How fast is the vre

ND Officers Election Rules. More Headlines. News and Issues. Public Relations Journal Scholarships. What is FELA? User Info. Web Policy. Intermodal down for 14th straight week as AAR reports rail traffic for the week ending November 6, Railroads struggle to replenish workforce after slashing thousands of jobs. Biden administration unveils U. The program will reduce travel times, expand access to employment opportunities, enhance the ability to move people and freight, and alleviate some of the worst bottlenecks in the United States.

The Atlantic Gateway includes freight and commuter rail, highway, and technology components. More information on these rail programs may be found on the Atlantic Gateway website. The Recommended Preferred Alternative would add a new third main line adjacent to the existing tracks on the east through the City of Fredericksburg Alternative 3B , which would provide the capacity needed to increase train service and improve reliability.

A 3 rd track through the City of Fredericksburg would remain primarily within the existing CSXT right-of-way, and its impacts to wetlands, residential and commercial properties would be substantially lower than a bypass alternative Alternative 3C.

Adding track to form a continuous three track co-mingled corridor would add more capacity and allow for better reliability and frequency. A bypass is one of the alternatives being considered to meet the capacity need. It would be primarily a freight bypass, but could also carry long distance trains. If rail capacity is added in the form of a freight bypass, , it allows for more capacity for the freight trains on this alternate route, and more capacity for passenger trains through the current Fredericksburg station.

The evaluation considers potential property impacts and potential impacts to cultural and natural resources, as well as the potential for benefits to transportation. These criteria are used to evaluate each alternative, which will be documented in the Draft EIS. Several bypass alignments were presented as options in June As the project team finds sensitive resources in the corridor and receives public input, we consider different options designed to have fewer impacts. We developed the current potential bypass alignment through a process that assessed the potential impacts to sensitive resources in response to public input.

The assessment was carried out using available mapping resources and field investigations. The full documentation will be available in the Draft EIS. The existing civil speed restriction of 40 mph in Fredericksburg would remain in place for all trains even if new tracks are built. While the DC2RVA design allows for a maximum authorized speed of 90 mph for passenger trains, that speed is not practical in many areas of the corridor due to congestion, track curves, and other factors.

If the bypass alternative were chosen, there would be one new bridge over the Rappahannock approximately 6 miles east of the existing rail bridge as the crow flies. If a third track through the City is chosen, there would be a new bridge immediately downstream and parallel to the existing bridge. The corridor and other alternate routes have been considered in previous studies. The purpose of the environmental process is to gather data to assist in evaluating the merits of different alternatives.

A final decision on a preferred alternative will not be made until the EIS process is complete. DRPT is studying several alternatives in the Ashland area: one would add a third track through Ashland beside the existing tracks, and another would result in a 2-track bypass going to the west of Ashland.

A third build alternative would not add any tracks through Ashland, but would include various improvements to crossings, signals, and safety systems. This alternative will depend on results of operational modeling, which will verify the minimum infrastructure needed to accommodate expected capacity. The Ashland station and platforms would need to be expanded and improved in all of these alternatives.

You can review mapping of the potential alternatives here. A no-build alternative is being considered corridor-wide as a baseline or benchmark against which the build alternatives are evaluated. Passenger and freight trains currently operate through Ashland at restricted speeds of 35 mph from 7 am to 7 pm every day except Friday which runs from 7am to 10pm.

At other times, the allowable train speed is 45 mph. The project is not contemplating a change to these speeds through Ashland. In addition to higher speeds, increased capacity and improved reliability of performance are major goals of the project. The shared freight and passenger rail corridor between Washington, D. This recommendation adopts Alternative 5A, also known as the alternative, as the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative 5A does not eliminate Center Street access in Ashland. Additional details are available in the Draft EIS. A key element of the selected incremental approach is to upgrade existing rail corridors instead of developing new corridors. The incremental approach seeks to minimize cost and potential impacts to the environment by utilizing existing railroad tracks and rail rights-of-way as much as possible.

DRPT evaluated rail alignment bypass options on the east and west of Ashland as potential alternatives in lieu of adding a third track through Ashland. This evaluation covered multiple bypass options east of Ashland, including the Buckingham Branch Railroad. The Draft EIS documents findings, which showed greater potential impacts to existing infrastructure, land use, and cultural and natural resources compared to a bypass west of Ashland.

