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 3 developing, just this year, such documents 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.