.

On the Richmond trains, there seems to still be substantial room for growth. Using some slightly rough figures (i.e. assuming 52 standard weeks, 9-car Regionals, 5x daily 5 days a week, 4x daily 2 days a week), I get 1,942,512 seats available on those trains. Of those, I get 623,864 taken (32.1%). It's lower than the Lynchburger, but again...X of those get filled out in or past WAS. Also, note that I am probably high-balling the average train length here; cutting the average train to 8 cars cuts capacity to 1,695,408 and hikes the share of seats taken to 36.8%; for LYH this changes the numbers to 360,620 and 51.3%. Still, it's lower than its counterpart...and I'd point out that the RVR trains have managed to add about 14% to their traffic YTD, in part due to Norfolk.

What does this mean? I expect growth on the RVR trains to continue, at least for another year or two. I expect the Lynchburger to be mostly flat in that time, probably rising by a bit each year but blocked in by capacity with added ridership mainly happening as cars might be added. But I'd also be a bit surprised if the trains managed to get too far over 50% on that seats-taken factor (implying a ceiling in the range of 850k-950k on Richmond's trains). Seeing as those trains are, in fact, on course for a little over 700,000 for this year (and presuming nothing major changes, probably somewhere in the 750k range next year) this would imply 2-4 more years of growth before a wall begins to appear. But almost no matter what you do (or try to do), there's likely going to be a significant capacity crunch before the end of the decade in VA absent longer trains (though we may yet see those soon, too).


----------

