Presentation To Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force Hampton Roads High Speed Passenger Rail Vision Plan Hampton Roads – Richmond Presentation created by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc . in coordination with HRTPO staff.
R ECENT T IMELINE March 20, 2014 – HRTPO Board Meeting • Approved Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Vision Plan Norfolk - Richmond Final Report (Phase 2B) • Approved scope of work for a Newport News–Richmond Passenger Rail Route Analysis (Phase 2B Supplement) 1 TEMS, Inc.
H AMPTON R OADS P ASSENGER R AIL V ISION P LAN N ORFOLK -R ICHMOND R OUTE O PTIONS Stations Southern Option 1A Southern Option 1B Northern Option 2A Northern Option 2B Richmond Direct Option 3 Options 1B/2B Shared (NS) 2 TEMS, Inc.
O PTION 4: “R ICHMOND D IRECT I MPROVED ” E XPANSION OF S COPE TO INCLUDE P ENINSULA S ERVICE Option 4 Peninsula Service • 8-10 trains per day • 2 hour schedule to Washington - Greenfield north of Richmond • Based on a Greenfield connector Richmond to Toano Toano HRTPO Board Objectives • This option meets Board Objectives for both the Peninsula and Southside Map shows both existing and proposed future station sites 3 TEMS, Inc.
R ECENT T IMELINE May 8, 2014 – HRTPO Passenger Rail Task Force • TEMS presented preliminary Phase 2B Supplement results. • Task Force recommended that DRPT brief HRTPO Board on Richmond-Washington Tier II EIS prior to reconvening the Task Force to consider the revised Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Vision Plan Draft Report 4 TEMS, Inc.
H AMPTON R OADS P ASSENGER R AIL V ISION P LAN D RAFT R EPORT Draft report now available on HRTPO website: http://hrtpo.org/page/public- comment-opportunities/ Public Comments will be received through Tuesday October 14 th 5 TEMS, Inc.
C ONCLUSIONS OF THE S TUDY 1. Option 4 with the Peninsula Spur is a significant improvement over a standalone Norfolk-Richmond Corridor (i.e., Options 1-3) in terms of Operating Ratio and Cost Benefit Ratio Results. 2. 220 mph technology is preferred for the Southside Corridor while 130 mph is preferred for the Peninsula Corridor. It may be worth considering the new Dual Mode (160 mph Electric/Diesel hybrid technology) for the Peninsula. 3. The Peninsula connection could potentially be made using an existing Powerline route that would significantly reduce the need for property takes. 6 TEMS, Inc.
C ONCLUSIONS OF THE S TUDY ( CONTINUED ) 4. The additional capital cost of the Peninsula Infrastructure is $920 million and Equipment $216 million, or 15% increase in cost, compared to 34% boost in ridership and 53% boost in revenue. 5. The Vision Plan preferred Option 4 recommends a substantial increase in track capacity where passenger trains share the route with CSX, in line with CSX requests. See: http://pt.slideshare.net/HRPartnership/passenger-trains-for-va-peninsula-csx-7-17-09 6. The recommendation of high speed rail greenfield construction is in line with Association of American Railroads approach, as it is based on a dedicated track in a sealed corridor. See: http://www.onerail.org/sites/default/files/documents/testimony/witness-testimony-hamberger.pdf 7 TEMS, Inc.
I TEMS FOR F URTHER C ONSIDERATION 1. Environmental Impacts – The Vision Plan ‘environmental scan’ level of analysis will need to be supplemented with more in-depth evaluation (Tier I EIS) to meet federal requirements. 2. Jurisdictional Concerns – The appropriate authority or political entity to carry forward study recommendations are not well established in the Vision Plan. 3. Capital Financing – Projected $13.6 billion year of expenditure capital cost will likely require a Public Private Partnership (P3) with heavy private sector investment. 8 TEMS, Inc.
S TUDY R ESULTS 9 TEMS, Inc.
O PTION 4 T RAIN S CHEDULE Diesel HrST 90-130 mph Electric HST 160-220 mph Used for Southside Used for Peninsula Speeds up to 220-mph on Speeds up to 130-mph on dedicated high speed ROW dedicated high speed ROW 79-mph on NS; 90-mph on CSX ROW* 79-mph on NS; 90-mph on CSX ROW* WAS-NRF WAS-NRF WAS-NRF WAS-NPN WAS-NPN 220-mph 220-mph 220-mph 130-mph 130-mph Timetable Super Express Express Local Express Local 5 Stops to DC 7 Stops to DC 10 Stops to DC 7 Stops to DC 10 Stops to DC Total Trains 5 trains 10 trains 3 trains 4 trains 4 trains Schedule Time 1:38 1:43 1:58 2:00 2:10 * Maximum Speeds for Sharing Freight Rail Rights of Way in accordance with Railroad Letters of Principle 10 TEMS, Inc.
R EPRESENTATIVE R OUTE TO N EWPORT N EWS Existing Rail Greenfield Richmond Power Line 1 2 Roxbury Toano 3 Williamsburg To Norfolk Share Richmond Direct Greenfield with 1 Norfolk trains: Richmond to Roxbury Newport Greenfield Connector Roxbury to Toano 2 News using existing Power Line corridor. Upgrade existing CSX* line Toano to 3 Newport News, Max Speed 90-mph * Disclaimer : Findings are not construed to be a commitment on the part of CSX to operate additional service or upgrade infrastructure. 11 TEMS, Inc.
