Yes, yes, and yes. Just get it done already. This project will need to happen sometime and there will always be something or another that can be used an excuse to delay the start of the project. With all of Obama's announcements about rail infrastructure improvements, one would think this project would be at the top of the list.

Just one question: Did CSX provide a time line or say how long the project would take to complete the whole project?

by Adam L on Apr 13, 2010 12:05 pm • link • report

Perhaps this was the intent, but this posting does not take a critical look at both the pluses and minuses of this project. I'd refer people to the JDland.com blog for several good discussions on the topic. The planning is clearly in the early stages, and many details remain TBD, but this should not be presented as an unqualified win-win for all stakeholders. Not saying the project shouldn't happen, just saying that there's more to it than the info in this post.

by jg on Apr 13, 2010 12:07 pm • link • report

@Adam L:
It's all contingent on funding. The Virginia Avenue Tunnel could be completed by late 2014 if the money is in place soon.

Since this is the biggest project, I assume that CSX would be able to manage the remaining projects (mostly raising overpasses) in time to coincide with the completion of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 13, 2010 12:08 pm • link • report

This sounds like an exciting and good project.

Can someone please explain to me why a company like CSX, which is expected to annouce today that it earned about 290 million dollar in profit for Q1, can't afford to build this $160 million tunnel without federal and state grants?

by charlie on Apr 13, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report

Why can't we run a Metro-like service along VRE and MARC tracks that mimics the Paris RER? It'd reduce a lot of the congestion along Metro, and most of the infrastructure is already in place.

by andrew on Apr 13, 2010 12:28 pm • link • report

Does anyone remember a plan to bury the SE/SW Freeway and recast Virginia Ave as one of L'Enfant's grand Boulevards?

by Phil Lepanto on Apr 13, 2010 12:31 pm • link • report

@Charlie

For the same reason that the state pays for the construction of roads and highways. Infrastructure is a critical component to maintaining our economy and national security. One could ask why gas taxes cover only about 35% of the total cost to build and maintain roads. Compared to roads, CSX is being generous by ponying up to 50% of the cost.

by Adam L on Apr 13, 2010 12:49 pm • link • report

Compared to roads, CSX is being generous by ponying up to 50% of the cost.

Thanks CSX! Now...when will I be allowed to ride my private handcar on this public railway?

by oboe on Apr 13, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report

@oboe

No, but you can drive your private vehicle on roads with fewer trucks and cars in your way, better and more frequent service on MARC, VRE, and Amtrak, and cheaper goods in stores that travel on cost-efficient railways.

by Adam L on Apr 13, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report

Thing is would CSX give MARC or VRE space for additional slots for trains? And if so could either afford it? Remember, O'Malley refuses to have MARC raise fares and forced cuts when people begged for a fare increase.

by Jason on Apr 13, 2010 1:23 pm • link • report

Sounds like the same arguments you hear about how we must give massive tax-breaks to corporations because they provide jobs. As though they were charitable organizations, and this were the main reason these enterprises were in business, rather than an unfortunate byproduct of the process of making money--one that would be eliminated in an *instant* were it not central to the process.

If CSX cannot afford to pay taxes on, and maintain their private infrastructure, they should go out of business...at which point the government could take it over.

by oboe on Apr 13, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

Adam, your car hate is blinding you.

Does CSX pay for a fuel tax that goes into building rails? Will they pay rent on this new tunnel? Are shippers paying for a tax that helps fund rails?

I can see how MARC might benefit from lower congestion, but will Amtrak? Or VRE?

I can see local governments understanding the benefits this will bring to CSX -- and be willing to help foot some costs for the residents who will be inconvenienced. But I see nothing where we should be spending tax payer money helping a single corporation....

The fact that this PR initiative was keyed two days before a widely followed earning report makes me very suspicious...

by charlie on Apr 13, 2010 1:27 pm • link • report

@Adam L: So now if a business wants government money to do something to increase its profits, it just needs to prove that there's a collateral public benefit?

Businesses often do things that benefit the public. In fact, I'd say that the majority of things that businesses do benefit the public. But not everything that benefits the public should be paid for by the government.

by Tim on Apr 13, 2010 1:27 pm • link • report

@oboe

True. UPS made $750 million in profit last quarter taking advantage of government-built and maintained roads, highways, and airports. We should tax them wayyyyy more to pay for the public infrastructure they use to make money. If they can't afford it, they should be taken over by government... like the Postal Service.

by Adam L on Apr 13, 2010 1:28 pm • link • report

Egads. Of course not everything that benefits the public should be paid for by the public. However, when it comes to infrastructure, be it rail, roads, or airports, then government does have a responsibility to fund it. Businesses across all industries get all kinds of tax breaks and incentives.

"Does CSX pay for a fuel tax that goes into building rails? Will they pay rent on this new tunnel? Are shippers paying for a tax that helps fund rails?"

Yes, yes, and yes. They pay their own rail and fuel taxes, and pay taxes for the maintenance of the right-of-ways.

by Adam L on Apr 13, 2010 1:37 pm • link • report

Also, I see no reason why this is good for passenger rail.

If a freight railroad owns tracks that Amtrak uses, Amtrak is at the mercy of the freight railroad. So Amtrak consistently gets the lowest priority. And if a freight train breaks down, the railroad is never in much of a hurry to clear the train. And keep in mind that save for the Northeast Corridor, the Keystone Corridor, the Empire Corridor and the New Haven-Springfield line, Amtrak owns almost no track. More than half the time I've taken Amtrak on non-Amtrak tracks, the trains have either been canceled or delayed a few hours because of freight trains.

by Tim on Apr 13, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report

I sure hope they plan to fix the potomac bridge as well. That thing looks like it is going to rust into dust in the not to distant future. At least a paint job please.

by NikolasM on Apr 13, 2010 1:47 pm • link • report

hmm.

1. Taxes for the right of way: for the property they own, like any landowner. Has nothing to do with the $160 million various governments might invest. I can't imagine how much that property is worth but a tunnel isn't worth much. Total property taxes from ALL railroads in the US was about 500 million dollars.

2. They don't pay fuel tax. They complain that the fuel taxes that trucking companies pay result in immediate deductions. Besides, they are fuel efficient, at least according to their ads.

3. Rail tax? I think that there is a different depreciate schedule for them, because, guess what, they OWN and BUILD their own infrastructure. Perhaps that is unfair, but that isn't a tax.

CSX is going to make over 200 million in profit in 1Q. IF this tunnel is such a big bottleneck, let them pay for it.

Yes, railroads have it difficult compare to trucking companies. Yes, we should ship more freight on them. But they are making oodles of money, and as the price of diesel goes up, they are going to make more.

And I do get to use airports and roads. Amtrak is being strangled b/c freight gets priority.

by charlie on Apr 13, 2010 1:51 pm • link • report

@jg: I was focusing more on the project as a whole. However, I did discuss the construction process, about which not much is known.

The JD Land post on the issue is informative, and I would also encourage those of you in the neighborhood to visit. Make no mistake, 3 years of construction will be no picnic, but the project will bring benefits to many.

@charlie:
CSX spends over a billion dollars annually to upgrade tracks. They probably could afford to do this project on their own, but it would take a lot longer.

@andrew:
One of the primary reasons we cannot run RER/S-Bahn type service along our rail lines is because of this tunnel. There is only one major freight rail corridor running along this part of the east coast. As a result, it's pretty congested and busy.

