# Virginia Governor proposes funds for Roanoke Extension



## afigg (Jan 25, 2013)

Gov. McDonnell (Republican) has proposed to fund a bunch of transportation projects as part of his push to increase the VA state sales tax from 5% to 5.8% with the added revenue going to transportation. The sales tax proposal is rather controversial, but don't want to get into the in and outs of his revenue proposal right now/

The major news for passenger rail is that his proposed new funding through state FY2018 has the following projects listed in this summary page:

$102 million for extending passenger service to Roanoke, mostly spent by FY2016.

$79 million for passenger service to Norfolk (upgrades, Appomattox bridge perhaps?)

$35 million for passenger service to Newport News (further out in FY16 to FY18)

$47 million for capacity Richmond to DC (FY16 to FY18)

$45 million total over 6 years for 6 PRIIA trains.

The Governor's press release states that "Funding for these projects are in addition to the funding in the Commonwealth Transportation Board's current Six-Year Improvement Program". So these funds would be added to the funds already budgeted for the current VA Regional service, various track projects. My take is that this is calling for 6 additional VA Regional trains on top of what VA is planning to pay for. So, 3 daily trains to Norfolk, Newport News, maybe 2 to Roanoke by 2018? With improved trip times in VA as well?

Boardman likes the proposal so much that Amtrak put a news release in support of service to Roanoke.

I think with the Governor pushing for it. that while the sales tax initiative may get watered down. there is real support for extending service to Roanoke in the nearer term and not let it slide until the end of the decade. Maybe having a conservative Republican Governor actively supporting Amtrak service expansion in VA will nidge the Republicans in PA and NC to not step away from Amtrak service in their states.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 25, 2013)

From what I have read the last estimate of restoring Roanoke service was 2018. I've visited that city. They already have two structures that can be re-used as passenger stations. The magnificent Frank Lloyd Wright designed Union Station still stands and is in top shape. The O Winston Link museum is on the basement level but the top floor is just used these days to distribute tourist info and brochures. The parking lot in front is still there and also in good shape. Station platforms are there but the bridge/ stairs down to the platforms will need to be rebuilt. The city of Roanoke should just reuse what they already have. Union station looks just like the day rail service ended. The benches are still there as is the schedule/info board and it's of large enough size for a city such as Roanoke..

If that doesn't work the other station (former Virginian RR passenger station) is also being rebuilt. The trackage already runs through Roanoke for both stations and is currently used by Norfolk Southern for freight. Short of equipment I do not understand why the estimates for restoring service are so high.

From what I see service should be able to be restored on a shoestring. Comments????????


----------



## Notelvis (Jan 25, 2013)

Agreed - the railroading industry...... and by continuation - passenger trains....... have continued to be ingrained in the minds of most people in the Roanoke area. There is enough infrastructure left over here that Roanoke would not have to start from scratch.


----------



## Train Rider (Jan 25, 2013)

Existing tracks that haven't been used for decades for passenger rail are nice because no right-of-way needs to be bought and developed. However, this chunk of track may require signaling and passing track upgrades to make it an efficient line capable of handling passenger rail at a desireable speed and predictable time table. It may also include some road construction funds for viaducts to reduce crossings by major highways/streets.

Also, if these stations look like the day rail service ended, then they will require significant and potentially expensive modifications required by the Americans with Disablities Act.


----------



## Train Rider (Jan 25, 2013)

Also, re-establishment of service will require a full environmental impact statement, which may seem like a waste with an established track, but the law requires it to be done for such a thing.

And finally, never underestimate government's ability to overspend on infrastructure, regardless of type.


----------



## afigg (Jan 25, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> Short of equipment I do not understand why the estimates for restoring service are so high.From what I see service should be able to be restored on a shoestring. Comments????????


NS reportedly estimated a $140 million cost 2 years ago for service extension to Roanoke. Either NS has come down in price or some of the current budget funds will go for Roanoke extension upgrades. But as to the cost, it has been many decades since there was passenger service over those tracks. NS and/or VDRPT may want passing sidings to be lengthened, double tracking, new crossovers, signal upgrades for 79 mph Class IV speeds, grade crossing upgrades & timing changes, track maintenance. For the stations, maybe NS wants the new/restored stations to be located on pull-over tracks to keep the line clear when a passenger train is at the station.

NS or a consulting firm was paid by VDRPT to do a study for the extension to Roanoke, there is a line item for it in the FY13 budget. That study may cover the EIS requirements, don't know. But as far I can tell, the breakdown of or a report on the upgrades NS wants has not been made public. Until then, we can only guess as to what the $102 million is for. A google search turned up a 2002 study on recommended upgrades for passenger service to Richmond, Roanoke, and Bristol. I've only skimmed it but there are passing sidings, double tracks, various upgrades discussed in it.

As for the old stations, may be expensive to return them to use if they have been repurposed and leased/sold to a private company. The stations will have to be ADA compliant and have to provide level boarding capability. If the stations are on pull-over tracks, then maybe the stations will get full length high level platforms. Otherwise, mini-highs with bridge plates probably if Amtrak projects the station to get more than 7500 passengers a year.

All adds up.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 25, 2013)

FOr comparison, what did NS charge for the recent extension to Norfolk?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 25, 2013)

The plan is the classic definition of a "mess", and not all of the elements have been clear. Basically, one element of the gas/sales tax switch was about $55 million per year for intercity passenger rail and $65 million per year for a mass transit fund. None of this was spelled out in the initial proposal, which focused on the tax swap. $55 million to each comes from a $15 increase in vehicle registration fees, and the additional $10+ per year for mass transit comes from an electric vehicle tax (link: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+oth+SB1355F122+PDF ).

I don't take the plan as running 6 additional trains, at least if my understanding of the state's situation is correct. I believe that the capital costs of the existing trains and the hike in NS's fees on the Lynchburg train are going to require a modest level of funding, but I'm not sure exactly what that level is going to be. As to the Norfolk stuff, that's already been planned but not funded. Currently, VA has 6 trains that they're taking over: 5 Richmond/Hampton Roads plus the Lynchburger. $45 million over 6 years translates into $7.5 million per year, which only breaks out to $1.25 million per train. That's _really_ too low for new trains unless you're just gushing money...might work for Roanoke, but not overall I don't suspect. Here's a rundown of what I'm thinking:

$102 million for extending passenger service to Roanoke, mostly spent by FY2016.* Self-explanatory. Probably gets the state 2-3 slots, but who knows if they'll use them right off the bad.*

$79 million for passenger service to Norfolk (upgrades, Appomattox bridge perhaps?) *There's a package of upgrades already worked out. A lot of this is re-routing the train in the Suffolk area: There's a track they wanted to use, but the condition was lousy. This will all cut some time off, as I understand it.*

$35 million for passenger service to Newport News (further out in FY16 to FY18) *Likely a mix of work relating to the new NPN station (which will cut a couple minutes off the trip by virtue of its location) and a yard bypass and/or some track work in Richmond to fix some of the bottlenecks there that happen all the time and cut RVR-RVM times.*

$47 million for capacity Richmond to DC (FY16 to FY18) *Probably up in Alexandria** between the Long Bridge and the CSX/NS split.*

$45 million total over 6 years for 6 PRIIA trains. *Allowance for current **trains, new equipment charges, plus a buffer for bad years. VA is in the black under existing operating formulas, but the costs associated with PRIIA are fairly substantial as they effectively add full capital costs to the formula. With that said, given ridership trends, VA may not use all of this.*

Those are just my guesses; when I can tell you more I will tell you more.


