September 2017

Prepared by

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

and

Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Executive Summary
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary provides a high-level 

overview of the DC2RVA Project’s study process, 

analysis, and effects. It is not intended to inventory 

all data and analysis, but rather to summarize key 

results that differentiate the alternatives and assist 

in the decisions to be made. Readers who are 

interested in more detailed analysis should refer 

to the full text of the Draft EIS. Those who want 

to delve even more deeply into specific aspects of 

the analysis can consult the technical reports and 

appendices in the Draft EIS. 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 PROJECT EFFECTS & MITIGATION . 38 4 DRPT RECOMMENDED PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5 NEXT STEPS & 

 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . .

 65

Refer to Chapter 11 of the Draft EIS for a glossary of commonly used terms.

PROJECT OVERVIEW Chapter 1 Purpose & Need

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 2

Appendix A

Appendix B

Alternatives

Alternatives Technical Report

Basis of Design Report

PROJECT EFFECTS & MITIGATION

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Appendix M

Appendix P

Appendix Q

Appendix R

Appendix S

Environmental Consequences

Section 4(f ) Evaluation

Natural Resources Technical Report 

Noise & Vibration Technical Report

Community Impact Assessment

Cultural Resources Reports

Transportation Technical Report

DRPT RECOMMENDED

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Chapter 7 DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TOPIC DRAFT EIS LOCATION

The Draft EIS contains more information on the topics summarized in this document.

The following table lists the topics and where further details may by found in the Draft EIS. 

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DC2RVA PROJECT QUICK FACTS: • 123-mile corridor, generally parallel 

to the I-95 highway 

• Northern Terminus: Long Bridge in 

Arlington, VA (Potomac River)

• Southern Terminus: Centralia in 

Chesterfield County, VA (south of 

Richmond)

• Shared passenger rail and freight 

rail corridor • Amtrak provides several types of 

passenger rail service (see page 14)

• Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 

provides commuter rail service

• CSXT owns the track and provides 

freight rail service

• The DC2RVA Project would: • Improve service frequency, travel 

time, and on-time performance 

of intercity passenger trains by 

adding capacity 

• Accommodate freight and 

commuter rail service

• Include rail infrastructure and 

safety improvements 

• Include passenger 

service upgrades

• Address rail congestion in the 

Richmond area

• Expands on other high speed rail 

corridors / projects: • The northern section of the 

larger 500-mile Southeast High 

Speed Rail (SEHSR) program from 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC 

(see Page 3)

• A Tier II EIS that follows previous 

federal environmental review and 

documentation (see Page 5)

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

the Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail 

service and rail infrastructure improvements in the 

north-south travel corridor between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond, VA – collectively known as 

the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High 

Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project.

95

95

495

A-Line 64

S-Line

Straightening

of curves

Safety improvements to

at-grade roadway crossings

Improvements to

sidings and signals

Station and 

station area

improvements

Construction of 

additional main line 

tracks and crossovers

PROJECT 

1OVERVIEW

WHAT IS THE DC2RVA PROJECT?

The Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and the Virginia Department 

of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) are working to improve 

intercity passenger rail service in the north-south corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger rail service 

and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as 

the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 

(DC2RVA) Project. The purpose of the DC2RVA Project is to increase 

capacity to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter 

rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient 

and reliable multimodal rail corridor. The DC2RVA Project will 

enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation choice 

for intercity travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, 

and beyond. It extends 123 miles along an existing rail corridor 

owned by CSX Transportation (CSXT) from the Long Bridge across 

the Potomac River in Arlington, VA, to Centralia, VA in Chesterfield 

County, south of Richmond. 

The proposed improvements of the DC2RVA Project include 

the following: • Construct additional main line tracks and track crossovers • Straighten curves in existing tracks to allow for higher speeds • Improve intercity passenger rail stations and station areas • Improve sidings and signals • Implement roadway crossing safety improvements

The DC2RVA Project is being evaluated through the mechanism of 

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to satisfy the requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires 

projects that have a federal nexus and may have a significant 

impact on the natural and/or built environment to be analyzed 

through a rigorous process that allows the public to understand 

and comment on the benefits and impacts of the project. The 

environmental effects of the proposed DC2RVA improvements 

measure to avoid, minimize, and otherwise mitigate those impacts.

DC2RVA IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

DC2RVA PROJECT CORRIDOR

1

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The DC2RVA Project is expected to provide 

multiple benefits to the traveling public and the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, including: 

• Providing an efficient and reliable multimodal 

rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, and beyond

• Increasing the capacity of the multimodal 

rail system between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond 

• Improving the frequency, reliability, and travel 

time of passenger rail operations in Virginia 

and beyond, and providing a competitive 

alternative to highway and air travel

• Accommodating VRE commuter rail 

service operations

• Accommodating freight rail movement 

through the corridor, including to and from 

Virginia’s ports

• Improving modal connectivity with other 

public transportation systems within the 

corridor to further expand travel options for 

passengers within Virginia and beyond

• Improving multimodal rail operations safety in 

the corridor

• Improving air quality and reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions by diverting passenger trips 

by automobile and movement of freight by 

trucks to more environmentally sustainable rail 

transportation – the 2013 Virginia Statewide 

Rail Plan found that freight railroads were 12 

times more fuel-efficient than freight trucks

Higher speed passenger rail service will encourage 

economic development in the Commonwealth 

and along the Eastern Seaboard travel corridors by 

expanding competitive travel options for business 

and leisure travelers. Because the DC2RVA 

Project corridor is shared corridor, the proposed 

improvements will also enhance the efficiency 

of freight rail movements within the corridor. 

Improvements to freight rail operations in the 

corridor would encourage economic development 

by increasing freight traffic through Virginia’s ports, 

supporting rail-dependent industries, and present 

an opportunity for greater diversion of freight 

transport from congested highways to rail.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE 

DC2RVA PROJECT?

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 authorized a program of high speed 

rail corridors in the United States. In 1992, the 

United States Department of Transportation 

designated the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) 

corridor, from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, 

as one of five original national high speed rail 

corridors. In 2002, the FRA completed at Tier I EIS 

for the SEHSR corridor that established the overall 

purpose and defined the route for providing a 

competitive transportation choice for travelers 

within the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh, 

and Charlotte travel corridor. The DC2RVA Tier II EIS 

carries forward the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS 

within the Washington, D.C. to Richmond portion 

of the larger SEHSR corridor by identifying the 

infrastructure improvements necessary to provide 

a competitive transportation choice for current 

and future conditions. See Page 5.

WHY IS THE DC2RVA 

PROJECT NEEDED?

Current conditions experienced in the DC2RVA 

Project corridor support the previous Tier I EIS 

Purpose and Need and are the foundation for the 

project today. These conditions include:

• Population Growth. Population in the 

corridor and adjacent urban regions continues 

to grow, increasing demand for reliable and 

safe travel options for passengers. In addition 

to overall population growth, changing 

demographics in the corridor and adjacent 

urban regions are increasing the demand for 

passenger rail service.

• Freight Growth. Demand for freight 

movement through and within the corridor is 

growing as economic activity and population 

increase within the DC2RVA corridor and along 

the eastern seaboard. Ongoing expansion of 

Virginia’s deep water ports, rail-dependent 

industries, and intermodal facilities further 

increases the need for efficient shipment 

of freight.

• Congestion in the I-95 Corridor. The I-95 

corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond remains one of the most congested 

corridors in Virginia, despite ongoing and 

planned improvements. As a result, trip times 

by highway are not reliable.

• Air Travel Congestion. Travel by air is 

increasingly at capacity, resulting in frequent 

delays and causing commercial carriers to 

reduce flights and increase fares, which 

limits the transportation options between 

Washington, D.C. and the entire southeast, 

resulting in lost productivity for travelers and 

excessive fuel consumption.

• Rail Capacity in the Corridor. The shared 

freight and passenger rail corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond is nearing 

capacity and requires improvements to 

effectively and efficiently meet existing 

and future demands for passenger 

service, commuter passenger service, and 

freight service.

• Providing Options for Reliable and 

Convenient Movement of Goods and 

People. The transportation network must 

provide options for the reliable and convenient 

movement of goods and people for the 

Commonwealth and the southeast region’s 

economy to remain strong and to continue 

to grow.

• Air Quality. There is a need to reduce growth 

of transportation-related mobile source 

emissions and their impacts to air quality. 

Passenger or freight movement by train 

provides an efficient travel mode, and it uses 

less energy and produces fewer emissions per 

passenger or ton of freight moved per mile.

PROJECT NEED

“Our major interstate corridors such as I–95, I–395, 

and I–495 have essentially reached their ultimate 

footprints where future widening will be cost 

prohibitive, impacts to communities will be too 

great, or both. This reality means more needs to be 

done in the future to take more trucks and cars off of 

I–95. Improving and expanding freight, commuter 

and Amtrak rail service will provide travel choices for 

commuters and businesses alike.”

- Virginia Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne

DC2RVA IMPROVEMENT BENEFITS

Reduce

Emissions

Improve

Air Quality

3

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOW DOES THE DC2RVA PROJECT 

RELATE TO OTHER HIGH SPEED RAIL 

PROJECTS IN THE U.S.?

The DC2RVA Project is the northernmost section 

of the SEHSR corridor, which is part of a larger 

nationwide high speed intercity passenger 

rail plan identified by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. The SEHSR corridor was one of 

five originally designated high speed rail corridors 

identified by the FRA in 1991, and is currently 

planned to extend from Washington, D.C. to 

Jacksonville, FL. 

This DC2RVA Project expands upon a previous 

study, a Tier I EIS, that recommended passenger 

rail improvements in the 500-mile Washington, 

D.C. to Charlotte, NC portion of the SEHSR corridor. 

That study established the SEHSR program 

purpose and selected preferred rail corridors, and 

provided a programmatic-level environmental 

analysis. It also selected an incremental approach 

to develop the SEHSR program and subsequently 

the SEHSR corridor was separated into discrete 

sections (Washington, D.C. to Richmond, 

Richmond to Raleigh, and Raleigh to Charlotte) for 

further detailed (Tier II) studies. The Washington to 

Richmond section will provide the critical gateway 

linking the Northeast Corridor and the rest of the 

SEHSR corridor.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 

THIS TIER II STUDY AND THE 

PREVIOUS TIER I STUDY?

A two-tiered environmental process is often used 

on extensive projects before implementing the 

proposed action. Tier I evaluation is focused on largescale decisions. For example, the Tier l evaluation 

of the overall Southeast High Speed Rail between 

Washington, D.C. and Charlotte identified the type of 

new rail service needed, and which general corridor 

would be best for the new service. More detailed 

Tier II evaluation(s) are conducted that evaluate 

the specific actions and improvements required 

to support the Tier I findings. Both Tier I and Tier II 

studies conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD), 

which explains the agency’s decision and next 

steps, if applicable. Tier II decisions are supported 

by more detailed engineering and cost estimating, 

and include a more rigorous environmental study 

of potential alternatives, as required by NEPA. A 

Tier II ROD would establish that the corridor is 

eligible for federal funding and allow for permitting, 

final design, railroad right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction to proceed.

This DC2RVA Project Tier II EIS is the second step in 

a two-tiered federal environmental review process. 

The Preferred Alternative identified in the 2002 Tier 

I ROD called for rail improvements that generate 

incremental passenger service benefits but 

minimize impacts by using existing rail infrastructure 

and railroad right of way. While the Tier I study 

established the general route connecting the cities 

along the corridor, the actual alignment is designed 

as part of this Tier II DC2RVA Project.

HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS ON THE EASTERN SEABOARD

Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond (DC2RVA)

Tier II EIS

Richmond to Raleigh

Tier II EIS

Richmond to

Hampton Roads

Tier I EIS

SEHSR Corridor

Tier I EIS

SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR

TIER I EIS COMPLETED IN 2002

PURPOSE

• Evaluate full 500-mile corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC

• Establish broad program concepts

DECISIONS MADE

• Use an incremental approach for implementation

• Minimize impacts by using existing infrastructure

• Use conventional–powered locomotives

North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Georgia

Virginia

Florida

Kentucky

Ohio

West Virginia

Tennessee

Maryland

Delaware

New

Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

Rhode

Island

Massachusetts

Michigan

Hampton

Roads

Atlanta

Raleigh

Columbia

Richmond

Charlotte

Washington, D.C.

Baltimore

New

York

City

Boston

Orlando

Tampa

Miami

Jacksonville

Northeast Corridor

Existing High Speed 

Rail Service

SEHSR

Corridor

Southeast Corridor

Existing Conventional

Passenger Rail 

Service

Savannah

Southeast High Speed Passenger Rail Development

Washington, D.C.

to Richmond

Tier II EIS - Underway

Richmond to

Hampton Roads

Tier I EIS - Complete

Richmond

to Raleigh

Tier II EIS - Complete

Washington, D.C.

to Charlotte

Tier I EIS - Complete

Charlotte

to Atlanta

Tier I EIS - Underway

SEHSR Extended

Raleigh to Charlotte

Tier II EA/CE - Underway

Raleigh to Savannah

- Not Yet Studied

Atlanta to Savannah

to Jacksonville

- Feasibility Study 

 Complete

5

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT IS THE TIER II EIS PROCESS 

FOR THE DC2RVA PROJECT?

The Purpose and Need for the Tier II EIS for the 

DC2RVA Project is based on the Tier I EIS, which 

established the Purpose and Need for the larger 

SEHSR corridor (see Page 5). During the Tier II 

EIS process for the DC2RVA Project, DRPT and 

the FRA are evaluating the benefits, costs, and 

environmental effects of several possible Build 

Alternatives, which are compared to a baseline 

No Build Alternative. The process includes 

consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives 

and detailed analysis of the potential impacts to 

the natural and built environments resulting from 

each, as well as documentation of compliance with 

other applicable environmental laws, regulations, 

and executive orders.

