Talking Points about I-81 and a rail alternative

VDOT's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS - Tier 1) was published in the Federal Register on April 7. It apparently wasn't changed considerably from the draft: rising fuel costs and truck driver shortages are still not considered in determining the growth we will see, and freight hauling distances greater than 325 miles are not addressed. After 30 days, VDOT and FHWA are expected to move to a Record of Decision.

During the public comment period over 1,000 people responded to the Draft environmental Impact Statement. Of those, some 78% indicated a preference for including rail as one of the components of the solution to be considered. But the FEIS recommends that rail NOT go forward as one of the options to consider in Tier 2 (the last phase of study before construction begins). This is based on two factors cited in the FEIS:
  1. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has indicated that because it does not have authority over rail-related decisions and Virginia does not have authority over transportation decisions in other states, considering multi-state rail options is not reasonable. Since the I-81 studies have been broken into eight "segments of independent utility," and rail diversions of more than 325 miles (500 is the threshold needed to have an impact) have not been considered, these shorter rail improvements cannot have an impact on long-haul freight.
  2. The FEIS states several times that even if 100% of the trucks were removed from the highway and their freight put on trains, the majority of the highway would still need additional lanes. We find this to be a curious conclusion since the excess truck traffic was originally cited as the basis for the need for wider highways. In fact, the initial proposal was to create two trucks-only lanes to solve the problem. It stands to reason that if all trucks were removed from the highway, none of those extra lanes would be needed.
Clearly a preference for highway widening is holding sway with the leaders of VDOT.

Does this make a difference to us? Yes, most emphatically. Without a cogent response to the shortcomings of the FEIS, we tacitly agree to allow future planning to exclude rail as an option. In fact, it may be better for Virginia's transportation future to omit all reference to rail in the FEIS Tier 1 results, rather than accept the flawed and skewed conclusion that improved rail will not help. In this way the rail diversion feasibility study and the FEIS can proceed down parallel but independent tracks, with VDOT incorporating the results of the rail feasibility study when they are available, as recommended by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

An additional concern raised by the FEIS is the fact that much of the further study deferred to Tier 2 may be in effect by-passed through the use of categorical exclusions (no further environmental study) for safety fixes and truck-climbing lanes. While some of these exclusions may be appropriate, when nearly three-quarters of the interstate in Rockbridge County would be scheduled for doubling (and the rest experiencing a 50% expansion), we cannot avoid the notion that there must be some detrimental environmental consequence to such construction that should be studied. If this doubling of the lanes in Rockbridge County is characterized as "truck climbing lanes," then the consequences of such widening may escape consideration. In Rockbridge County, the added lanes being considered in the FEIS are: Is this worth another round of letters to editors and decision makers? Absolutely. We were successful in stopping the "unstoppable" Star Solutions proposal to add two trucks-only lanes in each direction. But we must continue to express our concerns about making certain that the decisions we make about our future and the future of our children are based on sound data and unbiased interpretations. And we must remain steadfast in seeking the most economical and environmentally sustainable responses to our transportation needs.

May 7 ends the 30-day period between release of the FEIS and the FHWA's Record of Decision which authorizes the beginning of Tier 2. Between now and then, here is what you can do (remember that you can send copies of your letters to newspaper editors for their consideration for publication as well):
  1. Contact your Commonwealth Transportation Board representative, the Federal Highway Administration, and Governor Kaine to express your opinion about the FEIS going forward to a Record of Decision without the necessary information from the rail diversion feasibility study to determine how many added lanes would actually be needed.
  2. Contact the Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to be sure the FEIS recommendations are consistent with the CTB resolution of last October, in which the results of the rail diversion study are required to be considered.
  3. Let VDOT know how you feel about excluding multi-state rail options from future transportation decisions.
  4. And don't forget the tolls -- the FEIS proposes to advance I-81 as a "toll pilot facility which would allow tolling to continue to be pursued as a possible funding mechanism for improvements to I-81."
Additional information: Excerpts from David Foster's (Executive Director, Rail Solution) comments:

No rail concepts will be advanced to Tier 2. This is the single, most overwhelming weakness of the FEIS.  Rail will not be considered at all in Tier 2.

"Rail concepts do very little to address the 2035 traffic needs on I-81," the FEIS concludes.  The FEIS contains other statements also declaring the futility of a rail concept, and that a rail concept would make hardly any difference on the lanes needed to added to I-81.

Of course, we know the reason for this is the badly flawed rail analysis in the DEIS. In our detailed response to the DEIS, RAIL Solution pointed out numerous conceptual flaws, procedural flaws, errors of fact, and other faults in the rail analysis.  Many of these shortcomings had a material bearing on the dismal rail showing in the DEIS.

Instead of correcting such errors and shortcomings, and giving a fuller and more honest evaluation of rail alternatives, VDOT and FHWA now in the FEIS have decided that rail is irrelevant: "In fact, even if 100 percent of the trucks were removed from I-81 in Virginia and their freight put on rail, the majority of the roadway – including seven of the eight Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs) – would still need additional highway lanes."

In spite of its obvious oversimplification and generalization, this statement appears multiple times in the FEIS to explain why rail will be looked at no further.  The implication, of course, is that even removal of 100% of trucks would be of no real significance. While it is possible that by 2035 some additional highway lanes would be needed in some areas, diversion of significant truck volumes to rail would have a huge bearing on the scope and urgency of highway construction.  Utterly rejecting the rail possibility in the I-81 Corridor of Virginia deprives Virginians of significant potential cost savings and environmental benefits.

In rejection of further consideration for rail, the FEIS also revisits the issue of reasonableness.  The NEPA process "indicates that reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense."  And "FHWA reaffirms that it is not reasonable to evaluate the construction of multi-state rail improvements."  So "It is not in the best overall public interest to authorize Federal highway funds on the exploration of unreasonable alternatives."

Just like that – one, two, three!  Reasonable alternatives must be considered; FHWA declares multi-state rail not to be reasonable; therefore it is rejected as unreasonable and will not be considered. Where is the showing that it is not "practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint", the acknowledged NEPA criterion?

-----> Be sure to include your name and residence address when sending letters to legislators. They need this.