----------



## benjibear (Jan 25, 2013)

Glad to see VA is pro-Amtrak. For the Ronaoke extension are there any other stations that will need added?


----------



## afigg (Jan 25, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I don't take the plan as running 6 additional trains, at least if my understanding of the state's situation is correct. I believe that the capital costs of the existing trains and the hike in NS's fees on the Lynchburg train are going to require a modest level of funding, but I'm not sure exactly what that level is going to be. As to the Norfolk stuff, that's already been planned but not funded. Currently, VA has 6 trains that they're taking over: 5 Richmond/Hampton Roads plus the Lynchburger. $45 million over 6 years translates into $7.5 million per year, which only breaks out to $1.25 million per train. That's _really_ too low for new trains unless you're just gushing money...might work for Roanoke, but not overall I don't suspect. Here's a rundown of what I'm thinking:


I compared the operating subsidy and capital charges in the FY13 Six year Improvement Plan with the table from the McDonnell press release and the amounts are the same for each year. So, yes, the funding plan is for 6 VA Regional trains total. Although that can change in the outlying years if ridership and demand grows and the capacity is added by the track improvements. The additional funds are the capital funds for the corridor improvements, $264 million over 5 years.

/

If the Obama Administration can succeed in getting through Congress some funding for high speed / intercity passenger rail, perhaps in an expanded TIGER grant program, the funds VA could have for the NFK, NPN, WAS-Richmond corridors might be used to provide the 20% state match component. The Richmond Main Street to NFK and NPN corridors now have a Tier 1 EIS, the Richmond to Petersburg segment is covered by the SEHSR Tier 2 FEIS for Richmond to Raleigh, ALX to RVM is funded for Tier II EIS work over the next few years. The website for the Long Bridge study says there is to be a final report by summer 2013. (The conclusions and recommendations of the Long Bridge report should be an interesting read).

So if McDonnell gets these funds in the budget, VDRPT might pull out specific projects on the corridor that have the EIS to back them up and submit applications for 80% federal funding. Use $10 million in state money to get $40 million in federal money. Helps to be a state that is willing and able to put decent amounts of funding for passenger rail projects. Meanwhile the state can provide all the funds for the Roanoke extension which will allow the work to get started and completed more quickly.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 25, 2013)

Well, and as much as I hate to say it, a stable pot of money means that if federal money becomes available, the state can dive at it and slide outer-year planning around. They can also arguably commit money from multiple years to the fund as well...and there's a likely indirect transfer in the medium term if the VRE step-up charge gets cut (cutting it from $5 to $2 has been suggested). Mass transit money could be "back doored" to Amtrak Virginia that way, and VRE capacity issues have brought that out as a viable proposal as I understand it. I do, for what it's worth, expect the actual state need for the capital charges/operating subsidies to come in a bit low for the foreseeable future. VA has been killing the estimates year in and year out, after all (the margin went from $3.7 million in FY11 to $8.6 million in FY12, and the state is on course to break that margin record again unless the Norfolk train _seriously_ tanks the results).


----------



## railiner (Jan 26, 2013)

benjibear said:


> Glad to see VA is pro-Amtrak. For the Ronaoke extension are there any other stations that will need added?


The Amtrak 'Hilltopper', used to make a flag stop at Bedford, between Lynchburg and Roanoke.....


----------



## JoeSF (Jan 26, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> The magnificent Frank Lloyd Wright designed Union Station still stands and is in top shape.


Sorry, but Frank Lloyd Wright did not design the Roanoke or any other train station. The closest he got to doing so is the original design for the Monona Terrace Convention Center in Madison WI, which had a train station in the ground floor. A replica of Wright's design was built 40 years after his death, minus the train station (no trains to Madison at the time). When the state was planning to run Talgos to Madison, one of the proposed station sites was at Monona Terrace.


----------



## afigg (Jan 27, 2013)

railiner said:


> The Amtrak 'Hilltopper', used to make a flag stop at Bedford, between Lynchburg and Roanoke.....


The route map for the TransDominion Express concept has a station in Bedford. Which is a logical place to add a stop to provide service for the region between Lynchburg and Roanoke.


----------



## SouthernServesTheSouth (Jan 28, 2013)

No tracks to/from Farmville. Tracks torn up ROW given to state for the High Bridge State Park.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2013)

SouthernServesTheSouth said:


> No tracks to/from Farmville. Tracks torn up ROW given to state for the High Bridge State Park.


I must admit I was a bit puzzled too about how they'd get to Farmville.Weren't they planning to use the old NW via Abilene? Or am I just completely confused and remember something wrong? Which of those old NW routes are still in place?


----------



## abcnews (Jan 29, 2013)

The Farmville stop was on the old N & W mainline between Petersburg and Roanoke. That line is now a very nice bike trail - and NS is using another route between Petersburg & Roanoke - I think it was part of the original "Virginian Railway" Right of way.


----------



## abcnews (Jan 29, 2013)

Hats off to the Governor - he actually went to Roanoke to pitch his plan - and his main focus was Amtrak coming to Roanoke. He is very positive about rail travel in Virginia.

I also heard that the State of VA is actually in the black on the Lynchburger. The formula called for state subsidies, but with a cash payout of a percentage of ticket sales.

Well the state has actually made money on the train - not a loss. What a pleasant surprise. VA get a percentage of every Amtrak ticket sold for the train (the Virginia stations). So if a passenger goes from Lynchburg to NY - VA keeps a percentage. That additional revenue has exceeded the subsidies.


----------



## abcnews (Jan 29, 2013)

I also heard that they run busses from Lynchburg to Roanoke to connect to and from the Lynchburg train - and the buses are having high demand. So Roanoke is certainly doing their part to get real rail service.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 29, 2013)

abcnews said:


> Hats off to the Governor - he actually went to Roanoke to pitch his plan - and his main focus was Amtrak coming to Roanoke. He is very positive about rail travel in Virginia.
> I also heard that the State of VA is actually in the black on the Lynchburger. The formula called for state subsidies, but with a cash payout of a percentage of ticket sales.
> 
> Well the state has actually made money on the train - not a loss. What a pleasant surprise. VA get a percentage of every Amtrak ticket sold for the train (the Virginia stations). So if a passenger goes from Lynchburg to NY - VA keeps a percentage. That additional revenue has exceeded the subsidies.


"In the black" doesn't begin to cover it. VA's situation is about to get surreal...supposing that they don't somehow fail to fund the trains on paper, it's an open question as to how much capital funding they're actually going to need. The Lynchburger is sometimes the most profitable segment of the Amtrak system in terms of operating ratio; otherwise, it's second-only to the Acela in terms of operating and overhead versus revenue. Last year, it brought in $3.7 million before any capital charges on $11.8 million in revenue ($.2 million more than FY11, but there was also a sharp increase in indicated costs). Most of that revenue was farebox, some was OBS, but _none_ was from VA. Likewise, the Washington-Richmond-Hampton Roads run has swung fairly deep into the black ($4.7 million net on $35.8 million overall versus $.2 million the year before, with only a $.4 million increase in costs).

So...I'm not sure what the situation is going to look like as of next October at _all_. I've seen conflicting figures...the $6 million capital charge allowance from the state may or may not be needed in whole (some of the formulas are set to change, as are some access fees), but I _do_ know that those estimates didn't take into account these continuing bumps in ridership.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2013)

abcnews said:


> The Farmville stop was on the old N & W mainline between Petersburg and Roanoke. That line is now a very nice bike trail - and NS is using another route between Petersburg & Roanoke - I think it was part of the original "Virginian Railway" Right of way.


