HRTPO Board Meeting │ October 18, 2012 │ Meeting Agenda ITEM #14: CORRESPONDENCE OF INTEREST

14A. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL OF HRTPO UPWP Attached is a letter, dated September 7, 2012, from the Federal Transit Administration informing the HRTPO Board Chair of its approval of the HRTPO FY 2013 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

Attachment 14-A

14B. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR TIER I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC COMMENTS Attached are additional public comment submissions from Hampton Roads Transit and Future of Hampton Roads to the Federal Railroad Administration for the Tier I Environmental Study for the Northeast High-Speed Rail Corridor.

Attachment 14-B

14C. MAP-21 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES Attached is a letter, dated September 14, 2012, from the Virginia Department of Transportation informing the HRTPO Board Chair of the new program entitled Transportation Alternatives under MAP-21.

Attachment 14-C

14D. MILITARY HIGHWAY NORTHERN SEGMENT WIDENING PROJECT Attached is a letter, dated September 19, 2012, from Mayor Paul Fraim and Mayor William Sessoms to Governor McDonnell regarding the Military Highway Northern Segment Widening Project.

Attachment 14-D

14E. THANK YOU LETTER TO MILITARY OFFICIALS Attached is a letter, dated September 20, 2012, from the HRTPO Executive Director to the military representatives in Hampton Roads expressing appreciation for their guidance and support of the Hampton Roads Military Transportation Needs Study and Commuter Survey.

Attachment 14-E

14F. BERKLEY BRIDGE LIFT PUBLIC COMMENT Attached is a letter, dated October 1, 2012, from the HRTPO Executive Director to the United States Coast Guard submitting a public comment regarding the Berkley Bridge operating schedule temporary regulations.

Attachment 14-F

HRTPO Board Meeting │ October 18, 2012 │ Meeting Agenda

14G. THANK YOU LETTER Attached is a letter, dated October 3, 2012, from the Greater Richmond Chamber to the HRTPO Executive Director expressing appreciation for his participation in the Regional Transportation Forum.

Attachment 14-G

Attachment 14-A Attachment 14-B Attachment 14-B

Public Comment Input August 10, 2012

The Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent1, Passenger Rail and the Northeast Corridor

Reference: USDOT, FRA Notice of Intent (NOI), NEC FUTURE Tier-I EIS, June 22, 2012

1.0 PURPOSE: The Future of Hampton Roads, Inc. organization (FHR) submits these comments and recommendations in order to add value to the planning for the upcoming NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE2 programs of the Northeast Corridor (NEC).

Hampton Roads is not currently represented in the otherwise impressive and professional planning process for the NEC. But it should be. This geo-strategic region has national significance as the world’s largest set of federal and military installations. Hampton Roads is one of the world’s largest natural harbors, a major deep-channeled port and an historic tourist destination. The region shares an intimate relationship with Washington D.C. and the Northeast. Defense, homeland security, business, port, college and tourism travelers, plus ordinary travelers from the region’s population of 1.7 million, no doubt, will add significant ridership and financial value to the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs

Formally titled the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, the Hampton Roads MSA is composed of nine cities and seven counties; it is the nation’s 35th largest MSA. As will be explained in a number of ways in this paper, Hampton Roads is the logical passenger rail endpoint for a Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent corridor running from Washington through Northern Virginia and Greater Richmond to Virginia’s southeast coast. As part of the Northeast megalopolis, the contribution of this Rail Crescent to the NEC’s business case and to its ridership and revenue numbers should become an integral consideration in NEC planning.

In presenting our supporting information for this proposition, FHR applauds the depth, rigor and comprehensiveness of the work accomplished so far by FRA, Amtrak, the Northeast Corridor Commission, the Council of Northeast Governors, the Regional Plan Association and others who have contributed steadily and so professionally to improving the NEC, especially in developing, just this year, such documents3 as:

 June 2012: NEC FUTURE—NEC Passenger Rail Investment Plan: Scoping Package  July 2012: The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor: 2012 Update Report

1 The passenger rail crescent from Washington, DC through the MSA regions of Fredericksburg, Richmond and Petersburg to Hampton Roads does not yet have a name. For this paper and temporarily, we shall call it the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent. ANNEX A to this paper provides rich options for the name of this corridor which reflect historic or current day realism themes and are worthy of review. 2 The NEC-UP program (2012 to 2025) addresses upgrades to the existing NEC and the NEC FUTURE program (2025 to 2040) addresses development of the Next Generation NEC. 3 See ANNEX B for a full bibliography. 1

Attachment 14-B 2.0 OBJECTIVES:

1) Our primary objective is to submit recommendations and to respond, in particular, to the Notice of Intent which:

a. Seeks “to ensure that all significant issues are identified and considered”, and b. Invites “all interested parties … to comment on the proposed scope …, its project purpose and need, and alternatives to be considered”, and c. States that “FRA may consider alternatives off of the existing NEC” and that “there may be Build Alternatives off the existing NEC spine or its connecting corridors”.

Our additional objectives are:

2) To recommend that the NEC FUTURE Tier-I EIS expand its “study area”4 to include Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent with its population of eight million citizens which should not be overlooked based merely on the location of a state boundary.

3) To recommend that both the NEC-UP5 and NEC FUTURE programs include the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent, at least among its “alternatives off the existing NEC” as will be the case for other rail line lengths such as the Keystone Extension, the Empire Extension and the Knowledge Corridor. Pending Tier-I and Service Development Plan (SDP) analysis, this appears to be prudent, given that the projected ridership numbers and revenue recovery ratios as well as the levels of national interest for the line to Hampton Roads are significant and will rank at least third (or better), after the Keystone and Empire Extensions, among the five or more Extension line alternatives “off the existing NEC spine” that warrant attention6.