There are plans to add tracks in Virginia, which would allow more frequent, faster commuter and inter-city rail service. Reducing congestion would help get to get better commuter service started.

@Jason:
Yes. This project will give MARC, VRE, and Amtrak additional slots for trains. Right now the economy (and the tax base) is in the basement. In 2015, when this project is complete (best case scenario), I hope that the economy is better. So Maryland and Virginia might have more money to contribute to better service.

@Charlie:
CSX has been working with the community on the Virginia Avenue Project since Fall 2009. The scheduling of this event had nothing to do with an earnings statement.

@Tim:
This is good for Amtrak because it will reduce congestion and will result in fewer freight trains. This is because raising the roof of the tunnel will allow for double-stacked container trains. Twice as many containers on one trains means they don't need to run as many individual trains.

The double-tracking of the tunnel means that freight trains won't need to wait on the main line that MARC and VRE trains use. One particularly egregious place where this happens now is the southbound Capital Subdivision (MARC Camden Line) near College Park, where freight trains have to wait for their turn.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 13, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report

I do agree that the government has a great interest in building rail road tracks. It does bother me though that these tracks will be owned by a private entity. I would hope that the government would demand some rights in the usage of the track, or of the freed up space elsewhere.

In utopia, I'd like to see that the government just builds railroads, just like they build interstates. Users of the track will have to pay a usage fee in one form or another (busienss tax, per mile fee, diesel/electricity surcharge, whatever).

by Jasper on Apr 13, 2010 2:03 pm • link • report

Matt, with all due respect, I would not blithely dismiss the timing of a blogging PR call and an earnings report.

I think you are also ignoring that in a few years, the volume of double stacked trains will the same as the volume of current trains, and any benefits will evaporate. The example you cite doesn't help MARC/VRE commuter trains -- it helps CSX.

3 years construction at 160 million is about 55 million a year -- or less than .5% of what they currently spend every year anyway. So we are we funding a tunnel? Public money means less time in construction which mean less difficulty for residents and roads displaced?

by charlie on Apr 13, 2010 2:04 pm • link • report

re: "I sure hope they plan to fix the potomac bridge as well. That thing looks like it is going to rust into dust in the not to distant future. At least a paint job please."

I'm guessing the NCPC, NGS, Committee of 100, and whatever other agency got involved, they couldn't decide on the paint color, then after the process dragged on for 20 years they just decided to let it rust.

by spookiness on Apr 13, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report

We should tax [UPS] wayyyyy more to pay for the public infrastructure they use to make money. If they can't afford it, they should be taken over by government... like the Postal Service.

Just strange that you find any parallelism in these two situations. After all, commercial vehicles *are* taxed more than private vehicles. But these are public roads after all. And UPS is not a regional monopoly. There's actually quite a bit of competition in the delivery space. That's why they're such a strong dynamic company, and why CSX is essentially a welfare case, crippled by generations of handouts and lack of competition.

On a side-note, isn't that perpetual bogeyman of "The Postal Service" a bit dated? Personally, I find the USPS to be on par with UPS or FedEx. What you're arguing here is that a government takeover of CSX would be like allowing the USPS to take over DHL. Which would be a god-send.

I think the anti-privatizers have a much stronger position arguing that we shouldn't let, say, the FBI turn into Comcast, than that CSX shouldn't be allowed to turn into USPS. Especially given that we have the worst rail system of any developed country.

by oboe on Apr 13, 2010 2:08 pm • link • report

Re: The Long Bridge:
The railroad bridge across the Potomac is called the Long Bridge. It is currently being studied by DC & Virginia, I believe. Expansion of Amtrak and VRE service is contingent on a new span, probably entailing 4 tracks. DDOT received money from the stimulus for the study.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 13, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

Oboe, you again are not arguing with facts.

Our rail sector is a huge and profitable industry. Warren buffet just bought BNSF. CSX is doing very well. Billions of dollar are profit are being made.

It is, of course, freight. Passenger rail may be dead. Freight rail is alive and well, and I don't see why should give them corporate subsidies.

Trucks are taxes already. I think more taxes might be a good idea given the amount of damage they do to roads and bridges, but there is a point where you kill the golden egg.

by charlie on Apr 13, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

I think CSX doesn't call it the Long Bridge anymore, at least according to their national gateway webpage. Their initial discussion doesn't sound like a full on replacement. I dunno.

"Potomac River Swing Bridge"

"The site is a 23-span bridge located above the Potomac River. The project will consist of modifying and/or replacing the existing diagonal and lateral bracing members with systems that provide both the required bracing and the needed railcar clearance. The proposed work will take place within CSX right of way and will not have significant environmental impact."

http://updates.nationalgateway.org/project/66

by NikolasM on Apr 13, 2010 2:22 pm • link • report

@NikolasM:
Sorry for the confusion. For the National Gateway project, CSX only needs to make modifications to the Long Bridge. It retains the name, but CSX might find it less confusing to the public if it refers to it by the name of the water it crosses.

The expansion (probably through construction of a second span) is part of a different project, which aims to bring higher speed rail between Washington and Richmond.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 13, 2010 2:25 pm • link • report

Thanks Matt. The question still remains if they are planning to at least paint the stuff they don't touch. Oh, and maybe remove the trees growing on some of the piers, that can't possibly be good for it, the roots slowly expanding and cracking the stone/concrete...

by NikolasM on Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm • link • report

Charlie, this improvement may apply to CSX property, but neither the intent nor the effect is to benefit CSX's bottom line, but Amtrak's, MARC's, et cetera. CSX runs freight. They could care less about the width of this track, and if we don't pay them, they WILL, in fact, care less about this track.

by Omri on Apr 13, 2010 3:20 pm • link • report

@Omri: CSX of course cares about that tunnel. They want to run double-height trains through it and limit queue times for trains wanting to pass through simultaneously. It means profit for them (lower costs and faster trains).

One suggestion I would have for DDOT is to officially reopen the stadium access road to 17th street to ease all the traffic going on 6th. I say "officially" because we all know it's used regularly by commuters and residents currently.

by jyindc on Apr 13, 2010 3:24 pm • link • report

Almost all of the Empire Corridor in New York state north of Poughkeepsie is owned by CSX. Amtrak owns a tiny piece, maybe 19 miles, west of Albany which has no freight traffic on it. Amtrak trains are at the mercy of CSX dispatching.

by Steve on Apr 13, 2010 3:48 pm • link • report

@Omri: CSX most definitely cares about this tunnel. They want to get more trains through at a faster pace with more freight on the trains. Then their capacity in the lane is higher, so they can carry more freight, which means more revenue and more profit. Speed isn't quite that important in freight rail, but the increased speed will allow more freight to go through, which, of course, leads to more profit.

How could you possibly argue otherwise?

by Tim on Apr 13, 2010 3:51 pm • link • report

Wow, this post reads like a CSX press release. I think this is an important project, and CSX has every right and duty to push it, but this discussion glosses over how much dislocation this is going to cause in the short and medium term to local residents.

by TimK on Apr 13, 2010 3:58 pm • link • report

@TimK

I think the purpose of this post was to provide the facts. The comments are a great place to foster that discussion you seek. I certainly don't think Matt was trying to squash discussion at all, merely to provide a common and accurate starting point from which to proceed.

by Alex B. on Apr 13, 2010 4:13 pm • link • report

1.. What is the cost? CSX estimate 160 million / 3 years for tunnel, I am assuming not all of it public money. Where is the public money going to be spent?

