Virginia has an ambitious plan to expand passenger rail service between Washington, DC and Richmond. While current plans explicitly avoid high speeds, a partial high speed route should be constructed instead, substantially reducing travel times and providing far greater benefits.
Background
Since most US railroads were built by private companies, many cities were once linked with competing parallel lines. Washington and Baltimore have the ex-Baltimore & Ohio line and the former Pennsylvania Railroad line, now divided between CSX for freight trains and Amtrak for passenger trains respectively. However, Virginia explicitly forbade a route parallel to the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac (RF&P) line that linked Washington and Richmond. This state-sanctioned monopoly bolstered the commonwealth’s bottom line as the state itself owned part of the RF&P. Six railroads eventually acquired their own stakes, effectively sharing the sole route north to south. By the 1980’s, freight railroad mergers eventually resulted in CSX freight railroad owning about two-thirds of the RF&P with the commonwealth owning the remainder. In 1991, Virginia sold its share to CSX, giving the company full-control of the route linking DC to Richmond.
While the sale earned the state a tidy profit and allowed for the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail to commence service (the RF&P had slow-walked it for years prior to the sale), it gave CSX substantial leverage for any future expansion of passenger rail. Each change in service required time-consuming negotiations with CSX which often required new infrastructure to be built. As Virginia’s passenger rail plans became more ambitious, a different solution was needed.
In 2019, Virginia turned back the clock 30 years by reacquiring half of the former RF&P. It also gave the state rights to add two passenger priority tracks along the entire route. While this plan will result in additional service, it will follow the same curvy alignment that dates back to the 1870's which combined with CSX's 90 mph top speed restriction, won't substantially reduce travel times. CSX also forbade electrification and high platforms, two key requirements for fast and reliable passenger trains.
A partial high speed route
At either end of the DC to Richmond rail line, a new high speed line is either too expensive or unnecessary. Between Washington and Woodbridge, construction of a 3rd and 4th track is well-underway, the line is straight enough for higher speeds and the adjacent land is relatively built up. Between Ruther Glen and Richmond, the line is straight and flat, only requiring construction of a trench through Ashland, so a 3rd and 4th track could be installed alongside the existing tracks.
 |
| Blue: high speed route along I-95 Red: old route along Potomac River |
In Woodbridge itself, the high speed line would run adjacent to I-95 on a viaduct but going further south, there is space in the highway median, even with the high occupancy toll lanes. Using the highway median substantially reduces the number of bridges or underpasses required for the high speed line. For some short segments where the median narrows, the highway lanes would be shifted to accommodate the tracks.
Comparable construction costs
Using Spanish construction methods, the new line could be built for approximately $2.5-5 billion. The line could be built in phases such as opening without electrification (limiting top speeds to 110 mph under diesel power) and waiting to install the second track until frequencies increase or omitting the improvements for VRE. Since high speed trains need to be separated from grade crossings, 23 new bridges or underpasses would need to be built. Since the line is further inland than the RF&P line which crosses wide Potomac River tributaries, some of the bridges will be shorter and less expensive. Construction access is substantially easier as much of the earthworks could be trucked away via I-95 instead of requiring new access roads along the old route. Most of the high speed line would use existing, state-owned right of way, substantially reducing land acquisition cost, timeline and potential for eminent domain-related lawsuits.
Since the RF&P line has only had two tracks, adding two more requires a substantial amount of construction along that old route. Earthworks to create space for new tracks would needed to be dug out, all while maintaining service on two busy tracks. Between Woodbridge and Ruther Glen, 22 new bridges would need to be built including three large one across Potomac River tributaries. Since the trains would only hit 90 mph for a top speed, 15 grade crossings do not need to be closed immediately but bridges or underpasses will likely be needed as train frequencies increase. As a result, construction costs are likely comparable to the high speed line but would result in a slower, non-electrified route.
New VRE Service
 |
| Map of new five VRE stations along existing park and ride lots |
The I-95 toll lane project also constructed or upgraded five park and ride stops which could be converted into commuter rail stations simply by constructing a train platform. Whereas today commuters have to drive, walk or bike to the Potomac River to catch a train, the park and ride lots are more centrally located and have substantial transit-oriented development opportunities. An electrified line with the latest multiple unit trainsets (similar to Caltrain) could run from Houser Dr in Fredericksburg to Washington in little over an hour, faster than the 1:33 it takes today and faster than driving even without traffic. Those trains could continue to Baltimore as well, giving Virginians a one-seat ride to BWI and Baltimore itself. Running this new VRE service twice per hour all-day and on weekends would allow most intercity trains to run nonstop on the new line, enabling faster travel times. Timed connections would allow for riders to easily transfer between both services. While some politicians have advocated for extending Metro into Woodbridge, electric VRE service could deliver much faster travel times at a far lower cost.
 |
| A bilevel electric multi-unit trainset operated by Caltrain (source) |
Rolling stock
High speed rail service typically requires new rolling stock (i.e train cars and locomotives). Fortunately, Amtrak has already ordered Airo trainsets which would run at 125 mph on the high speed section. These trainsets can also operate on diesel power which would allow trains to run south of Richmond to Newport News and Norfolk without a time-consuming locomotive swap. VPRA will need to order more Airo trainsets to expand service as their current order will only just cover its needs through 2030. Fortunately, Amtrak has 130 options to purchase more trainsets and exercising some of those options would save VPRA money and time.
 |
| Partially constructed Airo trainset (source) |
Benefits
Faster trains attract more riders and revenue while reducing operating costs. Reduced travel times broaden the catchment area of where a train is the most convenient option. People transferring from Metro, buses, walking or riding a bike will find that their trips are faster than driving. Even someone in Bethesda or Reston riding on the Metro for an hour to Alexandria will still have a similar travel time than someone driving (roughly 2.25 hours) compared to 3.5+ hours by train today. Faster trips are why high speed trains attract far more riders than conventional ones.
Staffing is a key cost driver for trains as the specialized positions require substantial training and thanks to the decades of union activism, the pay and benefits are reasonably good. Enabling the same staff to cover more distance and operate more trains per day reduces cost per mile.
Linking Richmond and points south more closely with Northern Virginia as well as other cities in the Northeast would help bind economic ties.
Conclusion
VPRA is at a crossroads. They could commit billions to construction a line that is not much faster than today's service, using outdated diesel trainsets. Or they could jump into the 21st century with fast, electric service that delivers substantial ridership and time-savings for a similar cost.