4) To capture the predicted positive financial return as concerns operating costs and fare box revenue recovery ratios for the financial benefit of the NEC. See paragraph 4.0.

4 The NEC Scoping Package which contains the Purpose and Need statements does not address the Virginia rail lines or the potential rail ridership and revenue values emanating from Hampton Roads. The Council of Northeast Governor’s (CONEG) Regional Context Report, an important source document did not include Virginia in its “study area” analysis as reported in the NEC Scoping Package, page 6 footnote. 5 NEC-UP refers to the Northeast Corridor’s NEC Update Program which is designed to cope with passenger rail growth during the phase-1 years between 2012 and 2025 while permitting the parallel preliminary development of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail which, itself, will be accomplished as a result of the NEC-FUTURE program during the phase-2 years between 2025 and 2040. We believe that the passenger rail lines to Hampton Roads (two lines, one to Norfolk and one to Newport News) should be included in the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs. ------It would be unfortunate to end up with incompatible designs and unequal levels of rail service between the Northeast Corridor and the high rail market opportunity and demands of the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent to which it directly connects. 6 From the Amtrak Fiscal Year 2011 Ridership and Revenue Report, ridership data for these Extension lines was (a) Keystone Corridor – 1.3 million riders per year; (b) Empire Corridor – 1.0 million riders per year; (c) Downeaster – 519K riders per year; and (d) Springfield Shuttle – 381K riders per year. Projections for ridership for the Extension to Hampton Roads by 2025 would reach between 1.2 and 2.5 million riders per year at the interim 110 mph level of design (see paragraph 4.0 later in this paper). 2

Attachment 14-B 5) To provide for the exceptional—repeat, exceptional—national interests that will be served with quality rail service to and from Hampton Roads for the reputational benefit of the Northeast Corridor. Described later in paragraph 6.0 of this paper.

6) To safeguard the north and northwest-bound freight rail line capacities that will be needed as the Port of Hampton Roads leads the way in coping with increased freight movement through the expanded Panama Canal; and to cope with the projected opening of a new super terminal at Craney Island; and to support a Port whose American exports exceed its imports and where American freight export traffic is growing faster7 than that of imports.

Five Supporting Paragraphs followed by What-To-Do and 9 Recommendations

3.0 HAMPTON ROADS and the RECORD OF PASSENGER RAIL TO THE REGION

3.1 Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent

We believe that Hampton Roads, the 35th largest MSA in the nation, with a population of 1.7 million people and with an unmatched wide array of federal facilities and agencies in the region; a major port; significant history-rooted and oceanfront tourist destinations; and the arts capital of Virginia, is not adequately represented in the otherwise professional planning process that currently underpins the future development of the Northeast Corridor.

Per OMB, the Hampton Roads MSA is composed of nine cities (Chesapeake, Hampton, Norfolk, Newport News, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg) and six counties (Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, York, Matthews and Surry), plus one more county in Northeast North Carolina (Currituck County) with potentially a second NC county in the foreseeable future. Of note, the Hampton Roads MSA is a bi-state MSA.

The City of Virginia Beach is by far the largest city in Virginia, nearly twice as large as either Norfolk or Newport News. The tallest building in Virginia is in Virginia Beach.

The City of Chesapeake is larger than Newport News and almost as populous as Norfolk with nearly a hundred internationally owned or foreign operated companies, and the City of Suffolk is, and for many years will continue to be, the fastest growing city in the state.

Greater Fredericksburg, located along the 200-mile Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent between Hampton Roads and DC is the fastest growing metro area in Virginia—up to 73 percent growth is forecast between now and 20358.

7 For Calendar Year 2012 (January-June), the Port of Virginia exported 537,781 TEUs and imported 456,946 TEUs of cargo. During this period, exports increased by 5.9% while imports increased by 4.7%. A TEU is a twenty-foot equivalent cargo container. Overall, total ship calls increased by 7.8%. Reference: Port of Virginia briefing at: http://www.cvent.com/events/real-estate-re-port/custom-18- 98f09851db9444368ee4744778a81879.aspx 8 Future population growth rates will vary statewide up to a high of 73% in the Greater Fredericksburg metropolitan area as reported in the 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan Report, Chapter 2: Changes in Population, page 18. http://www.vtrans.org/2035_surface_plan.asp

3

Attachment 14-B In addition to Hampton Roads and greater Fredericksburg, this Urban Crescent includes the vibrant greater Richmond, the State Capitol, and Tri-Cities (greater Petersburg) metro areas. This passenger rail corridor—this Crescent—contains 68 percent of the state’s population, 72 percent of the employment and 79 percent of the state’s gross product—repeat, 79% of the Commonwealth’s economy. This has to be of interest to the NEC, and it should be woven into NEC planning.

3.2 The Old and New Realities of Passenger Rail Serving Hampton Roads

OLD:

 The FRA’s Chronology of HSR Corridors notes that on “December 14, 1995, FRA Administrator Jolene Molitoris extended the definition of the Southeast corridor from Richmond, VA to Hampton Roads, VA”.

 Rightfully, this FRA policy announcement was sustained in the Preliminary National Rail Plan9 (PNRP of October 2009) in that passenger rail lines to the region were clearly depicted on the preliminary national planning map. To the right, you will see the two passenger rail lines serving Hampton Roads on this national map, one HSR to Norfolk and one conventional to Newport News.

NEW:

 The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO, the regional MPO) approved a milestone Resolution10 (October 2009) designating the Southside, Route 460/Norfolk Southern corridor as the future high-speed rail alignment for Hampton Roads, thus ending a decade-long impasse about the preferred alignment. This occurred weeks before FRA completed the Draft Tier I EIS (DEIS) for high speed rail service to the region. The Final EIS will be released soon—very possibly, this month.