2. What is the public benefit? Not to improving CSX's bottom line, but in term of removing pollution, getting commuter trains and AMTRAK easier access, etc.

3. What are the consequence? Disruption to local communities? other traffic headaches?

From one of Matt's earlier posts:

To fund this public-private partnership, CSX is calling for $194 million (25%) from the federal government and $193 million (25%) from the states involved to add to their own commitment of $387 million (50%). CSX claims that the benefits will be manifold, including adding jobs through the construction and operation of the new terminals, a reduction in highway congestion and accidents, a savings of more than $500 million in highway maintenance costs, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

And commuters on other modes have much to gain as well. By eliminating track bottlenecks like the Virginia Avenue tunnel in Southeast DC, commuters on MARC's Camden and Brunswick Lines will experience less freight congestion.

Again, lots of companies get special benefits from various governments, but I am really struggling here to see how this benefits the local area. More efficent rail frieght might be a national good, but why should the locals pay>

by charlie on Apr 13, 2010 4:15 pm • link • report

CSX's first-quarter earnings are out. $306 million profit, 22% higher than a year ago: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CSX-Announces-22-Increase-in-prnews-1083221413.html

Poor corporation. It could really use some government money.

by Tim on Apr 13, 2010 4:37 pm • link • report

@charlie:
Local Benefit #1: Reduced MARC congestion on the Camden and Brunswick Lines. With the elimination of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel bottleneck, CSX freight trains won't have to wait on the mainline for a "slot" through the tunnel. This will keep MARC trains from waiting behind the freights.

Local Benefit #2: Additional slots for MARC trains on the Camden and Brunswick Lines. With fewer trains just waiting around on the tracks, there will be more room in the schedule for MARC commuter trains. That's generally a good thing for commuters.

Local Benefit #3: Increased on-time performance for MARC trains. With fewer trains just sitting around, MARC trains are less likely to be delayed on the Camden and Brunswick Lines.

Local Benefit #4: Reduced VRE congestion on both lines. With the elimination of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel bottleneck, CSX freight trains won't have to wait on the mainline for a "slot" through the tunnel. This will keep VRE trains from waiting behind the freights.

Local Benefit #5: Additional slots for VRE trains on the Manassas and Fredericksburg Lines. With fewer trains just waiting around on the tracks, there will be more room in the schedule for VRE commuter trains. That's generally a good thing for commuters and commuters are generally local people.

Local Benefit #6: Increased on-time performance for VRE trains. With fewer trains just sitting around, VRE trains are less likely to be delayed on both Lines.

Local Benefit #7: Increased likelihood of MARC run-through service. While this project alone is not enough to allow MARC trains to continue south of Union Station to Alexandria (or beyond), it is an essential component of that plan. That would relieve congestion on the Red Line, since Maryland commuters would have access to the other 4 Metro lines at L'Enfant Plaza.

Local Benefit #8: Reduced truck traffic on arterial roads and freeways. With an alternative, often more cost-effective transportation solution, some goods will shift from truck to rail. This will reduce the number of trucks on our roads.

Local Benefit #9: Reduced pollution from trucks. Trains are much more energy efficient. With fewer trucks transiting the region, there will be fewer truck emissions in the region. That will mean cleaner air.

Local Benefit #10: Less urban congestion due to truck unloading. With intermodal terminals closer to the region, it will be easier to time deliveries from trucks. This is because many of them currently travel hundreds of miles and cannot accurately schedule an arrival time. So they unload whenever they get to DC, whether it blocks traffic or not.

Local Benefit #11: Job creation. Not only will the construction provide jobs in the region, but new intermodal terminals and increased access to markets will encourage job creation in the region.

Local Benefit #12: Decreased shipping costs. Cheaper shipping of goods generally means lower costs to consumers.

Local Benefit #13: Streetscape and park improvements. CSX plans to rebuild the Virginia Avenue axis to include additional recreational amenities, including a cycle path connecting to the Anacostia River.

Local Benefit #14: Get it out of the way. No matter what happens, the tunnel will eventually reach the end of its life. At that point, it will have to be replaced. The neighborhood may well be much more populated in the future.

###

Regional Benefit #1: Reduced Amtrak congestion in Virginia. With the elimination of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel bottleneck, CSX freight trains won't have to wait on the mainline for a "slot" through the tunnel. This will keep Amtrak trains from waiting behind the freights.

Regional Benefit #2: Additional slots for Amtrak trains traveling to points south. With fewer trains just waiting around on the tracks, there will be more room in the schedule for Amtrak trains.

Regional Benefit #3: Increased on-time performance for Amtrak trains. With fewer trains just sitting around, Amtrak trains are less likely to be delayed.

Regional Benefit #4: A step toward Virginia High Speed Rail. This project is a necessary step toward implementing high speed rail on the Washington-Richmond corridor.

###

Now, in fairness, there will be some drawbacks to the project for the neighborhood.

Neighborhood Drawback #1: Disrupted travel patterns. Streets will be closed. Longer paths may need to be taken to access goods and services for a 2-3 year period.

Neighborhood Drawback #2: Increased noise. In addition to construction noise, the uncovering of the tunnel and whistle noise may increase the sound of trains during the 2-3 year period.

Neighborhood Drawback #3: Increased light. Project lighting may increase the ambient light levels in the area during the 2-3 year period.

Neighborhood Drawback #4: Increased dust. Construction may spread dust in the area during the 2-3 year period.

Neighborhood Drawback #5: Loss of tree cover. Many trees along the Virginia Avenue corridor will be removed. It will take time before the tree canopy has recovered. This will probably be the longest lasting impact.

Neighborhood Drawback #6: Decreased property values. During the 2-3 year construction period, property values will probably drop.

###

I may have missed some benefits or drawbacks. Feel free to discuss additional ones in this comment thread.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 13, 2010 4:48 pm • link • report

Matt,

That's a very well organized list of benefits and drawbacks. Not to be totally NIMBY about this whole thing, but as a Hill resident, the local benefits really aren't that local. I'm glad it might help VRE and MARC, but that doesn't do squat for me. I think job creation is great, but I doubt it'll do much for the Hill. Intermodal trucks don't really come on the Hill all that much, and I don't see how this will really effect delivery times anyway. The big determining factor on that one is when the recipient can accept delivery and that won't change because of this project. Decreased shipping costs and reduced emissions are great, and a real benefit of rail vs. truck, but it's hardly a local benefit. Streetscape and road improvements are fine, but I haven't seen any proposals from CSX yet (either here or JDLand) that make me go "wow, I'm glad we're getting that". Mostly its "great, so you'll plant a few trees when you're done messing up the road".

Unfortunately, you've got us over a barrel on number 14. It does have to be done, and now is as good a time as any. But this a case where the Hill is going to have to suck it up for the greater good. Not a lot to be excited about here for Hill residents.

by TimK on Apr 13, 2010 6:33 pm • link • report

For all those talking about Amtrak using CSX tracks; how about CSX telling the Federal Government no and go build you own damn rails.

CSX owns them and so Amtrak, Marc, VRE etc should have the last priority if they want to be first they need to go build there own lines plain and simple.

The Federal Government has had almost 40 years to build there own infrastructure as many highway projects have been done Amtrak could have covered atleast the East Coast from Maine to Florida and the West Coast by now with fully owned tracks.

