The Virginia Passenger Rail Authority (VPRA) voted Tuesday to advance a partnership with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), authorizing the transfer of $35 million in state funds for the Shenandoah Valley rail corridor despite acknowledging that a majority of recent public comments urged a delay.
The vote positions the VPRA to accept the project from the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in January, effectively endorsing a plan to purchase the 48.5-mile Norfolk Southern corridor for $23 million and task the New Market-based SVBF with developing a recreational trail while preserving the rail line for future freight or passenger use.
VPRA officials argued the approach allows trail construction to begin without foreclosing long-term rail use, while shifting financial and operational risk away from the state.
While VPRA Executive Director DJ Stadtler characterized the vote as a procedural “budget amendment” contingent on future CTB action, the presentation outlined a specific deal structure that grants ownership of the corridor to the nonprofit SVBF rather than the state.
VPRA Board Chair Tiffany Robinson opened the public comment period by summarizing more than 1,500 comments received regarding the proposal.
According to Robinson’s summary, approximately 54% of respondents expressed concern or opposition, with many asking the board to delay the vote until more information could be shared. The opposition included letters from the Alliance for the Shenandoah Valley, the Shenandoah Rail Trail Exploratory Partnership, and the mayors of Timberville, Toms Brook and Edinburg.
Robinson noted these comments questioned why the three-year VDOT study process — which estimated a rail-with-trail project would cost $687 million compared to $164 million for a trail-only conversion — was not followed before advancing what VDOT found to be a more expensive option.
Robinson stated that 46% of comments supported the transaction. She listed the Shenandoah County Board of Supervisors and the Shenandoah County Planning Commission among those supporters, alongside the Virginia Rail Policy Institute, the Valley Railroad Company, and major regional businesses including Luray Caverns and Holtzman Propane and Oil. She also highlighted support from the agricultural sector, specifically the Virginia Cattlemen’s Association and the Shenandoah County Farm Bureau, noting the latter represents just over 1,600 members.
However, Shenandoah County Supervisor Dennis Morris clarified Tuesday that the Board of Supervisors has not taken a collective position on the current rail-with-trail proposal. Morris said the board endorsed the general concept of a trail years ago when it was “the only game in town,” but has not voted on the competing visions now in play. He suggested any recent comments cited by VPRA likely came from individual supervisors rather than the body as a whole.
“We have not taken a stand between the two,” Morris said. “Whatever the state decides to do, I’ll get on board, but at this point in time it’s really not a local issue. It’s up to the state.”
SVBF Executive Director Keven Walker later said 1,742 people have signed a statement of support in favor of the state’s proposal.
‘Unusual’ speed and structure
Stadtler acknowledged to the VPRA board that the proposal had moved rapidly, bypassing the agency’s typical long-term planning timelines.
“The fact that we’re bringing this to our board for the first time is atypical,” Stadtler said. “It is not lost on me that until a week or so ago, a lot of you didn’t know anything about this.”
Despite the vote being framed as a preliminary budget authorization, Stadtler detailed the specific architecture of the partnership: The $35 million grant would funnel through VPRA to the SVBF. The SVBF would then use $23 million to purchase the corridor from Norfolk Southern and use the remaining funds to reimburse trail construction costs.
Under this structure, the SVBF would hold the title to the land and assume all liability and maintenance risks. VPRA would retain “significant easement interests” to reintroduce passenger rail in the future if deemed beneficial.
Stadtler sketched out a long-term scenario where passenger rail, which currently terminates at Broad Run on the Manassas Line, could eventually extend west to Gainesville and Front Royal. From there, the preserved Shenandoah corridor would allow service to run south to New Market and Broadway, ultimately reaching Harrisonburg — a destination Stadtler described as a “hugely underserved market.”
However, he conceded that vision is not imminent.
“This isn’t in the next 10 years, probably not in the next 20 years,” he said. “But moving forward, this transaction would allow the Commonwealth to preserve the opportunity for rail in that area.”
Despite the earlier acknowledgment that 54% of public comments urged a pause — citing process, cost and governance concerns — Stadtler later characterized the resistance during board discussion as limited in scope.