As far as I can tell the proposal that I have seen uses all ex-NW trackage, whether it takes off from Richmond or Petersburg. The latter will require the construction of another connecting track at Collier.

Now if it is going to avoid Lynchburg and go straight to Roanoke then it could use the ex Virginian trackage from Abilene Connection west. The Virginian trackage east of there has been abandoned long time back. But I suspect that they will not bypass Lynchburg on that route should it come to pass. Of course getting this service to use the Kemper St. station in Lynchburg will require some weird backup moves too.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 29, 2013)

Here is what they now have in Roanoke.







The station is still in beautiful shape and right on the NS line.

Correction: The Norfolk & Western Union Station in Roanoke was not designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The station was restored and redesigned by famed industrial designer, Raymond Loewy. It is a beautiful modernesque design that houses the O Winston Link museum on the basment floor.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> Here is what they now have in Roanoke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The current Amtrak special operations that take place about once a year through Roanoke, apparently embark and disembark in the vicinity of this building.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 29, 2013)

According to the extant TDX plans, the idea is to run such a train RVR-LYH-ROA (and potentially on to Bristol).


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2013)

Anderson said:


> According to the extant TDX plans, the idea is to run such a train RVR-LYH-ROA (and potentially on to Bristol).


That would imply no usage of the ex-Virginian track since that bypasses LYH. And as I said getting any east - west train running through Lynchburg to the Kepmper Street Station will be an interesting exercise.


----------



## railiner (Jan 29, 2013)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > According to the extant TDX plans, the idea is to run such a train RVR-LYH-ROA (and potentially on to Bristol).
> ...


Back when, The Mountaineer, and later The Hilltopper, used the N&W station at Woodall Road....


----------



## Anderson (Jan 29, 2013)

While that might be a workable option, I suspect that the state is going to be leery about having different trains using entirely different stations, if just because of the confusion potential (to say nothing of lost connection potential where applicable). I'm also getting the feeling that a direct RVR-LYH connection is going to be behind several other projects in terms of state priority, too.


----------



## abcnews (Jan 29, 2013)

I would guess that RVR to LYH and Roanoke is unlikely. Just not enough passenger traffic. I'm thinking that the future of Amtrak in Roanoke will be tied to the Northeast corridor (North-South direction via Lynchburg) and the heavy volume of passengers it would draw, verses an East-West route to Petersburg or Richmond that is not very direct, through little populated areas on meandering rail lines that are already heavy laden with coal traffic.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 29, 2013)

abcnews said:


> I would guess that RVR to LYH and Roanoke is unlikely. Just not enough passenger traffic. I'm thinking that the future of Amtrak in Roanoke will be tied to the Northeast corridor (North-South direction via Lynchburg) and the heavy volume of passengers it would draw, verses an East-West route to Petersburg or Richmond that is not very direct, through little populated areas on meandering rail lines that are already heavy laden with coal traffic.


Well, I suspect that the _long_ long-term plan is likely going to be for the TDX to run from Hampton Roads to Roanoke. The other thing is that your east-west options connecting ROA or LYH and NFK/NPN come in two varieties: Out of the way and winding. ROA-RVR is three hours, give-or-take, and the "fastest" route takes you right by Staunton. So I suspect there's at least a modest market for this, especially once you add in north/south connections it would enable (Silvers from LYH/ROA, Crescent from RVR/Hampton Roads), to say nothing of erratic winter weather in that part of the state.


----------



## afigg (Feb 20, 2013)

News update on the VA transportation funding bill. After coming up with 2 very different bills to raise around $900 million a year in additional revenue for state transportation funding, the VA House and Senate negotiators have reached an agreement on a revised bill. Washington Post article "House, Senate negotiators strike Va. transportation deal". The bill has to be voted on and passed by both houses, but it appears likely that it will pass. I will skip over the revenue, gas tax, and sales tax specifics as the article covers that.

My understanding is that the different bills passed by the VA House and Senate had the funding in them for the passenger rail and transit funding proposed by the Governor. So the odds are very good that the Virginia DRPT will get the funds to advance the service extension to Roanoke, implement the track upgrades for 3 daily trains to Norfolk in the next 3-4 years. The additional proposed transit funding will provide $300 million for the DC Metro Silver Line Phase 2 project to Dulles Airport and should provide a larger pot for other transit projects to tap in future years.

Will have to wait and see what happens to transportation revenue and funding increases in Maryland, PA, and MA.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 21, 2013)

I'll make a call or two over the next few days and see what's actually in the bill. I'm guessing that the $50m/yr for intercity passenger rail will be there, but I've got no clue on the rest. The way the numbers have been going on state services, this likely means we'll have between $50 and $55 million/year for capital costs (since it seems quite likely that the capital charges and what have you will more or less be taken care of, and then some, by surging revenue).


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 21, 2013)

afigg said:


> News update on the VA transportation funding bill. After coming up with 2 very different bills to raise around $900 million a year in additional revenue for state transportation funding, the VA House and Senate negotiators have reached an agreement on a revised bill. Washington Post article "House, Senate negotiators strike Va. transportation deal". The bill has to be voted on and passed by both houses, but it appears likely that it will pass. I will skip over the revenue, gas tax, and sales tax specifics as the article covers that.
> My understanding is that the different bills passed by the VA House and Senate had the funding in them for the passenger rail and transit funding proposed by the Governor. So the odds are very good that the Virginia DRPT will get the funds to advance the service extension to Roanoke, implement the track upgrades for 3 daily trains to Norfolk in the next 3-4 years. The additional proposed transit funding will provide $300 million for the DC Metro Silver Line Phase 2 project to Dulles Airport and should provide a larger pot for other transit projects to tap in future years.
> 
> Will have to wait and see what happens to transportation revenue and funding increases in Maryland, PA, and MA.


Hopefully some good will come out of this mess. I read enough to know that the agreement seems pretty screwy. I've heard it said somewhere that it is truly a comprimise because nobody likes it. While there are times when that means it is a good middle of the road agreement, this appears to be like a platypus. An animal designed by a committee that could never fundamentaly agree on the most basic question of what type of animal they were making. :wacko:


----------



## Ribbon50 (Feb 21, 2013)

Re: Richmond-Roanoke and West. The track setup with original downtown location of Union Station in LYH would have made use of Kemper Street station easy with a connecting switch. The track west of the old station location has been removed but could be restored through the tunnel near Rivermont Av. and a connection to NS main made west of the tunnel. I don't know what this would cost, however. Originally, N&W trains from Union Station would head directly west to Roanoke avoiding the Southern but crossing the line N of Kemper Street. Trains to Durham would use a track parallel to Southern line passing Kemper Street--there was a small station at 12th street, too. As a child I would visit Kemper Street and occasionally see an old N&W steam locomotive pulling a 2-3 car passenger train on the line parallel to Kemper St.


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2013)

And then of course there is the added complication of the possible proposal to build a station by Liberty University in Lynchburg too


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 21, 2013)

While many details are still missing, here is my Delegate's (as in the Virginia House of Delegates) take on the agreement.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 21, 2013)

Interesting take on the agreement, but HOLY COW! What a breath of fresh air to have an elected representative that interacts with their constituents without just regurgitating some talking points and isn't afraid to say "I'm not sure, I'm still considering where I stand on this".