The Tier II EIS process is iterative and adds additional 

levels of detailed analysis as the proposed Build 

Alternatives are refined. The steps in the process 

in order of increasing detail, include: confirming 

the Purpose and Need as established in the Tier 

I EIS for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA 

portion of the SEHSR corridor; developing sitespecific rail alternatives for placement of a third 

track and other improvements; incorporating 

public and stakeholder input; conducting a 

detailed evaluation of environmental impacts and 

identifying associated mitigations, as required; and 

recommending a Preferred Alternative. 

Public and agency input is integral throughout 

the entire DC2RVA Project, and is an ongoing 

effort, including public scoping meetings early 

in the project process, and ongoing public and 

agency meetings. The FRA will consider public 

comments and input from the Draft EIS and 

issue a Final EIS to document the selection of the 

Preferred Alternative.

Focus on site-specific impacts and mi ga on 

for individual elements of the larger study.

Quan fy impacts and analyze poten al mi ga on measures.

Tier II Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process

Summarize broader issues discussed in the Tier I Study.

Develop and screen alterna ves to meet the 

Purpose and Need. 

Documenta on and decisions lead to permi ng, 

final design, right-of-way acquisi on, and construc on.

Public/Agency Input and Outreach

Public 

Scoping 

Public

Hearings

Documentation of DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative 

in Draft EIS leads to CTB identifying the Commonwealth’s 

Preferred Alternative and Final EIS and ROD.

WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS?

Key agencies and stakeholders:

• Federal Railroad Administration 

– Lead Federal Agency 

• Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation – State Sponsor

• Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

• CSXT 

• Amtrak

• Virginia Railway Express (VRE)

The following agencies agreed to be cooperating 

agencies for the DC2RVA Project:

• Federal Highway Administration

• Federal Transit Administration 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District

• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Virginia Department of Transportation

Key agencies are federal and state 

sponsors and operators on the corridor.

Cooperating agencies include those 

agencies that have jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise and typically:

• Participate in scoping

• Provide staff support

• Assist with analyses, field reviews,

and public meetings

• Review documentation

TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PROCESS

7

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT OUTREACH HAS TAKEN PLACE

ON THE DC2RVA PROJECT?

The DC2RVA Project has followed an extensive 

public participation process that began in 

2014 with publication of the Notice of Intent 

in the Federal Register as part of the Tier II EIS 

and continues today. The outreach plan was 

developed to comply with NEPA and to promote 

informed decision-making by federal, state, and 

local agencies. 

The overall goal of the public involvement program 

is to provide an open, dynamic process that 

includes as many residents, businesses, agencies, 

stakeholders, and community groups within the 

project area as possible. DRPT is using a variety 

of outreach tools including public meetings, 

online meetings, mailings and emails, newspaper 

and social media postings, workshops and 

informational sessions, and an interactive project 

website to document all project-related materials. 

DRPT is committed to involving people 

early and often and sharing information as it 

becomes available. 

WHEN WOULD THE DC2RVA 

PROJECT BE BUILT?

Complete build-out of the corridor and full 

implementation is dependent on future state 

and federal funding, and the ability to achieve 

passenger rail benefits. At the conclusion of the 

Tier II EIS process, the goal is to have successfully 

completed the NEPA process to meet federal 

requirements and qualify for federal funding for 

the DC2RVA Project. The implementation process 

that follows NEPA and preliminary design can be 

lengthy, and includes applying for construction 

permits, equipment selection and manufacturing, 

ordering materials, and actual construction of the 

rail corridor improvements. 

DRPT and the FRA have adopted an incremental 

approach to develop new service and achieve 

passenger rail benefits, and are working with CSXT 

to identify key opportunities to construct railroad 

infrastructure and implement improved service in 

the corridor as quickly as practicable. For planning 

purposes, DRPT is anticipating the new service 

could be in operation by 2025, which is dependent 

on many factors, not the least of which is finalizing 

the Tier II EIS and ROD.

HOW WERE THE BUILD 

ALTERNATIVES FOR THE 

DC2RVA PROJECT DEVELOPED 

AND EVALUATED?

The Build Alternatives were designed to increase 

rail capacity and accommodate higher passenger 

train speeds, while minimizing potential impacts 

to natural and cultural resources. Build Alternatives 

included the following elements: 

• Addition of main track along most of the 

corridor, and additional controlled sidings, 

crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other 

improvements at certain locations.

• Upgrades to existing track and signal systems 

to achieve higher operating speeds, including 

curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers 

between tracks, passing sidings, and at-grade 

crossing improvements.

• Station, platform, and parking improvements 

for intercity passenger rail stations and rail 

alignments, including accommodation of 

additional and/or extended VRE platforms 

and/or other improvements.

• Improvements to adjacent highway and 

rail crossing infrastructure, including safety 

improvements to roadway crossings.

Developing potential rail alignments, i.e., the 

location and configuration of the main line 

track, was an iterative process. DRPT relied on 

previous studies and public scoping comments 

as the starting point, modifications were made 

to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects 

on environmental resources and existing 

infrastructure, and to minimize the need for 

additional new infrastructure, while preserving 

the ability to meet the DC2RVA Project’s Purpose 

and Need. The final screening evaluation – to 

determine the Build Alternatives to be carried 

forward for evaluation in the Draft EIS – focused 

on each rail alignment’s ability to reduce trip 

times based on increased track design speed and 

to increase the reliability of rail operations based 

upon added capacity, with the least potential 

environmental impact and consideration of cost 

to construct.

Build Alternatives developed as part of the 

DC2RVA Project include two elements:

• Physical improvements along the rail 

alignment (See Page 16)

• Proposed train service that would run 

through the corridor (See Page 14)

2BUILD 

ALTERNATIVES

9

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT FUTURE YEARS 

ARE ANALYZED?

FRA and DRPT established two important planning 

dates. The first is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s 

estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA 

infrastructure could be completed and the new 

DC2RVA service would be placed in operation 

(see page 9). FRA and DRPT used 2025 as the 

date when the physical impacts associated with 

DC2RVA Project construction would take place – 

so all physical impact analyses within the Draft EIS 

on human and natural resources are estimated for 

2025, and compared to the No Build Alternative 

conditions projected for 2025.

The second key planning date is the planning 

horizon date of 2045. As required by Federal 

regulation and FRA guidance, DRPT tested the 

proposed alternatives to determine if the rail 

capacity would be adequate for opening day 

(2025) projected rail traffic and if it would remain 

adequate over the 20-year planning horizon. 

DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon date 

to estimate some of the longer-term effects of the 

proposed service such as ridership, energy use, 

and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and 

cumulative effects.

The No Build Alternative defines the future 

infrastructure and service levels that will result 

from planned investments in the Washington, 

D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. If 

a project was under construction, fully-funded, or 

was the focus of advanced collaborative planning, 

it was assumed to be complete by 2025 for the 

purposes of the Draft EIS evaluation. 

The purpose of the No Build Alternative is to serve 

as a baseline for comparison of potential effects 

and impacts of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives. 

The No Build Alternative was fully evaluated and 

dismissed by the FRA in the 2002 SEHSR Tier I ROD 

because it does not meet the SEHSR Purpose and 

WHAT IS THE PROJECT CORRIDOR? 

For evaluation in the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA 

Project, DRPT identified six alternative areas along 

the corridor, each with unique existing conditions, 

constraints, and/or needs. Area-specific Build 

Alternatives were developed and will be linked 

to form a single DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative for the corridor (See Page 56). 

• Alternative Area 1: Arlington

1-mile section that includes approach 

alignments to the Long Bridge, which crosses 

the Potomac River between VA and D.C.

• Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia

47-mile section that includes additional track 

within existing railroad right-of-way.

• Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg

14-mile section that includes alignments 

through or around the city.

• Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia

29-mile section that includes additional 

track primarily within the existing 

railroad right-of-way. 

• Alternative Area 5: Ashland

10-mile section including alignments through 

or around the town.

• Alternative Area 6: Richmond

23-mile section including different station 

locations and routing options on separate 

alignments, as follows:

Four station locations in Richmond area

(see Page 13):

• Staples Mill Road Station — existing station in 

Henrico County

• Boulevard Station — proposed new station 

location adjacent to the Boulevard Street 

roadway overpass

• Broad Street Station — proposed new 

station location near the historic Broad Street 

Station building (now the Science Museum of 

Virginia) in Richmond

• Main Street Station — existing station in 

downtown Richmond

PROJECT ALTERNATIVE AREAS

RAIL ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE

SCREENING PROCESS

Need. Although previously dismissed as not a 

viable alternative, the No Build Alternative is fully 

considered as part of the Tier ll Draft EIS for the 

DC2RVA Project because the baseline is required 

by NEPA.

Two rail routes diverge at Acca Yard and reconnect 

at Centralia:

• A-Line: Western rail line. Used by majority 

of north-south passenger and freight trains. 

CSXT’s principal freight route to points south. 

Approximately 14.3 miles.

• S-Line: Eastern rail line. Used primarily by 

local freight to serve industry and passenger 

rail service to Newport News. Approximately 

15.6 miles.

WHAT IS THE NO BUILD

ALTERNATIVE?

Identify Reasonable Alternatives 

for evaluation in the Draft EIS

Stage IV Screening:

Area Options

Evaluate Areas Where Options May Not Follow Existing Rail Alignment

Bypass options in Fredericksburg and Ashland

Station options in Richmond

Compare to Potential and Existing Infrastructure

Existing rail bridges Existing road overpasses

New rail bridges Existing at-grade crossings

Stage III Screening:

Infrastructure Constraints

Stage II Screening:

Order of Magnitude Impacts

Compare Order of Magnitude Impacts Outside Existing Railroad ROW

Area outside existing ROW (urban/developed and agricultural)

Hazardous waste sites Wetlands

Agricultural/forestal districts Cemeteries

Stage I Screening:

Fatal Flaw

Direct Effects - Outside Existing Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW) Only

Historic resources listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

Federal, state, or local parks and recreation areas

Federal or state wildlife/waterfowl refuges

Military bases

95

95

Alternative Area 1 Arlington

(Long Bridge Approach)

Alternative Area 5

Ashland

Alternative Area 6

Richmond

Alternative Area 2

Northern Virginia

Alternative Area 3

Fredericksburg

Alternative Area 4

Central Virginia

A-Line

S-Line

11

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT IS THE TYPICAL CROSS 

SECTION OF THE PROPOSED 

RAIL CORRIDOR?

The DC2RVA Project proposes to increase rail 

capacity by adding one additional main track – 

in most areas, a new third track in addition to the 

existing two tracks. The location of the new track, 

either on the east or west side of existing tracks, 

varies by location. DRPT developed the location 

of alternatives based on physical constraints and 

minimization of impacts.

The proposed Build Alternatives additionally vary 

within the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of 

Ashland, where alignments outside of the existing 

railroad right-of-way were considered (such as 

bypass alignments around the downtown areas); 

the typical cross section of all new alignments in 

these areas included a total of two tracks.

WHAT STATIONS WOULD DC2RVA 

TRAINS SERVE? 

DRPT is evaluating both existing and potential 

new passenger rail stations in the DC2RVA 

corridor. DRPT plans to incorporate the proposed 

passenger train service into Amtrak’s intercity 

passenger rail network (see graphic on Page 14).

Along the DC2RVA corridor, these existing stations 

include: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Staples Mill Road 

and Main Street in Richmond. In Richmond, DRPT 

is considering two proposed new locations: 

Boulevard Station and Main Street Station. Not all 

proposed DC2RVA trains would necessarily serve 

all existing or proposed stations. 

95

95

Project Corridor

Alexandria Station

Quantico Station

Woodbridge Station

Fredericksburg Station

Ashland Station

Main Street Station

Staples Mill Road Station

Boulevard Station (Proposed)

Broad Street Station (Proposed)

Existing Station

Proposed Station

HOW FAST WOULD DC2RVA 

TRAINS TRAVEL?

Federal designation of high speed rail corridors 

requires trains to achieve 110 mph where reasonably 

possible. Through analysis of existing geography, 

environmental conditions, and operational 

efficiency, the DC2RVA Project established a design 

speed of 90 mph. Elsewhere on the overall SEHSR 

corridor south of Richmond, geography and 

operating conditions are more suitable to support 

speeds at 110 mph.

There are limiting speeds within certain portions 

of the DC2RVA Project corridor where trains may 

not be able to operate at the 90 mph maximum 

authorized speed for the full length between 

station stops, due to localized speed restrictions, 

track curvature, geometrical reasons and/or station 

proximity (see Area Build Alternatives for details, Pages 

17 through 34).

TYPICAL TRACK CROSS SECTION

EXISTING + PROPOSED INTERCITY

PASSENGER TRAIN STATIONS

WHAT PASSENGER TRAINS ARE IN 

THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR?

Amtrak operates four types of intercity 

passenger service:

• Northeast Regional (Virginia) service 

provides regional passenger rail service along 

the length of the Northeast Corridor from 

Boston and New York and continues south 

to serve routes in Virginia. Trains make local 

station stops.

• Interstate Corridor (North Carolina) 

operates between New York and North 

Carolina (one single daily round trip) through 

Virginia, making fewer stops in the DC2RVA 

corridor than the Northeast Regional service.

• Long Distance Amtrak service operates from 

New York and continues through Washington, 

D.C. and Virginia to other out-of-state locations. 

Long distance trains serve the fewest of Amtrak 

station stops within the DC2RVA corridor.

• Auto Train Amtrak service operates as a daily 

nonstop, overnight train between dedicated 

station facilities in Lorton, VA and Florida, and 

carries passengers and their automobiles.

WHAT TRAINS WOULD THE DC2RVA 

PROJECT ADD?

DRPT is proposing to add nine daily round trip 

SEHSR passenger trains to the corridor by 2025, 

which would be incorporated into Amtrak’s 

passenger rail network and serve the Northeast 

Corridor north of Washington, D.C. as part of the 

DC2RVA Project.