 Regional public interest increased sharply again in January 2010 …. over 1,000 citizens during the federal public hearings for this Tier I EIS for the Rail attended the federal public to Hampton Roads project. In particular, a record-breaking, over hearing in Norfolk … 1,000 citizens attended and 50 citizens spoke at the Public Hearing in Norfolk with overwhelming support for pursuing true high speed rail service

9 FRA’s Preliminary National Rail Plan at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/railplanprelim10-15.pdf --- Unfortunately, and for whatever reasons, the 1995 FRA announcement and the PNRP projections, cited above, have not been carried over into the current day development of the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE planning documents. 10 Find the TPO’s High Speed Rail Resolution at: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2009/103009/Approved%2010.30.09%20High- Speed%20and%20Intercity%20Passenger%20Rail%20HRTPO%20Resolution%202009-05.pdf 4

Attachment 14-B and overwhelming support for the Route 460 alignment for HSR service to Hampton Roads. You can only imagine that this was an amazing event. One month later, the state’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved this alignment for HSR service. Ten years of prior silence had ended. Our citizens are engaged.

 Then, recognizing that Southside passenger rail service had disappeared some 35 years ago and that we were behind in composing the normal preliminary planning documents, leaders in the Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation (DRPT), the HRTPO and our Class I railroad launched an expeditious effort to “re-start” (at least at a start-up level) a conventional passenger rail service to and from Norfolk as soon as possible.

 Now, and incredibly—and with a well done to all concerned—this new start-up level of passenger rail service will begin in just a few months on 12-12-12 (December 12, 2012).

o Together, the TPO Resolution and this rapid DRPT restoration of passenger rail service constitute two giant steps forward and two actions that should yield value and increased future potential for the NEC. If addressed in the forthcoming NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE planning programs, this would be beneficial to all.

 Concurrently, things also changed for the better on other fronts. Pursuant to its HSR Resolution in 2009, the TPO launched a formal Rail Advisory Committee and hired a professional Rail Consultant. The TPO’s consultant, Alexander Metcalf, President, Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., has already reaffirmed the high DEIS potential ridership and fare box revenue recovery projections for the 200-mile long crescent rail service line between Hampton Roads and DC and on up to New York City.

 The consultant has postulated that serving and having “two rail lines” to Hampton Roads, as documented in the draft Tier I EIS and in his own report, is not redundant and does not result in one line undermining the other. The new start-up line to Norfolk, serving more than 1,000,000 people in south Hampton Roads plus the business and tourism travelers for the Outer Banks of Northeast North Carolina, and the existing rail line to Newport News serving 700,000 citizens and the Army and Air Force military commands at Fort Eustis and Langley AFB, as well as the tourism destinations of Colonial Williamsburg, Fort Monroe, Jamestown and Yorktown, will Two lines or two lanes have ample riders to sustain both lines with high ridership when to Hampton Roads developed with proper/optimum design and attractive trip times. Described below, Hampton Roads has 10 Colleges and Universities as well.

 During a TPO board meeting presentation about 10 months ago one Amtrak official declared that the 200-mile long (Norfolk to DC and north) Southside passenger rail route was “the lowest hanging fruit in the nation”. Intuitively, yet strongly, many reason the same way on their own and agree.

5

Attachment 14-B  Indeed, the Amtrak Annual Report for FY-2011 shows that, among the nation’s shorter distance corridors, the existing rail corridor to Newport News was the 3rd fastest growing of 26 such corridors and the corridor with the 4th fastest growing revenue recovery statistic11. This is impressive when one realizes that, unfortunately, this Newport News rail line is troubled with a very poor On-Time-Performance (OTP) record, and it is a rail line that had 61 percent of its length to Richmond reduced to a single-track, years ago. Just imagine the gains when this line is improved during NEC-UP periods of time (2012- 2025) and when the Southside line re-starts operations this coming December and advances during the NEC FUTURE’s period of time (2025-2040).

IN SUMMARY:

 Given this momentum, FRA and the Northeast Commission will not have to wake up or drag Virginia or Hampton Roads to the table when and if the “study area” for the NEC- UP and NEC FUTURE EIS programs is expanded and as these programs are advanced.

 We are awake. And, we have leaped forward to a largely un-studied conventional train structure for starters. The next step—a broadening of the analysis, in mutually beneficial coordination with the NEC—will likely prove to be beneficial to the nation, to the NEC and to Hampton Roads and its federal, port and business assets.

o As Bilbo exclaimed in The Hobbit (by J.R.R. Tolkein), "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him”, or in our case for Hampton Roads and the NEC, it would not be wise to leave out an eight-million population crescent corridor, if you live just next door to that kind of a premium potential.

4.0 FINANCIAL VALUE FOR THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR:

4.1 Financial value:

Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent will almost certainly contribute to the Northeast Corridor’s bottom line in both the first phase (NEC-UP) and in the second phase (NEC FUTURE) of Northeast Corridor investment and development plans. This is particularly evident in the projected ridership and operating revenue recovery tables of data:

11 Amtrak Press Release, October 13, 2011: Amtrak Fiscal Year 2011 Ridership and Revenue 6

Attachment 14-B 4.2 Data from the FRA’s draft Tier I EIS—the DEIS12:

DEIS Ridership projections by 2025:

 Via the Southside line to and from Norfolk – up to 939,900 riders per year with a 110 mph design. Round that off to a projected 900,000 riders per year

 And concurrently, via the Interstate Route-64 alignment to and from Newport News – up to 222,300 riders per year with a conventional 79 mph design.

 Total ridership to and from Hampton Roads (estimated 90+ percent traveling north) equals up to 1,162,200 riders per year. Round that total ridership off to 1.1 million riders per year. These professional projections cannot be overlooked.

