“It
seems that regional links are very successful in other countries but it is not
the case in America.”
This phrase was the opening
statement for panel discussion led by Mayor John Mason of Fairfax, Virginia.
Group dialogue followed regarding reasons why regional links are not
working in this country. The
reasons include: 1.) America’s marriage to the automobile 2.)
Tension/competition between highway and rail interests 3.)
Inexpensive gasoline prices relative to other countries 4.) Economic
development is locally focused not regionally focused 5.) Missing policy and
investment at the national level 6.) Deregulated air service and a good interstate system.
The bottom line: Encouraging regional links in this county is a
difficult task.
Mayor Mason then
led the group in a discussion on ways regional links can work in this county.
This discourse led to solutions which included:
1.) Developing public and private partnerships 2.) Increasing
incentives 3.) Developing better land use policies and planning 4.) Making
regional links more acceptable to the middle class 5.) Investing more funds.
Suggested during the discussion was that the most effective way to make
regional links work is to have a champion or leader of this cause to keep the
issue in the forefront.
Back
Patrick Simmons started group
dialogue by stating that safety is the number one concern, especially
regarding conflicts between motorists and rail vehicles (i.e., at grade
crossings). Conflict mitigation will reduce the amount of accidents
between rail and passenger vehicles. Short-term mitigation includes the
closing of crossings; mid-term solutions should be mitigation, through the
improvement of traffic control devices; and long-term solutions are grade
separations between passenger vehicles and rail.
Other issues for improving
operations and safety include integrated planning and incident management.
Integrated planning considers all transportation modes, how they all
interconnect, and the infrastructure improvements that need to occur
simultaneously, which in turn spurs economic development. Incident
Management deals with recovery after a rail accident. Normally it takes
four to six hours to clean up and recover after a conflict. This delay
directly impacts long-term ridership and perceived safety issues.
Ken Briers added to the
discussion by saying that the number one safety issue affecting rail is
motorist patience. Motorists do not like the delay at rail crossings.
They are willing to take chances to avoid waiting for a train to pass.
It has become ingrained behavior to try to get from point A to point B in the
quickest time possible, and train delays are unacceptable. This
mentality often leads to disastrous conflicts.
“Safety issues span all
modes of rail travel, both passenger and freight,” added Kevin Page.
Funds are currently being spent in designated high-speed corridors to develop
uniform 25-second warning times at intersections, regardless of train speed.
This constant warning time technology has improved motorist patience.
There is a need for improved coordination between passenger rail planner,
local land-use planners, and economic development planners.
Infrastructure improvements need to fit in existing right-of-way and often
third tracks are necessary. If one track is exclusively passenger rail
then one side of the right of way cannot be used for economic development –
it
must be retained for passenger uses.
In explaining the Federal
Railroad Administration’s position, Richard Cogswell asserted that FRA
exists primarily because of safety issues. Effective and efficient rail
usage is dependant on ensuring the safety of trains. The hardest concept
to get across is the need for comprehensive rail planning, integrating
freight, commuter, and inner-city rail. All require a 20-year planning
horizon. There are four types of freight rail: Intermodal Freight (highest
speed), Scheduled Manifest (medium speed), Unit Trains (lower speeds), Local Freight
(makes lots of stops). Consideration must be
given to these varying types of freight within the planning process.
To summarize: 1.) If infrastructure is inadequate, delays will occur in local freight,
signal timings, other higher speed freight trains, and ultimately passenger
service. 2.) Adding passenger service requires additional tracks, crossovers
(optimally every four miles) and a consideration of what your freight rail
needs will be in 20 years – including passing tracks. 3.) The main problem is
lack of communication between FRA, AMTRAK and local officials and planners.
Back
Paying
the Freight and the Importance of Public/Private Partners
(Alan Tobias, Moderator)
Essentially,
as stated by Paul Reistrup of CSX Transportation, there are six partners: 1.)
FRA 2.) FTA-VRE 3.) the New York –
Washington, D.C. Line 4.) the Washington, D.C. –
Richmond line 5.) Norfolk Southern 6.) Washington, D.C. L'Enfant Plaza
station.
A high level of cooperation is occurring
between freight and passenger companies on the use and maintenance of the
tracks, according to Stephen MacIsaac. The question is, "How do
commuter trains pay their fair share to use traditional freight tracks?"
in their process of improving environmental quality by decreasing air
pollution generated by vehicles and improving the quality of life by reducing
commute times. The Acela train is a heavy
freight train that increases the maintenance costs of the tracks.