• Four new round trip Interstate Corridor 

(SEHSR) passenger trains to North Carolina, 

with stops in the DC2RVA corridor in: Alexandria; 

Fredericksburg; and Richmond. This service 

will complement Amtrak’s current Interstate 

Corridor (Carolinian) service by providing 

additional frequencies to North Carolina. The 

SEHSR trains will have slightly different service 

patterns in the DC2RVA corridor than the 

existing Amtrak service, and use different routes 

south of the DC2RVA corridor, where SEHSR 

Long Distance 

Northeast Regional (Virginia)

Interstate Corridor (Carolinian)

Auto Train

Existing train extended to Norfolk

Amtrak Service Northeast Regional

(Southeast High Speed Rail)

Interstate Corridor

(Southeast High Speed Rail)

Station Stop

Also served by VRE

DC2RVA Service

Potomac River

Centralia

2 2 1 3 1 4 5 5 Total: 23

2

2

3

4

1

To FL/GA To NC

1 2 1

1

1

To NC

Via new

alignment 

Via new

alignment 

To VA

To

LA, IL

To Northeast Corridor

3

1

To FL

Daily Round-Trips

Union Station

Alexandria, VA

Woodbridge, VA

DC2RVA PROJECT CORRIDOR

Lorton, VA

Ashland, VA

Quantico, VA

Richmond, VA

Newport 

News, VA

Norfolk, VA

Fredericksburg, VA

Petersburg, VA

L’Enfant

Washington, DC

2

Location(s) TBD

Location TBD

TRAIN SERVICE

BUILD CONDITIONS (2025)

trains are expected to provide a faster and 

more direct route to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC.

• Five new round trip Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) passenger trains (3 to Norfolk, 1 to 

Newport News, and 1 to Richmond), with 

stops in the DC2RVA corridor in: Alexandria; 

Woodbridge; Quantico; Fredericksburg; 

Ashland; and Richmond. This service will 

provide additional frequencies on the same 

routes of existing Amtrak Northeast Regional 

(Virginia) services, terminating within Virginia 

(either Newport News, Norfolk, or Richmond).

13

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT BUILD ALTERNATIVES ARE 

BEING FULLY ANALYZED IN THE 

DRAFT EIS?

A wide range of options were considered during 

the alternatives development process. Of those 

options, the 23 Build Alternatives described on 

the following pages were found to be feasible 

through the alternatives development process 

and are included for evaluation in the Draft EIS. 

Each alternative includes build-alternative-specific 

improvements to features such as stations and 

at-grade roadway crossings.

Alternative Area 1: Arlington 

Three Build Alternatives - add two tracks east, 

west, or one track on either side of the existing 

alignment in the approach to Long Bridge, which 

crosses the Potomac River from VA to D.C. Each 

alternative would result in a total of four tracks in 

this area.

HOW MANY BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

ARE IN EACH ALTERNATIVE AREA?

Alternative Area 6: Richmond

Eight Build Alternatives along either or both 

existing rail line routes - to include four singlestation alternatives that would consolidate 

passenger service to one station, and three twostation alternatives that offer combinations of 

services using Staples Mill Road Station and Main 

Street Station. 

Alternative Area 5: Ashland

Seven Build Alternatives- to include no additional 

or one additional track (either to the east of or 

centered on the existing alignment) through 

town, and a two-track bypass around the west 

side of the town and relocation of the station to 

south of Ashland.

Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia

One Build Alternative - add one new track for a 

total of three tracks through this area. 

Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Three Build Alternatives - minor improvements 

with no additional track, one additional track 

along existing alignment, or a two-track bypass 

around the east side of Fredericksburg. 

Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia

One Build Alternative - add one main track 

where possible for a total of four tracks through 

Alexandria and Arlington and three tracks through 

most of the remaining Northern Virginia area.

WHY AREN’T THE FREIGHT 

AND PASSENGER RAIL LINES 

BEING SEPARATED?

The SEHSR Tier l EIS recommended adding 

additional track capacity within the existing 

railroad right-of-way, which is owned and 

operated by CSXT. Sharing the rail system allows 

access to existing stations and infrastructure. This, 

in turn, allows the project to be implemented 

more economically and minimizes impacts to 

the environment. Building a new rail system 

dedicated only to passenger trains would cost 

more, cause more environmental impacts, and 

require extensive property acquisition. Outside of 

the railroad right-of-way, bypass alternatives are 

being considered around the downtown areas of 

Fredericksburg and Ashland to minimize potential 

community impacts as part of the DC2RVA Project.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE 

ROADWAY CROSSINGS OF THE 

RAIL CORRIDOR?

• Existing At-Grade Crossings

The following types of crossing treatments 

were recommended at each highway-rail 

crossing for each Build Alternative to improve 

safety and both road and rail traffic flow:

• Grade Separation

• Four-Quadrant Gates

• Center Median Treatment with Gates

• Closure

• Locking Gate (private crossings only) 

• No Action

• Existing Grade-Separated Crossings

Grade-separated crossings in the corridor 

include rail crossings over public roadways, 

private roadways, or waterways, and public 

or private roadways over rail. In all locations 

for all Build Alternatives, the existing crossing 

structure can either accommodate the 

proposed DC2RVA improvements, or will be 

widened (either the existing structure or a 

parallel structure). 

• New Crossings

Virginia state code restricts the creation of 

new at-grade crossings; this means that 

any new crossings of existing roadways 

recommended by the DC2RVA Project should 

be grade-separated, with potential roadway 

realignment and/or closure to preserve safety 

and traffic flow.

In accordance with the FRA’s High Speed Passenger 

Rail Safety Strategy, the DC2RVA Project will provide a 

minimum of active gates and lights at public at-grade 

crossings or a locked gate with signal warning at 

private at-grade crossings.

Most existing public at-grade crossings are proposed 

to remain at-grade with the addition of four-quadrant 

gates or gates with center median treatment. There 

are fewer proposed grade separations and closures, 

which vary by Build Alternative. 

Most existing private at-grade crossings are proposed 

to have locking gates or four-quadrant gates, unless 

a property is being acquired or alternate access can 

be provided.

Full information on each Build Alternative, including 

detailed maps and lists of proposed improvements, 

is provided in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, as well 

Draft EIS Appendix C through Appendix H. 

Chapter 2 also provides details of the alternative 

options that were considered but dismissed from 

further evaluation within the Draft EIS.

BUILD ALTERNATIVES

IN PROJECT CORRIDOR

95

95

Alternative Area 1 Arlington

(Long Bridge Approach)

Three Build Alternatives

Alternative Area 5

Ashland

Seven Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area 6

Richmond

Seven Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area 2

Northern Virginia

One Build Alternative 

Alternative Area 3

Fredericksburg

Three Build Alternatives

Alternative Area 4

Central Virginia

One Build Alternative 

A-Line

S-Line

15

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• There are three Build Alternatives in Area 1

• All three Build Alternatives:

• Add two main tracks, with minor shifts to improve speed

• Equally support expanded intercity service (all passenger train 

types), expanded VRE commuter service, and expanded CSXT 

freight service

• Would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way

• The major difference among the alternatives is which side of the 

existing track the new track would be added (as indicated in the Build 

Alternative names)

• Improvements developed to accommodate alignments associated 

with the Long Bridge Study (separate study by District of Columbia 

Department of Transportation (DDOT))

• No stations within area

• No changes to existing public roadway crossings

• Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 45 mph

George Washington Memorial Pkwy

Long Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1A

Add Two Tracks on the East

Length: 0.7 miles Approximate Cost: $35.6 million

AR E A 

1

ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON (LONG BRIDGE APPROACH)

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

George Washington Memorial Pkw

Lo

y

ng Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1B

Add Two Tracks on the West

Length: 0.7 miles Approximate Cost: $46.6 million

George Washington Memorial Pkwy

Long Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1C

Add One Track East and One Track West

Length: 0.7 miles Approximate Cost: $42.3 million

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

17

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• There is one Build Alternative in Area 2

• Add one main track, with realignment of some curves to improve speed, to create:

• Fourth track from Crystal City to Alexandria

• Third track from Alexandria to Spotsylvania

• Rail improvements generally within existing railroad right-of-way

• Proposed new DC2RVA service at the following stations:

• Alexandria: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR)

• Woodbridge: Northeast Regional (SEHSR)

• Quantico: Northeast Regional (SEHSR)

• No changes to Amtrak (Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), 

Auto Train, and Long Distance) or VRE commuter stations served

• Close one existing public roadway crossing (Mount Hope Church Road) with 

alternate access provided / No grade separations proposed

• All other public roadway crossings remain at-grade with safety improvements

• Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, and Aquia Creek 

• Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph

• Work completed / underway by others in this section includes: AF-Franconia 

3rd track; Franconia-Occoquan 3rd Track; Arkendale – Powells Creek 3rd Track; 

Fredericksburg – Spotsylvania 3rd Track; and VRE platform improvements

ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA

(CRYSTAL CITY STATION TO DAHLGREN SPUR)

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2A

Add One Track/improve Existing Track

Length: 47.3 miles Approximate Cost: $1.653 billion

95

CFP 100

CFP 90

CFP 80

CFP 110

Quantico Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Alexandria Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Woodbridge Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Lorton Station (VRE only)

Rippon Station (VRE only)

Potomac Shores Station (Proposed)

(VRE only)

Brooke Station (VRE only)

Leeland Road Station (VRE only)

(VRE only)

Arkendale Third Track

Under Construction

Existing 3 Tracks

Additional Track Planned

under Atlantic Gateway 

Franconia to Occoquan

Additional track planned 

under Long Bridge Rail 

Capacity Study

Work by Others

AR E A 

2

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

19

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• There are three Build Alternatives in Area 3, all of which:

• Support expanded intercity passenger (all passenger train types), VRE commuter, 

and CSXT freight rail service

• Provide proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR)

• Include a new Fredericksburg Station, including building, platform, and parking 

improvements (varies by alternative)

• No changes to stations served by Amtrak passenger service (Interstate 

Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), and Long Distance) or VRE 

commuter service

• Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River

• Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph

AR E A 

3

ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG

(DAHLGREN SPUR TO CROSSROADS)

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3A

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town

Length: 14 miles Approximate Cost: $240.2 million

Dahlgren Spur

Existing 3 Tracks

Existing 2 Tracks

CFP 50

CFP 60

Spotsylvania Station (VRE)

Fredericksburg Station (Amtrak & VRE)

• Within Fredericksburg, no construction of 

new track / no additional rail capacity

• Maintain existing two main 

line tracks

• Shift tracks in some sections to 

improve speed 

• Freight, passenger, and commuter 

train operations through town 

similar to existing conditions

• Construction of one additional track, 

with some shifts to improve speed, 

north and south of the city

• All improvements within existing 

railroad right-of-way

• All public roadway crossings remain 

at-grade with safety improvements

Dahlgren Spur

Existing 3 Tracks

CFP 50

CFP 60

Spotsylvania Station (VRE)

Fredericksburg Station (Amtrak & VRE)

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Add One Track East of Existing

Length: 14 miles Approximate Cost: $506.9 million

• Construct one main line track in most 

sections, with track shifts to improve 

speed, and a new elevated railway at 

the station

• Within town, the additional track 

would be added east of the existing 

two tracks

• A third track already exists between 

Fredericksburg and the Spotsylvania 

Station (i.e., no improvements required)

• Rail improvements generally within 

existing railroad right-of-way

• No public roadway crossing closures / 

Grade separate one at-grade roadway 

crossing (Landsdowne Road)

• All other public roadway crossings 

would remain at-grade with 

safety improvements

• Consistent with City of Fredericksburg 

Comprehensive Plan (2015)

Existing 3 Tracks

Existing 2 Tracks

CFP 50

CFP 60

Spotsylvania Station (VRE)

Fredericksburg Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Dahlgren Spur

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3C

Add Two-Track Bypass East

Length: 18 miles Approximate Cost: $977.5 million

• Maintain existing two-track corridor 

through the city, with some track shifts 

to improve speed

• Construct new two-track bypass east 

of the city

• Serves all freight rail as well as all 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), Long Distance, and 

Auto Train passenger trains 

• Existing public roadway crossings, 

including along existing Dahlgren 

Spur, would remain at-grade, 

with safety improvements

• Any new public roadway 

crossings on the bypass would 

be grade separated

• Requires additional 

railroad right-of-way

• Construct one main line track north 

and south of the city, with track shifts to 

improve speed

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

21

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• There is one Build Alternative in Area 4 

• Construct one main line track with track shifts to improve speed 

• Improvements generally within existing railroad right-of-way 

• Supports expanded intercity passenger service (all types) and CSXT 

freight service 

• No stations within the area 

• Close one existing public roadway crossing (Colemans Mill Road) / No grade 

separations of at-grade crossings 

• All other public roadway crossings remain at-grade with safety improvements

• Multiple crossings of small waterways and wetlands 

• Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph

AR E A 

4

ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA (CROSSROADS TO DOSWELL)

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4A

Add One Track / Improve Existing Track

Length: 29 miles Approximate Cost: $643.2 million

95

1

Caroline 

County

Hanover

County

Caroline 

County

Ruther 

Glen

Milford

Arcadia

Athens

Bowling 

Green

 Doswell

CFP 040

CFP 030

CFP 020

CFP 019

CFP 048

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

23

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• There are seven Build Alternatives in Area 5 

• Alternatives include different station locations: 

• Downtown Station: Maintain existing station location with improvements, 

including extended platforms (850 feet long), which requires closure of the 

existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms 

is an option to minimize impacts (not shown on figures)

• Ashcake Station: Close the existing station location and relocate service to a 

new station south of Ashcake Road 

• All Build Alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service, with no 

change to Northeast Regional (Virginia) service

• Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph, with existing 35 mph municipal 

slow order within Ashland

ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND (DOSWELL TO I-295)

Downtown Station (Amtrak)

CFP 19

CFP 9

Downtown Station (Closed)

Ashcake Station (Amtrak)

CFP 19

CFP 9

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5A

Maintain Two tracks Through Town 

Length: 10 miles Approximate Cost: $349.5 million

• There are two Build Alternatives 

in Area 5 that maintain two tracks 

through town but provide Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service 

at different station locations, as 

denoted by the name of each (see top 

of Page 25 for station descriptions)

• Both alternatives: 

