Transportation in Hampton Roads – High Speed Rail (part 3)
By | Thursday, February 4th, 2010 | Policy

This is part three in a series of posts by Mike Barrett that will present his view on the transportation issue. Bearing Drift is also seeking other leaders in the transportation debate to offer alternative perspectives. The goal is to have a conversation on transportation without undue partisanship or a strident tone. E-mail me if you would like to be part of the series. – J. R. Hoeft

Guest post by Mike Barrett, member of the Board of Directors, Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce and SPSA and CEO of the Runnymede Corporation

Last week in Norfolk, over 1,000 citizens expressed their strong support for the extension of high-speed rail service from Washington, DC to Richmond/Petersburg and the Hampton Roads region. The Norfolk Southern/Route 460 corridor should be designated a high-speed rail corridor with speeds ultimately of more than 110 mph. Concurrently, an enhanced intercity passenger rail service along the CSX/I-64 corridor must be included. This position is best reflected in a strengthened alternative one as detailed in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Hampton Roads is a unique national asset, containing the largest concentration of federal activities anywhere in the country outside of D.C. The region houses operations of 16 departments and agencies of the Executive Branch of the federal government including all five military services. It is home to the nation’s largest naval facility, provides primary air defense to our nation’s Capitol, and homeland security to our port and seacoast. Dependable, efficient and cost effective travel to and from the D.C. area is vital to safety and military operations.

The Hampton Roads region is also home to major tourist designations, including the Virginia Beach oceanfront and the historic Williamsburg area, attracting nearly 5 million tourists annually. Tourist related expenditures exceed $2.2 billion with the industry providing over 23,500 jobs and a payroll of $460 million. Estimates show that 69% of the over 3 million visitors to Virginia Beach use I-64 and overnight visitor surveys show that related tunnel traffic is always listed among the top 4 negative response items. High-speed rail, coupled with a connection to an intercity light rail system will provide a much needed transportation alternative to visitors and will help mitigate growing congestion particularly during the peak tourist season.

The ability to rapidly move both people and freight to and from the region and connect with the marketplace is fundamental to Hampton Roads’ future competitiveness. In addition to facilitating the movement of people, improvements in the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 corridor will have the added benefit of enhancing the competitiveness of the Port of Virginia, while fostering the growth of manufacturing and distribution centers along the corridor.

Given Hampton Roads unique market characteristics; the regions proximity to Washington, D.C.; the suitability of the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 corridor to high-speed rail; and the fact that passenger rail service can be implemented in the corridor with a modest investment and in a relatively short period of time, Hampton Roads arguably offers the single best return on investment of any rail corridor in the country. It is estimated that connecting Hampton Roads to the high-speed rail corridor will create or sustain 30,000 jobs and create $3 billion in economic development.

The proposed Bowers Hill station will provide easy access via I-264 and the Hampton Roads beltway (I-64/I-664). Community plans envision an intermodal transfer facility at the Harbor Park station in downtown Norfolk that will link high-speed rail to the light rail system, intercity and regional bus systems, ferry service, cruise ship facilities and direct interstate access. Along the multi-modal corridors that will be served, business and residential development will be concentrated. When high-speed rail connects Washington-Richmond-Hampton Roads, 3 in 5 Virginians will have access to fast, frequent, and reliable passenger rail service.

Finally, high-speed rail will provide a high volume transportation option for moving citizens more quickly from the area at times when an emergency evacuation is necessary. Hampton Roads has insufficient emergency evacuation routes to handle its population, hindered to a great extent by bridge and tunnel crossings on every major corridor.

It is for these reasons that we must encourage the inclusion of a Hampton Roads high-speed rail connection to the SE High-Speed Rail Corridor as provided under alternative one of the Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Study Tier 1 EIS.


Tags:

Contribute for Conservatism!

Share this post

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed
  • Share this post on Delicious
  • StumbleUpon this post
  • Share this post on Digg
  • Tweet about this post
  • Share this post on Mixx
  • Share this post on Technorati
  • Share this post on Facebook
  • Share this post on NewsVine
  • Share this post on Reddit
  • Share this post on Google
  • Share this post on LinkedIn

About the author

JR Hoeft

Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.

Comments

2 Responses to "Transportation in Hampton Roads – High Speed Rail (part 3)"
  1. Darrell -- Chesapeake February 5, 2010 00:39 am

    Why is it that every time I read these types of schemes I get a sinking feeling we are being taken for another Ride On The Tide? The North West has 110 mph trains already running on 80 mph rails that only require upgrades, yet for some reason the experts here in Tidewater seem to think they can build and operate brand new stuff for half for what it would cost in the NW.

    Oh but 800 mil in the NW buys 110 mph service over 600 miles, while here in Tidewater we buy 140 miles because we need two train sets to soothe the politicians egos. Then we need to steal tax money those same polly’s say is needed to build Their Third Crossing in order to pay for the trains. What is even harder to believe is that our little train will end up with 30 percent more riders in 2025 than a route between 4 major NW cities.

    http://www.rich2hrrail.info/pages/pi_comment.html

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/83B17378-CDC8-4D57-AA60-4CD64BAF6D94/0/AmtrakCascadesMidRangePlan.pdf

  2. Reid Greenmun February 7, 2010 16:40 pm

    Myself and many others attended the so-called “public hearing” on the proposed high speed rail boondoggle held in Norfolk. It was announced during the meeting that only 500 people were there, not 1,000.

    Further, clearly not everyone there was a SUPPORTER of this boondoggle.

    No business case has been made for spending hundrends of millions of tax dollars and yet another passenger rail service that will REQUIRE a MASSIVE taxpayer subsidy – or no one will ride it if they had to pay the actual cost of the service they are using!

    I grow so tired of these idiotic “share-the-wealth” Socialist strategies when it comes to transportation.

    Mr. Barrett is a Democrat Party operative and he is a cheerleader for endless taxpayer subsidies transportation boondoggles.

    Some “public hearing” – I went DIRECTLY to Norfolk after work – and I drove from the Coast Guard station in Portmouth – not too far from where the meeting was being staged, er-um, held.

    When I arrived I asked to sign up to speak and was told that 39 people were ahead of me (already!). Each was allowed 3 minutes. Doing the math I knew I did not have the time to wait around 2 hours to speak.

    So who were these people from the “public”? Mayor Fraim, dana Dickens, Dwight Farmer and the usual crowd of special interest, politicians, and the Chamber/Hampton Roads Partnership crowd. Some “public hearing”.

Leave your response

Please take a moment to review our comment policy.