The Potomac River Bridge has
two tracks with 80-85 trains daily; one to carry 30-35 freight trains daily,
and the other to carry 50 passenger trains daily. Upgrades such as cab
signals, tracks and speed changes for over-takes are scheduled. At this
time, train companies are working the FTA to formulate discretionary money to
fund needed capital improvements. Before improvements are made, however,
there needs to be a greater understanding of public investment expectations –
for instance, what does the public want versus what they are willing to pay
for.
The Quantico Bridge project
was discussed as a big project with major improvements. The bridge is a
bottleneck for trains. The current proposal includes adding a new
three-track bridge.
Cherry Hill Station was
offered as a good example of a public private partnership. The developer
wants to develop a new community around a train station, with the rail station
as the center of the new town. He is proposing to donate the land for
the station and access to the station and is working with the local government
to ensure that the contribution will be credited as match local match with the
federal government to build the new station. (There is new emphasis in getting
the federal government to be more flexible with local matches.)
Citing another example,
Watson Brown of Raleigh, North Carolina, is working with Amtrak to redevelop a
train station in Raleigh's downtown area. The city is conducting an
intermodal study with assistance from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and the Triangle Transit Authority. The redevelopment of
the area will include the train station with shops and other transportation
modes such as taxi, limousines and bus service. The city is also
addressing economic development and general land use redevelopment issues in
the area surrounding the station to ensure long-term viability of the area.
(The New York –
Empire State Building track runs trains at 110 m.p.h. and is 95.5 percent on
time.)
Back
Intergovernmental
Coordination (Dick Beadles, Moderator)
“Multi-modal transportation
is highly dependent on government coordination and funding with an emphasis on
public policy coordination including cities and counties within a region,”
stated Dick Beadles. Once the region comes together, states need to be
on board to help the program move up nationally. This coordination and
linkage leads to a complex matrix between levels of government, elected
officials, staffs and constituents. It is important to understand differing
goals and motivations. But in order to have strong intergovernmental
coordination, you must understand these complexities. So you end up with
a cycle of changing opinions and policy which must be settled before going
national.
Patrick Simmons added that
the 90’s gave rail new hope with ISTEA and TEA-21. These changes
caused many long-time DOT employees to have to reinvent the funding process.
Localities got involved in regional transportation planning which took
priority over what states thought was right. Localities brought new
perspectives that state DOTs may not have considered. After 10 years,
DOTs are getting used to not having the autonomy they once had and are
beginning to understand the multimodal and local input aspects of federal
legislation.
We
now are in a cycle of trying to create new programs for which we hope, but
probably don’t, have funding. Localities, DOTs and others are all now
starting to work together, learning to prioritize projects and how to flex
funds. There is a growing reliance on CMAQ and Enhancement funds for rail,
which stuns old guard DOT officials who thought the two types of
transportation, were 1.) concrete and 2.) asphalt. The next step is for
DOTs to work with planners to revitalize areas around stations.
Tom
Duggan agreed that there is a need for a regional focus to get high-speed
rail—but “regional” initiatives are often blocked by government
“realities” where localities often compete rather than cooperate. To
achieve high-speed rail you need to stress region rather than locality.
It’s a misconception that federal transportation agencies dictate process.
It is the regional initiatives and polices that guide transportation planning
and programming. The states then have to jump on the bandwagon and push
rail both statewide and at federal level. This is the key for funding.
At
state level, cooperation should be between states, they can form networks and
share visions. It’s much easier to approach Congress for funding when
several states are unified and at the door asking for funds.
Leo
Bevon offered his perspective: Transportation has often dealt with a
changing focus. In the 40s and 50s, nation wanted a road system.
We built it and found it had negative effects we didn’t like. ISTEA
and TEA-21 changed that focus to include more local flavor and a multimodal
approach; DOTs are trying to find out if they like it.
To
respond to the changing focus, in 1990 in Virginia, VDOT was divided and the
Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) was formed. VDRPT
has powers to study things, but when it comes down to it, it’s how rail fits
into what locals want to see for their community. That leads to the
challenge of funding it.
Funding is like taking a
slice of pie. If a new slice is taken for rail it means someone else
loses part of their share. If you lose some of your share you will argue
vigorously to keep it. We may need to bake a new pie. This new pie
would need to come from non-traditional transportation funding sources.
We need to find local partners in government and in the private sector.
In Richmond, high-speed rail is like moving Richmond 50 miles closer to D.C.
That is exciting for the private sector who sees expanded markets.
It may be exciting for D.C. because it can alleviate congestion and
overcrowding. It may or may not be exciting for Richmond to be
considered a suburb of D.C.