• Maintain two existing tracks 

(no construction of new track/ 

no additional rail capacity) 

within Ashland 

• Construct one additional track, with 

some track shifts to improve speed, 

north and south of the town 

• Grade separate two public roadway 

at-grade crossings in Ashland: West 

Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

• All other public roadway crossings 

within town remain at-grade, with 

safety improvements

• All rail improvements generally within 

existing railroad right-of-way 

AR E A 

5

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

• There are two Build Alternatives in Area 

5 that add one track east of the existing 

tracks, but provide Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR and Virginia) service at different 

station locations, as denoted by the 

name of each (see top of Page 25 for station 

descriptions)

• Both alternatives:

• Construct one additional main line track 

adjacent to the existing tracks, which 

generally requires additional railroad 

right-of-way, especially within the town 

of Ashland 

• Grade separate two public roadway 

at-grade crossings in Ashland: West 

Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

• All other public roadway crossings 

within town remain at-grade, with 

safety improvements 

• The addition of a third track through town 

on the east side of the existing railroad 

tracks requires closure of a short portion 

of Railroad Avenue / Center Street, parallel 

to the railroad corridor

Downtown Station (Amtrak)

CFP 19

CFP 9

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5B

Add One Track East of Existing

Length: 10 miles Approximate Cost: $388.3 million

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)

Length: 10 miles Approximate Cost: $350.3 million

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

25

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ashcake Station (Amtrak)

Downtown Station (Closed)

CFP 19

CFP 9

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5B–Ashcake

Add One Track East of Existing

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)

Length: 10 miles Approximate Cost: $388.8 million
ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND (DOSWELL TO I-295)

Ashcake Station (Amtrak)

Downtown Station (Closed)

CFP 19

CFP 9

Downtown Station (Amtrak)

CFP 19

CFP 9

• There are two Build Alternatives 

in Area 5 that bypass the town of 

Ashland, but provide Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service 

at different station locations, as 

denoted by the name of each (see top 

of Page 25 for station descriptions)

• Both alternatives construct a new 

two-track bypass west of Ashland, to 

serve freight rail as well as Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR and Carolinian), 

Long Distance, and Auto Train 

passenger trains 

• Bypass requires new 

railroad right-of-way 

• Grade separate new public 

roadway crossings on the bypass

• Both alternatives maintain the existing 

two-track corridor through town

• All public roadway crossings 

within town remain at-grade, with 

safety improvements 

• No additional railroad right-of-way 

needed in town 

• Both alternatives construct one 

additional track, with some track 

shifts to improve speed, north and 

south of the town

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5C

Add Two-Track West Bypass

Length: 11 miles Approximate Cost: $599.2 million

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5C–Ashcake

Add Two-Track West Bypass

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)

Length: 11 miles Approximate Cost: $600.0 million

AR E A 

5

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

• There is one Build Alternative in Area 5 that centers 

improvements within existing right-of-way, with a new 

station south of Ashcake Road to provide Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service (see top of Page 25 

for station description)

• Construct one additional main line track, with centering 

of all main line tracks on the existing alignment, 

through the entire area

• Requires additional railroad right-of-way, especially 

within the town of Ashland 

• Requires closure of a short portion of Railroad 

Avenue / Center Street, parallel to the 

railroad corridor 

• Precludes use of the existing station building and 

platforms, which will be removed

• Grade separate two public roadway at-grade crossings 

in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road

• All other public roadway crossings within town remain 

at-grade, with safety improvements

No Station or Ashcake Station 

(Amtrak)

Downtown Station (Closed)

CFP 19

CFP 9

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5D–Ashcake

Three Tracks Centered Through Town

(Add One Track; Relocate Station

to Ashcake)

Length: 10 miles Approximate Cost: $398.8 million

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

27

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• There are eight Build Alternatives in Area 6

• Five are single-station alternatives 

• Three are two-station alternatives (see Page 33)

• Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph, with top speeds of 40 mph through 

the Acca Yard area

• All alternatives include a major waterway crossing of James River 

• No changes to CSXT freight service routes due to DC2RVA passenger train routes

• Auto Train (Amtrak) does not stop in Richmond

• All roadway crossings that remain at-grade include safety improvements

• Single station alternatives include four potential station locations:

• Existing Staples Mill Road Station 

• Existing Main Street Station 

• Use of the A-Line or the S -Line varies by alternative, based primarily on the ability to 

serve station locations and passenger and freight train routes 

• All alternatives consolidate Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor 

(SEHSR) service, as well as all Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), 

and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, to a single station

• All Northeast Regional service to Newport News on the S-Line

• One Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip terminates at the single station

AR E A 

6

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND (I-295 TO CENTRALIA)

• One of five single-station alternatives in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of 

the RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line 

(through Richmond), with track shifts to 

improve speed 

• Improve Staples Mill Road Station to 

become the single passenger rail station to 

serve Richmond

• Close existing Main Street Station

• Relocate and consolidate all passenger 

service to the new station facility, which 

includes new platforms and parking

• Does not meet FRA requirement for 

Central Business District (CBD) location 

• Freight and passenger rail service operating 

together on the A-Line, CSXT's principal freight 

corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay

• Close four public roadway crossings / Grade 

separate three at-grade roadway crossings

Acca Yard CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95

64

CSX Transportation

Staples Mill Road Station (Amtrak)

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6A

Staples Mill Road Station Only

Length: 23 miles Approximate Cost: $1.088 billion

Work by Others

East Acca Yard Bypass

Acca Yard CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95

64

CSX Transportation

Boulevard Station (Amtrak)

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6B–A-Line

Boulevard Station Only, A–Line

Length: 24 miles Approximate Cost: $1.524 billion

• One of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in 

Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed 

• Construct new Boulevard Station to become the 

single passenger rail station to serve Richmond 

• Close Main Street and Staples Mill Road Stations

• Relocate and consolidate all passenger service 

to the new station facility, which includes new 

platforms and parking, located adjacent to 

existing Greyhound station (station improvements 

identical to 6B–S-Line) 

• Elevated loop track at new station

• May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location

• Freight and passenger rail service operating together 

on the A-Line, CSXT's principal freight corridor, would 

increase rail congestion/delay

• Close four public roadway crossings / Grade separate 

three at-grade roadway crossings 

East Acca Yard Bypass

Acca Yard CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95

64

CSX Transportation

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Boulevard Station (Amtrak)

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

DC2RVA/Richmond to Raleigh

Track Improvements Overlap

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6B–S-Line

Boulevard Station Only, S-Line

Length: 24 miles Approximate Cost: $1.451 billion

• Second of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives 

in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed 

• Construct new Boulevard Station to become the 

single passenger rail station to serve Richmond 

• Close existing Main Street and Staples Mill 

Road Stations

• Relocate and consolidate all passenger service 

to the new station facility, which includes new 

platforms and parking, located adjacent to 

existing Greyhound station (station improvements 

identical to 6B–A-Line)

• May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

• Locating all passenger train service that stops in 

Richmond to S-Line (i.e., separate from CSXT's 

principal freight corridor) would reduce rail 

congestion/delay

• Close five public roadway crossings / Grade separate 

four at-grade roadway crossings 

Work by Others

Work by Others

SINGLE STATION ALTERNATIVES – STATION SERVICE

• Proposed Boulevard Station 

• Proposed Broad Street Station

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

29

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AR E A 

6

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND (I-295 TO CENTRALIA)

• One of five single-station alternatives in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed 

• Construct new Broad Street Station to become the 

single passenger rail station to serve Richmond 

• Close existing Main Street and Staples Mill 

Road Stations

• Relocate and consolidate all passenger service 

to the new station facility, which includes new 

platforms and parking, adjacent to Science 

Museum of Virginia

• At-grade loop track at the new station 

• Requires two new at-grade crossings on West 

Leigh Street adjacent to the station, which 

would require a variance from state code and/or 

coordination with VDOT 

• May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

• Freight and passenger rail service operating 

together on the A-Line, CSXT's principal freight 

corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay

• Close four public roadway crossings / Grade 

separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

Acca Yard

East Acca Yard Bypass

CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95

64

CSX Transportation

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Broad Street Station (Amtrak)

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6C

Broad Street Station Only

Length: 24 miles Approximate Cost: $1.489 billion

Work by Others

Work by Others

Work by Others

CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95

64

CSX Transportation

Main Street Station (Amtrak)

East Acca Yard Bypass

DC2RVA/Richmond to Raleigh Track 

Improvements Overlap

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Acca Yard

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6D

Main Street Station Only

Length: 23 miles Approximate Cost: $1.324 billion

• One of five single-station alternatives in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed 

• Improve Main Street Station to become the single 

passenger rail station to serve Richmond 

• Close existing Staples Mill Road Station

• Relocate and consolidate all passenger service 

to the modified station facility, which includes 

new platform and parking improvements

• Potential increases in passenger and freight 

delay, as proximity to I-95 prevents adding 

sufficient station platforms / track on the west 

side of the station to serve all passenger trains 

• Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

• Locating all passenger train service that stops in 

Richmond to S-Line (i.e., separate from CSXT's 

principal freight corridor) would reduce rail 

congestion/delay

• Close five public roadway crossings / Grade 

separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

Work by Others

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

31

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AR E A 

6

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND (I-295 TO CENTRALIA)

• One of three two-station alternatives in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed 

• Both existing stations remain operational

• All intercity passenger trains, including new 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) trains, that stop in Richmond 

serve an expanded Staples Mill Road Station 

(new station, platforms, and parking)

• All Northeast Regional trains to Newport News 

additionally stop at an improved Main Street 

Station (platform and parking) 

• Meets FRA requirement for CBD location

• Freight and passenger rail service operating 

together on the A-line, CSXT's principal freight 

corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay

• Close four public roadway crossings / Grade 

separate three at-grade roadway crossings

Acca Yard CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95

64

CSX Transportation

Main Street Station (Amtrak)

Staples Mill Road Station (Amtrak)

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6E 

Split Service

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Length: 26 miles Approximate Cost: $1.267 billion

• One of three two-station alternatives in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed

• A-Line used for service but does not require 

proposed track

• Both existing stations remain operational:

• Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) trains serve 

both stations

• Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) and Long 

Distance (Amtrak) trains serve Staples Mill Road 

Station only

• Station improvements at both locations include 

new / modified station buildings, platforms, 

and parking 

• Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

• Freight and passenger rail service operating 

together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight 

corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay

• Close five public roadway crossings / Grade 

separate three at-grade roadway crossings

• One of three two-station alternatives in Area 6 

• Construct one main track along portions of the 

RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through 

Richmond), with track shifts to improve speed 

• Both existing stations remain operational: 

• All intercity passenger trains, including new 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) trains, that stop in Richmond 

serve both Staples Mill Road Station and Main 

Street Station

• Improve both stations to include new 

/ modified station buildings, platforms, 

and parking 

• Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

• Locating all passenger train service that stops in 

Richmond to S-Line, (i.e., separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor) would reduce rail 

congestion/delay 

• Close five public roadway crossings / Grade 

separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

Acca Yard

DC2RVA/Richmond to Raleigh Track 

Improvements Overlap

CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95 64

CSX Transportation

Main Street Station (Amtrak)

Staples Mill Road Station (Amtrak)

East Acca Yard Bypass

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

A-Line

S-Line

Acca Yard

DC2RVA/Richmond to Raleigh Track 

Improvements Overlap

CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95 64

CSX Transportation

Main Street Station (Amtrak)

Staples Mill Road Station (Amtrak)

East Acca Yard Bypass

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6F 

Full Service 

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Length: 23 miles Approximate Cost: $1.483 billion

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6G 

Shared Service

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Length: 23 miles Approximate Cost: $1.599 billion

Work by Others

Work by Others Work by Others

• There are three two-station build alternatives in Area 6 

• All two-station alternatives use: 

• Existing Staples Mill Road Station 

• Existing Main Street Station 

• Use of the A-Line or the S -Line varies by alternative, based primarily on the ability to 

serve station locations and passenger and freight train routes

• All alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor 

(SEHSR) service to at least one station; which station, as well as Amtrak Long 

Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, 

varies by alternative. Details provided in each build alternative description as well as in 

Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS.

• One Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip terminates at Main Street Station

TWO-STATION ALTERNATIVES – STATION SERVICE

B

U

I

L

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

S

IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IMAGES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO SCALE

33

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

34

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOW DO THE RICHMOND STATION 

ALTERNATIVES AFFECT OPERATIONS 

THROUGHOUT THE CORRIDOR? 

Travel time, ridership, and on-time performance 

vary by Build Alternative depending upon the 

Richmond station alternatives, as shown in the 

table on the facing page:

• The time it takes to travel between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond is 

dependent on the number and location of 

station stops as well as the track design. 

• DC2RVA passenger train performance differs 

for the Interstate Corridor and Regional 

passenger trains: the limited-stop Interstate 

Corridor passenger trains have quicker travel 

times and better on-time performance. 

• The quickest travel time is not always the 

Build Alternative that has the most ridership 

or best on-time performance. 

• For freight trains, the greatest delay in 

the corridor would occur for the two no 

additional track Build Alternatives (in the 

Fredericksburg and Ashland areas). 

WHAT BUILD ALTERNATIVES ARE 

BEING FULLY ANALYZED IN THE 

DRAFT EIS? 

Build Alternative Annual

Travel Time 

D.C. - 

Richmond1,2

Meets On-Time 

Performance

of 90%

Serves Central 

Business District

Consistent with 

FRA and CTB Prior 

Decisions

Accommodates 

Freight Operations 

and Growth

Single-Station Alternatives

6A

Staples Mill Road 

Station Only 

(A-Line)

3 .30 1:50

6B–A-Line

Boulevard 

Station Only 

(A-Line)

3 .20 1:56

6B–S-Line

Boulevard 

Station Only 

(S-Line)

3 .20 1:56

6C

Broad Street 

Station Only 

(A-Line)

3 .16 2:01

6D

Main Street 

Station Only 

(S-Line)

3 .21 2:06

Two-Station Alternatives

6E

Split Service: 

Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street 

Stations 

3 .22 1:50

6F

Full Service: 

Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street 

Stations 

3 .26 2:15

6G

Shared Service: 

Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street 

Stations 

3 .26 2:15

1 - Draft Results; 2 - Travel times are for limited-stop southbound Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains only. Northbound Interstate Corridor trains are about 2 minutes longer. Regional trains, which make 

more stops, operate 6 to 8 minutes longer

RICHMOND STATION ALTERNATIVES EFFECT ON CORRIDOR OPERATIONS

Corridor-wide operations, such as travel time and 

on-time performance, are determined by the 

specifics of each of the eight Richmond station 

alternatives, as shown in the table below.