O PTION 4 P ENINSULA S PEED P ROFILE 130 mph Greenfield 140 120 90 mph over CSX 100 80 Speed(mph) 60 Schedule From Richmond Main Street: • 28 minutes to Williamsburg (Slower • 40 43 minutes to Bland Blvd through • 55 minutes to downtown Newport yard area) News 20 0 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 Milepost 0:55 Newport News-Richmond plus 1:05 Richmond-Washington DC* = 2:00 Overall Schedule Objective * 1:05 Time for 130-mph diesel train based on a Greenfield alignment north of Richmond 12 TEMS, Inc.
C OMPARISON OF 2035 A NNUAL R IDERSHIP FOR O PTION 3 & O PTION 4: N ORFOLK -R ICHMOND C ORRIDOR WITH P ENINSULA S ERVICE ≈34% Boost in Ridership by 10.00 Improving Peninsula Service * 9.00 8.69 8.00 Riders (Millions) 7.00 6.48 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Option 3 (Richmond Option 4 (Richmond Direct Direct) Improved) Note: This figure includes ridership for both the Southside and Peninsula service at 220-mph. *Option 4 is expected to generate increased ridership, however a portion of the Option 4 ridership is comprised of diverted Peninsula trips from Southside service to Peninsula service rather than newly generated trips. 13 TEMS, Inc.
T OTAL R EVENUE AND O PERATING C OST FOR O PTION 3 R ICHMOND D IRECT VS O PTION 4, R ICHMOND D IRECT I MPROVED (Y EAR 2035, IN $2013 MILLIONS ) ≈53% Boost in Revenue by $649 Improving Peninsula Service $600 $500 $423 $400 million $ Total Revenue $300 $266 Total Operating $200 $200 Cost $100 $0 Option 3 Richmond Direct Option 4 Richmond Direct 220mph Improved 220mph 14 TEMS, Inc.
O PTION 3, R ICHMOND D IRECT VS O PTION 4 R ICHMOND D IRECT I MPROVED C OMPARISON OF Y EAR 2035 F INANCIAL R ESULTS Year 2035 Operation Option 3 Richmond Direct Option 4 Richmond Direct (million 2012$) 220mph Improved 220 mph Total Revenue $423 $649 Total Operating Cost $200 $266 Operating Surplus $223 $383 Operating Ratio 2.11 2.44 • Significant increase in Revenue - $226 million per year • Smaller increase in Operating Costs - $66 million per year • Operating Surplus increases by $160 million per year 15 TEMS, Inc.
C APITAL C OST U PDATE (2013$ MILLIONS ) • Added Peninsula service needs more trains than a Norfolk-only service. Six 500-seat diesel trains at $36 million per train, added cost $216 million. • Newport News to Richmond infrastructure $920 M for double track greenfield Roxbury to Toano, and full double tracking CSX* Toano- Newport News. • Richmond to Washington DC now includes funding the 4-track Long Bridge replacement for entering into Washington DC. 3- Richmond Direct 4- Richmond Direct OPTION Improved Equipment $590 $806 Richmond to Washington, DC $4,065 $4,065 Newport News to Richmond $0 $920 Norfolk to Richmond $3,173 $3,173 TOTAL $7,828 $8,964 These are full capital costs, and do not reflect any cost sharing with NEC or SEHSR who may also share the improvements * Disclaimer : Findings are not construed to be a commitment on the part of CSX or NS to operate additional service or upgrade infrastructure. 16 TEMS, Inc.
C OMPARISON OF E CONOMIC R ESULTS AT 3% & 7% D ISCOUNT R ATES FOR O PTION 3 R ICHMOND D IRECT VS O PTION 4 R ICHMOND D IRECT I MPROVED * 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Option 4 Richmond Option 4 Richmond Option 3 Richmond Direct Improvement Option 3 Richmond Direct Improvement Discount (million 2013$) Direct 220mph 220mph Direct 220mph 220mph $4,718 $7,142 $1,578 $2,399 System Passenger Revenues $377 $571 $126 $192 OBS Users Consumer Surplus $2,920 $5,870 $987 $1,990 $2,454 $2,934 $794 $952 Highway Congestion Savings $424 $479 $137 $155 Airport Delay Saving $801 $1,101 $270 $372 Safety Benefits Highway Reduced Emissions $178 $244 $59 $81 $11,872 $18,340 $3,952 $6,140 Total Benefits $5,010 $5,737 $2,826 $3,236 Capital Cost $2,357 $3,116 $795 $1,054 O&M Costs $63 $78 $17 $22 Cyclic Mtn $7,429 $8,931 $3,638 $4,311 Total Costs NPV(Surplus) $4,443 $9,409 $314 $1,829 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.60 2.05 1.09 1.42 * With assumed system startup in 2030, Option 4 produces a significantly higher cost benefit result. 17 TEMS, Inc.
Recommend
More recommend