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 21, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Interesting take on the agreement, but HOLY COW! What a breath of fresh air to have an elected representative that interacts with their constituents without just regurgitating some talking points and isn't afraid to say "I'm not sure, I'm still considering where I stand on this".


I here you. I think he might be the most constituent responsive elected official I've ever had. He grew up in the jurisdiction and seems to really care about the area he represents.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 22, 2013)

Ok, I had a discussion with someone I know. It looks like IPROC got its funding ($50m/yr or so) and I know the Silver Line gets the aforementioned $300 million. I do not know the status of the Mass Transit Trust Fund that's supposed to get funded...I went to the state legislative site, and the bill's current form isn't up yet for a very simple reason: They're still proofreading it for connected changes to what was agreed upon (i.e. making sure that cross-references are updated where something had to be renumbered, making sure that appropriation numbers add up, etc.). But I've been assured that IPROC was funded, which should protect Amtrak operations in VA on a long-term basis.

I've also been told that passage looks likely. It isn't certain (thanks to the situation in the Senate; since this is a tax bill, the Lt. Gov. can't vote), but it seems likely.


----------



## afigg (Feb 23, 2013)

The compromise transportation funding bill was passed by the VA Senate on a 25-15 vote. There were some minute hurdles over Medicaid with Cuccinelli trying to interfer with the deal, but it passed. It is hardly an ideal transportation bill in how it cuts the effective gas tax while increasing the state sales tax. It is also quite a complicated bill with fees, provisions, new wholesale taxes on gasoline & diesel, but this is not a forum to discuss transportation tax and revenue policy for Virginia.

The good news is that the bill passed and there will be additional funding for passenger rail and transit projects in the state. Hopefully Virginia DRPT will get going on the Roanoke extension, capacity upgrades for Norfolk service fairly quickly after the start of the state fiscal year 2014 on July 1. Attorney General Cuccinelli will be the Republican nominee for Governor in the state elections this November and he has made it quite clear that he is no fan of transit projects and I expect passenger rail. If he is elected Governor (my one outright political comment on that thought  :help: ) , he may try to squash or delay passenger rail projects despite broad support from members in both parties. If the Roanoke extension has started track work and Roanoke is already planning for the day the passenger train returns to Roanoke, it will be difficult for him to kill it.

If VDRPT and NS can work at the same speed on the Roanoke extension track projects that they did with the Norfolk service starting it months earlier than originally projected, that would be a welcome course of events. So by sometime in 2016, Amtrak service to Roanoke?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 24, 2013)

afigg said:


> The compromise transportation funding bill was passed by the VA Senate on a 25-15 vote.


Somehow it feels like we won the battle but lost the war. This bill is going to come back and haunt us down the road when the lack of real new funding for transportation - that this bill ignores - comes home to roost. But that will be long enough down the road that the people who "crafted" this mess will have moved on to screwing up greater things!

:angry2: :angry2: :angry2:


----------



## Anderson (Feb 24, 2013)

Just spoke to some people in Richmond, and the feeling is that Cuccinelli will try and cut taxes off of the surplus in the general fund and mess with the Medicare side of the deal, but that he won't try to do anything to the transportation projects themselves. IIRC, he was in favor of the deal (albeit with some hand-wringing) until the Dems heaped Medicare-related demands (which have _nothing_ to do with transportation) into the mix.


----------



## afigg (Feb 25, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Somehow it feels like we won the battle but lost the war. This bill is going to come back and haunt us down the road when the lack of real new funding for transportation - that this bill ignores - comes home to roost. But that will be long enough down the road that the people who "crafted" this mess will have moved on to screwing up greater things!


There is substantial new funding for transportation in the bill, even though the bill is ridiculously complicated. Northern VA and Hampton Roads will see the sales tax increase to 6% with the revenue from the extra 0.7% over the new state sales tax level to go to local transportation projects. The 3.5% wholesale tax on gasoline is set to increase by 1.6% in January 2015 if Congress does not pass a bill allowing states to collect taxes on internet sales. Since Congress can't agree on anything these days, the odds of the increase are probably quote good. Diesel is subject to a 6% wholesales tax which should work out to an increase over the 17.5 cents sales tax. I hope the Wash Post or someone will post a complete summary of what is in the compromise bill, because it is a mess.

Looking at the additional expenditures McDonnell proposed in January, it has the spending on capital costs for the Roanoke extension and Norfolk service expansion mostly spent by FY2017 with DC to Richmond funding picking up after that. If the state budget maintains the ~$50 million a year in additional passenger rail spending after that in combination with the current funded levels, the logical step would be to spend those annual funds on DC to Richmond Main Street upgrades as the EIS work is completed and pursue restoration of service through Main Street to Petersburg. Once there are 3 daily trains to Norfolk, there will be political pressure and support to spend the funds to enable the trains to go through Main Street Station and downtown Richmond. Quite a lot can get accomplished over time with $50 to $100 million a year in capital project state funding if the Governor and state legislatures don't divert the funds. Even more if there is federal funding available with a 20% state match.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 25, 2013)

afigg said:


> There is substantial new funding for transportation in the bill, even though the bill is ridiculously complicated.


Thanks for summarizing and sharing what are undoubtedly most of the major parts of this monster! :hi:

I agree that it should help provide more money for badly needed transportation projects and programs. Amtrak and Metro's Silver Line have emerged from the chaos with more funding and the future of rail here in the Old Dominion is looking good... depending on who wins the Governor's race this year. On that note, one of the more interesting political aspects of this is how it has opened a fissure in the Republican Party in the state, with some still hammering on their 'no new taxes drum,' while others realized that the state is in deep doo doo when it comes to keeping things moving in the more developed parts of the state. However, IMHO, while it helps the situation, I think this bill will ultimately do more for the Governor's political aspirations than it will to relieve congestion in the long term.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > There is substantial new funding for transportation in the bill, even though the bill is ridiculously complicated.
> ...


Based on the read I'm getting from some circles, it's probably put a bullet in them. He's not going to be able to claim getting rid of the gas tax (which was likely his main intent with this), he hiked the sales tax while the state is running a surplus, and he had to agree to Medicare expansion to get it through the Senate. That's two strikes for no gained advantage.

Actually, to be quite candid, it was a mixed bag bill but it was better than losing rail service, so I supported the bill with a clothespin over my nose. However, with that said (and yes, I recognize this is political, but so be it), Bob McDonnell will very likely never get my support at the primary level ever again. This bill was a horribly-coordinated mess, it was thrown out there without any political consultation with his caucus (they were informed a few hours in advance), and it did all the wrong things on tax policy. Unless we get stuck with him as a nominee again, I'm probably done with him for good. I'm glad we got _something _through, but it's a real piece of work.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 25, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Based on the read I'm getting from some circles, it's probably put a bullet in them.


Anderson, You make good points about this. The angle I see in this is that Gov. McDonnell got *BOTH *Democrats and Republicans to agree to something that at least does something to address the transportation woes the state faces, even if - as you put it - everyone had to put a clothespin on their collective noses to do it. As sequestration looms, and the two parties seem ever farther apart, this is no small accomplishment and could give Mr. McDonnell an angle that few other politicians seem willing to embrace, as they see it as touching the third rail. Will this work for him? Time will tell, just as it will for the new legislation.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2013)

I see your points as well. I guess the way I see it, he'll do well for himself in a general election...but I think he damaged his odds in a primary given how much he gave away in the deal.