DEIS Revenue Recovery projections by 2025:

 Via the Southside line to Norfolk – an average projection of 91 percent (and up to 101 percent) recovery of operating costs from fare box revenues with a 110 mph design (not including terminal or train food and gift sales). Round that off to a 95 percent fare box revenue recovery.

 And concurrently, via the Interstate Route-64 alignment to and from Newport News – an average projection of 51 percent recovery of operating costs from fare box revenues with a conventional 79 mph design (not including terminal or train sales).

 And with the two lines combined – an average of 81 percent (and up to 87 percent) recovery of operating costs from fare box revenues (not including terminal or train food and gift sales). Round that off to an 85 percent fare box revenue recovery for both lines. These professional projections, along with the added consultant’s projections described below, cannot be overlooked.

4.3 Data from the Consultant’s Preliminary Vision Plan13—these projections reaffirm the DEIS data above and actually raise the bar and warrant NEC consideration:

Consultant’s Ridership projections for both lines to Hampton Roads by 2025:

. With a 79 mph design—over 500,000 riders per year. This fits in with the design for the upcoming December 2012 start-up conventional train to Norfolk.

. With 90 or 110 mph designs—estimate 1.5 million or 2.8 million riders per year respectively. This could be integrated into the NEC-UP program.

. With a 150 mph design—up to 4.0 million riders per year. This design objective could fit in with and should be integrated into the NEC FUTURE program.

12 Find the full DEIS at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/hamptonpassenger.aspx Find the Executive Summary at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/files/RHR%20Executive%20Summary.pdf 13 Hampton Roads High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Preliminary Vision Plan—Progress Report A: Preliminary Ridership and Revenue Forecasts Find this report at: http://www.hrmpo.org/Documents/HighSpdRail/Preliminary%20Ridership%20and%20Revenue%20Forecasts.pdf And, find all five Consultant reports at: http://www.hrmpo.org/TPO_HSRIPR.asp#RelatedReports

7

Attachment 14-B . The data above is portrayed in Table A-19, page A-17 in the Hampton Roads High- Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Preliminary Vision Plan—Progress Report A: Preliminary Ridership and Revenue Forecasts.

Consultant’s Revenue Recovery/Operating Ratio projections14:

 The Operating Ratio (Operating Costs versus Fare Box Revenues) for the DC to Hampton Roads line will reach 0.85 for the Newport News line and 0.91 for the Norfolk line with design speeds of 90 mph.

 Both lines will reach a positive Operating Ratio (greater than 1.0) with design speeds of 110 mph, specifically 1.06 for the Newport News line and 1.19 for the Norfolk line. This means no operating cost subsidies would be required, once the design reaches and goes beyond the level of 110 mph, which is a reflection of the lucrative, or “low hanging fruit” character of the NEC Extension to Hampton Roads.

 And then --- These results would increase exponentially as design speeds increase. Per this report, the Operating Ratio for both lines would be greater than 1.5 with design speeds of 150 mph—“it makes money” and is a noble goal and an enviable result to seek during the NEC FUTURE development program.15

5.0 IS THE CHESAPEAKE BAY URBAN CRESCENT ALREADY IN THE NEC?

Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent are actually in, or at least it can be credibly said that, they are a part of the Northeast Corridor.

The America-2050 organization’s superb research paper16, Where High-Speed Rail Works Best, included the now widely used Mega-Regions map depicting the nation’s 11 megalopolis regions. Easily seen, the red bubbles of the Northeast mega-region envelop and include Hampton Roads.

This is not surprising. Throughout history, there has been a strong interrelationship between Hampton Roads and the northern states. Most tourists to the region, including Northeast North Carolina, come from the North including from Canada. I-95 is clogged every day north of Hampton Roads, but not to the South. The Port of Virginia, via the double-stack capable freight rail lines of the Heartland Corridor, is focused primarily on serving Pennsylvania, Ohio and points north. The shipyards in Hampton Roads work hand-in-hand with those See the Red Bubbles in Philadelphia and elsewhere.

14 Hampton Roads High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Preliminary Vision Plan, page 24. 15 The data presented here is portrayed on page 24 in the Consultant’s Hampton Roads High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Preliminary Vision Plan (July 2010). 16 This superb research study was developed by the America-2050 organization in September 2009. Find the study at: http://www.america2050.org/2009/09/where-high-speed-rail-works-best.html 8

Attachment 14-B And, with a large fraction of the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’ J-7 Directorate based in the region, Hampton Roads is readily called Pentagon-South.

There are other indicators of the connectivity between the Northeast and Hampton Roads as well. The night-time space photograph17 of the eastern seaboard yields a telling story—there is connectivity between Hampton Roads and the Northeast Corridor via the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent.

The lower photo to the right shows the two rail lines to Hampton Roads superimposed on the string of lights headed to the Northeast. One line runs from Newport News on the north side of the James River and the other, from Norfolk, south of the James River. Per both the FRA’s Tier I DEIS and the HRTPO’s new consultant data, both of these lines have the market demand capacity that could sustain and support strong ridership and revenue returns.

Separately, the America-2050 organization’s superb research paper, Where High-Speed Rail Works Best, used six criteria to create an index that ranked 27,000 city pairs on their suitability, based on potential market demand, to act as origin and destination nodes of one leg of a high-speed rail corridor. The study identified that the corridor between New York and Virginia Beach (Hampton Roads MSA) was one of the Top 50 City Pairs in the nation18.

And in addition, the HRTPO Consultant’s Vision Plan stated that, “In addition to this corridor having independent utility in its own right, it is really the southern extension of the Northeast corridor and a logical part of the “East Coast Mega Region”19 that stretches from Boston to New York to Philadelphia to Washington D.C. and on to Richmond and Hampton Roads” and that “The impact of being linked to this Mega Region is to effectively double the volume of trips that the corridor would have as a freestanding corridor, and thus significantly enhances its potential for High- Speed and Enhanced Intercity Passenger Rail”.