VRE, Amtrak & MARC should all be using there own rails and if they cant they should not be in business.

by kk on Apr 13, 2010 9:29 pm • link • report

Transit of hazardous materials through the capital city is an antiquated solution to an important problem. Digging CSX a fresh tunnel in the same old spot is just rearranging the deck chairs.

CSX may suppose that engaging the taxpayer in widening the tunnel will make the Government less likely to condemn the route.

Since CSX controls its traffic all the way from departure to arrival, one must suppose that if CSX stacks up its trains on the main line in College Park, it's on purpose.

by Turnip on Apr 13, 2010 9:34 pm • link • report

"During the tunnel replacement, a temporary trench will be dug south of the existing tunnel. It would be 20-25' wide and about 25' deep. Trains would run in this trench until the tunnel project has been finished. After the tunnel is complete, the trench will be filled back in."

What a waste! That tunnel should definitely NOT be filled in but either used as a 3rd track, or for automobile use.

If they could make it a bit wider, use it as a portion of the eastbound future SE Freeway Tunnel, making it easier to then finish the job later.

I write future and later because I don't see connecting it to the freeway to the west *in its current configuration* due to length-geometric issues.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 13, 2010 10:56 pm • link • report

I understand the potential spill-over public benefits of this project. However, I still do not understand why CSX, a profit-making company, should get federal money for a project that will boost their bottom line and that is important enough to them that they will likely undertake it regardless of whether they receive federal money. Seems like public money should go towards supporting projects that will produce public benefits that *would not otherwise* be undertaken without public investment.

This is a different issue than how many lumps one neighborhood is going to have to take in order for CSX to get this project done. And I think the neighbors have every right to try to protect their bottom lines (property values) while CSX tries to enhance its bottom line (increased profits from this project).

by m on Apr 14, 2010 10:25 am • link • report

Since probably no one else posting here has ever actually been through the Virginia Av. tunnel, let alone operated a freight train through it (like I have), allow me to post my $0.02.

The Virginia Av. tunnel is one of the biggest bottlenecks for moving freight up the East Coast. The CSX Baltimore Beltline/Howard St. tunnel, the Trenton Line of CSX between Philadelphia and Port Reading Jct., NJ, and terminal trackage shared by CSX and NS between Newark, NJ and North Bergen, NJ are others. Having worked as a locomotive engineer all of those places, it's a toss-up as to which is the biggest problem. They all put plenty of overtime pay in my pocket (another not inconsequential reason CSX is hot to do the project). Virginia Av. might be the worst because it directly affects passenger trains as well as freight.

For years CSX fought against passenger trains operating over their tracks tooth and nail. Probably the best (or worst) example of that was the deliberate effort by CSX in the Summer of 1993 to sabotage the fledgling VRE by scheduling Summer track work to cause the greatest possible disruptions to VRE and Amtrak schedules. It was so blatantly obvious what was happening that CSX ended up taking out full-page apologies for the delays in local newspapers by the end of that Summer.

Since that time CSX has decided that where it doesn't inconvenience them too much, they will work with Amtrak and commuter agencies to allow and accommodate new or increased passenger service. Starting with major signal upgrades on the Brunswick and Camden lines in the mid-'90's, CSX has consistently made strategic and incremental improvements in their infrastructure where public funding was available to subsidize the improvements. They do this because it also allows them to operate more and faster freight trains.

One thing that never comes up with non-railroaders is an improvement that would truly increase the speed of all trains - shortening the signal blocks. Currently, over most of CSX signals are 2 - 3 miles apart. If you look at a heavily used commuter railroad, like SEPTA in the Philadelphia area, typical distance between signals is around one mile. CSX has done a little of this in the DC area, adding a signal near College Park on the Camden Line, for instance.

Why does this speed things up? Railroad signals don't exactly operate like traffic lights on highways. The lights have mostly the same colors, but they function differently. Every time a train comes to a yellow (approach) signal, the engineer has to slow down and prepare to stop at the next signal, until he can see the next signal. If it's in a blind curve (more common on CSX than you'd like to think), that means the train has to almost come to a full stop each time. This can really slow down a long, heavy freight train (like over 10,000 tons and nearly 10,000 feet long in some cases). You don't just get on the gas and get back up to speed quickly with something like this. Depending on where a train is, and how much horsepower the train has, you might never get back up to full-speed again the rest of the way to your destination, if you have to stop or nearly stop at the bottom of a long grade. This increases the chances that a train might not make it to it's crew change point before the crew runs out of time, and at least slows down any following trains. Then all it takes is one other unexpected thing to happen - broken air hose, overheated bearing, etc. - and now you've got trains stopped all over the subdivision with crews out of time and hours of delays calling replacement crews and getting them out to the stopped trains. Adding more blocks closer together means that there would be more clear (green) signals between trains within a given distance, and they all could run faster for longer periods of time.

CSX made a corporate decision years ago that this was an acceptable roll of the dice, because most freight is not that time critical - coal doesn't write complaint letters for getting stuck for hours in the middle of nowhere. The trains that are time critical - like UPS trains and the Tropicana Juice train - get priority and run around other trains. However, longer signal blocks slow down passenger trains more, because of the mix with freight trains. So, if you really want to significantly increase commuter train speeds, get CSX to shorten the signal blocks and add some signal aspects (like "Advance Approach") that allow trains to keep moving closer to track speed more of the time.

by railroader on Apr 14, 2010 11:55 am • link • report

Thank you for the very educational post railroader.

by NikolasM on Apr 14, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report

@Matt; thank you again for your detailed articles on this and your long post on the benefits.

THe ones you list on #8-#11 are just restating the benefit of trains vs. trucking. I can't argue with that -- there are real benefits. But why should local governments (and the feds) invest in these projects? As we see, CSX is a profitable corporation.

In terms of the benefits to MARC and VRE, I would feel more comfortable if there were agreements in writing to lock that in. Freight raill has a great future. At some point, the new tunnel will get filled up as well, and those benefits to MARC/VRE will disappear. Railroader's comments on that front are very helpful.

Your point about "Do it now" is excellent. Also we still don't know exactly how much CSX is asking for the tunnel -- as I said, it is most likely not the full dollar amount. A more limited public investment of course requires more limited benefits.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report

@charlie:
Yes we do, I just neglected to mention it in the original post.

CSX is hoping to receive $115M from the the Feds on this project in particular, and $25M total for the remaining National Gateway projects.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 14, 2010 12:27 pm • link • report

@railroader

Thanks for your very informative post!

by Matthias on Apr 14, 2010 12:54 pm • link • report

@Matt; thank you. Not to get to granular, but what was the $26 million VA put towards the tunnel?

by charlie on Apr 14, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

@charlie:
I do not know what the $26M from Virginia funded. I will ask CSX.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 14, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report

It is inaccurate to say that the reauthorization bill was put on the backburner by President Obama. It is Congress that has stalled reauthorization, just as it did with the previous six-year iteration. The House and Senate have to pass the bill. The president has only to sign it.

by AC on Apr 14, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

@ AC: Isn't it amazing how people tend to assume that equal branches of government means that one guy in a white house needs to herd 535-541 clueless ants under a dome?

by Jasper on Apr 14, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report

As to the question why the government should spend any money on a project that will improve the bottom line of a private company, couldn't I ask a similar question, why should the government give me back any of my taxes which it legally can collect because I 1)went to school, 2)had children, 3)bought a car, 4)bought a house, or any other decision made by a private individual?