----------



## afigg (Feb 26, 2013)

Don't want to get too sidetracked on discussing Gov. McDonnell's political plans, because once he steps down as Governor of Virginia, he is no longer a key player in Amtrak expansion and service in the state. McDonnell has hurt himself in the presidential process in the Republican primaries, but those are 3 years away and much of the immediate flap will have faded. Besides if McDonnell does run for President, he would really be running for a Vice-President slot on the ticket as whoever gets the Republican nomination may pick him for the swing state electoral votes. But enough on that.

What I will be interested to see if there are carryover effects in MD and PA from Virginia raising taxes to pay for transportation.

MD is facing the same short fall in funding with a fixed excise tax that has not been increased in decades and has kicked the can down the road before on either raising the gas tax or other revenue sources for transportation. There is a proposal to add a 3% wholesale tax on gasoline to adjust for inflation over the past several decades. The Purple Line and Baltimore Red Line LRT projects and plans for MARC expansion are at risk without increased state funding being made available. Both the Purple Line and Baltimore Red Line would directly connect to the NEC so they would increase the value of the NEC as a corridor. The Purple Line would terminate at New Carrolton, running to College Park & UMD, Silver Spring, Bethesda. That could boost Amtrak ridership at New Carrolton with a faster trip to PHL, NYP from College Park than taking the Metro south to Union Station. So what happens in MD for increased transportation revenue would have implications for Amtrak. As does what happens in PA and MA.


----------



## trainviews (Feb 26, 2013)

In general gas taxes as a percentage is an even worse idea than a fixed amount. Historically gas prices have been fluctuating a lot. A percentage tax will make it almost unforseeable how much the tax brings in and it worsens the gas price fluctuations, which are damaging to the general economy.

The problem with fixed amount taxes is that they get outrun by inflation, but they have the advantage of mitigating oil price shocks (this is why these fluctuations create much less fuzz in Europe. Without discussing other pros and cons of gas tax levels,with the high gas taxes here half of the price or so at the pump is tax, so a dollar a gallon increase in wholesale gas prices creates a much lower price increase percentagewise on the already high prices at the pump. Prices people are accustomed to and have already factored into their personal economies)

So the sensible way to do it in my oppinion is a fixed amount tax, which automatically regulates itself upward with general inflation. This would more or less secure revenues, but I guess a selfregulating tax, even if pretty low, would be very hard to get through...


----------



## Ryan (Feb 26, 2013)

The problem in Maryland is that Annapolis has a history of dipping into the transportation fund for other uses.

I'd wholeheartedly support a gas tax increase if it actually went toward transportation, but I'm lukewarm on supporting it of they're just going to siphon the extra funds off (no pun intended) for other uses.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 1, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> While many details are still missing, here is my Delegate's (as in the Virginia House of Delegates) take on the agreement.





Ryan said:


> Interesting take on the agreement, but HOLY COW! What a breath of fresh air to have an elected representative that interacts with their constituents without just regurgitating some talking points and isn't afraid to say "I'm not sure, I'm still considering where I stand on this".


I knew I liked this guy!

He was on the local news tonight talking about his opposition to the $100 Hybrid tax.

Look what's behind him. 







He's got a petition going to try and stop the hybrid tax you can sign if you're so inclined.

http://scottsurovell.blogspot.com/2013/02/veto-hybrid-tax.html


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 1, 2013)

Ryan said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > While many details are still missing, here is my Delegate's (as in the Virginia House of Delegates) take on the agreement.
> ...


That is too funny!  :excl: I wonder if the posters are his, or in his office. If so, I had no idea he was an Amtrak fan, but he seems to understand we can't just keep building highways to ever more sprawl spread out over ever greater distances and expect to be able to afford them.

I signed the petition. It has gotten 5,000 signatures in just 5 days.

THANKS! :hi: for a great laugh, Ryan!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 1, 2013)

I signed as well.

It looked to me like the interview was done in his house.


----------



## Dixie (Mar 2, 2013)

Bring it on ...
Anxiously awaiting passenger service in Bristol one of these decades ...


----------



## Ryan (May 3, 2013)

Nice positive story in today's Roanoke times about the train coming to town...

http://www.roanoke.com/news/1901113-12/passenger-rail-effort-moving-forward.html



> The fact that engineers and consultants are beginning the practical work of giving Roanoke its long-sought passenger train service has lent the project new realism. Unless there’s an unexpected glitch in funding the plan, “I don’t know anything that would hold it up now,” said Wayne Strickland, who directs the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission.
> “Before it was a kind of a ‘maybe’ and ‘if we eventually get the funding, we’re going to do it,’ ” Strickland said.
> 
> Kevin Page, chief operating officer of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the lead state agency, brought Roanoke region officials up to date on the project last week.
> ...


----------



## afigg (Jan 9, 2014)

News update on the Roanoke extension: Governor McDonnell Announces Signed Agreement to Extend Amtrak Virginia Service to Roanoke (VA press release). McDonnell, who has only several days left in his term, may have rushed this to get the agreement signed with NS, which is not a bad thing because these studies and negotiations all too often drag on and on. Excerpts from the press release:



> *RICHMOND - *Governor Bob McDonnell announced today that the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) and Norfolk Southern Corporation have entered into an agreement to improve rail related infrastructure between Lynchburg and Roanoke. The improvements will allow passenger rail to once again serve the Roanoke Region. Governor McDonnell's 2013 transportation funding plan was instrumental in funding the return of intercity passenger rail service to Roanoke.
> 
> "DRPT and Norfolk Southern continue their strong partnership to advance intercity passenger rail service in the state of Virginia," said Governor McDonnell. "Intercity passenger rail service is central to the Commonwealth's economic growth, vitality and competitiveness in the region. Now the major population centers will have intercity passenger rail service.
> 
> ...


I'll have to keep an eye out for a report or document detailing the track upgrades and the costs. Anyway, onward to Roanoke! (in 2017 give or take).


----------



## afigg (Jan 10, 2014)

More information in the news reports on the Roanoke extension. Roanoke Times: 2017 set as target for passenger rail arrival in Roanoke. The target date is September, 2017, but it might be sooner. The cost is $92.7 million which, from reports I saw elsewhere, includes several projects to increase clearance on the other NS E-W line so some freight traffic can be shifted off of the Lynchburg-Roanoke tracks.


----------



## nferr (Jan 10, 2014)

abcnews said:


> I also heard that they run busses from Lynchburg to Roanoke to connect to and from the Lynchburg train - and the buses are having high demand. So Roanoke is certainly doing their part to get real rail service.


Yup I took a trip down there in November from Bridgeport. One train from Bridgeport to Lynchburg and the bus waits for the train right outside the station. $4 for the bus and it took about an hour i think to get to Roanoke. Same thing on the return. And the busses were pretty full. And Roanoke is a great rail town. That restored passenger station is right at the NS train yard. Across the street from a big famous restored railroad hotel (forgot the name). And it's true there's enough space upstairs in the station for Amtrak use IMO. They did tear up the access to the tracks though.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 10, 2014)

nferr said:


> abcnews said:
> 
> 
> > I also heard that they run busses from Lynchburg to Roanoke to connect to and from the Lynchburg train - and the buses are having high demand. So Roanoke is certainly doing their part to get real rail service.
> ...


It's the Roanoke Hotel, IIRC. From what I understand, bus traffic is somewhere around 10-12k/yr. It doesn't sound _amazing_, but it's not a trivial amount of ridership for a bus that comes and goes at very off hours.