When asked how to handle
communities that are or feel left out, panelists responded by saying that
jealousy works. Once left out they need to work to support neighbors and
tie-in to system with other modes. Make everybody feel they are part of
system. That things need to happen over time and their time will come.
Partnering is key to keeping everyone connected to system. If nothing
else, fear works. If they (community) fear they will be left out they
“suddenly” join the bandwagon.
Fear works when trying to get
localities and states working together. There must be multi-state
cooperation with all states on board. If VA or NC doesn’t want it, SC,
GA and FL can’t be part of corridor. Congressional funding goes to
those states that work together and share vision and synergy. A
mayor’s coalition, like in Cascadia Corridor has been overlooked here.
Mayor’s best know local constituency and could be vital in bringing
high-speed rail. Perhaps a special High-Speed rail conference for Mayors
would stimulate the synergy we need.
Back
This session began with a
discussion on effective marketing for transit stops. Mr. Rex Hammond
informed the group that when developing marketing measures, partners should
first be identified with a common goal, and a committee structure should then
be formed to share ideas. This committee must have a unified message in
both word and appearance. Next, this committee must take its message to
the operating state authority (or state department). Mr. Hammond
expressed the critical need for buy-in at the state level and stressed
teamwork and cooperation in order to achieve clear unified marketing measures.
It is also important to involve the community in this process—The community
should have an awareness of the service and what they must do to keep the
service.
John Berry reported findings
from a Visitors Study. This study included three years of research in
which 3227 respondents were visitors to the state and 505 were visitors to
Richmond. It was interesting that the Richmond Visitor Profile mirrored
that of the Virginia Visitor Profile. This is significant because state
trends can be used to predict local trends. The survey indicated that
almost 80 percent of both Richmond and Virginia visitors use cars for
travel—only three percent used rail. The survey also revealed that the
strongest market for rail is the northeast coast along I-95. For this
reason, the Staples Mills station is not user-friendly, as it is not located
adjacent to this corridor. However, when Main Street Station opens, it
will better serve visitors. He also stated that most rail trips drive
through Richmond without stopping because there is a perception that there is
nothing to do in Richmond. Therefore, Richmond must market to the
northeast coast. It was pointed out that Williamsburg is successful in
marketing itself to visitors and Richmond needs to follow its lead.
Concluding the session,
Steve MacIsaac from VRE discussed the marketing strategy of his organization,
which includes attracting people to try the service and then retaining their
patronage. Mr. MacIsaac noted that a good feature of VRE is that
although the delivery of service comes from the public sector, it operates
like a private business in that representatives continually try to conjure up
ways in which to penetrate the market. Some marketing strategies VRE has
in place include: 1.) Conducting a patronage and annual study to
determine the composition of users of the service and potentially users 2.)
Hiring an advertising company 3.) Giving out rider kits to homeowners 4.)
Partnering with residential developers to furnish monthly passes to new
homeowners and renters 5.) Offering feeder bus service 6.) Providing outreach
to communities.
Back
Environmental
Impact (Robert G.
"Bob" Corder, Moderator)
"The Washington, D.C. –
Richmond – Raleigh –
Charlotte corridor is the proposed corridor, ultimately continuing to Georgia
and is expected to generate more revenue than any other proposed
corridor," stated Ann Steedly from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. The environmental assessment, which examines the need
for 110 mile per hour service, extends beyond jurisdiction boundaries; rather,
it follows natural features. While investigating options within the
corridor, growth rates within the corridor for a 40-year period are
examined. As with other similar assessments, it weighs operational
against environmental considerations. Other facts discussed included 1.)
It has the largest area impacted in North Carolina where 1000 miles of
existing right-of-way is being studied 2.) It requires local, regional, state
and federal coordination 3.) It is estimated to take approximately 10 years to
complete.
According to Alan C. Tobias
from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, existing VRE
north of Fredericksburg to Washington, D.C. improvements are based on current
Amtrak usage. The "S" line between Petersburg and Raleigh was
abandoned in the 1980s, with the tracks having been removed and fiber optics
run in the abandoned right-of-way. Because some citizens view the
abandoned line as a potential economic development boost, they would like to
see freight service return that generates tax revenues. However, other
citizens want the abandoned rail line to be used as a trail. This option
will also be examined as part of the environmental impact study.
Elizabeth Sanford added to
the environmental impact discussion by stating that The Atlantic MAG-LEV
program was the first major initiative to embody comprehensive environmental
justice requirements. Outside Atlanta, Georgia, an African-American community
had previously been impacted by MARTA and the Georgia dome and that the
proposed MAG-LEV line would potentially impact the same community.
Because of this, the project is working with residents of this community to
address the needs and develop alternatives for line location and impacts.