Now of course, you will all jump to say, "yeah, but that is a person and not a company." To that I will say, "tell that to the Supreme Court." Beyond the questions of corporations as legal persons, I would argue that that the reasoning is similar why the government should invest money in a project like this that benefits a private company. Precisely for that reason, it is an INVESTMENT. The IRS made a conscious decision at one point or another to give individuals tax breaks on their student loan interest because it would encourage people to become educated, and, in the long run, would improve the population AND the government's bottom line by increasing the earning power of each person who takes advantage of the tax break therefore increasing income tax receipts. Similar reasons exist for allow dependent deductions, an any number of other tax nuances.

More closely paralleling the questions raised in the comments here though, would be the 1st time home-buyer's tax credit or cash for clunkers. Why should the government subsidize GM, Toyota or Porsche's profits? Or Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, etc? Because there is a benefit to the tax payer (a cheaper home or car), a larger benefit to the economy (increased production, jobs retained), and a benefit to the government's bottom line (increased or at least stabilized tax receipts).

As for CSX, the government should recognize that the benefits (some quantifiable, some not) of their $115m investment (which, I might add is a pittance in terms of Federal infrastructure grant money) make it a wise business decision. Matt delineated a large number of the benefits most of which I could easily connect to benefiting productivity, earnings, tax-base, etc. Additionally, as CSX's profits increase, so will the tax receipts from them. So, if I'm able to put $1 of my taxes in now, and get $20 back over the next 20 years, count me in.

by Erik W on Apr 14, 2010 4:04 pm • link • report

Matt,

The State of VA Appropriated $26 million of their own money for this project (as I am not a VA taxpayer I will leave it to them to explain why they are cutting school budgets but spending money out of state). According to CSX these funds will have to be repaid by CSX if they are expended on planning without the project going forward. Again according to CSX they have not spent these funds.

On the merits of the project, at this point they are largely irrelevant, even though the cons for DC taxpayers outweigh the pros for CSX. There is a substantial body of residents deeply concerned about this project whose needs are as valid as the needs of any other community threatened by a mega-project. The proponents of this project dismissed that community opposition before and failed, dismissing it again will not succeed.

by MMC on Apr 14, 2010 8:55 pm • link • report

@Matt; thank you for asking for the information.

@Erik; I get your point although your examples are flawed. Tax credits or deductions are different than government grants. Cash for clunkers is analogous but the money goes to directly to the tax payer. Clearly the primary objection to the tunnel project is from local residents -- and I dont' care about them. My concern is why are giving money to a profitable (very profitable) corporation. Matt outlined a few benefits to commuter rail but I'd like to see that locked down.

@MMC; Again, I'm sorry. My grandmother lives next to a train track and it is hell. People who bought houses there should know better.

by charlie on Apr 14, 2010 10:29 pm • link • report

No one can dispute the potential usefulness of having wider roads and train tracks and the ability to move more cargo and people quicker and easier around the D.C. area. Our traffic is one of the worst in the nation. This has been a dynamic of living in D.C. since I moved here 12 years ago. For example, they have been talking about widening I-66 for years and it has never occurred because of one reason or another despite the positive economic impact and reduction in pollution that would occur.

Monday, I had the chance to sit down with Stephen Fillipin and CSX employees to discuss their plans for the tunnel. It was appreciated that CSX reached out to the community. But community outreach and working together means a lot more if both sides make concessions. Currently, CSX is not planning on slowing its freight business during the construction and expects the community to live through it despite the environmental and community impact that their construction project will clearly have on the area.

CSX plans to widen the tunnel at VA Avenue at a time when the South East side of D.C. (Capitol Riverfront) finally has the momentum it needs to become a true neighborhood and destination for thousands of baseball fans, commuters, residence, and those wanting to enjoy the outdoors. The 3-5 year plan is incredible in scope and if successful will be a wonderful new addition to the city. You just simply need to walk around the area to get a feel that the new waterfront area is truly special and a place that needs to be given life.

The hiccup in the SE Waterfront Capitol Riverfront area development? CSX needs to carve a 40 foot deep and at least 65 feet wide scar through the middle of the city cutting off main traffic routes into the area and isolating the SE Waterfront Capitol Riverfront area for many years during a time that economic investment is needed for the continued growth and success for Washington D.C. Not only will this affect residents and existing businesses, it will convince other businesses to stay away as no one can make it to the waterfront as easily. They will open up their restaurants in Fairfax where people are plenty and roads into the areas are wide. (That is exactly what the owner of Rocklands BBQ told me on why he was avoiding the Riverfront)

Future growth will be stunted with a CSX dig in the middle of the city. It could cause a hiccup in a time when hiccups could mean disaster to the economic growth of the city. It might not regain that momentum and another area will benefit in the end. CSX is gambling with the future of the area during a time where risk is taken seriously and could spell doom for many new projects that would have occurred during the 3 year time frame they plan to utilize.

This is unlike the metro in which that would clearly have direct economic impact on the city. CSX will reap the rewards of the train widening. For D.C., the CSX representatives said that passenger trains would face less delays apparently. How will that increase economic growth in a city that is looking for additional sources of revenue? Businesses and positive growth create jobs and additional revenue that directly benefit the entire city, not a train tunnel.

This is all about planning. CSX is no different than any other corporation. This is a situation where they clearly failed to plan and execute when the ball was in the strike zone. CSX could have tunneled as soon as the old Capper site was torn down when no one was in the area. They didnÂ’t. Timing is everything.

CSX is looking for community approval stating the benefits for the nation regarding the trains. I agree, IÂ’m sure that it would benefit the nation. The country will survive without it. Freight business will be picked up by CSX competitors. Freight rail growth will not be stunted by CSX not being able to complete a single tunnel. CSX would like community support based on National benefits and to the benefits of CSXÂ’s quarterly profits. It seems the only concession CSX has been willing to make is building covers and decks for the tunnels at the cross sections of Virginia Avenue.

There have been no concessions on the amount of train traffic through the area during construction. They are not as concerned about a chemical spill that could occur in a construction zone that is open to a densely populated Capitol Hill area. They could do it in stages to reduce the impact on the community, but CSX is trying to reach a deadline of 2015 that they imposed on themselves based on the opening of the Panama Canal widening. Again, timing is everything and they merely failed to plan and they expect Capitol Hill residents, businesses, and the new SE Waterfront area to feel the brunt of their failures.

In summary, CSX came to the table with pretty pictures of what they think the area will look like in 2015. Surprisingly, they show the same trees and green areas that are already there. It should be applauded that they are at least reaching out, but that is all they are doing. It is clear that CSX is planning on doing it their way without many concessions on their part to work with the community. No reduction in train traffic. No reduction in hazardous material. Disregard for potential impact on existing new structures, landscaping, businesses, residents, and the entire SE Capitol Riverfront Development area.

by Rob on Apr 15, 2010 12:03 am • link • report

No one can dispute the potential usefulness of having wider roads and train tracks and the ability to move more cargo and people quicker and easier around the D.C. area. Our traffic is one of the worst in the nation. This has been a dynamic of living in D.C. since I moved here 12 years ago. For example, they have been talking about widening I-66 for years and it has never occurred because of one reason or another despite the positive economic impact and reduction in pollution that would occur.

Monday, I had the chance to sit down with Stephen Fillipin and CSX employees to discuss their plans for the tunnel. It was appreciated that CSX reached out to the community. But community outreach and working together means a lot more if both sides make concessions. Currently, CSX is not planning on slowing its freight business during the construction and expects the community to live through it despite the environmental and community impact that their construction project will clearly have on the area.