Currently, intercity passenger trains traveling 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond reach 

the end of their trip on the DC2RVA corridor 

on-time approximately 66% of the time – 

meaning that 34% of the trains are late. 

By increasing capacity and interoperability of the 

main tracks, the DC2RVA Project would improve 

the reliability of intercity passenger trains within 

the corridor. The added track capacity and 

additional crossovers of the DC2RVA Project 

would provide additional opportunities for 

higher-speed passenger trains to pass slowerspeed freight trains and commuter trains making 

frequent station stops. Additionally, it would allow 

trains that operate outside of the D2RVA corridor 

to closely adhere to their scheduled travel time 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond 

without incurring delays in that segment of their 

total trip.

A wide range of options were considered during the alternatives development process, the following Build Alternatives, which vary 

within each geographic area of the corridor, are included for evaluation in the Draft EIS. For each alternative, DRPT also evaluated the 

potential to realign the tracks to improve speeds. All include Build-Alternative-specific improvements to features such as stations and 

at-grade roadway crossings, as applicable.

Of those options, the alternatives described on the following pages were found to be feasible through the alternatives development process. 

WHAT ARE THE CORRIDOR-WIDE OPERATIONS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES?

Travel time, ridership, and on-time performance vary by Build Alternative depending upon the Richmond station alternatives:

• The time it takes to travel between Washing D.C. and Richmond is dependent on the number and location of station stops as well 

as the track design. DC2RVA passenger train performance differs for the Interstate Corridor + Regional passenger trains: the limitedstop passenger trains have quicker travel times and better on-time performance. 

• The alternative with the quickest travel time is not always the Build Alternative that has the most ridership or best on-time performance. 

• For freight trains, the greatest delay in the corridor would occur for the two no additional track Build Alternatives (in the Fredericksburg 

and Ashland areas).

35

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT IS BEING EVALUATED IN THE 

DC2RVA TIER II DRAFT EIS? 

Environmental resources are the elements of the 

human environment, including both natural and 

built (man-made) resources. A Draft EIS inventories 

the existing conditions of the environmental 

resources within the project area (known as 

the “affected environment”), and analyzes how 

the different Build Alternatives may affect those 

resources. The resulting potential effects of the 

project on the human environment are referred 

to as the “Environmental Consequences.” The 

effects presented in the Draft EIS are based on 

the conceptual engineering designs developed 

by DRPT for the DC2RVA Project Build Alternatives. 

The Draft EIS also considered the potential 

environmental impacts that would occur with 

the freight growth on the corridor under the No 

Build Alternative.

The study area encompasses the anticipated area 

of effects to each resource type from project 

construction and operations and therefore vary 

in size depending on the environmental resource. 

For example, the study areas for the human 

environment, noise, and air quality are typically 

larger than the natural environment boundaries. 

The larger study areas are defined by regions of 

influence in which a resource may potentially 

have noticeable project-related effects such as 

changes in regional transportation patterns. 

Regions of influence for human resources account 

for factors such as community sizes, geographical 

and political boundaries, and census boundaries. 

Natural resources are generally more affected by 

direct encroachments or physical effects of the 

built improvements such as loss of wetlands and 

other natural habitats.

The environmental resources that are included 

in the Draft EIS, as well as the analysis that was 

conducted for each resource, are listed and 

defined on the following pages, with references 

made to pertinent sections of the Draft EIS where 

additional details can be found. Note that the 

analyses listed in bold text are quantifiable, 

with results presented within the Build 

Alternative Effects tables of this document 

(see Pages 47 – 52).

PROJECT EFFECTS 3& MITIGATION

37

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

Transportation considerations include the 

roadway and rail networks as well as the interface 

where the two modes overlap, such as highwayrail crossings and access to stations. The existing 

rail corridor serves eight intercity passenger rail 

stations and crosses more than 200 public and 

private roadways, the majority of which are 

grade-separated; 55 are public at-grade crossings. 

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Project ridership effects on:

• Traffic diverted from or added to the 

regional roadway network 

• Traffic volumes on the roadways that 

provide access to intercity passenger 

rail stations 

• Parking needs at intercity passenger 

rail stations 

• Proposed crossing improvements at each 

highway-rail crossing

• Identification of effects on the 

transportation network due to proposed 

crossing improvements

• Effects of crossing closures on roadway 

and intersection volumes and operations

• Daily vehicle delay at existing at-grade 

crossings, including identification 

of any crossing that may exceed the 

total daily delay threshold (40 hours), 

which is one of FHWA’s 11 criteria for 

which grade separation of at-grade 

crossings should be considered

NATURAL RESOURCES

Natural resources include water and biologic 

resources, such as rivers, streams, wetlands, 

floodplains, wildlife, and habitats. The existing 

rail corridor is rich in natural resources, spanning 

more than 350 rivers and streams and over 50 

major floodplains; nearly one-third of the lands 

within 500 feet of the rail bed are forested and 

contain nearly 500 acres of wetlands as well as 

potential habitat for 12 species of threatened and 

endangered plants and animals.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Physical use of areas containing rivers, 

streams, and wetlands

• Effects to water quality including rivers, 

streams and drinking water resources

• Effects on floodplains

• Effects to wildlife including threatened 

and endangered species and other species 

of concern

• Physical use of habitat and effects on adjacent 

habitats including conservation lands

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.15

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.15

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Sections 3.1, 3.10

Environmental Consequences • Sections 

4.1, 4.10

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

Geologic resources include: topography, geology, 

and soils; mineral resources; and agricultural lands, 

which includes agricultural/ forestal districts 

and prime, unique, and state-wide important 

farmland soils. The landscape of the existing rail 

corridor is dominated by low rolling hills with 

sharper topography along streams and rivers. 

Approximately one-quarter of the acreage within 

500 feet of the existing rail line and proposed 

bypasses are prime and unique farmland, and 

nearly 100 acres are located within designated 

agricultural/ forestal districts. Additionally, well over 

half of the soils are very or somewhat unsuitable 

for transportation-related construction.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Effects on geology

• Project potential to alter local topography 

• Factors that should be taken into 

consideration for the construction of 

transportation projects (i.e., construction 

limiting conditions)

• Effects on or use of existing or abandoned 

mines or known mineral resource locations

• Effects on agricultural/forestal districts 

• Effects on farmland soils, including 

analysis of U.S. National Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) threshold by 

build alternative

SOLID WASTES & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Hazardous materials include substances with 

the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, 

or the environment. Solid wastes and hazardous 

materials produced or uncovered by the project 

must be disposed of per regulations specific to 

those substances. Documented reports show 

that there are just over 1,000 hazardous material 

sites and facilities within 500 feet of the existing 

rail bed. The majority of these sites are petroleum 

facilities or locations of past spills. 

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Analysis of known release sites and 

facilities that may store or produce 

hazardous materials, their proximity to 

the project, and potential for construction 

activities to disturb these locations

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Sections 3.2, 3.3 3.4

Environmental Consequences • Sections 

4.2, 4.3, 4.4

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.5

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.5

39

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

40

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NOISE & VIBRATION

Noise is defined as sound that is undesirable 

because it interferes with communication and 

sleep, or is otherwise disturbing. Vibration is an 

oscillatory motion, and it can annoy humans and 

interfere with sensitive equipment. Noise-and 

vibration-sensitive land uses within the project 

area were identified in accordance with the FRA 

and the Federal Transit Administration land use 

categories. Existing train noise measurements 

were taken at various residential and industrial 

sites along the corridor.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Determining the project effect on 

noise-sensitive land uses by category 

and severity:

• Category 1: Land where quiet is an 

essential element

• Category 2: Residences and buildings 

where people normally sleep

• Category 3: Institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime use

• Levels of Effect. No effect indicates 

project noise levels are unlikely to cause 

annoyance.  A moderate noise effect is 

a noise level increase that is noticeable to 

most people, yet generally not sufficient 

enough to cause adverse reactions.  A 

severe noise effect is a noise level increase 

that could cause annoyance to a significant 

percentage of people.

• Determining the project effect on the 

number of vibration-sensitive receptors 

by category:

• Category 1: Buildings where vibration 

would interfere with interior operations

• Category 2: Residences and buildings 

where people normally sleep

• Category 3: Institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime use

AIR QUALITY

The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish air quality 

standards for pollutants considered harmful to 

public health and the environment. As part of 

the NEPA process, transportation projects are 

evaluated to determine their potential effect on 

air quality relative to the EPA standards. All cities 

and counties along the corridor are in compliance 

with applicable national air quality standards, 

except for the Northern Virginia area. A DC2RVA 

Project Purpose is to improve air quality by 

diverting automobile and other trips to rail, as well 

as increasing the reliability and efficiency of freight 

to divert movement of goods to rail.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Project air quality effects from projectrelated locomotive emissions 

• Project air quality effects from vehicular 

traffic at existing at-grade crossings and 

around station areas 

• Project air quality effects on 

greenhouse gas emissions from all 

modes of travel 

• Project air quality effects from construction 

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.6

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.6

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.7

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.7

ENERGY

Intercity travel consumes energy regardless of 

the mode of travel: rail, air, automobile, or bus. 

Passenger rail is considered the most energy 

efficient of these modes on a Passenger Miles 

of Travel (PMT) basis. Additionally, rail is the most 

efficient ground transportation mode on a mile 

per ton basis.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Effects on intercity travel by mode

• Effects on energy consumption

AESTHETIC & VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

The DC2RVA Project corridor exhibits a wide variety 

of visual elements ranging from undisturbed 

natural lands to densely developed urban areas. 

The rail line has long been a part of the corridor’s 

landscape and includes many visual elements 

as well, including bridges over major waterways, 

stations, and other railroad structures.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Qualitative identification of potential 

changes to the visual environment, 

based on the following qualitative 

visual impact rating system:

• Low. Project elements are consistent with 

the existing visual elements in the landscape 

such as line, form, texture, and color, and 

the alternative blends with the existing 

visual character. Viewers are generally not 

very sensitive to these changes.

• Moderate. Project elements are notably 

visible in the landscape but do not dominate 

or detract from or enhance the existing 

visual features. Viewers may notice these 

changes, but the changes are generally not 

seen as negative.

• High. Project elements are obvious and 

dominate the landscape detracting from 

or enhancing the existing landscape 

characteristics or scenic qualities. Viewers 

are sensitive to these changes and may 

perceive them negatively. 

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.8

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.8

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.9

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.9

41

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

42

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMUNITY RESOURCES &

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

This category includes land uses, public facilities, 

populations, neighborhoods, and community 

cohesion, as well as consideration of employment 

trends and effects. The DC2RVA rail corridor 

includes parts of 150 census tracts. While most 

of the land use surrounding the rail corridor is 

agricultural and forest, there are approximately 

100 community facilities, including 35 religious 

facilities and 22 schools, within 1,000 feet of the 

edge of the rail line. 

Special attention is paid to Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in federal 

programs and funding. Executive Order 12898 on 

Environmental Justice directs federal agencies to 

identify and address disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects 

to minority and low-income populations.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Social and economic demographic patterns 

and trends

• Commercial relocations

• Residential relocations

• Community facility relocations

• Land use within the project area

• Project compatibility with Comprehensive 

Land Use Plans 

• Potential effects on environmental justice 

communities through: 

• Residential relocations

• Noise and vibration effects

PARK RESOURCES

Park resources include federal, state, and locally 

owned parks, outdoor recreational areas, wildlife 

refuges, and recreational trails. Resources along the 

existing rail corridor include three federal, two state, 

one regional, and 63 local parks and recreational 

areas; 19 trails; and three wildlife refuges.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Effects to parks, recreational areas, wildlife 

refuges and trails 

• Resources protected under Section 6(f) of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and 

potential effects to those Section 6(f) resources

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Sections 3.11, 3.12

Environmental Consequences • Sections 

4.11, 4.12

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.14

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.14

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Traversing some of the most historic landscapes in 

the nation, the rail corridor includes a wide range 

of cultural resources such as historic battlefields, 

homes, cemeteries, industrial sites and districts, as 

well as archaeological remains. In all 158 resources 

that are eligible for, or listed on, the National 

Register of Historic Places have been identified 

within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) 

as defined by the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA).

In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

regulations, effects to cultural resources in the 

Draft EIS were identified and evaluated by:

• Determining the APE

• Identifying cultural resources present in the 

APE that are either listed on or eligible to 

be listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP)

• Applying the criteria of effect and adverse 

effect resulting in recommendations for 

each resource of:

• No Effect. There would be no effect, 

neither adverse nor beneficial, on 

historic properties.

• No Adverse Effect. There would be 

an effect, but it is determined that the 

effect would not compromise those 

characteristics that qualify the property for 

listing on the NRHP. 

• Adverse Effect. There would be an 

effect that would compromise the physical 

and/or historic integrity of the resource. 

Archaeological sites may be “adversely 

affected” when they are threatened 

with unavoidable physical destruction 

or damage. 

SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (23 USC 138) applies 

to the use for transportation purposes of publiclyowned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges; historic sites listed on or 

eligible for listing on the NRHP regardless of 

whether the site is in public or private ownership; 

and all archaeological sites listed on or eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP, excluding those for which 

there is minimal value to preservation in place 

as determined by the FRA in consultation with 

the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 

Examples of each of these protected resources are 

found along the rail corridor, including the historic 

rail line itself.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes: 

• Identification of resources protected 

under Section 4(f)

• Identification of Section 4(f) use (i.e., effects) of 

those resources

• Discussion of de minimis effects, measures to 

minimize harm, avoidance alternatives, and 

Section 4(f) related coordination

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.13

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.13

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.14 

Section 4(f) Evaluation • Chapter 5

43

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SAFETY & SECURITY

Safety considerations along the corridor include 

the operations of the freight, commuter and 

intercity passenger services operating on the 

corridor today, as well as the projected future 

increases. Safety is also a major consideration for 

vehicular operations at the 79 public and private 

at-grade crossings. Security considerations include 

existing stations and rail yards, as well as along the 

railroad right-of-way.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Qualitative assessment of safety and security 

along the project corridor

PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY

FRA is the primary authorized agency for railway 

safety. FRA administers safety regulations over all 

aspects of rail operations along the existing corridor.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Qualitative assessment of public health and 

safety for passengers, employees, construction 

workers, residents, pedestrians, and the 

motoring public along the project corridor

Refer to: 

Affected Environment • Section 3.17

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.18

Refer to: 

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.17

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Construction impacts associated with the 

proposed transportation project are by definition 

those effects that are temporary or short-term in 

nature and that occur only during construction.

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Identification of construction effects associated 

with rail, land use and access, air quality, noise, 

water resources, wildlife, and habitat

INDIRECT & CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The corridor connects several of the most rapidly 

developing regions in Virginia - where residential, 

commercial, industrial, and other transportation 

projects are constantly emerging. 

Indirect effects are those effects, positive or 

negative, that are caused by an action and occur 

later in time or are farther removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable, such as 

those related to induced changes in the pattern 

of land use, population density or growth rate, 

and related effects on natural resources. The 

qualitative analysis of indirect effects included 

in the Draft EIS follows the seven-step process 

based on the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Report 466, and is consistent 

with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

FHWA regulations for implementing NEPA.

Cumulative effects are defined as the effects, 

positive or negative, on the environment which 

result from the incremental effect of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative effects can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over time. The qualitative analysis of indirect 

and cumulative effects included in the Draft 

EIS uses a multi-part process based on CEQ and 

FHWA guidance.

IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Construction of transportation projects requires 

certain irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

of natural resources, manpower, materials, and 

fiscal resources. 

Analysis in the Draft EIS includes:

• Qualitative assessment of the Project’s 

commitment of resources

Refer to: 

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.19

Refer to: 

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.20

Refer to: 

Environmental Consequences • Section 4.22

45

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

46

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF 

EACH BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

ON THE NATURAL AND 

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT?

This section of the Executive Summary provides 

an overview of how the DC2RVA Project would 

affect the built and natural environments. The 

effects are presented for each Build Alternative, 

by environmental resource. It is the intent of this 

section to summarize key results that differentiate 

the Build Alternatives and assist in the decisions 

to be made. There is a more detailed summary 

of DC2RVA Project effects for each environmental 

discipline evaluated in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. 

All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., 

not temporary disturbances due to construction 

activities). Any “Change” shown compares 2025 

Build Alternatives to 2025 No Build conditions. Air 

Quality and Energy are analyzed for each of the 

station alternatives in Richmond.

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES NATURAL RESOURCES

Proposed Crossing Improvements: 

Public At-Grade Crossings

New 

Public 

Crossings

Proposed Crossing Improvements: 

Private At-Grade Crossings

New 

Private 

Crossings

Roadway 

Travel 

Patterns:

(% Change in 

Traffic, Adjacent 

Roadways at 

Stations)

At-Grade Crossing

Impacts:

Total Daily Delay Wetland 

Impacts

(Acres)

Floodplains 

Impacts

(Acres)

Stream 

& River 

Crossings

(Linear Feet)

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species and 

Habitat

(Presence 

Yes/No)

Grade 

Separated Closure

Four 

Quad 

Gates

Median 

Treatment

No 

Action Closure

Four 

Quad 

Gates

Locking 

Gate

No 

Action

% Change

(No Build

to Build)

Crossing 

that Exceed

FHWA

40-hour

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0.02 0.3 0 No

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0.1 0 No

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0.01 0.1 0 No

0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 <1% -1% 0 5.19 15.1 7,198 Yes

0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7-8%

6% 0 5.24 7.7 1,101 Yes

1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -60% 0 5.29 10.5 1,506 Yes

0 0 5 4 0 5 1 0 4 0 4 -10% 0 23.82 8.0 4,597 Yes

0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 n/a -6% 0 8.39 17.2 3,627 Yes

2 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<1%

-24% 1 0.41 5.9 6,928 Yes

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -24% 0 0.41 7.1 6,928 Yes

2 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -26% 1 0.41 6.5 9,114 Yes

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -26% 0 0.45 10.7 9,101 Yes

0 1 9 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 7 -87% 0 8.44 9.2 9,005 Yes

0 0 10 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 7 -87% 0 8.48 10.4 9,005 Yes

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -26% 0 0.45 11.5 8,163 Yes

3 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% -66% 0 3.21 8.1 7,523 Yes

3 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

5%

-66% 0 2.91 11.3 9,650 Yes

4 5 4 3 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 -76% 0 3.47 48.6 8,819 Yes

3 4 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5% -38% 0 2.99 16.1 10,886 Yes

3 5 4 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 4% -59% 0 3.47 51.9 8,819 Yes

3 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-2% -66% 0 3.31 22.2 7,952 Yes

3 5 4 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1-2% -59% 0 3.52 50.7 8,869 Yes

3 5 4 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1-2% -60% 0 3.74 48.1 8,235 Yes

4.15 4.1 4.10

Area 

#

Area Name and 

CSX Milepost 

Limits

Alternative Description

Additional 

ROW

(Acres)

1

Arlington

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

CFP 110 - 109.3

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0.0

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 1.5

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0.4

2

Northern 

Virginia

CFP 109.3 - 62

2A Add One Track/

Improve Existing Track 33.0

3

Fredericksburg

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

CFP 62 - 48

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 2.2

3B Add One Track Through Town

East of Existing 19.8

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 140.5

4

Central Virginia

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

CFP 48 - 19

4A Add One Track/

Improve Existing Track 2.4

5

Ashland

(Doswell to I-295)

CFP 19 - 9

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 21.9

5A-A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 20.5

5B Add One Track Through Town

East of Existing 29.4

5B-A

Add One Track Through Town

East of Existing

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)

29.9

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 147.8

5C-A Add Two-Track West Bypass

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 146.4

5D-A

Three Tracks Centered Through Town

(Add One Track, 

Relocate Station to Ashcake)

36.4

6

Richmond

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

CFP 9 - A 011

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 76.0

6B-A Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 101.0

6B-S Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 78.7

6C Broad Street Station Only 128.1

6D Main Street Station Only 73.7

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations 89.1

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations 83.0

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations 81.0

For more information, refer to the following Draft EIS Sections:

Area 

#

Area Name and 

CSX Milepost 

Limits

Alternative Description

Additional 

ROW

(Acres)

1

Arlington

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

CFP 110 - 109.3

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0.0

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 1.5

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0.4

2

Northern 

Virginia

CFP 109.3 - 62

2A Add One Track/

Improve Existing Track 33.0

3

Fredericksburg

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

CFP 62 - 48

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 2.2

3B Add One Track Through Town

East of Existing 19.8

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 140.5

4

Central Virginia

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

CFP 48 - 19

4A Add One Track/

Improve Existing Track 2.4

5

Ashland

(Doswell to I-295)

CFP 19 - 9

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 21.9

5A-A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 20.5

5B Add One Track Through Town

East of Existing 29.4

5B-A

Add One Track Through Town

East of Existing

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)

29.9

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 147.8

5C-A Add Two-Track West Bypass

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 146.4

5D-A

Three Tracks Centered Through Town

(Add One Track, 

Relocate Station to Ashcake)

36.4

6

Richmond

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

CFP 9 - A 011

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 76.0

6B-A Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 101.0

6B-S Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 78.7

6C Broad Street Station Only 128.1

6D Main Street Station Only 73.7

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations 89.1

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations 83.0

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations 81.0

For more information, refer to the following Draft EIS Sections:

95

95

Alternative Area 1 Arlington

(Long Bridge Approach)

Alternative Area 5

Ashland

Alternative Area 6

Richmond

Alternative Area 2

Northern Virginia

Alternative Area 3

Fredericksburg

Alternative Area 4

Central Virginia

A-Line

S-Line

47

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

48

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Area 

#

Area Name and 

CSX Milepost Limits Alternative Description

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ConstructionLimiting Soils

(Presence Yes/No)

Prime Farmland

Agricultural & 

Forestal Districts 

(Acres)

Superfund/

CERCLA 

Sites

Recorded 

Release/ 

Potential 

Contamination 

Sites

HAZMAT 

Facilities

Petroleum 

Storage 

Soils Tanks

(Acres)

NRCS 

Form 106 

Score

(points)

1

Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

CFP 110 - 109.3

1A Add Two Tracks on the East Unknown/ 

Not Rated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1B Add Two Tracks on the West Unknown/ 

Not Rated 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

1C Add One Track East and One Track West Unknown/ 

Not Rated 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

2

Northern 

Virginia

CFP 109.3 - 62

2A Add One Track/

Improve Existing Track Yes 53.56 66 0 0 12 2 1

3

Fredericksburg

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

CFP 62 - 48

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town Yes 26.84 80 0 1 7 0 0

3B Add One Track East of Existing Yes 34.01 80 0 0 10 4 3

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East Yes 69.05 118 0 0 11 1 1

4

Central Virginia

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

CFP 48 - 19

4A Add One Track/

Improve Existing Track Yes 99.17 93 0 1 0 0 0

5

Ashland

(Doswell to I-295) 

CFP 19 - 9

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town Yes 27.18 51 0 0 5 0 1

5A-A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) Yes 28.04 46 0 0 5 0 1

5B Add One Track East of Existing Yes 31.20 51 0 0 5 1 3

5B-A Add One Track East of Existing 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) Yes 33.82 51 0 0 5 1 3

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass Yes 89.83 171 73.7 0 5 0 2

5C-A Add Two-Track West Bypass

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) Yes 90.88 171 73.7 0 5 0 2

5D-A

Three Tracks Centered Through Town

(Add One Track, 

Relocate Station to Ashcake)

Yes 39.38 52 0 0 8 1 5

6

Richmond

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

CFP 9 - A 011

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only Yes 45.20 29 0 0 13 4 7

6B-A Boulevard Station Only, A-Line Yes 49.04 23 0 0 23 4 14

6B-S Boulevard Station Only, S-Line Yes 30.79 22 0 0 39 7 8

6C Broad Street Station Only Yes 49.93 22 0 0 27 6 16

6D Main Street Station Only Yes 30.93 22 0 1 40 6 6

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations Yes 45.20 24 0 1 17 6 7

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations Yes 31.78 19 0 1 38 6 5

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations Yes 32.48 19 0 1 38 6 5

For more information, refer to the following Draft EIS Sections: 4.2 4.3 4.5

AIR QUALITY NOISE & VIBRATION

CO2 Emissions 

(Tons per Year),

 Change Compared to 

No Build

Impacted Noise Receptors Impacted Vibration Receptors

Category 1 

Moderate

Category 1 

Severe

Category 2 

Moderate

Category 2 

Severe

Category 3 

Moderate

Category 3 

Severe Total Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total

– 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

– 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

– 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

– 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 0 15 0 15

– 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 0 0 0 0

– 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 0 0 0 0

– 2 1 2,392 1,524 8 5 3,932 0 43 0 43

– 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 0 2 0 2

– 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 0 25 1 26

– 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 0 25 1 26

– 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 0 30 1 31

– 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 0 30 1 31

– 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 0 35 1 36

– 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 0 35 1 36

– 1 0 135 18 1 4 159 0 30 1 31

-6,696 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 0 8 0 8

-6,003 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 0 8 0 8

-6,003 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8

-5,663 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 0 8 0 8

-5,947 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8

-6,051 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 0 8 0 8

-6,518 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8

-6,869 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 0 8 0 8

4.6 4.7

– : Analyzed by each of the Richmond station alternatives

49

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

50

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PARKLAND 

RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

Park Impacts 

(# Resources/ 

Acres Impacted)

Effects on 

Archaeological Sites

Effects on Buildings, 

Districts, Structures and 

Objects 

Effects on 

Battlefields

Parkland Resources 

De Minimis

(# Resources/ 

Acres Impacted)

Wildlife Refuges

(# Resources/ 

Acres Impacted)

Historic 

Resources (Use)

Historic Resources

(De Minimis)

0/0 0 1 0 0/0 0/0 1 1

1/1.45 0 1 0 1/1.45 0/0 1 1

1/0.36 0 1 0 1/0.36 0/0 1 1

1/0.04 0 1 0 1/0.04 0/0 1 6

0/0 0 1 0 0/0 0/0 0 0

0/0 1 4 0 0/0 0/0 3 10

0/0 0 1 0 0/0 0/0 1 3

0/0 0 3 0 0/0 0/0 3 10

0/0 0 0 0 0/0 0/0 0 0

1/0.01 0 0 0 1/0.01 0/0 0 4

1/0.03 0 7 0 1/0.03 0/0 3 11

2/0.04 0 7 0 2/0.04 0/0 3 11

0/0 0 1 0 0/0 0/0 1 3

1/0.01 0 1 0 1/0.01 0/0 1 3

1/0.01 0 7 0 1/0.01 0/0 3 11

1/0.19 0 8 0 1/0.19 0/0 4 36

1/0.19 0 16 0 1/0.19 0/0 5 25

1/0.17 3 13 0 1/0.17 0/0 8 30

1/0.19 0 16 0 1/0.19 0/0 5 28

1/0.17 3 7 0 1/0.17 0/0 7 36

1/0.19 0 7 0 1/0.19 0/0 3 47

1/0.17 3 7 0 1/0.17 0/0 7 35

1/0.17 3 10 0 1/0.17 0/0 7 43

4.14 4.13 Chapter 5

Area 

#

Area Name and 

CSX Milepost Limits Alternative Description

ENERGY

AESTHETICS 

& VISUAL 

ENVIRONMENT

COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Energy Consumption 

(Billions of BTUs),

Change Compared to 

No Build

Visual Impact Rating

(Low, Medium, or High)