Indeed, there is national value in this concept. EAST COAST MEGA REGION

17 Find the “Atlantic Seaboard Conurbation space photograph map” with Google assistance. 18 Where High-Speed Rail Works Best, is a research paper developed by the America-2050 organization, September 2009, at: http://www.america2050.org/2009/09/where-high-speed-rail-works-best.html 19 TEMs Preliminary Vision Plan, July 2011, page 7 9

Attachment 14-B 6.0 IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST and in the INTERESTS OF THE NEC FUTURE:

6.1 Hampton Roads is a region with national and economic assets in need of quality passenger rail service:

Hampton Roads is home to the world’s largest Naval Base, the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command headquarters, the largest private shipyard in North America (20,000 employees); the third largest set of commercial ports on the East Coast (with a near doubling of capacity in the works and already initially funded); the Navy’s largest nuclear powered-capable shipyard (15,000 employees); headquarters for the Fifth U.S. Coast Guard District (with abundant Homeland Security interface in support of harbor and continental shelf patrols, and with pace- setter container customs activities); a Four-Star Air Force Base (Langley) and a Four-Star Army Base (TRADOC at Fort Eustis).

In addition, Hampton Roads is home for the USN Cyber Command; the home for most of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s J-7 Directorate, or about forty percent of the total JCS staff; the home of Seal Team Six (with constant interaction with counterparts in DC); the East Coast USMC headquarters; the East Coast Naval Amphibious Base (Little Creek-Fort Story); and the home of scores of nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers needing steady DOE hands-on oversight especially during reactor re-fueling operations.

Hampton Roads is also the home of the largest NATO command in the U.S. with staffs from 36 nations—28 NATO nations and 8 Partnership for Peace (PFP) nations. Necessarily, these foreign staffs interact often with the Pentagon and they maintain regular contact with their respective Embassies. And, being tourists as often as they can, these are staff personnel who just happen to travel a lot. Many of them openly wonder—where are the trains?

Federal and state laboratories likely to use quality passenger rail include the NASA Langley Research Center, the Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island.

Years ago, Hampton Roads established a regional Military and Federal Facilities Alliance20 organization (HRMFFA) to help keep track of and to support these federal agencies. The scope of their work is depicted in the diagram to the right.

20See HRMFFA website at: http://www.hrmffa.org and see HRMFFA report on federal interrelationships and economic impact of federal facilities: http://www.hrmffa.org/images/stories/impactoffederalspending.pdf 10

Attachment 14-B 6.2 Passenger Rail and the potential financial gain for the Federal Government:

HRMFFA is keenly interested in the cost of travel for anyone traveling under and being reimbursed by federal travel regulations, be they defense contractors, inspectors, war-gamers, active duty, reservists, training courses, etc. Early scans of what the impact of cost-efficient passenger train travel will be on federally-reimbursed, per-diem and travel costs are beginning to emerge. Once compiled, the savings potential for the federal government (DOD, DHS and DOE) could be very significant.

HRMFFA is compiling data in order to assess this subject. One official stated his prognosis or opinion that it would be Waste, Fraud and Abuse (WF&A) for anyone traveling under federal travel regulations to not use passenger rail for travel to DC, Philadelphia, New York or the Pentagon. On any Monday morning visit to the international airport in Norfolk, one is likely to see a number of personnel in uniform, Coast Guardsmen, and defense contractors waiting for the next flight to DC at a $250-300 round trip cost for tickets (or frequently, even over $1,000 dollars per person for a round trip ticket).

This subject needs—and perhaps urgently needs—federal FRA, DHS and DOD examination with results incorporated in both the Northeast Corridor assessment and in the Hampton Roads-Virginia Passenger rail assessment and planning processes, no matter what the relationship between NEC FUTURE and the rail line to Hampton Roads may become.

In addition and recently, the HRTPO staff released a Military Transportation Needs Study, Part-2: The Military Commuter Survey21 (with over 11,000 respondents) that included strong recommendations for high-speed rail service for the Hampton Roads metro area.

Top military leaders here in Hampton Roads have stated strongly that “transportation is a military readiness issue”. General James Mattis (now Commander, U.S. Central Command) stated that he could not and would not bring additional forces or assets to Hampton Roads until the regional transportation network was improved. The top Navy Admiral in Hampton Roads repeats the same, even recently. With a huge harbor and multiple rivers, Hampton Roads has no full-length bridges over its major waterways, only causeways leading to tunnels—there are now nine (9) tunnels with one more under construction. The Mid-Town Tunnel is the most congested two-lane road east of the Mississippi River and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel ranks as the nation’s 10th most congested artery. Soldiers, Sailors and Coastguardsmen must use these tunnels every day. Starting one year ago, the senior shore based Flag officer in the region now briefs the state’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) annually thanks to the efforts of the Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee and the HRTPO board. ----- The situation is serious ----. And, quality passenger rail would help reduce congestion, save the government money and improve readiness and much else. This should be a call to action for FRA and the federal Inter-Agency team.

21 See the Draft Report, pages 80-81, at: http://www.hrmpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2012/071912/E9%20- %20Military%20Commuter%20Survey%202012%20DRAFT%20Report.pdf And, see the staff presentation at: http://www.hrmpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2012/071912/P9%20-%20Military%20Commuter%20Survey.pdf

11

Attachment 14-B 6.3 Beyond the Federal and Military Facilities:

In the business arena, there are hundreds of firms engaged in international commerce in Hampton Roads—69 companies from 18 nations in the City of Chesapeake alone—and there are contractors across the region supporting DOD, DHS and DOE and, thus, needing reliable liaison with Washington, DC.