Matt did a wonderful attempted list for drawbacks, but completely overlooked the development impact it would have on the economic growth of the city and the SE Capitol Riverfront area.

CSX plans to widen the tunnel at VA Avenue at a time when the South East side of D.C. (Capitol Riverfront) finally has the momentum it needs to become a true neighborhood and destination for thousands of baseball fans, commuters, residence, and those wanting to enjoy the outdoors. The 3-5 year plan is incredible in scope and if successful will be a wonderful new addition to the city. You just simply need to walk around the area to get a feel that the new waterfront area is truly special and a place that needs to be given life.

The hiccup in the SE Waterfront Capitol Riverfront area development? CSX needs to carve a 25 foot deep and at least 65 feet wide scar through the middle of the city cutting off main traffic routes into the area and isolating the SE Waterfront Capitol Riverfront area for many years during a time that economic investment is needed for the continued growth and success for Washington D.C. Not only will this affect residents and existing businesses, it will convince other businesses to stay away as no one can make it to the waterfront as easily. They will open up their restaurants in Fairfax where people are plenty and roads into the areas are wide. (That is exactly what the owner of Rocklands BBQ told me on why he was avoiding the Riverfront)

Future growth will be stunted with a CSX dig in the middle of the city. It could cause a hiccup in a time when hiccups could mean disaster to the economic growth of the city. It might not regain that momentum and another area will benefit in the end. CSX is gambling with the future of the area during a time where risk is taken seriously and could spell doom for many new projects that would have occurred during the 3 year time frame they plan to utilize.

This is unlike the metro in which that would clearly have direct economic impact on the city. CSX will reap the rewards of the train widening. For D.C., the CSX representatives said that passenger trains would face less delays apparently. How will that increase economic growth in a city that is looking for additional sources of revenue? Businesses and positive growth create jobs and additional revenue that directly benefit the entire city, not a train tunnel.

This is all about planning. CSX is no different than any other corporation. This is a situation where they clearly failed to plan and execute when the ball was in the strike zone. CSX could have tunneled as soon as the old Capper site was torn down when no one was in the area. They didnÂ’t. Timing is everything.

CSX is looking for community approval stating the benefits for the nation regarding the trains. I agree, IÂ’m sure that it would benefit the nation. The country will survive without it. Freight business will be picked up by CSX competitors. Freight rail growth will not be stunted by CSX not being able to complete a single tunnel. CSX would like community support based on National benefits and to the benefits of CSXÂ’s quarterly profits. It seems the only concession CSX has been willing to make is building covers and decks for the tunnels at the cross sections of Virginia Avenue.

There have been no concessions on the amount of train traffic through the area during construction. They are not as concerned about a chemical spill that could occur in a construction zone that is open to a densely populated Capitol Hill area. They could do it in stages to reduce the impact on the community, but CSX is trying to reach a deadline of 2015 that they imposed on themselves based on the opening of the Panama Canal widening. Again, timing is everything and they merely failed to plan and they expect Capitol Hill residents, businesses, and the new SE Waterfront area to feel the brunt of their failures.

In summary, CSX came to the table with pretty pictures of what they think the area will look like in 2015. Surprisingly, they show the same trees and green areas that are already there. It should be applauded that they are at least reaching out, but that is all they are doing. It is clear that CSX is planning on doing it their way without many concessions on their part to work with the community. No reduction in train traffic. No reduction in hazardous material. Disregard for potential impact on existing new structures, landscaping, businesses, residents, and the entire SE Capitol Riverfront Development area.

by Rob on Apr 15, 2010 12:11 am • link • report

"CSX needs to carve a 25 foot deep and at least 65 feet wide scar through the middle of the city "

Is that the width of the temporary tunnel that gets filled in?

Why no consideration of then recycling that as an eastbound roadway as part of a future underground SE Freeway?

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 12:31 am • link • report

@Douglas A. Willinger:
The temporary trench will be 20-25 feet wide, as cited in the original post.

The scar Rob is referring to is the total site: a temporary trench and then a separate trench where the current tunnel is located. So two parallel trenches.

The reason the temporary trench is temporary is because it is not being designed to last forever. The materials you need to make a trench permanent are very different than those needed for a temporary trench. They are also more expensive.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 15, 2010 8:22 am • link • report

I am a resident of Capital Hill. I do not like to stand in the way of mobility, but this project stinks. It will close a major artery for years: Virginia Ave probably carries as much traffic as Pennsylvania Ave, and nobody would even think about closing Pa. Ave for two years. And in the end there will be double train traffic. I live a good mile away, and yet I clearly hear the trains running every night.

Here is a good nimbyism: Why don't they put in new bypass tracks elsewhere, far away from the center of the city? Wouldn't that be cheaper?

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 9:51 am • link • report

@goldfish

The NCPC and others have indeed proposed a massive freight rail bypass of Washington DC, both as a means of restoring the L'Enfant grid, but also to remove hazardous cargo from close proximity to the Capitol, White House, etc.

As far as price goes - no, it would not be cheaper. Matt already looked at potential bypass options, they all involve substantial costs, likely including a brand new Potomac crossing and substantial upgrades the existing, but not heavily traveled freight lines (adding grade separation, etc).

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=3426

The cheapest of these plans comes in at an estimated $3.2 billion. It's not hard to see why CSX is opting to expand their existing infrastructure.

Their plans won't ameliorate the safety concerns, however. The bypass may still be on the table in the long term. Likewise, even if the bypass were built, the Virginia Ave tunnel could still be useful for passenger rail.

by Alex B. on Apr 15, 2010 10:13 am • link • report

@Alex B.:
Well then the VA Ave tunnel is fine as it is. Nobody has suggest that it has to be rebuilt because it is unsafe.

With regard to the cost, yes $3.2B is a lot. But it may be worth it.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 10:25 am • link • report

@goldfish:
The project will actually reduce the number of trains passing through central Washington. This is because each train will be able to handle more cargo.

In the long run, the number of trains will likely increase, however that will happen regardless of whether this tunnel project happens. But without the project, this increased freight traffic will delay more passenger trains and may make it impossible to expand commuter and inter-city rail service.

And "safe" =/= "fine".

As far as I know, the tunnel is safe, yes. That won't last forever. Eventually it will have to be replaced. But it is deficient in other categories, including in capacity and "plate size" - the allowable size of railcars.

And I doubt that the hundreds of commuters who face delays each day and who have limited schedule options because of the tunnel think it's "fine".

But I understand that the construction will be disruptive. There's no good way around that.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 15, 2010 11:09 am • link • report

@Matt;

The tunnel is "safe", in that inspectors say it's OK for trains to use it. It was built as part of the Washington Terminal/Union Station project in 1907 - 103 years ago, as were major parts of the Long Bridge - which BTW has not swung open in about 40 years. Every time it rains hard and long in the area the tunnel floods, delaying trains, and temporarily lowering the speed limit in there to 10 mph. There is a slight jog in the track in the tunnel around some pilings that were put in in the '90's to shore up a weak spot. Maximum height clearance in the tunnel is 17' 3", and the current standard for double-stack intermodal containers and auto-racks is 20' 2". CSX already loses LOTS of traffic to NS's "B" line through Front Royal and Manassas that can't use the most direct route. In addition to high and wide loads, after 9/11 all flammable and inhalation hazmat loads must avoid the DC route as well.