The Committee discussed the alternatives during five public meetings, and subsequently Committee determined that none of the eastern bypass alignments were acceptable. Through the DC2RVA alternatives development process and related community meetings, DRPT recognized the unique nature of the Town of Ashland and Hanover County area, and that many of the alternatives for greater rail capacity in this area generated community concerns.

The CAC could also identify potential new options to meet the purpose and need of the DC2RVA project, while minimizing or avoiding any potential impacts of those options.

The project team has provided additional information on the specific options that CAC members have discussed. DRPT has not proposed fencing as part of any of the options that were developed. The CAC, FRA, and other stakeholders can work on a specific approach to encourage passengers to use the crossings provided. Fencing may conform to architectural desires as long as it meets safety requirements. The Project is being evaluated through a process established by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Project considered new station locations in Richmond based on comments received during the Project scoping meetings in , input from the public throughout the development of the Draft EIS, and comments received during the Draft EIS public comment period.

There are currently seven alternatives being considered in the Richmond section which include various stations and combinations of stations. These include four single-station options that would consolidate passenger services to one station either Staples Mill Road Station, a new Boulevard Station, a new Broad Street Station, or Main Street Station , and three two-station options that offer combinations of services and routes using Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road Station.

You can view mapping of these alternatives and station options by visiting the Richmond Section of the Interactive Corridor Maps. On exceptionally large projects, especially proposed highway and railroad corridors that cross long distances, a two-tiered Tier II process is often used before implementing the proposed action.

In such cases, the Tier I Environmental Impact Statement EIS and Record of Decision ROD are focused on helping to make the large-scale decisions, such as what type of new service is needed and which general corridor would be best for the new service.

Following the Tier I ROD, a more detailed Tier II evaluation is conducted for the proposed project that evaluates the specific actions and improvements required to support the new service. The Tier II evaluation is supported by more detailed engineering and cost estimating. The Tier II process will conclude with a ROD that will allow permitting, final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to proceed. Our study slightly overlaps the Richmond to Raleigh study in Chesterfield County to allow consideration of all possible rail alignments and station locations serving Richmond.

A Service Development Plan, required by the FRA and finalized after selection of the Preferred Alternative, lays out the overall scope and approach for the proposed service. It has some elements in common with the EIS; for example, confirming the purpose and need for new or improved HSIPR service and describing alternatives that were considered.

The SDP must also demonstrate the operational and financial feasibility of the alternative that is proposed to be pursued. Financial feasibility requires detailed analysis of the anticipated ridership and revenue from fares paid and any auxiliary revenue for example, from on-board food and beverage sales.

Operational feasibility considers specific stopping patterns and train schedules at several points in the future. If applicable, the SDP describes how the implementation of the high-speed rail program may be divided into discrete phases.

The SDP also addresses the location of the stations to be served by the proposed new or improved service, how these stations will accommodate the proposed service for example, with amenities such as baggage handling or parking , how passengers will access those stations, and how these stations will be integrated with connections to other modes of transportation.

Frequently Asked Questions. What is high speed rail? Where is high speed rail service currently operational along the East Coast? This corridor designation has been extended south to Northern FL through subsequent actions of the Department. Visit www. It is also the busiest passenger rail line in the U. What is the Washington, D. The project is expected to provide multiple benefits to the traveling public and the Commonwealth of Virginia, including: Providing an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor between Washington, D.

What process will the project follow? What prompted this project? These conditions include: Population Growth. Population in the corridor and adjacent urban regions continues to grow, increasing demand for reliable and safe travel options for passengers.

In addition to overall population growth, changing demographics in the corridor and adjacent urban regions are increasing the demand for passenger rail service. Freight Growth. Demand for freight movement through and within the corridor is growing as economic activity and population increase.

Congestion in the I Corridor. The I corridor between Washington, D. As a result, trip times by highway vehicles are not reliable. Air Travel Congestion. Travel by air is increasingly at capacity, resulting in frequent delays and causing commercial carriers to reduce flights and increase fares, which limits the transportation options between Washington, D. Capacity in the Corridor. Air Quality. There is a need to reduce growth of transportation-related mobile source emissions and the resultant impacts to air quality.

Travel or freight movement by train provides a safe and efficient travel mode, and it uses less energy and produces fewer emissions per passenger or ton of freight moved per mile. Who has been involved in the environmental process? Army Corps of Engineers U.