----------



## Sactobob (Jan 10, 2014)

The plan is to NOT use the old station building/museum, I believe mainly because of track configurations and conflict with freight movements. A new facility will be build further west and on the south side of the tracks next to downtown.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 11, 2014)

Anderson said:


> nferr said:
> 
> 
> > abcnews said:
> ...


Close, it's the Hotel Roanoke - now owned by Virginia Tech.


----------



## George (Jan 14, 2014)

http://www.rtands.com/index.php/freight/class-1/ns-virginia-agree-to-improve-infrastructure-for-the-return-of-roanoke-passenger-service.html?channel=Array&utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1.13.14&utm_content=NS%2c+Virginia+agree+to+improve+infrastructure+for+the+return+of+Roanoke+passenger+service

Or search: RT&S NS, Virginia agree to improve infrastructure for the return of Roanoke passenger service


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 21, 2014)

According to 'Trains' News Wire: The Roanoke serviice will be - at least to start with - one r/t daily, leaving Roanoke at 6:19 AM, arriving in WAS at 11:20 AM; and departing WAS at 4:50 PM, arriving Roanoke at 9:55 PM. I'd imagine the train will continue up, and down, the NEC.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 21, 2014)

Not terrible.

It'll be a mighty early departure from VT to get up to Roanoke to get the train though.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 21, 2014)

RyanS said:


> It'll be a mighty early departure from VT to get up to Roanoke to get the train though.


Won't the 'Techies' just stay up partying until the appointed hour? :giggle:


----------



## Ryan (Jan 21, 2014)

That's a distinct possibility. h34r:


----------



## afigg (Jan 21, 2014)

The Davy Crockett said:


> According to 'Trains' News Wire: The Roanoke serviice will be - at least to start with - one r/t daily, leaving Roanoke at 6:19 AM, arriving in WAS at 11:20 AM; and departing WAS at 4:50 PM, arriving Roanoke at 9:55 PM. I'd imagine the train will continue up, and down, the NEC.


Those times are extensions of the current weekday Lynchburg Regional train to Roanoke by adding 1:20 to the trip. #171 arrives LYH at 8:36 PM and thus Roanoke at 9:55 AM. #176 departs LYH at 7:38 AM, hence the 6:19 AM departure from Roanoke. Perhaps by the time Roanoke service starts, the trip times from Roanoke to WAS will be tightened up and they will be close to adding a second Regional to LYH with middle of the day departures which can be extended to Roanoke shortly afterwards.


----------



## afigg (Jul 10, 2014)

With service being extended to Roanoke, the political leaders in Bristol and SW Virginia are making noises about service to Bristol by 2019. Roanoke Star article: Roanoke to Bristol Train?

Excerpt:



> most know that by 2017 2016 if the Mayor has his way there will be Amtrak passenger train service between Roanoke and Lynchburg. Now Bristol and far southwest Virginia would like to get in on the action. Recently a contingent from that part of the state met with Mayor David Bowers and other Roanoke officials, looking for pointers on getting passenger train service extended to their towns and cities in a few years. Bristol city councilman Guy Odom, who was just ending his term as mayor, said the railroad tracks are in place; he projected that by 2019, if the financing and track clearances are obtained from Norfolk Southern, the train could connect to Bristol from Roanoke. What we hope to do is develop a strategy to get train service to Bristol. We saw the success that Roanoke had. The natural move would be to take passenger rail service into Bristol. They are planning to talk to people in Tennessee about extending rail service into that state and other points south.
> 
> Bristol city councilman Guy Odom, who was just ending his term as mayor, said the railroad tracks are in place; he projected that by 2019, if the financing and track clearances are obtained from Norfolk Southern, the train could connect to Bristol from Roanoke. What we hope to do is develop a strategy to get train service to Bristol. We saw the success that Roanoke had. The natural move would be to take passenger rail service into Bristol. They are planning to talk to people in Tennessee about extending rail service into that state and other points south.


 Once passenger rail service gets into a robust expansion mode, never underestimate the power of keeping up with the neighbors, so to speak. Expand and improve service in VA and NC, then other parts of those states want in as well, then influential people in TN, GA, and perhaps even SC will ask why not in our states?


----------



## Anderson (Jul 10, 2014)

The Bristol extension has a number of issues that aren't well appreciated. One is the fact that the area is rather thinly populated (once you get past Blacksburg/Christiansburg in VA, only Bristol VA/TN has more than 10,000 people, and it maxes out at around 40k; you've got more people in TN, but even the whole region taken together has less than 300k spread over a number of cities). The other is that, if I recall the old TDX study correctly, it takes like 4 hours to get from Roanoke to Bristol by train (even the best trains in the 50s were limited to about 3:30 from what I can tell)...which is well over drive time on I-81, yes, but which also starts getting operationally tricky (it gets up close to 10:00 Bristol-WAS and therefore 14:00 Bristol-NYP or 18:00 Bristol-BOS).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 10, 2014)

N&W-Southern still had 2 trains in each direction just prior to Amtrak in 1971. I was in college in the Louisville, My and made trips from Roanoke to Washington on those trains. They weren't fancy trains and often included TOFC cars, but were well patronized. The conductors ordered box meals at meal time. N&W joined Amtrak and discontinued the Bristol to Lynchburg portions of the trains.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 10, 2014)

I knew the ex-Pelican had survived (Southern kept their segment until a few years after A-Day); I didn't realize there was a second train.

As to the survival of those trains:
(1) As far as Lynchburg, you didn't have an interstate or similar road (you _still_ don't have one for a good portion of the route) heading north to Charlottesville and beyond.

(2) Beyond Lynchburg it is more complicated, but I looked up a map from 1970 or so, and found that neither I-66 nor I-64 actually connected between I-95 and I-81 (also, I-81 more or less terminated at the state line then).

(3) I suspect that runtimes prior to A-Day were still a bit better than they're expecting now.

(4) Finally, the trains all terminated in Washington. VA does _not_ want to force train changes in Washington, since traffic to locations between NCR and NYP exceeds traffic to/from WAS. Losing 1/3 to 1/2 of that to a forced transfer is no bueno.

The flipside is that if you extend the present Lynchburger, you get a departure time from Bristol close to midnight, while I strongly suspect the second train is going to be "wedded" to a morning timetable as well due to business. Basically, a Bristol train has to either get into DC in the afternoon (and New York well into the evening), have an awful time for Bristol (likely defeating the point of the exercise if it is the only train), or run overnight (which _can_ be done). Additionally, if you go past Bristol and into Tennessee (Knoxville/Chattanooga), overnight running becomes inevitable due to slow track (you're looking at an 1890s alignment down there if I'm not mistaken).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 10, 2014)

The trains I took the most connected wit The Pocahontas in Roanoke in mid morning. It must have left Bristol very early because that's where it originated. It arrived in Washington around 4:30pm. Returning it must have left Washington mid morning and again connected with the Pocahontas in Roanoke. The other train was the Bristol - Washington reminant of the Birmingham Special which up until 1969 connected in Roanoke with the Powhatan Arrow. The N&W trains in VA lasted much longer than SRR trains south of Bristol.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 10, 2014)

What's so important about Bristol that it warrants an extension in the first place?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 10, 2014)

Well NASCAR has two races a year there (Bristol) that draw Large crowds! Perhaps trying out a "Special" like they are now running between SAC and Sonoma during the Race there would serve as a test for this Route? Otherwise there's no there there!


----------



## Anderson (Jul 10, 2014)

Paulus said:


> What's so important about Bristol that it warrants an extension in the first place?