“There are small groups there that don’t want the rail,” Stadtler said. “The rail hasn’t been in service for a long time. And there are folks in small towns that say they don’t want the horns blowing.”
The vote highlighted a split between incoming and established state legislators regarding the corridor’s future.
Delegate-elect Justin Pence (R-Shenandoah), who will represent a large portion of the corridor in the General Assembly, argued that the dual-use approach ultimately offers the best value for taxpayers despite the higher initial cost estimates in the VDOT study.
“I believe that attempting to develop both the rail and trail options is the best use for the corridor,” Pence said Tuesday. “This gives both sides what they want and protects the right-of-way at the lowest cost to the taxpayer once private investments are factored in.”
Pence added that the combined project would “bring an important new recreational and tourism opportunity while revitalizing an important economic resource for local business and industry.”
Conversely, Del. Tony Wilt (R-Rockingham), who carried the original budget request for the study, has publicly urged the VPRA board to delay action. Wilt argued the new proposal is inconsistent with VDOT’s findings that favored a trail-only option and warned that requiring the preservation of rail infrastructure could act as a “poison pill” preventing the trail from ever being built.
Del. Delores Oates (R-Frederick) also submitted feedback opposing the proposal, according to the VPRA.
Private sector and advocacy
While debate continues over the project’s feasibility, the rail-with-trail coalition has moved to counter claims that there is no commercial interest in the line.
This week, two private rail operators — Woodstock-based Valley Railroad Company and New Jersey-based SMS Rail Service — issued press releases confirming their intent to restore freight and excursion service on the corridor. Valley Railroad disputed VDOT’s $305 million rail repair estimate as a “gross inflation,” claiming in its release that the track could be restored for approximately $18 million.
Supporters also pointed to the financial backing the proposal has garnered. According to data provided by the SVBF, more than 540 individuals have registered financial support for the rail-with-trail plan, contributing over $89,000 in private donations to date. The proposal has also received the backing of the Shenandoah County Farm Bureau, which voted unanimously to support the dual-use vision on behalf of its 1,600 member families.
Virginia Poultry Federation President Hobey Bauhan also backed the plan, writing that rail remains “critical” to the industry and that it “would be a mistake to abandon permanently rail infrastructure that could potentially benefit commerce.”
Despite the renewed focus on rail operations, Walker emphasized that the state’s primary directive to the SVBF remains the delivery of the recreational trail.
“I think the thing that we’re being asked to focus on by the commonwealth is getting this trail built and getting it built as quickly as possible so it becomes the community resource that we’ve all been waiting for,” Walker said. “And then, beyond that, we’re gonna take it one step at a time… But what we’re being asked to do is focus on the trail.”
Conversely, the trail-only vision is backed by the Shenandoah Rail Trail Exploratory Partnership, a 17-member coalition that includes all nine towns and three counties along the route, as well as the region’s two Planning District Commissions. The partnership has secured formal resolutions of support for the trail conversion from its member localities and has warned that the rail-with-trail requirement risks stalling the project indefinitely.
“We continue to be mystified by the rushed nature of this process,” said Don Hindman, project director for the Partnership, following the vote. “This new proposal lacks the necessary community and public scrutiny that should be required of such a large transfer of public funds to a private entity… We hope the CTB will delay action to give themselves and the public time to thoroughly review the available options.”
Next steps
Stadtler and Robinson, with the VPRA, outlined a specific sequence of public engagement that would begin only after the CTB finalizes the transfer in January. Robinson stated that VPRA would then launch a new round of public meetings to gather feedback, which would inform the drafting of a “term sheet” and a definitive agreement with the SVBF.
Stadtler promised this process would be used to “mitigate” specific community concerns. Crucially, Robinson noted that the final negotiated agreement would not be signed administratively but would come back to the VPRA board for a final public vote.
“I like the concept of basically reserving the ability to extend rail in the future, which gives us lots of flexibility,” board member Charlie Payne said. “The minimum benefit to the community is the trail will be built.”
The board voted to approve the budget amendment authorizing VPRA to accept the Shenandoah Valley rail corridor funds, with one abstention, contingent on final approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board next month. Board members emphasized that any final agreement with the SVBF would return to the VPRA for a separate public vote following additional community engagement.
Read more on The Northern Virginia Daily