Believe me, I'm no fan of a lot of CSX management decisions, but how much are you going to beat them up? As long as we have a transportation "system" (and boy do I use that term loosely) in this country that says most railroad rights-of-way will be privately owned and operated, then they have a right to operate it at a reasonable profit. That includes being able to make necessary improvements. The biggest rap on CSX for a lot of years was their lack of capital spending and deferred maintenance of their physical plant. Now they want to improve some long-neglected things and they catch Hell for that as well. Just can't win. This needs to be done, and unless Uncle Sugar is willing to condemn the land and subsidize the construction of a new, longer by-pass around downtown DC, and either under or over the Potomac, then this project is going to have to be done, some way.

I arrived in DC in the middle years of Metrorail construction, and a lot of people lived for a lot of years with a great deal of traffic disruption downtown while the subway tunnels were built. Now, you can take a train right to what were some of the most blighted parts of the U St. corridor and come up right in front of Ben's Chili Bowl, where commerce is thriving once again. It's a great thing, and most people have forgotten about the birthing pains of it. Same thing will happen with this project, only the results will be more subtle.

by railroader on Apr 15, 2010 12:25 pm • link • report

@Matt:
The whole point of the project is to increase the amount of tonnage that can be carried on those tracks. The length and weight of the trains is what makes all that noise as they move through the neighborhood. However you add it up, at the end of the project the train noise will be worse.

CSX could easily reduce the impact on the neighborhood. They could include noise barriers along the exposed sections of the tracks; they could plan to keep VA Ave partially open during construction. But so far they have not included such mitigations, possibly because that would increase their costs. Clearly they would rather have the neighborhood bear the brunt of the impact.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 12:36 pm • link • report

I'm with oboe. I don't think the feds need to pitch in on this unless it is not going to be sufficiently profitable. In other words, if the benefits of this project to CSX will be less than the $160M + time value of money + ROI then it may be worth it to subsidize it, because without the fed money it won't happen and there are positive externalities to the project. But otherwise, CSX is going to do this anyway right - because they'll make more money. And we could put this money to use elsewhere on another, less profitable endeavor that has other positive externalities. I'd be happier if we insured it "OK CSX, if this project doesn't pay for itself within 7 years, we'll pay for what you it didn't cover up to $X." or whatever. Which is exactly how I feel about DCUSA and Nationals Park.

by David C on Apr 15, 2010 12:51 pm • link • report

@David C:
What about the negative externalities?

BTW, the construction will pass through the Capital Hill Historic District , which has strict controls on changes to the streetscape. Aparently CSX does not think that they have to comply with the regulations, some of them quite costly, that every other property owner abides by.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report

"The reason the temporary trench is temporary is because it is not being designed to last forever. The materials you need to make a trench permanent are very different than those needed for a temporary trench. They are also more expensive."

Such would not have retaining walls?

In any event the cost of the excavation per square foot would be the same.

I really would like to see a cross section; I suspect that ideally the railroad tunnel would be moved slightly north to create more space to the south for the new/expanded tunnel.

A question- if the existing tunnel is to be lowered, how much of the approach railroads will also be lowered?

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

@Douglas A. Willinger:
The track will be lowered by 4 feet through the tunnel. It will also be lowered by 4 feet to pass under New Jersey Avenue.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 15, 2010 1:12 pm • link • report

@David C,

Presumably CSX could make different changes without federal funding that wouldn't offer nearly as many benefits to the public - such as fixing the tunnel without capacity increases to the Long Bridge - which would still result in passenger rail congestion for trains getting to Union Station from VA.

Ever since the Interstate Highways basically gave a whole industry access to free infrastructure, while railroads were still heavily regulated and taxed and paying for their own rails, I don't have a huge problem with subsidies for rail.

by Alex B. on Apr 15, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report

CapitOl Hill. I mean if you're gonna whine about the detriment to your neighborhood, Goldfish, at least spell it right.

by Erik W on Apr 15, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

@goldfish, I REALLY don't think the government should help fund profitable enterprises that will carry more negative than positive externalities, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this case.

@Alex B, that would be fine. And then the federal government could decide if those other projects are worth funding. Paying to expand a tunnel to fix the Long Bridge seems silly.

Historically, the railroads have been given an almost incomparable level "free infrastructure". Often they got the land for the ROW, plus the land on both sides - in some cases up to a mile wide. They were sometimes paid to build rail through areas. They've often avoided taxes and have limited immunity from eminent domain, etc.. They've gotten their fair share of free infrastructure. Not to mention that trucking pays gas taxes and other taxes to cover some of the cost of the roads. Rather than subsidies for rail, I'd rather see a gas tax hike.

by David C on Apr 15, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report

@Erik
Yeah I posted a little too quickly; there were other spelling mistakes, too.

But I am NOT whining. What CSX proposes to do will have a large, bad effect on the neighborhood, and will effect me and many of my friends directly. They want us to just accept it so that their profits will increase. Mind you, they should be making money, but not at the expense of CapitOl Hill quality of life and consequent property values. This would not fly if it were a road or Metro project, which are infrastructure projects that increase mobility for everybody in the city. More I look at it, the more I want to sign up to stop it, unless they do something to make it better for the neighborhood.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 1:42 pm • link • report

I suggest beyond just the long bridge or this tunnel to look at the entire structure of the railway in SW DC. A lot of the bridges are really well beyond their last legs. I am sorry to Goldfish and your friends that it will be harder to go to the restaurants on 8th street for a few years but this whole thing has to happen.

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

@Nikolas:

Then YOU can pay for it!

Thanks for the inspiration; I am gonna go to Tommy Wells...

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report

@goldfish. Just as an exercise, how much would you ask to be paid to deal with this inconvenience? Considering the drawbacks identified above and the amount they will impact YOU, how much would CSX have to pay you for you to say "OK, it's worth it to me now"?

by David C on Apr 15, 2010 2:18 pm • link • report

@David C:
As I have already written: reduce the noise of the passing trains, possibly with noise barriers, and work to keep parts of VA Ave open during construction. That is not asking for much.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report

The rail line is important for this city and the eastern seaboard. One or two small communities on the south side of the highway being somewhat inconvenienced is a ridiculous reason to try and hold this up.

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2010 2:44 pm • link • report

"The rail line is important for this city and the eastern seaboard. One or two small communities on the south side of the highway being somewhat inconvenienced is a ridiculous reason to try and hold this up. "

Exactly. But that apparently is the official attitude towards extending the I-395 Tunnel, such as with the superior alternative that I developed:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/search/label/I-395%20extension

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-395-extension-superior-option.html

I say, provide extra decking and some $$$ to the people nearest and most effected- it would probably be a small percentage of the entire project's cost.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report

@goldfish, as you said above, that's probably not economically feasible. The noise barriers may not be much, but keeping parts of VA Avenue open will be. They have to dig a full trench and reroute the railroad through that before they work on the existing tunnel. As long as you can get off the freeway at 5th and cross VA at some of the cross streets, what does VA Avenue give you that L street doesn't?

by David C on Apr 15, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report

I wonder, how much money the rest of DC invested in Barracks Row so that those dirty private companies like Homebody, Cava, Chateau Animaux, etc. could increase their profits? Wait, you mean that had positive outcomes for the neighborhood AND the region?