Coast Guard U. Department of Interior U. What are the benefits of this project to Virginia? DC2RVA will: increase rail capacity parallel to I from Richmond to Washington, one of the most unreliable and heavily congested interstate travel corridors in the United States with limited roadway expansion capacity; provide more frequent and reliable passenger trains as a viable and safe transportation alternative for generations of Virginians to come; and help resolve railroad bottlenecks passenger, commuter, and freight , as well ascongestion and safety concerns, while accommodating increased rail volume from the Port of Virginia; and; connect the existing Northeast passenger rail network with the developing Southeast passenger rail network.

Who will use the high speed rail service? Why would people use high speed rail instead of existing methods of transportation? Are there any other high speed rail efforts in Virginia?

Who is actually doing the preliminary engineering and environmental study work? Is job creation an aspect of this study? Will there be a greenway along the corridor? How does Section relate to this study? What is the proposed cost and corridor-wide operational performance of the build alternatives?

The time it takes to travel between DC and Richmond is dependent on the number and location of station stops as well as the track design. Travel time, ridership, and on-time performance vary by Build Alternative within the Richmond station options; the quickest travel time does not necessarily equate to the same Build Alternative that has the most ridership or best on-time performance. How much will the project cost and how will it be paid for? Where will the funds to build this project come from?

How much will this project cost individual taxpayers? Will taxpayers have to pay for operations if the project is implemented?

Who would be responsible for maintenance of the tracks? Operational costs? Is cost a factor being considered when reviewing alternatives? Do they stop at all of the stations along the corridor? What will happen at the roadway crossings of the rail corridor? Six types of crossing treatments were considered at each at-grade crossing: Grade Separation. By definition, a highway- rail crossing that occurs at two different vertical levels. Benefits of grade- separated crossings compared to at-grade crossings include reduction in collisions, vehicle delay, and maintenance costs.

Four-Quadrant Gates. A system of gates entrance and exit gates on all roadway approaches designed to provide full closure of the crossing when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing, thus eliminating the opportunity for vehicles to navigate around a single lowered gate. Median Treatment. A system of physical improvements designed to impede the movement of vehicles into the opposing traffic lane and around the single lowered gate two-quadrant gate.

Treatments include barrier wall systems, wide raised medians, and mountable raised curb systems with vertical median separators. Locking Gate private crossings only. This term refers to a barrier gate that is a moveable gate that is in engaged i. For the DC2RVA project, locking gates are only applicable to private crossings and must be tied into the track circuitry.

The locking gate could be manual requiring property owners to exit their vehicle to manually interact with the gate or more automated such as key card access to open and close the gate , the details of which will be determined during final design. No Action. Considered at crossings where the existing crossing treatment is sufficient to accommodate the DC2RVA project. Will I have a say in what stations are served by high speed rail?

If the trains don't stop in my community, what benefit will there be for me? What considerations are you making for safety if the speed of intercity passenger trains is increased to MAS 90 mph?

Will the new train service be operated by Amtrak? Will the new service be electrified? Will the new high speed rail system support Maglev trains or electrification? What is the typical section of the proposed rail corridor? What came out of Scoping? Common themes from the comments included: Support for improved intercity passenger service. Concerns about cost and impacts. Support for improved transportation connectivity within the Commonwealth.

What has been done since the Scoping Phase? Since November , the DRPT has: Reviewed all scoping comments and modified existing conditions data and base mapping based on information provided in comments. Developed Basis of Design engineering criteria document , describing the design standards and requirements for new track, roadways, station platforms, and other improvements. Identified preliminary alternatives. Initiated the first stage of the alternative screening process, which evaluates various rail alignments against direct impacts on key environmental resources outside of the existing CSX right-of-way.

What are the next steps? What permits and regulatory approvals are required? Why can't the existing rail lines be used? Virginia is looking at building new tracks between the two places, as well as changing existing ones to allow for higher speeds. As it stands, Richmond is between 2. The project still needs funding for the actual track work, but at least we now know how much it will cost.

This track improvement project is part of a larger network slowly being studied from DC down to Atlanta. This part of the process should wrap up in , and construction assuming funding comes together could be finished by DRPT has split the project into six sections and has announced plans and pricetags for each.

Separately from the Virginia study, DC is looking at replacing the year old bridge to increase the number of tracks from two to four. The Long Bridge. Image by Elvert Barnes licensed under Creative Commons. The new tracks would parallel the existing CSX-owned track for just about a mile. Area 2 extends south, from the first area's mile to just north of Fredericksburg; it toals 47 miles.

VRE is already involved in a third-track expansion project in Alexandria, so there are some gaps here already filled in. In some places in Area 2, there would be four tracks to coincide with the four tracks from area 1 just south of DC.