Commercial 

Relocations

Residential 

Relocations

Compatability 

with 

Comprehensive 

Land Use Plans

(Yes/No)

Environmental 

Justice Census 

Tracks with 

Residential 

Relocations

1

Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

CFP 110 - 109.3

1A Add Two Tracks on the East – Low 0 0 Yes 0

1B Add Two Tracks on the West – Low 0 0 Yes 0

1C Add One Track East and One Track West – Low 0 0 Yes 0

2

Northern 

Virginia

CFP 109.3 - 62

2A Add One Track/ 

Improve Existing Track – Low-Medium 0 2 Yes 0

3

Fredericksburg

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

CFP 62 - 48

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town – Low 0 0 Yes 0

3B Add One Track East of Existing – High 1 0 Yes 0

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East – High 1 19 No 2

4

Central Virginia

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

CFP 48 - 19

4A Add One Track/ 

Improve Existing Track – Low 0 0 Yes 0

5

Ashland

(Doswell to I-295)

CFP 19 - 9

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town – Medium 1 0 Yes 0

5A-A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) – Medium 1 0 Yes 0

5B Add One Track East of Existing – Medium 1 0 Yes 0

5B-A Add One Track East of Existing 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) – Medium 1 0 Yes 0

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass – High 1 21 No 1

5C-A Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) – High 1 21 No 1

5D-A

Three Tracks Centered Through Town 

(Add One Track, 

Relocate Station to Ashcake)

– Medium 1 0 Yes 0

6

Richmond

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

CFP 9 ww- A 011

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only -307 Low-Medium 10 12 Yes 2

6B-A Boulevard Station Only, A-Line -277 Low-High 18 12 Yes 2

6B-S Boulevard Station Only, S-Line -277 Low-High 10 7 Yes 0

6C Broad Street Station Only -265 Low-High 15 112 Yes 3

6D Main Street Station Only -280 Low-High 10 7 Yes 0

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations -286 Low-High 10 12 Yes 2

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations -293 Low-High 10 7 Yes 0

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations -299 Low-High 10 7 Yes 0

For more information, refer to the following Draft EIS Sections: 4.8 4.9 4.11 4.12

– : Analyzed by each of the Richmond station alternatives

51

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOW ARE THE EFFECTS TO 

THE ENVIRONMENT REDUCED 

OR MITIGATED?

Effects to the natural and built environments were 

avoided or minimized where feasible as part of 

the conceptual engineering that was conducted 

in support of the Draft EIS. Where negative 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, or 

when no other reasonable or feasible alternative 

is available, the effects are mitigated where 

required. Mitigation can be accomplished through 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment. Sometimes effects are compensated 

for by replacing or providing substitute resources.

Mitigation will continue to be addressed 

throughout the NEPA process. Specific mitigations 

identified for consideration to date in the Draft EIS 

include the following:

• Natural Resources: For every wetland acre 

that is destroyed, compensatory wetlands 

must be created or purchased from a 

wetland bank. Use of Best Management 

Practices would ensure sufficient measures 

are employed during and after construction. 

Construction would be regulated to adhere 

to a strict schedule with possible time-of-year 

restrictions as necessary.

• Geologic Resources: Minimization was 

considered throughout the alternatives 

development process to compensate for 

limiting soil characteristics.

• Hazardous Materials: Any hazardous 

material discovered will be removed and 

disposed of in compliance with all applicable 

federal, state, and local regulations. All 

necessary remediation would be conducted 

in compliance with applicable federal, state, 

and local environmental laws and would be 

coordinated with the EPA, Virginia DEQ, and 

other federal or state agencies as necessary. All 

solid waste material resulting from clearing and 

grubbing, demolition, or other construction 

operations would be removed and disposed 

of according to regulations. 

• Air Quality: Dust and airborne dirt generated 

by construction activities will be controlled 

through dust control procedures or a specific 

dust control plan in accordance with the 

provisions on fugitive dust control in the VDOT 

Road and Bridge Specifications.

• Noise & Vibration: Use of continuously 

welded rail can reduce the effects of noise 

and vibration from train operations and/or 

use of buffer zones between the tracks and 

receptors. Additionally, FHWA’s “supplemental 

and alternative safety measures” (SSMs) 

can compensate for the absence of the 

train horn safety requirements at at-grade 

crossings. Therefore, it is not anticipated that 

DC2RVA Project would adversely affect any 

existing or future Quiet Zone designations 

because improvements that qualify as SSMs 

are proposed at all existing public at-grade 

crossings, including those with existing Quiet 

Zone designations. The FRA Office of Safety 

authorizes quiet zones, which are voluntary by 

the operating railroad. 

• Visual: Visual impact would be minimized 

through the construction of any new rail 

structures to generally reflect the horizontal 

and vertical profiles of existing structures.

• Community Resources: The acquisition 

of railroad right-of-way and the relocation 

of displaced persons and businesses would 

be conducted in accordance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended. Assurance is given that relocation 

resources would be available to residential, 

business, farm, and nonprofit displacees 

without discrimination.

• Environmental Justice: Where avoidance 

is not possible, coordination with affected 

communities would be conducted where any 

disproportionate effects are identified.

• Park Resources: Where avoidance of park 

resources is not possible, Section 4(f) and 

Section 6(f) regulations will be followed, 

as applicable.

• Cultural Resources: Where avoidance of 

historic properties is not possible, Section 106 

stipulations will be followed.

53

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT IS DRPT’S RECOMMENDED 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE?

DRPT developed and evaluated rail alignment 

build alternatives in the six geographic alternative 

areas shown on the figure on the facing page. 

DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative 

also includes a service plan that would add nine 

additional daily intercity passenger round trips 

(18 trains per day). The new service would be 

incorporated into Amtrak’s intercity passenger 

rail network. DRPT’s service plan also proposes a 

maximum authorized speed for the corridor of 90 

mph (where practicable), and improved reliability 

of the intercity passenger train service.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative is a 

combination of one Build Alternative from each 

of the six alternative areas to form a contiguous 

“best-fit” alternative for the DC2RVA corridor, 

with the exception of two areas where further 

consideration is required: Area 1 (Arlington) and 

Area 5 (Ashland). A summary discussion of DRPT’s 

Recommended Preferred Alternative for each area 

is provided in the following pages. (See Chapter 7 

of the Draft EIS.) 

WHY IS DRPT RECOMMENDING

A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE?

DRPT is identifying a Recommended Preferred 

Alternative as part of the DC2RVA Tier II Draft 

EIS in order to provide the public with a clear 

understanding of DRPT’s conclusions at this project 

milestone. FRA will fully consider comments 

received on DRPT’s Recommended Preferred 

Alternative from the Draft EIS, or any subsequent 

additional analysis if required, and will confirm a 

selected Preferred Alternative for the full DC2RVA 

corridor in the Final EIS and ROD. 

DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative is 

non-binding. DRPT invites the public, elected 

officials, and agencies to provide comments 

on the Draft EIS and DRPT’s Recommended 

Preferred Alternative. After reviewing all of the 

comments received on the Draft EIS and DRPT’s 

Recommended Preferred Alternative, DRPT will 

finalize the Preferred Alternative. In addition, DRPT 

will provide the CTB with a full summary of the 

comments received. DRPT anticipates that the 

CTB will formally identify the Commonwealth 

of Virginia’s Preferred Alternative as a 

recommendation for FRA to consider and confirm 

in the Final EIS and ROD for the DC2RVA Project.

DRPT RECOMMENDED 4PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

95

95

Alexandria Station

Woodbridge Station

Quantico Station

Fredericksburg Station

Ashland Station

Staples Mill Road Station

Main Street Station

ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON (LONG BRIDGE APPROACH)

Location: CFP 110 - CFP 109.3

Recommendation: Retain Alternative 1A, 1B, and 1C to 

 support a deferred selection until after completion of

 Long Bridge Study 

Approximate Length: 1 Mile

Approximate Cost Range: $36-47 Million (2025)

All alternatives have similar impacts (within existing ROW) and equally 

support expanded rail service. Deferring decision maximizes exibility of 

Long Bridge Study solutions.

ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA

Location: CFP 109.3 - CFP 062

Recommendation: Alternative 2A - Third or Fourth Track

Approximate Length: 47.3 Miles

Approximate Cost: $1.7 Billion (2025)

Avoids impacts to extent practicable (generally within existing ROW) while 

providing additional required rail capacity. Includes unavoidable impacts 

associated with several new bridge crossings.

ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG

Location: CFP 062 - CFP 048

Recommendation: Alternative 3B Additional Third Main 

Track through City

Approximate Length: 14 Miles

Approximate Cost: $507 Million (2025)

Maximizes ability to add train service and improve reliability, while 

minimizing overall cost and impacts (fewer relocations/wetlands impacts). 

Includes unavoidable impacts associated with historic properties and 

crossing of Rappahannock River. 

ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA

Location: CFP 048 - CFP 019

Recommendation: Alternative 4A Additional Third Track

Approximate Length: 29 Miles

Approximate Cost: $643 Million (2025)

Avoids impacts to extent practicable (generally within existing ROW) while 

providing additional required rail capacity. Includes some unavoidable 

impacts associated with the location of the additional track on either the 

east or west side of existing alignment. 

ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND

Location: CFP 019 - CFP 009

Recommendation: Additional study of rail capacity

 improvements

Approximate Length: 10-11 Miles

Defer selection of a Recommended Preferred Alternative until the Final EIS. 

To provide greater opportunity for community and stakeholder input into 

the Preferred Alternative, DRPT has created the Town of Ashland / Hanover 

County Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC will look at the 

alternatives developed in this Draft EIS, as well as any new alternatives 

generated by the additional study. 

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND

Location: CFP 009 - A011 Centralia

Recommendation: Alternative 6F - Main Street Station

 and Staples Mill Road Station

 Full Service with S-Line Improvements

Approximate Length: 23 Miles

Approximate Cost: $1.5 Billion (2025)

The only Richmond Build Alternative that fully meets the Purpose and 

Need. Provides most exible service options. Reduces conicts of passenger 

operations with freight and makes stations most accessible to riders.

55

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

56

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON 

(LONG BRIDGE APPROACH)

CFP 110 – 109.3

DRPT has determined that any of the three Build 

Alternatives in the Arlington area (Alternatives 1A, 1B 

and 1C) are acceptable and will meet the Purpose 

and Need of the DC2RVA Project. Retaining 

each of the three Build Alternatives will support a 

deferred selection of a Preferred Alternative until 

the completion of the Long Bridge EIS.

DISCUSSION

This less than one-mile-long section of the 

DC2RVA corridor provides the transition between 

the DC2RVA corridor and the approach to the Long 

Bridge across the Potomac River. DRPT is working 

with DDOT and the FRA to evaluate possible 

alternatives for increasing the rail corridor’s capacity 

across the Potomac River via Long Bridge as part of 

a separate study (Long Bridge Rail Capacity Study). 

DRPT anticipates that a decision on the preferred 

alternative for the Long Bridge study to be 

completed in 2019. The DC2RVA Project assumes 

that expanded capacity across the Potomac River 

will be required to accommodate both the future 

year No Build and Build service plans expanded 

service south of Washington, D.C.

In this Draft EIS, DRPT is evaluating three different 

configurations for the short section of track at the 

Potomac River, which will become the connection 

between the Long Bridge preferred alternative and 

the DC2RVA corridor. The maximum authorized 

speed in this section is designed for 45 mph where 

feasible. DRPT considered the environmental, 

social, and economic impacts of each of the three 

build alternatives, in addition to each alternative’s 

ability to meet the Purpose and Need for the 

DC2RVA Project. DRPT determined that each of 

the three alternatives is very similar in their impacts 

and there are no overriding issues which would 

drive DRPT to select one over the other. Therefore, 

to avoid unnecessarily limiting the options that 

could be considered as part of the separate DDOT 

Long Bridge study, DRPT determined that any of

the three build alternatives would be acceptable, 

and recommends retaining all three Build 

Alternatives in order to support a deferred 

selection of a DC2RVA Preferred Alternative to 

physically align with the preferred alignment of 

the Long Bridge study. 

DRPT is participating as a cooperating agency in 

the Long Bridge Study and will more fully discuss 

the selection of a Preferred Alternative for Area 1 in 

the DC2RVA Final EIS. 

AR E A 

1

P

R

E

F

E

R

R

E

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA

CFP 109.3 – 62

DRPT recommends Build Alternative 2A: 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track as 

the Recommended Preferred Alternative in the 

Northern Virginia area. This would result in a fourth 

track between Arlington and Alexandria, and a 

third track south of Alexandria, generally within 

existing CSXT railroad right-of-way.

DISCUSSION

DRPT determined that additional rail capacity is 

required in the Northern Virginia area to increase 

train service and improve reliability. The Draft 

EIS evaluates the impacts of a single alternative: 

constructing one additional main line track 

adjacent to the existing tracks to create at least 

three interoperable main tracks. DRPT determined 

that this alternative would generally be within 

the existing CSXT railroad right-of-way and 

avoids impacts to the extent practicable. Due 

to constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible. 

This alternative does have some unavoidable 

environmental impacts, including those associated 

with several new bridge crossings.

AR E A 

2

P

R

E

F

E

R

R

E

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2A 

Add One Track/improve Existing Track

Length: 47.3 miles Cost: $1.653 billion

95

CFP 100

CFP 90

CFP 80

CFP 110

Quantico Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Alexandria Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Woodbridge Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Lorton Station (VRE only)

Rippon Station (VRE only)

Potomac Shores Station (Proposed)

(VRE only)

Brooke Station (VRE only)

Leeland Road Station (VRE only)

(VRE only)

Arkendale Third Track

Under Construction

Existing 3 Tracks

Additional Track Planned

under Atlantic Gateway 

Franconia to Occoquan

Additional track planned 

under Atlantic Gateway

Arlington to AF interlocking

Additional track planned 

under Long Bridge Rail 

Capacity Study

George Washington Memorial Pkwy

Long Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1A

Add Two Tracks on the East

Length: 0.7 miles Cost: $35.6 million

George Washington Memorial Pkwy

Long Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1C

Add One Track East and One Track West

Length: 0.7 miles Cost: $42.3 million

George Washington Memorial Pkw

Lo

y

ng Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1B 

Add Two Tracks on the West

Length: 0.7 miles Cost: $46.6 million

Work by Others

57

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: 

FREDERICKSBURG

CFP 62 – 48

DRPT recommends Build Alternative 3B: Add 

One Track East of Existing alignment through 

the city of Fredericksburg, which is primarily 

located within existing CSXT railroad right-of-way, 

in the Fredericksburg area.