There are a lot of complicated factors at work here, but the biggest one is probably the fact that the whole southwest corner of the state is otherwise pretty cut off from the world, I-81 notwithstanding. You've got an airport, but flights only go two places (Atlanta and Charlotte) and can be exorbitantly expensive (as far as I can tell it is hard to find a round-trip out of Bristol for <$500). My understanding is that this isn't high on VA's priority list, but it might end up happening if the situation on the RF&P bogs down too much.


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 12, 2014)

Passenger Rail in Roanoke still on track for 2017, city leaders hope earlier


----------



## afigg (Nov 14, 2014)

Construction has officially started on the Roanoke service extension according to a press release from Gov. McAuliffe.

Progressive Railroading: Amtrak Construction begins on Amtrak service to Roanoke. Excerpt:



> The first phase of construction of a rail platform that will be part of an Amtrak service expansion to Roanoke, Va., has begun, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced yesterday.
> 
> Involved in the project are the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), the city of Roanoke, Amtrak and Norfolk Southern Corp. Anticipated to start in 2017, the Amtrak service to Roanoke will be an extension of the Northeast Regional train from Lynchburg, Va. It has been 34 years since an intercity passenger train has served Roanoke.


My bet is that service to Roanoke will start before the placeholder September 2017 date, perhaps by early 2017, if not 2016.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 14, 2014)

2016 strikes me as doubtful, but spring 2017 does seem plausible. VA seems to be able to get things done ahead of schedule and NS is a very good working partner, but knocking _too_ much off that schedule also requires Mother Nature to cooperate as well...and she's a bit temperamental.


----------



## afigg (Nov 14, 2014)

Anderson said:


> 2016 strikes me as doubtful, but spring 2017 does seem plausible. VA seems to be able to get things done ahead of schedule and NS is a very good working partner, but knocking _too_ much off that schedule also requires Mother Nature to cooperate as well...and she's a bit temperamental.


Have to agree that 2016 is likely too early for extending service to Roanoke. Virginia is providing $95 million for the extension and it will take time to spend $95 million on track work and a new station in Roanoke. If service to Roanoke does start in early to mid 2017, it will be one of the items that is going to make FY2017 a busy year for passenger rail improvements.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 14, 2014)

2017 is really looking to be the biggest year for passenger rail in a _long_ time. If the Black Hawk, Quad Cities service, Roanoke, and Burlington all happen I think that will be the biggest service expansion round since the 80s (two new routes plus two being extended). I don't recall if there are any other burning expansions out there that would time out properly (nor what the timetable is on extending the next two trains to Norfolk), but I know the Coast Daylight and All Aboard Florida are both aimed vaguely in that timeframe.


----------



## neroden (Nov 15, 2014)

Yeah. And there are a lot of other improvements due to finish at the same time in 2017 (since it's the ARRA deadline). Such as the Empire Corridor improvements, including Schenectady, Rochester, and Niagara Falls stations and Albany platform lengthening. And the Michigan corridor improvements. And Point Defiance Bypass on the Cascades route. And "Indiana Gateway" for what it's worth. The Viewliners should also be in service by then, and if Amtrak has any sense this will lead to Pennsy-CL through cars either in 2016 or 2017. And the state-ordered bilevels will also mostly be in service then.

Please note that the two new corridors out of Chicago and one out of Albany should feed yet more traffic onto the LSL, while the Roanoke corridor should feed traffic onto the Crescent, Cardinal, CL, and LSL.

Coincidentally, Amtrak should pay off the Penn Station mortgage around 2017 (maybe early 2018) as well.

Yeah, 2017 & 2018 will be big years for intercity passenger rail.


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2014)

Also the NEC upgrade in NJ completes in 2017...

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Big Iron (Nov 15, 2014)

Paulus said:


> What's so important about Bristol that it warrants an extension in the first place?


Lots of National and International Industrial companies in the nearby area which Executives might need to travel to. Otherwise would fly into Kingsport, TN.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Nov 15, 2014)

Big Iron said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > What's so important about Bristol that it warrants an extension in the first place?
> ...


_Now that the demon weed is legal in some states, would you like to share a toke with me?_

Extending the train to Roanoke gets you down the road a piece. Extending to Bristol, VA -- well, it's nice by itself. The "Tri-Cities" include Bristol, VA, and Bristol, TN, Kingston, TN, and Johnson City, TN. Their Combined Statistical Area, the 5th largest in Tennessee, boasts over 500,000 population.

_OK, now we hit the bong! _It's another 113 miles and less than 2 hours driving time to Knoxville, TN, with a Metro population over 850,000.

Keep rolling along the Tennessee River for about 1 hour 40 minutes over another 112 miles, the Chattanooga Metro pop is over 500,000.

From Chattanooga a train could go thru Alabama -- Chattanooga-Huntsville/Decatur (Metro pop 436,000)-Birmingham (Metro pop 1.1 million) -- OR, Chattanooga-Gadsen (Metro pop over 100,000)-Birmingham -- OR make a sharp turn to Atlanta.

The route looks attractive for the spacing of several nice sized cities along the way. And it's easy to see Virginia pushing down to Bristol for in-state political reasons. But will Tennessee pick up the work to link 3 of its top 5 metro areas? Could Alabama push it thru Chattanooga-Huntsville-Birmingham-Montgomery-Mobile to New Orleans? _Oh, wait. I think i see a flock of flying pigs. LOL. Maybe I need a nap now._


----------



## west point (Nov 15, 2014)

Roanoke to Bristol has some favorable trip times past on the N&W. However Bristol to Knoxville is terrible. Many portions from Bristol MAS is only 30 MPH. Best SOU RR passenger time Bristol - Knoxville was ~ 3:45.. Road miles down town Bristol - Knoxville is ~ 105 miles. SOU RR miles ~ 128 miles.


----------



## neroden (Nov 16, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Extending the train to Roanoke gets you down the road a piece. Extending to Bristol, VA -- well, it's nice by itself. The "Tri-Cities" include Bristol, VA, and Bristol, TN, Kingston, TN, and Johnson City, TN. Their Combined Statistical Area, the 5th largest in Tennessee, boasts over 500,000 population.
> 
> _OK, now we hit the bong! _It's another 113 miles and less than 2 hours driving time to Knoxville, TN, with a Metro population over 850,000.


Checking my railroad atlases, Bristol-Knoxville is a lot more practical than I realized. The NS (Southern) route goes via Johnson City TN, Greeneville TN, and Morristown TN -- all useful intermediate stop locations. It doesn't look geometrically ridiculous; it could probably have its speed improved.
This would of course only happen if Knoxville & the state of Tennessee decided they wanted a railroad connection to the east, and decided to pay for improvements.



west point said:


> Roanoke to Bristol has some favorable trip times past on the N&W. However Bristol to Knoxville is terrible. Many portions from Bristol MAS is only 30 MPH. Best SOU RR passenger time Bristol - Knoxville was ~ 3:45.. Road miles down town Bristol - Knoxville is ~ 105 miles. SOU RR miles ~ 128 miles.


128 miles vs. 113 miles (Google makes it 113 miles, not 105) is not a problem, particularly when you're picking up intermediate cities (the direct road skips all of them).
30 mph or 3:45 is a problem. so curve straightening would be required. And/or tilting trains. The direct route takes 1:43 according to Google. The existing road which follows the railroad route and stops at the intermediate cities takes 3:07 right now, 3:17 with traffic.