In the tourism world, there are the Historic Quadrangle’s tourist destinations of Colonial Williamsburg, Yorktown, Jamestown and Fort Monroe, etc. Plus, there are the beaches in both in the Outer Banks of Northeast North Carolina (NENC) as well as Virginia Beach that would benefit from having quality passenger rail service. Just imagine if only one percent of the seven million tourists to NENC took the train.

In the harbor, the Port of Virginia drives business in much of Virginia and beyond. Dredged by the U.S. Navy for aircraft carriers, these channels are 55 feet deep and already able to handle the world’s largest post-Panamax ships. The APM terminal in Portsmouth is the most modern and most automated port in the nation. Construction for the new super terminal at Craney Island has started and will open before 2025. American exports from the Port exceed imports every year. With its multiple container and break-bulk terminals, the Port generates 343,000 port-related jobs statewide and, in turn, this generates business-driven “choice travelers” who need and would use quality passenger rail service.

And, in the area of higher education, Hampton Roads is home of thousands of college students clamoring for quality passenger rail at such colleges and universities as Christopher Newport University, the College of William & Mary, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Hampton University, Norfolk State University, Old Dominion University, Regent University, Virginia Wesleyan College, and the Tidewater Community (largest in Virginia) and Thomas Nelson Community Colleges.

7.0 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL MERITS, FOR THE NEC, IN PUSHING SOUTH

The NEC FUTURE project anticipates up to 60 or more passenger trains a day operating in and around Union Station in DC by 2040. Yes, the train station will be modified, and it will have additional platform levels for these trains, some underground. Still, this means there will be train and locomotive congestion in and around Union Station. Already, Amtrak and the NEC need to push trains south to relieve congestion, to regain platform space and to outsource some of the train maintenance and crew turnover functions, further reducing congestion.

Early reports indicate an inevitable need to electrify tracks south to Richmond in order to be able to push any kind of train south to facilitate dense day-to-day operations. This is a good idea, but pending analysis, it may be financially more effective to push those trains to Hampton Roads. 12

Attachment 14-B Being aware of the market demand for passenger rail in Hampton Roads, it is distinctly possible that these trains—pushed south to Hampton Roads—would generate operational flexibility, but they would also “make money” for the NEC and for Amtrak. One could imagine sending ten trains a day to Norfolk and 6-8 trains a day to Newport News (and six a day to Raleigh) in a manner that would net the NEC an optimum (sweet spot on the curve) revenue recovery gain.

In any case, continuing the procedure to push trains south during both the NEC-UP, first phase of development (2012-2025), and the NEC FUTURE, second phase of development (2025-2040) has merit. The train to Norfolk starting this December is a Northeast train being pushed south. We should not foreclose on these kinds of physical and financial merits based upon the existence of a state line. The Chesapeake Bay Urban Rail Crescent should have been a segment of the Northeast Corridor years ago.

Congressman John Mica has signaled that he wants to work on those passenger rail lines that will provide “the biggest bang for the buck” and those lines that “make sense” and that can “make money”. We believe that the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent between Union Station in DC and Hampton Roads (along the Southside line to Norfolk) is one of those rare rail lines that can meet this test, and that it is among the best 200-mile long passenger rail runs in the nation.

8.0 THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS, for example:

1. The Straightforward Way:

a. Acknowledge all of the above – follow the red bubbles and follow the lights!

b. Redefine the NEC as the eastern seaboard crescent from Boston to Hampton Roads.

c. Difficulties with this approach are often cited—two in particular: 1) It is too late to modify the Congressional definition of the Northeast Corridor, and 2) We have different rail bed ownership regimes north and south of Washington, DC—largely Amtrak ownership to the north and private ownership to the south— and these are not conducive to concurrent planning and designing. 3) Are these administrative issues really show-stoppers?

2. The 21st Century Way:

a. Today, we have two Northeast HSR Corridors—one in being as was developed in the 20th Century (which will be upgraded by the NEC-UP program) and one on paper that will be developed in this, the 21st Century (namely the NEC FUTURE corridor).

b. With that distinction in mind, just retain the definition of the current Northeast Corridor as a corridor that will remain in being and will continue to carry large volumes of commuter rail, freight rail and ongoing Acela traffic.

c. But also with that distinction in mind, pass new Congressional legislation that defines the forthcoming new, 21st Century, NEC FUTURE corridor as the HSR corridor between Boston and Hampton Roads.

d. There is good reason to do this—it would benefit the Northeast Corridor. 13

Attachment 14-B 3. Perhaps, a More Feasible Way:

a. Completely include the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent and Hampton Roads in the NEC study area,

b. But proceed separately, yet in constant parallel coordination, both time-wise and design-wise, and make the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent to Hampton Roads one of those “pathways” needing priority attention as an alternative construction project to be addressed when attending to the NEC spine,

c. And when doing so, also formally identify the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent Corridor to Hampton Roads as one of the Extension lines for which planning and decisions are documented in the Service Development Plan (SDP) for the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs and also identified in the culminating Passenger Rail Capital Investment Plan (PRCIP), which will be the primary outcome document addressed in the FRA Notice of Intent.

4. Or, Redefine Both the Northeast and Southeast HSR Corridors:

a. Define the Northeast HSR Corridor, as suggested above, as the Corridor from Boston to Hampton Roads. This implies a total green-field line between Washington, DC and Hampton Roads—a Chesapeake Bay Crescent future (CBC FUTURE) line, not unlike the NEC FUTURE line. This also happens to be one of the leading recommendations of the HRTPO’s Consultant, and

b. Define the Southeast HSR Corridor as the Corridor from Washington, DC to Atlanta.

c. These two redefinitions result in HSR line overlaps between DC and Petersburg. That looks like a problem, but probably, it is not. These kinds of work-around solutions and overlaps have been addressed before:

1) In New England, where we will have a Coastal as well as an Inland HSR line servicing the needs of the Northeast, and

2) In and around New York, where we will have the Gateway Rail Line project providing different and additional rail lanes to get traffic to and from New Jersey and Connecticut.