I also highly question the assertion that Virginia Avenue carries as much traffic as Penn. The entirety of the road runs for just under a mile from South Capitol to 9th St SE. It is one way or split on either side of the freeway for half of that and essentially connects an off-ramp to another on-ramp.

by Erik W on Apr 15, 2010 3:17 pm • link • report

Douglas,

Trucks have plenty of ways of getting through and *around* DC. Freight rail not so much...

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2010 3:54 pm • link • report

@NikolasM:
CSX is trying to do this on the cheap. If these tracks were next to your backyard, you would see it differently. There will be no hold up if CSX meets its (small) obligation to the neighborhood. It is their hands.

@Erik:
Obviously I did not do a traffic volume study. Nevertheless, consider that the 6th St exit dumps everything directly onto VA Ave. That stretch between 5th and 8th is one way eastbound, 3-4 lanes wide, with no parking. Cars and trucks speed along this section day and night. (Note to DDOT: this would be a very profitable place to put in speed cameras.) PA Ave, OTOH, is two ways with 3 lanes which are slowed down (not enough!) due to double parking in front of the post office, pedestrian crossings from the Metro, etc. During the rushes one side is insufferably backed up and other essentially empty. The volumes are comparable; with PA Ave probably carrying a bit more.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 4:16 pm • link • report

Hey, I didn't move in next to a very active railroad track that was there long before you were. Due diligence...

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

"Trucks have plenty of ways of getting through and *around* DC. Freight rail not so much..."

What makes you think I am strictly against improving the rail tunnel?

And where are there any cross-sections to view?

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report

@Douglas A. Willinger:
There were not any cross-sections. Those will likely be provided once CSX has worked out the details of their construction plans.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 15, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report

@NikolasM:
Either you live in a very remote area, or it is likely that there is a railroad track within a mile from where you live. I doubt there are any parts of DC that do not have RR tracks within a mile.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report

"There were not any cross-sections. Those will likely be provided once CSX has worked out the details of their construction plans."

Does that mean that no engineering feasibility studies exist for the CSX project?

I really would like to know that right of way's horizontal clearance between the building line to the south and the highway wall to the north.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report

@Douglas A. Willinger:
From the original post...

All construction will take place within the right-of-way, which is about 100 feet wide. Although Virginia Avenue would be closed, access will be maintained to properties throughout the process. One of the most difficult areas to work around is the new development which is currently under construction along Virginia Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets SE. CSX officials said that they would consider decking over the trench in this area if necessary to maintain access.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 15, 2010 4:36 pm • link • report

@David C:
5th St is one-way northbound. With Va closed, from the 6th St exit on the SE/SW freeway, there is no way to get to L St. The traffic will be forced northbound onto 6th St, into the narrow streets of the neighborhood. Access to points south are blocked, such as M St, Nationals Stadium, etc. But, you say, that access to M St etc. is available via South Capitol St. Maybe, but that route has problems depending on the final destination, because it is difficult to turn left from S Cap. St. It might be smart to change 5th St to a two-way, if that can be done.

It is apparent that during the rush, traffic will probably be backed up the 6th St exit, possibly causing gridlock on the freeway such as what occurs on the S. Capital St exit. So the project, as it is now proposed, may effect everybody coming over the 14th St bridge.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 4:53 pm • link • report

@Goldfish,

There is of course. It just isn't in a 100+ year old tunnel that needs much needed maintenance.

@Douglas

You are pro highway through DC 100% of the time. Why you want a truck to go through the city rather than around it on nice and wide 495, especially now that the WW bridge is pretty much done I will never know. Were you hoping to open a truck rest stop somewhere up near CUA?

by NikolasM on Apr 15, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report

I assume that such a right of way extends all the way to the existing SE Freeway berm.

Seems to me this is an excellent opportunity to start a beginning piece of a future underground SE Freeway (once the SW Freeway is buried as well, since the space considerations almost certainly preclude connecting an elevated SW Freeway with a buried SE Freeway).

What about a drilled tunnel for the railroad directly beneath the berm-way SE Freeway, freeing up the space for the future SE Freeway's eastbound roadway?

It is friggin amazing that our government would be so neglectful of the infrastructure as to permit residential construction along the south side of Virginia Avenue before reconstructing this much needed set of improvements.

But oh well, just look at what that same developer got away with next to the SW Freeway:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/03/sw-se-freeway-burial.html

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm • link • report

@goldfish, exit SE Freeway at 6th. Left on 6th, left on Eye, left on 4th. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

by David C on Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm • link • report

"You are pro highway through DC 100% of the time. Why you want a truck to go through the city rather than around it on nice and wide 495, especially now that the WW bridge is pretty much done I will never know. Were you hoping to open a truck rest stop somewhere up near CUA?"

N-

When they were doing the recent Wilson Bridge replacement project I was the only person sufficiently PRO RAIL to point out that the design for the Beltway-Route 1 interchange (remember the Alexandria Orb?)precluded adding a WMATA line due to the inclusion of a 3rd set of access ramps.

Yet none that I pointed this out to, such as the Sierra Club, were sufficiently pro transportation to even mention that.

So I suppose you oppose burying the SE Freeway because of some new urbainist doctrine that urban highways must be built as Chinese Walls as railroads were?

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 15, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report

@David C:
The tunnel runs from 2nd to 11th Streets SE. There is no way to cross at 4th St SE with Va Ave closed.

by goldfish on Apr 15, 2010 5:09 pm • link • report

@everybody
I'm not sure if anyone actually read the original post at this point, but every cross street will remain open across Virginia Avenue for buses, cars, peds, cycles, and the circus if they ever come to town.

by Matt Johnson on Apr 15, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report

The circus is coming? Yes!

by Alex B. on Apr 15, 2010 6:35 pm • link • report

About the coordination, or failure of coordination of planning for the Virginia Avenue CSX RR Tunnel and the tunnelization of the SE Freeway:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/04/planning-in-vacuum-csx-se-freeway.html

by Douglas A. Willinger on Apr 21, 2010 12:35 am • link • report

Lets be clear. To many of us residents who have recently purchased brand new townhomes at Capitol Quarter, this project is a concern. Most of us understand the reasons for why CSX wants to expand the tunnel. However, we are rightfully concerned about the possibility that construction might cause foundation issues, such as cracks, in our new homes. We want to work closely with CSX to ensure that such problems do not occur. Additionally, we want assurances from CSX that they will take full responsibility for any damage that can be attributed to their construction of the tunnel.

In addition, there are noise and debris issues which must also be addressed with a well thought out plan and agreement to minimize the impact on those of us who live nearby. We want CSX to realize that this is a thriving neighborhood. As such, we want any "improvements" to the vegetation along Virginia Avenue, SE to be a true improvement and not just a quick fix which pleases no one.

by JoeNdc on Jul 8, 2010 4:58 am • link • report

We put up with highway reconstruction everyday. We complain but put up with it because we know it is for the better. I am sorry for the residents that bought over priced townhomes and now will be inconvienced for sometime. But if it was a new on ramp or a metro stop you would be all for it. Yes CSX is in the business of making money, that is what they are in business for. They have stockholders to answer to like any other corporation.

Also next time you by a loaf of bread fruit. vegies, gas for the car and that car you drive, it was touched by the railroad sometime. 85% of all new cars in the US are moven by rail. Your new big screen TV the lights for your home and anything shipped from "CHINA" is moved by rail. It is time to think of the greater good for the reigon. Oh and by the way what about all the hazardous material carried every day on the Se Freeway.

by Trenton on Sep 19, 2011 9:23 am • link • report