Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation created by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. in coordination with HRTPO staff.

Hampton Roads High Speed Passenger Rail Vision Plan

Presentation To

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force

Hampton Roads – Richmond

1

TEMS, Inc.

RECENT TIMELINE

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)

2

TEMS, Inc.

HAMPTON ROADS PASSENGER RAIL VISION PLAN NORFOLK-RICHMOND ROUTE OPTIONS

Southern Option 1B Stations Southern Option 1A Northern Option 2A Northern Option 2B Richmond Direct Option 3 Options 1B/2B Shared (NS)

3

TEMS, Inc.

OPTION 4: “RICHMOND DIRECT IMPROVED” EXPANSION OF SCOPE TO INCLUDE PENINSULA SERVICE

Toano

Map shows both existing and proposed future station sites

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

HRTPO Board Objectives

• This option meets

Board Objectives for both the Peninsula and Southside

4

TEMS, Inc.

RECENT TIMELINE

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

5

TEMS, Inc.

HAMPTON ROADS PASSENGER RAIL VISION PLAN DRAFT REPORT

Draft report now available on HRTPO website: http://hrtpo.org/page/public- comment-opportunities/ Public Comments will be received through Tuesday October 14th

6

TEMS, Inc.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY

• 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.

7

TEMS, Inc.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY (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

8

TEMS, Inc.

ITEMS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

• 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.

9

TEMS, Inc.

STUDY RESULTS

10

TEMS, Inc.

OPTION 4 TRAIN SCHEDULE

• Used for Peninsula
• Speeds up to 130-mph on

dedicated high speed ROW

• 79-mph on NS; 90-mph on CSX ROW*
• Used for Southside
• Speeds up to 220-mph on

dedicated high speed ROW

• 79-mph on NS; 90-mph on CSX ROW*

Diesel HrST 90-130 mph

Timetable WAS-NRF 220-mph Super Express 5 Stops to DC WAS-NRF 220-mph Express 7 Stops to DC WAS-NRF 220-mph Local 10 Stops to DC WAS-NPN 130-mph Express 7 Stops to DC WAS-NPN 130-mph Local 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

Electric HST 160-220 mph

* Maximum Speeds for Sharing Freight Rail Rights of Way in accordance with Railroad Letters of Principle

11

TEMS, Inc.

Existing Rail Greenfield Power Line

Newport News Richmond Toano Williamsburg To Norfolk

1

Share Richmond Direct Greenfield with Norfolk trains: Richmond to Roxbury

2

Greenfield Connector Roxbury to Toano using existing Power Line corridor.

3

Upgrade existing CSX* line Toano to Newport News, Max Speed 90-mph

REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE TO NEWPORT NEWS

1 2 3

Roxbury

* Disclaimer: Findings are not construed to be a commitment on the part of CSX to operate additional service or upgrade infrastructure.

12

TEMS, Inc.

OPTION 4 PENINSULA SPEED PROFILE

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 Speed(mph) Milepost

130 mph Greenfield 90 mph over CSX

Schedule From Richmond Main Street:

• 28 minutes to Williamsburg
• 43 minutes to Bland Blvd
• 55 minutes to downtown Newport

News

(Slower through yard area)

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

13

TEMS, Inc.

COMPARISON OF 2035 ANNUAL RIDERSHIP FOR OPTION 3 & OPTION 4: NORFOLK-RICHMOND CORRIDOR WITH PENINSULA SERVICE

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.

6.48 8.69 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Option 3 (Richmond Direct) Option 4 (Richmond Direct Improved) Riders (Millions)

≈34% Boost in Ridership by Improving Peninsula Service *

14

TEMS, Inc.

$423 $649 $200 $266 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 Option 3 Richmond Direct 220mph Option 4 Richmond Direct Improved 220mph million $ Total Revenue Total Operating Cost

TOTAL REVENUE AND OPERATING COST FOR OPTION 3 RICHMOND DIRECT VS OPTION 4, RICHMOND DIRECT IMPROVED (YEAR 2035, IN $2013 MILLIONS)

≈53% Boost in Revenue by Improving Peninsula Service

15

TEMS, Inc.

OPTION 3, RICHMOND DIRECT VS OPTION 4 RICHMOND DIRECT IMPROVED COMPARISON OF YEAR 2035 FINANCIAL RESULTS

• 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

Year 2035 Operation (million 2012$) Option 3 Richmond Direct 220mph Option 4 Richmond Direct Improved 220 mph Total Revenue $423 $649 Total Operating Cost $200 $266 Operating Surplus $223 $383 Operating Ratio 2.11 2.44

16

TEMS, Inc.

CAPITAL COST UPDATE (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.

OPTION 3- Richmond Direct 4- Richmond Direct 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.

17

TEMS, Inc.

COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC RESULTS AT 3% & 7% DISCOUNT RATES FOR OPTION 3 RICHMOND DIRECT VS OPTION 4 RICHMOND DIRECT IMPROVED*

* With assumed system startup in 2030, Option 4 produces a significantly higher cost benefit result.

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Discount (million 2013$) Option 3 Richmond Direct 220mph Option 4 Richmond Direct Improvement 220mph Option 3 Richmond Direct 220mph Option 4 Richmond Direct Improvement 220mph System Passenger Revenues

$4,718 $7,142 $1,578 $2,399

OBS

$377 $571 $126 $192

Users Consumer Surplus

$2,920 $5,870 $987 $1,990

Highway Congestion Savings

$2,454 $2,934 $794 $952

Airport Delay Saving

$424 $479 $137 $155

Safety Benefits

$801 $1,101 $270 $372

Highway Reduced Emissions

$178 $244 $59 $81

Total Benefits

$11,872 $18,340 $3,952 $6,140

Capital Cost

$5,010 $5,737 $2,826 $3,236

O&M Costs

$2,357 $3,116 $795 $1,054

Cyclic Mtn

$63 $78 $17 $22

Total Costs

$7,429 $8,931 $3,638 $4,311

NPV(Surplus)

$4,443 $9,409 $314 $1,829

Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.60 2.05 1.09 1.42

18

TEMS, Inc.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND YEAR-OF-EXPENDITURE ($YOE) CAPITAL COST PROJECTION

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 $8 $8 $8 $16 $300 $847 $1,488 $2,408 $2,337 $1,544

CAPITAL SPENDING PLAN FOR 2030 IMPLEMENTATION

$8.9 Billion in $2013 $13.6 Billion in Year of Expenditure $

+52% on 2013 costs for 2030 based on HRTPO Inflation Rate of 3% a year (2034 Constrained Long Range Plan)

Millions ($2013)

19

TEMS, Inc.

BENCHMARKING

20

TEMS, Inc.

APPLES-TO-APPLES DEMAND FORECAST RAIL TRIP RATE COMPARISON TO AMTRAK NEC MASTER PLAN AND NEXT-GEN HSR, CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, AND ATLANTA-CHARLOTTE CORRIDOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL FORECASTS

2030 Hampton Roads- Washington Corridor - 130 MPH1 2030 Atlanta- Charlotte Corridor - 130 MPH2 2030 Hampton Roads- Washington Corridor - 220 MPH1 2030 Atlanta- Charlotte Corridor – 220 MPH2 2030 NEC Master Plan NYC-DC Corridor (Constrained Acela) 3 2030 NEC Next- Gen HSR NYC-DC Corridor - 220 MPH4 2030 California High-Speed Rail Ridership Forecast – 220 MPH5 Rail Trip Rate (trips per 10,000 person per day) 7.10 10.30 10.51 12.06 18.86 22.19 24.27

1 Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Vision Plan Alternatives Analysis, TEMS, 2014 2 Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor EIS, Steer Davies Gleave, 2013 3 The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, The NEC Master Plan Working Group, 2010 4 The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak, 2012 5 Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study, Cambridge Systematics,

Inc., 2007

21

TEMS, Inc.

DIESEL RAIL BENCHMARKS, CAPITAL COST PER MILE

All normalized to $2013. HRTPO 90-mph Peninsula upgrades ($8.9 M/mile) cost nearly twice DRPT’s plan ($4.8 M/mile) for full capacity mitigation and grade crossing improvements (not grade separations) along the shared CSX corridor, east of

• Toano. As a diesel-
• nly segment the

Toano-Roxbury segment is less expensive per mile than other greenfield sections, because the cost of electrification is not included. Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Vision Plan Alternatives Analysis, TEMS, 2014 Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project , Final Environmental Impact Statement, DRPT, August 2012 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, Tier 1 Draft EIS, New York State DOT Arkendale to Powell’s Creek, http://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Presentation%206%20- %20HRTPO%20Rail%20Committee_DRPT.pdf, p18. Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor EIS, HNTB, 2013 Millions ($2013) per mile

22

TEMS, Inc.

All comparisons have been normalized to $2013. Norfolk-Richmond has mid to high-range costs, despite mostly rural infrastructure and the availability of abandoned “V-Line” facilitating approach into downtown Norfolk.

SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC RAIL BENCHMARKS, COST PER MILE

Millions ($2013) per mile Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Vision Plan Alternatives Analysis, TEMS, 2014 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, Tier 1 Draft EIS, New York State DOT Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor EIS, HNTB, 2013 Orlando-Tampa HSR, http://www.tampabay.org/high-speed-rail Las Vegas Desert Express, http://www.xpresswest.com/pdf/XpressWest_Media_Kit.pdf

23

TEMS, Inc.

THANK YOU