14

Attachment 14-B 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Include the Hampton Roads metro area and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent in the “study area”22 to be used by FRA and the NEC Commission.

2. Schedule at least one NEC FUTURE Public Hearing in Hampton Roads at the terminus of the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent and the revised NEC scope of interest.

3. Revise the NEC FUTURE’s Purpose and Need statement23 to include Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent in its definition of the boundaries for the Tier I EIS and in its plans for long term development and long term public and stakeholder participation.

4. Add a DOD or CJCS representative to the NEC Commission, perhaps as an Advisory Member.

5. Establish a protocol which documents that, together, Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent is one of the alternative “pathways”24 to be developed over time and/or as one of the important Extension lines to be developed as formal adjunct rail lines that operationally and financially support the NEC spine and that are an integral part of the Northeast Corridor network.

6. Update the 2012 Amtrak NEC Update Report so as to recognize the two-way merits of including Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent in the Report.

7. Adjust schedules and timelines for the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs so as to insert and include liaison and analysis steps that recognize the NEC’s direct connection to the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent and to Hampton Roads.

22 The NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE “study areas” are depicted with yellow shading on the maps on pages 3 and 7 in the NEC Scoping Package. These shaded areas reach out into Virginia to the sparsely populated areas of Harrisonburg and beyond over the Blue Ridge Mountains, about 150 miles from Union Station in DC. Similarly, the shaded areas reach out into the less populated areas in the Adirondack Mountains and in other areas as well. Similarly, but even more so, the shaded study areas depicted in the 2010 Amtrak Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor study also reached out to distant areas but did not reach out to the highly populated and geo-strategic region of Hampton Roads. 23 At present and while still being crafted, guidance for the discussion about the Purpose and Need Statement is provided in the FRA’s Notice of Intent and on page 3 in the NEC Scoping Package. Recommend that this guidance explicitly call attention to the need to include the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent and Hampton Roads in the long term future NEC development and construction plans. 24 The Notice of Intent explicitly calls for consideration and analysis of “alternatives off of the existing NEC”. The Amtrak 2010 Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (page 29) refers to the need to examine “pathways” for effective passenger rail service related to the NEC. This study and the NEC Scoping Package both call for attention to the Extension lines connected to the NEC but neither study refers, one way or another, to the presence or lack of value in connecting to the rail lines in Virginia and to the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent and to Hampton Roads. 15

Attachment 14-B 8. Include the HRTPO as a copy to addressee on correspondence associated with the development of the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs, and take routine actions that would invite HRTPO Staff participation on select NEC Working Groups.

9. Add Virginia to the current eight states25 serving on the NEC Commission. Earlier studies such as the 2010 NEC Master Plan and the 2010 NEC Vision Plan involved, and were signed back then by the 12 participating states. The change from twelve states to eight states was too deep a cut—the impacts of the NEC on Virginia and vice versa are just too great, and so are the likely mutual benefits.

Respectfully submitted,

/so/ Raynor A. K. Taylor Rear Admiral, USN (retired) Chairman

cc: Joseph C. Szabo, Director, FRA Joan McDonald, Chair, NEC Commission Joseph H. Boardman, President and CEO, Amtrak Thelma Drake, Director, VDRPT Molly J. Ward, Chair, Hampton Roads TPO William D. Sessoms. Past-Chair, Hampton Roads TPO Alan P. Krasnoff, Vice Chair, Hampton Roads TPO Senator Mark Warner, U.S. Senate Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., USN, Commander, U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command Rear Admiral Townsend G. Alexander, Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Jerry Bridges, Executive Director, Virginia Port Authority Karen Hedlund, Deputy Director, FRA Deborah Stearns, Chair, Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce Mark Hanna, Chairman, Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Bert Schmidt, President and CEO, WHRO and Regional Citizenship Committee Deborah M. DiCroce, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Community Foundation

25 The Notice of Intent for the NEC Tier I EIS and the NEC Scoping Package, pages 2, 20, 23 and 28, refer to eight states in the study area and eight states being involved in this program. In contrast, the previous 2010 NEC Commission Master Plan involved 12 states and the Final Report was signed by 12 states. The Virginia rail lines and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Rail Crescent are already a valuable part of the Northeast Corridor with six of the total 27 Northeast Regional Trains running in Virginia, several with positive Operating Ratios. 16

Attachment 14-B Barry DuVal, President and CEO, Virginia State Chamber of Commerce Craig Quigley, RADM, USN (Ret.), Executive Director, HRMFFA Jim Oliver, Chairman, Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement William J. Pantele, Chairman, Virginians for High-Speed Rail Vann Rogerson, President and CEO, North Carolina's Northeast Commission Richard L. Beadles, President, Virginia Rail Policy Institute Petra Todorovich, Director, America-2050 Phineas Baxandall, Senior Policy Analyst, U.S. PIRG Andy Kunz, President and CEO, US High Speed Rail Association

The Regional Flag of Metropolitan Hampton Roads

See history of flag and meaning of its symbols at

www.fhrinc.org

17

Attachment 14-B

This page intentionally blank

18

Attachment 14-B The Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent, Passenger Rail and the Northeast Corridor

------ANNEX A ------

Defining or Naming the Passenger Rail Corridor to Hampton Roads

As noted on the first page, the passenger rail line between Washington, DC and Hampton Roads does not yet have a name, and that, temporarily, we have called this line the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent corridor.

But there are other rich, history-rooted or current-day and real world names that have potential. These ideas follow, and in themselves, they give added reason to pay renewed attention to this high-potential and geo-strategically important passenger rail corridor.

A. The First Corridor – in recognition of the historic march of American Revolutionists led by General George Washington marching from New York and General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau marching from Rhode Island, both to Hampton Roads, culminating in the liberation of Hampton Roads and the Battle of Yorktown thus ending the Revolutionary War.

B. America’s First Region Corridor in recognition of the First Landing in Virginia Beach (now a state park), the first permanent English Settlement in Jamestown (now a tourist highlight), and the first continuous English-speaking settlement in Hampton (home of Fort Monroe where slaves were first set free and a part of the Historic Quadrangle—Jamestown, Yorktown, Colonial Williamsburg and Fort Monroe).

C. The National Defense Corridor in recognition of the very wide range of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, Special Forces, Joint Chiefs of Staff (J-7) and NATO resources in the region as described in this paper.

D. The Homeland Security Corridor in recognition of the geo-strategic character of Hampton Roads, and, unfortunately, in recognition of the target-rich nature of the region to enemies and terrorists alike, and in recognition of national and state resources devoted on a daily basis, on and off shore, to protecting these national port and military assets.

E. The Virginia Urban Crescent Corridor in order to acknowledge a major concept launched by 56 City Mayors and County Commission Chairs and a remarkably coordinated effort to pool both worries and recommendations on How Best to Improve Transportation in this Regional Corridor—a region that constitutes 79 percent of the state’s gross product . No doubt, catching up and becoming a part of the Northeast Corridor (which should have happened years ago) would be beneficial to the MSA’s of Greater Fredericksburg, Greater Richmond, Greater Petersburg and Hampton Roads and also beneficial to the Northeast Corridor. These Mayors and Chairs also called this the Golden Crescent.

F. The Chesapeake Bay Corridor in order to call attention to the largest Bay in the United States which happens to be located adjacent to the corridor.

19

Attachment 14-B

This page intentionally blank

20

Attachment 14-B The Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent, Passenger Rail and the Northeast Corridor

------ANNEX B ------

Bibliography

A. Hampton Roads Transportation and Rail documents

1. The Tier I Draft EIS – the DEIS. The full DEIS, December 2009, (all Chapters) is at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/hamptonpassenger.aspx 2. The DEIS Executive Summary with summarized ridership and revenue recovery data: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/files/RHR%20Executive%20Summary.pdf 3. The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s (HRTPO) Passenger Rail Resolution, October 30, 2009, at: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2009/103009/Approved%2010.30.09%20High- Speed%20and%20Intercity%20Passenger%20Rail%20HRTPO%20Resolution%202009-05.pdf 4. The HRTPO’s Consultant Reports: a. All five Consultant reports: http://www.hrmpo.org/TPO_HSRIPR.asp#RelatedReports b. The primary document - Hampton Roads High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Preliminary Vision Plan, July 2010, is at: http://www.hrmpo.org/Documents/HighSpdRail/Preliminary%20Vision%20Plan%20Report.pdf 5. Military Transportation-related documents: a. The Military Transportation Needs Study: Highway Network Analysis, Sept 2011, at: http://www.hrmpo.org/Documents/Military%20Transportation%20Needs/Military%20Transp ortation%20Needs%20-%20Highway%20Network%20Analysis%20Final%20Report.pdf b. The Military Transportation Needs Study, Part-2: The Military Commuter Survey Draft Report is at: http://www.hrmpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2012/071912/E9%20- %20Military%20Commuter%20Survey%202012%20DRAFT%20Report.pdf And, see the staff presentation at: http://www.hrmpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2012/071912/P9%20- %20Military%20Commuter%20Survey.pdf c. The Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities (HRMFFA) website is at: : http://www.hrmffa.org

B. Northeast Corridor Commission documents

1. NEC FUTURE—the NEC Passenger Rail Investment Plan: Scoping Package, June 2012, at: http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/scoping_package_0612.pdf 2. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, May 2010, was prepared by the NEC Master Plan Working Group (12 states and DC) and is located at: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf

21

Attachment 14-B C. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) documents

1. The Notice of Intent to conduct a Tier I EIS for the Northeast High-Speed Rail Corridor (NEC FUTURE), June 22, 2012, is at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06- 22/pdf/2012-15241.pdf 2. The Preliminary National Rail Plan (PNRP), October 2009, is at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/railplanprelim10-15.pdf

D. Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) documents

1. Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor: 2012 Update Report, July 10, 2012, is at: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf 2. A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (the 2010 HSR Vision), September 29, 2010, is at: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/214/393/A-Vision-for-High- Speed-Rail-in-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf

E. The America-2050 and the Regional Plan (NY-NJ-CT) Association documents

1. Where High-Speed Rail Works Best, September 17, 2009 is at: http://www.america2050.org/2009/09/where-high-speed-rail-works-best.html 2. Northeast Mega-region 2050: A Common Future , November 7, 2007, is at: http://www.rpa.org/pdf/Northeast_Report_sm.pdf

F. I-95 Corridor Coalition

1. A 2040 Vision for the I-95 Coalition Region: Supporting Economic Growth in a Carbon- Constrained Environment, December 2008, is at: http://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Portals/0/Public_Files/pm/reports/2040%20Vision%20for %20I-95%20Region_Full%20Report.pdf

G. The Council of Northeastern Governors and the (CONEG) Policy Research Center, Inc.

1. A Regional Context for Intercity Passenger Rail Improvements in the Northeast, August 24, 2009, is at: http://www.coneg.org/reports/regional_context.pdf

#######

22

Attachment 14-B Attachment 14-C Attachment 14-C Attachment 14-D Attachment 14-D Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-E Attachment 14-F Attachment 14-G