If Tennessee decided to go for it, improving this and providing passenger service -- probably at some speed better than 3:07 but worse than 1:43 -- would be a reasonable Tennessee project.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 16, 2014)

I have to wonder what Virginia would say to the idea of their corridor train getting extended west. Seems to me like Virginia doesn't benefit from service to Tennessee too much, and it hugely increases the potential for late trains; at that point it can probably be considered more of a long distance train than a corridor. Looking at it from the state's perspective, I doubt they'd be thrilled about spending money on a train that isn't focused on Virginia first.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 16, 2014)

It increases the possibility of delayed trains, yes. Hugely? I'm not so sure about that; it's not like there's a change of host railroad involved and the train already covers a lot of ground at that point.

Let's assume the train could make the run in 3:00 reliably; more than that seems to be a stretch, but 3:00 isn't horrid in context. From what I recall you'd be looking at 3:00 to Bristol, another 4:00 to Roanoke, 1:00 to Lynchburg, and 4:00 to Washington...so 12:00 Knoxville-Washington and about 16:00 Knoxville-New York. That's survivable in many respects, and it does open up the possibility of service to Nashville and/or Chattanooga (at which point you _have_ to have an overnight train in the picture), which I suspect TN is not terribly opposed to.


----------



## afigg (Nov 17, 2014)

keelhauled said:


> I have to wonder what Virginia would say to the idea of their corridor train getting extended west. Seems to me like Virginia doesn't benefit from service to Tennessee too much, and it hugely increases the potential for late trains; at that point it can probably be considered more of a long distance train than a corridor. Looking at it from the state's perspective, I doubt they'd be thrilled about spending money on a train that isn't focused on Virginia first.


If the train route were to be extended beyond Bristol well into Tennessee, it becomes less of a corridor train and more of an LD train distance. Extending service from Roanoke to Bristol will be enough of a challenge as Roanoke is about as far as the current Lynchburg Regional service can be extended and keep to a daytime schedule.

A Virginia supported train originating and terminating in Bristol might have to become a named train to NYP, similar to the Carolinian, because the distance it would have to cover south of WAS would make it too unreliable for Amtrak to list it as a NE Regional service from WAS to NYP. However, it could provide a second daily frequency for Roanoke and as 3rd daily VA supported train at Lynchburg.

But this is all academic speculation. First, VA has to spend $95 million to extend service to Roanoke in 2017. Once that is complete. we shall see if there is support for or as a deal to get political support from SW Virginia, for spending the $40 million or more to extend passenger service to Bristol versus spending the funds on upgrades on the Norfolk/Newport News to RVM to WAS route.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 17, 2014)

afigg said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > I have to wonder what Virginia would say to the idea of their corridor train getting extended west. Seems to me like Virginia doesn't benefit from service to Tennessee too much, and it hugely increases the potential for late trains; at that point it can probably be considered more of a long distance train than a corridor. Looking at it from the state's perspective, I doubt they'd be thrilled about spending money on a train that isn't focused on Virginia first.
> ...


I tend to agree with the possibility of needing to name the train and/or list the service as something different. Even at Roanoke it's something of a stretch (you're looking at five hours and change as it is), but it's still close enough to work. With that being said, I could see the whole Bristol/Roanoke/Lynchburg service getting some sort of branding of its own.

Based on what is going on with Virginia politics, my instinct is that they're going to throw the book at Richmond-Washington before Bristol gets a train. As things stand, RVM-WAS has the potential to make a ton of money for the state (particularly in concert with RVM-NPN/NFK) and the state has its plate full right now with those two legs (plus RVM-RGH, even though that is a joint project with NC). Technically the state has four projects, dropping back to three once Roanoke happens.


----------



## afigg (Nov 17, 2014)

Anderson said:


> I tend to agree with the possibility of needing to name the train and/or list the service as something different. Even at Roanoke it's something of a stretch (you're looking at five hours and change as it is), but it's still close enough to work. With that being said, I could see the whole Bristol/Roanoke/Lynchburg service getting some sort of branding of its own.
> 
> Based on what is going on with Virginia politics, my instinct is that they're going to throw the book at Richmond-Washington before Bristol gets a train. As things stand, RVM-WAS has the potential to make a ton of money for the state (particularly in concert with RVM-NPN/NFK) and the state has its plate full right now with those two legs (plus RVM-RGH, even though that is a joint project with NC). Technically the state has four projects, dropping back to three once Roanoke happens.


I agree. After service starts to Roanoke, I think an extension to Bristol could go into the "we will get to it later" box for the next 6 to 10 years. Virginia is spending a respectable amount of state funds on improvements for the route to Lynchburg and Roanoke:

1. $95.8 million for Lynchburg to Roanoke extension of service

2. $6.4 million (of a total of $9.2 million for Lynchburg to Alexandria Speed Improvements.

3. $22.1 million (of a total of $31.6 million) for Nokesville to Calverton Double Track (south of Manassas)

That adds up to $124 million. After those projects are completed, the Roanoke, Lynchburg, Charlottesville regions can't complain that there has been a lack of state rail funds spent in their parts of the state. Makes sense to focus the bulk of the available annual funds after 2017 on the Long Bridge, WAS to RVM and restoring service through RVM for trains going south of Richmond.

For service to/from Bristol, there is also the issue of equipment. Service that far from WAS really can't be done as an extension of a Regional. It would require 2 sets of coach cars, cafe car and a locomotive. Ok, maybe they could use freed up Horizons on this route, but would Virginia pay to refurbish them? One reason for a service extension to Bristol to go on the back burner until after a new fleet of single level cars is ordered.

In the meantime, there will be train service to Roanoke and faster trip times to Lynchburg. Who would have expected this 4 or 5 years ago as a real possibility by 2017?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 17, 2014)

Yeah, and there's some additional stuff going on that I can't really discuss until paperwork either gets passed around or fails to come through. afigg, I'll email you a summary.


----------



## Big Iron (Nov 18, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Big Iron said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Or another bong hit.


----------



## Ol' McDonald (Jan 21, 2015)

> The city of Roanoke is setting the wheels in motion for the Amtrak project. An opportunity to apply for a grant has made itself available.
> 
> The city is looking to apply for a $3.2 million grant. The grant from the state would give the city the option, if it needs to buy land.


Link: http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/roanoke-moves-forward-with-amtrak-plans/30848360


----------



## afigg (Jan 16, 2016)

I know there have been more recent posts on the Roanoke service extension, but this thread is what turned up in a search. Anyway, this is on-topic as there has been activity and a study on extending service to Christiansburg that has recommended two possible sites for a new station.

NRV MPO selects location for passenger rail station



> The New River Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) selected two Christiansburg sites as possible locations for an Amtrak passenger rail station.
> 
> Working with the New River Valley Regional Commission (NRVRC) and NRV Rail 2020, a NRV-wide community group spearheading the effort, the MPO selected two sites in Christiansburg east and west of North Franklin Street near the aquatics center for a future Amtrak station.
> “Based on market demand data, its central location in the New River Valley, and close proximity to the Norfolk Southern line, the Christiansburg locations make the most sense for a passenger station,” said Dan Brugh, MPO Executive Director. The MPO made the decision at its regular meeting Jan. 7.


The website for New River Valley Rail 2020 is http://www.nrvpassengerrail.org/

The January 7 viewgraph presentation shows the extent of the study and station site search. If Roanoke service starts in 2017, a new station and extending the Regional(s) to Christiansburg by 2020 could indeed happen if local political and VA Tech leadership supports it.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 19, 2017)

Training and familiarization runs should begin soon. There may be photo opportunities afoot.


----------