DISCUSSION

DRPT evaluated three options in the Fredericksburg 

area. The Recommended Preferred Alternative 

(Build Alternative 3B) would add the capacity 

needed to add train service and improve reliability. 

Due to constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3A would maintain the existing 

two tracks through Fredericksburg without adding 

the capacity needed to increase and improve train 

service. Build Alternative 3C would add capacity via 

a two-track bypass to the east of Fredericksburg. 

However, DRPT concludes that, compared with 

the third line through Fredericksburg, the bypass 

alternative would have far greater cost and would 

result in more relocations and impacts to the 

natural environment.

While the Recommended Preferred Alternative’s 

impacts to historic properties would be greater 

than those of the two other alternatives, it remains 

primarily within the existing CSXT right-of-way, 

and its impacts to wetlands and residential and 

commercial properties would be substantially 

lower than the bypass alternative. Both Build 

Alternatives with additional track include new 

bridge crossings of the Rappahannock River. The 

construction costs for Build Alternative 3B would 

be less than the bypass, and Build Alternative 

3B is included in the City of Fredericksburg 

Comprehensive Plan. In summary, DRPT prefers 

Build Alternative 3B, adding one track in the 

existing alignment through the city, because 

it remains primarily within the existing CSXT 

right-or-way and minimizes impacts and costs 

while still providing improved operations for the 

DC2RVA corridor.

AR E A 

3

P

R

E

F

E

R

R

E

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: 

CENTRAL VIRGINIA

CFP 48 – 19

DRPT recommends Build Alternative 4A: Add 

One Track/Improve Existing Track, which is 

generally within CSXT railroad right-of-way, as 

the Recommended Preferred Alternative in the 

Central Virginia area.

DISCUSSION

DRPT determined that additional rail capacity is 

required in the Central Virginia area to increase train 

service and improve reliability. Based on geography 

throughout this area, this section is most suitable 

for higher-speed passenger rail service. The Draft 

EIS evaluates the impacts of constructing one 

additional main line track adjacent to the existing 

tracks, identified as Build Alternative 4A. DRPT 

prefers this alternative because it would generally 

be within the existing CSXT railroad right-of-way, 

avoids impacts to the extent practicable, and 

provides the greatest contiguous section along 

the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum authorized 

speed up to 90 mph.

Existing 3 Tracks

CFP 50

CFP 60

Spotsylvania Station (VRE)

Fredericksburg Station (Amtrak & VRE)

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3B

Add One Track East of Existing

Length: 14 miles Cost: $506.9 million

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4A 

Add One Track / Improve Existing Track

Length: 29 miles Cost: $643.2 million

95

1

Caroline 

County

Hanover

County

Caroline 

County

Ruther 

Glen

Milford

Arcadia

Athens

Bowling 

Green

 Doswell

CFP 040

CFP 030

CFP 020

CFP 019

CFP 048

59

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

AR E A 

4

P

R

E

F

E

R

R

E

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

60

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND 

CFP 19 – 9

DRPT recommends additional study of rail capacity 

improvements through Alternative Area 5 and 

deferred selection of a Preferred Alternative, which 

will be recommended for inclusion in the Final EIS.

DISCUSSION

DRPT considered more than 26 different options 

and alternatives for adding rail capacity in Ashland 

and evaluated 7 build alternatives in this Draft 

EIS. During the course of preparing this Draft EIS, 

DRPT met with the Town of Ashland, Hanover 

County, the public, and other stakeholders, and 

conducted a tour of the Ashland area with the 

Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). In 

addition, DRPT received numerous comments and 

input from stakeholders in the Town of Ashland 

and Hanover County communities, as well as 

Randolph-Macon College.

Based on analysis to-date, DRPT has concluded 

the following: • The existing railroad ROW through Ashland 

is limited and any alternative which adds a 

new track or new infrastructure will require 

additional ROW. 

• The Town of Ashland, Hanover County, and 

other community stakeholders have requested 

additional opportunities to be engaged 

in evaluating alternatives and developing 

possible mitigation strategies for the Ashland 

/ Hanover County area. 

• All seven build alternatives evaluated in the 

Draft EIS (Section 2.5.5.2) provide a reasonable 

range of alternatives that meet the Purpose 

and Need of the Project.

• Additional stakeholder input would 

benefit DRPT’s analysis and inform their 

Recommended Preferred Alternative meeting 

the DC2RVA Purpose and Need through the 

Ashland area.

• DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative 

for the Central Virginia and Richmond areas 

are neither contingent on nor do they limit any 

one specific alternative for the Ashland area.

DRPT has not identified a Recommended 

Preferred Alternative for the Ashland area of 

the DC2RVA corridor in this Draft EIS. DRPT 

recognizes that each of the proposed Build 

Alternatives would have adverse consequences 

on the citizens and resources of the Town of 

Ashland or Hanover County, and there is no local 

consensus or preference for a build alternative. 

DRPT has determined that expanded community 

involvement would inform decision-making. 

Based on these conclusions, DRPT has deferred the 

selection of a Recommended Preferred Alternative 

in the Ashland area until the Final EIS for the 

DC2RVA Project. To provide the community and 

stakeholders a greater opportunity for input into 

the recommendation for a Preferred Alternative 

DRPT has established the Town of Ashland/

Hanover County Community Advisory Committee 

(CAC). The CAC will take a fresh look at alternatives 

on the rail corridor through Ashland, including 

review of all previously considered alternatives 

and any new alternatives identified by the CAC. 

To provide transparency, DRPT will make the CAC 

meetings open to the public and will document 

the CAC results and all meeting minutes and 

other decision-documents as part of the public 

record for the Final EIS. At the conclusion of the 

CAC process, DRPT will recommend a Preferred 

Alternative for the Ashland area in the Final EIS.

AR E A 5PREFERREDALTERNATIVE

61

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

62

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AR E A 

6

P

R

E

F

E

R

R

E

D

A

L

T

E

R

N

A

T

I

V

E

Manual states that “(each) city should have a station 

located in or near the central business district”. 

DRPT is committed to maximizing the value of 

intercity passenger rail by connecting the DC2RVA 

corridor to the governmental, commercial, and 

residential population in downtown Richmond. 

However, DRPT also recognizes that the Richmond 

area’s Staples Mill Road Station in suburban 

Henrico County currently has the highest ridership 

volumes of any passenger rail station in Virginia, 

in part due to the higher level of train service at 

the station.

Based on the cost estimates, levels of impact 

and ridership projections, DRPT determined that 

having both a downtown station and a suburban 

station will provide the Commonwealth and the 

Richmond region with the most flexible service. 

The Staples Mill Road Station could continue to 

serve as the Amtrak crew change location with 

baggage handling and parking, eliminating the 

need for these services at Main Street Station. 

Therefore, extended station stop dwell times 

would not be required at Main Street Station 

and shorter platforms could be utilized, reducing 

passenger train congestion at the station and 

minimizing physical impacts to the station area. 

In addition, Main Street Station could provide 

for convenient connection to Richmond’s transit 

system, including multiple bus routes and the new 

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system under construction 

along Broad Street.

Therefore, DRPT has determined that Build 

Alternative 6F is the Recommended Preferred 

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: 

RICHMOND

CFP 9 – A 011

DRPT recommends Build Alternative 6F: Full 

Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

as the Recommended Preferred Alternative for the 

Richmond area.

DISCUSSION

DRPT evaluated two primary route alignment 

alternatives for the Richmond area, with one 

passing west of downtown on the CSXT A-Line 

and another passing through downtown via 

the CSXT S-Line, to determine which route was 

best capable of providing the capacity required 

to support the DC2RVA Purpose and Need. In 

addition to the routing options, DRPT evaluated 

four unique station locations with eight different 

station service alternatives in the Richmond area 

serving multiple route and station combinations. 

The track maximum authorized speed is ≤ 79 

mph, with top speeds of 40 mph through the Acca 

Yard area. To develop the most viable alternatives, 

DRPT engaged in discussions with CSXT, the City 

of Richmond, Henrico County, and Chesterfield 

County, as well as the Richmond Transportation 

Planning Organization. In addition, DRPT held 

three public meetings in Richmond. 

DRPT recognizes that a major advantage of 

passenger rail is the capability to provide the 

traveling public with a connection to Richmond’s 

downtown. Both the FRA and Amtrak also 

recognize the importance of a connection to the 

urban core. The FRA’s Corridor Planning Guidance 

Alternative for the Richmond area. This alternative 

includes improvements between Greendale and 

Centralia along the S-Line, station and service 

improvements at Main Street Station, an additional 

bridge crossing of the James River, an east bypass of 

Acca Yard, and station and service improvements 

at Staples Mill Road Station. Interstate Corridor 

(SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and 

Virginia) to Norfolk passenger trains moving northsouth through Richmond would be routed from 

Staples Mill Road Station to the west side of Main 

Street Station and then to Centralia using the S-Line. 

Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) and Long Distance 

passenger trains would be routed through Staples 

Mill Road Station to Centralia using the A-Line, 

bypassing Main Street Station. One Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) round trip would terminate at 

Main Street Station. Northeast Regional (SEHSR 

and Virginia) service to Newport News would be 

routed from Staples Mill Road Station to the east 

side of Main Street Station on the S-Line, then 

continue on the Peninsula Subdivision.

This two-station Richmond alternative will allow 

for concentration of baggage, crew change, and 

layover activities at the Staples Mill Road location, 

reducing the track and platform dwell time for 

trains serving Main Street Station. By nature of 

the respective environments of each location, 

Main Street Station would provide expanded 

multimodal connectivity, while Staples Mills Road 

Station could continue to accommodate the 

parking needs of regional rail passengers who are 

not located in the downtown Richmond area.

CAN THE RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE BE CHANGED? 

Yes. The Recommended Preferred Alternative is not final until the FRA issues a Record of Decision. DRPT 

invites the public, elected officials, and agencies to provide comments on the Draft EIS and DRPT’s 

Recommended Preferred Alternative during the established comment period.

Acca Yard

DC2RVA/Richmond to Raleigh Track 

Improvements Overlap

CFP 005

A 000

A 010

S 005

95

64

295

95 64

CSX Transportation

Main Street Station (Amtrak)

Staples Mill Road Station (Amtrak)

East Acca Yard Bypass

Planned third track 

Richmond to Raleigh

SEHSR Project

Mainline

Relocation Project

(under construction)

A-Line

S-Line

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 6F

Full Service

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Length: 23 miles Cost: $1.483 billion

Work by Others

63

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION 

The ROD, which is issued by the FRA, is the final 

step in the EIS process, signifying approval of 

the Proposed Action. The FRA will issue the 

ROD, which identifies the preferred alternative, 

presents the basis for the decision, includes all 

the alternatives considered, and commits to the 

measures to mitigate unavoidable environmental 

impacts. Issuance of the ROD allows the DC2RVA 

Project to proceed to the next step, which is Final 

Engineering and Design.

Public Scoping

Meetings

Public Information

Meetings Public

Hearings

Record of Decision

Issued by FRA; determines 

selected alternative and 

mitigation requirements

Draft EIS

Document has a full description of the affected environment, a range

of alternatives, and an analysis of the impacts of each alternative

Scoping 

Solicit public input

on the issues and

concerns the project

should address

Screening 

Review alternatives to determine if they are reasonable and feasible

considering socio-economics, engineering, the environment, and cost

Purpose & Need

Establish why the project

is needed

Alternatives

Identify and consider alternatives that address the

program’s Purpose and Need

Public Involvement

2018

Final EIS 

Announce Proposed

Action based on the

comments received on

the Draft EIS

2019

Public Information

Meetings

Town of Ashland/Hanover 

County Area Community

Advisory Committee

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS IN THE 

NEPA PROCESS?

FINAL EIS

Based on agency and public comments on the 

Draft EIS and DRPT’s Recommended Preferred 

Alternative, DRPT and FRA will prepare a Final 

EIS, which will report the Preferred Alternative 

and list environmental commitments to mitigate 

unavoidable impacts. The Final EIS is distributed to 

federal, state, and local entities including the CTB. 

Copies of the Final EIS will be available online and 

also filed with regional libraries for public viewing. 

DRPT will present the recommendations in the 

Final EIS to the CTB for Commonwealth approval.

NEXT STEPS & 5OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 

65

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHAT PERMITS AND REGULATORY 

APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED?

Throughout project development, final design, 

and construction, DRPT will coordinate with the 

appropriate regulatory agencies to obtain the 

necessary permits. The following is a list of permits 

that may be required for this DC2RVA Project. Final 

determination of permit applicability lies with the 

regulatory agencies.

Permit Authorizing Regulation Regulatory Agency

Section 401 Water Quality Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality

Section 402 Discharge Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Virginia Water Protection Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality

Subaqueous Bed Permit Code of Virginia 

Chapter 2, Title 62.1

Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

(MS4) Permit

Virginia Stormwater 

Management Act

Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality

Section 9 Bridge Permit River and Harbors Act U.S. Coast Guard

Section 10 Work in Navigable Waters Permit River and Harbors Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

HOW CAN I LEARN MORE?

For additional information, 

please visit the project website

www.DC2RVARail.com or contact us.

CONTACT INFORMATION

DC2RVA Project Office

801 East Main Street, Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

(888) 832-0900 | info@DC2RVARail.com

PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS

Hotline: 888-832- 0900 or TDD 711

Email: DC2RVARail@gmail.com

Online: www.DC2RVARail.com

67

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T STATEMENT

68

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY