EDITORIAL: Next stop for Virginia’s high-speed rail: Nowhereville?
Wed., Jun. 8 | 10:46 AM - Without question, Virginia has an overall transportation quagmire on its hands.
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/next_stop_for_virginias_high-speed_rail_nowhereville123/

Without question, Virginia has an overall transportation quagmire on its hands.

Problems include ridiculously long commutes in Northern Virginia; a Metro expansion plan to Tyson’s Corner and Loudoun that seems beset by controversy and funding questions; poor conditions on many of our primary and secondary roads; and, above all else, a terrible lack of reliable and stable long-term funding for any viable transportation solutions.

Then, there’s the issue of high-speed rail service in the state. It is a goal that almost everyone shares, but – like so many other transportation priorities – remains one that is elusive due to a lack of funding mechanisms. But it is one that must be pursued as part of an overall solution not only to Virginia’s transportation needs, but those of an entire region in the southeast as well.

Currently, Virginia has snail-rail passenger service via Amtrak that connects Washington to Richmond, Petersburg and then down into North Carolina.
The federal government, and many state lawmakers and business leaders, envision a vastly improved and expanded network of high-speed passenger rail that would enhance this system, and expand it to high-growth and economically critical areas such as Norfolk as well.

Designated the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR), it would connect major population centers in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, creating a fast-track that would allow passenger trains to travel at much greater speeds of up to 110 mph. It is a project that would potentially reduce congestion on major interstates and many other state roads, relieve environmental pollution, encourage economic and business development, and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, according to Virginians for High Speed Rail.

Not only that, but the development and implementation of such a service would allow for the seamless integration with the existing Amtrak high-speed service between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston that has grown mightily in usage in the past decade, while providing citizens with an alternate method of commercial travel for business and tourism along a highly congested area of the nation.

When you consider that the Southeast region of the nation grew by almost 17 percent between 2000 and 2010, well beyond the nation’s average, and that it is expected to continue to grow by another 26 percent by 2030, there is doubt that additional modes of transportation beyond air traffic and roads would be a wise investment in infrastructure.

The goal of high-speed rail got a shot in the arm early this year when a study by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation was released. It called for the improvement of rail speed, quality, reliability and availability in the next two decades but also clearly sounded a clarion call for funding of capital improvements and operations.

The harsh reality, however, is that the state has no funds to invest in its rail service without an increase in taxes or fees. It could ask for more local funding from municipalities that are already cash-strapped, or it could divert funds from other programs, or take money away from sources now earmarked for highways. All highly unlikely.

There was a glimmer of hope this spring when the federal government issued a plan to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail over the next five years. Many state Republican governors, however, balked at the federal handout, largely due to ideological as well as logistical and funding concerns.

When $2.4 billion in funds became available due to the rejection by other states of the federal matching awards, Virginia had a real chance to make a visionary, long-term investment in high-speed rail by applying for the funds and submitting a plan for rail investment.

Yet the administration of Gov. Bob McDonnell punted, asserting it could not furnish the required state matching rate of 20 percent, nor could it meet construction deadlines that were six years away in 2017. It’s likely there was an ideological bent to the snub by the state of rail funds, as any money handed out by Washington these days – no matter how noble its purpose – is seen as somehow anathema to good governance or fiscal rectitude.

But by dissing the dollars from the Feds, the state passed on one heck of a golden rail opportunity. Other states in the region have seen fit to apply for the funds for critical rail improvements, likely understanding the need as well as the urgency for such development.

We know roads must take precedence in the Commonwealth - for now - but does it really mean having to forsake a thoughtful vision for any other kind of mass transit system? Our sincere hope is that when the economy truly revives and state coffers are flush with revenue once again, those advocating high-speed rail get their chance to push their plans, as well as the funds to go with it.

Hasn’t the rip-off boondoggle of rail to Dulles Airport been enough of a wake-up call to end these wasteful proposals? If these rail projects were commercially viable, somebody would have already built them. They are nothing but a waste of tax dollars, each of which was forcibly extracted from someone who created real value.

The author of the article seems to have something against our current governor and his desire to not spend money where there is no immediate need for improvement. That’s disappointing.

Perhaps the author should consider the benefits of good fiscal policy that exercises restraint and prudence - especially during a recession. One would think that states turning down money from the government and asking them to spend it elsewhere - or even better yet, save it - would be a positive story unto itself.

Oh, and by the way, there’s a reason that so many states have turned down this money… and it wasn’t because it was “Obama money” as the author has insinuated. I urge everyone to do a little digging to find out why for yourselves.

If this project were economically viable and there was enough public demand for it, then it would be given higher priority. But do we really need to do it at significant expense and increased costs to taxpayers now?

If high speed rail - and not just finding another way to complain about Governor McDonnell - is the author’s true desire then perhaps he or she should start focusing the sales pitch for this where it really belongs: with the private sector.

Talks Begin On Rail Project Cost, Outcome Uncertain
Posted: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 8:55 am | Updated: 11:50 am, Tue Jun 7, 2011.
by Erika Jacobson Moore
http://www.leesburg2day.com/news/article_9154187a-9105-11e0-ab71-001cc4c002e0.html

Leaders of jurisdictions involved with the Dulles Rail project held their first meeting with members of the MWAA Board Friday, but it is not yet clear whether the outcome of those sessions will clear the way for Metro extend into Loudoun as planned.

The Loudoun board has threatened to withdraw from the funding partnership because of the project's increasing costs and, particularly, the recent vote by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to reject a locally endorsed option to save $300 million by building an above-ground station at the Dulles Airport terminal.

The meeting occurred two days after U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood intervened in the issue after weeks of public feuding between the members of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority board, which is managing the construction of the rail line, and representatives of Loudoun and Fairfax counties and the state government, which, along with Dulles Toll Road drivers, are responsible to pay for the majority of $3.5 billion Phase 2 of the project.

Last Wednesday LaHood convened a meeting with representatives of each of the parties, including County Chairman Scott K. York (R-At Large), Fairfax Chairman Sharon Bulova (D-At Large), Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA-10), Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-VA-11) and MWAA Board of Directors Chairman Charles D. Snelling and members of the MWAA board.

Following the meeting there was little indication that much was accomplished, but there was a feeling that something could be done to the meet the needs of all sides, ultimately. In a joint statement Wolf and Connelly, said they were "encouraged" by statements from MWAA board members that they might be willing "to work with us and our local partners to address those concerns, noting that everything is on the table for discussion moving forward."

"As we have stated repeatedly, our primary interest is for the Rail to Dulles project to be completed on time and at or under budget," the statement reads. "[Wednesday's] meeting was a step in the right direction. While there are hurdles left to overcome, all parties agreed that Rail to Dulles must be done, and that we must and will work together to resolve the outstanding issues."

York said LaHood's intervention was a positive step, if only because "it forces everybody to put their concerns on the table."

While saying he could not comment on the details of the meeting, York said Friday's meeting addressed the scope of Phase 2 of the Dulles Rail project, which includes stations at Dulles Airport, Rt. 606 and Rt. 772 in Loudoun. Meetings will continue over several weeks, with the next meeting schedule for next week.

Strife over the Dulles Rail project started when the MWAA board voted to endorse a modified tunnel option for the Dulles Airport station, instead of the aerial station endorsed by the Loudoun and Fairfax boards of supervisors and the state. The revised tunnel option is expected to save about $300 million from the original design, but local leaders pressed for the aerial station option to save $300 million more to help offset ballooning costs of the project.

When efforts to convince the MWAA board to change its vote failed, the Board of Supervisors directed the county staff to examine the consequences if it voted to opt out of paying for rail. The board will have 90 days after the final preliminary engineering and design is complete to choose not to participate in the project. Without Loudoun's monetary involvement some have predicted that the rail extension would end at Dulles Airport.

Saying there was still much to discuss, and much to understand about MWAA's ultimate position on the project, York said it is too soon to tell whether the result of the stakeholders meetings will be that Loudoun sees Metro stations in its future.

"Secretary LaHood has been helpful in that it has forced them all to come to the table. Whether these meetings are successful we will still have to wait and see," he said. "We are still very concerned that we are far, far apart.
Attachments: