Richmond

Raleigh

Petersburg

Washington, DC

Charlotte

Hampton

Roads

US Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Prepared by:

North Carolina Department of Transportation and 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

Tier II Final

Environmental Impact Statement 

And Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

August 2015
SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL, RICHMOND, VA, TO RALEIGH, NC 

North Carolina State Project No. 9.9083002 

TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

AND FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

August 2015 

Documentation Prq>ared by: 

Michael Baker 

INTERNATIO N AL 

' 

;::;, /fi{4//./ 

Ken Gilland, P .G. 

Document Manager, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a Division of Michael Baker International 

c::J;?e9 

Charles L. Flowe, P .E 

Vice President, North Carolina Office Executive, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a Division of 

Michael Baker International 

North Carolina Department of Transportation- Rail Division 

I ~/) J '-/ )f /'7 I/ A/-: ~4t-tL 

MafcHamel 

Rail Project Development Manager 

Kevin B. Page 

Chief of Infrastructure Initiatives and Strategic Partnerships 
SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL, RICHMOND, VA, TO RALEIGH, NC 

North Carolina State Project o. 9.9083002 

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT STATEMENT 

AND FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

Submitted Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C) 

by the 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

orth Carolina Department of Transportation- Rail Division (NCDOT) 

And 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) 

Cooperating Agencies 

U.S . Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), orfolk District, Wilmington District 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (USFWS) Virginia Field Office 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Date of Approval ~2 e:J_ ~ ~ lvGI:c_}~ 

Date of Approval DRPT 

Date 

4 \ 

of 

dApproval [ d--D 1\ {)ugf 8 

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: 

John Winkle 

FRA 

1200 . ew Jersey Ave SE 

Washington DC 20590 

(202) 493-6067 

Abstract 

Paul Worley, C.P.M. Director 

COOT Rail Division 

1553 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, C 27699-1553 

(919) 707-4 700 

Jennifer Mitchell, Director 

DRPT 

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102 

Richmond, VA 23219 

(804) 786-3963 

The proposed project is known as Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR), Richmond to Raleigh Section. A Tier I 

evaluation of the SEHSR corridor from Washington, DC to Charlotte, rc was completed in 2002. This Tier II 

Environmental Impact Statement addresses the 162 mile segment of the SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, 

Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Comments on this Tier ll Final EIS arc due I 0 I t8bt:'and should be sent to Paul Worley or Jennifer Mitchell at the above 

addresses. 
PROJECT COMMITMENTS 

SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL (SEHSR) 

RICHMOND, VA, TO RALEIGH, NC 

North Carolina State Project No. 9.9083002

North Carolina STIP Project No. P-3819

The following special commitments have been agreed to by the Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation (DRPT) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail 

Division (NCDOT Rail): 

General Project Commitments 

 Coordination with the Virginia Scenic Rivers Board will be required to comply with the 

Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 for the new structures on the James and Appomattox 

Rivers. In addition, the Project Team will coordinate with the Operations Branch of the 

US Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District to verify proposed clearances for the new 

bridge over the James River are acceptable in relation to the federal project channel. The 

bridge is being planned with the same clearance as the existing bridge, but future plans 

for the channel may necessitate a change in that clearance, and the new bridge may be 

required to meet any such future plans even if the existing bridge does not. This 

coordination will take place during the final design stage of the project. 

 A compensatory mitigation plan (compliant with the 2008 EPA/USACE Final Mitigation 

Rule) will be developed during the 401/404 permitting process. 

 The SEHSR Team will address invasive species during post-construction monitoring of 

mitigation sites. The SEHSR Project Team will continue to coordinate with the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) related to the ongoing informal Section 7 consultation, as 

related to: 

o The population of Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) in Section D of the project; 

o A pre-construction survey for protected species [Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), 

Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio 

steinstansana), and James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)], which will be 

conducted at locations where listed species were identified during development of 

the FEIS; and 

o The Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis), which has been historically 

documented in the SEHSR study area. Although the species is currently not listed 

as threatened or endangered by USFWS, DRPT and NCDOT will review the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

status of the species during final design to determine if field surveys are 

necessary. 

o The USFWS recently listed the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) 

as “Threatened” and issued an interim species-specific rule under Section 4(d) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, effective May 4, 2015. Furthermore, this 

species is included in USFWS’s current list of protected species for the project 

study area. Virginia DRPT and NCDOT will continue working closely with the 

USFWS to determine how this listing may impact the SEHSR project. 

Approximately 1,575 acres of trees (see Table 4-26) and numerous structures may 

be impacted by project construction over the anticipated three-year phased 

schedule. Prior to project permitting, Virginia DRPT and NCDOT will 

coordinate with USFWS to determine if this project will incur potential effects to 

the Northern long-eared bat and how to address these potential effects, if 

necessary. 

Additionally, state wildlife agencies will be consulted on appropriate measures to protect mussel 

fauna before and during project construction. Finally, stringent erosion controls will be enforced 

during construction to minimize impacts to the dwarf wedgemussel population downstream of 

the project crossing at Cedar Creek. 

 The SEHSR Project Team will coordinate with the National Park Service (NPS) 

regarding the need for 30 to 50 feet of right of way along the western portion of the Fort 

Wadsworth Unit of Petersburg National Battlefield. In a letter dated March 4, 2009, the 

Petersburg National Battlefield superintendent stated that the project could mitigate 

potential adverse effects to the Fort Wadsworth Unit with a land exchange. This land 

exchange will be negotiated during the final design stage of the project and will be 

subject to all NPS land acquisition procedures. 

 Noise and vibration mitigation will be addressed during final design using the Federal 

Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (September 2012) procedures. 

 FRA will consider implementing a community liaison program to address noise and 

vibration impacts and mitigation when the Detailed Noise Analysis is undertaken during 

the final design stage of the project. 

 Driveway connections to individual properties will be provided during final design based 

on the existing conditions at the time of construction. 

 All of the new bridges will have sufficient width so as not to create a hazard for 

pedestrian movement. In locations where existing pedestrian accommodations (e.g., 

sidewalks) currently exist, these accommodations will be provided on the 

bridges/underpasses. At other locations, pedestrian accommodations on the 

bridges/underpasses will be evaluated during final design based on the current NCDOT 

and VDOT pedestrian policies. In general, these policies consider the provision of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

pedestrian accommodations in more populous locations where pedestrian activity 

currently exists. 

 Fencing locations and types, as well as proposed landscaping, will be determined during 

final design based on coordination between the owner of the rail corridor, the operator of 

the railroad, and adjacent communities. The Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) for the project (see Section 4.12 of the FEIS) will address mitigation of visual 

impacts on historic resources as appropriate. 

Permit Related Project Commitments 

Throughout project development, final design, and construction, the SEHSR Project Team will 

coordinate with the regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary permits. The following is a list 

of permits that may be required for this project. Final determination of permit applicability lies 

with the regulatory agencies. 

 Section 404 (Impacts to Waters of the United States – Clean Water Act) 

 Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Clean Water Act) 

 Virginia Water Protection Permit (Clean Water Act) 

 Virginia Marine Resources Commission Subaqueous Permit 

 Section 9 (US Coast Guard Bridge Permit) 

 Section 10 (Permit for Work in Navigable Waters – Rivers and Harbors Act) 

 Individual State Stormwater Permit 

In addition, the SEHSR Project Team has committed to the following: 

 Since the SEHSR project would disturb more than 10,000 square feet of land, it must 

obtain a Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) general National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit through the Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). A site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan (SPPP) will need to be prepared and implemented. The SPPP outlines the steps and 

techniques the operator will take to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit, 

including water quality and quantity requirements that are consistent with the VSMP 

permit regulations, to reduce pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the construction 

site. The SPPP also includes a description of post development stormwater management 

measures to be installed, including design calculations. Prior to construction, an erosion 

and sediment control (ESC) plan and a stormwater management plan (SMP) to ensure 

compliance with state law and regulations will be prepared and implemented. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

 In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, the most 

recent edition of VDCR’s Erosion Sediment Control Handbook and NCDOT’s Best 

Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will need to be strictly 

enforced during the construction phase of the project. 

 The SEHSR project is committed to complying with all applicable water quality 

regulations and permit requirements, as well as to minimizing all impacts to water quality 

as designs are finalized. This includes complying with the Virginia Erosion and 

Sediment Control Law and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act. 

 Streamside riparian zones within the study area in North Carolina are protected under 

provisions of the Tar-Pamlico and the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules 

administered by NCDWR. The rules protect two riparian zones: Zone 1 extends 30 feet 

from stream bank and Zone 2 extends from 30 to 50 feet from the stream bank. Table 4-3 

summarizes the potential impacts (in square feet) to each riparian buffer zone for each 

section of the project in the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River Basins. Permitting and 

mitigation for unavoidable impacts to protected riparian zones will be coordinated 

through NCDWR during the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process. 

 The SEHSR Project Team will coordinate with FEMA and local authorities during final 

design to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain management/development 

ordinances. Also, the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit and DRPT will coordinate with FEMA to 

determine if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final 

Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required for the project. Floodplain development 

permits will be obtained from the local jurisdictions and include a no-rise/impact 

certification for each regulated floodplain/floodway and/or non-encroachment area 

crossing or a submittal for a CLOMR per 44 CFR Section 65.12. 

 A USCG permit will be required for the SEHSR crossing of the James River near I-95 in 

Richmond, VA, which is subject to tidal influence. The bridge permit will be prepared as 

the bridge design is developed. Coordination with the USCG has been initiated and will 

continue throughout the development of the project. 

 Detailed methods for mitigating the clearing of nearly 1,163 acres of timberland in the 

four-county area of VA for the proposed railroad right-of-way corridor will be 

determined during the permitting phase and will specified in construction documents 

based on final design and following consultation with the Virginia Department of 

Forestry and other regulatory and advisory agencies participating in the Virginia Joint 

Permit Application process. 

Section 106-Specific Project Commitments 

A “process” Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Washington DC, to Charlotte, NC, high 

speed rail corridor, as well as individual Memorandums of Agreement (MOA) for each state, are 

currently under development and will outline the project commitments under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. These documents will be included in the forthcoming 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 5 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Record of Decision for the project. The following commitments were made in the process of 

determining the effect of the project on specific historic resources in coordination with the 

respective state historic preservation office: 

 Pretlow House – The SEHSR project will make all reasonable efforts during construction 

to avoid impacts to the existing stone wall and adjacent vegetation. 

 North Battersea/Pride's Field Historic District – The SEHSR Project Team will 

coordinate with the City of Petersburg during final design to identify measures to 

minimize impacts to this resource. 

 Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern Battlefield – At the request of the NPS Petersburg 

National Battlefield, the SEHSR project will plant trees on the fill slopes for the proposed 

bridge to minimize the visual intrusion on the landscape. The SEHSR Project Team will 

also coordinate with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) regarding 

the engineering and vegetation plans for this area before construction. 

 Williams Bridge Company – Designs for driveways throughout the project corridor will 

be developed during the final design stage of the project. In this case, however, 

coordination has taken place with the property owner as part of Section 106 coordination 

regarding access. Preliminary designs have been developed to the point where it has 

been determined that a driveway connection to Deepwater Terminal Road can be 

developed in final design that will allow ingress/egress of the long tractor trailers (in 

excess of WB-50) used by the business. 

 William J. Hawkins House – During the right of way phase of the project, the SEHSR 

Project Team will coordinate with the property owner about the access issue (i.e., a 

temporary construction easement would be required to maintain access). 

 Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge Piers - The SEHSR project will not remove the historic 

piers during the construction or life of the project. 

 Youngsville Historic District – During construction, the SEHSR project will provide tree 

protection along Cross Street. 

 Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District – The final designs for the SEHSR Project 

Team must design the pedestrian crossing in a manner that minimizes its opaqueness and 

fits in with the character of its surroundings. 

 Wake Forest Historic District - The Section 106 MOA will specifically address 

coordination with owners of the four residences for temporary construction easements. 

In addition, standardized and aesthetic closures of at-grade crossings within the district 

must be employed (e.g., no guard rails or "T" closures). 

 Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge Piers - The SEHSR project will ensure that the historic 

piers are not impacted during construction of the new bridge. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

 Raleigh Electric Company Power House - The SEHSR project will provide aesthetic 

treatments for the pedestrian bridge on West Jones Street as outlined in the MOA and in 

coordination with the consulting parties and property owners in this location. 

Project Commitments by Locality 

The project has made the following commitments within the specified locality: 

 City of Richmond, VA 

o Ruffin Road - The SEHSR project will ensure that adequate access is provided to 

the apartment complex on the northwest side of the railroad and Ruffin Road. 

Current designs provide access along the western edge of the complex via an 

extension of Lynnhaven Avenue. During final design, the SEHSR Project Team 

will investigate whether access to Ruffin Road can be maintained. 

o Access to the Motiva Property will be further evaluated during the final design 

stage of the project. 

 Ettrick, VA 

o Dupuy Road – Landscaping of the fill slope for the bridge that will carry Dupuy 

Road over the railroad will be evaluated during final design as mitigation for 

visual impacts to remaining residents in this area. 

 Chesterfield Count, VA 

o Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road intersection – this intersection will be 

converted from an existing three-leg intersection to a four-leg intersection once 

the SEHSR project is constructed. Once the project is completed, the 

predominant traffic flow is anticipated to change from the current north-south to 

an east-west pattern. During final design, the SEHSR Project Team will 

coordinate with VDOT and Chesterfield County regarding consideration of 

making the intersection’s northbound and southbound approaches stop controlled, 

and the eastbound and westbound approaches free flowing movements with the 

proposed SEHSR design. 

 Town of La Crosse, VA 

o The preferred alternative will impact a private well serving Hillcrest Mobile 

Home Park, located north of La Crosse, VA in Section I. The Mecklenburg 

County Health Department has indicated that there is sufficient land available 

within the Hillcrest property to accommodate relocation of the drinking water 

well. During final design, a suitable new water source will be identified to ensure 

a continuous, safe, and sanitary water source for the residents. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

 City of Henderson, NC 

o Nicolas Street and Alexander Avenue intersection – during the final design phase 

of this project, the SEHSR Project Team will coordinate with NCDOT Division 5 

and the City of Henderson regarding consideration of converting Nicolas Street to 

a stopped condition and Alexander Avenue to the free-flow movement. 

o Railroad Street- during the ROW acquisition phase of this project, NCDOT will 

coordinate with the neighborhood property owners and occupants along Railroad 

Street, to ensure they are informed of any issues that may arise related to ROW 

and access as ownership of Railroad Street is confirmed during the ROW process. 

 Town of Wake Forest, NC 

o The preferred alternative will impact the Aqua North Carolina well on Ligon Mill 

Road. It is anticipated that the impact to the Agua North Carolina well can be 

mitigated with a connection to a public water supply or the well can be relocated. 

This issue will be addressed during the final design stage of the project, at which 

time coordination with the owner of the well will take place. 

 City of Raleigh, NC 

o Pacific Drive - The SEHSR plans show a general location for a “future bridge 

constructed by others” that would connect Pacific Drive across the railroad. The 

SEHSR Project Team will coordinate with the City of Raleigh regarding the 

possibility of including a City-funded bridge in this location on the construction 

plans for the SEHSR project. 

o Gresham's Lake Road – The SEHSR plans for a bridge on Gresham’s Lake Road 

over the railroad allow for the City of Raleigh to build a second bridge in the 

future to carry an additional two lanes of traffic without the need to replace what 

will be constructed by the SEHSR project. Coordination between NCDOT and 

the City will take place during final design to ensure that the centerline of 

Gresham’s Lake Road in the SEHSR designs is correctly located for the City's 

future widening, and that the sidewalk constructed by the SEHSR project is on the 

correct side of the SEHSR bridge. 

o Millbrook Road – The SEHSR Project Team will coordinate with the City of 

Raleigh on the design of the vertical abutments for the bridge over Millbrook 

Road during the final design phase of the project. 

o Neuse River Greenway - The SEHSR bridge at this location will have a covered 

deck per the City’s request for a protected cover to protect patrons from falling 

debris. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 8 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

o The downtown grid network is anticipated to be able to service the design year 

traffic with the proposed SEHSR alignment. However, during final design the 

SEHSR Project Team will coordinate with the City of Raleigh regarding the 

following: 

 Accommodations for cyclists (such as identification of an alternate route) 

for the proposed closure of Hargett Street at-grade crossing. Hargett 

Street currently services the signed bicycle route Cross Town Route 8. 

 Accommodations for cyclists (such as identification of an alternate route) 

for Jones Street, which currently serves as a signed bicycle route, Cross 

Town Route 9. The preferred alternative includes closing the existing atgrade crossing to vehicular traffic, and building a pedestrian bridge with 

towers. 

 The City of Raleigh is currently in the process of upgrading their City 

Signal System. The SEHSR Project Team will continue to coordinate with 

the City related to the signals in the areas of the rail crossing closures and 

grade separations to service the final reconfigured traffic as well as traffic 

shifts during construction. Updates may include signal timings as well as 

signal and signal system equipment including interconnections. 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in partnership with the North Carolina Department 

of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

(DRPT) have prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed development 

of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor between Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC 

(Richmond to Raleigh - Tier II EIS or Project) as required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). This document contains a Tier II Final EIS (FEIS) for the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project, as a continuation of the Tier II Draft EIS (DEIS), which was published for review in 

2010. 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Project involves the incremental development, implementation, and operation of high 

speed rail (HSR) passenger service in the approximately 450-mile travel corridor from 

Washington, DC, through Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, to Charlotte, NC. NCDOT and 

DRPT, with their Federal partners, FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

have been working together since the early 1990s to develop the SEHSR corridor. The Project 

background is summarized in Section 1.2. 

This Project addresses the Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC portion of the corridor, which is 

approximately 162 miles long. While there are active freight and passenger rail operations 

between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, as well as freight service between Raleigh, NC 

and Norlina, NC, there is no continuous rail connection between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC, in the Study Area (approximately 132 miles largely on the CSX S-Line). From Petersburg, 

VA, to Norlina, NC (approximately 76 miles), right of way (ROW) is largely intact, but rail 

service was discontinued in the 1980s, and the tracks were removed. From Norlina to Raleigh, 

NC, there is only minor active freight service (approximately 1-4 trains per day). 

PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

NCDOT, DRPT, FRA, and FHWA confirmed the purpose and need of the Project in October 

2002. As detailed in Section 1.6, the need for the Project relates to: 

 Population growth in Virginia and NC 

 Congestion of both roadways and airports 

 Lack of a passenger rail option with competitive travel times with air and highway travel 

 Connectivity needs 

 Air quality concerns 

 Perceived gap in safety between passenger rail and other modes of travel 

 Need for increased energy efficiency for passenger travel options. 

As described in Section 1.7, the purpose of the Project is to: 

 Divert trips from air and highways 

 Provide a more balanced use of transportation infrastructure in the Study Area 

 Increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system in the Study Area 

 Serve long-distance business and leisure travelers between Virginia and NC, as well as 

those accessing Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC), which extends from Washington, DC, 

to New York, NY, and Boston, MA, and allowing patrons in the NEC area to reach 

destinations to the south. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

More information about the purpose of the SEHSR Corridor can be found in the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS and on the program’s website at www.sehsr.org. A discussion of 

assumptions used in the Project evaluations is provided in Section 1.4.1. 

STUDY AREA 

The Study Area defines the boundaries for potential SEHSR rail and associated roadway 

improvements and includes areas where construction of the Richmond to Raleigh Project could 

have direct impacts on the environment. Once potential alignments were proposed, corridors 

approximately 1,000 feet wide were analyzed. Modifications were made to accommodate 

design changes developed in response to comments on the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS. 

Section 1.4 describes the corridor. 

Three alternative railroad alignments were developed initially within each of the 26 sections of 

the project (described below and shown in Figure ES-1). As presented in the Project Tier II 

DEIS, the alternatives were named VA1, VA2, and VA3 in Virginia, and NC1, NC2, and NC3 

in North Carolina. In order to minimize impacts, throughout much of the Study Area the 

alternatives are within existing railroad ROW; in many locations the alternatives are on 

common (concurrent) alignment. Except where otherwise specified, alternative VA3 is 

concurrent with alternative VA1, and alternative NC3 is concurrent with alternative NC1. 

The endpoints of each of the 26 sections are in locations where the alternative alignments are in 

a common location. This approach allowed for the broadest range of options during evaluation 

and selection of the preferred alternatives. Joined together, the preferred alternatives form a 

“best-fit” preferred alternative for the entire Study Area. 

The Study Area begins at Main Street Station in Richmond, VA, and extends to the south, 

following the existing CSX S-line railroad to Centralia, then transitions to the CSX-A line, 

traveling through Petersburg, VA, crossing the Appomattox River, and continuing south to 

Collier Yard (a CSX rail yard). At the south end of Collier Yard, the Study Area turns west, 

following the alignment of the inactive Burgess Connector rail line. At Burgess, the Study 

Area curves south, rejoining the alignment of the CSX S-line, which it follows into North 

Carolina. 

In North Carolina, the Study Area continues along the inactive S-line through Warren County 

to the Town of Norlina, NC (where the S-line returns to an active CSX freight railroad). The 

Study Area follows the S-line to the north side of downtown Raleigh near Capital Boulevard, 

where it increases to approximately 2,000 feet wide to encompass the existing Norfolk 

Southern (NS) line through Glenwood Yard (the NS switching yard) on the west side and the 

CSX S-line through Capital Yard (the CSX switching yard) on the east side. Near Jones Street 

in downtown Raleigh, the NS line joins the CSX S-line, and the Study area narrows to follow 

the S-line south for two blocks to the Boylan Wye, the southern terminus of the Project. 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure ES-1 

Continued... 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-4 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure ES-1 Continued 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-5 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table ES-1 

Preferred Alternative Impact Summary 

Section Stream 

(linear feet) 

Wetland 

(acres) 

Floodplain 

(acres) 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Forest 

(acres) 

Hazardous 

Waste (sites) 

Residential 

Relocations 

Business 

Relocations 

Noise 

(receptors) 

Vibration 

(structures) 

AA 3,919 2.32 25.72 0.0 42.57 59 40 7 0 1 

BB 2,078 5.22 11.4 13.3 54.16 10 7 1 0 2 

CC 2,405 2.52 6.16 16.4 45.05 20 48 1 11 15 

DD 585 2.37 4.63 35.7 62.41 1 2 0 0 0 

A 3,094 2.84 4.67 51.8 64.20 1 0 0 5 0 

B 760 0.64 0.85 64.8 81.45 3 3 1 13 2 

C 2,803 2.17 6.38 86.3 155.05 3 4 8 9 10 

D 1,998 2.03 1.31 99.9 101.71 1 3 2 6 2 

E 860 1.21 0.85 59.8 52.01 0 2 7 29 9 

F 1,004 0.62 3.20 25.0 67.02 0 0 0 6 0 

G 510 0.26 0.32 33.1 43.56 0 2 0 2 0 

H 2,808 0.35 0.06 82.0 110.64 0 1 0 20 5 

I 22 0.00 0.00 57.6 35.53 2 14 0 55 24 

J 420 0.22 0.00 72.1 63.06 1 5 0 22 5 

K 1,419 0.91 0.19 37.6 79.21 0 0 5 9 1 

L 2,502 0.72 0.04 128.5 88.46 1 8 1 21 7 

M 442 0.49 0.00 113.5 40.50 0 18 4 47 30 

N 386 1.25 0.00 76.1 43.43 1 2 0 4 6 

O 3,102 0.30 0.00 124.4 46.22 1 3 0 15 3 

P 1,532 0.91 0.00 87 12.86 31 33 8 89 74 

Q 1,127 0.03 0.00 96.7 49.22 4 10 0 18 20 

R 438 0.00 0.04 25.1 29.45 0 1 0 1 3 

S 1,620 0.48 0.42 91.7 92.19 7 4 0 23 22 

T 415 0.07 0.00 41.7 25.65 4 5 0 25 5 

U 3,394 0.38 0.00 0 71.94 20 8 12 176 45 

V 1,036 0.05 1.38 0 17.05 79 0 59 81 4 

Total 40,679 28.36 67.62 1,520.1 1,574.6 249 223 116 687 295 

Project impacts are discussed in Chapter 4; a more detailed breakdown of impacts can be found both within Chapter 4 

and in Table ES-5 at the end of this Executive Summary. “Farmland” refers to Prime and Important Farmland impacts. 

“Noise” includes number of impacted and severely impacted receptors. “Vibration” refers to number of impacted 

structures (single family, multi-family, and commercial). 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-6 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

RAIL ALIGNMENT 

The Project goal was to use existing rail lines and rail right of way (ROW) as much as 

practicable. Changes were made to minimize impacts and allow for higher speed travel. The 

Preferred Alternative utilizes approximately 60 percent of the existing rail alignment. 

The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for the Project is established as 110 miles per hour 

(mph) using locomotives powered by fossil fuels. The MAS guided selection of the 

maximum allowable horizontal and vertical curvature (both set at one degree). In some areas, 

curves could not be sufficiently straightened, and the MAS was lowered. Speeds were 

reduced in urban areas. 

 Rail designs for the Project use existing rail lines in conjunction with areas of new 

alignment. The proposed designs for all rail alignment alternatives call for new 

ballast (the rock surface underneath the railroad ties); concrete ties, and welded steel 

rails. Throughout the Study Area, the alternatives provide for a combination of high 

speed passenger service, conventional passenger service, conventional freight, and 

intermodal freight. Requirements to achieve this shared system differ depending on 

existing rail operations, as well as existing railroad and rail bed conditions (Figure 1-

4); Table 2-1 shows the track configuration in the Study Area. Depending on the 

location, the proposed rail designs include: 

 Construction of new single track with approximate five-mile long passing sidings 

approximately every ten miles on new segments of the Study Area (CSX S-Line 

between Collier, VA and Norlina, NC) 

 Rebuilding existing single track with approximate five-mile long passing sidings 

approximately every ten miles on active freight segments of the Study Area (CSX SLine between Norlina, NC and north of Raleigh, NC) 

 Construction of new single track adjacent to existing active freight track, with 30 feet 

of separation; and crossovers to allow passing for freight and passenger operations on 

segments with heavy mainline freight traffic (CSX A-Line between Collier, VA and 

Centralia, VA) 

 Rebuilding existing double track, with crossovers to allow passing for shared freight 

and passenger operations in urban segments of the Study Area near Richmond (CSX 

S-Line between Centralia, VA and Downtown Richmond). 

ROAD ALIGNMENTS 

During the Project design process, railroad-roadway crossings were consolidated, to the 

extent practicable, and grade separated (bridge over road or rail) for safety and ease of 

operations. Grade separations are proposed to replace at-grade crossings (i.e., locations where 

railroads and roadways cross at the same elevation) with bridges or underpasses. Section 

1.4.1.7 discusses the reason for removing at-grade crossings. 

The construction of these grade separations, and the impacts associated with these required 

improvements, are included in the Project impacts. The locations selected for grade 

separation are based on: input from local officials and the public; connectivity to the existing 

road network; minimization of impacts to natural and cultural resources; and constructability. 

STATIONS 

The Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS modeled five municipal locations for SEHSR stops in 

the Project service area:, Richmond, VA; Petersburg, VA; and Raleigh, NC; which have 

existing passenger service and stations, and La Crosse, VA; and Henderson, NC, which do 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-7 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

not. All trains are assumed to stop in Richmond, VA; Petersburg, VA; and Raleigh, NC. 

One daily round trip train stop is assumed to stop in La Crosse, VA; and one in Henderson, 

NC. 

This EIS does not evaluate impacts related to specific station locations. Potential station 

locations are evaluated generally in terms of accessibility to the larger transportation network. 

Station locations within municipalities will be determined in the future by the respective 

municipalities and passenger service operator, and appropriate environmental documentation 

will be undertaken at that time. 

SERVICE 

Proposed service consists of four round trips per day between Washington, DC, and 

Charlotte, NC, and four additional round trips between Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC. 

Round trips to Washington, DC, are expected to continue on to New York, NY and Boston, 

MA. 

Section 1.5 discusses total patronage (ridership and revenue) estimated for the SEHSR Study 

Area. The section provides several scenarios that were evaluated for train traffic along the 

corridor in addition to the proposed Richmond to Raleigh service. 

Table ES-2 lists average travel times between cities in the SEHSR Study Area and New 

York, NY. The travel time for SEHSR service between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, 

will be approximately two hours and fourteen minutes. Schedules and travel times may vary 

in the future due to other corridor constraints. 

Table ES-2 

Projected Average Travel Time Between Cities 

(In Hours : Minutes) 

Current 

Service 

SEHSR 

(Full Build) 

Richmond, VA - Raleigh, NC 3:36 2:14 

New York, NY – Raleigh, NC 9:57 7:25 

Washington, DC - Raleigh, NC 5:59 4:22 

New York, NY - Charlotte, NC 13:25 10:16 

Washington, DC - Charlotte, NC 9:27 7:14 

Richmond, VA – Charlotte, NC 7:03 5:07 

Raleigh, NC - Charlotte, NC 3:13 2:49 

Source: “S-line Trains Only” travel times are derived from the schedules used in the Southeast High Speed Rail 

Ridership Report, AECOM, 2013 

FUNDING 

Funding for ROW acquisition and construction of the Richmond to Raleigh Project has not yet 

been secured or identified. At this time, NCDOT and DRPT anticipate that the states will 

pursue Federal funding through various methods, including the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008, reauthorization of Federal transportation programs, and 

other Federal funding sources. Public-private partnership funding opportunities may also be 

sought along with state funding. Decisions regarding future funding of the SEHSR will be 

made at the completion of the environmental review process for respective segments of the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-8 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Study Area. The Richmond to Raleigh Project is not anticipated to be funded by local 

governments. A more detailed discussion of Project funding is included in Section 1.4.2. 

Construction costs for the Richmond to Raleigh portion of the Project were never intended to 

be fully financed by the system's ridership; however, most long-term operational costs are 

estimated to be covered through ridership fees. 

RIDERSHIP & REVENUE 

To meet the purpose and need for the Richmond to Raleigh Project, stops must be placed at 

reasonable intervals to serve the population centers along the route. The Ridership/Revenue 

model originally prepared for the SEHSR Tier I EIS was revised in 2013 to provide updated 

forecasts for service in the Study Area, and feeder line corridors in Virginia and North Carolina 

(AECOM 2013). The 2013 updated AECOM report is included in Appendix C of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS. 

Table ES-3 summarizes the proposed service (round trips) for the Baseline (“No Build”) and 

SEHSR (“Full Build”) scenarios. Table ES-4 lists the updated ridership and ticket revenue 

forecasts for Baseline (“No Build”) and SEHSR (“Full Build”) scenarios for design year 2030 

and a SEHSR (“Full Build”) scenario forecast for the year 2040. Current Amtrak fares were 

used with 25 percent higher fares assumed for the faster SEHSR service. The AECOM study 

projected revenues of the SEHSR system would exceed annual operating costs by the design 

year (2030); refer to Section 1.5 for additional discussion of updated ridership and revenue 

projections. 

Table ES-3 

Proposed Service - Number of Round Trips 

Service Route1 Baseline 

No Build 

SEHSR 

Full Build2

Trains Originating in North Carolina 

Raleigh-Charlotte (Intrastate) Piedmont NS/NCRR 4 4 

Washington-Raleigh-Charlotte Carolinian CSX A-Line 1 1 

Washington-Raleigh SEHSR 

Corridor CSX S-Line 

- 1 

Washington-Raleigh-Charlotte - 3 

Subtotal: 5 9 

Trains Originating in Virginia 

Washington-Richmond 

NEC Regional

CSX A-Line 2 2 

Washington-Richmond-Newport News CSX A-Line 2 2 

Washington-Richmond-Norfolk CSX A-Line 1 1 

Washington-Alexandria-Lynchburg NS-Crescent 1 1 

Subtotal: 6 6 

Amtrak Long Distance Service3

Washington-Richmond-Points South Palmetto 

Silver Meteor 

CSX A-Line 

2 2 

Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Points 

South Silver Star 

CSX A-Line 1 - 

CSX S-Line - 1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-9 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table ES-3 

Proposed Service - Number of Round Trips 

Service Route1 Baseline 

No Build 

SEHSR 

Full Build2

Washington- Alexandria-LynchburgCharlotte-Points South Crescent NS-Crescent 1 1 

Subtotal: 4 4 

Total Trains: 15 19 

Source: Southeast High Speed Rail Ridership, AECOM, 2013 

1. Trains operating on the CSX S-Line route follow the CSX A-Line in Virginia between Centralia and Collier 

Yard. 

2. The “Full Build” scenario does not include the full implementation of the Richmond-Hampton Roads project. 

Those trains were modeled separately as “Full Build with Additional Services” in the ridership and revenue 

assessment. See Appendix C for more information. 

3. These do not include the Amtrak auto-train, which travels through Virginia and North Carolina, but does not 

influence ridership and revenue estimates. 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-10 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table ES-4 

Summary of Forecast Results 

 Base Line1

(No Build) 

SEHSR 

Corridor3

(Full Build) 

SEHSR Corridor3

(Full Build) 

 

Year 

2030 

Year 

2030 

Year 

2040 

Ridership (persons) 

North Carolina Service 

Charlotte/Raleigh Trains 996,100 2,075,500 2,526,900 

Virginia Service 

Richmond/Norfolk/Virginia Beach Trains 808,300 805,600 911,100 

Lynchburg Trains 241,300 261,600 301,200 

Amtrak Long-Distance Trains2 241,900 241,900 282,400 

Total Ridership 2,287,600 3,384,600 4,021,600 

Ticket Revenue (2013 dollars) 

North Carolina Service 

Charlotte/Raleigh Trains $39,034,000 $138,667,000 $165,575,000 

Virginia Service 

Richmond/Norfolk/Virginia Beach Trains $45,947,000 $57,799,000 $64,867,000 

Lynchburg Trains $15,070,000 $16,474,000 $18,825,000 

Amtrak Long-Distance Trains2 $30,474,000 $30,460,000 $35,277,000 

Total Ticket Revenue $130,525,000 $243,400,000 $284,544,000 

Source: Southeast High Speed Rail Ridership, AECOM 2013 

1. Baseline (No Build): NC service includes 5 round trips Raleigh to Charlotte, w/1 round trip (the Carolinian) continuing to 

NY via the A-Line. VA service includes 6 round trips that begin/end in Virginia including 5 round trips Richmond to 

NY/Boston, w/ 2 extending to/from Newport News and 1 extending to/from Norfolk, and 1 round trip Lynchburg to 

NY/Boston; and 4 round trips provided by Amtrak Long-Distance trains that pass though NC and VA 

2. Activity from NEC through NC only; includes connecting buses. 3. Full Build scenarios include SEHSR Corridor service for 8 round trips Raleigh to Charlotte, w/3 continuing to NY, and 1 

starting in Raleigh and continuing to NY; and 1 (the Carolinian) beginning in Charlotte continuing to NY via the A-Line 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Following the May 2010 publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS, more than 1,850 

individuals and 50 agencies and organizations submitted comments. Many of the comments 

were several pages in length, and most covered multiple topics. The Project team evaluated 

impacts to the natural and human environment for each alternative, along with information on 

speed, cost, and constructability. All Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS comments pertaining 

to each section were reviewed and discussed, and preferences for alternatives were tallied. In 

some sections, additional coordination, analysis, or design work was undertaken prior to 

publishing the SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh Recommendation Report (NCDOT, May 2, 2012). 

Chapter 2 discusses the alternative selection process. Section 2.2 lists the Preferred Alternative 

by section. More detailed information can be found in the following Appendices: Appendix R 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-11 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

contains detailed maps of the Preferred Alternative, including associated roadwork; Appendix E 

contains schematic track charts of the alternative rail designs; and Appendix F contains detailed 

information on associated road work. 

Advanced technologies (where operating speeds average 185 to 200 mph) and solely electricpowered locomotives were evaluated and dismissed in the Tier I EIS. Many comments 

received from the public on the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS asked why these alternatives 

were not still under consideration. Advanced high speed trains were dismissed because they 

require the construction of an entirely new, separate rail system that cannot be shared with 

freight, they would involve substantially higher costs and a longer implementation time, and 

they would cause substantially greater community and environmental impacts. Electrified 

systems were dismissed because they have substantial initial costs (both monetary and 

environmental) that made them infeasible at this time, relative to the ridership/revenue 

projections for the SEHSR corridor, as well as potential negative public reaction to catenary 

wire systems needed for electric trains. 

GREENWAY CORRIDOR PLAN 

Section 2.4 of the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS included discussion of conceptual 

planning for a greenway corridor, noting that potential greenway impacts would be documented 

in the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS. The construction of the greenway was not intended to 

be funded as part of the Project because FRA (the source of Federal funding for HSR projects) 

does not have a mechanism to provide funding for greenways. FRA, FHWA, and the states of 

Virginia and North Carolina have jointly determined that the greenway project is more suitable 

for a pre-NEPA Greenway Corridor Plan, rather than its inclusion in the SEHSR FEIS. This 

will give local jurisdictions (who will ultimately construct the greenway) greater flexibility to 

pursue various funding options. The details for the greenway will, therefore, not be included in 

this FEIS, but rather in a separate Greenway Corridor Plan. This document is currently under 

development, with completion anticipated at the time of the Richmond, VA; to Raleigh, NC; 

SEHSR Record of Decision (ROD). The SEHSR website will include links to this plan and 

provide opportunities for its public review and comment. 

THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Chapter 3 summarizes new and updated information pertaining to the affected environment. 

This includes updated stream and wetland impact delineations, information on water quality 

monitoring, floodplain mapping, wild and scenic rivers, U.S. Coast Guard waters, soils, 

farmlands, mineral resources, hazardous waste sites, air quality, noise and vibration, visual 

environment, natural communities, and protected species. The chapter also updates community 

information with results from the 2010 U.S. Census and the American Community Survey 

(ACS). An update on community planning documents in the Study Area is also included. 

Chapter 3 also summarizes the extensive evaluation of potential archaeological and historical 

resources within the SEHSR Study Area (see Section 3.12). These studies identified 18 

Virginia archaeological sites that were listed or considered eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). No eligible archaeological resources were identified in North 

Carolina. In Virginia, a total of 64 historical architecture sites were listed or considered eligible 

for the NRHP. In North Carolina, 75 sites were listed or considered eligible for the NRHP. 

The Federal, state, and local parklands, public recreational areas and wildlife refuges located 

within the vicinity of the study area are also summarized in Chapter 3. These include the 

Petersburg National Battlefield (a National Park), Staunton River State Park in VA, Kerr Lake 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-12 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

State Recreation Area just north of Henderson, NC, and Falls Lake State Recreation Area just 

north of Raleigh, NC. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The following summarizes primary environmental consequences that may result from the 

construction and operation of the Project. The impacts presented here are based on the 

preliminary engineering designs. Specific total impacts for the alternative alignments are listed 

in Table ES-5. 

WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS 

Surface Water 

The Project may impact approximately 40,679 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional intermittent 

and perennial channels, including 3,651 LF of streams listed as impaired under Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1970 (CWA) as of the 2012 303(d) list. Section 4.1.1.1 

discusses stream impacts. 

In VA, the Preferred Alternative had the least impacts to streams in each section, with a few 

exceptions. The Preferred Alternative for Section B was selected, in part, to minimize noise 

impacts, to reduce business relocations, and to maintain operating speed. In Section D, a new 

alternative (VA4) was developed to avoid an historic property, avoid impacts to a Federally 

endangered Michaux’s sumac site, and reduce wetland impacts. In all, Project stream impacts 

to Virginia streams are estimated at 25,182 LF, 3,056 LF of which impact 303(d)-listed 

streams. 

In North Carolina, the Preferred Alternative had the least impacts to streams in each section, 

with the exceptions of Sections L, O, T, and U. In sections L and O, the Preferred 

Alternatives avoid historic properties. In Sections T and U, selection of the Preferred 

Alternative was based on many factors including operating speed, operability, and 

construction limitations. In North Carolina, the Project stream impacts are estimated at 

15,497 LF, 660 LF of which impact 303(d)-listed streams. 

Streamside riparian zones within the Study Area in North Carolina are protected under 

provisions of the Tar-Pamlico and the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules administered 

by North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The rules protect two riparian 

zones: Zone 1 extends 30 feet from stream bank and Zone 2 extends from 30 to 50 feet from 

the stream bank. The Preferred Alternative impacts 1,274,249 square feet (sq ft) of riparian 

buffer: 739,490 sq ft in Zone 1 and 534,759 sq ft in Zone 2. Mitigation will be required for 

stream and buffer impacts. 

Public Water Supplies and Groundwater Wells 

The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to impact public water supplies. The Preferred 

Alternative impacts one public groundwater well in Section U (Wake Forest, NC) and one 

private well serving a mobile home park near La Crosse, VA (Section I). 

Wetlands 

The Preferred Alternative may impact approximately 23.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in 

Virginia and 4.19 acres in North Carolina. Wetland impacts are discussed in Section 4.1.2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-13 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Floodplains and Floodways 

FEMA Executive Order 11988, (May, 1977) (Floodplain Management) requires that Federal 

agencies to avoid long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of flood plains and avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. Data from Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were analyzed and the FEMA zone 

designations were determined for the 100-year FEMA floodplains crossed by the Study Area. 

The Preferred Alternative impacts 67.6 acres of floodplains and floodways, and a detailed 

discussion of these impacts is included in Section 4.1.3. 

Permits 

Because the Preferred Alternative has impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands, which 

are considered to be “Waters of the United States,” the Project will require permitting under 

Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344). “Waters of the United States” are regulated by the 

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill 

material into surface waters or wetlands is subject to these provisions. 

Due to the placement of fill associated with crossing over and filling in “Waters of the United 

States,” it will be necessary to obtain permits for the Project from the USACE, Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and NCDWR. Section 401 of the CWA 

requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for 

activities that either involve issuance of a Federal permit or license, or require discharges to 

waters of the United States. The USACE will not issue a Section 404 permit until a Section 

401 certification is issued. Therefore, the Project sponsor must apply to VDEQ and NCDWR 

for Section 401 Water Quality Certification. A discussion of Federal and state permits 

required for the Project can be found in Section 4.1.5. 

Mitigation 

Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished separately for the Virginia and North 

Carolina portions of the Project, as discussed in Section 4.1.6. 

In Virginia, mitigation could be provided through the use of mitigation banks and/or the 

Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (VAQRTF). The use of the VAQRTF as a mitigation 

option is at the discretion of the appropriate regulatory agencies. 

In North Carolina, mitigation could be provided through coordination with the North Carolina 

Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The USACE, NCDOT, and North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) entered into a Memorandum 

of Agreement in July 2003 that established procedures for providing compensatory mitigation 

through NCEEP to offset impacts to streams and wetlands from NCDOT projects. 

SOILS 

Prime and Other Important Farmlands 

As required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) and 

State Executive Order Number 96, coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) for the Project was initiated by submittal of Form AD-1006, requesting the 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for each jurisdiction. Design changes after publication 

of the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS changed the total impacted acres of prime and 

important farmland, increasing acreage by 28.3 acres of in Virginia, and decreasing the total 

by 38 acres in North Carolina. Updated AD-1006 forms were developed for Sections D and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-14 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

G in Virginia and all sections in North Carolina and are included in Appendix D. Prime and 

Important farmland is discussed in Section 4.3. 

MINERAL RESOURCES/HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES 

The preferred alternative would purchase land for ROW (called takes) from VulcanGreystone Quarry and Carolina Sun Rock L.L.C. in North Carolina. These takes are not 

anticipated to impact current mining operations. 

The Project will not impact Superfund sites in Virginia or North Carolina. Two Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Facility sites, one in Virginia and 

the other in North Carolina, are impacted by the Preferred Alternative. The Virginia site, the 

First Energy Corporation (FEC) Bioremediation Facility, is in Section AA and the North 

Carolina site, Covidien/Mallinckrodt SCC Raleigh, is located in Section U. One 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) site, owned by the Town of Wake Forest, NC, is located in 

Section U and is impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Table 4-10 shows hazardous waste 

impact sites for each section of the Preferred Alternative. Additional information is provided 

in Appendix Q. 

AIR QUALITY 

FRA, FHWA, NCDOT, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance manuals were used to analyze the 

potential air quality impacts. Data sources for the project level analysis in Virginia included 

VDOT and project traffic data. Data sources for the project-level analysis in North Carolina 

included NCDOT, NCDENR Division of Air Quality, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (CAMPO), Triangle Air Quality Partnership, and Project traffic data. Air 

quality is discussed in Section 4.6.1. Detailed information on highway vehicle air emissions 

is provided in Appendix M. 

Locomotive Emissions 

Locomotive operations are subject to Federal air quality conformity regulations (40 CFR 

51.853). Based on modeling (detailed in Section 4.6.1), the predicted annual emissions from 

the Project fall below the level at which additional actions or mitigation are required. 

Constructing the Project will likely increase the number of intermodal or freight trains in the 

area. However, from an air quality perspective, these additional trains would result in a 

regional efficiency improvement as a result of freight providers switching from long haul 

trucking to intermodal and freight rail (which has lower emissions than long haul trucks). 

Highway Vehicle Emissions 

The primary concern for emissions from automobiles or trucks relates to carbon monoxide 

(CO) emissions for areas with large volumes of slow-moving traffic. Areas with high 

emissions of CO are called CO “hot spots.” Closing and consolidating rail crossings 

throughout the Study Area will require some vehicles to travel an additional distance to reach 

a grade-separated crossing. It is likely that the additional emissions caused by the extra 

distance will be offset by eliminating the vehicle idling that takes place when trains pass 

through at-grade road crossings. For example, a vehicle idling for one minute will produce 

approximately 70 grams of CO. The same car traveling two additional miles to use a gradeseparated crossing (one mile in each direction), would generate approximately 16 grams of 

CO. No air quality impacts are anticipated based on highway vehicle emissions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-15 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Construction Emissions 

Construction activities will result in temporary increases in air pollution. The greatest 

increases are likely to occur in the areas where new bridges are proposed for construction. 

However, it is not expected that increased pollutants from trucks and site equipment will 

cause violations of air quality standards. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Noise and vibration impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.1 and Table ES-5. The Richmond to 

Raleigh Tier II DEIS modelled the impacts of the Project only, not any associated intermodal 

or freight trains. Mitigation for noise and vibration impacts is discussed in Section 4.7.3. 

Most impacted receptors were considered to be classified as Category 2 (e.g., residences, 

hospitals, hotels). Table 4-14 provides a summary of anticipated noise impacts for the 

Project. The most impacts (moderate and severe) in Virginia were associated with Section I. 

The most impacts in North Carolina were associated with Sections P and U. Table 4-16 

provides information on impacted noise receptors at each diverted roadway in the Study 

Area. There were no impacted receptors at diverted roadways in Virginia. In North Carolina, 

diverted roadways had potential impacted receptors at East Main Street/Holden Road in 

Youngsville (Section T). Construction noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.2.1. 

As per FRA guidance, field vibration measurements were taken at 10 locations in the Study 

Area with active tracks. Measurements were taken of freight train passbys. These field 

measurements were below FRA reference vibration levels for freight trains, so it was 

determined that the FRA levels would present a conservative (worst case) way to estimate 

SEHSR vibration impacts. Section 4.7.1.3 provides background information on vibration 

testing, results of the analysis are shown in Table 4-18. Section I had the most vibration 

impacts in Virginia, and Sections P and U had the highest impacts in North Carolina. 

Construction vibration noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.2.2. 

VISUAL IMPACTS 

The FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts require an EIS to identify any 

significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed environment 

(see Section 4.9.1). Trains are most visible when they pass by a given location, or when 

trains are idling at sidings. To minimize idling trains, the Project is designed to include 

double tracks or passing sidings (about five miles long, located approximately every ten miles 

between ends). 

In general, the greatest visual impacts will take place in areas with no active rail service (from 

the Burgess Connector in Dinwiddie County, VA, southward to Norlina in Warren County, 

NC). Communities without active rail lines include the Dinwiddie Courthouse area, 

McKenney, Alberta, and La Crosse in Virginia, and Norlina in North Carolina. Although 

each of these towns developed along the railroad and had active rail service until the 1980s, 

the return of rail operations in a community could serve as a visual intrusion, albeit a short 

and periodic one. 

After publication of the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS, design changes were made that 

could impact the visual environment in Sections D in Virginia and to reduce impacts to 

segment R. Visual impacts are summarized in Table 4-23. Potentially high levels of visual 

impacts were found in portions of Section I in Virginia and in portions of Sections L, M, Q, 

U, and V in North Carolina. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-16 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Terrestrial Communities 

Terrestrial communities are groups of land plants that share a common environment and 

interact with each other. They are typically classified by the main tree or shrub species that 

can be easily identified in the field. Terrestrial communities are discussed in Section 

4.10.1.1, and Appendix N. 

Potential impacts (in acres) for Virginia and North Carolina were summarized into broad 

groups: “Mixed Forest,” “Pine Forest,” and “Maintained/Disturbed.” Appropriate land cover 

types were combined to summarize the impacts in Table 4-24. Section C in Virginia has the 

most impacted forest acres. Section S has the most forest impacts in North Carolina. 

Potential habitat fragmentation may occur in Section D (VA), where the Preferred Alternative 

is on new location, bisecting existing forested areas. Habitat fragmentation is also a concern 

in portions of Sections L and M in North Carolina. 

Aquatic Communities 

As discussed in Section 4.10.1.2, aquatic habitat in the Study Area will be both directly and 

indirectly affected by the construction of the Project. Direct impacts will include the 

destruction of habitat by the placement and replacement of culverts at stream crossings and 

the clearing and filling of adjacent floodplain and wetlands. Tables 4-1 through 4-7 show 

impacts of the Preferred Alternative to streams and other waterbodies. 

Rare and Protected Species 

Biological conclusions regarding potential Project impacts for the nine Federally protected 

species within the Study Area described in Sections 3.10.2 and 4.10.2 and are summarized in 

Table 4-25. More detailed information can be found in the natural resource technical reports 

for the Project. 

There are known populations of bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) west of Petersburg, 

VA, and a known population of Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) in Section D. The 

Preferred Alternative is anticipated to have no effect on these species, based on coordination 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Additional surveys for freshwater mussels [dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar 

River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and James River spinymussel (Pleurobema 

collina)] and the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) will be scheduled prior to Project 

construction and coordinated with USFWS. 

The USFWS recently listed the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as 

“Threatened” and issued an interim species-specific rule under Section 4(d) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, effective May 4, 2015. Furthermore, this species is 

included in USFWS’s current list of protected species for the project study area. Virginia 

DRPT and NCDOT will continue working closely with the USFWS to determine how this 

listing may impact the SEHSR project. Approximately 1,575 acres of trees (see Table 4-26) 

and numerous structures may be impacted by project construction over the anticipated threeyear phased schedule. Prior to project permitting, Virginia DRPT and NCDOT will 

coordinate with USFWS to determine if this project will incur potential effects to the 

Northern long-eared bat and how to address these potential effects, if necessary. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-17 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

Economic Impacts 

Economic consequences of the Project are summarized in Section 4.11.1.1. The proposed 

Project is not anticipated to cause a significant loss in property values in the Study Area. The 

Preferred Alternative will impact approximately 2,288 acres of potentially developable land 

(e.g., farm, forest, open, undeveloped), as shown on Table 4-26. 

Economic Benefits 

The addition of SEHSR passenger service will provide substantial transportation, 

environmental, and community benefits to the residents of Virginia and North Carolina, and 

are summarized in Section 4.11.1.2. Although the economic consequences discussed above 

are not quantified, the economic benefits of the Project would appear to far exceed any 

negative economic impacts. Cost benefit study results are presented in Table 4-27, and 

estimates for annual economic and fiscal impacts are shown in Tables 4-28 and 4-29. 

Changes in Economic Activity 

In addition to impacts from direct expenditures on system construction and operation, the 

proposed SEHSR system will increase the flow of travelers between cities along the route and 

thus enhance economic activity in those communities with station stops. 

Previous studies have estimated that, by 2030, over two million riders will be utilizing North 

Carolina service trains each year. Most of these trips will be for personal and other 

discretionary travel. Based on current trends and experience along the HSR corridor between 

New York and Washington, DC, business travel is anticipated to be the fastest growing sector 

of rail travel. 

Neighborhood and Community Impacts 

Many types of neighborhoods and communities are found in the Study Area. Section 4.11.2 

and Table 4-30 summarizes rail and road impacts and benefits of the Preferred Alternative for 

communities in the Study Area. For all communities in the Study Area, there is a potential 

for short-term benefits to the local economy during Project construction and for an increase in 

manufacturing jobs due to increased/improved freight access. 

Negative impacts to neighborhoods and communities include relocations (see Section 4.11.6), 

noise and vibration effects (see Section 4.7), and community disruption. Other changes are 

driven by the need to improve the safety of the Study Area, including changes to the 

transportation network caused by improving existing rail crossings and the need for fencing, 

especially in urban areas. Maps for each crossing and associated roadway improvement are 

shown in Appendices F and R. The impacts of the proposed crossing consolidations are 

summarized in Table 4-31. Impacts to specific communities are summarized in Section 

4.11.2.2. 

Generalized Benefits for Communities without SEHSR Stops 

While some communities in the Study Area are not currently identified as receiving a SEHSR 

stop, this does not preclude those communities from receiving a stop in the future. Also, 

communities without a station within their community will have the option for new or 

improved freight rail service, which will provide economic benefits. The Project will also 

allow future, conventional passenger rail service for communities without SEHSR stops. 

Generalized Benefits for Communities with SEHSR Stops 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-18 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

For communities that have SEHSR stops, potential benefits are anticipated to center primarily 

in the vicinity of passenger rail stations. Benefits include potential economic development 

and revitalization around the stations, and creating jobs in the office, commercial, hotel, and 

housing management industries. It is anticipated that the Project will also increase tourism 

and reduce the magnitude or timing of improvements to airports or highways, as the number 

of viable transportation options increase. 

Community Facilities and Services Impacts 

There are 27 public educational facilities located within the designated communities of the 

Study Area, with 11 in Virginia and 16 in North Carolina. Table 4-32 provides a summary of 

the public educational facility impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative by section. 

Table 4-33 provides a summary of impacts from the Preferred Alternative to the 98 places of 

worship and cemeteries within the Study Area. 

Closing existing at-grade railroad crossings and consolidating access across the Study Area 

will have some effect on police, fire, and EMS response in the communities along the Project 

during construction and once the corridor is in operation. Seven current facilities are close to 

the Study Area and would experience changes in access. In some cases, it would take longer 

to reach certain areas due to road closings along the corridor. However, “always open” 

grade-separated crossings would eliminate possible conflicts with emergency vehicles when 

trains pass through the corridor. Coordination with public response agencies in the Study 

Area will continue during construction to avoid and minimize disruptions to emergency 

response. In response to comments design changes were made several locations throughout 

the Study Area after publication of the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS. Subsequent to 

publication of the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS, designs changed. This resulted in a 

change to the service area analysis for nearby emergency response facilities at Woods Edge 

Road in Chesterfield County, VA and Ridgway-Warrenton Road in Warren County, NC. 

Section 4.11.3.3 presents a new analysis and discussion for these locations in Henderson, NC 

and Raleigh, NC. 

Land Use Planning 

Prior to publication of the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS, many planning documents for 

communities in the Study Area did not address the Project; however, all of the reviewed local 

planning documents developed by these communities after publication of the Richmond to 

Raleigh Tier II DEIS included the Project. The Project impacts on land use and development 

are generally a function of: 

Existing land uses and current zoning; 

 Availability of undeveloped land for new development; 

 Regional and local markets; 

 Proposed station locations; 

 Local effect of crossing closures and redirected traffic patterns; 

 Potential for existing uses to be redeveloped; and 

 Local land use plans, economic development programs and land use controls such as 

zoning and land development ordinances. 

Table 4-34 reviews SEHSR compatibility with future land use plans in VA, while Table 4-35 

shows compatibility of the Project with future land use plans in North Carolina. Table 4-36 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-19 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

shows the compatibility of the Project with transportation plans for communities in Virginia, 

while Table 4-38 shows the compatibility of transportation plans in North Carolina. 

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Elderly & Disabled Populations 

Section 4.11.5.1 states that the Project is not anticipated to introduce any barriers to the 

elderly or disabled, or to have adverse impacts to either of these special populations. 

Environmental Justice (EJ) 

Section 4.11.5.2 of the FEIS provides a detailed discussion of this topic. The Project seeks to 

improve approximately 234 combined miles of road and rail main-line track in the Study 

Area. Approximately 57 percent of those improvements are located within EJ communities. 

EJ communities have the potential to receive a disproportionately high level of adverse 

impacts in comparison to non-EJ communities. On the other hand, EJ communities also have 

the potential to receive a disproportionately high level of project benefits compared to non-EJ 

communities. 

EJ communities will be subject to a disproportionately high number of at-grade road and rail 

crossing closures. However, these closures are not considered severe given the maximum 

reroute distance of approximately one mile. In addition, closures and reroutes were discussed 

with community representatives to develop the most beneficial and least impactful design. 

Overall, EJ communities would experience disproportionately high and adverse impacts in 

the areas of residential relocations, the need for housing of last resort, rail operation noise 

impacts to Category 2 receptors (residences and buildings where people normally sleep), and 

rail noise vibration impacts to sensitive receptors. 

Residential Relocations & Housing of Last Resort 

Of the approximately 223 residential relocations resulting from the Preferred Alternative, 189 

(85 percent) are within EJ communities (FEIS Table 4-41). The greatest number of 

residential displacements in EJ communities will occur in Richmond, VA; Ettrick, VA; and 

Henderson, NC. Residences located along the existing rail corridor in a developed, urban 

area are difficult to avoid due to rail engineering standards and constraints that limit 

flexibility in the proposed designs. 

The only communities where housing of last resort may be needed are in EJ communities. As 

discussed in FEIS Section 4.11.6, housing of last resort will likely be necessary in Sections L 

(North Carolina -portion), M, N, and Q in Warren and Vance Counties. Where displacements 

are unavoidable, fair and equitable compensatory mitigation will be implemented in 

accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). 

While residential displacements and the need for housing of last resort are disproportionately 

high and adverse, the surrounding EJ communities would be served by and will directly 

benefit from the safety improvements afforded by the Project. 

Rail Operations Noise Impacts to Category 2 Receptors 

Severe noise impacts to Category 2 receptors (residences and buildings where people 

normally sleep) would be disproportionately high and adverse in EJ communities. Of the 65 

residences identified as severely impacted Category 2 receptors, 42 (65 percent) would be 

within EJ communities (FEIS Table 4-42). This is due in large part to the presence of 

properties adjacent to the existing railroad corridor. The towns of Alberta and La Crosse, 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-20 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VA, and Norlina, Henderson, Middleburg, and Kittrell, NC, would receive the greatest 

number of predicted severe Category 2 noise impacts. In addition, all four of the Category 3 

receptors (institutional land uses with primary daytime uses) impacted are located within EJ 

communities (Alberta, La Crosse, Middleburg, and Kittrell). During the design phase of the 

Project, a detailed noise assessment will be performed that considers mitigation. 

Rail Noise Vibration Impacts to Sensitive Receptors 

Of the receptors identified in the Study Area, single-family, multi-family, and commercial 

receptors would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects of rail noise vibration 

within EJ communities (FEIS Table 4-43). For single family residences, 135 (75 percent) of 

the 180 receptors are within EJ communities, with the towns of Norlina and Middleburg, NC; 

having the greatest number of impacts. For multi-family residences, all seven of the impacts 

would be within the EJ community of Ettrick, VA. For commercial receptors, 71 (66 

percent) of the 108 impacted receptors would be within EJ communities, with Middleburg, 

NC; having the greatest number of impacts. 

Vibration mitigation may be required for the areas where noise vibration impacts exist, and 

will be assessed during the final design phase of the Project when more detailed data are 

available. The building damage criteria of 0.50 inch-per-second for rail operation vibrations 

would not be exceeded at any building in the Study Area due to train passbys. Therefore, the 

Project is not expected to cause damage due to vibration to any buildings in the Study Area, 

regardless of EJ applicability. 

Mitigation 

As presented in FEIS Section 4.11.5.2.11, extensive community outreach efforts resulted in 

the following mitigation for community impacts, including EJ communities: 

 The decision that all new, grade-separated crossings will include room for sidewalks 

on at least one side of the bridge to accommodate pedestrians. 

 The decision to provide, non-vehicular, grade-separated crossings at heavily used 

pedestrian/cyclist/scooter locations, including: 

o Lincoln Street in Petersburg, VA 

o Burwell Avenue/Peachtree Street in Henderson, NC 

o Mason Street in Franklinton, NC 

o College Street in Franklinton, NC 

o Hawkins Street (Franklinton Elementary School) in Franklinton, NC. 

 The two proposed HSR stations are recommended to be located within the EJ 

communities of La Crosse, VA; and Henderson, NC. 

 The Preferred Alternative essentially remains on existing alignment through the EJ 

communities, thereby minimizing relocation impacts and impacts to EJ community 

services and facilities. 

 All persons, business, and non-profit organizations displaced as a result of the Project 

would be compensated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 

and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18. 

Relocations 

Table 4-44 presents a summary of the potential residential and business relocation impacts for 

the Preferred Alternative by section. The highest number of residential relocations would 

occur in Section AA in Richmond, VA; and Section CC in Petersburg, VA, and Section P in 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-21 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Henderson, NC. During final design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements 

will occur; this will likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 

Right of Way Costs 

Total ROW costs include land and damages, residential and business relocation costs, and 

acquisition costs. Table 4-45 presents a summary of the estimated ROW costs associated 

with Preferred Alternative by section. The costs for the Preferred Alternative are the same as 

those presented in the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS, except in Sections D and V. As 

described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternatives in these two sections were developed 

subsequent to the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS. For Sections D and V, the ROW costs 

are derived from the 2012 Project Recommendation Report (NCDOT, DRPT, 2012). 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

306108), and implementing regulations (see 36 CFR Part 800) require Federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment if the action would result in an adverse 

effect on the property listed on or eligible for the NRHP. Eligibility criteria for the NRHP are 

summarized in Section 3.12, and impacts are discussed in Section 4.12 and Chapter 5. 

According to the criteria for Effect and Adverse Effect developed by the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (36 CFR Section 800.5), potential effect is determined based upon the 

following: 

 No Effect - There would be no effect, neither adverse nor beneficial, on potential 

cultural resources. 

 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. Archeological sites may be "adversely affected" when they are 

threatened with unavoidable physical destruction or damage. 

 Adverse Effect - There would be an effect that would compromise the physical 

and/or historic integrity of the resource. 

Where the Project has been determined to have an adverse effect on historic resources, 

Section 106 requires that efforts be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse 

effects. As part of this process, consultation has taken place and is ongoing with the Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), North Carolina State Historic Preservation 

Office (NC-HPO), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and other “consulting 

parties,” such as the National Park Service, local historical societies, and property owners. 

This consultation will result in Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) for both Virginia and 

North Carolina, which outline the agreed-upon measures that the Project will take to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. The MOA will be included in the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Project. 

Determinations of effect for archaeological resources in Virginia are listed in Table 4-46. 

The resources are listed in the order they appear in the Study Area from north to south. There 

are no eligible or listed archaeological resources in North Carolina; therefore, impacts were 

not evaluated in North Carolina. Table 4-47 lists effect determinations for historic 

architectural resources in VA. Table 4-48 lists effects determinations for battlefields in 

Virginia. Table 4-49 lists effect determinations for historic architectural resources in North 

Carolina. Both Virginia and North Carolina have concurred with these effects 

determinations. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-22 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

PARKLAND, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES 

The Study Area includes Federal parklands, city/county parks, and local greenways; Section 

4.13 details the potential effects of the Project on these resources. There are no state parks, 

natural area preserves, forests, wildlife refuges, or recreation areas in the Study Area. 

TRANSPORTATION 

The Project will become part of the larger transportation network that includes roads, transit, 

aviation, and other rail. Section 4.14 provides an assessment of potential impacts from the 

project to that transportation network. Impacts to connectivity across the railroad are 

evaluated in Section 4.14.2, while impacts to traffic conditions in the communities throughout 

the Study Area are evaluated in Section 4.14.3. Section 4.14 also summarizes impacts to 

existing freight and passenger rail operations, local public transit, and aviation facilities. 

Roadway 

Because the SEHSR is designed to be completely grade separated through the use of bridges 

or underpasses, it is important to assess the impact from the Preferred Alternative on 

connectivity (i.e., the ability to move across the Study Area). In addition to the discussion 

regarding major corridors in Section 4.14.1, designs for all crossings and associated roadwork 

are included in Appendix F. Maps displaying the proposed roadwork are included in 

Appendix R. 

Traffic 

Detailed traffic analyses were performed at locations in the Study Area based on coordination 

with state and local officials. These analyses were performed as needed to assist the project 

design team in developing transportation solutions to associated traffic concerns due the 

effects of rail crossing closures and consolidations on local traffic conditions. The purpose of 

these analyses, summarized in Section 4.14.2, was to help ensure that traffic operations with 

the SEHSR Project were comparable to operations without the Project. Appendix P includes 

figures displaying future traffic configurations (e.g., crossing closures, new 

bridges/underpasses, new/extended turn lanes) and predicted 2030 traffic volumes with and 

without the Project. 

Rail 

The two main Class I railroads operating in Virginia and North Carolina are CSX and NS. A 

large portion of the existing rail network is single track, which creates bottlenecks in high 

traffic areas. The Preferred Alternative provides improvements to the rail network through: 

provision of additional tracks, which increases capacity; through designs for straighter track, 

which allows increased speeds; and through use of grade-separated crossings, which 

improves safety. The track charts provided in the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II DEIS have 

been updated and can be found in Appendix E. 

UTILITIES 

Utility impacts for the SEHSR Preferred Alternative vary widely throughout the length of the 

Project. Table 4-147 summarizes the projected costs associated with impacts to utility 

infrastructure, by section for the Preferred Alternative. 

VDOT and NCDOT estimated utility costs for the alternatives in their service areas during 

development of the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS. Costs for the Preferred Alternative are 

shown in Table 4-127 with the exception of Section V (where a new alternative, NC5, was 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-23 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

developed based on stakeholder input). NCDOT developed utility costs for the new portion 

of this alignment in 2011. For the other sections, the design changes were deemed to be 

insufficient to substantially change the costs estimated in the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh 

DEIS. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

Passenger rail has consistently been one of the safest ways to travel in the U.S. Since 1970, 

less than four percent of all transportation fatalities have been related to rail operations, and 

in most cases, train fatalities are due to collisions with vehicles, or trespassers on railroad 

ROW. To improve rail safety, SEHSR will grade separate crossings to greatly reduce the 

potential for rail collisions with vehicles. Fencing that would direct pedestrians to 

bridges/underpasses may be proposed for some locations in urbanized areas. The location 

and type of fencing will be determined during final design based on coordination between the 

owner of the rail corridor, the operator of the railroad, and adjacent communities. 

SEHSR is proposing the safest design possible by consolidating and grade separating all 

railroad-roadway crossings. Included in the Project are over 80 new 

bridges/overpasses/underpasses that, when combined with existing bridges/overpasses and 

proposed roadway realignments and closures, will create a fully grade-separated system, 

thereby assuring the highest level of safety to both passengers and the surrounding 

communities. 

The ability of pedestrians to move safely across the Study Area is another important safety 

consideration. In Virginia, one existing public pedestrian-only underpass will be retained 

with the Preferred Alternative (there are no existing public pedestrian-only bridges or 

underpasses in North Carolina). The Preferred Alternative also proposes twelve new 

pedestrian-only bridges/underpasses to provide increased pedestrian access in certain 

downtown areas 

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Based on comments received on the Tier II Richmond to Raleigh DEIS, a new assessment of 

indirect and cumulative effects (ICEs) was developed for the FEIS. The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts as part of the project decision-making process. The Council for Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines define direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts as follows: 

 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 

 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth 

inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land 

use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other 

natural systems, including ecosystems. 

 Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment that result from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 

time. 

Summaries of concerns relative to the potential for indirect and cumulative effects, as further 

discussed in this section, are provided in Table 4-128 and Table 4-129, respectively. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC ES-24 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ICEs for the Project will be seen at national, regional, and local levels. As one of the ten 

Federally-designated HSR corridors, the Project will play an important role in modernizing 

America’s transportation system and will promote more energy efficient transport of people 

and goods through the country. 

SEHSR would enhance the existing transportation network in the Washington, DC, to 

Charlotte, NC, corridor, providing many indirect benefits. It would link cities and major 

metropolitan areas where highway and airline travel volumes are the greatest, thereby 

providing a travel alternative that will help ease congestion on the existing highway and 

airway systems. The proposed SEHSR program would offer an alternative mode of 

transportation between Virginia and North Carolina. 

Despite the importance of national and regional ICEs, ICEs are typically most noticeable on a 

local level, especially in the vicinity of the railroad stations. The SEHSR Tier I ROD states that 

future development will occur primarily around these stations, with commensurate levels of 

noise and traffic associated with the increased use of the stations, as well as with secondary 

commercial and residential development that may be drawn to the station areas. The chief 

potential negative impact would be noise and vibration caused by the reintroduction of service 

along the S-line in VA, where there is presently no rail service. 

The project also has the potential to have local effects on natural resources. Impacts to surface 

waters, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial communities, and threatened and endangered species 

are discussed in Sections 4.17.3.2.1 through 4.17.3.2.4, respectively. Cumulative effects from 

other planned actions are discussed in Section 4.17.4. 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

A summary of comments received to the Tier II DEIS and responses are provided in Chapter 8. 

 
Topic Impacts Topic 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 232 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 40,679 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 28.36 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shown forpreferred) 67.62Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 7Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 1,520.1Forested uplands (acres) 1,574.6 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 249 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 223 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 116 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) Public Schools Impacted 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 622Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 65Vibration (Impacted Structures) 295Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 44Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 35Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 8Section 106 Adverse Effects * 46

Impact Matrix

SEHSR Corridor - Preferred Alternative

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical Ch

*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differenconstructability between the alternatives.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through thwithin the section based on current design assumptionsthrough the section could be greater.* Note that several resources protected under Section 1one or more project sections; impacts are reported for eTherefore, the total number of impacts reported across atotal number of protected resources described in Chapte
VA1 VA2 VA3 V

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) 1Number of Impacted Stream Segments 20 20 20 Limiting Speed** NImpacts to Streams (linear feet) 3,919 4,518 4,518 Operability/Constructability*** neImpacts to Wetlands (acres) 2.32 2.88 2.88 Roadwork (miles) 4FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 25.72 18 18Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1 1 1Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 0.00 26.16 26.16Forested uplands (acres) 42.57 43.7 43.7 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) $25Hazardous Materials Sites 59 59 59 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) $2Residential Relocations 40 40 40 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) $2Business Relocations 7 6 6 TOTAL COST

S (millions $) $30

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 4 4 4Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 6 6 6Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 2 2 2Section 106 Adverse Effects * 4 4 4

Summary of Operational & Physical C

Topic

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts

Topic

SECTION AA

By Section By Section

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternativ

*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through ththe section based on current design assumptions; averasection could be greater.* Note that several resources protected under Section 10or more project sections; impacts are reported for each ptotal number of impacts reported across all sections excprotected resources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 

Section AA- All Alternatives on Common Alignment 

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 15 17 17 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,078 2,991 2,991 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 5.22 4.53 4.53 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 11.4 7 7Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 13.3 12.59 12.59Forested uplands (acres) 54.16 57.39 57.39 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 10 10 10 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 7 6 6 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 1 1 1 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 2 2 2Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 5 5 5Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 4 4 4Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 7 7 7

Section BB- All Alternatives on Common Alignment

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION BB

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 19 18 18 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,405 2,047 2,047 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 2.52 5.21 5.21 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 6.16 7 7Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1 1 1Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 16.4 57.56 57.56Forested uplands (acres) 45.05 51.64 51.64 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 20 20 20 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 48 44 44 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 1 1 1 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 11 11 11Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 15 15 15Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 6 6 6Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 6 6 6Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 2 2 2Section 106 Adverse Effects * 6 6 6

Section CC- All Alternatives on Common Alignment

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION CC

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 6 6 6 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 720 739 585 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 2.28 2.19 2.37 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0 0 4.63Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 23.45 22.82 35.7Forested uplands (acres) 53.14 53.46 62.41 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 1 1 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 2 0 2 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 0 0 0Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 6 6 6Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 1 1 1Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Impact Matrix

Section DD- Alternatives VA1, VA2, VA3 on Different Alignments

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION DD

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 12 12 12 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,897 3,094 2,897 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 2.37 2.84 2.37 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 1 4.67 1Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 43.71 51.8 43.71Forested uplands (acres) 70.85 64.2 70.85 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 1 1 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 4 4 4Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 1 1 1Vibration (Impacted Structures) 0 0 0Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 3 3 3Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section A- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION A

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 8 9 11 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 760 496 940 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.64 0.62 0.97 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.85 2 2Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 64.8 40.13 65.40Forested uplands (acres) 81.45 77.8 82.38 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 3 2 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 3 2 4 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 1 1 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 13 16 13Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 2 5 2Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section B- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION B

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 18 21 21 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,803 4,025 4,025 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 2.17 1.51 1.51 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 6.38 1 1Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1 1 1Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 86.3 94.47 94.47Forested uplands (acres) 155.05 156.56 156.56 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 3 2 2 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 4 1 1 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 8 8 8 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 9 9 9Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 10 11 11Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section C- All Alternatives on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION C

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 VA4 VA1 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 1010 Mainline Track Length (miles) 6.07 Number of Impacted Stream Segments 14 12 14 9 Limiting Speed** 110 Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,050 2,575 2,050 1,998 Operability/Constructability*** neutral Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.99 7.37 0.99 2.03 Roadwork (miles) 1.6 FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acresshown for preferred) 0 4 0 1.31Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0000Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 80.45 54.45 80.45 99.9Forested uplands (acres) 90.99 92.24 90.99 101.71 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) $67.20 Hazardous Materials Sites 0101 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) $1.28 Residential Relocations 3233 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) $1.82 Business Relocations 2022 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) $70.30 Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 2324Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 2122Vibration (Impacted Structures) 3132Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 2121Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0000Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0101Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0000Section 106 Adverse Effects * 2121

Impact Matrix

Section D- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment, Alternatives VA2 and VA4 on Differe

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical Ch

By Section By Section

** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average runcould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differences between the alternatives.

Topic

SECTION D

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative.

* Note that several resources protected under Section 106 more project sections; impacts are reported for each projecnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds thresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 5 6 6 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 860 1,294 1,025 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 1.21 2.41 0.28 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.85 2 1Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 59.8 60.71 58.90Forested uplands (acres) 52.01 57.07 52.02 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 2 9 2 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 7 0 7 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 23 22 23Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 6 6 6Vibration (Impacted Structures) 9 11 9Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 1 1 1Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section E- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION E

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 6 6 6 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 1,004 1,185 1,185 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.62 0.60 0.60 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 3.20 2 2Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 25.0 21.65 21.65Forested uplands (acres) 67.02 67.01 67.01 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 6 6 6Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 0 0 0Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section F- All Alternatives on Common Alignment

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION F

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 VA4 VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0000 Mainline Track Length (miles) 3.61 3.66 3.55 Number of Impacted Stream Segments 7749 Limiting Speed** 110 90 110 Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 654 914 510 1,095 Operability/Constructability*** neutral negative positive Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.21 0.49 0.26 0.21 Roadwork (miles) 0.7 0.3 0.58 FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acresshown for preferred) 1 1 0.32 1Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1111Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 25.02 24.96 33.1 49.43Forested uplands (acres) 45.54 44.59 43.56 47.55 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) $35.90 $29.00 $35.50 Hazardous Materials Sites 0000 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) $0.19 $0.16 $0.19 Residential Relocations 0021 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) $0.37 $0.31 $0.53 Business Relocations 0000 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) $36.46 $29.47 $36.22 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0 0

Noise (Impacted Receptors) 0122Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0000Vibration (Impacted Structures) 1000Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 2222Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0000Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0000Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0000Section 106 Adverse Effects * 2222

Impact Matrix

Section G- Alternatives VA1, VA2, VA3, VA4 on Different Alignments

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical Characte

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION G

Topic

SECT

Note Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative. that several resources protected under Section 106 and/or Section 4(f)

span one or more project sections; impacts are reported for each project section. Therefore, the total number of impacts reported across all sections exceeds the total number of protected resources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the most restrictive curve within the section based on current design assumptions; average running speed through the section could be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differences in operability or constructability between the alternatives.
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 10 7 6 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,808 2,023 2,005 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.35 0.25 0.25 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred)0. 0.06 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 82.0 80.20 79.87Forested uplands (acres) 110.64 101.45 110.67 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 1 1 1 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0

Noise (Impacted Receptors) 18 24 18Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 2 2 2Vibration (Impacted Structures) 5 7 5Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Impact Matrix

Section H- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION H

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 1 0 0 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 22 6 6 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.001 0.00 0.00 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.00 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 57.6 65.95 57.54Forested uplands (acres) 35.53 40.08 35.51 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 2 2 2 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 14 8 14 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 50 50 50Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 5 5 5Vibration (Impacted Structures) 24 21 24Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 2 2 2Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 2 2 2Section 106 Adverse Effects * 2 2 2

Section I- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION I

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 5 2 5 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,061 420 2,061 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.00 0.22 0.00 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0 0.00 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 80.43 72.1 80.43Forested uplands (acres) 64.27 63.06 64.27 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 1 1 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 6 5 6 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 11 21 11Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 1 1 1Vibration (Impacted Structures) 5 5 5Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 2 1 2Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 2 1 2

Section J- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION J

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1 VA2 VA3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 11 10 10 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 1,419 2,447 1,927 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.91 0.47 0.46 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.19 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1 1 1Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 37.6 41.40 36.55Forested uplands (acres) 79.21 79.94 79.22 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 0 1 0 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 5 2 5 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 9 8 9Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 1 2 1Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 3 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 1 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 3 1

Section K- Alternatives VA1, VA3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION K

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
VA1/NC1 VA2/NC2 VA3/NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 10 9 14 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 2,502 1,422 2,809 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.72 0.01 0.57 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.04 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 128.5 125.95 122.74Forested uplands (acres) 88.46 73.19 91.32 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 1 1 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 8 17 12 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 1 1 1 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 20 32 20Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 1 3 1Vibration (Impacted Structures) 7 13 7Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 2 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 2 1

Section L- Includes Areas in Virginia and North Carolina

Alternatives VA1/NC1 and VA3/NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION L

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 2 4 2 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 442 511 442 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.49 0.00 0.00 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.00 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 113.5 85.00 90.80Forested uplands (acres) 40.5 52.7 48.12 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 18 20 21 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 4 4 4 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 41 48 41Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 6 1 6Vibration (Impacted Structures) 30 28 30Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section M- Alternatives NC1, NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION M

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 3 4 3 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 386 715 385 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 1.25 0.18 1.25 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.00 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 76.1 74.38 65.39Forested uplands (acres) 43.43 44.32 42.61 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 1 1 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 2 7 2 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 4 6 4Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 1 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 6 2 2Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section N- Alternatives NC1, NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION N

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 5 6 9 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 693 915 3,102 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.40 1.63 0.30 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0 0 0.00Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 106.22 108.13 124.4Forested uplands (acres) 25.26 20.91 46.22 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 2 2 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 9 9 3 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 26 26 10Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 6 6 5Vibration (Impacted Structures) 14 11 3Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 2 2 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 2 2 1

Section O- Alternatives NC1, NC2, NC3 on Different Alignments 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION O

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 10 7 7 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 1,532 1,520 1,520 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.91 0.91 0.91 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.00 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 87.0 87.83 87.73Forested uplands (acres) 12.86 16.07 16.07 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 31 22 22 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 33 18 18 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 8 6 6 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 78 78 78Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 11 11 11Vibration (Impacted Structures) 74 74 74Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 3 3 3Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 2 2 2Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 3 3 3

Section P- All Alternatives on Common Alignment

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION P

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 10 9 9 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 1,127 1,009 1,009 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.03 0.03 0.03 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.00 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1 1 1Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 96.7 84.30 94.78Forested uplands (acres) 49.22 43.41 48.89 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 4 4 4 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 10 14 17 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 13 13 13Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 5 5 5Vibration (Impacted Structures) 20 20 20Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section Q- Alternatives NC1, NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION Q

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 2 2 2 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 438 1,018 475 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0 0.00 0.00 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.04 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 25.1 12.72 25.83Forested uplands (acres) 29.45 21.95 33.78 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0 0 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 1 1 0 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 1 1 1Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 3 2 3Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section R- Alternatives NC1, NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION R

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 10 11 11 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 1,620 2,720 2,120 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.48 0.07 0.55 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.42 1 1Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 91.7 105.65 94.88Forested uplands (acres) 92.19 101.43 94.61 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 7 5 6 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 4 8 6 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 22 23 22Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 1 1 1Vibration (Impacted Structures) 22 22 22Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 2 2 2Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 2 2 2

Section S- Alternatives NC1, NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION S

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 3 3 3 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 415 94 415 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.07 0.00 0.07 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 0.00 0 0Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0 0 0Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 41.7 38.45 41.90Forested uplands (acres) 25.65 20.16 21.61 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 4 2 1 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 5 2 3 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 25 25 25Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 0 0 0Vibration (Impacted Structures) 5 10 5Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Section T- Alternatives NC1, NC3 on Common Alignment 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION T

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix
NC1 NC2 NC3 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0 0 0 Mainline Track Length (miles) Number of Impacted Stream Segments 19 19 16 Limiting Speed** Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 3,718 3,010 3,394 Operability/Constructability*** Impacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.25 0.21 0.38 Roadwork (miles) FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acres shownfor preferred) 1 1 0.00Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 1 1 1Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.0Forested uplands (acres) 70.87 70.07 71.94 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) Hazardous Materials Sites 10 10 20 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) Residential Relocations 10 8 8 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) Business Relocations 17 17 12 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) 

Public Schools Impacted 0 0 0Noise (Impacted Receptors) 159 161 159Noise (Severely Impacted Receptors) 17 17 17Vibration (Impacted Structures) 45 45 45Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) Uses- Parks * 0 0 0Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic * 1 1 1Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks * 0 0 0Section 106 Adverse Effects * 1 1 1

Impact Matrix

Section U- Alternatives NC1, NC2, NC3 on Different Alignments 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical C

By Section By Section

Topic

SECTION U

Topic

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative

* Note that several resources protected under Section 10more project sections; impacts are reported for each projnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds tresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average rucould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differencconstructability between the alternatives.
NC1 NC2 NC3 NC5 NC1 

Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted 0000 Mainline Track Length (miles) 9.89 Number of Impacted Stream Segments 16 16 15 11 Limiting Speed** 45 Impacts to Streams (linear feet) 1,105 1,107 1,182 1,036 Operability/Constructability*** negative nImpacts to Wetlands (acres) 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 Roadwork (miles) 3 FEMA Floodplain Crossings (acresshown for preferred) 4 4 3 1.38Federal/State Designated Rivers (crossings) 0000Impacts to Prime and Other Important Farmland (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0Forested uplands (acres) 16.92 16.92 17.04 17.05 Rail and Road Construction Cost (millions $) $148.20 $Hazardous Materials Sites 76 58 58 79 Utility Relocation Cost (millions $) $2.64 Residential Relocations 0100 Right-of-Way Cost (millions $) $53.34 Business Relocations 23 20 54 59 TOTAL COSTS (millions $) $204.18 

Public Schools Impacted 0000Total Noise Impacted Receptors 92 92 92 79

Severe Impacts (subset of total) 0002

Vibration (Impacted Structures) 48 48 48 4Section 4(f) Uses- Historic * 4412Section 4(f) Uses- Parks 0000Section 4(f) De Minimis- Historic 2231Section 4(f) De Minimis- Parks 1111Section 106 Adverse Effects * 4432

* Note that several resources protected under Section 106 more project sections; impacts are reported for each projecnumber of impacts reported across all sections exceeds thresources described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.** Limiting Speed is the maximum train speed through the section based on current design assumptions; average runcould be greater.*** Positive-negative-neutral denotes significant differences between the alternatives.

Impact Matrix

Section V in Downtown Raleigh- Whittaker Mill Road to Boylan Wye

Alternatives NC1, NC2, NC3, NC5 on Different Alignments 

Summary of Potential Human and Natural Impacts Summary of Operational & Physical Ch

Topic

Downtown Raleigh

Topic

Do

Indicates Recommended Preferred Alternative.
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Contents 

TITLE PAGE 

PROJECT COMMITMENTS 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

Description of Proposed Project ......................................................................................................... ES-1

Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project ......................................................................................... ES-1

Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... ES-2

Rail Alignment .................................................................................................................... ES-6

Road Alignments ................................................................................................................. ES-6

Stations ................................................................................................................................ ES-6

Service ................................................................................................................................. ES-7

Funding ............................................................................................................................................... ES-7

Ridership & Revenue .......................................................................................................................... ES-8

Selection of the Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................... ES-10

Greenway Corridor Plan ................................................................................................................... ES-11

The Affected Environment................................................................................................................ ES-11

Summary of Impacts for the Preferred Alternative ........................................................................... ES-12

Water Resource Impacts .................................................................................................... ES-12

Soils ................................................................................................................................... ES-13

Mineral Resources/Hazardous Waste Sites ....................................................................... ES-14

Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... ES-14

Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................... ES-15

Visual Impacts ................................................................................................................... ES-15

Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... ES-16

Community Resources ...................................................................................................... ES-17

Vulnerable Populations/Environmental Justice ................................................................. ES-19

Archaeological and Historical Resources .......................................................................... ES-21

Parkland, Recreational Areas, and Refuges ...................................................................... ES-22

Transportation ................................................................................................................... ES-22

Utilities .............................................................................................................................. ES-22

Safety and Security ............................................................................................................ ES-23

Indirect and Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................ ES-23
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Responses to Comments .................................................................................................... ES-24

Impact Matrix .................................................................................................................................... ES-24

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 1-1

High Speed Rail (HSR) History ................................................................................................. 1-1

     National HSR Program .............................................................................................. 1-1

     Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) ........................................................................ 1-4

     Other Rail Projects and Actions............................................................................... 1-12

Project Background .................................................................................................................. 1-15

     SEHSR Corridor Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ............................. 1-15

     SEHSR Corridor Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS .................................... 1-17

Project Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 1-19

Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1-19

Project Assumptions ................................................................................................ 1-22

     Project Funding ........................................................................................................ 1-30

     Stations .................................................................................................................... 1-30

     Operations ................................................................................................................ 1-33

Patronage (Ridership and Revenue) ......................................................................................... 1-35

Need for the Proposed Project ................................................................................................. 1-41

Purpose of the Proposed Richmond to Raleigh Project ........................................................... 1-43

Updated Project Need Data ...................................................................................................... 1-43

     Growth ..................................................................................................................... 1-43

     Congestion ............................................................................................................... 1-49

     Travel Time/Service Reliability............................................................................... 1-55

     Connectivity ............................................................................................................. 1-57

Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 1-58

     Safety ....................................................................................................................... 1-58

     Energy Efficiency .................................................................................................... 1-63

Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 1-64

Summary ................................................................................................................. 1-64

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 1-65

2 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Preferred Alternative by Section ................................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.1 Process for Evaluation of Alternatives ...................................................................... 2-5

2.2.2     Introduction to Preferred Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-5
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.3 Section AA .............................................................................................................. 2-12

2.2.4     Section BB ............................................................................................................... 2-16

2.2.5     Section CC ............................................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.6     Section DD............................................................................................................... 2-22

2.2.7     Section A ................................................................................................................. 2-25

2.2.8     Section B .................................................................................................................. 2-28

2.2.9     Section C .................................................................................................................. 2-31

2.2.10 Section D ................................................................................................................. 2-34

2.2.11 Section E .................................................................................................................. 2-37

2.2.12 Section F .................................................................................................................. 2-40

2.2.13 Section G ................................................................................................................. 2-42

2.2.14 Section H ................................................................................................................. 2-48

2.2.15 Section I ................................................................................................................... 2-51

2.2.16 Section J .................................................................................................................. 2-54

2.2.17 Section K ................................................................................................................. 2-57

2.2.18 Section L .................................................................................................................. 2-60

2.2.19 Section M ................................................................................................................ 2-64

2.2.20 Section N ................................................................................................................. 2-68

2.2.21 Section O ................................................................................................................. 2-71

2.2.22 Section P .................................................................................................................. 2-74

2.2.23 Section Q ................................................................................................................. 2-78

2.2.24 Section R ................................................................................................................. 2-81

2.2.25 Section S .................................................................................................................. 2-84

2.2.26 Section T .................................................................................................................. 2-87

2.2.27 Section U ................................................................................................................. 2-90

2.2.28 Section V ................................................................................................................. 2-95

2.3 Alternatives Considered, But Not Carried Forward ............................................................... 2-101

2.3.1    Abandoned S-Line, from near Centralia to Lynch ................................................. 2-101

2.3.2    S-line, from Appomattox River to Burgess ............................................................ 2-101

2.3.3    Alternatives Serving Old Union Station in Petersburg ........................................... 2-101

2.4 No Build Alternative .............................................................................................................. 2-104

2.5 Greenway Corridor Plan ........................................................................................................ 2-104

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 3-1

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

    Surface Water ............................................................................................................. 3-1
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

    Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 3-12

    Floodplains and Floodways ...................................................................................... 3-13

    Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 3-17

    US Coast Guard Waters ............................................................................................ 3-18

Topography, Geology, and Soils .............................................................................................. 3-19

    Topography ............................................................................................................... 3-19

    Geology .................................................................................................................... 3-19

    Soils .......................................................................................................................... 3-19

Prime and Other Important Farmland ...................................................................................... 3-23

Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-25

Hazardous Material .................................................................................................................. 3-25

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3-27

    Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................... 3-28

    Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-32

Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................................. 3-35

    Noise Descriptors ..................................................................................................... 3-35

    Vibration Descriptors ............................................................................................... 3-37

    Existing Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-40

Noise Measurements ................................................................................................ 3-40

    Vibration Measurements ........................................................................................... 3-40

Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 3-48

Visual Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-49

    Virginia ..................................................................................................................... 3-49

North Carolina .......................................................................................................... 3-52

Biological Resources................................................................................................................ 3-54

Natural Communities ............................................................................................. 3-54

Rare and Protected Species .................................................................................... 3-59

Community Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-64

Demographics ......................................................................................................... 3-65

Economics .............................................................................................................. 3-80

Land Use and Transportation Planning .................................................................. 3-88

Neighborhoods and Communities ........................................................................ 3-109

Community Facilities and Services ...................................................................... 3-115

Archaeological and Historical Resources .............................................................................. 3-128

Archaeological Resources .................................................................................... 3-129
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Historical Resources ............................................................................................. 3-134

Local Landmarks .................................................................................................. 3-167

Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Refuges .......................................................................... 3-168

Federal Parklands ................................................................................................. 3-168

State Parklands and Recreation Areas .................................................................. 3-171

County/City Parklands ......................................................................................... 3-171

Wildlife Refuges ................................................................................................... 3-173

Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Resources ...................................................................... 3-173

Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 3-174

Roads .................................................................................................................... 3-174

Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................ 3-179

Rail ....................................................................................................................... 3-198

Stations ................................................................................................................. 3-202

Transit ................................................................................................................... 3-202

Aviation ................................................................................................................ 3-203

Utilities and Related Services ................................................................................................ 3-203

Water Supply ........................................................................................................ 3-203

Safety and Security ................................................................................................................ 3-205

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................ 4-1

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4-1

    Surface Waters ............................................................................................................ 4-1

Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 4-8

     Floodplains and Floodways ..................................................................................... 4-10

    Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................ 4-12

    Permits ...................................................................................................................... 4-13

    Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation ............................................. 4-15

Topography, Geology, and Soils .............................................................................................. 4-17

    Topography ............................................................................................................... 4-17

    Geology .................................................................................................................... 4-17

    Soils .......................................................................................................................... 4-17

Prime and Other Important Farmlands ..................................................................................... 4-18

Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-19

Hazardous Material .................................................................................................................. 4-20

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 4-22

    Locomotive Operations - CO, NOx, HC, and PM .................................................... 4-23
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

    Locomotive Operations - MSATs ............................................................................ 4-25

    Highway Vehicle Operations - CO ........................................................................... 4-25

    Highway Vehicle Operations - PM2.5 ....................................................................... 4-27

    Highway Vehicle Operations - MSAT ..................................................................... 4-27

    Construction Impacts ................................................................................................ 4-28

    Summary ................................................................................................................... 4-29

Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................................. 4-29

Operation Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 4-29

Construction Impact Assessment ............................................................................. 4-48

Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 4-51

Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 4-56

Visual Environment ................................................................................................................. 4-57

    Overview of Visual Impacts of the Project ............................................................... 4-57

    Sections with New Analyses .................................................................................... 4-59

Biological Resources................................................................................................................ 4-61

Natural Communities ............................................................................................. 4-61

Rare and Protected Species .................................................................................... 4-65

Community Resources ............................................................................................................. 4-69

Socio-Economics .................................................................................................... 4-69

Neighborhood and Community Impacts ................................................................ 4-76

Community Facilities and Services ........................................................................ 4-94

Land Use Planning ............................................................................................... 4-115

Vulnerable Populations / Environmental Justice .................................................. 4-123

Relocations and Associated Right of Way Costs ................................................. 4-144

Archaeological and Historical Resources .............................................................................. 4-149

Archaeological Resources .................................................................................... 4-150

Historical Resources ............................................................................................. 4-153

Summary and Potential Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 4-184

Parklands, Recreational Areas and Refuges ........................................................................... 4-184

Federal Parklands ................................................................................................. 4-184

County/City Parklands ......................................................................................... 4-185

Greenways ............................................................................................................ 4-188

Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 4-191

Roads .................................................................................................................... 4-191

Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-195
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Rail ....................................................................................................................... 4-243

Stations ................................................................................................................. 4-243

Transit ................................................................................................................... 4-243

Aviation ................................................................................................................ 4-244

Utilities ................................................................................................................................... 4-245

Groundwater Wells and Surface Water Supply Intakes ....................................... 4-246

Safety and Security ................................................................................................................ 4-247

High Speed Rail (HSR) Safety ............................................................................. 4-247

Grade Separation .................................................................................................. 4-248

Pedestrian Safety .................................................................................................. 4-248

Fencing ................................................................................................................. 4-248

Other Security Concerns....................................................................................... 4-249

Indirect and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................ 4-249

National Effects .................................................................................................... 4-253

Regional Effects ................................................................................................... 4-253

Local Effects ......................................................................................................... 4-254

Other Planned Actions .......................................................................................... 4-257

Relationship between Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits ................................... 4-260

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...................................................... 4-261

FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 5-1

Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 5-3

Purpose for the Project ............................................................................................... 5-3

    Project Description and Approach .............................................................................. 5-3

    Project Alternatives .................................................................................................... 5-4

Description of the 4(f) Resources – Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges ....................... 5-4

    Richmond Canal Walk (VA) ...................................................................................... 5-5

    James River Park System – Slave Trail (VA) ............................................................ 5-5

    Thomas B. Smith Community Center (VA) ............................................................... 5-6

Falling Creek Park Expansion (VA) ........................................................................... 5-6

    Falling Creek Ironworks Park (VA) ........................................................................... 5-6

    James River Greenway (Kingsland Creek) (Planned) (VA) ....................................... 5-6

Chester Linear Park Expansion (Planned) (VA) ........................................................ 5-6

    Chester Kiwanis Historical Park (Planned) (VA) ....................................................... 5-6

    Ettrick Park & Mayes-Colbert Ettrick Community Building (VA) ............................ 5-7

Appomattox Riverfront Trail (Planned) (VA) ............................................................ 5-7
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Upper Appomattox Canal Trail (VA) ......................................................................... 5-7

Petersburg National Battlefield (Fort Wadsworth Unit) (VA) ................................... 5-7

Tobacco Heritage Trail (VA) ..................................................................................... 5-7

Centennial Park (VA) ................................................................................................. 5-8

Town of La Crosse Playground (VA) ........................................................................ 5-8

Franklinton Elementary School (NC) ......................................................................... 5-8

Neuse River Greenway (NC) ...................................................................................... 5-8

Simms Branch Greenway Expansion (Proposed) (NC) ............................................. 5-8

Marsh Creek Greenway Expansion (Proposed) (NC) ................................................ 5-8

Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway (NC) ..................................................................... 5-8

Description of the 4(f) Resources – Historic Architecture Sites ................................................ 5-9

Description of the 4(f) Resources – Battlefields ...................................................................... 5-27

Description of the 4(f) Resources – Archaeology Sites ........................................................... 5-29

    Chester Hotel Site ..................................................................................................... 5-30

    Arrowfield Plantation ............................................................................................... 5-30

Davis Site ................................................................................................................. 5-30

Section 4(f) Property Impacts – Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges ........................... 5-31

    Richmond Canal Walk (VA) .................................................................................... 5-32

    James River Park System – Slave Trail (VA) .......................................................... 5-32

    Thomas B. Smith Community Center (VA) ............................................................. 5-32

    Falling Creek Park Expansion (VA) ......................................................................... 5-33

    Falling Creek Ironworks Park (VA) ......................................................................... 5-33

    James River Greenway (Kingsland Creek) (VA) ..................................................... 5-33

    Chester Linear Park Expansion (Planned) (VA)....................................................... 5-34

Chester Kiwanis Historical Park (Planned) (VA) ..................................................... 5-34

    Ettrick Park & Mayes-Colbert Ettrick Community Building (VA) .......................... 5-34

Appomattox Riverfront Trail (Planned) (VA) .......................................................... 5-34

Upper Appomattox Canal Trail (VA) ....................................................................... 5-35

Petersburg National Battlefield (Fort Wadsworth Unit) (VA) ................................. 5-35

Tobacco Heritage Trail (VA) ................................................................................... 5-35

Centennial Park (VA) ............................................................................................... 5-36

Town of La Crosse Playground (VA) ...................................................................... 5-36

Franklinton Elementary School (NC) ....................................................................... 5-37

Neuse River Greenway (NC) .................................................................................... 5-37

Simms Branch Greenway Expansion (Proposed) ..................................................... 5-37
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Marsh Creek Greenway Expansion (Proposed) ........................................................ 5-37

Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway (NC) ................................................................... 5-38

Section 4(f) Property Impacts – Historic Architecture Sites .................................................... 5-38

    Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor (VA) .............................................................. 5-47

    C. & O. & Seaboard Railroad Depot (VA) ............................................................... 5-47

    Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (VA) ......................................... 5-48

    Shockoe Slip Historic District (VA) ......................................................................... 5-48

    James River and Kanawha Canal Historic District (VA) ......................................... 5-48

    Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor (VA) ............................................................ 5-48

    Manchester Industrial Warehouse Historic District (VA) ........................................ 5-49

    Williams Bridge Company (VA) .............................................................................. 5-49

    Transmontaigne Product Services, Inc. (VA) ........................................................... 5-49

Davee Gardens Historic District (VA) ..................................................................... 5-50

Dupont Spruance (VA) ............................................................................................. 5-50

  Sheffields; Auburn Chase; Bellwood; Building 42 - DSCR Officer's Club; New 

Oxford (VA) ................................................................................................................. 5-50

USDOD Supply Center Historic District; Bellwood-Richmond Quartermaster Depot 

Historic District (VA)................................................................................................... 5-50

Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway (VA) ...................................................... 5-51

House at 3619 Thurston Rd (VA) ............................................................................ 5-51

Centralia Post Office (VA) ....................................................................................... 5-51

Ragland House/4626 Centralia Rd (VA) .................................................................. 5-51

Circle Oaks/4510 Centralia Road (VA) ................................................................... 5-52

Centralia Earthworks (VA)....................................................................................... 5-52

Chester Historic District (VA) .................................................................................. 5-52

Pretlow House (VA) ................................................................................................. 5-53

Eichelberger House (VA) ......................................................................................... 5-53

Appomattox River Railroad Bridge (VA) ................................................................ 5-53

Battersea (VA) .......................................................................................................... 5-53

North Battersea/Pride’s Field Historic District (VA) ............................................... 5-53

Defense Road (VA) .................................................................................................. 5-54

Dimmock Line/Earthworks (VA) ............................................................................. 5-54

Bridge over Defense Road (VA) .............................................................................. 5-54

Fort Davis Earthworks (VA) .................................................................................... 5-54

Bowen House (VA) .................................................................................................. 5-54
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Bank of McKenney (VA) ......................................................................................... 5-55

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company (C & P) Building (VA) ................. 5-55

Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill Farm (VA) ............................................................. 5-55

Wynnhurst (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-56

Blick's Store (VA) .................................................................................................... 5-56

House/458 Second Avenue (VA) ............................................................................. 5-56

Orgain House (VA) .................................................................................................. 5-57

Tourist Guest House (VA) ........................................................................................ 5-57

Oak Shades (VA) ...................................................................................................... 5-57

Evans House (VA) .................................................................................................... 5-58

La Crosse Commercial Historic District (VA) ......................................................... 5-58

La Crosse Hotel (VA) ............................................................................................... 5-58

Wright Farmstead (VA) ............................................................................................ 5-59

Sardis Methodist Church (VA) ................................................................................. 5-59

Bracey Historic District (VA) .................................................................................. 5-59

Bracey Depot (VA) .................................................................................................. 5-59

Bracey & Company Store (VA) ............................................................................... 5-60

Granite Hall/Fitts House (VA) ................................................................................. 5-60

Chapel of the Good Shepherd (NC) ......................................................................... 5-60

Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office (NC) .................................................... 5-61

Marshall House/Tavern (NC) ................................................................................... 5-61

William J. Hawkins House (NC) .............................................................................. 5-62

Holloway Farm (NC) ................................................................................................ 5-62

Forrest Ellington Farm (NC) .................................................................................... 5-62

Henderson Historic District and Proposed Boundary Expansion (NC) .................... 5-62

South Henderson Industrial Historic District (NC) .................................................. 5-62

Houses (5 worker houses on 1400 block of Nicholas St) (NC) ................................ 5-63

Houses (3 side gable houses on 1500 block of Nicholas St) (NC) ........................... 5-63

Franklinton Historic District (Includes Sterling Mill Historic District) (NC) .......... 5-63

Sterling Cotton Mill (NC) ........................................................................................ 5-63

Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge Piers (NC) ................................................................. 5-63

Youngsville Historic District (NC) .......................................................................... 5-64

Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District (NC) ...................................................... 5-64

Wake Forest Historic District (NC) .......................................................................... 5-64

Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge Pier (NC)............................................................... 5-64
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse (NC) .............................................................. 5-65

Roanoke Park Historic District (NC) ....................................................................... 5-65

Noland Plumbing Company Building (NC) ............................................................. 5-65

Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District (NC) ............................................................. 5-66

Seaboard Railway Station (NC) ............................................................................... 5-66

Seaboard Railway Warehouses (NC) ....................................................................... 5-66

Raleigh Cotton Mills (NC) ....................................................................................... 5-66

Raleigh Electric Company Power House (NC) ........................................................ 5-67

Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage (NC) ........ 5-67

Depot Historic District & Proposed Boundary Amendment (NC) ........................... 5-68

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor (NC) ............................................................ 5-68

Section 4(f) Property Impacts – Battlefields ............................................................................ 5-68

    Proctor’s Creek ......................................................................................................... 5-70

    Port Walthall Junction .............................................................................................. 5-70

    Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church ............................................................................... 5-70

    Petersburg III/The Breakthrough .............................................................................. 5-70

Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern ............................................................................... 5-71

    Peebles Farm............................................................................................................. 5-71

    Boydton Plank Road ................................................................................................. 5-71

    Hatcher’s Run ........................................................................................................... 5-71

    Lewis Farm ............................................................................................................... 5-72

Dinwiddie Courthouse .............................................................................................. 5-72

Section 4(f) Property Impacts – Archaeology Sites ................................................................. 5-72

Avoidance Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 5-73

Alternatives that Avoid All Section 4(f) Resources ............................................... 5-74

    Avoidance Alternatives for the Use (Not De Minimis) of Individual Section 4(f) 

Resources ..................................................................................................................... 5-75

Chester, La Crosse Commercial, Henderson, Franklinton, and South Henderson 

Industrial Historic Districts .......................................................................................... 5-75

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor (VA) ............................................................ 5-79

.    Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor and Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 

(VA) ............................................................................................................................. 5-79

Williams Bridge Company (VA) ............................................................................ 5-80

Eichelberger House (VA) ....................................................................................... 5-80

Defense Road, Dimmock Line/Earthworks, and Bridge over Defense Road (VA)5-80
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Wynnhurst (VA) ..................................................................................................... 5-81

Orgain House, Tourist Guest House, and Oak Shades (VA) .................................. 5-81

Wright Farmstead (VA) .......................................................................................... 5-81

Bracey Historic District (VA) ................................................................................ 5-82

Granite Hall/Fitts House (VA) ............................................................................... 5-82

Holloway Farm (NC) .............................................................................................. 5-82

Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse (NC) ............................................................ 5-83

Roanoke Park Historic District (NC) ..................................................................... 5-83

Raleigh Electric Company Power House (NC) ...................................................... 5-83

Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage (NC) ...... 5-84

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor (NC) .......................................................... 5-84

Summary ................................................................................................................ 5-85

Least Overall Harm Analysis ................................................................................................... 5-85

Section AA (VA) .................................................................................................... 5-85

Section BB (VA) .................................................................................................... 5-85

Section CC (VA) .................................................................................................... 5-85

Section DD (VA) .................................................................................................... 5-86

Section A (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-86

Section B (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-86

Section C (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-86

Section D (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-86

Section E (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-87

Section F (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-87

Section G (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-87

Section H (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-88

Section I (VA) ........................................................................................................ 5-88

Section J (VA) ........................................................................................................ 5-88

Section K (VA) ....................................................................................................... 5-88

Section L (VA/NC) ................................................................................................ 5-89

Section M (NC) ...................................................................................................... 5-89

Section N (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-89

Section O (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-89

Section P (NC) ........................................................................................................ 5-89

Section Q (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-90

Section R (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-90
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Section S (NC) ........................................................................................................ 5-90

Section T (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-90

Section U (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-91

Section V (NC) ....................................................................................................... 5-91

Measures to Minimize Harm .................................................................................................... 5-91

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor (VA) ............................................................ 5-91

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor (VA) .......................................................... 5-92

Williams Bridge Company (VA) ............................................................................ 5-92

Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway (VA) .................................................... 5-93

Chester Historic District (VA) ................................................................................ 5-93

Eichelberger House (VA) ....................................................................................... 5-93

Defense Road, Dimmock Line/Earthworks, and Bridge over Defense Road (VA) ..... 

 ...................................................................................................................................... 5-93

Tourist Guest House (VA) ...................................................................................... 5-94

La Crosse Commercial Historic District (VA) ....................................................... 5-94

Henderson Historic District and Proposed Boundary Extension (NC) .................. 5-94

South Henderson Industrial Historic District (NC) ................................................ 5-95

Franklinton Historic District (NC) ......................................................................... 5-95

Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse (NC) ............................................................ 5-96

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor (NC) .......................................................... 5-96

Coordination ............................................................................................................................ 5-96

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor (VA) ............................................................ 5-97

Williams Bridge Company (VA) ............................................................................ 5-97

.    Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor and Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 

(VA) ............................................................................................................................. 5-97

Resources Located in Chesterfield County (VA) ................................................... 5-97

Defense Road, Dimmock Line/Earthworks, and Bridge over Defense Road (VA)5-97

Tourist Guest House (VA) ...................................................................................... 5-97

La Crosse Commercial Historic District (VA) ....................................................... 5-97

    Henderson Historic District and Proposed Extension and South Henderson Industrial 

Historic District (NC) ................................................................................................... 5-98

Franklinton Historic District (NC) ......................................................................... 5-98

Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse (NC) ............................................................ 5-98

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor (NC) .......................................................... 5-98

Consulting Parties ................................................................................................... 5-98
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US Department of Interior ...................................................................................... 5-99

Final Section 4(f) Determination ............................................................................................. 5-99

6 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS 

STATEMENT ARE SENT ................................................................................................................ 6-1

Federal Agencies and Organizations .......................................................................................... 6-1

    US Department of Defense ......................................................................................... 6-1

US Department of the Interior .................................................................................... 6-1

    US Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................ 6-1

    US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ............................................. 6-1

    National Marine Fisheries Service .............................................................................. 6-1

    US Department of Transportation .............................................................................. 6-1

    US Department of Homeland Security ....................................................................... 6-1

US Department of Commerce .................................................................................... 6-2

    US Department of Health and Human Services ......................................................... 6-2

US Department of Housing and Urban Development ................................................ 6-2

US Department of Agriculture ................................................................................... 6-2

Council on Environmental Quality ............................................................................. 6-2

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ................................................................ 6-2

State Agencies ............................................................................................................................ 6-2

    Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Impact Review ............... 6-2

    Virginia Outdoors Foundation .................................................................................... 6-3

    North Carolina State Clearinghouse ........................................................................... 6-3

Local Governments and Organizations ...................................................................................... 6-4

    Virginia Local Governments and Organizations ........................................................ 6-4

    North Carolina Local Governments and Organizations ............................................. 6-4

    Other ........................................................................................................................... 6-5

Document Distribution Location List ........................................................................................ 6-5

    Richmond Regional Planning District Commission ................................................... 6-5

    Richmond Main Public Library .................................................................................. 6-6

    Chesterfield County Central Library .......................................................................... 6-6

    Colonial Heights Public Library ................................................................................. 6-6

    Crater Planning District Commission ......................................................................... 6-6

    Petersburg Central Public Library .............................................................................. 6-6

    Dinwiddie County Planning Department .................................................................... 6-6

    Southside Planning District Commission ................................................................... 6-6
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

    Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization ............................................. 6-7

Warren County Planning/Zoning and Code Enforcement Department ...................... 6-7

NCDOT Division 5, District 3 Office (Franklin, Vance, Warren Counties) .............. 6-7

Franklinton Branch Public Library (Franklin County) ............................................... 6-7

NCDOT Division 5, District 1 Office (Wake County) ............................................... 6-7

7 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................... 7-1

Tier II Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................... 7-1

    Agency Scoping Meetings .......................................................................................... 7-1

Advisory Committee Meetings ................................................................................... 7-2

    Agency-Specific Coordination ................................................................................... 7-3

    Local Official Coordination ........................................................................................ 7-6

Tier II Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 7-9

Mailing List ................................................................................................................ 7-9

Email Updates ............................................................................................................ 7-9

    Social Media ............................................................................................................. 7-10

    Project Website ......................................................................................................... 7-10

    Press Releases ........................................................................................................... 7-10

    Project Hotline .......................................................................................................... 7-11

    Limited English Proficiency ..................................................................................... 7-11

DEIS Public Hearings .............................................................................................. 7-11

    Project Update Meetings .......................................................................................... 7-12

Small Group Informational Meetings ....................................................................... 7-13

Section 106 Coordination with Resource Owners ................................................................... 7-14

    Meetings ................................................................................................................... 7-14

    Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 7-15

    Consulting Parties ..................................................................................................... 7-15

8 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ....................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Agency And Local Government Comments And Responses .................................................... 8-2

8.2 Public Comments and Responses .......................................................................................... 8-169

9 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 9-1

Federal Railroad Administration ............................................................................................................ 9-1

North Carolina Department of Transportation – Rail Division ............................................................. 9-1

Jason Orthner, P.E. ................................................................................................................................. 9-1

James Bridges, P.E., CPM ..................................................................................................................... 9-1

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ........................................................................ 9-1
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Michael Baker International................................................................................................................... 9-1

Three Oaks Engineering ........................................................................................................................ 9-2

Hatch Mott MacDonald ......................................................................................................................... 9-3

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group ......................................................................................................... 9-3

The Catena Group, Inc. .......................................................................................................................... 9-3

10 INDEX AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 10-1

10.1 Index ........................................................................................................................................ 10-1

10.2 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 10-35

11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 11-1

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Agency Coordination 

Appendix B – Public Involvement 

Appendix C - Ridership Study 

Appendix D – Farmland Rating Sheets 

Appendix E – Track Charts 

Appendix F – Crossings and Roadwork Summary 

Appendix G – Temporary Proposed Detour Routes 

Appendix H – Surface Waters 

Appendix I – Wetlands 

Appendix J – Census Tracts 

Appendix K – Cultural Resources 

Appendix L – Section 4(f) Concurrences 

Appendix M – Air Quality 

Appendix N – Land Cover 

Appendix O – Comments Referenced by Last Name 

Appendix P – Traffic Laneage Volumes 

Appendix Q – Hazardous Waste Sites 

Appendix R – Detailed Maps 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

List of Figures 

Figure ES-1 Project Corridor ................................................................................................................. ES-3 

Figure 1-1 Vision for High Speed Rail in America ................................................................................ 1-4

Figure 1-2 Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor ..................................................................................... 1-5

Figure 1-3 Tier II Project Study Area Map .......................................................................................... 1-21

Figure 1-4 SEHSR Proposed Rail Improvements in the Tier II FEIS Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, 

Portion ................................................................................................................................ 1-24

Figure 1-5 SEHSR (Full Build) Proposed Service ............................................................................... 1-38

Figure 1-6 Dependency Ratios for the United States ........................................................................... 1-47

Figure 1-7 US Population and Highway Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 2000–2030 ........................ 1-52

Figure 2-1 SEHSR Corridor ................................................................................................................... 2-3 

Figure 2-2 SEHSR Corridor – Section AA .......................................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2-3 SEHSR Corridor – Section BB ........................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-4 SEHSR Corridor – Section CC ........................................................................................... 2-21

Figure 2-5 SEHSR Corridor – Section DD .......................................................................................... 2-24

Figure 2-6 SEHSR Corridor – Section A ............................................................................................. 2-27

Figure 2-7 SEHSR Corridor – Section B .............................................................................................. 2-30

Figure 2-8 SEHSR Corridor – Section C .............................................................................................. 2-33

Figure 2-9 SEHSR Corridor – Section D ............................................................................................. 2-36

Figure 2-10 SEHSR Corridor – Section E .............................................................................................. 2-39

Figure 2-11 SEHSR Corridor – Section F .............................................................................................. 2-41

Figure 2-12 SEHSR Corridor – Section G ............................................................................................. 2-47

Figure 2-13 SEHSR Corridor – Section H ............................................................................................. 2-50

Figure 2-14 SEHSR Corridor – Section I ............................................................................................... 2-53

Figure 2-15 SEHSR Corridor – Section J ............................................................................................... 2-56

Figure 2-16 SEHSR Corridor – Section K ............................................................................................. 2-59

Figure 2-17 SEHSR Corridor – Section L .............................................................................................. 2-63

Figure 2-18 SEHSR Corridor – Section M ............................................................................................. 2-67

Figure 2-19 SEHSR Corridor – Section N ............................................................................................. 2-70

Figure 2-20 SEHSR Corridor – Section O ............................................................................................. 2-73

Figure 2-21 SEHSR Corridor – Section P .............................................................................................. 2-77

Figure 2-22 SEHSR Corridor – Section Q ............................................................................................. 2-80

Figure 2-23 SEHSR Corridor – Section R .............................................................................................. 2-83

Figure 2-24 SEHSR Corridor – Section S .............................................................................................. 2-86

Figure 2-25 SEHSR Corridor – Section T .............................................................................................. 2-89

Figure 2-26 SEHSR Corridor – Section U ............................................................................................. 2-94

Figure 2-27 SEHSR Corridor – Section V ........................................................................................... 2-100

Figure 2-28 SEHSR Corridor - Alternatives ........................................................................................ 2-103

Figure 3-1 Major Drainage Basins ......................................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 3-2 FEMA 100 Year Floodplain Crossings - Virginia .............................................................. 3-15

Figure 3-3 FEMA 100 Year Floodplain Crossings – North Carolina .................................................. 3-16

Figure 3-4 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ..................................................................................... 3-37

Figure 3-5 Vibration Sources and Responses ....................................................................................... 3-39
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-6 Noise and Vibration Measurement Locations..................................................................... 3-42

Figure 3-7 Richmond Area MPO Study Area ...................................................................................... 3-90

Figure 3-8 Crater Planning District Commission Study Area .............................................................. 3-93

Figure 3-9 Tri-Cities Area Selected Transportation Facilities ............................................................. 3-93

Figure 3-10 Southside Planning District Commission Study Area ........................................................ 3-95

Figure 3-11 CAMPO Study Area ......................................................................................................... 3-100

Figure 3-12 Battlefield Locations ......................................................................................................... 3-160

Figure 3-13 Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Refuges .................................................................... 3-169

Figure 3-14 Active Railroads Intersecting the Study Area - Virginia .................................................. 3-199

Figure 3-15 Active Railroads Intersecting the Study Area – North Carolina ....................................... 3-200

Figure 4-1 EMS 5- Minute Response Coverage Area Comparison Ridgeway, NC ........................... 4-112

Figure 4-2 EMS 5- Minute Response Coverage Area Henderson, NC .............................................. 4-113

Figure 4-3 Raleigh Union Station Plan .............................................................................................. 4-260

List of Tables 

Table ES-1 Preferred Alternative Impact Summary ............................................................................. ES-5 

Table ES-2 Projected Average Travel Time Between Cities ................................................................ ES-7

Table ES-3 Proposed Service - Number of Round Trips ...................................................................... ES-8 

Table ES-4 Summary of Forecast Results .......................................................................................... ES-10 

Table ES-5 Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................................................ ES-25 

Table 1-1 1997 Projected Costs/Benefits of SEHSR ............................................................................ 1-7 

Table 1-2 1997 Cost/Benefit Analysis Results for the CSX S-Line (Scenario 6) ............................... 1-10 

Table 1-3 Projected Average Travel Time Between Cities ................................................................ 1-34 

Table 1-4 Proposed Service - Number of Round Trips ....................................................................... 1-39 

Table 1-5 Summary of Forecast Results ............................................................................................. 1-40 

Table 1-6 Transportation Mode Comparison ...................................................................................... 1-41 

Table 1-7 Population Change / 10 Year Growth Rates ....................................................................... 1-45 

Table 1-8 Age Dependency Ratios ..................................................................................................... 1-47 

Table 1-9 Population, Employment, and Per-Capita Income Forecasts ............................................. 1-48 

Table 1-10 Airline Delays ..................................................................................................................... 1-51 

Table 1-11 1985 – 2010 Mobility Data for Richmond, VA .................................................................. 1-53 

Table 1-12 1985 – 2010 Mobility Data for Raleigh-Durham, NC ........................................................ 1-54 

Table 1-14 National Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Transportation Mode: 2004–2008 ...................... 1-58 

Table 1-15 Transportation Safety in NC and VA ................................................................................. 1-60 

Table 1-16 US Transportation Safety Record (Except Marine and Pipeline) ....................................... 1-61 

Table 1-17 Energy Consumption by Mode of Transportation: 2004–2008 .......................................... 1-63 

Table 2-1 Preferred Alternative by Section .......................................................................................... 2-6

Table 2-2 Track Configuration .............................................................................................................. 2-8

Table 3-1 Summary of Streams, Wetlands, and Other Surface Waters within Study Area by State ..... 3-2

Table 3-2 Major River Basins in the Study Area .................................................................................. 3-4

Table 3-3 Water Supply Surface Waters within Study Area ................................................................. 3-9

Table 3-4 CWA 303(d) List of Impaired Surface Waters within Study Area ..................................... 3-10
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-5 Streams in the Study Area Included in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory .......................... 3-18

Table 3-6 Soil Associations Found in Counties within the Study Area .............................................. 3-20

Table 3-7 Acres of Prime and Other Important Farmland Soils within Study Area ........................... 3-24

Table 3-8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................ 3-28

Table 3-9 2012 Air Quality Index Summary ...................................................................................... 3-34

Table 3-10 Noise Measurement Sites.................................................................................................... 3-44

Table 3-11 Vibration Sensitive Receptor Sites with Background Vibration Measurements ................ 3-45

Table 3-12 Existing Train Passby Vibration Measurements ................................................................. 3-48

Table 3-13 Passenger Energy Use - 2011 ............................................................................................. 3-49

Table 3-14 Terrestrial Community Representative Flora and Fauna .................................................... 3-55

Table 3-15 Terrestrial Communities Summary ..................................................................................... 3-57

Table 3-16 Aquatic Community Representative Flora and Fauna ........................................................ 3-58

Table 3-17 Federally Protected Species Listed for Counties in the Study Area ................................... 3-60

Table 3-18 Federal Species of Concern Listed for Counties in the Study Area .................................... 3-62

Table 3-19 Migratory Bird Species of the North Carolina and Virginia Piedmont .............................. 3-64

Table 3-20 Population and Minority Changes: 2000 and 2010 Comparison in VA and NC Localities 

and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) ....................................................... 3-66

Table 3-21 2010 Race: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) ...... 

 ........................................................................................................................................... 3-69

Table 3-22 Limited English Proficiency: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within 

Each Locality) ..................................................................................................................... 3-73

Table 3-23 Age: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) ......... 3-75

Table 3-24 Income and Poverty: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each 

Locality) .............................................................................................................................. 3-76

Table 3-25 Vehicle and Home Ownership: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within 

Each Locality) ..................................................................................................................... 3-79

Table 3-26 State Profile Comparisons .................................................................................................. 3-81

Table 3-27 Percent Employment by Sector by Community.................................................................. 3-82

Table 3-28 Places of Worship by Section ........................................................................................... 3-122

Table 3-29 Summary of Eligible Archaeological Sites Located within Preferred Alternative by State and 

County .............................................................................................................................. 3-130

Table 3-30 Summary of Historical Resources Located within Study Area by State and County ....... 3-135

Table 3-31 Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia ............................................................ 3-137

Table 3-32 Battlefields in the Study Area – Virginia .......................................................................... 3-144

Table 3-33 Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina ................................................ 3-146

Table 3-34 Airports Located Near Study Area ................................................................................... 3-203

Table 3-35 Virginia Groundwater Wells Within 1,000 Feet of Study Areaa ...................................... 3-204

Table 3-36 North Carolina Public Water Supply Groundwater Wells Within Study Area ................. 3-204

Table 3-37 Virginia Surface Water Intakes with Zone 2 (greater than 5 miles into the watershed) ... 3-205

Table 4-1 Potential Impacts to Stream Channels in Virginia (linear feet) ............................................ 4-3

Table 4-2 Potential Impacts to Stream Channels in North Carolina (linear feet) ................................. 4-4

Table 4-3 Potential Impacts to Tar-Pamlico and Neuse Riparian Buffers (square feet) ....................... 4-5

Table 4-4 Potential Impacts to Other Jurisdictional Surface Waters in Virginia .................................. 4-6

Table 4-5 Potential Impacts to Other Jurisdictional Surface Waters in NC .......................................... 4-7
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-6 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands in Virginia ..................................................... 4-9

Table 4-7 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands in North Carolina ......................................... 4-10

Table 4-8 FEMA Mapped 100-Year Floodplain Impacts ................................................................... 4-11

Table 4-9 Prime and Other Important Farmland Acres ....................................................................... 4-19

Table 4-10 Hazardous Waste Sites by Section, Preferred Alternative .................................................. 4-22

Table 4-11 Predicted Locomotive Emissions ........................................................................................ 4-24

Table 4-12 Predicted CO Concentration (in pp,m) Screening Analysis (Including background) ......... 4-27

Table 4-13 Noise Modeling Projected Train Operating Characteristics ............................................... 4-31

Table 4-14 Land Use Categories and Metrics for High Speed Rail Noise Impact Criteria .................. 4-31

Table 4-14 Summary Total of Rail Noise Impacts ............................................................................... 4-32

Table 4-15 Comparison of Sound Level Contours for Various Traffic Volumes (for Planning/Screening 

Purposes)............................................................................................................................. 4-34

Table 4-16 Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts ....................................... 4-35

Table 4-17 Comparison of Ground Vibration Impact Curves ............................................................... 4-46

Table 4-18 Summary of Vibration Impacted Areas .............................................................................. 4-47

Table 4-19 Construction Equipment typical Noise Level Emissions .................................................... 4-50

Table 4-20 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................ 4-51

Table 4-21 Construction Equipment Vibration Impact Distances ........................................................ 4-51

Table 4-22 Summary of Highway Noise Abatement Policies .............................................................. 4-55

Table 4-23 Visual Impacts (Low, Moderate, High) .............................................................................. 4-61

Table 4-24 Potential Project Impacts to Natural Communities (acres) ................................................. 4-63

Table 4-25 Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species in the Study Area ....................... 4-67

Table 4-26 Potentially Developable Land Lost to Preferred Alternative .............................................. 4-70

Table 4-27 Results of SEHSR Cost-Benefit Studies – Updated to 2014 Dollars ................................. 4-71

Table 4-28 Estimate of Annual Economic and Fiscal Impacts (NC Only) ........................................... 4-72

Table 4-29 Economic and Fiscal Impacts of SEHSR by Project Activity (NC Only; Updated to 2014 

Dollars) ............................................................................................................................... 4-73

Table 4-30 Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community ................... 4-77

Table 4-31 Crossing Consolidations for Preferred Alternative by Section ........................................... 4-84

Table 4-32 Impacts to Schools .............................................................................................................. 4-95

Table 4-33 Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries .................................................................... 4-98

Table 4-34 Virginia – SEHSR Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans ........................................ 4-116

Table 4-35 North Carolina – SEHSR Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans ............................. 4-118

Table 4-36 Virginia – SEHSR Compatibility with Transportation Plans ........................................... 4-119

Table 4-37 North Carolina - Compatibility with Transportation Plans ............................................... 4-120

Table 4-38 Environmental Justice: Minority and Low-Income Data ................................................. 4-127

Table 4-39 Environmental Justice Communities within Study Area Block Groups ........................... 4-128

Table 4-40 Project Area of Preferred Alternative within Environmental Justice Communities ......... 4-129

Table 4-41 Community Impacts of Preferred Alternative within Environmental Justice Communities ..... 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-130

Table 4-42 EJ Summary of Rail Operation Noise Impacts of Preferred Alternative .......................... 4-141

Table 4-43 EJ Summary of Vibration Impacted Areas ....................................................................... 4-142

Table 4-44 Residential/Business Relocations by Section ................................................................... 4-148

Table 4-45 Right of Way Costs by Section ......................................................................................... 4-149
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-46 Effect Determinations for Eligible Archaeological Sites for Preferred Alternative – Virginia . 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-151

Table 4-47 Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia ............................ 4-154

Table 4-48 Effect Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia ............................................................. 4-156

Table 4-49 Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina ................. 4-157

Table 4-50 Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US-1 – Level of Service in 2030 ............................... 4-199

Table 4-51 Chester Road and Perrymont Road/Driveway – Level of Service in 2030 ...................... 4-200

Table 4-52 Norcliff Road and Perrymont Road/Church Parking Lot – Level of Service in 2030 ...... 4-201

Table 4-53 Norcliff Road and US-1 – Level of Service in 2030 ........................................................ 4-201

Table 4-54 Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road – Level of Service in 2030 ........................................ 4-202

Table 4-55 Hopkins Road and Thurston Road - Level of Service in 2030 ......................................... 4-202

Table 4-56 Kingsdale Road and Chester Road – Level of Service in 2030 ........................................ 4-203

Table 4-57 Thurston Road and Thurston Connector - Level of Service in 2030 ................................ 4-203

Table 4-58 Chester Road and Park Road/Thurston Connector- Level of Service in 2030 ................. 4-204

Table 4-59 Old Lane and Hopkins Road - Level of Service in 2030 .................................................. 4-205

Table 4-60 Old Lane and Chester Road – Level of Service in 2030 ................................................... 4-205

Table 4-61 Centralia Road and Chester Road - Level of Service in 2030 .......................................... 4-206

Table 4-62 New Connection of Centralia Road and Chester Road - Level of Service in 2030 .......... 4-206

Table 4-63 Centralia Road and Hopkins Road - Level of Service in 2030 ......................................... 4-207

Table 4-64 US 58 and Main Street/Country Club Road - Level of Service in 2030 ........................... 4-207

Table 4-65 Pine Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 .................................................... 4-208

Table 4-66 Carter Street and Pine Street - Level of Service in 2030 .................................................. 4-208

Table 4-67 US 58 and Pine Street - Level of Service in 2030 ............................................................ 4-209

Table 4-68 Warren Plains–Norlina Road Extension/Norlina Pines Drive and US-1/US 401 - Level of 

Service in 2030 ................................................................................................................. 4-210

Table 4-69 Warren Plains–Norlina Road and Warren Plains–Norlina Road Connector - Level of 

Service in 2030 ................................................................................................................. 4-210

Table 4-70 Weldon Road and Warren Plains–Norlina Road - Level of Service in 2030 ................... 4-211

Table 4-71 Warren Plains Road and Hyco Street - Level of Service in 2030 ..................................... 4-211

Table 4-72 US-1/US 401 and Hyco Street/North Street - Level of Service in 2030 ........................... 4-212

Table 4-73 Main Street and US 401/US-158 - Level of Service in 2030 ........................................... 4-212

Table 4-74 US-1/US-158 and Axtell Ridgeway Road/Driveway - Level of Service in 2030 ............ 4-213

Table 4-75 US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road - Level of Service in 2030 ........................... 4-213

Table 4-76 US-1 and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Lane - Level of Service in 2030 ................ 4-214

Table 4-77 Ridgeway-Warrenton Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector - Level of Service in ..... 

2030 .................................................................................................................................. 4-214

Table 4-78 Ridgeway-Warrenton Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector - Level of Service in 

2030 .................................................................................................................................. 4-215

Table 4-79 Soul City Boulevard and US-1/US-158 - Level of Service in 2030 ................................. 4-215

Table 4-80 Beckford Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street and US-1 Business/US 158 (Garnett Street) - 

Level of Service in 2030 ................................................................................................... 4-217

Table 4-81 Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................. 4-218

Table 4-82 Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................... 4-219

Table 4-83 Rock Spring Street and Williams Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................. 4-219
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-84 Rock Spring Street and Williams Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................. 4-220

Table 4-85 Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................ 4-220

Table 4-86 Montgomery Street and Garnett Street - Level of Service in 2030 .................................. 4-221

Table 4-87 Williams Street and Montgomery Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................ 4-221

Table 4-88 Charles Street/Church Street and Garnett Street (Southwest) - Level of Service in 2030 ........ 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-222

Table 4-89 Charles Street and Garnett Street (Northeast) - Level of Service in 2030 ........................ 4-222

Table 4-90 Williams Street and Charles Street - Level of Service in 2030 ........................................ 4-223

Table 4-91 Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street - Level of Service in 2030 .................................. 4-223

Table 4-92 Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Street and Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business - Level of Service 

in 2030 .............................................................................................................................. 4-224

Table 4-93 Dabney Drive and Oxford Road - Level of Service in 2030 ............................................ 4-224

Table 4-94 Dabney Drive and Garnett Street/Deer Court (Southeast Intersection) - Level of Service in 

2030 .................................................................................................................................. 4-225

Table 4-95 Charles Street and Garnett Street (Northeast) - Level of Service in 2030 ........................ 4-225

Table 4-96 Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business (Southern) - Level of Service in 2030 .... 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-226

Table 4-97 Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business (Northern) - Level of Service in 2030 .... 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-226

Table 4-98 Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street- Level of Service in 2030 .................................. 4-226

Table 4-99 US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive - Level of Service in 

2030 .................................................................................................................................. 4-227

Table 4-100 Welcome Avenue and Nicolas Street - Level of Service in 2030 .................................... 4-228

Table 4-101 JP Taylor Road Extension and Belmont Drive - Level of Service in 2030 ...................... 4-228

Table 4-102 US-1 Business and Bear Pond Road/Lynnbank Road - Level of Service in 2030 ........... 4-229

Table 4-103 US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and New Connector South of Bear Pond Road - Level of 

Service in 2030 ................................................................................................................. 4-229

Table 4-104 Bear Pond Road and New Connector West of US-1 Business - Level of Service in 2030 ...... 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-230

Table 4-105 US-1 Business and US-1 NB Ramps/Eastern Minerals Road - Level of Service in 2030 ....... 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-230

Table 4-106 US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Wildlife Lane - Level of Service in 2030 ................ 4-230

Table 4-107 US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road/Driveway - Level of Service in 2030 ...................... 4-231

Table 4-108 US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Edwards Road/New Connector - Level of Service in 

2030 .................................................................................................................................. 4-232

Table 4-109 US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Kittrell College Road/College Street - Level of Service 

in 2030 .............................................................................................................................. 4-233

Table 4-110 US-1 and Kittrell Vance Road/New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 ..................... 4-233

Table 4-111 Mason Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................................ 4-234

Table 4-112 NC 56 (Green Street) and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................... 4-234

Table 4-113 College Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 .............................................. 4-235

Table 4-114 College Street and Hawkins Street - Level of Service in 2030 ........................................ 4-235

Table 4-115 NC 56 (Green Street) and New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 ............................ 4-236

Table 4-116 College Street and New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 ........................................ 4-236
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-117 Person Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 ................................................ 4-237

Table 4-118 Hillsborough Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 ............ 4-237

Table 4-119 Cedar Creek Road and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 ....................................... 4-238

Table 4-120 Cedar Creek Road and New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 ................................. 4-238

Table 4-121 Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive - Level of Service in 2030 ......................................... 4-239

Table 4-122 Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue - Level of Service in 2030 ......... 

 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-239

Table 4-123 Wolfpack Lane and Beechleaf Court - Level of Service in 2030 ..................................... 4-240

Table 4-124 Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court - Level of Service in 2030 .......................... 4-240

Table 4-125 Downtown Raleigh, NC - Level of Service in 2030 ......................................................... 4-241

Table 4-126 Airports Located Near Preferred Alternative ................................................................... 4-245

Table 4-127 Utility Cost Impacts by Section (in dollars) ..................................................................... 4-246

Table 4-128 Issues/Concerns and Potential Indirect Effects (Dependent on Location) ........................ 4-250

Table 4-129 Concerns and Potential Cumulative Effects (Dependent on Location) ............................ 4-251

Table 5-1 Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges in the Project Corridor ............................... 5-5

Table 5-2 Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia .................................... 5-10

Table 5-3 Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina ....................... 5-17

Table 5-4 Battlefields in the Project Corridor – Virginia .................................................................... 5-28

Table 5-5 Archaeological Sites in the Preferred Alternative APE Listed in or Eligible for the NHRP ..... 

 ........................................................................................................................................... 5-29

Table 5-6 Section 4(f) Determinations for Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges ............... 5-31

Table 5-7 Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia ..................... 5-39

Table 5-8 Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina .......... 5-43

Table 5-9 Section 4(f) Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia ..................................................... 5-68

Table 5-10 Section 4(f) Determinations for Archaeological Resources ............................................... 5-73

Table 5-11 Resources Where at Least One Alternative Would Require a Section 4(f) Use (Not De 

Minimis) .............................................................................................................................. 5-73

Table 5-12 Grade Separation Locations Considered ............................................................................. 5-77

Table 7-1 Meetings with Local Governments ....................................................................................... 7-6

Table 7-2 DEIS Public Hearings ......................................................................................................... 7-12

Table 7-3 Post DEIS Project Update Meetings ................................................................................... 7-13

Table 8-1 Major Topics for Summary Comments ............................................................................ 8-170
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-1

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Federal interest 

dates back at least 

to 1965, with the 

passage of the 

HSGT Act. 

A condensed format 

was used for this 

Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II EIS, as 

explained in the 

Executive Summary of 

this document.

1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in partnership with the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) have 

prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed development of the Southeast High 

Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor between Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC (Richmond to Raleigh Project) as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document contains a Tier II Final EIS 

(FEIS) for the Richmond to Raleigh Project, as a continuation of the Tier II Draft EIS (DEIS), which was 

published for review in 2010. 

The Tier II DEIS and FEIS documents draw upon and summarize the purpose and need from the base 

Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC, which was completed in 

2002. Public and agency comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS indicated a strong 

interest in having more information and a fuller discussion on the relation of the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project to the history of the overall SEHSR Corridor. Specifically, 

Chapter 1 provides an expanded discussion on the history, benefits/costs, 

and the purpose and need for the portion of the SEHSR Corridor project 

covered by this Tier II EIS. In addition, Chapter 1 contains updated 

ridership and revenue projections and updated project need data. A 

condensed format was used for this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

EIS, as explained in the Executive Summary of this document. 

The Tier II DEIS and FEIS documents include an analysis and 

presentation of the benefits and impacts related to the physical route and operating conditions for the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project as an independent component of the larger SEHSR Corridor. 

HIGH SPEED RAIL (HSR) HISTORY 

NATIONAL HSR PROGRAM 

Federal interest in high speed rail (HSR) dates back at least to 1965, with 

the passage of the High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Act, 

which called for the comprehensive planning, development and 

demonstration of contemporary and advanced HSGT technologies. 

Under the HSGT Act, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Office of High Speed Ground Transportation introduced modern HSGT 

to America in 1969 by deploying the self-propelled Metroliner cars and 

the Turbotrain in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which extends from Boston, MA to New York, 

NY and Washington, D.C. The HSGT program prompted public/private partnerships between 

freight railroad companies, equipment suppliers, states, localities and the FRA, as well as 

research and development that benefitted private manufacturers of advanced technologies, such as 

tracked air-cushion vehicles and linear electric motors. 

The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 led to the creation of the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) in 1971 as a way of ensuring continued operation of an intercity rail 

passenger network in the United States. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak took over from the freight 

railroads the responsibility for operating intercity rail service in most of the United States, 

including the NEC. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-2

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

After the HSGT Act appropriations ended in 1975, Congress passed the Railroad Revitalization 

and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, which financed billions of dollars for the Northeast Corridor 

Improvement Project (NECIP), which upgraded and improved the NEC infrastructure to enhance 

reliability, create shorter trip times (particularly between New York, NY and Washington, D.C.) 

and increase operating flexibility. The successful completion of the original phases of the NECIP 

led to the development of Amtrak's maximum 150 mph Acela train service between Boston, MA 

and Washington, D.C. 

With the marketplace success of HSGT in the NEC, Federal HSGT emphasis in the 1980s shifted 

to studies of other potential HSGT corridors across the country, in an effort to replicate this 

successful high speed intercity passenger rail service beyond the NEC. Among those efforts was a 

series of reports on "Emerging Corridors," developed by FRA in conjunction with Amtrak, which 

were issued in 1980 and 1981. In 1984, as authorized under the Passenger Railroad Rebuilding 

Act of 1980, Congress set aside grants of $4 million in September 2012 for engineering and 

design studies of HSGT corridors on the state level. This program funded seven major HSGT 

analyses in various corridors. 

As Federal involvement in HSGT planning continued during the 1980s, state involvement also 

increased. By 1986, at least six states had formed HSR entities, and ultimately Florida, Ohio, 

Texas, California, and Nevada awarded franchises to private sector consortia to build and operate 

intercity HSR or Maglev systems. By 1997, more than 15 states had passed enabling legislation 

facilitating HSGT activities with some states attempting to implement HSGT, such as the Florida 

Overland Express. 

A key element of Congressional interest in HSGT has been to ensure the safety of new 

technologies. As such, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 was adopted to expand the 

safety provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 to apply to "all forms of nonhighway ground transportation that runs on rails or electromagnetic guideways," including "new 

technology high speed ground transportation systems.” As a result, FRA examined a variety of 

HSGT safety issues - including collision avoidance and accident survivability, biological effects 

of Maglev magnetic field exposures, and fire safety - to determine regulatory requirements for 

HSGT systems. 

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was adopted, 

authorizing the USDOT and the states to develop nationwide HSR corridors as one component of 

a nationwide intermodal transportation network (PL102-240, Section 1036). As stated in ISTEA: 

“It is the policy of the United States to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that 

is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to 

compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.” 

Section 1036 of ISTEA also funded this National High Speed Ground Transportation Program at 

$800 million, including $725 million for development of a US-designed Maglev prototype, $50 

million for demonstration of new HSGT technologies and $25 million for research and 

development. Separately, Section 1010 of ISTEA authorized the designation of five HSR 

corridors by the Secretary of Transportation, and provided $30 million for the elimination of 

highway/rail grade crossings in these corridors. 

The first five originally designated ISTEA HSR corridors included – 

 Midwest HSR Corridor - Linking Chicago, IL with Detroit, MI, St. Louis, MO and 

Milwaukee, WI. (October 15, 1992) 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-3

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Implementing these corridor 

projects and programs is 

intended to promote economic 

expansion, create new choices 

for travelers, reduce national 

dependence on oil, and foster 

livable communities.

 Florida HSR Corridor - Linking Miami, FL with Orlando, FL and Tampa, FL. (October 16, 

1992) 

 California HSR Corridor - Linking San Diego, CA and Los Angeles, CA with the Bay Area 

and Sacramento, CA via the San Joaquin Valley. (October 19, 1992) 

 Southeast HSR Corridor - Initially connecting Charlotte, NC, Richmond, VA, and 

Washington, DC. (October 20, 1992). Extended in 1995 from Richmond, VA, to Hampton 

Roads, VA. Extended again in 1998 from Charlotte, NC, to Greenville, SC, to Atlanta, GA 

and to Macon, GA, and from Raleigh, NC, to Columbia, SC, to Savannah, GA, and to 

Jacksonville, FL. Extended again in 2000 from Macon, GA, to Jesup, GA. 

 Pacific Northwest HSR Corridor - Linking Eugene, OR and Portland, OR with Seattle, WA 

and Vancouver, BC, Canada. (October 20, 1992) 

In June 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (PL 105-178) became 

law. TEA-21 continued the National High Speed Ground Transportation Program begun with 

ISTEA. Section 1103 (c) authorized six additional HSR corridor designations, for a total of 

eleven. Those new corridors included: a Gulf Coast HSR corridor; a Keystone HSR corridor 

from Philadelphia, PA to Harrisburg, PA; an Empire State HSR corridor from New York, NY to 

Albany, NY and Buffalo, NY; and several other new and extended corridors. 

In 2009, FRA issued the “High Speed Rail Strategic Plan” under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and Passenger Rail Investment and improvement Act of 2008 

(PRIIA). This strategic plan was proposed to help address the nation’s transportation challenges 

by investing in an efficient, high speed passenger rail network of 100 to 600-mile intercity 

corridors that connect communities across America. This 

vision (illustrated in Figure 1-1) was built on the successful 

highway and aviation development models with a 21st 

century solution that focused on a clean, energy-efficient 

option. Implementing these corridor projects and programs 

is intended to serve as a catalyst to promote economic 

expansion (including new manufacturing jobs), create new 

choices for travelers in addition to flying or driving, reduce 

national dependence on oil, and foster livable urban and 

rural communities. 

The High Speed Rail Strategic Plan has a near-term investment strategy that seeks to: 

 Advance new Express High Speed Corridor services (operating speeds above 150 mph on 

primarily dedicated track) in select corridors of 200–600 miles. 

 Develop Emerging and Regional High Speed Corridor services (operating speeds up to 90–

110 mph and 110–150 mph respectively, on shared and dedicated track) in corridors of 100–

500 miles. 

 Upgrade reliability and service on Conventional Intercity Rail services (operating speeds up 

to 79–90 mph). 

Under the High Speed Rail Strategic Plan, FRA identified the SEHSR Corridor as an Emerging 

Corridor. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-4

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The SEHSR Corridor 

will extend from 

Washington, DC, to 

Jacksonville, FL. 

SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL (SEHSR) 

SEHSR CORRIDOR 

As discussed in Section 1.1.1, the SEHSR Corridor is part of the nationwide HSR network 

being planned by USDOT, the states, and Amtrak. The NCDOT Rail Division and Virginia 

DRPT, with their Federal partners, FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

have been working together since the early 1990s to improve rail transportation options 

through development of the SEHSR Corridor. By being one of the five originally designated 

ISTEA HSR corridors, Federal monies may be spent on improvements to the existing rail 

system in order to achieve higher speed rail service. 

The SEHSR Corridor is currently planned to extend from 

Washington, D.C. to Jacksonville, FL (see Figure 1-2). 

Eventually, HSR service is planned to extend south of Atlanta, GA 

and north of Washington, D.C. to the NEC, which would allow 

HSR travel to New York, NY, Boston, MA and beyond. As 

discussed in Section 1.1.2.2, the union of these two high speed corridors would create the 

greatest trip lengths within the national passenger system, and thus the greatest potential 

revenues. 

Figure 1-1 

Vision for High Speed Rail in America 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration High Speed Rail Corridor Route Map, 2009 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-5

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 1-2 

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor 

Source: NCDOT, September, 2014 

SEHSR STUDIES AND ACTIONS 

1997 SEHSR Market and Demand Study 

Between 1995 and 1997, the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 

Florida prepared a “SEHSR Market and Demand Study” that examined the travel market and 

forecast travel demand for intercity and HSR service improvements in the Southeastern 

United States (KPMG, 1997). Key elements of the study included: 

 Determining travel preference through the distribution of over 15,000 travel surveys 

throughout the Southeast. Collection and analysis of responses received from over 3,800 

automobile, 650 air, 300 rail, and 50 intercity bus surveys were assembled into a 

multimodal intercity passenger travel market database that were combined with separate 

state department of transportation highway surveys that: 

o Quantified existing volumes by mode, origin-destination and trip purpose 

o Provided a sound basis for estimating intercity trips between city pairs 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-6

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

o Obtained information on traveler characteristics (including trip purpose) and modal 

preferences to support the development of travel forecasting models. 

 Developing new travel forecasting models, based on both revealed preferences (choices) 

and stated preferences (intentions) that are responsive to different market segments, 

travel time, travel cost, frequency of service, and other key independent variables. 

 Preparing future forecasts of ridership and revenue for a variety of future intercity and 

HSR service improvement scenarios. 

 Providing the Southeastern states (North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, 

and Florida) with the necessary software, data, and documentation for the travel demand 

model forecasting system so that new improvement scenarios could be examined after 

completion of the study. These models and study results have served as the basis for 

developing the ridership/revenue model that has been used to date to evaluate different 

routings through the region, including the 2013 updated ridership/revenue study and 

forecast prepared for the SEHSR Corridor (AECOM, 2013) to support the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II EIS. For additional discussion on updated forecasts, refer to 

Section 1.5. 

1997 High Speed Ground Transportation Commercial Feasibility Study 

This commercial feasibility study (CFS) report, prepared by FRA for Congress, examined the 

costs/benefits and economics of bringing HSGT to well-populated groups of cities throughout 

the United States (FRA, 1997). The study drew nationwide conclusions from projections of 

the likely investment needs, operating performance, and benefits of HSGT in a set of 

illustrative corridors in several regions, including the SEHSR Corridor (using the historic 

“Atlantic Coast Line,” which currently operates as the CSX “A” Line between Richmond, 

VA and Raleigh, NC). The study looked at HSR from a market-driven, performance-based 

perspective, recognizing that total trip time (including access to and from stations), rather 

than just speed, influences passengers’ choices among transportation options in a region; and 

that travelers evaluate each mode in relation to the performance of other available choices. 

The CFS report compared the full range of benefits and costs attributable to three optional 

HSGT systems for the SEHSR Corridor, treating each as an extension of the NEC, including: 

Accelerail 110 (110 mph to match with Amtrak’s existing electrified service in the NEC); 

and, new HSR or Maglev systems on both the Southeast and Northeast HSR Corridors 

(required so that both have matching technologies). Note that “Accelerail” is a term used in 

this 1997 CFS report that refers to a lower cost implementation strategy (compared to 

construction of an entirely new HSR corridor, or magnetic levitation technology), that would 

increase speeds and improve operational efficiencies largely by upgrading and improving 

existing rail corridors. 

Table 1-1 summarizes the quantifiable results of the CFS report. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-7

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The CFS report quantified the following benefits for each system – 

 System Revenues 

 User’s Consumer Surplus - the difference between the amount an individual would be 

willing to pay for HSGT service and amount actually required for them to pay 

 Benefits to the Public at Large (avoiding delays and reducing emissions) – through 

diversion of travelers from air and highway modes to HSGT. 

Other benefits of the systems were not quantified, but were discussed in the study, including: 

 Airport Investment Deferrals 

 Highway Infrastructure Savings 

 Commuter Rail Travel Efficiency Benefits 

 Transportation Safety Improvements 

 Economic Development Benefits (HSGT Construction and Operation, Station 

Development Effects, Growth of US HSGT Manufacturing Industry) 

 Energy Benefits (reducing dependence of foreign oil). 

Costs were quantified in the CFS report for system users as well as the public at large as 

follows: 

 Initial Investment 

 Operation and Maintenance 

 Continuing Investments. 

Major findings and conclusions from the CFS report include: 

A. The benefits of the SEHSR Corridor (using the 110 mph option) far outweigh the 

costs, if fully connected to the NEC through Washington, DC. It was estimated to 

create $2.54 in benefits for every $1.00 spent to build and operate the SEHSR 

Corridor. This was substantially greater than the New HSR and New Maglev 

Table 1-1 

1997 Projected Costs/Benefits of SEHSR 

Summarized by System Type

SEHSR in Year 2020 

(Washington – Charlotte) 

Accelerail 110 

(Extension to NEC) 

New HSR 

(Integrated with 

NEC) 

New Maglev 

(Integrated with 

NEC) 

Line-haul Travel Time (hr) 5.7 3.0 2.1 

Trains/Day, each direction 27 53 65 

Ave. Fare per Passenger 

Mile (dollars) $0.176 $0.303 $0.327 

Passengers, Millions of 

Trips (2020) 5.7 32.5 36.5 

Passenger-Miles (in 

millions) Attributed to 

SEHSR Corridor Proper 

1,689 2,550 4,100 

Total Benefits (in millions) $6,519 $37,665 $49,920 

Total Costs (in millions) $2,567 $33,197 $39,836 

Total Benefits – Total Cost $3,952 $4,468 $10,085 

Total Benefits / Total 

Cost 2.54 1.1 1.3 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-8

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

technologies in the SEHSR Corridor, which only produced $1.10 and $1.30 for every 

$1.00 spent, respectively. 

B. Due to the high cost recovery in system revenues for the Accelerail 110 option on the 

SEHSR Corridor, the ratio of public benefits to publicly-borne costs are over 200 to 

1, or nearly 26 times higher than any other scenario modeled nationwide. 

C. Although no HSR corridor in the nation was projected to be commercially feasible 

(i.e., cover both its capital and operating costs), the Accelerail 110 option on the 

SEHSR Corridor performed very well on a purely commercial basis, projected to be 

self-sustaining (independent of public subsidies), once the investment is in place and 

paid for, covering over 90% if its full costs with systems revenues alone. This is in 

comparison with other corridors studied across the nation, which showed only 

between 17% and 39% initial investment covered by surplus. 

D. Though having lower speeds, the Accelerail 110 option on the SEHSR Corridor will 

have more benefits than corridors that invest more public funds to achieve higher 

speeds. 

E. With increased speed and frequencies, revenues from SEHSR Corridor between 

Charlotte, NC, and Washington, DC, should pay for not only the operations but may 

also cover much of the capital costs of new equipment, stations and track. 

F. Although the projections of system performance for the SEHSR do not meet the 

traditional private-sector criterion for “commercial feasibility,” they may provide a 

basis for public/private partnerships. 

G. The less expensive Accelerail technologies that rely on upgrading existing rail lines 

and freight railroad cooperation generally provide higher ratios of benefits to costs 

(both in total and for the public) than new HSR or new Maglev technologies. 

Joint Memorandum of Understanding 

In early 1998, FRA, FHWA, NCDOT Rail Division, and Virginia DRPT entered into a joint 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate and document each agency’s 

respective roles and responsibilities in developing environmental documentation for the 

proposed HSR programs in both states. This cooperation has greatly benefited both Virginia 

and North Carolina. 

1999 Feasibility Study Summary and Implementation Plan 

The NCDOT Rail Division’s Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Feasibility Study Summary 

and Implementation Plan (April 1999), compiled and summarized the following other 

SEHSR Corridor planning and engineering studies completed prior to April 1999 and 

provided recommendations to assist NCDOT on project implementation and future actions: 

Engineering Evaluation – In a September 1996 engineering evaluation, NCDOT identified 

the possible speeds, alignments, and costs for the SEHSR Corridor sections between 

Charlotte, NC and Raleigh, NC and between Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC. Between 

Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC, NCDOT determined that rebuilding and upgrading the 

historic “Seaboard Air Line” (a portion of which is currently operated as the CSX “S” Line 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-9

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

With modifications to 

the Amtrak cost 

centers, the SEHSR 

will have projected 

revenues greater than 

projected annual 

operation expenses. 

between Raleigh, NC and Norlina, NC) would be the most cost effective method to achieve 

110 mph maximum service between the two state capitals. 

Train Performance and Train Dispatch Simulations - These simulations of the routes 

modeled the speeds of various conventional and high speed train sets on the route to suggest 

which equipment would work best along the SEHSR Corridor. 

Station and Station Area Standards – Standards for the proper planning and construction of 

HSR stations along the SEHSR Corridor were developed. The specific recommendations on 

site, location, parking, etc., developed in the study will be used in the future planning and 

construction of new stations and the renovation of existing stations to high speed standards. 

(These standards are discussed in Sections 1.4.3 and 4.14.4). 

Environmental Screening – In the study, NCDOT also recommended that a detailed EIS be 

completed of the entire Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC corridor (further discussed in 

Section 1.2.1). 

Demand Modeling and Ridership/Revenue Projections – Demand modeling of potential 

passenger ridership and revenue from the high speed operations determined that increasing 

speeds to 100 mph (even along a non-electrified corridor) and adding frequencies (i.e., 

additional trips per day) would increase ridership by over 300% and revenues by more than 

600% (with enhanced fares) over current levels. The projects also demonstrated some of the 

benefits of HSR to the increased capacity to the overall transportation network and the 

increased ability for people to travel. The modeling illustrated that improved passenger rail 

service will reduce auto and air trips along the SEHSR Corridor through trip diversion (which 

will ease congestion on highways and at airports), as well as have a high level of induced 

travel (i.e., cause travel that otherwise would not have been undertaken). 

Operating Cost and Profitability Analysis – The analysis 

shows that, with modifications to the current Amtrak cost 

centers, the SEHSR Corridor will have projected 

revenues greater than projected annual operation 

expenses (i.e., it would not require an annual operating 

subsidy). This concurs with the findings from the 1997 

CFS report summarized above, which declared the 

SEHSR Corridor as the most commercially feasible HSR 

corridor in the United States. However, this commercial 

feasibility is dependent upon the extension of HSR to Washington, DC, and the NEC. 

Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis – This analysis identified the economic and fiscal 

impacts of the construction and operations of the SEHSR Corridor as a system. The analysis 

showed that over $10.5 billion in earnings and over $719 million in state tax revenues would 

be realized from construction and operation of the SEHSR Corridor alone over a 20 year 

period (using 1999 dollars). (This is further discussed in Section 4.11.1). 

Benefit/Cost Analysis – This modeling exercise (completed in 1998 by Science Application 

International Corporation and Corporate Strategies) determined the full costs and benefits of 

the SEHSR Corridor. However, this study measured benefits differently than the CFS report 

discussed previously. Also, this analysis evaluated the CSX S-Line between Richmond, VA 

and Raleigh, NC rather than the CSX A-Line as was evaluated in the CFS report. The reason 

for this difference is that the rebuilding of the CSX S-Line was determined by the 1996 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-10

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HSR from Charlotte, NC to 

the NEC via the “S” Line 

would have between $317 

and $412 million in benefits 

to NC and VA. The SEHSR 

will have $1.39 to $1.46 in 

benefits for every dollar 

spent to build and operate 

the system. 

Engineering Evaluation (discussed previously) to be the most cost effective method to 

achieve 110 mph maximum service. This study determined the value of benefits of the 

SEHSR Corridor using such factors as time savings and reduced auto emissions, as shown in 

Table 1-2. This table summarizes the results of this study for one of the scenarios evaluated 

(#6), which assumed 8 round trips between Charlotte, NC and Raleigh, NC, with 4 extending 

on the SEHSR Corridor from Raleigh, NC to New York, NY. 

Cost Benefit Analysis of the Piedmont High Speed Corridor, Dec 9, 1998, by Science Application International Corporation and Corporate 

Strategies (SAIC), as summarized in the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (Charlotte – Raleigh – Richmond – Washington DC) Feasibility 

Study Summary & Implementation Plan, by NCDOT Rail Division, April 1999. 

In summary, through this analysis, NCDOT concluded 

that HSR service from Charlotte, NC to the NEC via 

the CSX S-Line would have between $317 and $412 

million in benefits to the states of North Carolina and 

Virginia, depending on the level of service. In addition, 

the SEHSR Corridor will have, depending on number 

of round trips, $1.39 to $1.46 in benefits for every 

dollar spent to build and operate the system. 

Public/Private Partnership Study - Alternatives were 

investigated to determine the various public and private sector partnerships possible for 

ownership and operation of the SEHSR Corridor. This analysis suggested that advantageous 

partnerships are possible, particularly in the form of operation and/or use of the corridor for 

passenger and freight by the private sector. 

Table 1-2 

1997 Cost/Benefit Analysis Results for the CSX S-Line (Scenario 6) 

SEHSR Corridor 

Present Value 

over 20 Years 

(1997 dollars) 

Distribution of 

Benefits/Costs 

Benefits to Rail Users: 

Time savings and service quality benefits $800,725,998 65% 

Time savings for other rail passengers $200,081,436 19% 

Benefits to Users of Other Modes: 

Time savings, accident reduction, vehicle operating 

cost $89,766,679 7% 

Accident reductions at grade crossings $71,449,927 6% 

Non-User Benefits: 

Emission reductions $32,345,322 3% 

 

Capital Costs: 

Infrastructure ($730,745,924) 89% 

Rolling Stock ($91,374,182) 11% 

 

Net Present Value $412,249,255 

Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.46 

Rate of Return 5.61% 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-11

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Analysis of Financing Alternatives – This comprehensive study investigated the various cost 

centers, revenues, funding and financing scenarios that are possible with the SEHSR Corridor 

as a system. It determined various revenue, funding and financing scenarios that could be 

used for the construction and operations of the SEHSR Corridor, with the following 

conclusions: an operating contract or concession between the State of North Carolina and the 

private sector is possible; and, private and public financing may be available for construction 

of the SEHSR Corridor. 

Virginia-North Carolina Interstate High Speed Rail Compact 

During 2004 legislative sessions in Virginia and North Carolina, the Virginia-North Carolina 

Interstate High Speed Rail Compact was authorized. The Compact was formed pursuant to 

49 USC 24101 to assist in developing a plan for the design, construction, financing, and 

operation of the SEHSR Corridor. The inaugural meeting of the Compact was held in July 

2010. 

Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS 

As mentioned earlier, US DOT added the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor to 

the Federally-designated SEHSR Corridor in 1995. Since then, Virginia has been 

investigating a program of rail improvements or new rail that would be necessary to enhance 

conventional freight and passenger rail operations through the Richmond to Hampton Roads 

SEHSR Corridor. 

In 2009, FRA and Virginia DRPT completed a Tier I DEIS examining the potential routes 

and possible environmental impacts for the development of the extension of the SEHSR 

Corridor from Richmond, VA to the Hampton Roads area of Virginia (Richmond/Hampton 

Roads Passenger Rail Study Tier I EIS) - (Virginia DRPT, FRA, 2009). Under NEPA, the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS is considered separate and 

independent from the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC, as 

well as this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS. Because the Richmond to Hampton 

Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS has its own independent utility (i.e., it is a usable and 

reasonable expenditure separate from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS), and has 

its own logical termini (i.e. the Richmond to Raleigh Project can accommodate any of the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS options), FRA deemed it 

appropriate for the projects to be studied separately under NEPA. 

The Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS evaluated potential routes for 

higher speed rail service from Richmond, VA to the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, either 

sharing the SEHSR Corridor from Richmond, VA to Petersburg, VA, then along the Norfolk 

Southern (NS) Route 460 corridor to Norfolk, VA (Alternative 1), or the existing Amtrak 

Corridor from Richmond, VA to Williamsburg, VA to Newport News, VA on the CSX 

Peninsula Branch along I-64 (Alternative 2). The Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS has been coordinated with the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS to 

ensure compatibility and connectivity. 

Public hearings for the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS were held 

in January 2010. In February 2010, based on the evaluation and public comments received, 

the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) recommended Alternative 1 as the 

preferred alternative for the extension of the SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, VA, 

Petersburg, VA and Norfolk, VA. Additionally, the CTB recommended the expansion of 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-12

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

conventional intercity passenger rail service on the existing Amtrak route to Newport News, 

VA. Furthermore, the CTB approved $93 million in funding for the incremental 

reintroduction of conventional passenger rail service from Richmond, VA to Norfolk, VA via 

Petersburg, VA in June 2010. In December 2012, Virginia DRPT initiated Amtrak NEC 

Regional service to Norfolk, VA with one daily round trip train extending from Richmond, 

VA through Petersburg, VA. Virginia DRPT also has plans to extend two more daily round 

trip trains from Richmond to Norfolk. 

FRA approved the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I FEIS document in 

August 2012. In December 2012, FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the route 

from Richmond Main Street Station through Petersburg, VA to Norfolk, VA (Alternative 1) 

as the designated extension of the SEHSR Corridor to Hampton Roads. The ROD also 

selected the route from Richmond Main Street Station through Williamsburg, VA to Newport 

News, VA along the CSX railroad for expanded conventional passenger rail service to 

Hampton Roads. (FRA, 2012a). For more information on the Richmond to Hampton Roads 

SEHSR Corridor project, see http://www.rich2hrrail.info/.

Washington, DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II EIS 

In 2014, FRA and the Virginia DRPT initiated a Tier II EIS for the development of the 

SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA. This effort will complete the 

NEPA review and preliminary engineering necessary to expand the capacity on the existing 

CSX Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac (RF&P) corridor between Washington, DC and 

Richmond, VA to accommodate the existing and planned passenger and freight service on the 

SEHSR Corridor. 

Transportation Planning Report for the Richmond-Charlotte Corridor 

In 2004, FRA released this independent engineering study that examined specific 

infrastructure improvements needed to implement HSR between Richmond, VA and 

Charlotte, NC, to achieve a travel time goal of 4 hours and 25 minutes. The report supports 

and complements the findings of the Tier I EIS (see Section 1.2.1). It also provides technical 

assistance that will be used in developing the Tier II documents for the Corridor (see Section 

1.2.2). 

OTHER RAIL PROJECTS AND ACTIONS 

INITIATIVES BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Amtrak Virginia

Amtrak Virginia is a program developed by Virginia DRPT and Amtrak to provide more rail 

travel choices in Virginia. The Commonwealth is investing in intercity passenger rail service 

through Amtrak to bring new service to Virginia with direct connections to Amtrak’s NEC. 

In order to better serve citizens of the Commonwealth, Amtrak Virginia has expanded service 

along multiple corridors and to several cities. These services include one daily round trip 

from Lynchburg, VA to Washington DC; two daily round trips from Richmond, VA to 

Washington DC; and one daily round trip trains from Norfolk, VA to Washington DC. 

Virginia DRPT’s long range plan includes an expansion of the state-supported services to 

Lynchburg, VA and Roanoke, VA and Norfolk, VA and Newport News, VA, as described 

later in this document.
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-13

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Richmond to Washington Third Track

Virginia DRPT, in cooperation with VRE and CSX, has an initiative to install a third 

mainline track on the CSX RF&P Corridor between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA. 

Since 2008, Virginia DRPT has installed approximately 10.5 miles of third track for one fifth 

of the 50-mile VRE commuter territory on this corridor between Fredericksburg, VA and 

Washington, DC. The completed third track projects include: 7.6 miles from Alexandria, VA 

to Franconia/Ravensworth (AF-RW) and 3.1 miles from Fredericksburg, VA to Hamilton, 

VA (FB-HA). Separately, Virginia DRPT is currently building 2.5 miles from Hamilton, VA 

to Crossroads (HA-XR) in partnership with VRE, and eleven miles of third track from 

Arkendale to Powells Creek through an FRA High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant. 

Upon completion of the Hamilton to Crossroads and Arkendale to Powell’s Creek Third 

Track projects, Virginia DRPT, Amtrak, VRE and CSX will have additional capacity on three 

tracks for nearly half of the 50-mile VRE commuter territory or one quarter of the 109-mile 

RF&P Corridor between Richmond and Washington. 

National Gateway 

The CSX National Gateway is a corridor improvement project to clear the route from the 

Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern States to the Midwest to accommodate double-stack freight 

trains. The SEHSR Corridor shares the alignment of the CSX National Gateway for most of 

the route from Raleigh, NC to Washington, DC, primarily the CSX A-Line from south of 

Petersburg, VA through Richmond, VA to Washington, DC. Virginia DRPT is partnering 

with CSX to incrementally upgrade bridge and tunnel clearances along the National Gateway 

freight corridor. 

INITIATIVES BY THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Raleigh, NC to Charlotte Rail Improvements 

Since completion of the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, North Carolina has worked to enhance 

passenger rail service within the state, particularly on the North Carolina Railroad Company 

(NCRR) corridor from its intersection with the CSX A-Line in Selma, NC to the connection 

with the CSX S-Line in Raleigh, NC and onto the Piedmont Corridor between Raleigh, NC, 

Greensboro, NC and Charlotte, NC. Particularly, NCDOT has invested in incremental 

infrastructure improvements to the Piedmont Corridor to enhance reliability, reduce travel 

times, improve safety, and improve station facilities. 

At the completion of the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, passenger service on the Piedmont 

Corridor consisted of two daily round trip trains, including: the Carolinian, which operates 

over the NCRR corridor from Charlotte through Raleigh, NC to Selma, NC and onto the CSX 

A-Line from Selma, NC to Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, and New York; and the 

Piedmont, which operates solely between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC. Based on 

recommendations from the Transit 2001 Commission, and completion of SEHSR Corridor 

Tier I EIS, NCDOT set a long-term goal to reduce to two hours the rail travel time on the 

Piedmont Corridor, which took approximately three hours and forty-five minutes to travel the 

174 miles between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-14

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

North Carolina Railroad Improvement Program (NCRRIP) 

In 2002, NCDOT, NS and NCRR initiated the North Carolina Railroad Improvement 

Program (NCRRIP) to dramatically improve the quality of passenger rail service over the 

Piedmont Corridor. The first series of NCRRIP projects from 2003 to 2005, totaled 

approximately $50 million, including extending sidings, changing the slope of tracks, 

straightening curves, and installing centralized train control signals. These initial 

improvements helped alleviate freight and passenger delays on the heavily used corridor and 

reduced travel time by 30 minutes between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC. 

NCDOT continued work on NCRRIP through 2010 with approximately $45 million in 

additional investments, which have further improved reliability, and supported the addition of 

a third daily Piedmont Corridor train. 

NCDOT Piedmont Improvement Program 

Since the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, FRA has 

awarded approximately $570 million to NCDOT for passenger rail improvements in North 

Carolina. The majority of the investment includes $520 million for the “Piedmont 

Improvement Program” from the FRA for additional equipment, station and maintenance 

facility upgrades, and additional track capacity to support the introduction of the third and 

fourth frequencies Piedmont Corridor. Through cooperation with NCDOT, NS, NCRR and 

Amtrak, these improvements will deliver the third and fourth frequency with increased 

operating speeds, a reduced trip time, and a commitment for on-time performance. In 

addition, these improvements provide a reserve capacity for up to five Piedmont Corridor 

trains between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC, with partial capacity for a sixth frequency 

between Greensboro, NC and Charlotte, NC. FRA and NCDOT advanced the projects in the 

Piedmont Improvement Program with individual Tier II NEPA reviews under the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS. Refer to Section 1.4 for a description of some of these projects. 

NCDOT Sealed Corridor Program 

NCDOT has also been working with the host railroads and FRA to improve grade-crossing 

safety through its Sealed Corridor initiative along the Piedmont Corridor since 1994. The 

Sealed Corridor initiative includes an incremental approach to improve safety at gradecrossings along the corridor through the installation of improved warning devices, 

construction of grade separations, or elimination through closure or consolidation. Since 

1990, NCDOT has reduced the number of grade crossings on the Piedmont Corridor from 

approximately 208 to 149, with the remaining crossings receiving appropriate warning 

systems. By 2017, NCDOT intends to have closed an additional 50 crossings. 

NCDOT Station Improvements 

As part of the NCDOT Rail Program, the department was involved in restoration work on 

historic passenger stations in the SEHSR Corridor at Salisbury, High Point, and Greensboro, 

NC. New stations have been constructed in Kannapolis, NC and Durham, NC. In addition, 

major multimodal transportation centers are currently planned for Charlotte, NC and Raleigh, 

NC. The station work represents a current investment of over $78 million in the SEHSR 

Corridor alone. As part of the project to construct a new Raleigh Union Station, NCDOT and 

the City of Raleigh are rebuilding the intersection of the CSX S-Line and the NCRR H-Line 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-15

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

A prime recommendation 

from the 1999 Feasibility 

Study was the 

preparation of an EIS for 

the portion of SEHSR 

between Washington, 

DC, and Charlotte, NC. 

at Boylan Junction. This improvement will support the future installation of the double-track 

connection with the SEHSR Corridor as presented in this Richmond to Raleigh Tier II EIS. 

HSR Engineering Feasibility Studies 

NCDOT has also been involved in several efforts to develop the SEHSR Corridor and 

advocate for Federal funding of HSR. NCDOT has worked with FRA and the states of South 

Carolina and Georgia, to complete an engineering feasibility study in 2008 for the SEHSR 

Corridor from Charlotte, NC through Greenville, SC and Spartanburg, SC to Atlanta, GA and 

Macon, GA. Based on the 2008 feasibility study, FRA has initiated a Tier I EIS to extend the 

SEHSR Corridor from Charlotte, NC to Atlanta, GA. NCDOT also worked with the 

Southeastern Economic Alliance (16 Chambers of Commerce from the six states that 

compose the Alliance), which seeks congressional support for the establishment of a Federal 

funding program for rail. 

PROJECT BACKGROUND 

SEHSR CORRIDOR TIER I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT (EIS) 

A prime recommendation from the 1999 Feasibility Study discussed in Section 1.1.2.2 was the 

preparation of an EIS pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, for the portion of SEHSR Corridor 

between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC. Because of the magnitude of the SEHSR Corridor 

study area (approximately 500 miles long), the numerous 

alternative study areas, and the conceptual level of project detail, 

NCDOT, Virginia DRPT, FRA and FHWA chose a “tiered” (or 

phased) approach in developing the environmental documents 

for this portion of the SEHSR Corridor (as defined in the NEPA 

regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) (see 40 CFR §§ 1502.20 and 1508.38). In October 1999, 

these state and Federal agencies began preparation of the first 

phase of the study – referred to as the Tier I EIS for the SEHSR 

Corridor. This portion of the SEHSR Corridor would extend HSR 

service from the NEC southward along a Federally-designated HSR corridor from Washington, 

DC to Charlotte, NC. The Tier I EIS prepared for the project was, therefore, a program level 

environmental document that presented a corridor level review of the study area alternatives on 

an “apples-to-apples” basis. All known potential impacts to environmental resources were 

presented at the macro level in order to determine the general corridor for further study during 

subsequent Tier II reviews. 

The HSR service evaluated in the Tier I EIS consisted of four round trips per day between 

Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC and four additional trips between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, 

NC. Station stops were not determined, but it was assumed that the SEHSR Corridor would serve 

all stations where Amtrak currently provides service; however, every train would not stop at all 

stations. Nine study area alternatives and one no-build alternative were examined for the 

proposed corridor. The buffer area used to analyze each resource to help identify potential 

impacts ranged from a width of 300 feet to six miles centered on existing rail rights-of-way. The 

No Build Alternative included existing and committed improvements to highway, air travel, 

intercity bus, passenger rail (Amtrak and VRE), public transit, and freight services, without any 

new HSR passenger service. The estimated end-to-end travel time for the nine build alternatives 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-16

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

By maximizing use of 

existing infrastructure, 

the initial capital 

investment required by 

the system is reduced. 

ranged from 6 hours to 7.5 hours, compared to 10 hours for the no-build alternative. The 

projected total ridership in 2025 for the nine alternatives ranges from 1.3 million to 1.8 million 

passengers. Fossil fuel powered trains were proposed to be used with a top operating speed of 110 

mph (180 kph). 

Through the results of the feasibility studies and modeling discussed in Section 1.1.2.2 of this 

chapter, Federal and state agencies determined that the SEHSR Corridor should be analyzed and 

implemented in the Tier I EIS using an “Incremental Approach.” A set of basic assumptions of 

this approach include the following: 

 Following the results of the 1997 CFS report (which showed that the SEHSR Corridor could 

provide substantial benefits relative to costs), transportation service in the SEHSR Corridor 

would be provided on standard gauge railroad tracks capable of also supporting North 

American standard heavy-haul freight trains as well as high speed passenger trains. 

 By maximizing use of existing infrastructure, the initial capital investment required by the 

system is reduced. 

 While some segments of the high speed service may be operated 

on tracks dedicated to high speed, much of the route could 

involve incremental improvements to tracks owned by 

commercial freight lines operating at conventional speeds. 

 Shared trackage will place certain technological requirements 

and operational limitations on the high speed trainsets and other 

technology choices. 

 Accommodating higher passenger train speeds and increasing the capacity of the existing rail 

infrastructure to handle additional passenger and freight rail traffic will require modifications 

to the existing signal and control systems, as well as other improvements at various locations 

within the travel corridor. 

 FRA requires an approved barrier or warning system for at-grade highway crossings on 

railroads with speeds of 79 to 110 mph, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations: 49 

CFR, Section 213.347. On such high speed railroad corridors, the railroad shall submit, for 

FRA approval, a complete description of the proposed barrier or warning system to address 

the protection of the highway traffic and high speed trains. 

 At-grade highway crossings are permitted for speeds up to 110 mph. However, FRA guidance 

(Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail, FRA 2009) states 

that public and private crossings where train speeds are between 79 and 110 mph must be 

equipped with special crossing protection devices, grade separated, or closed. Specific detail 

is included in the FRA’s Track Safety Standards in the Code of Federal Regulation: 49 CFR, 

Section 213.347. 

 The overall safety of the existing rail system would be improved by the implementation of a 

HSR system, which would upgrade not only the track, crossings and rolling stock, but also 

the stations and associated facilities. 

 This “Incremental Approach” will minimize impacts to both the human and natural 

environments by using existing rail infrastructure, an established transportation corridor and 

rail right of way (ROW) as much as possible. 

The study noted that daily existing freight train traffic peaked at over 40 trains per day in the 

segments from Richmond, VA, to Selma, NC and from Greensboro, NC, to Charlotte, NC. There 

were no freight trains on the four segments where track has been removed and there were six 

segments with fewer than five freight trains per day. For the Raleigh, NC to Greensboro, NC to 

Charlotte, NC portion of the SEHSR Corridor, proposed improvements included signalization, 

curve and interlocking improvements, and additional track. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-17

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Tier I FEIS 

indicated that the route 

with the best potential 

for HSR service and 

the fewest 

environmental impacts 

would be the “S-Line.” 

FRA and FHWA issued a 

ROD for the Washington, 

DC, to Charlotte, NC, 

SEHSR Tier I EIS in October 

2002, approving the preferred 

corridor route and modal 

choice for the Corridor, along 

with its purpose and need. 

The Tier I DEIS, competed in 2001, examined the purpose and need for the SEHSR Corridor 

project as well as evaluated the potential impacts on both natural and human environments at a 

program level of assessment for the nine different Study Area Build Alternatives compared to a 

No Build Alternative. Public involvement was critical during this phase with 26 public 

information workshops and 18 public hearings held in North Carolina and Virginia to solicit 

feedback about the project. Throughout the Tier I EIS process, meetings with the public, political 

leaders, planners, resource agencies, railroads and other interested parties were held to obtain 

input on the project. 

The Tier I FEIS, completed in June 2002, indicated that the route with 

the best potential for HSR service and the fewest environmental 

impacts would be: the “S-Line” (which runs from Richmond, VA 

through South Hill, VA, to Norlina, NC and then Raleigh, NC); plus 

the NCRR from Raleigh, NC to Greensboro, NC; plus the “K-Line” 

(which runs from Greensboro, NC to Winston-Salem, NC); plus the 

WSSB (which runs from Winston-Salem, NC back to the NCRR); and 

finally, the NCRR (which runs to Charlotte, NC). This recommended 

alternative from the Tier I EIS, consisting of Alternative B in 

combination with Alternative A, follows a combination of existing railroads and preserved rail 

corridors. 

In October 2002, FRA and FHWA issued a ROD for the 

Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, SEHSR Corridor Tier I 

EIS, confirming and approving the preferred corridor route 

and modal choice for the Corridor, along with its purpose 

and need. In the ROD. FRA and FHWA selected the 

alternative described above as the Preferred Alternative, 

rather than the No Build Alternative, to be carried forward 

into the current Tier II process because of the following 

benefits that only this Build Alternative would provide: 

 Providing the traveling public – particularly special populations such as the elderly and the 

disabled – with improved transportation choices; 

 Helping ease existing and future congestion (air, highway, passenger rail) within the 

Corridor; 

 Improving safety and energy effectiveness within the transportation network; 

 Reducing the overall air quality related emissions per passenger mile traveled within the 

Corridor; and, 

 Improving overall transportation system efficiency within the Corridor, with a minimum of 

environmental impact. The No Build Alternative would not provide these benefits; therefore, 

it was discarded from further study. 

More information about the Tier I preferred route, modal choice, purpose and need and evaluation 

process can be found on the program’s website at www.sehsr.org. 

SEHSR CORRIDOR RICHMOND TO RALEIGH PROJECT TIER II EIS 

This current Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II study builds upon the results of the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS (see Section 1.2.1). This Tier II study further evaluates the Preferred 

Alternative for the portion of the Tier I SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC. Separately evaluating the Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC portion of the SEHSR Corridor was 

necessary because the areas south of Raleigh, NC and north of Richmond, VA within the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-18

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS was published in May 

2010 and included detailed 

environmental analysis. Copies of 

the DEIS and maps are available at 

http://www.sehsr.org/deis/deis.html.

preferred corridor have existing service, which will require a different level of analysis. Ongoing 

studies and/or active projects are currently under way in these segments of the SEHSR Corridor. 

Preparation of the Tier II DEIS began in February 2003 for the portion of SEHSR Corridor 

between Petersburg, VA and Raleigh, NC. In 2006, the northern study limit was extended to 

Richmond, VA (approximately 30 miles). 

Because this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS is part of the second phase of the larger 

SEHSR Corridor project, it does not revisit or reconsider the results determined during the Tier I 

study, including the purpose or need for SEHSR Corridor (see Sections 1.6 and 1.7 of this FEIS) 

or the preferred HSR corridor and modal choice (see 

Section 1.4 of this FEIS). Additional NEPA 

environmental documentation (either EA, CE or Tier 

II EIS documents) will be prepared separately for 

implementation of the remainder of the Tier I SEHSR 

Corridor (i.e., south of Raleigh, NC to Charlotte, NC, 

and north of Richmond, VA area to Washington, DC), 

as well as the development of each of the proposed 

stations between Richmond and Raleigh. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS was published in May 2010 and included detailed 

environmental analysis of the impact of the various project elements, including detailed design, 

track location, and bridge and roadway work. Copies of the DEIS and maps are available at 

http://www.sehsr.org/deis/deis.html. 

In April 2012, Virginia and North Carolina provided FRA with a Recommendation Report 

recommending the preferred rail alternatives for each of the 26 sections evaluated in the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. These recommendations were based on consideration 

of impacts to the human and natural environment, costs, and operability/constructability, along 

with the public and agency comments received following the publication of the Tier II DEIS in 

May 2010. The recommendations in the report addressed only the selection of preferred rail 

alignments (i.e., it did not address associated roadway changes because those are independent of 

the selection of rail alternative) and required additional design and engineering. 

This Tier II FEIS is based on further evaluation and engineering subsequent to the 

Recommendation Report and presents FRA’s and the Project Sponsors’ preferred rail alignment 

alternatives for the project, as well as all associated roadway changes (see Section 1.4 and 

Chapter 2). The format of the current document – a Condensed Final Tier II EIS - is further 

explained in the Executive Summary. It should be noted that the overall Tier II EIS for the 

SEHSR Corridor Richmond to Raleigh project consists of two parts: 1) this condensed FEIS, and 

2) the DEIS, as published in May 2010. For a full understanding of the project, both documents 

should be reviewed. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-19

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

This evaluation is 

focused on the 

SEHSR Corridor 

between Richmond, 

VA, and Raleigh, NC 

PROJECT TIMELINE 

Tier II Draft EIS Published - May 2010 

8 Public Hearings Held on DEIS - July 2010 

(4 in VA, 4 in NC) 

Public Update Meetings (2 in VA and 

3 in NC) - July 2011 through February 2013 

Recommendation Report Published - April 2012 

Tier II FEIS Published - August 2015 

Tier II Record of Decision (ROD) - January 2016 (Projected) 

Design Public Hearing - After signature of ROD 

Property Acquisition - Schedule subject to funding 

Construction (with 3-5 year Build Out) - Schedule subject to funding, at least two years 

after ROD 

Begin SEHSR Passenger Service - Schedule subject to funding 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The preferred corridor identified in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS runs from Washington, DC 

through Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, Henderson, NC, Raleigh, NC, and Greensboro, NC, to 

Charlotte, NC, with a connection to Winston-Salem, NC (NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2002). This 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS evaluation is focused on the portion of the SEHSR Corridor 

between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC (Figure 1-3). 

Although there are active freight and passenger rail operations between 

Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, there is no current rail connection 

between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, in the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project corridor (approximately 132 miles along the old CSX 

S-Line). From Petersburg, VA, to Norlina, NC (approximately 76 

miles), there is a largely intact right of way, but rail service was 

discontinued in the mid-1980s and the tracks were removed. From Norlina, NC, to Raleigh, NC, 

there is only minor active freight service (approximately 1-4 trains per day). 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project would provide a completely new, fully road/rail grade separated 

Class 6 railroad (speeds up to 110 mph) to allow high speed passenger and intermodal freight 

movement, as well as providing opportunities for conventional passenger service (i.e., same speeds 

and equipment, but more stopping locations), commuter passenger service, and standard freight 

service. The nature of this action merits a single EIS under the umbrella of the overall Tier I EIS 

performed for the whole Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC SEHSR Corridor. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-20

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Both Virginia and North Carolina have active rail improvement programs in the remainder of the 

SEHSR Corridor. There is existing freight and passenger rail service operating within the SEHSR 

Corridor from Petersburg, VA, north to Washington, DC, and from Raleigh, NC, west to Charlotte, 

NC. Planned and anticipated rail improvements in these portions of the SEHSR Corridor are needed 

for safety, capacity, and congestion management, and thus while they facilitate the overall higher 

speed rail system, they have independent utility from HSR (i.e., they need to be completed whether or 

not the overall SEHSR Corridor system is developed). Each of these projects will have 

environmental documentation appropriate to the specific action. 

Examples of those current and planned projects and their level of environmental documentation are as 

follows. 

Washington, DC, to Richmond, VA: 

 Richmond Area to Washington, DC, Tier II EIS 

 Long Bridge Pre-NEPA Study 

 Arkendale to Powell's Creek Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to construct of 3rd Main 

Line and improve Quantico Station 

 Categorical Exclusion (CE) to install crossover tracks and improve commuter rail service in 

Stafford County 

 Supplemental environmental document to dismiss the alignment from Main Street Station to 

Doswell on the former C&O line (Alternative Considered but Dismissed) 

Raleigh, NC, to Charlotte, NC: 

 Charlotte Rail Improvement & Safety Program (CRISP) (EA) 

 CSXT/NS Mainline Grade Separation (EA) 

 Charlotte Sugar Creek Grade Separation (EA) 

 Charlotte Rail Maintenance Facility (EA) 

 McLeansville Road Grade Separation (EA) 

 Haw River Siding (EA) 

 Hopson Road Grade Separation (EA) 

 Clegg to Nelson Siding and Track Improvement (CE) 

 Ethyl Jukebox Crossing Consolidation in China Grove (CE) 

 Bowers to Lake, Haydock to Junker, and Reid/North Kannapolis Double Track Projects (EA) 

 Klumac Road Grade Separation (EA) 

 New Raleigh Union Station (EA) 

 CSXT Boylan Crossover and Track Improvement (CE) 

 Cary, Kannapolis, High Point and Burlington Station Upgrades (EAs) 

 Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation (EA) 

 New Locomotives and Passenger Cars (CE) 

 Duke Curve Realignment (CE) 

Richmond, VA, to Hampton Roads, VA 

 Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Study Tier I EIS 

 CE to construct a multimodal Amtrak station in Newport News 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-21

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 1-3 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-22

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The entire SEHSR Corridor is being 

designed for trains powered by fossil 

fuel. Early feasibility studies established 

an “incremental approach” to higher 

speeds, making use of existing rail 

ROW and fossil fuel locomotives. This 

minimizes impacts to both the human 

and natural environments. By using 

existing infrastructure, the initial capital 

investment is reduced. 

PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 

Some assumptions are relevant to the entire SEHSR Corridor, while others are specific to the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project, as indicated below. 

TECHNOLOGY 

As determined in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I 

ROD, the system for the entire SEHSR 

Corridor is being designed for trains to be 

powered by fossil fuel. Early feasibility 

studies established an “incremental approach” 

to higher speeds, making use of existing rail 

ROW and fossil fuel locomotives. This 

approach minimizes the impacts to both the 

human and natural environments. By using 

existing infrastructure, the initial capital 

investment required by the system is also reduced. 

It should be noted that the current Richmond to Raleigh Project designs will not preclude 

conversion to electricity in the future, thus allowing higher speeds. Conversion to electricity 

and higher speeds would require additional environmental evaluation at the appropriate time. 

Likewise, the potential use of dual-mode locomotives, which allow trains to operate along 

routes that are only partially electrified without switching locomotives, will be evaluated in 

the future as the technology advances. 

RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 

Rail designs for the Richmond to Raleigh Project use existing rail lines or segments of 

existing rail lines in conjunction with areas of new alignment. The proposed designs for all 

rail alignment alternatives call for new ballast (the rock surface underneath the railroad ties); 

concrete ties, and welded steel rails. Throughout the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor, 

the alternatives provide for a combination of high speed passenger service, conventional 

passenger service, conventional freight, and intermodal freight. The level of work required to 

achieve this shared system differs depending on the nature of the existing rail operations, as 

well as the existing conditions of the railroad and rail bed. A schematic map of the proposed 

rail improvements for the Richmond to Raleigh Project is provided in Figure 1-4. Depending 

on the location, the proposed rail designs include: 

 Construction of new single track with approximate 5 mile long passing sidings 

approximately every 10 miles - on new segments of the corridor 

(CSX S-Line between Collier, VA and Norlina, NC) 

 Rebuilding existing single track with approximate 5 mile long passing sidings 

approximately every 10 miles - on active freight segments of the corridor (CSX S-Line 

between Norlina, NC and north of Raleigh, NC) 

 Construction of new single track adjacent to existing active track, with 30 feet of 

separation; and with crossovers to allow passing for freight and passenger operations – 

on segments with heavy mainline freight traffic 

(CSX A-Line between Collier and Centralia, VA) 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-23

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Rebuilding existing double track, with crossovers to allow passing for freight and 

passenger operations – in urban segments of the corridor near Richmond (CSX S-Line 

between Centralia and Downtown Richmond). 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-24

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 1-4 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-25

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

All the project alternatives 

increase rail capacity, which 

would enhance existing 

operations and provide 

adequate separation of high 

speed train operations from 

freight operations in a fully 

grade separated corridor.

Information about the rail alternative alignments within each section is presented in Section 

2.2.3. This information includes design objectives, new bridges or underpasses, river 

crossings, and schematic maps. Detailed designs are found in Appendix R. 

The proposed rail designs were developed in accordance with FRA regulations, and in 

coordination with CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern railroads, to ensure that the 

proposed designs do not conflict with existing freight and conventional passenger operations. 

All the project alternatives increase rail capacity, which 

would enhance existing operations; and would also 

provide adequate separation of high speed train operations 

from freight operations in a fully grade separated corridor. 

The level of increased capacity is expected to be the same 

for all rail alternatives. 

With these improvements, the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project corridor will support the introduction of four daily 

round trip SEHSR Corridor trains between Richmond and 

Raleigh while preserving capacity for the continued operation of the current freight and 

passenger services on the existing active segments of the corridor. 

Note: The segment of the corridor between Collier and Centralia, VA includes the 

construction of a new HSR track adjacent to the active CSX mainline track to provide 

additional capacity to support the introduction of the four SEHSR Corridor trains for the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project only. Where this segment of the corridor is also planned to 

support the six additional SEHSR Corridor trains for the Richmond to Hampton Roads 

Project, any additional track capacity required to support that service will be considered in a 

future Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier II EIS document. 

SPEED 

Maximum authorized speed (MAS) is the maximum allowable speed a train may operate 

based on authorization from the owner of the rail corridor and FRA. Currently, the future 

MAS for the Project (as shown in Figure 1-4) is anticipated to be: 

 Richmond, VA, to Centralia, VFA – 79 mph 

 Centralia, VA, to Collier, VA (south of Petersburg) – 90 mph 

 Collier, VA, to Raleigh, NC – 110 mph. 

MAS is similar to a speed limit on a highway; it represents the highest speed trains are 

allowed to operate and is based on factors such as curvature, grade, equipment, and host 

railroad operating policies. 

The actual track designs for the Richmond to Raleigh Project will allow for higher speeds in 

the future with changes in technology and design assumptions. Design speed is the maximum 

safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of rail. It is based on several 

factors such as type of rail equipment, curvature, grade, and superelevation (i.e., cant, 

camber, or cross slope). 

Limiting speed is a subset of design speed. It is the maximum train speed through the most 

restrictive curve within a section of the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor based on 

current design assumptions. Limiting speed was used to evaluate the rail alternatives 

presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. In the absence of average 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-26

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The average 

running speed for 

the Project is 

anticipated to be 

74 miles per hour.

running speed, limiting speed is the most useful measure of how well an alternative meets the 

need of a proposed project to reduce travel time and improve fuel efficiency. 

Average running speed is based on the total amount of time it takes 

a train to go a set distance. It accounts for “dwell time” (such as 

station stops), schedule recovery time, acceleration and 

deceleration, and speed restrictions below MAS for curves and 

other features. The average running speed for the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project (with 2 intermediate station stops) is anticipated to 

be 74 miles per hour. 

NUMBERS OF TRAINS 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS assumes the operation of eight new passenger 

trains per day (four round trips) along the SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, VA, and 

Raleigh, NC (with most of the trains continuing either south or north). These projected 

SEHSR Corridor passenger trains are in addition to the number of conventional speed Amtrak 

trains that were in operation when the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS was 

published in 2010. This Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS also assumes the 

continued operation of the Amtrak Carolinian service with two conventional passenger trains 

(one round trip) on the SEHSR Corridor between Petersburg, VA, and Richmond, VA, then 

following the CSX A-line to continue south. In addition, this Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II FEIS assumes the continued operation of the Amtrak Norfolk service with two 

conventional trains (one round trip) on the SEHSR Corridor between Petersburg, VA, and 

Richmond, VA, extending to Norfolk, VA. See Section 1.4.4.4 below for more information 

on the routing of the various passenger trains in the SEHSR Corridor. 

In areas where there is existing rail service, the SEHSR Corridor trains would be in addition 

to the existing freight and passenger trains. This Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS 

estimated that up to 29 freight trains per day currently use the CSX A-Line in Virginia 

between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg. In North Carolina, up to two freight trains per day 

use the CSX S-Line between Norlina, NC, and Youngsville, NC, and up to four freight trains 

per day use the CSX S-Line between Youngsville, NC, and Raleigh, NC. The numbers of 

existing freight trains are estimates only due to the nature of freight service, which does not 

run on specific, published schedules. 

This Tier II FEIS also estimates a total of 24 freight trains operating through downtown 

Raleigh, including six on CSX and 18 on NS. The CSX estimate includes up to two 

additional freight trains per day on the CSX S-Line between the CSX rail yard north of 

downtown Raleigh, NC, through the terminus of the Richmond to Raleigh Project at Boylan 

Junction. The NS estimate includes up to eight freight trains per day in the NS corridor on a 

parallel alignment to the CSX S-Line between the NS rail yard north of downtown Raleigh 

through Boylan Junction. Beyond Boylan Junction, an additional estimated 10 NS freight 

trains per day extend to points south and west. 

The improvements to the rail corridor associated with the Richmond to Raleigh Project are 

anticipated to induce or attract additional freight (including intermodal) trains to use the 

SEHSR Corridor. For the purposes of analysis, the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS estimated that eight new intermodal trains would use the full length of the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project corridor. In addition the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS estimated 

that two new non-intermodal freight trains per day (one round trip) would use the northern 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-27

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The operating efficiency will 

increase significantly as a result 

of improvements to the SEHSR 

Corridor. The track upgrades and 

straightening of curves will allow 

all trains to operate at higher and 

more consistent speeds with 

lower maintenance cost.

portion of the corridor between Petersburg, VA, and Youngsville, NC; and four new nonintermodal freight trains per day (two round trips) would use the southern portion of the 

corridor between Youngsville, NC, and Raleigh, NC. In total, 10 additional freight trains 

would use the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor between Petersburg, VA, and 

Youngsville, NC, and 12 would use the corridor between Youngsville, NC, and Raleigh, NC. 

In Raleigh, NC, it is assumed all additional freight trains would remain in the CSX corridor 

and not cross over Capital Boulevard with the SEHSR Corridor passenger trains. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS recognizes that additional SEHSR Corridor 

service is envisioned to operate between Richmond, VA, and Newport News/Norfolk, VA, as 

defined in the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I FEIS. However, the 

operation, schedule, ridership, and revenue impacts of that expanded service is not applied to 

the forecasts in this Tier II FEIS for the Richmond to Raleigh Project. 

FREIGHT TRACKAGE 

The entire SEHSR Corridor system is being designed as a shared system for passenger and 

freight use. Freight service already exists in most sections, and could be reinstituted by the 

freight railroads in the currently discontinued section between Petersburg, VA, and Norlina, 

NC. For the Richmond to Raleigh Project, the design of SEHSR Corridor will vary at 

different locations, allowing MAS from 79 mph to 110 mph. 

The operating efficiency for both passenger and 

freight service will increase significantly as a result of 

improvements to the SEHSR Corridor. The overall 

track upgrades and straightening of curves will allow 

all trains to operate at higher and more consistent 

speeds with lower maintenance cost. The Richmond 

to Raleigh Project includes proposed 5-mile long 

double track sections approximately every 10 miles 

that will greatly increase overall corridor capacity, 

allowing slower freight trains and faster passenger trains to pass each other without the need 

to come to a complete stop and wait. 

TRANSPORTATION/MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY 

One goal throughout the entire SEHSR Corridor is to plan for connections to other forms of 

transit, which would enhance regional connectivity. As discussed in Section 3.11.3., at all 

proposed stations/stops for the Richmond to Raleigh Project there is at least one public bus 

transit service agency that either currently provides, or is anticipated to be expanded to 

provide, bus or van services for HSR travelers. Additionally, rail transit plans for the 

Richmond, VA, region include several commuter rail and light rail lines providing service to 

Main Street Station, as well as a proposed commuter rail line that could potentially share the 

same ROW as the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor between Main Street Station and 

Petersburg, VA. Rail transit plans for the Raleigh, NC region involve a light rail line that 

could potentially share the same general corridor as the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor 

from north Raleigh to downtown Raleigh, NC. 

Equipment specifications and policies related to bicycle transport will be developed later in 

the project when funding has been secured. Ease of train entry/exit for cyclists is affected by 

the platform height and train equipment. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-28

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The design of the 

Richmond to Raleigh 

Project is to consolidate 

and grade separate all 

railroad-roadway 

crossings for safety and 

operability purposes. 

GRADE SEPARATIONS AND CROSSING CONSOLIDATIONS 

The overarching philosophy of the design of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project is to consolidate and grade 

separate all railroad-roadway crossings for safety and 

operability purposes. Grade separations replace atgrade crossings (i.e., locations where railroads and 

roadways cross at the same elevation) with bridges or 

underpasses. The primary reason for removing at-grade 

crossings is safety; however, there are several other 

reasons: 

 Absolute collision avoidance: At-grade crossings inherently have risk of trainautomobile collisions. A collision at a crossing on a higher speed track is a significant 

event often causing a death in the vehicle and in the case of larger, heavier trucks, the 

possible derailment of the train. These accidents also disrupt operation of both the rail 

and roadway systems for many hours. 

 Elimination of railroad/roadway traffic issues: Under normal railroad operation, the 

event of a train crossing at-grade may cause delay of up to several minutes for vehicular 

traffic depending on type and speed of train. 

 Elimination of possible system failure and associated delays: Crossing signal systems 

are very complex computer and electronics systems that operate in harsh environments. 

When a signal system fails, trains are often required to stop at the crossing with a crew 

member stopping vehicle traffic by flagging. 

 Elimination of easy trespasser access: Trespassing is a major safety and security 

problem for railroads. At-grade crossings provide attractive locations for trespassers to 

access the railroad right-of-way. 

 Elimination of horn noise: Trains are required to sound horns on approach to an atgrade crossing. By eliminating crossings, trains will not be required to whistle, 

significantly reducing unwanted noise. 

 Comparable capital cost to grade-separated structure: On a high speed track, the cost of 

the signal system, approaches, crossing surface, and lifelong maintenance for an at-grade 

crossing can approach that of the cost of a grade separated structure. 

 Improved long term cost of maintenance: There are many ongoing costs for at-grade 

crossings with active warning devices, including inspections, replacement of damaged or 

worn out parts, and replacement of crossing surfaces when a track is surfaced and ties 

are replaced. 

 Allows for future speed increases: FRA regulations require grade separations for speeds 

above 125 mph. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project proposes to close all existing road/rail at-grade crossings 

located between proposed and existing grade separations along the study corridor and to reroute vehicular traffic to the nearest grade separation. Grade separations are typically located 

less than one mile apart. The locations chosen for grade separations were based on input 

from local officials, connectivity to the existing road network, minimizing impacts to natural 

and cultural resources, and constructability. 

Design of grade separations along the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor often 

necessitated changes to the design of adjacent roads. These changes primarily address: (1) 

realignments of existing roads to accommodate a bridge or overpass, and (2) new roads to 

maintain connectivity to the existing road network. The proposed roadwork associated with 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-29

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The new bridges will 

have sufficient width 

so as not to create a 

hazard for pedestrian 

movement. 

each rail alignment was considered part of that alternative (e.g., VA1, VA2, VA3 in Virginia, 

and NC1, NC2, NC3 in North Carolina). The impacts associated with the preferred 

alternatives (Chapter 4) address changes from both rail and roadway alignments. 

FENCING AND LANDSCAPING 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor will not be completely sealed from any 

unauthorized access through the use of fencing. In developed areas along the corridor, 

fencing may be used to direct pedestrians to bridges/underpasses that have been designed to 

accommodate pedestrian access. Fencing locations and types will be determined during final 

design based on coordination between the owner of the rail corridor, the operator of the 

railroad, and adjacent communities. 

Along the rail alignment, landscaping will be consistent with what currently exists. Along 

road work, landscaping will be addressed during final design using VDOT or NCDOT 

standards/procedures. Details for landscaping in historic districts may be specified under the 

Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (with input from property owners and other 

consulting parties). 

PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS 

Due to the fact that the Richmond to Raleigh Project returns rail to communities that 

developed along rail corridors, it will have an effect on 

community connectivity. Steps have been taken throughout the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project to minimize negative effects. All 

of the new bridges will have sufficient width so as not to create 

a hazard for pedestrian movement. In locations where existing 

pedestrian accommodations (e.g., sidewalks) currently exist, 

these accommodations will be provided on the 

bridges/underpasses. At other locations, pedestrian accommodations on the 

bridges/underpasses will be evaluated during final design based on the current NCDOT and 

Virginia pedestrian policies. In general, these policies consider the provision of pedestrian 

accommodations in more populous locations where pedestrian activity currently exists. In 

addition, throughout the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor one existing public pedestrianonly underpass has been maintained and twelve new pedestrian-only bridges or underpasses 

are proposed for construction. The locations of these pedestrian crossings were determined in 

coordination with local government representatives and in response to comments from the 

public on the DEIS. Additional requests for pedestrian accommodations will be considered 

as they are received and added to the final designs where appropriate. 

It should be noted that Section 4.16 of the DEIS mistakenly stated that all roadway bridge 

designs would include sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian access. While pedestrians will be 

able to cross at all roadway bridges, the inclusion of sidewalks will depend on the current 

NCDOT and Virginia pedestrian policy at the time the Richmond to Raleigh Project is 

constructed. 

USE OF EXISTING BRIDGES 

It is the intention of NCDOT and Virginia DRPT to use existing bridges (both road and rail) 

wherever possible, unless shown otherwise on the Richmond to Raleigh Project designs (see 

Appendix R), In most cases, the Richmond to Raleigh Project can utilize the piers and 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-30

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Funding has 

not yet been 

secured or 

identified.

The DEIS provided background to 

identify five municipal locations 

for SEHSR stops. Richmond, VA, 

Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, 

have existing passenger service 

and stations, and La Crosse, VA, 

and Henderson, NC, do not 

currently have passenger service 

or stations. 

substructure of existing bridges and replace the superstructure (e.g., girders, decking, and 

track) as necessary. During the final design stage of the Richmond to Raleigh Project, 

geotechnical studies will be performed to verify that existing structures are safe for continued 

use. If those studies indicate that any bridges need to be replaced, the proper environmental 

documentation will be undertaken at that time. 

PROJECT FUNDING 

Funding for the right of way acquisition and construction of this 

Richmond to Raleigh Project has not yet been secured or identified. At 

this time, Richmond to Raleigh Project proponents anticipate that North 

Carolina and Virginia will pursue Federal funding through the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), reauthorization of Federal transportation 

programs and other Federal funding sources (which was anticipated by the Federal government as 

needed as part of the overall Federal HSR investment). Public-private partnership funding 

opportunities may also be sought along with Federal and state funding. Decisions regarding 

future funding of the Richmond to Raleigh Project will be made at the completion of the 

environmental review process. The Richmond to Raleigh Project is not anticipated to be funded 

by local governments. 

It should be noted that the construction costs for the Richmond to Raleigh Project were never 

intended to be fully financed by the system's ridership; however, most long-term operational costs 

are estimated to be covered through ridership fees (see Section 1.4.4.2 below). Construction costs 

for the nationwide HSR system will be a public investment in a new national transportation 

network, similar to the 1950s when the Federal government created the Interstate Highway 

System. In developing the vision for the HSR network, the Federal government recognized the 

substantial economic and environmental benefits such an investment will provide to all elements 

of the country for decades to come. As was the case for interstate highways, the initial cost to 

construct such a massive new public transportation system cannot be fully funded by private 

sources or alone by individual users (riders). 

STATIONS 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS provided 

background on earlier modeling that was used to 

identify five municipal locations for SEHSR Corridor 

stops within the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor: 

Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, 

which have existing passenger service and stations, and 

La Crosse, VA, and Henderson, NC, which do not 

currently have passenger service or stations. 

This Richmond to Raleigh Project EIS does not evaluate 

environmental impacts related to specific station 

locations within the five municipalities. Potential station 

locations are evaluated generally in terms of accessibility to the larger transportation network. 

Specific station locations within municipalities will be determined in the future by the 

municipalities and passenger service operator, and appropriate levels of environmental 

documentation will be undertaken at that time. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-31

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

All proposed rail alternatives have been designed to accommodate operational requirements of 

600 feet to 800 feet of straight alignment for station platforms at each stop location. The 

alternative rail designs also allow for flexibility in final station designs by ensuring the ability to 

meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for platform design at each stop location. 

The public involvement process revealed a strong interest in conventional passenger rail service 

that would utilize the same equipment and speeds as high speed service, but would provide access 

opportunities to smaller towns along the route. This option will be given further consideration as 

the system develops based on user demand along the route. 

RICHMOND, VA 

Each high speed train will stop in central Richmond, VA, the northern terminus for the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project. As discussed in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, 

in 2006 FRA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) advising the public of a revision to the study 

corridor for this Tier II EIS (Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS Appendix A). As 

described in the NOI, FRA changed the Northern terminus from Petersburg, VA (Collier 

Yard) to Richmond, VA (Main Street Station). Main Street Station was opened in 1901 and 

has remained one of Downtown Richmond’s most visible landmarks. The station was closed 

in 1975 due to a decline in passenger rail service. The historic reopening of Main Street 

Station in 2003 marked the culmination of years of renovation to this 102-year-old landmark, 

and the return of passenger train service to downtown Richmond, VA. The importance of 

Main Street Station to the City of Richmond and to the larger region is illustrated by ongoing 

regional and local planning efforts as described in Section 3.11. 

PETERSBURG, VA 

Each high speed train will stop at a station in the vicinity of Petersburg, VA. The Richmond 

to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS identified four potential station locations, including the 

existing Amtrak Ettrick Station as well as three alternative station locations: Dunlop, 

Washington Street, and Collier. 

FRA has had an historical interest in evaluating alternative station sites in Petersburg, VA. 

There is a desire to determine whether or not alternative sites could better serve the 

Petersburg, VA, area by offering greater accessibility. 

The current Ettrick Station was erected in the 1950s to allow Atlantic Coast Line (ACL) 

Florida-bound trains to avoid downtown Petersburg streets as well as the steep grades on the 

north side of the Appomattox River. Following the 1967 merger between the ACL and the 

Seaboard Air Line (SAL), passenger trains of both railroads stopped at Ettrick’s red brick 

depot, making it the primary rail station in the Petersburg, VA, area. Passenger use of the 

Ettrick station continued when Amtrak took over intercity passenger service in 1971. The 

station currently accommodates ten passenger trains (five round-trip) daily, including: three 

Amtrak long distance trains (Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Palmetto); the NCDOTsupported Carolinian; and the Virginia DRPT-supported Amtrak Regional train to Norfolk. 

In 2014, the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Crater Planning 

District Commission (CPDC) initiated an Environmental Assessment to select a location for a 

Tri-Cities Area Multimodal Passenger Station, which will evaluate the feasibility for 

continued service at the existing Ettrick Station or relocation to a new site in the Tri-Cities 

area. The FRA is serving as the lead Federal agency for this Project, with support from the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-32

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

acting as cooperating agencies. While the existing Ettrick Station supports the current 

Amtrak passenger rail service, additional investment is required to attract and accommodate 

increased ridership, improve accessibility to the local and regional transportation network, 

improve ADA accessibility, and provide capacity to support future high speed rail service. 

LA CROSSE, VA, AND HENDERSON, NC 

There has been strong public support for HSR stations in Southside Virginia and northern 

North Carolina. Evaluation and ridership-revenue modeling (see Section 1.5) support one 

daily train stop in each of these areas. Specific locations of stations in La Crosse, VA, and 

Henderson, NC, have not been determined. However, sites in both towns have adequate 

spacing for platforms. All alternatives are on common alignment through these two 

locations. The local municipalities will develop plans for the stations and conduct the 

required environmental documentation for these stations. 

RALEIGH, NC 

Each high speed train will stop in Raleigh, NC. The southern terminus for this project is the 

Boylan Wye, in downtown Raleigh, NC. Alternatives NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5 are on 

different alignments approaching the terminus, but come together on common alignment 

along a straight section of the CSX S-line near Jones Street, approximately three blocks north 

of the Boylan Wye. 

The Southern Railway Company built the current Amtrak station in 1950, which is located on 

the NCRR H-Line south of the Boylan Wye. Southern Railway discontinued passenger 

service to their Raleigh station in 1964. Service resumed in 1984, when Amtrak moved from 

the old Raleigh Seaboard station. Amtrak has completed renovations to expand the waiting 

room and to add a First Class passenger lounge and long-term parking facility to the Raleigh 

station, one of the busiest in North Carolina and in the South. Unfortunately, the station’s 

location is not desirable for the SEHSR Corridor routing because it would require a backing 

movement for both southbound and northbound trains. In addition, the station is serving a 

ridership which far exceeds its waiting area and parking capacity. 

Since publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the City of Raleigh has 

made several advancements towards development of a new, larger, multimodal center that 

would be located within the Boylan Wye. This would allow all existing and proposed 

intercity and commuter trains to use a single facility. In September 2012, the US 

Department of Transportation (DOT) announced that the City had been selected for funding 

under DOT’s TIGER (Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery) grant 

program that would partially fund a new Raleigh Union Station, including all the necessary 

track work. A second DOT TIGER grant was awarded to the City in 2013 to fund the 

remainder of the station construction cost, and the City agreed to pay the non-Federal 

matching funds. An EA was approved by FRA in March, 2014, followed by completion of a 

FONSI document in June, 2014 (NCDOT, 2014). The project to build the station is a 

partnership among the City, FRA, NCDOT, and Triangle Transit (TT). The City also has 

partnered with Norfolk Southern, Amtrak and the North Carolina Railroad Company. Project 

design is complete, and construction will is scheduled to begin in late 2015. The funded 

portion of the Raleigh Union Station project includes the construction of a new station 

terminal building with two dedicated passenger tracks on the NCRR H-Line. Additional 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-33

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The travel time 

between Richmond 

and Raleigh will be 

approximately 2 

hours and 26 

minutes. 

track and station amenities required to support the SEHSR Corridor trains from the Richmond 

to Raleigh Project at Raleigh Union Station will require additional funding. 

OPERATIONS 

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 

Operations in the SEHSR Corridor must be consistent from Washington, DC, to Charlotte, 

NC. Therefore, the general characteristics for service between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC are the same as those that were adopted in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS. 

In the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, the operational model assumed a MAS of 110 mph in the 

SEHSR Corridor, with a desired average speed of 85 to 87 mph. Based on the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS analysis, estimated end-to-end travel time for the SEHSR Corridor 

service from Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, ranged from six hours to seven and one-half 

hours, depending on the design of the system. The SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS service 

assumed eight round trips per day between Charlotte, NC, and Raleigh, NC, with four of 

these trips continuing on to Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, and northward. 

Subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, Virginia DRPT 

and NCDOT updated the conceptual service operation model to more accurately reflect 

expected speeds, and to be consistent with the NEC Futures planning effort (in cooperation 

with Amtrak), as well as with the Virginia Corridor Synthesis Report (DRPT, 2009). 

Although actual schedules will vary in the future, this analysis provided more accurate 

information for use in updated ridership and revenue forecasting discussed below in Section 

1.5. 

The train schedules from the updated service operation model, which includes proposed 

SEHSR Corridor trains and existing Amtrak trains, allow departures approximately every two 

hours throughout the day in each direction, from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The 

updated service operation model still evaluated eight round trips on the SEHSR Corridor 

between Charlotte, NC, and Raleigh, NC, with four round trips extending to Richmond, VA, 

Washington, DC, and northward. Of the four SEHSR Corridor trains extending to Richmond, 

VA, and northward, three would originate in Charlotte, NC, and one would originate in 

Raleigh, NC, to allow better start and end times. 

The service operation model assumes that all existing Amtrak stations will receive one or 

more trains. Potential new stations in La Crosse (South Hill), VA, and Henderson, NC, 

would initially receive one round trip daily. 

Table 1-3 shows average travel times between cities in the SEHSR Corridor and NEC to New 

York, NY, as estimated by the updated service operation model. The updated model estimates 

the end-to-end travel time for SEHSR Corridor service from Washington, DC, to Charlotte, 

NC, will be approximately seven and one-half hours, which is 

consistent with the highest estimated travel time from the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS. The travel time for SEHSR Corridor service 

between Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC will be approximately two 

hours and fourteen minutes. Future improvements on the SEHSR 

Corridor, either between Washington, DC, and Richmond, VA, and 

Raleigh, NC, or Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, could be 

implemented to further reduce the SEHSR Corridor travel time 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-34

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC. It should be noted that schedules and travel 

times will vary in the future due to other operating factors or corridor constraints. 

Table 1-3 

Projected Average Travel Time Between Cities 

(In Hours : Minutes)* 

Current 

Service 

SEHSR Corridor 

(Full Build, S-Line 

Trains Only) 

New York - Raleigh 9:57 7:25 

Washington - Raleigh 5:59 4:22 

Richmond - Raleigh 3:36 2:14 

New York - Charlotte 13:25 10:16 

Washington - Charlotte 9:27 7:14 

Richmond – Charlotte 7:03 5:07 

Raleigh – Charlotte 3:13 2:49 

Source: “S-Line Trains Only” travel times are derived from the schedules used in the Southeast High Speed Rail Ridership Report, AECOM, 

2013. 

* Dwell times at station stops are included in the average travel time. Please note that travel times vary by time of day and direction; therefore, 

there may be slight differences in travel times between city pairs. 

OPERATING COSTS 

Operations on the Richmond to Raleigh Project must be considered within the context of 

service in the overall SEHSR Corridor. The operating expense projections for the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS applied cost factors developed by Amtrak’s Intercity Business Unit for 

the state-supported service pricing model. Amtrak developed this model to assess the 

performance of and establish state-supported service pricing for individual routes. This 

model was developed after Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, which 

previously governed state-supported service pricing, was repealed as part of the Amtrak 

Reform and Accountability Act of 1997. The base year for all expenses was 1997, and they 

were inflated to 2000 dollars for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS document using Amtrak 

inflation rates ranging from 3-5% annually. 

For the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, passenger ridership, passenger miles, and ticket revenue 

were forecast by KPMG (now AECOM Consult, Inc.), using the Southeast Corridor Model, 

which assumed constant 2000 dollars for two forecast years, 2015 and 2025. The projected 

operating expense of service in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS between Washington, DC, 

and Charlotte, NC, was $81.7 million in the year 2015 and $83.75 million in the year 2025. It 

was projected to have a net operating income (revenues less operating and maintenance costs) 

of $13.9 million in the year 2015, and $ 21.6 million in the year 2025 (NCDOT and Virginia 

DRPT, 2002). 

Updated cost and revenue information has been prepared for inclusion in this Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS using more complete designs (including the Preferred 

Alternative for the Richmond to Raleigh Project), and revenue forecasts from the 2013 

ridership and revenue model update. Operation and maintenance costs were updated for the 

proposed SEHSR Corridor service, which includes eight round trip trains as described in the 

SEHSR Corridor (Full Build) scenario in Section 1.5 below. The operating and maintenance 

costs for these trains are estimated at $193.6 million in 2030 and $263.2 million in 2040, with 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-35

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

projected farebox revenues (including food and beverage) of $206.6 million in 2030 and 

$313.1 million in 2040 (Vanness Company, Inc., 2014). 

Based on the updated estimates, the SEHSR Corridor service is projected to have a net 

operating income (revenues less operating and maintenance costs) of $22.6 million in 2030 

and $62.1 million in 2040. It should be noted, however, that this income does not account for 

future required new or replacement capital investments (such as replacement locomotives). 

FRA develops Capital Asset Renewal (CAR) estimates to account for such future required 

investments using a forward-looking method that accounts for when the investments are 

likely to occur. The CAR estimate for the SEHSR Corridor service is approximately $16.8 

million annually through 2040. Accounting for these additional costs results in estimated 

annual incomes (net operating income less capital investments) of $5.8 million in 2030 and 

$45.3 million in 2040. More details on these calculations are included in Appendix C. 

PATRONAGE (RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE) 

In order to meet the purpose and need for the Richmond to Raleigh Project, stations must be placed at 

reasonable intervals while still serving the population centers along the route. The SEHSR Corridor 

Tier I EIS outlined an operational model for proposed service consisting of four round trips per day 

between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC, and four additional round trips between Raleigh, NC, 

and Charlotte, NC. The service model established that SEHSR Corridor would serve all locations 

where Amtrak currently provides service. Within the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS 

corridor, the cities of Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, are currently served by 

Amtrak’s conventional passenger trains. Because all proposed stations outside of the Richmond to 

Raleigh Tier II EIS corridor currently have passenger rail service, there are no actions required 

outside of the corridor that would impact the ability of the Richmond to Raleigh Project to meet its 

purpose. 

There is no existing passenger rail service within the SEHSR Corridor between Petersburg, VA, and 

Raleigh, NC, a distance of approximately 138 miles. The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS 

provided background on the decision that was made by Virginia DRPT and NCDOT subsequent to 

the SEHSR Corridor Tier I FEIS, to add two intermediate stations as “skip stops” between 

Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, to the SEHSR Corridor service. Skip stops ensure that all stations 

get a daily train, although every train does not stop at every station. Based on feedback from the 

public involvement process and on the size of the accessible population, Virginia DRPT and NCDOT 

determined that La Crosse (South Hill), VA, and Henderson, NC, were most suitable for intermediate 

stations with skip stops. 

The ridership and revenue model that was updated in 2013 provides revised forecasts for passenger 

service in the SEHSR Corridor, and feeder line corridors in Virginia and North Carolina (AECOM 

2013). Scenarios were also evaluated to anticipate the addition of further supporting services in both 

Virginia and North Carolina. Additional services for North Carolina included connecting service to 

Asheville, NC, and Wilmington, NC; additional services for Virginia included the Richmond to 

Hampton Roads Project service on the SEHSR Corridor through Richmond, VA and extending 

Lynchburg, VA service to Roanoke, VA and adding one additional round trip on that route on a 

parallel NS corridor west of the SEHSR Corridor. Refer to Appendix C for additional information 

from the update. 

The assumptions for a Baseline (“No Build”) and the SEHSR Corridor (“Full Build”) scenarios used 

in the ridership and revenue 2013 update are described below: 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-36

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR (Full Build) is a 

combination of the 

proposed service along with 

the baseline conventional 

service that is anticipated 

regardless of the project. 

Baseline (No Build) In summary, the Baseline consists of: 

 Conventional service originating in North Carolina, providing five round trips between 

Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, with: 

- Four conventional round trips for the current Piedmont service operating solely 

between Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC 

- One conventional round trip (the current Carolinian service) continuing into Virginia 

along the CSX A-Line via Selma, NC, to Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, and New 

York, NY. 

 Conventional service originating in Virginia, providing five round trips between 

Hampton Roads, Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, and points north including: 

- Two round trips originating in Richmond, VA 

- Two round trips originating in Newport News, VA 

- One round trip originating in Norfolk, VA. 

 Conventional service originating in Virginia on a parallel NS corridor west of the SEHSR 

Corridor, except for where it shares the SEHSR Corridor between Alexandria, VA and 

Washington, DC, including: 

- One round trip originating in Lynchburg, VA, through Alexandria, VA 

 Conventional Amtrak Long Distance service originating in Georgia and Florida, 

providing four round trips that pass through Virginia and North Carolina, including: 

- One round trip Silver Star that would move to the SEHSR Corridor along the 

CSX S-Line Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC 

- Two round trips of the Silver Meteor and Palmetto that would remain on the CSX 

A-Line between Petersburg, VA, Selma, NC, and continue to points south 

- One round trip of the Crescent that would 

remain on its current NS route west of the 

SEHSR Corridor, except between 

Alexandria, VA, and Washington, DC, where 

it shares the SEHSR Corridor. 

SEHSR (Full Build) is a combination of the proposed 

service associated with the implementation of the Richmond 

to Raleigh Project along with the baseline conventional service 

that is anticipated regardless of the Project. This scenario supplements the Baseline North 

Carolina trains with new SEHSR Corridor trains. Note that additional service along the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor, as well as service to Asheville, NC, Wilmington, 

NC, and Roanoke, VA, were modeled separately as “Full Build with Additional Services.” See 

Appendix C for details on those model results. 

In summary and as shown in Figure 1-5, the SEHSR (Full Build) includes: 

 SEHSR Corridor service originating in North Carolina, providing eight round trips between 

Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC with: 

- Four new round trips continuing into Virginia along the CSX S-Line between 

Raleigh, NC, and Petersburg, VA, and then to Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, 

and New York, NY (three of which would originate in Charlotte, NC, and one in 

Raleigh, NC) – these trains would use the Preferred Alternative presented in this 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS

- Four round trips for the Baseline Piedmont service operating solely between 

Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-37

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

- One round trip for the current Carolinian service continuing into Virginia along 

the CSX A-Line via Selma, NC, to Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, and New 

York, NY. 

 SEHSR Corridor and conventional service originating in Virginia, providing five round 

trips between Hampton Roads, Richmond, VA, and Washington, DC, including: 

- Five round trips between Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, New York, NY, and 

Boston, MA, with two extending to Newport News, VA, and one extending to 

Norfolk, VA 

 Conventional service originating in Virginia on a parallel NS corridor west of the SEHSR 

Corridor, but sharing the SEHSR corridor between Alexandria, VA and Washington, DC 

including: 

- One round trip originating in Lynchburg, VA through Alexandria, VA 

 Four conventional Amtrak Long Distance round trips originating in Georgia and Florida, 

providing three round trips that pass through Virginia and North Carolina, as defined in 

the Baseline (No-Build) scenario, noting: 

- The Silver Star (one round trip) is assumed to reroute to the S-Line between 

Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC (i.e., one additional round trip conventional 

train on the Preferred Alternative presented in this Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II FEIS). 

Table 1-4 shows the proposed service (round trips) for the Baseline (“No Build”) and SEHSR 

Corridor (“Full Build”) scenarios. Table 1-5 shows the updated ridership and ticket revenue forecasts 

for Baseline (“No Build”) and SEHSR Corridor (“Full Build”) scenarios for design year 2030, and a 

SEHSR Corridor (“Full Build”) scenario forecast for the year 2040. Current Amtrak fares were used 

in the analysis; however 25% higher fares were assumed for the faster SEHSR Corridor service. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-38

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 1-5 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-39

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 1-4 

Proposed Service - Number of Round Trips

Service Route1 Baseline 

No Build 

SEHSR 

Full Build2

Trains Originating in North Carolina 

Raleigh-Charlotte (Intrastate) Piedmont NS/NCRR 4 4 

Washington-Raleigh-Charlotte Carolinian CSX A-Line 1 1 

Washington-Raleigh SEHSR 

Corridor CSX S-Line - 1 

Washington-Raleigh-Charlotte - 3 

Subtotal: 5 9 

Trains Originating in Virginia 

Washington-Richmond 

NEC Regional

CSX A-Line 2 2 

Washington-Richmond-Newport News CSX A-Line 2 2 

Washington-Richmond-Norfolk CSX A-Line 1 1 

Washington-Alexandria-Lynchburg NS-Crescent 1 1 

Subtotal: 6 6 

Amtrak Long Distance Service3

Washington-Richmond-Points South Palmetto 

Silver Meteor 

CSX A-Line 

2 2 

Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Points 

South Silver Star CSX A-Line 1 - 

CSX S-Line - 1 

Washington- Alexandria-LynchburgCharlotte-Points South Crescent NS-Crescent 1 1 

Subtotal: 4 4 

Total Trains: 15 19 

Source: Southeast High Speed Rail Ridership, AECOM, 2013 

1. Trains operating on the CSX S-Line route follow the CSX A-Line in Virginia between Centralia and Collier Yard. 

2. The “Full Build” scenario does not include the full implementation of the Richmond-Hampton Roads project. Those trains were 

modeled separately as “Full Build with Additional Services” in the ridership and revenue assessment. See Appendix C for more 

information. 

3. These do not include the Amtrak auto-train, which travels through Virginia and North Carolina, but does not influence ridership and 

revenue estimates. 

As described above, the Baseline (“No Build”) reflects current service plus two new planned 

frequencies between Charlotte and Raleigh. In comparison, the SEHSR (“Full Build”) supplements 

these Baseline North Carolina trains with four new SEHSR Corridor trains utilizing the proposed 

SEHSR Corridor improvements (i.e., along the CSX S-Line between Petersburg, VA and Raleigh). 

Table 1-5 shows that ridership and ticket revenue forecasts increase significantly with the SEHSR 

Corridor service. The analysis showed that ridership associated with the North Carolina trains 

increases to more than twice the Baseline, and ticket revenue associated with the North Carolina 

trains increases more than three-fold. These higher increases in ticket revenue reflect the greater level 

of improvement through increased frequency and the significantly faster travel times offered by the 

proposed SEHSR Corridor improvements along with 25% higher fares charged for the improved 

service. A comparison of how the SEHSR Corridor service compares to other modes of 

transportation is presented in Table 1-6. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-40

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 1-5 

Summary of Forecast Results 

 Base Line1

(No Build) 

SEHSR 

Corridor3

(Full Build) 

SEHSR 

Corridor3

(Full Build) 

 

Year 

2030 

Year 

2030 

Year 

2040 

Ridership 

North Carolina Service 

Charlotte/Raleigh Trains 996,100 2,075,500 2,526,900

Virginia Service 

Richmond/Norfolk/Virginia Beach Trains 808,300 805,600 911,100

Lynchburg Trains 241,300 261,600 301,200

Amtrak Long Distance Trains2 241,900 241,900 282,400

Total Ridership 2,287,600 3,384,600 4,021,600

Ticket Revenue (2013 dollars) 

North Carolina Service 

Charlotte/Raleigh Trains $39,034,000 $138,667,000 $165,575,000

Virginia Service 

Richmond/Norfolk/Virginia Beach Trains $45,947,000 $57,799,000 $64,867,000

Lynchburg Trains $15,070,000 $16,474,000 $18,825,000

Amtrak Long Distance Trains2 $30,474,000 $30,460,000 $35,277,000

Total Ticket Revenue $130,525,000 $243,400,000 $284,544,000

Source: Southeast High Speed Rail Ridership, AECOM 2013 

1. Baseline (No Build): NC service includes 5 round trips Raleigh to Charlotte, w/1 round trip (the Carolinian) continuing to NY via the A-Line. 

VA service includes 6 round trips that begin/end in Virginia including 5 round trips Rich to NY/Boston, w/ 2 extending to/from Newport News 

and 1 extending to/from Norfolk, and 1 round trip Lynchburg to NY/Boston; and 4 round trips provided by Amtrak Long Distance trains that pass 

though NC and VA 

2. Activity from NEC through NC only; includes connecting buses. Activity from NEC through NC only; includes connecting buses 

3. Full Build scenarios include SEHSR Corridor service for 8 round trips Raleigh to Charlotte, w/3 continuing to NY, and 1 starting in Raleigh and 

continuing to NY; and 1 (the Carolinian) beginning in Charlotte continuing to NY via the CSX A-Line. Note that additional service associated 

with the Richmond-Hampton Roads project was modeled separately. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-41

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 1-6 

Transportation Mode Comparison 

Travel Corridor Current / Proposed 

Travel Mode 

Full Cost1

 / 

Incremental 

Cost2

 ($) 

Line-Haul 

Travel 

Time3

(HH:MM) 

Access/ 

Egress/ 

Terminal 

Time4 

(HH:MM) 

Service 

Reliability

Washington 

to Richmond 

Automobile $ 60/15 02:30 00:00 NA 

Bus $ 35 03:00 01:40 NA 

Airlines $ 276 01:49 02:30 67 % 

Rail – conventional $ 32 02:18 01:50 83 % 

Rail – SEHSR Corridor $ 40 02:04 01:50 90 % 

Richmond to 

Raleigh 

Automobile $ 102/23 02:43 00:00 NA 

Bus $ 30 04:00 01:30 NA 

Airlines $ 233 01:53 02:20 80 % 

Rail – conventional $ 46 03:36 01:40 74 % 

Rail – SEHSR Corridor 

service $ 58 02:26 01:40 90 % 

Raleigh to 

Charlotte 

Automobile $ 91/20 03:16 00:00 NA 

Bus $ 35 04:00 01:30 NA 

Airlines $ 163 02:39 02:20 83 % 

Rail – conventional $ 31 03:13 01:40 73 % 

Rail – SEHSR Corridor $ 39 02:49 01:40 90 % 

Source: Transportation Mode Comparison Table Transmittal, AECOM June, 2014 (see Appendix C) 

1 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 2014 business trip mileage rate of 55 cents per mile includes gasoline, deductible cost of automobile usage, 

depreciation, and insurance. 

2

 IRS 2014 non-business rate of 15 cents per mile includes gasoline only. 

3 Line-Haul measures time spent on the main travel vehicle (i.e. does not include travel to/from the station). 4

 Includes time for both ends of a trip (i.e. time travel to/from the station).

NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

This section is largely unchanged from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS as the need for 

the SEHSR Corridor improvements was established in the Tier I EIS. However, in response to 

comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS related to the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project’s purpose and need, a new section has been added to this FEIS with updated data and 

information. Refer to Section 1.8 of this chapter for updated information related to the overall 

purpose and need for the SEHSR Corridor improvements. 

The Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC, established the 

overall need for the SEHSR Corridor project: 

 Growth – Population and economic growth rates in Virginia and North Carolina have been higher 

than national averages over the past several decades and are projected to remain high over the 

next few decades. If transportation systems do not provide options for reliable and convenient 

movement of goods and people, the region’s economy will suffer. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-42

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Passengers 

traveling by rail use 

21% less BTUs per 

mile on average 

than those traveling 

by automobile 

 Congestion – Population growth and economic development have led to increasing vehicle use on 

interstates and major highways in the region, as well as increasing demand for air travel. The 

majority of intercity automobile travel in the Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, travel corridor 

utilizes I-85 and I-95, where daily traffic volumes regularly exceed design capacities. Airport 

congestion in the corridor has resulted in growing delays. This Raleigh to Richmond Project 

encompasses portions of both I-95 and I-85, as well as the airports of Richmond, VA and 

Raleigh, NC. 

 Travel Time – Currently, within the SEHSR Corridor, conventional passenger rail travel times are 

not competitive with travel by airplane or auto. If meaningful reductions in travel time and 

improvements to equipment are achieved, modeling indicates that the competitiveness of rail 

passenger service will increase, and travelers will divert from other modes of transportation. 

 Connectivity – Implementation of HSR service could enhance regional connectivity. VA and NC 

have both evaluated the feasibility of adding conventional passenger train service to eastern and 

western portions of the states. The proposed SEHSR Corridor service would serve as the spine to 

these added routes, allowing conventional rail service passengers to connect to the proposed 

SEHSR Corridor service and other points in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. The 

Richmond to Raleigh Project section of the SEHSR Corridor enhances the connectivity through 

greatly enhanced speed, reliability, and reductions in travel time. 

 Air Quality – A number of counties within the SEHSR Corridor are presently experiencing air 

quality impacts from mobile source emissions. The movement of passengers by HSR offers 

significantly less pollution per passenger mile traveled than other mobile sources. Diverting 

some of the traveling public from automobiles to trains will aid in reducing emissions throughout 

the Corridor. 

 Safety – For SEHSR Corridor service to divert travelers from other transportation modes, 

potential riders must have confidence that the service is not only fast and reliable, but as safe as 

or safer than other modes. Rail has a safety record similar to air travel, and rail has proven 

exponentially safer than automobile travel. Figures from the National Safety Council show that 

Amtrak experienced .04 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles, while automobile fatalities 

equaled 1.29 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles. Virginia DRPT and NCDOT have been 

working in their respective states to improve safety along active rail lines within the SEHSR 

Corridor since the 1990’s. 

 Energy Efficiency – Additional rail improvements could also result in less energy use and a 

corresponding decrease in pollution within the SESHR Corridor. Intercity rail is 45% more 

energy-efficient than domestic commercial airline service and 76% more energy-efficient than 

general aviation. These numbers reflect Amtrak equipment in use in 1994 - both fossil fuel and 

electric - and represent BTUs/passenger mile as compared with air travel. As well, passengers 

traveling by rail use 21% less BTUs per mile on average than those 

traveling by automobile. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project proposed improvements address all of 

the above needs because they would result in a shorter trip with improved 

connectivity and safer operation for the entire Washington, DC, to 

Charlotte, NC, SEHSR Corridor. More information about the need for the 

SEHSR Corridor can be found in the 2002 SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS 

and on the program’s website at www.sehsr.org. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-43

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED RICHMOND TO RALEIGH 

PROJECT 

This section is largely unchanged from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS as the purpose 

of the improvements to the SEHSR Corridor was established in the Tier I EIS. However, in response 

to comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS related to the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project’s purpose and need, a new section has been added to this FEIS with updated data and 

information. Refer to Section 1.8 for updated information related to the overall purpose and need for 

the SEHSR Corridor improvements. 

The Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, portion of SEHSR is an integral part of the overall Washington, 

DC, to Charlotte, NC, SEHSR Corridor. It constitutes 162 miles of the approximately 450-mile 

SEHSR Corridor that was evaluated in the 2002 Tier I EIS. The purpose for the segment from 

Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC is tied to implementation of the larger SEHSR Corridor. Therefore, 

the purpose of the Richmond to Raleigh Project proposed action is to facilitate the previously 

approved purpose for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, which includes the following and is applicable 

to the Richmond to Raleigh Project section: 

 Divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, thus reducing the growth rate of 

congestion (the I-95 portion of the corridor is included in this Richmond to Raleigh Project 

section and it carries a significant portion of the automobile traffic) 

 Provide a more balanced use of the travel corridor’s transportation infrastructure 

 Increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system within the travel corridor 

 Serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North 

Carolina, including Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, which extends from Washington, DC, to 

Boston, MA (with extensions planned beyond Boston), as well as points south (this specific 

project section serves as the key link for these travelers to the busy Northeast). 

More information about the purpose of the SEHSR Corridor can be found in the 2002 SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS and on the program’s website at www.sehsr.org. 

UPDATED PROJECT NEED DATA 

As noted above, the Tier I EIS and ROD for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and 

Charlotte, NC, established the overall need for the project. This approved need was summarized in 

the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, and is repeated in Section 1.6 of this FEIS. In 

response to the comments and questions received on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, 

updated and additional information about the need for the SEHSR Corridor project is presented in this 

section. This expanded discussion with more recent data shows that the needs initially demonstrated 

in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS more than 10 years ago are still present, and re-confirms and 

substantiates the conclusions made in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS/ROD and Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS documents. 

GROWTH 

The US population is growing rapidly, from 280 million people in 2000 to a projected 364 

million in 2030. At the same time, the US population is aging. By 2030, the population of those 

over 65 years of age is expected to double to 70 million (USDOT, RITA, 2008). In order to go 

about their daily lives, the aging population may increasingly look to efficient alternatives to 

motor vehicle transportation, as discussed in the sections below. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-44

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Population growth in VA and 

NC has been higher than the 

national average since 1970. 

Between 1960 and 2010, the 

population of VA increased 

102%, and the population of NC 

increased 110%, while the U.S. 

population increased by 72%. 

NC and VA project significant 

increases in the under-20 and 

over-65 populations between 

now and 2050. Fewer working 

age people will be taking care 

of more dependents, and a 

greater percentage of the 

population may depend on 

others for transportation. 

POPULATION 

As shown in Table 1-7, since 1970, population 

growth rates in Virginia and North Carolina have 

been higher than the national average. Between 1960 

and 2010, the population of Virginia has increased 

102% and the population of North Carolina has 

increased 110%, while the US population increased 

by 72%. And even with the recent recession, 

population growth rates in Virginia and North 

Carolina are projected to remain substantially higher 

than the US as a whole over the next two decades. 

Table 1-7 also shows the 10 year growth rates for the counties and independent cities in the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project study area. Although many of the counties have shown highly 

fluctuating growth rates, most of the urban areas continue to show positive growth, with 

Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Franklin and Wake Counties showing the greatest growth, with the 

City of Richmond and the more rural counties (e.g. Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and Warren 

Counties) showing the slowest growth rates. 

DEPENDENCY 

Dependency is defined as the ratio of the dependent-age population (young or old) to the 

working-age population. This ratio is the total population of young (under age 20) and old 

(65 and older) divided by the age of the caretaking population (ages 24 to 64). As 

demonstrated in Table 1-8, the dependency ratios in North Carolina and Virginia between 

2000 and 2010 were less than the US averages. Consistent with the nationwide trend, this 

table shows that both North Carolina and Virginia have been gaining a greater percentage of 

old-age dependents as the baby boomers continue to age and retire. The ratio of dependent 

youth has decreased slightly between 2000 and 2010, but is expected to increase above 

current levels in the coming decades. 

As shown on Figure 1-6, by the year 2050, the youth and 

old-age dependency ratios nationally are projected to 

stabilize at 48 and 37, respectively, but not before 

reaching a total dependency ratio of 85, a 37% increase 

in overall dependency from 2000. Following this 

national trend, North Carolina and Virginia are projected 

to experience significant increases in the under 20 and 

over-65 populations between now and 2050. This means 

that fewer and fewer working age people will be taking 

care of even more dependents in the coming decades, and 

a greater percentage of the population may be dependent 

on others for their transportation needs. As discussed 

further in Section 3.11.1.3, the increase in the over-65 population is especially significant 

because of the increased mobility within this age group and the resulting increase in demand 

this will place on public transportation alternatives. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 1-7 

Population Change / 10 Year Growth Rates 

Census Population Estimates Popula

1960(2) 1970(2) 1980(2) 1990(2) 2000(1)(5) 2010(3) 2020(1)(

UNITED 

STATES 

179,323,175 203,211,926 226,545,805 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 335,804,5

13.3% 11.5% 9.8% 13.2% 9.7% 8.8% 

Virginia 3,966,949 4,648,494 5,346,818 6,187,358 7,078,515 8,001,024 8,917,39

 17.2% 15.0% 15.7% 14.4% 13.0% 11.5% 

Richmond City 219,958 249,621 219,214 203,056 197,790 204,214 187,06

13.5% -12.2% -7.4% -2.6% 3.2% -8.4% 

Chesterfield 

County 

71,197 76,855 141,372 209,274 259,903 316,236 372,53

 7.9% 83.9% 48.0% 24.2% 21.7% 17.8% 

Colonial 

Heights City 

9,587 15,097 16,509 16,064 16,897 17,411 19,204 

57.5% 9.4% -2.7% 5.2% 3.0% 10.3% 

Petersburg City 36,750 36,103 41,055 38,386 33,740 32,420 30,734 

 -1.8% 13.7% -6.5% -12.1% -3.9% -5.2% 

Dinwiddie 

County 

22,183 25,046 22,602 20,960 24,533 28,001 33,075 

12.9% -9.8% -7.3% 17.0% 14.1% 18.1% 

Brunswick 

County 

17,779 16,172 15,632 15,987 18,419 17,434 18,258 

 -9.0% -3.3% 2.3% 15.2% -5.3% 4.7% 

Mecklenburg 

County 

31,428 29,426 29,444 29,241 32,380 32,727 32,511 

-6.4% 0.1% -0.7% 10.7% 1.1% -0.7% 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Census Estimates Popula

 1960(2) 1970(2) 1980(2) 1990(2) 2000(1)(5) 2010(3) 2020(1)(

North 

Carolina 

4,556,155 5,082,059 5,881,766 6,628,637 8,081,986 9,535,483 10,616,0

 11.5% 15.7% 12.7% 21.9% 18.0% 11.3% 

Warren 

County 

19,652 15,810 16,232 17,265 19,900 20,972 20,783 

-19.6% 2.7% 6.4% 15.3% 5.4% -0.9% 

Vance 

County 

32,002 32,691 36,748 38,892 43,155 45,422 46,922 

 2.2% 12.4% 5.8% 11.0% 5.3% 3.3% 

Franklin 

County 

28,755 26,820 30,055 36,414 47,636 60,619 72,701 

-6.7% 12.1% 21.2% 30.8% 27.3% 19.9% 

Wake 

County 

169,082 228,453 301,327 423,380 633,333 900,993 1,099,38

 35.1% 31.9% 40.5% 49.6% 42.3% 22.0% 

(1) NC Office of State Budget and Management, County/State Population Estimates and Projections. 

http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates/county_projections.shtm

(2) US Census Bureau, County Population Census Counts 1900-90. http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts/files/nc190090.txt(3) US Census Bureau, 2010 Census Interactive Population Search. http://www.census.gov/2010census/(4) Virginia.gov Virginia Workforce Connection, LMI Data, Population Projections. http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=359(5) US Census Bureau, PCT001-POPGROUP-Total population; Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data Virginia 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SF1_P001&prodType=table
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-47

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 1-8 

Age Dependency Ratios 

2000 Census Estimate 2010 Census Estimate 

 Total Youth Old-Age Total Youth Old-Age 

US 61.6 41.5 20.1 58.9 38.2 20.7 

 

VA 55.6 38.2 17.4 54.7 35.9 18.9 

 

NC 57.3 38.4 19.0 58.4 37.9 20.5 

NOTES: See Figure 1-6 for definitions. The year 2010 data in Figure 1-6 does not precisely match the 2010 data in Table 1-8, as Figure 1-6 

was created using projection data from 4 years prior to the Census results presented in Table 1-8. Also, the projections in Figure 1-6 were based 

on pre-recession growth rates. Source: US Census Bureau, 2011. Table GCT-T6-R. 

Figure 1-6 

Source: US Census Bureau, 2010. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-48

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ECONOMIC GROWTH 

Based on data from projections of long-term economic growth, Virginia and North Carolina 

are estimated to have higher than average job growth through 2022 (projections.com, 2015). 

Socio-economic characteristics represent the key independent variables in forecasting growth 

in total travel volumes, irrespective of change in the level of service provided by competing 

travel modes. The three socio-economic indicators used to estimate travel growth include: 

 Population 

 Employment 

 Per-capita Income 

Socio-economic data and forecasts for the updated ridership and revenue forecasts were 

obtained from AECOM’s national vendor, Moody’s Economy.com; which provides the 

forecasting data at annual intervals up to 2040 by county (AECOM, 2013). These countylevel forecasts were allocated to sub-county zones, were such geographic detail exists, using 

US 2010 Census data. Growth in population, employment, and per-capita income are 

forecast for all the major markets in the SEHSR Corridor. Table 1-9 shows growth forecasts 

for the year 2030 from the updated ridership/revenue report for selected markets in the 

SEHSR Corridor. Overall growth rates and annualized growth rates are also shown. 

Table 1-9 

Population, Employment, and Per-Capita Income Forecasts 

Selected Markets Year 2012 Year 2030 

Overall 

Growth 

Rate 

Annualized 

Growth 

Rate 

Population (in thousands) 

Charlotte Metro, NC, 

Rockingham, SC 2,313 3,339 44.36% 2.06%

Raleigh Metro, Henderson, 

Durham, Chapel Hill, NC 2,016 2,890 43.35% 2.02%

Richmond Metro, VA 1,407 1,644 16.84% 0.87%

Washington Metro, DC, VA, 

MD, WV 5,652 6,793 20.19% 1.03%

Employment (in thousands) 

Charlotte Metro, NC, 

Rockingham, SC 1,000 1,387 38.70% 1.83%

Raleigh Metro, Henderson, 

Durham, Chapel Hill, NC 902 1,271 40.91% 1.92%

Richmond Metro, VA 665 776 16.69% 0.86%

Washington Metro, DC, VA, 

MD, WV 2,994 3,521 17.60% 0.90%

Per Capita Income 

Charlotte Metro, NC, 

Rockingham, SC $33,952 $38,337 12.92% 0.68%

Raleigh Metro, Henderson, 

Durham, Chapel Hill, NC $34,230 $40,870 19.40% 0.99%
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-49

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Job and population 

growth have burdened 

the VA and NC airport 

and highway networks 

between Richmond 

and Raleigh. 

Rapid population 

growth in VA and 

NC has caused 

congestion on the 

transportation 

network.

Table 1-9 

Population, Employment, and Per-Capita Income Forecasts 

Selected Markets Year 2012 Year 2030 

Overall 

Growth 

Rate 

Annualized 

Growth 

Rate 

Richmond Metro, VA $36,248 $46,161 27.35% 1.35%

Washington Metro, DC, VA, 

MD, WV $51,289 $66,480 29.62% 1.45%

CONGESTION 

Congestion results when traffic demand approaches or exceeds the available capacity of the 

system. While this is a simple concept, it is not constant. Traffic demands vary significantly 

depending on the season of the year, the day of the week, and even the time of day. Also, the 

capacity, often mistaken as constant, can change because of weather, work zones, traffic 

incidents, or other non-recurring events (FHWA, 2012). 

Both job and population growth have burdened the Virginia and 

North Carolina airport and highway networks that provide for 

intercity travel between Richmond and Raleigh, which are 

experiencing capacity problems that are projected to worsen, 

despite planned improvements, as detailed in the following 

subsections. Population trends such as migration from rural to 

urban areas and aging and more dependent populations also puts 

additional and unique burdens on the transportation network. 

The Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC intercity travel corridor includes interstate highways I-85 and 

I-95, as well as the airspace between the Raleigh-Durham (RDU) and Richmond (RIC) 

international airports. The travel corridor does not include the entire metropolitan areas around 

Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC, or the entirety of each county through which the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project corridor passes. Within this intercity corridor, traffic consists of both intercity 

travelers who focus their travel on the interstates, as well as local and 

regional travelers who may use a portion of the interstate for a portion 

of their trip, but mostly use local arterials and collectors. Although 

congestion on this intercity corridor may be composed of all three 

traveler types (i.e., intercity, local and regional), the method of 

managing this congestion will be different for each travel type. For 

example, local and regional traffic is mostly composed of commuters 

who contribute to peak travel congestion because of similar work 

schedules and who may benefit from improved traffic signalization on arterials and carpool lanes 

on highways or additional roadway lanes. However, these improvements will not benefit 

intercity travelers, who are composed mostly of business and leisure travelers, who may be 

traveling alone. While these travelers also could benefit in the short term from more roadway 

lanes (where feasible), they are mostly benefitted in the long term by the provision of high 

capacity public or private transportation options that provide an alternative to driving on the 

interstates altogether (e.g., airplanes, passenger rail). 

Rapid population growth in Virginia and North Carolina has caused congestion on the existing 

and proposed transportation network. This growth also causes strains on the natural and human 

environment, and makes it increasingly difficult to increase the capacity of the existing 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-50

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Prior to the economic 

decline in 2006-2007, flight 

delays had reached a peak of 

36-40% in Richmond and 

31-35% in Raleigh, both of 

which were higher than the 

national average of 23-24%. 

The FAA considers 

HSR to be a means of 

relieving pressure on 

short-haul air traffic by 

diverting air trips of 500 

miles or less. 

transportation network with an acceptable level of negative impacts. Congestion also decreases 

safety and reliability on the existing network, while increasing energy consumption and travel 

times. 

As travel demand grows, intercity transportation by air and auto increasingly suffers from 

congestion and delay, particularly within already congested areas, including metropolitan areas, at 

and around airports, and during weekend, holiday, and bad weather periods. This congestion 

causes declining quality of service, which adversely affects intercity travelers, other 

transportation system users, carriers, the general public, and eventually the economic 

development of a region. If Virginia and North Carolina’s transportation systems do not provide 

efficient options for reliable and convenient movement of goods and people both between cities 

as well as within metropolitan areas themselves, the economies of the region will suffer. 

AIR TRANSPORTATION 

As evaluated in the 1997 High Speed Ground Transportation Commercial Feasibility Study 

on the SEHSR Corridor (detailed in Section 1.1.2.2), domestic intercity air travel nationally 

and in the travel corridor has grown much faster than population and income since 1950. For 

example, between 1980 and 2005, domestic enplanements (e. g., number of passengers flying 

on domestic flights) increased from 275 million to 657 million (USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010). 

With this expansion, air traffic has far outpaced the growth of airport capacity, which has 

resulted in the growth of airline flight delays. 

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), delays in the air traffic control 

system are registered when flights are delayed 15 minutes or longer. As shown in Table 1-10, 

current data indicate that prior to the economic decline in 

2006-2007, flight delays had reached a peak of 36-40% in 

Richmond and 31-35% in Raleigh, both of which were 

higher than the national average of 23-24%. The average 

flight delay was 54-56 minutes during this peak. As shown 

in Table 1-10, almost all delays are related to issues with the 

carrier, national aviation system, security or an aircraft 

arriving late (all affected by constraints to system capacity), 

and not due to extreme weather. 

Although the percentage of delayed flights had decreased during the 2008-2012 recession, 

this was related to a decrease in the total number of flights, rather than improved operational 

performance, with the total number of scheduled flights decreasing from a peak of 7.5 million 

in 2007 to 6.5 million in 2009 (USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010). Without substantial 

improvements in airport capacity, it is anticipated that flight delays will return to prerecession rates with improvement to the economy in the next 5-10 years. 

Flight delays substantially affect operating costs; in 1994, FAA estimated this cost to average 

$1,587 per hour of delay. Other costs of aircraft delays 

include environmental impacts of noise and emissions, as 

well as effects on passengers who increasingly spend more 

time waiting for delayed flights than actually traveling to 

their destinations, which affects both leisure and business 

travelers (including the cost of missed work, meetings, 

connections and business opportunities). Even with plans 

to increase capacity by building new airports and 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-51

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

expanding and extending runways, the FAA determined that improvements alone would not 

adequately meet the projected growth in demand at many of the larger metropolitan airports 

on the East and West Coasts, including Washington-Dulles, Washington National, RaleighDurham and Charlotte-Douglas, which are considered “problem airports” with more than 

20,000 airline flight delay-hours per year. The FAA considers HSR, including the SEHSR 

Corridor, to be a potential means of relieving the pressure on short-haul air traffic by 

diverting air trips of 500-miles or less (USDOT, FRA, 1997). 

Table 1-10 

Airline Delays 

Year 

% of Flights Delayed National Average 

Richmond Raleigh National 

Average 

Total Passenger 

Flights 

(thousands) 

Ave 

Minutes of 

Delay 

% Delay Minutes 

NOT Weather 

Related 

2003 22% 25% n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2004 29% 30% 20% 7,129 51 93% 

2005 33% 32% 21% 7,141 52 94% 

2006 40% 35% 23% 7,142 54 94% 

2007 36% 31% 24% 7,455 56 94% 

2008 33% 30% 22% 7,008 57 95% 

2009 27% 24% 19% 6,450 54 97% 

2010 29% 27% n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2011 29% 25% n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2012* 31% 26% n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Note: * = Through June 2012 

Sources: State statistics from USDOT, RITA, 2012. National averages from USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010 (Table 4-30). 

HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION 

Between 1980 and 1999, the miles of highways in the US increased 1.5% while vehicle miles 

of travel increased 76%. As shown in Figure 1-7, between 2000 and 2010, the US population 

increased 10%, while the vehicle-miles traveled increased by 19%. Both measurements 

reflect a consistent trend in modern America - automobile use continues to expand faster than 

the rate of population growth, and construction of new highway capacity cannot keep pace 

with growth in travel demand. These are both signs that roadway congestion will continue to 

pose a problem for future urban transportation systems. 

In 2005, the urban congestion problem in the US (i.e., congestion in 439 metropolitan areas) 

resulted in 4.2 billion hours of travel delay, 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel, and a net urban 

congestion cost of nearly $80 billion (USDOT, RITA, 2008). In just five years (by 2010), the 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute estimated that this urban travel delay had increased by 

14% to 4.8 billion hours. And, although vehicle-miles traveled had increased by 6%, 

increases in automotive fuel efficiency had reduced the amount of wasted fuel by 34% to only 

1.9 billion gallons (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012). However, the total cost of 

this congestion had increased by 26%, to $101 billion, reflecting the exceptionally high price 

of gasoline during this time. 

According to the 2010 FHWA Vehicle Miles of Travel Report (FHWA, 2012a), total vehicle 

miles traveled has been slightly declining over the past several years. As shown in Figure 1-

7, per capita highway vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are projected to grow 60%, from 2,952 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-52

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Per capita highway VMT 

are projected to grow 

60%, to 4,733 billion 

miles traveled by 2030. 

The volume of freight 

movement is also forecast 

to nearly double by 2020. 

billion miles traveled in 2005 to 4,733 billion miles traveled 

by 2030. The volume of freight movement is also forecast to 

nearly double by 2020 (USDOT, RITA, 2008). According to 

the USDOT, transit use in the top 50 urbanized areas of the 

United States has been increasing (USDOT, 2012). During 

this period, Automobile ownership in the United States has 

also declined (University of Michigan, 2013). 

Congestion trends for the Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, 

metropolitan areas between 1985 and 2010 are shown in Tables 1-11 and 1-12. While the 

numbers of peak commuters in Richmond, VA increased by only 98% between 1985 and 

2010, the number of lane miles increased by 108% and the volume of VMT increased by 

182%, leading to a 154% increase in congested travel, a 300% increase in the annual number 

of hours stuck in delays, and a 558% increase in the congestion cost paid by each commuter. 

Over the same 25 year period in Raleigh, NC peak commuters increased by 265% and the 

number of lane miles increased by 148% and the volume of VMT increased by 238%, leading 

to a 188% increase in congested travel, a 178% increase in the annual number of hours stuck 

in delays, and a 333% increase in the congestion cost paid by each commuter. 

Figure 1-7 

US Population and Highway Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 2000–2030 

Source: USDOT, RITA, 2008. Page 6. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-53

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Notes: 

Peak Commuters – Number of travelers who begin a trip during the morning or evening peak travel periods (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m.). 

"Commuters" are private vehicle users unless specifically noted. 

Annual Delay per Commuter – A yearly sum of all the per-trip delays for those persons who travel in the peak period (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 

p.m.). This measure illustrates the effect of the per-mile congestion as well as the length of each trip. 

Total Delay – The overall size of the congestion problem. Measured by the total travel time above that needed to complete a trip at free-flow 

speeds. The ranking of total delay usually follows the population ranking (larger regions usually have more delay). 

Rank – Annual ranking from 1 to 100 for similar size cities where 1 is the worst performance and 100 is the best. 

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012. 

Table 1-11 

1985 – 2010 Mobility Data for Richmond, VA 

(from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute annual Urban Mobility Report) 

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

Inventory Measures 

Peak Travelers 

(1000s) 272 310 347 408 500 539 

Peak 

Commuters 

(1000s) 

255 291 326 383 468 505 

Total Daily 

Vehicle-Miles of 

Travel (1000s) 

7,640 11,285 15,340 17,625 21,440 21,550 

Total Freeway 

& Arterial 

Lane-Miles 

1,600 1,900 2,260 2,750 3,245 3,321 

System Performance 

Congested 

Travel (% of 

peak VMT) 

13% 19% 26% 23% 28% 33% 

Congested 

System (% of 

lane-miles) 

22% 30% 28% 30% 30% 36% 

Congested Time 

(number of 

“Rush Hours”) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.50 hrs 

Annual Delay 

(1000s of 

person-hours) / 

Rank 

2,087 hrs / 

66 

3,862 hrs / 

60 

8,348 hrs / 

51 

7,457 hrs / 

63 

11,137 hrs / 

59 

13,800 hrs / 

53 

Annual Delay 

per Peak Auto 

Commuter 

(pers-hr) / Rank 

5 hrs / 75 8 hrs / 73 16 hrs / 62 13 hrs / 88 17 hrs / 83 20 hrs / 64 

Congestion Cost 

($ per Peak 

Auto 

Commuter) / 

Rank 

$57 / 82 $116 / 77 $278 / 63 $255 / 90 $380 / 88 $375 / 68 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-54

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Notes: 

Peak Commuters – Number of travelers who begin a trip during the morning or evening peak travel periods (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m.). 

"Commuters" are private vehicle users unless specifically noted. 

Annual Delay per Commuter – A yearly sum of all the per-trip delays for those persons who travel in the peak period (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 

p.m.). This measure illustrates the effect of the per-mile congestion as well as the length of each trip. 

Total Delay – The overall size of the congestion problem. Measured by the total travel time above that needed to complete a trip at free-flow 

speeds. The ranking of total delay usually follows the population ranking (larger regions usually have more delay). 

Rank – Annual ranking from 1 to 100 for similar size cities where 1 is the worst performance and 100 is the best. 

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012. 

Table 1-12 

1985 – 2010 Mobility Data for Raleigh-Durham, NC 

(from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute annual Urban Mobility Report) 

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

Inventory Measures 

Peak Travelers 

(1000s) 175 222 293 391 541 636 

Peak 

Commuters 

(1000s) 

162 206 272 363 503 591 

Total Daily 

Vehicle-Miles of

Travel (1000s) 

7,135 10,225 13,425 17,300 20,950 24,097 

Total Freeway 

& Arterial 

Lane-Miles 

1,330 1,680 1,980 2,495 2,905 3,303 

System Performance 

Congested 

Travel (% of 

peak VMT) 

17% 26% 34% 40% 47% 49% 

Congested 

System (% of 

lane-miles) 

26% 36% 38% 43% 48% 51% 

Congested Time 

(number of 

“Rush Hours”) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.00 hrs 

Annual Delay 

(1000s of 

person-hours) / 

Rank 

2,487 hrs / 

60 

5,698 hrs / 

44 

8,381 hrs / 

49 

13,080 hrs / 

47 

19,777 hrs / 

40 

19,247 hrs / 

40 

Annual Delay 

per Peak Auto 

Commuter 

(pers-hr) / 

Rank 

9 hrs / 46 17 hrs / 35 21 hrs / 47 26 hrs / 43 31 hrs / 40 25 hrs / 42 

Congestion 

Cost ($ per 

Peak Auto 

Commuter) / 

Rank 

$124 / 46 $274 / 35 $386 / 46 $561 / 41 $762 / 40 $537 / 40 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-55

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Growth of roadway facilities has to 

be at a rate slightly greater than 

travel growth to maintain constant 

travel times. If roadways are added 

at the same rate as traffic grows, the 

growth of congestion will slow, but 

not be entirely reduced. Only 13 of 

the 101 studied urban areas were 

able to accomplish that rate, given 

the high cost of building additional 

lane-miles and new highways.

Travel by public transportation riders has also increased 40% since 1982 in the 101 urban 

areas studied in the report, including Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC. Transit passenger 

miles traveled (PMT) increased by 15.8%, from 40.2 billion in 1997 to 46.5 billion in 2004 

(Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012). In 2004, 41% of PMT was on motorbus, 31% 

was on heavy rail, 21% was on commuter rail, and 3% was on light rail. To reduce the rate of 

congestion growth, the USDOT has promoted efforts such as the SEHSR Corridor to increase 

transit ridership by 2% or more each year (USDOT, RITA, 2008). 

This raises the question of why congestion has increased even though there are more roads 

and more transit service. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (Institute) annual Urban 

Mobility Report stated that the answer is slow growth in supply of both roads and public 

transportation in the last 20 years. After analyzing over 25 years of national urban traffic 

growth, the Institute concluded that one general trend appears to hold that the more that travel 

growth outpaces roadway expansion, the more the overall mobility levels decline (Texas 

A&M Transportation Institute, 2012). 

In conclusion, traffic congestion levels nationally and in the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

area has increased since 1985. Congestion extends to more time of the day, more roads, 

affects more of the travel and creates more extra travel time than in the past. And congestion 

levels have risen in all size categories, indicating that even the smaller areas are not able to 

keep pace with rising demand (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012). In addition to 

increased delay, travel time and fuel consumption, the costs of roadway congestion include 

increased vehicle emissions and reduced air quality, increased transportation costs of goods 

(passed on to consumers) and increased aggravation to drivers (USDOT, FRA, 1997). 

To address congestion fully, the Institute concluded 

that the growth of roadway facilities has to be at a rate 

slightly greater than travel growth in order to 

maintain constant travel times. If roadways are added 

at about the same rate as traffic grows, the growth of 

congestion will slow, but not be entirely reduced. 

However, only 13 of the 101 studied urban areas were 

able to accomplish that rate, given the high financial 

cost of building additional lane-miles and new 

highways (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 

2012). 

Other solutions that could alleviate the congestion 

problem include: 

 Application of congestion pricing, such as electronic tolling; 

 Implementation of intelligent transportation systems; and, 

 Provision of intracity and intercity alternatives to the automobile (including high speed 

rail) (USDOT, FRA, 1997). 

TRAVEL TIME/SERVICE RELIABILITY 

Travel time and service reliability are key factors that impact the traveling public’s choice of 

transportation mode. Amtrak operates America’s current national intercity passenger rail system 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-56

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Annual rail ridership along 

the corridor connecting 

Washington, DC, with 

Charlotte, NC, is projected to 

grow to approximately 2.34 

million in 2030 and to 2.82 

million in 2040. 

Reductions in travel time and 

equipment improvements are required 

for rail passenger service to be more 

competitive, to divert existing travelers 

from other modes, and to attract future 

travelers. An improved rail 

transportation mode with significantly 

shorter travel times, increased 

frequencies, and enhanced reliability 

should achieve a more balanced use of 

the overall transportation system.

with 305 weekday trains over 21,100 route-miles, serving 46 states and 3 Canadian provinces. 

The Amtrak routes through the SEHSR Corridor include: 

 North Carolina: Carolinian (Charlotte, NC-New York, NY) and Piedmont service (Raleigh, 

NC-Charlotte, NC) 

 Virginia: Extended Northeast Regional service to Lynchburg, VA and some of the Northeast 

Regional services to Richmond, VA; new service between Norfolk, VA and Washington, DC, 

began in December 2012. 

As reported in the Tier I EIS, Amtrak’s travel times and history of delays have not historically 

been competitive with travel by airplane or automobile. For example, in North Carolina and 

Virginia in 1999, the Carolinian arrived more than 10 minutes behind schedule 43.8% to 58.1% 

of the time, and the Piedmont arrived more than 10 minutes behind schedule 22.2% to 40.8% of 

the time. (On-time performance was defined as the percentage of trains arriving within 10 

minutes of scheduled arrival time.) The Tier I EIS identified these travel delays as due to the 

increasing volumes of both passenger and freight service within SEHSR Corridor. 

Contributing to this is the fact that for 70% of Amtrak’s trains (i.e., all of Amtrak’s trains outside 

the NEC), Amtrak contracts with freight railroads for the right to operate over their tracks. These 

“host railroads” are responsible for the condition of their tracks and for the dispatching on their 

tracks. Amtrak reports that the total number of delay minutes per 10,000 train miles in 2011 was 

347 on Amtrak-responsible routes as compared to 919 minutes on host-responsible routes, a 

157% difference. Overall Amtrak performance has declined since 2013 (Washington Post 2014). 

On-time performance for individual Amtrak lines can be found at 

http://www.amtrak.com/historical-on-time-performance. 

Under current rail passenger service, annual rail ridership 

along the corridor connecting Washington, DC, with 

Charlotte, NC, is projected to grow from its current level 

(2012) of 1.4 million, to approximately 2.34 million in 2030 

and to 2.82 million in 2040 or approximately 2.5% per year. 

Existing and committed rail improvements in Virginia and 

North Carolina are projected to reduce the rail trip time from 

Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC from ten hours to 

between eight hours thirty minutes and nine hours. The planned improvements to the existing rail 

lines will improve capacity, reliability and travel times along some segments of the SEHSR 

Corridor, while other segments will continue to operate at slow speeds and experience delays 

until such time they can be improved. 

For the Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, traveler, 

these ongoing, but relatively small, improvements 

will make rail transportation incrementally more 

attractive. At the same time, they still will not make 

the rail system entirely competitive with automobile 

and air travel on a strictly travel time basis, at least in 

the short term. 

Meaningful reductions in travel time, along with 

improvements to equipment, are required for rail 

passenger service to be more competitive, to divert 

significant numbers of existing travelers from other 

modes, and to attract future travelers that otherwise 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-57

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

would contribute to the growing congestion in our highway and aviation systems. An improved 

rail transportation mode with significantly shorter travel times, increased frequencies, and 

enhanced reliability should achieve a more balanced use of the overall transportation system. 

CONNECTIVITY 

One goal throughout the entire SEHSR Corridor is to plan for connections to local transit systems 

in each metropolitan region (e.g., commuter rail, light rail, buses, etc.) to serve a variety of 

important local origins and destinations located outside of the SEHSR Corridor, which would 

enhance regional connectivity. This would facilitate system linkages, increasing destinations that 

could be reached by conventional rail service, and the other modes, through a direct connection 

with the HSR system. North Carolina and Virginia have both evaluated the feasibility of adding 

conventional passenger train service to eastern and western portions of the states. The proposed 

SEHSR Corridor service would serve as the spine to these added routes, allowing conventional 

rail service passengers to connect to the proposed SEHSR Corridor service and other points in the 

Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. These new passenger train routes in North Carolina and 

Virginia would provide linkages to the SEHSR Corridor from parts of eastern and western North 

Carolina and Virginia not currently served by rail. Passenger rail linkages would also be provided 

to existing and planned commuter rail services at multimodal stations, allowing for connections to 

suburbs and airports in Washington, DC; Richmond, VA; Greensboro-High Point-WinstonSalem, NC (the Triad), Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC (the Triangle), and Charlotte, NC. The 

Metrorail in Washington, DC, and Northern Virginia would connect to the SEHSR Corridor at 

Union Station and Alexandria, VA. The Virginia Railway Express (VRE) in Northern Virginia 

currently provides daily commuter rail service from Manassas, VA, and Fredericksburg, VA, to 

Washington, DC, and would connect to the SEHSR in Fredericksburg, VA, Alexandria, VA, and 

Washington, DC. In North Carolina, the Triangle, Triad, and Charlotte metropolitan areas are 

currently considering and planning for commuter rail that could potentially connect with the 

SEHSR Corridor service. 

As summarized in Section 3.11.3 of this Richmond to Raleigh Project FEIS, local government 

and planning agencies in the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor have been working to plan, 

fund and develop new and improved local transit systems to link local transit operations with the 

proposed HSR service. For example, Bus Rapid Transit is being planned for Richmond, VA that 

would provide connectivity to Main Street Station. In North Carolina, planning is in place to 

develop transit service to connect Raleigh’s planned Union Station, which will serve future 

SEHSR Corridor trains with the city and the larger region. As mentioned above in Section 1.4, 

and further discussed in Section 3.11.3 at all proposed stations/stops for the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project there is currently at least one public bus transit service agency that either currently 

provides, or is anticipated to be expanded to provide, bus or van services for HSR travelers at the 

planned station locations. This includes the following bus transit agencies/systems (listed by 

proposed station location) – 

 Richmond, VA - Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) 

 Petersburg, VA - Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) 

 La Crosse, VA - Lake Area Bus (LAB) 

 Henderson, NC - Kerr Area Rural Transportation System (KARTS) 

 Raleigh, NC - Capital Area Transit (CAT), Triangle Transit (TT), and Wake Coordinated 

Transportation System. 

Towns that are not designated to receive a HSR stop initially could benefit by the potential for 

conventional passenger rail service in the future, based upon demand. However, those 

conventional needs extend beyond the scope of the Richmond to Raleigh Project and therefore, 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-58

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Moving passengers by HSR 

offers significantly less 

pollution per passenger mile 

traveled than auto travel. 

Diverting some of the traveling 

public from automobiles to rail 

will reduce emissions through 

the corridor. 

will need to be addressed by separate public transit projects developed through the coordinated 

activities of various other regional and local transportation planning agencies located along the 

corridor. 

AIR QUALITY 

The US Department of Energy reported that between 2004 and 2009 transportation end-users 

continue to represent the largest US sector related to green-house gas emissions, representing 

33% of all emissions (compared to residential at 21%, commercial at 19% and industrial at 26%) 

(USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010). As demonstrated in Table 1-14, motor vehicles consistently 

contribute the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions compared to other modes of 

transportation. A number of counties within the SEHSR Corridor are presently experiencing air 

quality impacts from mobile source emissions (i.e., motor vehicles). As new standards come into 

effect and as traffic volumes increase, the need to reduce transportation related mobile emissions 

will become even more imperative, given that transportation funding is tied to air quality. 

The movement of passengers by HSR offers significantly 

less pollution per passenger mile traveled as compared to 

auto travel. Diverting some of the traveling public from 

automobiles to rail will aid in reducing emissions 

throughout the corridor. HSR provides an alternative that 

is time competitive with the automobile and produces 

significantly less pollution, which may facilitate the overall 

development of the transportation system. 

Table 1-14 

National Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Transportation Mode: 2004–2008 

Motor Vehicles Buses Aircraft Marine Rail Other 

Year CO2* 

% of 

All 

Modes 

CO2* 

% of 

All 

Modes 

CO2*

% of 

All 

Modes

CO2*

% of 

All 

Modes

CO2*

% of 

All 

Modes 

CO2* 

% of 

All 

Modes

Total, All 

Modes 

2004 1,549.5 82% 14.8 1% 184.5 10% 39.5 2% 49.7 3% 43.1 2% 1,881.15 

2005 1,563.6 82% 11.8 1% 195.9 10% 44.5 2% 50.3 3% 44.1 2% 1,910.23 

2006 1,563.9 83% 12.0 1% 171.1 9% 47.7 3% 52.4 3% 44.1 2% 1,891.11 

2007 1,572.8 82% 12.1 1% 171.5 9% 54.4 3% 51.6 3% 46.6 2% 1,909.01 

2008 1,499.8 83% 11.7 1% 155.5 9% 38.1 2% 47.9 3% 46.5 3% 1,799.42 

* = Millions of metric tons of CO2, domestic activities only 

Note – Percentage figures may not total to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010 (Table 5-2). 

SAFETY 

In order for the proposed Richmond to Raleigh Project improvements to divert travelers from 

other transportation modes, potential riders must have confidence that the service is not only fast 

and reliable, but also as safe, or safer, than other modes. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control, accidents (unintentional injuries) are the 5th 

leading cause of death in the US. Transportation accidents account for 31.9% of the accidental 

deaths reported in 2010. Motor vehicle accidents or highway fatalities are responsible for the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-59

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

In 2009, highway accidents 

made up 99.8% of all 

transportation accidents 

and 95.8% of all 

transportation fatalities, 

railroads represented 2% of 

all fatalities, and airlines 

had 1.6% of all fatalities.

largest share, accounting for 93% of transportation-related deaths, as shown in Table 1-15 

(Centers for Disease Control, 2012). However, motor vehicle crashes have been trending 

downward, decreasing by 20.2% over the past 10 years, which has resulted in fewer motor 

vehicle fatalities and injuries (except for motorcycle fatalities, which have been increasing) 

(USDOT, NHTSA, 2012a). Many factors have contributed to the improvement in motor vehicles 

safety, such as safety awareness, education, traffic enforcement, and infrastructure-based and invehicle crash avoidance protection technologies. Safety belt and motorcycle helmet use have also 

increased. However, distracted and drunk driving have been counteracting the gains made in the 

number of lives saved made by these safety measures, resulting in 18 and 41% of the fatal crashes 

in 2011, respectively (USDOT, NHTSA, 2012b). 

Nationally, passenger rail has consistently been one of the safest ways to travel, as demonstrated 

in Table 1-15. Since 1970, over 94% of all transportation fatalities have been motor vehicle 

related, while less than 4% have been related to rail operations (and the majority of those are due 

to highway-rail collisions or trespassers, as opposed to train 

accidents that result in passenger fatalities). In 2009, highway 

accidents made up 99.8% of all transportation accidents and 

95.8% of all transportation fatalities, while railroads 

represented 2% of all fatalities and airlines had 1.6% of all 

fatalities. The only mode of travel safer was transit, with 0.6% 

of all fatalities (USDOT, RITA, 2011). The SEHSR Corridor 

Tier I DEIS, reported that in Amtrak’s 30-year history, it only 

had 100 fatalities, while moving over 600 million passengers. 

Data for the years subsequent to the publication of the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I DEIS shows that passenger rail continues to be one of the safest modes of travel. 

For the years 2001 through 2013, Amtrak reported 10 passengers killed in train accidents or 

crossing incidents, while moving over 350 million passengers (FRA, 2014). 

Expressed differently, the National Safety Council routinely compares the four modes of 

transportation by passenger mile traveled: scheduled airlines, railroad passenger trains (including 

Amtrak and commuter rail), buses, and passenger automobiles (excluding vans and pickup 

trucks). Again, buses, trains and airlines have much lower death rates than automobiles when the 

risk is expressed as passenger deaths per passenger mile of travel. (Automobile drivers are 

considered passengers, but operators and crew of planes, trains and buses are not.) In 2008, the 

national passenger death rate in automobiles was 0.55 per 100 million passenger-miles. The rates 

for buses, trains and airlines were 0.08, 0.13, and 0.00 respectively (National Safety Council, 

2011). 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-60

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

One reason for the reduction 

in fatalities from at-grade 

collisions is the substantial 

reduction in at-grade 

crossings. This represents a 

12% national reduction and a 

6% reduction each in VA and 

NC between 2004 and 2010.

Table 1-15 

Transportation Safety in NC and VA 

North Carolina Virginia US Total 

2004 2010 2004 2010 2004 2010 

Automobile 

Total Fatalities 1,557 1,319 925 740 42,636 32,885 

Fatality Rate per 100,000 

million vehicle-miles traveled 1.60 1.29 1.20 0.90 1.44 1.11 

Railroad 

Total No. At-Grade Crossings 7,636 7,186 4,822 4,534 244,196 213,680

Total RR Fatalities 32 19 4 10 898 725 

At-Grade Crossing Fatalities 12 1 1 3 368 256 

Transit 

Total Fatalities 0 1 2 0 298 314 

Source: USDOT, RITA, 2011. 

Table 1-16 also shows that railroad safety in the US has steadily improved over the past thirtyplus years despite increases in the volumes of both rail traffic and highway traffic that crosses rail 

lines at-grade. Between 1975 and 2009, highway-rail at-grade collisions nationally dropped from 

over 12,000 to 2,000 and related fatalities dropped from over 900 to 250. 

Following this national trend, passenger rail has consistently been one of the safest ways to travel 

in Virginia and North Carolina as well. As demonstrated in Table 1-15 between 2004 and 2010, 

railroad fatalities declined in North Carolina from 32 to 19 

and increased slightly from 4 to 10 in Virginia. When 

compared to the total transportation fatalities in each state, 

however, railroad related fatalities represented only 0.1% for 

both Virginia and North Carolina in 2010. One reason for 

the reduction in fatalities from at-grade collisions between 

trains and motor vehicles is the substantial reduction in the 

total number of at-grade crossings (through closures or 

creation of grade separations) both nationally and within each 

state. As shown in Table 1-15, this represents a 12% national 

reduction, and 6% reduction in both Virginia and North Carolina 

between 2004 and 2010.
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 1-16 

US Transportation Safety Record (Except Marine and Pipeline)

Air Highway Railroad Tran

Fatalities Accidents 

% of All 

Trans. 

Fatalities 

Fatalities Accidents

% of All 

Trans. 

Fatalities 

Fatalities 

(Total / AtGrade) Accidents (Total / At-Grade) % of All Trans. Fatalities Fatalities Accide

1970 1,456 4,767 2.6% 52,627 n/a 93.5% 2,225 / 1,440 11,654 / 3,559 3.9% / 2.6% n/a^ n/a 1975 1,473 4,232 3.1% 44,525 n/a 93.8% 1,492 / 917 20,117 / 12,076 3.1% / 1.9% n/a^ n/a 1980 1,382 3,818 2.6% 51,091 n/a 94.8% 1,417 / 833 18,817 / 10,612 2.6% / 1.5% n/a^ n/a 1985 1,595 2,935 3.4% 43,825 n/a 94.3% 1,036 / 582 10,194 / 6,919 2.2% / 1.3% n/a^ n/a 1990 866 2,388 1.8% 44,599 6,471,000 94.6% 1,297 / 698 8,594 / 5,715 2.7% / 1.5% 339 58,001995 963 2,178 2.2% 41,817 6,699,000 94.0% 1,146 / 579 7,092 / 4,633 2.6% / 1.3% 274 25,682000 764 1,985 1.7% 41,945 6,394,000 95.5% 937 / 425 6,485 / 3,502 2.1% / 1.0% 295 24,262005 603 1,781 1.3% 43,510 6,159,000 96.2% 884 / 359 6,332 / 3,066 2.0% / 0.8% 236 8,852009 547 1,556 1.6% 33,808 5,505,000 95.8% 695 / 249 3,836 / 1,930 2.0% / 0.7% 230 3,51

Notes – Air includes all types of aviation; Highway includes cars, motorcycles trucks, pedestrians and cyclists; Railroad Total includes passengers, RR workers (Amtrak and frei

collisions, as well as trespassers; Railroad At-Grade includes accidents and incidents occurring at highway-rail crossings resulting from freight and passenger rail operati

Transit includes motor bus, commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, van pool and other demand response and automated transit systems. 

^ - Fatality data was not available, therefore Total Transportation Fatality figures for year 1970-1985 are not included in totals. 

n/a – data is not available Source – USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010 (Tables1-3 and 1-4) 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-62

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

As reported in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, Virginia DRPT has been working in cooperation 

with VDOT to make special efforts to improve crossing safety, including construction of highway 

and pedestrian bridges over rail lines, expanding the use of protection devices at private 

crossings, and participating in the testing of active physical barriers to prevent motorists from 

violating the highway-grade crossing warning devices. For example, in 2002 VDOT completed a 

grade separation project just north of CSX's Collier Yard. The crossing, located at Halifax Road 

at the intersection of Vaughan Road at the SCL south of Petersburg, VA was identified for 

separation due to high crash rates. In addition, some at-grade crossings south of Richmond, VA 

on the I-95 corridor have been upgraded with safety devices such as Constant Warning Time 

(CWT) Predictors (which serve to activate warning devices for at-grade crossings at a constant 

warning time) and Event Recorders. 

Likewise, NCDOT has also been working since the early 1990s to improve safety along active 

rail lines within the SEHSR Corridor. NCDOT and Norfolk Southern began working together in 

1994 to “seal” the North Carolina Railroad corridor between Raleigh, NC Greensboro, NC and 

Charlotte, NC by using traffic control devices to separate all vehicular and rail traffic. CSX also 

was involved in a segment of the SEHSR Corridor between Raleigh, NC and Cary, NC. As part 

of this 10 to 12-year “sealed corridor” project, the use of specific devices and technology for 

particular crossings was based on factors such as intersection geometrics, road width and other 

local conditions, and evaluations were made on a case-by-case basis. In addition to crossing 

closures, gates with extended arms, median barriers, and four-quadrant gate projects were 

implemented, either singularly or in combination. Some 190 of the 216 total at-grade crossings 

between Charlotte, NC and Raleigh, NC were improved or closed, and studies have estimated that 

19 fatalities were prevented as a result of these safety measures. Today, only 149 at-grade 

crossings remain on the corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte, and NCDOT intends to have 

closed an additional 50 at-grade crossings by 2017. 

At the Sugar Creek Road crossing in Charlotte, NC, replacing standard dual gates with four 

quadrant gates and installing median separators produced a 98% reduction in crossing violations. 

In addition, NCDOT has installed video surveillance equipment at some crossing locations and 

worked with local law enforcement to decrease the number of violators at highway-rail crossings. 

Along the lower freight density line from Raleigh, NC north to Norlina, NC, NCDOT has worked 

with CSX and local communities to close 6 crossings since 2000, and to install or upgrade signals 

and gates at another 13 locations. 

Additionally, through the Private Crossing Safety Initiative program (PCSI) NCDOT uses a share 

of Federal and state funds to provide safety improvements at private crossings on the Raleigh to 

Charlotte Sealed Corridor. The safety improvements can range from installing signage, signals 

and gates and locked gates. The ultimate goal of the program is complete removal of the crossing 

which eliminates the potential for conflict at the crossing. In certain locations, NCDOT has been 

able to provide alternate access to the users of the private crossing and in return the property 

owner gives up any right they have to the private crossing. NCDOT then coordinates with the 

railroad for the physical removal of the private crossing. 

The safety improvements discussed above, along with the Richmond to Raleigh Project being 

fully grade separated, will result in improved overall rail passenger safety within the SEHSR 

Corridor when compared to existing rail service and other modes of transportation currently 

serving the area. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-63

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Automobiles use 89% of 

energy consumed on a national 

basis for transportation 

purposes, while air uses 8%, 

freight (rail) uses 2%, transit 

uses less than 1%, and Amtrak 

uses around 0.05%.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

Energy, its sources, and uses are becoming more critical considerations in government decisions 

to implement and invest in transportation programs and improvements as well as in private citizen 

decisions regarding their personal transportation choices. Oil prices have been highly unstable for 

the past three decades with prices since 2007 nearly tripling from about $50 per barrel in early 

2007 to nearly $140 per barrel in mid-July 2008 and back to around $45 per barrel by December 

2008. Oil price forecasts show these wide variations for the future as well. Americans have 

reacted to these high fuel prices by driving less and using public 

transit more. 

Table 1-17 and data included in the Tier I EIS show that, even 

with the high prices and resulting increase in transit use beginning 

in 2007, automobiles consistently use around 89% of all energy 

consumed on a national basis for transportation purposes, while 

air uses 8%, freight (rail) uses 2%, transit uses less than 1%, and 

Amtrak uses around 0.05%. Previous sections of this chapter 

demonstrated that all forms of travel in the US are predicted to grow 

in the future, reaching and exceeding pre-recession levels in the next 5 to 10 years. With this 

increased travel will be an increase in energy consumption and a resultant increase in air pollutant 

emissions. 

As reported in the Tier I EIS, trains are more energy efficient than aircraft and autos on a per 

passenger mile basis. This is due to such factors as superior aerodynamics and the low rolling 

resistance of steel wheels on steel rails. A typical passenger train driven by a diesel locomotive 

consumes about 350,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy per mile, whereas a typical 

automobile uses about 6,200 BTUs of energy per vehicle mile. Because of the higher passenger 

capacity of the train, it is more efficient than a single occupant vehicle. Further, intercity rail is 

45% more energy-efficient than domestic commercial airline service and 76% more energyefficient than general aviation. 

Improving the modal balance in the SEHSR Corridor such that even a small portion of the 

automobile use is replaced with HSR use could result in a decrease in the amount of energy used 

for transportation, as well as a decrease in the amount of air pollution produced in the project 

area. 

Table 1-17 

Energy Consumption by Mode of Transportation: 2004–2008 

(Trillion Btu, domestic activities only) 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Air 2,101 2,128 2,104 2,080 1,970

Highway 22,041 22,243 22,279 22,430 21,728

Transit 143 146 152 157 162

Rail, Class I (freight service) 563 571 585 567 542

Amtrak 11 11 11 11 11

 

TOTALS 24,859 25,099 25,131 25,245 24,413

Source: USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010 (Table 5-7). 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-64

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

SUMMARY 

Federal interest in HSR dates back at least to 1965, with the passage of the High Speed Ground 

Transportation Act. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) 

identified the SEHSR Corridor as one of the first five Federally designated HSR corridors. 

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of this chapter provide details on the development of the SEHSR Corridor, 

including studies of the market and demand for the project. 

The preferred corridor identified in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS runs from Washington, DC 

through Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, Henderson, NC, Raleigh, NC, and Greensboro, NC, to 

Charlotte, NC, with a connection to Winston-Salem, NC. This Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier 

II FEIS is focused on the portion of the SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC. The project timeline presented in Section 1.3 of this chapter notes that project construction 

of the Richmond to Raleigh Project will begin no earlier than two years from the signature of the 

Record of Decision (ROD) and is dependent on the ability of Virginia DRPT and NCDOT to 

secure project funding. 

Studies of other portions of the larger SEHSR Corridor are being completed separately, including 

the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor EIS and the Washington, DC to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II EIS. Rail improvements are also currently in development 

between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC. Section 1.4 of this chapter identifies current and 

planned projects within the SEHSR Corridor and their level of environmental documentation. 

Section 1.4 also describes the improvements proposed by the Richmond to Raleigh Project, which 

would create a fully grade separated rail system (i.e., no at-grade crossings) between Richmond, 

VA, and Raleigh, NC, with fossil fuel locomotives. Maximum authorized speeds would be 79 

mph from Richmond, VA, to Centralia, VA; 90 mph from Centralia, VA, to Collier, VA; and 110 

mph between Collier, VA, and Raleigh, NC. This Tier II FEIS assumes the operation of eight 

new passenger trains per day (four round trips) along the SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, 

VA, and Raleigh, NC (with most of the trains continuing either south or north). 

Five municipal locations have been identified for SEHSR Corridor stops within the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project corridor: Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, which have existing 

passenger service and stations, and La Crosse, VA, and Henderson, NC, which do not currently 

have passenger service or stations. 

Patronage (ridership and revenue) information is presented in Section 1.5 of this chapter. The 

most recent evaluation of ridership and revenue was completed in 2013 and supports previous 

findings that SEHSR Corridor service would be competitive with other modes of transportation. 

It also confirms that SEHSR Corridor service is anticipated to generate revenue in excess of 

operation and maintenance costs. 

The Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC, established 

the overall need and purpose for the entire SEHSR Corridor. Sections 1.6 and 1.7 of this chapter 

present a summary of the purpose and need information included in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I 

EIS. Section 1.8 of this chapter presents updated and additional information about the need for 

the SEHSR Corridor in response to the comments and questions received on the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. This expanded discussion with more recent data shows that the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 1-65

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

needs initially demonstrated in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS more than 10 years ago are still 

present, and re-confirms and substantiates the conclusions from the Tier I process. Updated data 

are included for: 

 Growth – population, age-dependency, and economic growth 

 Congestion – air and highway transportation 

 Travel time/service reliability – on-time performance 

 Connectivity – connections to local transit systems 

 Air Quality – national greenhouse emissions by transportation mode 

 Safety – passenger rail fatalities compared to automobile and transit 

 Energy Efficiency – energy consumption by mode of transportation. 

CONCLUSION 

The history of the Richmond to Raleigh Project, from initial Federal interest in HSGT through 

multiple studies of the SEHSR Corridor from Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC supports the 

need and market demand for the proposed improvements. The Richmond to Raleigh Project will 

help address the needs identified for the SEHSR Corridor by: 

 Providing the traveling public, particularly special populations such as age-dependent (youth 

and old age) and the disabled, with improved transportation choices; 

 Helping ease existing and future congestion (air, highway, passenger rail) within the SEHSR 

Corridor; 

 Improving safety and energy effectiveness within the transportation network; 

 Reducing the overall air quality related emissions per passenger mile traveled within the 

SEHSR Corridor; and 

 Improving overall transportation system connectivity and efficiency within the SEHSR 

Corridor, with a minimum of environmental impact. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-1

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The preferred 

alternatives form 

a “best-fit” 

alternative for the 

entire Study Area. 

Wider widths were narrowed to 

approximately 1,000 feet. In some 

areas the Study Area is wider to 

accommodate associated road work. 

The Study Area includes small areas 

of expansion added since the DEIS 

to accommodate design changes. 

2 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

All references to “Study Area” and “Project” below pertain to the Richmond to Raleigh Project, unless 

otherwise noted. 

This chapter describes the Study Area for the Project Tier II FEIS, and provides details on the 

characteristics of the reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the Project. This chapter 

also discusses the criteria by which the alternatives were evaluated, the evaluation of alternatives, and 

presents the FRA’s and the Project Sponsors’ preferred railroad alternatives and associated roadway 

work. 

Initially, each of the 26 sections of the Project included three alternative railroad alignments (described 

below and shown in Figure 2-1). As presented in the Project Tier II DEIS, the alternatives were named 

VA1, VA2, and VA3 in Virginia, and NC1, NC2, and NC3 in North Carolina. In order to minimize 

impacts, throughout much of the Study Area the alternatives are within existing railroad ROW; in many 

locations the alternatives are on common (concurrent) alignment. Except where otherwise specified, 

alternative VA3 is concurrent with alternative VA1, and alternative NC3 is concurrent with alternative 

NC1. The endpoints of each of the 26 sections are in locations where the alternative alignments are in a 

common location. This approach allowed for the broadest range of options 

during evaluation and selection of the preferred alternatives. Joined together, 

the preferred alternatives form a “best-fit” preferred alternative for the entire 

Study Area. 

In response to comments on the Project Tier II DEIS, an additional fourth or 

fifth railroad alternative was developed for evaluation in three sections of the 

Project: Alternative VA4 was developed for Sections D and G in Brunswick 

County, VA; and Alternative NC5 was developed for Section V in Raleigh, NC. The development of 

these new alternatives for the Project is described in greater detail later in this chapter. 

2.1 STUDY AREA 

The Project Study Area provides boundaries for the 

proposed SEHSR Corridor railroad and associated 

roadway alignments and includes areas where 

construction of the Project could have direct impacts on 

the environment (Figure 2-1). Initially, the Study Area 

width was between 1,000 and 6,000 feet, centered 

primarily on the centerline of the existing railroad 

ROW. This broad width allowed for the development of 

alternative alignments. Once potential alignments were 

proposed, the wider widths were narrowed to approximately 1,000 feet. In some areas the Study Area 

is wider to accommodate associated roadway work. In addition, the Study Area includes small areas 

of expansion that were added since the completion of the Project Tier II DEIS to accommodate design 

changes developed in response to comments on the DEIS. 

The Study Area begins at Main Street Station in Richmond, VA, and extends to the south, following 

the existing CSX S-Line railroad across the James River and through Chesterfield County towards 

Centralia, VA (Figure 2-1). From Centralia, the Study Area follows the existing CSX A-Line south 

to Dunlop, VA, south towards Ettrick Station on the west side of Petersburg, and across the 

Appomattox River. After crossing the river, it continues to follow the CSX A-Line south through 

Petersburg. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-2

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Study Area initially included an eastern branch through the Petersburg, VA, area that followed 

inactive railroad ROW (the old CSX AAP-Line) from Dunlop through Colonial Heights, VA into 

Petersburg, VA to serve the old Union Station. However, as described in the Project Tier II DEIS, 

this route was excluded from further consideration based on impacts to historic resources, relocations, 

constructability, and other issues. More information on this evaluation is included in Section 2.3. 

South of Petersburg, VA, the Study Area continues to follow the CSX A-line south through Collier 

Yard, a CSX railroad yard. At the south end of Collier Yard, the Study Area turns west, following the 

alignment of the inactive Burgess Connector railroad. The tracks have been removed along the 

Burgess Connector, and small portions of the ROW have been sold. At Burgess, the Study Area 

curves south, joining again with the alignment of the CSX S-Line. Although the tracks along this 

section of the CSX S-Line were removed in 1987, CSX retains exclusive ownership, with exceptions, 

of the CSX S-Line (i.e., fee simple) and leases a portion of the railroad ROW for operation of an 

underground fiber optic cable. The exceptions are located along the Burgess Connector south of 

Collier Yard, where portions of the ROW have been sold to individual property owners for driveway 

access, and in southside Virginia, where sections of the ROW have been sold to adjacent landowners, 

such as a 1.3 mile long section at the Nottoway River in Dinwiddie County owned by Reedy Creek 

Farm Associates. 

As the Study Area moves through southern Virginia, it passes through the Town of McKenney, VA, 

where a portion of the ROW has been sold, before crossing the Nottoway River into Brunswick 

County. The Study Area progresses south through the Town of Alberta, VA, and crosses the 

Meherrin River before crossing into Mecklenburg County. In Mecklenburg County the Study Area 

continues to follow the CSX S-line through the Town of La Crosse, VA, and then crosses Lake 

Gaston, before passing into North Carolina. 

In North Carolina, the Study Area continues along the inactive S-line through Warren County to the 

Town of Norlina, NC, where the CSX S-Line returns to an active freight railroad (CSX). From 

Norlina, the Study Area follows the active freight line into Vance County and through the towns of 

Middleburg, Henderson, and Kittrell, NC, before crossing the Tar River into Franklin County; the 

Study Area then passes through Franklinton and Youngsville before entering into Wake County. 

In Wake County, the Study Area passes through the Town of Wake Forest, NC, before crossing the 

Neuse River, and then into the City of Raleigh. In Raleigh, the southern ten miles of the Study Area 

includes ROW recently purchased by Triangle Transit (TT) for planned regional commuter light rail 

service, which will be operated on a separate railroad system. 

On the north side of Downtown Raleigh near Capital Boulevard, the Study Area widens to 

approximately 2,000 feet to encompass the existing Norfolk Southern (NS) NS-line through 

Glenwood Yard (the NS switching yard) on the west side, and the CSX S-Line through Capital Yard 

(the CSX switching yard) on the east side, and the area between the two. Near Jones Street in 

Downtown Raleigh, the NS line joins the CSX S-Line, and the Study Area narrows to follow the CSX 

S-Line south for two blocks to the Boylan Wye, near Boylan Avenue. The Boylan Wye is the 

southern terminus of the Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-3

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-1 

continued... 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-4

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-1 continued 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-5

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Project team evaluated impacts to 

the natural and human environment, and 

assessed information on speed, cost, and 

constructability for each alternative. All 

comments were reviewed and discussed 

by the Project team, and preferences for 

alternatives were tallied. The Project 

team based its recommendations for the 

preferred railroad alternative on all 

relevant information. 

2.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE BY SECTION 

2.2.1 PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Following the May 2010 publication of the Project Tier II DEIS, more than 1,850 individuals and 

50 agencies and organizations submitted comments. Many of the comments were several pages 

in length, and most covered multiple topics. All comments were read and coded by topic(s) and 

Project section (where identified) to enable sorting. A series of eight internal decision meetings 

were held by the Project team (comprised of representatives of NCDOT and Virginia DRPT) to 

discuss comments received by section. Refer to Chapter 8 for a listing of comments received and 

responses to those comments. 

At the decision meetings, the Project team 

evaluated and compared impacts to the natural 

and human environment, and assessed 

information on speed, cost and constructability 

for each alternative. All comments on the 

Project Tier II DEIS pertaining to a section 

were reviewed and discussed by the Project 

team, and preferences for alternatives were 

tallied. The Project team based their 

recommendations for the preferred railroad 

alternative by section on all relevant 

information. In some sections, additional 

coordination, analysis, or design work was undertaken prior to the Project team making a final 

recommendation. 

2.2.2 INTRODUCTION TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 

Each alternative includes both the railroad alignment and associated roadway work. The 

overarching philosophy of design for the Project is to evaluate railroad-roadway grade crossings 

with the goal of consolidating and grade separating all crossings (using bridges or underpasses) 

for safety and operability purposes as described in Chapter 1. 

Maps showing the Preferred Alternative for each of the Project sections (AA-V) are included at 

the end of this Chapter. In addition, the following discussion contains information about each of 

the Project sections, including: 

 Overview and description of characteristics 

 Summary of alternatives and table of impacts 

 Preferred alternative and basis for selection 

 Public roadway-railroad crossings: 

o Public roads with existing grade separated crossings (bridges or underpasses will be 

retained, expanded or replaced) 

o Public roads with new grade separated crossings (bridges or underpasses), and 

description of temporary proposed detour routes 

o Public at-grade crossings to be closed, with traffic re-routed 

 River and major creek bridges 

 Changes to the preferred alternative subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 

Table 2-1 lists the Preferred Alternative by section. More detailed information can be found in 

the following Appendices: Appendix R contains maps that show a greater level of detail for the 

Preferred Alternative, including all associated roadwork; Appendix E contains schematic track 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-6

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

charts of the alternative railroad designs, and Appendix F contains detailed information on all 

associated roadway work. 

Table 2-2 provides a description of the track configuration upon completion of the Project using 

approximate geographical reference points (note that the configuration was the same for all 

alternatives). 

Table 2-1 

Preferred Alternative 

by Section 

Section Appendix R 

Maps From To Preferred Alternative 

AA 001-010 Main Street Station 

Richmond, VA Centralia, VA VA1 

BB 010-016 Centralia, VA North of Dunlop, VA VA1 

CC 017-028 North of Dunlop, VA Collier Yard 

Petersburg, VA VA1 

DD 028-033 Collier Yard 

Petersburg, VA North of Burgess, VA VA3 

A 034-038 North of Burgess, VA North of Dinwiddie, VA VA2 

B 038-043 North of Dinwiddie, VA South of Dinwiddie, VA VA1 

C 044-053 South of Dinwiddie, VA South of Nottaway River VA1 

D 053-062 South of Nottaway River North of Alberta, VA VA4 

E 063-066 North of Alberta, VA South of Alberta, VA VA1 

F 067-070 South of Alberta, VA South of Tower Road 

Brunswick County, VA VA1 

G 071-074 South of Tower Road 

Brunswick County, VA Meherrin River VA3 

H 075-080 Meherrin River North of Wray Road 

Mecklenburg County, VA VA1 

I 080-083 North of Wray Road 

Mecklenburg County, VA South of La Crosse, VA VA1 

J 084-087 South of La Crosse, VA North of Bracey, VA VA2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-7

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 2-1 

Preferred Alternative 

by Section 

Section Appendix R 

Maps From To Preferred Alternative 

K 087-091 North of Bracey, VA Roanoke River VA1 

L 091-095 Roanoke River North of Norlina, NC VA1/NC1 

M 096-102 North of Norlina, NC Southwest of Norlina, NC NC1 

N 103-106 Southwest of Norlina, NC North of Middleburg, NC NC1 

O 107-111 North of Middleburg, NC North of Henderson, NC NC3 

P 111-118 North of Henderson, NC North of Kittrell, NC NC1 

Q 118-124 North of Kittrell, NC Tar River NC1 

R 124-126 Tar River North of Franklinton, NC NC1 

S 126-132 North of Franklinton, NC North of Youngsville, NC NC1 

T 132-134 North of Youngsville, NC North of Wake Forest, NC NC1 

U 135-142 North of Wake Forest, NC North Raleigh, NC NC1 

V 142-151 North Raleigh, NC Boylan Wye 

Raleigh, NC NC5 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 2-2 

Track Configuration 

Begin End 

Project 

Sections Location (Approximate) 

Closest 

Railroad 

Mile 

Post 

Location (Approximate) 

C

Ra

Mi

AA Main St. Station Richmond, VA S-0 Just South of Maury St. Richmond, VA AA Just South of Maury St. Richmond, VA S-1 1/2 Mile South of Goodes St. Richmond, VA AA 1/2 Mile South of Goodes St. Richmond, VA S-2 Old Lane Chesterfield County, VA A

BB/CC Old Lane Chesterfield County, VA A-11 North Side Appomattox River Chesterfield County, VA A

CC North Side Appomattox River Chesterfield County, VA A-23 Just North of Washington St. Petersburg, VA ACC Just North of Washington St. Petersburg, VA A-24 North End of Collier Yard Petersburg, VA A

DD North End of Collier Yard Petersburg, VA A-27 South End of Collier Yard Petersburg, VA A

S

DD South End of Collier Yard Petersburg, VA S-25 1/2 Mile North of Vaughan Rd. Dinwiddie County, VA S
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 2-2 

Track Configuration 

Begin End 

Project 

Sections Location (Approximate) 

Closest 

Railroad 

Mile 

Post 

Location (Approximate) 

C

Ra

Mi

DD 1/2 Mile North of Vaughan Rd. Dinwiddie County, VA S-27 1/2 Mile North of Duncan Rd. Dinwiddie County, VA S

A 1/2 Mile North of Duncan Rd. Dinwiddie County, VA S-29 1 Mile South of Quaker Rd. Dinwiddie, VA S

B/C 1 Mile South of Quaker Rd. Dinwiddie, VA S-34 Just South of Snap Lodge Rd. Dinwiddie, VA S

C Just South of Snap Lodge Rd. Dinwiddie, VA S-43 Just North of Doyle Blvd. McKenney, VA S

C/D Just North of Doyle Blvd. McKenney, VA S-48 1/4 Mile South of Kress Rd. Brunswick County, VA S

D/E 1/4 Mile South of Kress Rd. Brunswick County, VA S-56 Church St. Alberta, VA S

E/F/G Church St. Alberta, VA S-61 1/2 Mile South of Old Indian Rd. Brunswick County, VA S

H 1/2 Mile South of Old Indian Rd. Brunswick County, VA S-70 1/4 Mile South of Wilson Rd. Mecklenburg County, VA S
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 2-2 

Track Configuration 

Begin End 

Project 

Sections Location (Approximate) 

Closest 

Railroad 

Mile 

Post 

Location (Approximate) 

C

Ra

Mi

H/I/J 1/4 Mile South of Wilson Rd. Mecklenburg County, VA S-75 Gaulding Rd. Mecklenburg County, VA S

K Gaulding Rd. Mecklenburg County, VA S-84 Just North of Cliffside Dr. Mecklenburg County, VA S

K/L/M Just North of Cliffside Dr. Mecklenburg County, VA S-88 1 Mile South of Faulkner Quarter Rd. Warren County, NC S

M 1 Mile South of Faulkner Quarter Rd. Warren County, NC S-96 Just North of Ridgeway Warrenton Rd. Warren County, NC S

M/N/O Just North of Ridgeway Warrenton Rd. Warren County, NC S-100 1/2 Mile North of Carroll St. Middleburg, NC S

O/P 1/2 Mile North of Carroll St. Middleburg, NC S-106 Just North of US1 Bypass Vance County, NC S

P Just North of US1 Bypass Vance County, NC S-111 Just South of Chavasse Ave. Henderson, NC S

P/Q Just South of Chavasse Ave. Henderson, NC S-115 Just South of Beechtree Trail Rd. Vance County, NC S
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, May 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 2-2 

Track Configuration 

Begin End 

Project 

Sections Location (Approximate) 

Closest 

Railroad 

Mile 

Post 

Location (Approximate) 

C

Ra

Mi

Q/R/S Just South of Beechtree Trail Rd. Vance County, NC S-123 1/2 Mile North of Bert Winston Rd. Franklin County, NC S

S/T 1/2 Mile North of Bert Winston Rd. Franklin County, NC S-133 County Line Franklin County/Wake County, NC S

U County Line Franklin County/Wake County, NC S-139 1 Mile North of Durant Rd. Wake County, NC S

U/V 1 Mile North of Durant Rd. Wake County, NC S-146 Near Boylan Wye Raleigh, NC S
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-12

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.3 SECTION AA 

The section begins at Main Street Station in Richmond, VA, and extends to railroad milepost 

(MP) A-11 in Centralia, VA, a distance of 11.31 miles (see Section AA map, Figure 2-2). The 

Study Area follows the CSX S-line in this section, where there is active freight service. The 

section includes a crossing of the James River and is located entirely within the James River 

Basin. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 001-010. 

2.2.3.1 SECTION AA ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

All alternatives are on common alignment in this section. Table ES-5 displays information 

regarding potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information 

about operability, constructability, and cost. Operability relates to the ability of the 

alternative to meet the purpose and need for the Project. 

Alternative VA1//VA2/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 Design objectives are to maximize the use of existing ROW and rebuild double tracks 

where they previously existed (i.e., several areas of this section were reduced to a single 

track) with crossovers to allow shared freight and passenger operation. 

 CSX owns the existing railroad which supports active freight operations. 

 The design provides a new railroad bridge over the James River, adjacent to and on the 

east side of the existing single-track railroad bridge. 

 The MAS (described in Section 1.4) is 79 mph. Slower speeds are proposed in the 

immediate vicinity of Main Street Station in Richmond. 

2.2.3.2 SECTION AA PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in this section is the common alignment of Alternatives 

VA1/VA2/VA3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for Section AA will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. 

2.2.3.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 East Main Street - railroad bridge over roadway 

 I-95 - roadway bridge over railroad 

 East Cary Street - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Powhite Expressway Ramps - roadway bridge over railroad 

 East Dock Street - railroad bridge over roadway 

 East Byrd Street - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Manchester Road - railroad bridge over roadway 

 I-95 Ramps at Maury Street - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Cogbill Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Chippenham Parkway - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Marina Drive - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Elliham Avenue - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Jefferson Davis Highway - roadway bridge over railroad 

 VA 288 - roadway bridge over railroad 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-13

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The designs for Preferred 

Alternative VA1 require a 

second track across the James 

River. The proposed alignment 

would include a new bridge 

adjacent to and on the east side 

of the existing bridge as well as 

larger openings in the 

floodwalls to accommodate the 

proposed double track. 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Maury Street - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Goodes Street - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 East Commerce Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix 

G for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Ruffin Road - underpass (roadway under railroad); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 West Bells Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Station Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Kingsland Road (existing at-grade crossing closed, road realigned to provide a new 

grade separated crossing located to the south) - roadway bridge over railroad; 

construction on new location 

 New Public Road (north of Highway 288, connecting Thurston Road on the west side of 

the railroad to Chester Road on the west) - roadway bridge over railroad; construction on 

new location 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Dale Avenue 

 Brinkley Road 

 Old Lane 

2.2.3.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

James River – Heading south out of Main Street Station, the existing single-track railroad 

bridge is elevated on supports built to accommodate double-track through the triple railroad 

crossing; it remains elevated and transitions to a single-track width as it passes through a 

gated opening in a floodwall on the north side of the 

James River before proceeding to cross the river on a 

single-track bridge. 

The designs for Preferred Alternative VA1 require 

addition of a second track across the James River. 

The proposed alignment would include a new bridge 

adjacent to and on the east side of the existing bridge 

as well as an enlargement of openings in the 

floodwalls to accommodate the addition of the 

proposed double track. The specific configuration for 

the addition of a second track railroad crossing of the 

James River, however, will be determined during 

final design within the limits as defined in the Project 

Tier II FEIS. The addition of a second track will expand railroad capacity and alleviate 

congestion at this major choke point. 

2.2.3.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Maury Street area – Between the publication of the Tier II DEIS and the development of 

the Tier II FEIS, the Manchester Industrial Historic District’s (VDHR No. 127-0457) 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination listing was updated in 2011 

and, as a result, the boundary shown at the 2010 public hearings for the Tier II DEIS 

was increased. This expansion extended the historic district boundary on the north side 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-14

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

of Maury Street, as well as one property on the south side of Maury Street. The 

proposed Maury Street grade separation, as presented in the 2010 Tier II DEIS, 

impacted contributing elements in the Manchester Industrial Historic District expansion 

area and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) determined that the 

designs would result in an adverse effect on the district under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

In response to VDHR’s determination of adverse effect, and through close coordination 

with the City of Richmond staff, several modifications were made to the Maury Street 

designs originally proposed in the DEIS, including the construction of a new road 

parallel to the existing I-95 ramps and grade separating the crossing of this new road and 

the rail corridor just north of the existing I-95 ramps bridge, thereby avoiding all 

property impacts within the expanded Manchester Industrial Historic District boundary. 

Other means to minimize impacts from the new grade separation include using some of 

the fill from the original I-95 ramp, in addition to new retaining walls, to right of way 

needed from the Citgo Petroleum above-ground storage tanks located adjacent to the 

new roadway. 

In addition to this new road and grade separated crossing, the City of Richmond 

provided their long range transportation plan for adding a roundabout at the Maury 

Street/I-95 ramps/E. 4th Street intersection to the SEHSR Project Team. The designs 

included in the FEIS incorporate this plan by providing a roundabout approximately 70-

feet west of the existing Maury Street/I-95 ramps/4th Street intersection. To minimize 

impacts to the operational capabilities of the I-95 ramps from the proposed new road 

grade separation, the designs propose to relocate the I-95 off-ramp approximately 200-

feet west of its existing intersection with Maury Street. 

 Commerce Road - The typical section (roadway cross section) has been modified to 

reflect the designs shown in the City of Richmond’s Commerce Road improvement 

project. A T-turn was also added on the west side of the railroad where pavement will 

be removed along the old road alignment. Additionally, a median crossover and a turn 

lane were added to Bellemeade Road at the intersection with Commerce Road. 

 Dale Avenue – On both sides of the railroad where the existing at-grade crossing will be 

closed and pavement will be removed, T-turns were added at the request of the City of 

Richmond. 

 Station Road - In response to comments from Chesterfield County, the alignment was 

shifted to avoid impacts to the planned Falling Creek Ironworks park/greenway. 

 Chester Road - In response to comments from Chesterfield County, turn lanes were 

added for the intersection of Chester Road with Kingsdale Road, and the intersection of 

Chester Road and the extension of Park Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-15

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-16

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.4 SECTION BB 

The section begins at railroad MP A-11 in Centralia, VA, and extends to railroad MP A-18, just 

south of Woods Edge Road, a distance of 6.91 miles (see Section BB map, Figure 2-3). The 

Study Area follows the CSX A-Line in this section where there is active freight and passenger rail 

service. The major population center in Section BB is Chester, VA, and the section passes 

through Chesterfield County. The section is located entirely within the James River Basin and 

includes a crossing of Falling Creek. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, 

maps 010-016. 

2.2.4.1 SECTION BB ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

All alternatives are on common alignment in this section. Table ES-5 displays information 

regarding potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information 

about operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative VA1/VA2/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 Design objectives are to maximize the use of existing ROW by installing a new 

passenger track approximately 30 feet east of existing track with crossovers to allow 

shared freight and passenger operation. 

 CSX owns the existing railroad ROW, which supports active freight and passenger 

operations. The newly introduced Amtrak Norfolk service operates over this segment, 

which is also the preferred alignment for the proposed Richmond to Hampton Roads 

SEHSR Corridor (described in Section 1.1.2). FRA issued a ROD for the Richmond to 

Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS in December 2012, which includes six 

round-trip SEHSR Corridor trains from Richmond through Petersburg to Norfolk along 

a common alignment with the Project. 

 The MAS is anticipated to be 90 mph based on the shared operation of the tracks with 

CSX. 

2.2.4.2 SECTION BB PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in this section is the common alignment of Alternatives 

VA1/VA2/VA3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for Section BB will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. 

2.2.4.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 West Hundred Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Jefferson Davis Highway - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Ruffin Mill Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

New Bridges or Underpasses for Public Roads 

 Centralia Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Curtis Street - underpass (road under railroad); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 West Street - pedestrian bridge over railroad 

 Woods Edge Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-17

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 West Street 

2.2.4.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Centralia and Hopkins Roads - In response to public comments and to help 

accommodate existing traffic congestion, improvements were developed for the 

intersection of Hopkins Road and Centralia Road. Hopkins Road was widened to allow 

the inclusion of a southbound turn lane; in addition, the alignment was shifted slightly 

westward to avoid impacts to the Ragland House historic resource. The designs for 

Centralia Road were extended westward and widened to accommodate an eastbound left 

turn lane at the intersection with Hopkins Road. To avoid impacts to the Ragland 

House, the Centralia Road alignment was shifted slightly to the south. 

 Chester Road - In response to a request from the County to provide for northbound 

traffic movements for the businesses along the west side of Chester Road, the designs 

were revised to accommodate U-turn movements at two locations: one to be located at 

the existing Chester Road/Centralia Road intersection; and one to be located at the new 

Chester Road/Centralia Road intersection. 

 Curtis Street - In response to a request from the County for improved pedestrian 

accessibility in the area, the curb and gutter typical section shown in the Project Tier II 

DEIS was extended to accommodate sidewalks. 

 West Street - In response to a request from the County for improved pedestrian access in 

the area, a pedestrian bridge with stair towers was added to the designs. Additional 

design and analysis is needed to coordinate the implementation of an Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian crossing of the railroad in this 

location. The Project Team will coordinate the designs and selected access alternatives 

(e.g., elevators, ramps, or tunnel) with Chesterfield County and VDHR (regarding 

potential impacts to the Chester Historic District). Refer to the Project Commitments for 

additional information. 

 Woods Edge Road - In response to comments from the public and from the County, the 

closure that was proposed in the Project Tier II DEIS was eliminated, and replaced with 

a new design for a roadway bridge over the railroad. 

 Walthall Industrial Parkway - The design was revised to provide a connection to the new 

Woods Edge Road alignment discussed above. In addition, the southward extension 

shown in the Project Tier II DEIS that was designed to provide property access during 

construction of the Pine Forest Drive grade separation was eliminated because Pine 

Forest Drive was redesigned to allow an on-site detour during construction and the 

extension is no longer needed. 

 New public access roads near Woods Edge Road and Walthall Industrial Parkway - 

Three new (short) access roads were developed in conjunction with the new Woods 

Edge Road designs to connect the existing road network to the realigned Woods Edge 

Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-18

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-19

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Design objectives are to 

maximize existing ROW by 

installing a new passenger track 

approximately 30 feet east of 

existing track, with crossovers 

to allow shared freight and 

passenger operations, to 

minimize travel time through 

Petersburg, and provide options 

for a Petersburg-area station.

2.2.5 SECTION CC 

The section begins at railroad MP A-18, just south of Woods Edge Road, and extends to Collier 

Yard at railroad MP A-27.5, a distance of 8.91 miles (see Section CC map, Figure 2-4). The 

Study Area follows the CSX A-Line in this section where there is active freight and passenger rail 

service. The major population centers in Section CC are Colonial Heights, VA, and Petersburg, 

VA. The section includes a new crossing of the Appomattox River, and is located within both the 

James River Basin and the Chowan River Basin. Detailed maps for this section can be found in 

Appendix R, maps 017-028. 

2.2.5.1 SECTION CC ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

All alternatives are on common alignment in this section. Table ES-5 displays information 

regarding impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information about 

operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative VA1/VA2/VA3 has the following 

characteristics: 

 Design objectives in this section are to maximize 

use of existing ROW by installing a new 

passenger track approximately 30 feet east of 

existing track with crossovers to allow shared 

freight and passenger operations, to minimize 

travel time through Petersburg, and provide 

track alignment and layout options for a 

Petersburg area station. Subsequent to the 

Project Tier II DEIS, the Petersburg area MPO (in 

partnership with Virginia DRPT, FRA and the City of Petersburg) initiated preparation 

of an EA NEPA document to select a preferred location for a permanent passenger rail 

station in the Petersburg area (refer to Section 1.4). 

 CSX owns the existing railroad ROW in this section, which supports active freight 

operations. 

 The alternative crosses the Appomattox River on a new railroad bridge, parallel to the 

existing, active CSX S-Line single-track bridge. 

 The design accommodates a turnout (railroad connection) to the NS N&W Beltline upon 

which the newly introduced Amtrak Norfolk service operates, which is also the 

preferred alignment for the proposed Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor 

(described in Section 1.1.2). 

 The MAS is anticipated to be 90 mph based on the shared operation of the tracks with 

CSX; however, the Limiting Speed is 80 mph. 

2.2.5.2 SECTION CC PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in this section is the common alignment of Alternatives 

VA1/VA2/VA3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for Section CC will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. 

2.2.5.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 East Ellerslie Avenue - roadway bridge over railroad 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-20

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Boulevard (new railroad bridge to be constructed adjacent to existing railroad bridge); 

off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 River Road/Chesterfield Avenue - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Washington Street - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Farmer Street (new railroad bridge to be constructed adjacent to existing railroad 

bridge); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour 

routes 

 Halifax Street - roadway bridge over railroad 

 I-85 - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Defense Road; (new railroad bridge to be constructed adjacent to existing railroad 

bridge); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour 

routes 

 Halifax Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Pine Forest Drive - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Branders Bridge Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix 

G for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Dupuy Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Lincoln Street - pedestrian underpass (pedestrian pathway under railroad) 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Lincoln Street 

 Grimes Road 

2.2.5.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Appomattox River – A new parallel bridge is proposed for high speed passenger trains, 

located approximately sixty feet to the east of the existing single-track bridge. The existing 

bridge will continue to be used by freight trains. 

2.2.5.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Pine Forest Road - The alignment shown in the Project Tier II DEIS was shifted 

southward to allow an on-site detour during construction; in addition, the eastward 

extension that connected to a Walthall Industrial Parkway extension was removed from 

the designs. 

 Pine Forest Access Road – In response to comments, the design shown in the Project 

Tier II DEIS for a new access road west of the railroad that would connect to Pine Forest 

Drive at the north, and Mansion Drive to the south, was eliminated. Existing 

neighborhood access off of Jefferson Davis Highway will be maintained; driveway 

access to properties along Pine Forest Drive will be determined during the ROW phase 

of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-21

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-22

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.6 SECTION DD 

The section begins at Collier Yard (railroad MP A-27.5) and extends westward along the inactive 

Burgess Connector to railroad MP S-29, a distance of 5.66 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3 

and 5.63 miles for Alternative VA2 (see Section DD map, Figure 2-5). The tracks have been 

removed along the Burgess Connector, and small portions of the ROW have been sold for private 

property access. Section DD is located primarily in Dinwiddie County, VA, but includes a small 

area of Petersburg, VA. The section is located within the Chowan River Basin and has no major 

river crossings. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 028-033. 

2.2.6.1 SECTION DD ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

The design objectives for all alternatives in this section are to maximize the use of existing 

railroad ROW in the approach to Collier rail yard. The three alternatives are on common 

alignment except for one area just south of Collier rail yard where they cross over the CSX 

A-Line to the Burgess Connector to the west. In this area, the alternatives vary in their 

curvatures and the length of the bridges used to cross the CSX A-Line. The three variations 

were developed to address impacts to the Weldon Railroad battlefield (also known as Globe 

Tavern), which is crossed in this location. The battlefield was determined to be eligible for 

the NRHP and is protected under Section 106 of NHPA. 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative VA1 has the following characteristics: 

 The alternative provides a new track 30 feet east of existing tracks in Collier Yard. It 

leaves existing ROW as the alignment passes up and over the CSX A-Line tracks on a 

grade separated railroad bridge to transition to the CSX Burgess Connector ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 75 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The alternative provides a new track 30 feet east of existing tracks in Collier Yard and 

utilizes a tighter curve than VA1 and VA3. It requires additional piers for construction 

of the longest bridge to cross over the CSX A-Line tracks (compared to VA1 and VA3) 

in order to minimize ROW needed from Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern battlefield. 

 Limiting Speed is 70 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to bridge pilings that will 

limit future expansion of the CSX A-Line; limited access for CSX maintenance; and a 

lower speed. 

Alternative VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The alternative provides a new track 30 feet east of existing tracks in Collier Yard and 

provides a shorter railroad bridge over the CSX A-Line tracks (compared to VA1 and 

VA2). VA3 also uses a short retaining wall to minimize ROW needed from Weldon 

Railroad/Globe Tavern battlefield. 

 Limiting speed is 75 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-23

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA3 

has the shortest 

bridge length and 

is the least 

visually intrusive.

2.2.6.2 SECTION DD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section DD is Alternative VA3. 

Although all three alternatives were determined to have no 

adverse effect on the Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern battlefield 

during Section 106 coordination, Alternative VA3 (which has the 

shortest bridge length) is the least visually intrusive to the 

battlefield. Alternatives VA1 and VA2 would require less ROW 

from the battlefield, but would have a greater visual impact to the 

surrounding area. In addition, the ROW required for Alternative VA3 can be landscaped to 

blend into the surrounding “viewshed.” This determination was validated in coordination 

with historians from the National Park Service (Petersburg National Battlefield). 

Table ES-5 shows that Alternative VA3 also has fewer stream impacts than Alternative VA2 

(and the same as Alternative VA1); the lowest cost; no relocations; and a positive rating for 

operability and constructability. Alternative VA3 does have slightly greater wetland impacts 

(less than a quarter acre more), but those impacts will be fully mitigated. There were no 

public comments expressing a preference for alternatives in this section. 

2.2.6.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Flank Road - new railroad bridge to be constructed adjacent to existing underpass - 

railroad bridge over roadway 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Unnamed Road south of Collier Yard - underpass (road under railroad); on-site detour 

 Vaughn Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Squirrel Level Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 

2.2.6.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Unnamed road south of Collier Yard- The alignment was shifted approximately 20 feet 

to allow maintenance of traffic during construction. 

 Squirrel Level Road - The alignment shown in the Project Tier II DEIS was shifted 

approximately 100 feet east to allow traffic to be maintained on the existing road during 

construction of the new bridge. Slight revisions were made to Doe Drive on the north 

side of the railroad, and Tanglewood Drive on the south side of the railroad, to tie into 

the revised Squirrel Level Road alignment. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-24

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-5 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-25

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA2 has the 

fewest wetland and stream 

impacts; similar impacts to 

historic resources compared 

to Alternative VA1/VA3; a 

better operability rating; 

and accommodates higher 

speeds. 

2.2.7 SECTION A 

The section begins at railroad MP S-29 on the inactive Burgess Connector, and extends to the 

CSX S-Line, north of the Dinwiddie community. The CSX S-Line is inactive between the 

Burgess Connector and Norlina, NC. The tracks were removed in 1987; however the ROW 

remains intact throughout most of the Study Area. Alternatives VA1 and VA3 are on common 

alignment in Section A, with a length of 4.93 miles. Alternative VA2 has a length of 4.95 miles 

(see Section A map, Figure 2-6). The section is located within the Chowan River Basin and has 

no major river crossings. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 034-

038. 

2.2.7.1 SECTION A ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

In Section A, the three alternatives are the same except at the transition from the Burgess 

Connector to the CSX S-Line ROW (see Section A map). Table ES-5 displays information 

regarding potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information 

about operability, constructability, and cost for the alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting Speed is 80 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives for Alternative VA2 are to optimize transition speed from the 

Burgess Connector to the CSX S-Line. 

 Limiting speed is 95 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.7.2 SECTION A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section A is Alternative VA2. 

Alternative VA2 has the fewest wetland and stream 

impacts; similar impacts to historic resources compared to 

Alternative VA1/VA3; a better operability rating; and 

accommodates higher speeds. There was one comment 

from the public expressing a preference for VA1/VA3 

based on property impacts. 

2.2.7.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings 

(Bridges or Underpasses will be Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 I-85 - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Duncan Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Dabney Mill Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Quaker Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-26

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 

2.2.7.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Duncan Road- The road alignment and bridge were shifted approximately 60 feet to 

assist with maintenance of traffic during construction. The Smith Grove Road and 

Wheaton Road connections were modified accordingly 

 Dabney Mill Road Access Road - The access road off Dabney Mill Road presented in 

the Project Tier II DEIS was removed from the designs in response to a request from the 

affected property owner; property access will be handled during the ROW phase of the 

Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-27

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-6 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-28

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA1 had 

additional stream 

impacts and wetland 

impacts compared to 

Alternative VA2. 

2.2.8 SECTION B 

The section begins north of the Dinwiddie community at railroad MP S-34 and extends southward 

to railroad MP S-40, a distance of 5.71 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3, which are on 

common alignment, and 5.80 miles for Alternative VA2 (see Section B map, Figure 2-7). 

Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 038-043. 

2.2.8.1 SECTION B ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-X displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 90 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

2.2.8.2 SECTION B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section B is the common alignment of Alternatives VA1/ VA3. 

Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as Alternative VA1. 

Table ES-5 shows that Alternative VA1 has greater impacts to forested uplands and prime 

and other important farmland; two more residential relocations; and a larger total cost 

compared to Alternative VA2. However, Alternative VA2 has had a much lower limiting 

speed and a negative rating for operability and constructability. In addition, Alternative VA2 

has five more potential noise and vibration impacts (compared to Alternative VA1) and one 

business relocation (whereas Alternative VA1 has none). 

It should be noted that the difference in stream and wetland impacts between the alternatives 

has been significantly reduced from what was presented in the 

Project Tier II DEIS. In the Project Tier II DEIS, Alternative 

VA1 had approximately 450 additional feet of stream impacts 

and 0.35 acres of wetland impacts compared to Alternative 

VA2. Of these, more than 300 feet of stream impacts and 0.3 

acres of wetland impacts associated with Alternative VA1 were 

attributed to the proposed new access road that intersects 

Carson Road. Subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS, this road 

has been shortened to minimize the stream and wetland impacts. Access to properties 

affected by the shortened road was addressed through development of a separate new access 

road off of Boydton Plank Road. The remaining stream and wetland impacts associated with 

the preferred alternative will be fully mitigated, and the design work will include 

coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). There was one public 

comment expressing a preference for an alternative in this section, specifying a preference for 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-29

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA3 with the misunderstanding that it provided a third railroad alignment in the 

section. 

2.2.8.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Courthouse Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Hunnicut Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Carson Road – new roadway bridge over railroad on new location; on-site detour 

 Gatewood Road - underpass (road under railroad); on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 

2.2.8.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 New Access Road off Carson Road- The access road west of the railroad connecting to 

Carson Road that was shown in the Project Tier II DEIS was shortened to minimize 

stream and wetland impacts; alternate access to affected properties was developed as 

described below. 

 New Access Road off Boydton Plank Road - A new access road north of Carson Road, 

connecting to Boydton Plank Road was developed for Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS 

as a way to provide property access while reducing steam and wetland impacts. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-30

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-7 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-31

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.9 SECTION C 

The section begins south of the Dinwiddie community at railroad MP S-40 and ends south of the 

Nottoway River at railroad MP S-51, a distance of 10.74 miles (see Section C map, Figure 2-8). 

The major population center is the Town of McKenney, VA. The section is located in the 

Chowan River Basin and includes a crossing of the Nottoway River. Detailed maps for this 

section can be found in Appendix R, maps 044-053. 

2.2.9.1 SECTION C ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

All alternatives are on common alignment. Table ES-5 displays information regarding 

potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information about 

operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative VA1/VA2/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective was to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW. 

 The alternative crosses the Nottoway River on a new bridge using existing piers. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.9.2 SECTION C PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section C is the common alignment of Alternatives 

VA1/VA2/VA3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. 

2.2.9.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 US-1 /Boydton Plank Road – roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Glebe Road - roadway bridge over railroad and US-1; on-site detour 

 Karla Drive - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Asbury Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Doyle Boulevard - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for 

a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Keelers Mill Road 

 Lew Jones Road 

 Snap Lodge Road 

 Jack Zehmer Road 

2.2.9.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Nottoway River – Although the existing track has been removed throughout this area of the 

Project, the existing single-track Nottoway River Bridge remains intact. Under Preferred 

Alternative VA1 the Project intends to utilize the piers and substructure of the existing 

bridge; and to replace the superstructure (girders, decking and track). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-32

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.9.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Keelers Mill Road – The road realignment shown in the Project Tier II DEIS was 

revised to avoid impacts to a family cemetery; the closure of the at-grade crossing is 

retained. As part of the new designs, a portion of the old road will be retained for 

property access. The new designs will result in additional impacts to approximately 271 

feet of streams and 0.36 acres of wetlands, which are included in the revised totals in 

Table ES-5. Attempts were made to avoid these impacts; however, other options would 

cause substantial property impacts or would not serve the traffic pattern in this area. The 

change in design was coordinated with the USACE in April 2013. 

 Rail Alignment in McKenney - The railroad alignment through McKenney, VA, was 

revised to shift slightly eastward, away from the NRHP boundary for the Zehmer Farm 

(referred to as Honeymoon Hill Farm in the Project Tier II DEIS), and further away 

from the Town’s artesian well. 

 Jack Zehmer Road Access Road - The new road shown in the Project Tier II DEIS to 

provide access to the portion of Jack Zehmer Road west of the railroad (which is cut off 

from the portion east of the railroad due to the closure of the existing at-grade crossing) 

was revised to minimize impacts to the Zehmer Farm historic resource; the new design 

intersects Sunnyside Road at the north end, near Sunnyside Elementary School, and then 

parallels the railroad south which will continue to provide access to the Town of 

McKenney’s waste water treatment plant. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-33

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-8 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-34

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA4 was 

developed through 

coordination with the USACE, 

the VDHR, USFWS, and the 

VDEQ. None of the existing 

alternatives would satisfy the 

concerns of the agencies. 

2.2.10 SECTION D 

The section begins south of the Nottoway River at railroad MP S-51 and extends to north of 

Alberta, VA, at railroad MP S-57.5, a distance of 6.07 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3, 

which are on common alignment, and 6.41 miles for Alternative VA2. In response to agency 

comments, an additional alternative was subsequently developed for this section (Alternative 

VA4). The section is located within the Chowan River Basin and has no major river crossings. 

See Figure 2-9 for a map of Section D. Maps with greater detail can be found in Appendix R, 

maps 053-062. 

2.2.10.1 SECTION D ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alternative is on new alignment east of the wide curve of the existing railroad ROW 

beginning at the north end of the section, and rejoins the existing ROW just south of 

Zero Road. 

 The alternative would impact a population of a Federally-listed endangered plant species 

(Michaux’s Sumac). 

 The alternative would have an adverse effect on the Wynnhurst historic property under 

Section 106 of the NHPA and would also require a Section 4(f) use of Wynnhurst. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize use of existing railroad ROW, and avoid impacts to 

the historic Wynnhurst property and the population of the endangered Michaux’s 

Sumac. 

 The alternative impacts more than 7 acres of wetlands and more than 500 feet of streams 

compared to Alternative VA1/VA3. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.10.2 SECTION D ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEIS 

Alternative VA4 was developed after the completion 

of the public comment period for the Project Tier II 

DEIS, through coordination and consultation with the 

USACE, the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (VDHR), US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and the Virginia Division of 

Environmental Quality (VDEQ). During discussions 

with these agencies, it was determined that none of 

the existing alternatives would satisfy the conflicting 

concerns of the agencies (endangered species and historic resources on Alternative VA1/VA3 

and wetland impacts on Alternative VA2). 

Alternative VA4 has the following characteristics: 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-35

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA4 does not 

require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Wynnhurst historic 

property, avoids impacts to 

the Michaux’s Sumac, and 

minimizes wetland impacts. 

 The design objectives are to reduce impacts to wetlands (compared to Alternative VA2), 

while avoiding a Section 4(f) use of Wynnhurst historic resource and impacts to the 

population of Michaux’s Sumac. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

A Project update meeting was held in Alberta, VA, on July 14, 2011, to provide the public 

and local officials an opportunity to learn about VA4 in Section D (as well as a newly 

developed alternative VA4 in Section G). The public was informed that all alternatives were 

still under consideration, and they were asked to provide comments. Approximately 60 

people attended the meeting. A meeting summary can be found in Appendix B. 

2.2.10.3 SECTION D PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section D is Alternative VA4. 

Alternative VA4 does not require a Section 4(f) use of the 

Wynnhurst historic property, avoids impacts to the delineated 

population of the Michaux’s Sumac, and minimizes wetland 

impacts (compared to Alternative VA2). This alternative was 

determined to be an acceptable preferred alternative by USACE, 

VDHR, USFWS, and VDEQ at an interagency meeting held on 

April 12, 2011. 

Following the Project Tier II DEIS, six comments were received from the public expressing 

preference for an alternative: two were in favor of Alternative VA1/VA3 and four were in 

favor of Alternative VA2 (based on property impacts). Following the July 2011 Project 

update meeting where Alternative VA4 was introduced, six comments were submitted 

regarding a preference for an alternative: five comments were in favor of VA4 and one 

comment was in favor of VA1. 

2.2.10.4 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Rawlings Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Kress Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Flat Rock Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for 

a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Zero Road 

2.2.10.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

The entire railroad alignment for Preferred Alternative VA4 and the associated road work 

was developed subsequent to publication of the Project Tier II DEIS. Detailed maps can be 

found in Appendix R, maps 053-062. No changes have been made to Alternative VA4 since 

the alternative was presented to the public at the Project update meeting in July 2011. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-36

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-9 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-37

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VA1 has fewer impacts 

compared to Alternative 

VA2, as well as a lower 

cost. It also has a better 

operability and 

constructability rating. 

2.2.11 SECTION E 

The section begins north of Alberta, VA, at railroad MP S-57.5 and extends to south of Alberta at 

railroad MP S-62, a distance of 4.21 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3, which are on common 

alignment, and 4.29 miles for Alternative VA2 (see Section E map, Figure 2-10). Alberta is the 

major population center for the section. The section is located within the Chowan River Basin 

and has no major river crossings. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, 

maps 063-066. 

2.2.11.1 SECTION E ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The design flattens the curve in existing railroad ROW near Chestnut Road to a greater 

degree compared to Alternative VA2, then follows existing railroad ROW through the 

Town of Alberta, VA 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The design also flattens the curve in existing railroad ROW near Chestnut Road, but 

requires more curvature and alignment length than VA1/VA3. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with VA1/VA3 on existing railroad ROW 

through the Town of Alberta, VA. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.11.2 SECTION E PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section E is the common 

alignment of Alternative VA1/VA3. Henceforth, the preferred 

alternative for this section will be referred to as Alternative 

VA1. Table ES-5 shows that VA1 has fewer wetland and 

stream impacts, residential relocations, and vibration impacts 

when compared to Alternative VA2, as well as a lower cost. 

Alternative VA1 also has a better operability and 

constructability rating. There were no public comments 

expressing a preference for alternatives in this section; however, three comments from 

regulatory and resource agencies stated a preference for Alternative VA1. 

2.2.11.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Planned Tobacco Heritage Trail on the Old Virginian Railroad ROW – pedestrian 

underpass, railroad bridge over trail 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-38

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Chestnut Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Littlemont Road/Church Street - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Second Avenue (existing crossing closed, road realigned to provide a new Grade 

Separated crossing located to the north) - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Main Street - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Beaver Dam Road 

 Virginia Avenue 

2.2.11.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

No changes were made subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-39

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-10 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-40

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.12 SECTION F 

The section begins south of Alberta, VA, at railroad MP S-62 and ends south of Tower Road at 

railroad MP S-66.5, a distance of 4.28 miles (see Section F map, Figure 2-11). The greatest 

population density is located at the northern portion of the section in the vicinity of Alberta. The 

section is located in the Chowan River Basin and there are no major river crossings. Detailed 

maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 067-070. 

2.2.12.1 SECTION F ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

All alternatives are on common alignment in this section. Table ES-5 displays information 

regarding potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information 

about operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative VA1/VA2/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.12.2 SECTION F PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section F is the common alignment of Alternatives 

VA1/VA2/VA3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. 

2.2.12.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 I-85 - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Boydton Plank Road - (new roadway bridge over railroad to be constructed for realigned 

southbound lanes); on-site detour 

 Christanna Highway - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Rosebud Lane - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Millville Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 

2.2.12.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

No changes were made subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-41

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-11 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-42

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA4 was 

developed in response 

to agency comments 

and revised 

information regarding 

a historic resource. 

2.2.13 SECTION G 

The section begins south of Tower Road at railroad MP S-66.5 and extends to the Meherrin River 

at railroad MP S-70, a distance of 3.61 miles for Alternatives VA1, 3.66 miles for Alternative 

VA2, and 3.55 miles for Alternative VA3. In response to agency comments and revised 

information regarding a historic resource, an additional alternative was 

developed for this section (Alternative VA4). A description of 

Alternative VA4 is provided below. The existing railroad ROW 

follows a series of sharp reverse (i.e., “S”) curves through this section. 

The section is located within the Chowan River Basin and includes the 

Meherrin River crossing. See Figure 2-12 for a map of Section G. 

Maps with greater detail can be found in Appendix R, maps 071-074. 

2.2.13.1 SECTION G ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Initially, Alternative VA1 and Alternative VA2 were developed to straighten the “S” curves 

through the section while generally following the existing inactive railroad ROW (with 

Alternative VA2 more closely following the railroad ROW than Alternative VA1). 

Subsequent cultural resource investigations determined that both alternatives would impact 

the Oak Shades historic resource, which is eligible for the NRHP. Alternative VA3 was 

developed in an attempt to avoid impacts to Oak Shades; however, an additional historic 

resource (the Tourist Guest House) was later identified along the VA3 alignment. Table ES-5 

displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as 

well as information about operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative VA1 has the following characteristics and potential impacts and benefits: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves, but 

more closely follow the existing railroad ROW compared to Alternative VA3 

 The alternative has no effect on the Tourist Guest under Section 106 of the NHPA, but 

has an adverse effect on the Oak Shades historic property and also requires a use of the 

Oak Shades resource under Section 4(f). 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics and potential impacts and benefits: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 Of all the alternatives, it most closely follows the existing railroad ROW. 

 The alternative has no effect on the Tourist Guest House historic property, but has an 

adverse effect on the Oak Shades historic property and also requires a use of the Oak 

Shades resource under Section 4(f). 

 Limiting speed is 90 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

Alternative VA3 has the following characteristics and potential impacts and benefits: 

 The design objectives are to avoid impacts to the Oak Shades historic property and to 

improve train performance by straightening curves. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-43

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA4 was 

developed based on the 

impacts of the other 

three alternatives and 

input from the public 

and resource agencies. 

 The alternative is on new alignment west of the existing railroad ROW, providing the 

best train performance (compared to Alternative VA1 and Alternative VA2) because it 

has the straightest alignment through the section. 

 The alternative has an adverse effect on the Tourist Guest House under Section 106 of 

the NHPA and would require a Section 4(f) use of the resource (the Tourist Guest House 

was identified as a historic resource eligible for the NRHP during the development of 

Alternative VA3). 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

2.2.13.2 SECTION G ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEIS 

Alternative VA4 was developed after publication of the Project Tier II DEIS based on the 

impacts associated with the other three alternatives and input from the public and resource 

agencies. Four comments were received from the public expressing preference for an 

alternative presented in the Project Tier II DEIS: three people indicated a preference for 

Alternative VA1, and one person indicated a preference for 

Alternative VA2. However, at the July 15, 2010, public hearing in 

Alberta, VA, several members of the public expressed concerns 

about the property impacts associated with Alternative VA3. 

Although Alternative VA3 would not relocate any residences, it 

would require substantial ROW acquisition from several large 

family farms. 

At a September 27, 2010, interagency meeting, USACE and VDEQ 

expressed concerns that Alternative VA2, which was presented in the Project Tier II DEIS as 

a possible Section 4(f) avoidance alternative for Section G, had the greatest stream and 

wetland impacts compared to Alternatives VA1 and VA3. Based on the discussion at this 

meeting VDHR requested additional research into the history of the Tourist Guest House to 

validate the appropriateness of the recommended NRHP-eligible boundary, which at that time 

encompassed the entire 55-acre tax parcel. On November 17, 2010, VDHR concurred with 

research completed by the Project team proposing a smaller eligible boundary for the Tourist 

Guest House that only encompasses the areas known to have been used during its period of 

historic significance. Based on this revised boundary, the Project team determined that a new 

alternative could potentially be developed to avoid a Section 4(f) use, minimize property 

impacts (compared to Alternative VA3), reduce stream and wetland impacts (compared to 

Alternative VA2), and provide similar train performance to Alternative VA3. Alternative 

VA4 was the result of this effort. 

Alternative VA4 has the following characteristics and potential impacts and benefits: 

 It provides similar train performance compared to Alternative VA3 

 The design calls for construction of a new single-track, and potentially a second track 

for a passing siding if required through this location 

 The alternative requires no Section 4(f) use of the Tourist Guest House or Oak Shades 

historic properties, and is favorably located closer to the rear of the properties it crosses 

compared to Alternative VA3; however, it would require a Section 4(f) use of the 

Orgain House (identified after the alternative was developed; see below). 

 The alternative has the greatest amount of stream impacts of all of the alternatives 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-44

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The preferred alternative 

is Alternative VA3. 

There is no alternative 

that can avoid a Section 

4(f) use of all historic 

resources. Therefore, a 

“least overall harm” 

analysis was completed. 

A Project update meeting was held in Alberta, VA, on July 14, 2011, to provide the public 

and local officials an opportunity to learn about VA4 in Section G (as well as the newly 

developed alternative VA4 in Section D). The public was informed that all alternatives were 

still under consideration, and they were asked to provide comments. Approximately 60 

people attended the meeting. Following the meeting, four comments were submitted 

regarding a preference for an alternative: one was opposed to Alternative VA4, while three 

were in favor of Alternative VA4. Refer to Appendix B for a meeting summary. 

In response to a comment about historic resources received at the Project update meeting, 

additional surveys were completed to ensure all resources eligible for the NRHP were 

identified within the Study Area in Section G. As a result of those surveys, a previously unsurveyed historic resource, the Orgain House, was identified as eligible for the NRHP. It was 

determined that Alternative VA4 would have an adverse effect on the Orgain House under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. It would also require a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

It should be noted that the Section 106 effect determination for the Oak Shades property was 

revised from “no adverse effect” as presented in the Project Tier II DEIS based on additional 

information and coordination with VDHR. During a review of all Project alternatives in 

October 2011, VDHR noted that although the railroad tracks for Alternative VA2 would be 

located down a steep escarpment from the Oak Shades main house, theVA2 alignment does 

not follow the historic location of the railroad and intrudes within the established NRHPeligible boundary by approximately 100 feet, thus moving the railroad bed closer to the 

historic core of Oak Shades. 

2.2.13.3 SECTION G PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section G is Alternative VA3. Through the development of 

Project alternatives, it was determined that there is no prudent and 

feasible alternative that can avoid a Section 4(f) use of all historic 

resources. Therefore, a “least overall harm” analysis was 

completed. This determination is made by balancing the factors 

listed in 23 CFR 774.3(c): 

i. The ability to mitigate adverse impacts of each Section 

4(f) property (including any measures that result in 

benefits to the property); 

ii. The relative severity of the remaining harm, after 

mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features 

that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

iii. The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

iv. The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

v. The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the Project; 

vi. After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not 

protected by Section 4(f); and 

vii. Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

The following factors were included in the “least overall harm” analysis: 

 Alternative VA1 – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Oak Shades; 654 

feet of stream impacts; neutral rating for operability and constructability (operability is 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-45

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The resource 

agencies endorsed 

Alternative VA3. 

Alternative VA3 is the preferred 

alternative because it is possible 

to mitigate the impacts to the 

Tourist Guest House; impacts to 

historic resources are not as 

severe; it minimizes impacts to 

streams; and it meets the purpose 

for the project the greatest degree. 

related to the ability of the alternative to meet the purpose and need for the Project); total 

cost of $36.46 million 

 Alternative VA2 – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Oak Shades; 914 

feet of stream impacts; negative rating for operability and constructability; total cost of 

$29.47 million 

 Alternative VA3 – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Tourist Guest 

House; 500 feet of stream impacts; positive rating for operability and constructability; 

total cost of $36.92 million 

 Alternative VA4 – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Orgain House; 

1,095 feet of stream impacts; positive rating for operability and constructability; total 

cost of $40.73 million. 

Input from the cultural and natural resource agencies was also used to evaluate the 

alternatives. In a discussion with VDHR on October 11, 2011, it was determined that: 

 Alternative VA4 would have the most substantial impact to historic resources (because 

the main house on the Orgain property is within its construction limits) 

 Alternative VA1 would have the second most substantial impact (because it would bring 

the railroad alignment within 50 feet of the main house on the Oak Shades property) 

 The impacts of Alternative VA2 (to Oak Shades) and Alternative VA3 (to the Tourist 

Guest House) can be mitigated. Such mitigation could include landscaping to shield 

visual impacts. 

From a water resources perspective, the resource agencies endorsed 

Alternative VA3. In a correspondence dated May 25, 2011, VDEQ 

noted that while they “recognize the problems associated with 

impacting the Tourist Guest House and/or Oak Shades,” they 

identified Alternative VA3 as “the least environmentally damaging 

option that preserves the operational purpose of the Project, followed 

by VA1.” Subsequently, in a letter dated June 29, 2011, USACE stated that they believe 

Alternative VA3 is the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” in Section G 

and noted that if another alternative was selected, “further avoidance and minimization will 

have to be incorporated into the Project to reduce the impacts to aquatic resources of the 

selected alternative to a level comparable to or less than those of VA3 in order for [them] to 

consider authorizing it.” 

Based on the above, Alternative VA3 was selected 

as the preferred alternative in Section G because it 

is possible to mitigate the impacts to the Tourist 

Guest House; the impacts to historic resources are 

not as severe (compared to Alternative VA2 and 

VA4); it minimizes impacts to streams (of all 

alternatives); and it meets the purpose and need for 

the Project to the greatest degree (compared to 

Alternatives VA1 and VA2, which do not have 

positive operability and constructability). 

2.2.13.4 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Grandy Road - roadway bridge over railroad 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-46

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Old Indian Road at railroad MP S-68.5 - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, 

refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Old Indian Road at railroad MP S-69.5 - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, 

refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 

2.2.13.5 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Meherrin River – Although the existing track has been removed throughout this area of the 

Project, the existing concrete ballast deck single-track bridge, built in 1975, is in good 

condition. Under Preferred Alternative VA3 the Project intends to utilize the piers and 

substructure of the existing bridge, as well as the superstructure (girders and decking). 

2.2.13.6 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

No changes were made subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-47

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-12 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-48

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA1 has 

fewer impacts to streams, 

important farmland, and 

forested uplands; along 

with fewer noise and 

vibration impacts. 

2.2.14 SECTION H 

The section begins at the Meherrin River at railroad MP S-70 and extends to north of Wray Road 

at railroad MP S-76, a distance of 5.53 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3, which are on 

common alignment, and 5.58 miles for Alternative VA2 (see Section H map, Figure 2-13). The 

section is located within the Chowan River Basin and includes a portion of the Meherrin River 

crossing. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 075-080. 

2.2.14.1 SECTION H ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves and 

provide a faster design speed compared to Alternative VA2. 

 The alternative has a straighter alignment through the northern end of the section in 

Brunswick County compared to Alternative VA2. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with Alternative VA1/VA3 from near the 

Brunswick County/Mecklenburg County line, southward to the end of the section. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.14.2 SECTION H PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section H is the common 

alignment of Alternative VA1/VA3. Henceforth, the 

preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. Alternative VA1 is the preferred 

alternative in Section H because it has fewer impacts to 

streams, prime and important farmland, and forested 

uplands; along with fewer noise and vibration impacts 

(Table ES-5). Although Alternative VA1 has a somewhat 

higher total cost, the long-term maintenance cost will be 

lower compared to Alternative VA2. This is due to the fact 

that the more abundant curves in the Alternative VA2 create a curvier and longer alignment, 

which would face greater wear and be more costly to maintain over time. This is reflected in 

the positive operability and constructability rating for Alternative VA1. There were no public 

comments indicating a preference for a particular alternative within this section. 

2.2.14.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-49

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Tanner Town Road - underpass (road under railroad); on-site detour 

 Wilson Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Forksville Road 

2.2.14.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

No changes were made subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-50

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-13 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-51

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA1 has fewer 

impacts to important farmland 

and forested uplands and a 

lower cost. While Alternative 

VA1 has six more residential 

relocations compared to 

Alternative VA2, relocation 

sites would be identified within 

the surrounding community. 

2.2.15 SECTION I 

The section begins north of Wray Road at railroad MP S-76 and extends to south of La Crosse, 

VA, at railroad MP S-80, a distance of 3.78 miles for all the alternatives (see Section I map, 

Figure 2-14). Alternatives VA1 and VA3 are on common alignment throughout the section. The 

section is located within the Chowan River Basin and the Roanoke River Basin and includes no 

major stream crossings. The Town of La Crosse, VA, is the major population center for the 

section. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 080-083. 

2.2.15.1 SECTION I ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alternative follows a straighter line compared to Alternative VA2 to straighten a 

reverse (i.e., “S”) curve in the existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with Alternative VA1/VA3 except for north of 

La Crosse where different designs are used to straighten a reverse (i.e., “S”) curve in the 

existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.15.2 SECTION I PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section I is the common alignment of Alternatives VA1/ VA3. 

Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as Alternative VA1. 

Table ES-5 shows that Alternatives VA1 and VA2 have identical impacts to water resources 

with nominal stream impacts and no wetlands impacts. 

However, Alternative VA1 has fewer impacts to prime 

and important farmland and forested uplands and a 

lower cost. While Alternative VA1 has six more 

residential relocations compared to Alternative VA2, 

there appears to be comparable housing and vacant land 

available in the vicinity of the displaced residences, so it 

is anticipated that suitable relocation sites would be 

identified within the surrounding community. (Refer to 

Section 4.11 for more information on comparable 

housing.) There was one public comment in support of 

Alternative VA2, and one public comment in support of 

Alternative VA1/VA3. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-52

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.15.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Wray Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

 US-58 - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 To Be Named (new roadway on new location, less than on quarter mile north of the 

existing Northington Road at-grade crossing) - underpass (road under railroad); 

construction on new location 

 Planned Tobacco Heritage Trail - pedestrian underpass (pedestrian pathway under 

railroad) 

 Marengo Road/Jones Street - underpass (road under railroad); on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Northington Road 

 Pine Street 

 Hillcrest Road 

 Main Street 

 Morris Town Circle 

2.2.15.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Central Avenue - The alignment was shortened on the north end to avoid impacts to the 

La Crosse Hotel historic resource. 

 Marengo Road – The road under the railroad was widened to three lanes, with curb and 

gutter, which will accommodate a sidewalk along the underpass. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-53

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-14 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-54

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA2 is the 

Section 4(f) avoidance 

alternative and minimizes 

impacts to streams, prime 

and important farmlands, 

and forested uplands. 

2.2.16 SECTION J 

The section begins south of La Crosse, VA, at railroad MP S-80 and extends to north of Bracey, 

VA, at railroad MP S-84, a distance of 3.99 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3, which are on 

common alignment, and 4.10 miles for Alternative VA2 (see Section J map, Figure 2-15). The 

section is located within the Roanoke River Basin and includes no major stream crossings. 

Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 084-087. 

2.2.16.1 SECTION J ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves and 

provide a faster design compared to Alternative VA2. 

 The alternative would have an adverse effect on the Wright Farmstead historic resource 

under Section 106 of the NHPA and would also require a Section 4(f) use of the 

property. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train 

performance by straightening curves, and to avoid 

impacts to the Wright Farmstead historic property. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.16.2 SECTION J PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section J is Alternative VA2. Alternative VA2 is the Section 4(f) 

avoidance alternative in this section and minimizes impacts to streams, prime and important 

farmlands, and forested uplands (see Table ES-5). Comments from the resource and 

regulatory agencies indicated a preference for Alternative VA2, while one individual 

indicated a preference for Alternative VA1/VA3. 

2.2.16.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Bellfield Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Marengo Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Gaulding Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-55

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.16.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Gaulding Road – The proposed road alignment with roadway bridge over the railroad 

was shifted approximately 100 feet north to allow traffic to be maintained on the 

existing road during construction. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-56

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-15 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-57

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA1 is the Section 

4(f) avoidance alternative that 

minimizes impacts to streams, 

wetlands, and important 

farmlands. It has a better 

operability and constructability 

rating, which would result in 

lower long-term maintenance. 

2.2.17 SECTION K 

The section begins north of Bracey, VA, at railroad MP S-84 and extends to the Roanoke 

River/Lake Gaston at railroad MP S-89, a distance of 4.96 miles for Alternatives VA1 and VA3, 

which are on common alignment, and 4.94 miles for Alternative VA2 (see Section K map, Figure 

2-16). The section is located within the Roanoke River Basin and includes the crossing of the 

Roanoke River. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 087-091. 

2.2.17.1 SECTION K ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

The design objectives for all alternatives in this section are to improve train performance by 

straightening curves. All alternatives would also cross the Roanoke River/Lake Gaston in the 

location of the existing bridge and plans are to use the existing bridge piers (pending results 

of a detailed bridge investigation that would occur prior to final design). Table ES-5 displays 

information regarding impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information 

about operability, constructability, and cost for the alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/ VA3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design provides a faster design speed compared to Alternative VA2. 

 The alternative avoids impacts to the Bracey Historic District. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 Has a neutral operability and constructability rating. 

Alternative VA2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design also straightens curves near Bracey to achieve improved design speed, but its 

use of the existing Highway 903 over the railroad results in a design that has a lower 

limiting speed. 

 The alternative has an adverse effect on the Bracey Historic District under Section 106 

of the NHPA and would require a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

 Limiting speed is 100 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, likely resulting in increased long-term maintenance for the rails and 

train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and acceleration 

through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

2.2.17.2 SECTION K PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section K is the common 

alignment of Alternatives VA1/VA3. Henceforth, the 

preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as 

Alternative VA1. Alternative VA1 is the Section 4(f) 

avoidance alternative in Section K and minimizes impacts 

to streams, wetlands, and prime and important farmlands 

(see Table ES-5). Alternative VA1 also has a better 

operability and constructability rating, which would result 

in lower long-term maintenance for the rails and train 

equipment compared to Alternative VA2. There was one 

comment from an individual stating a preference for 

Alternative VA2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-58

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.17.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Marengo Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Highway 903 - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 None 

2.2.17.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

No changes were made subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-59

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-16 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-60

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.18 SECTION L 

The section begins at the Roanoke River/Lake Gaston bridge (railroad MP S-89) and extends into 

North Carolina, ending north of Norlina, NC, at railroad MP S-95, a distance of 5.75 miles for 

Alternatives VA1/NC1 and VA3/NC3, which are on common alignment, and 5.96 miles for 

Alternative VA2/NC2 (see Figure 2-17). The section is located within the Roanoke River Basin 

and includes the crossing of the Roanoke River. Detailed maps for this section can be found in 

Appendix R, maps 091-095. 

2.2.18.1 SECTION L ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

The design objectives for all alternatives in this section are to improve train performance by 

straightening curves. Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the 

human and natural environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, 

and cost for the alternatives. 

Alternative VA1/NC1/VA3/NC3 has the following characteristics and potential impacts and 

benefits: 

 The design provides a faster design speed compared to Alternative VA2/NC2 by 

straightening the large eastward curve of the existing railroad that begins just north of 

the Virginia/North Carolina state line. 

 The alternative avoids impacts to the Granite Hall/Fitts House historic property, which is 

located in Virginia just north of the North Carolina state line. 

 The “new location” portion of the railroad alignment for this alternative crosses through 

a network of stream tributaries before rejoining the existing railroad ROW near Wise 

Five Forks Road. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative VA2/NC2 has the following characteristics and potential impacts and benefits: 

 The design straightens curves, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 

VA1/VA3/NC1/NC3, by maximizing use of the existing railroad ROW. 

 The alternative stays within existing railroad ROW near the Granite Hall/Fitts House 

historic resource. However, the proposed road realignment and bridge construction 

along Paschall Road would result in an adverse effect on the property under Section 106 

of the NHPA and require a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

 Limiting speed is 100 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, likely resulting in increased long-term maintenance for the rails and 

train equipment, and a lower speed and longer alignment. This would cause 

deceleration and acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and 

fuel use. 

2.2.18.2 SECTION L PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section L is the common alignment of Alternatives 

VA1/NC1/VA3/NC3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section will be referred 

to as Alternative VA1/NC1. Alternative VA1/NC1 is the Section 4(f) avoidance alternative 

in Section L. Table ES-5 shows that Alternative VA1/NC1 has greater stream and wetland 

impacts compared to VA2/NC2, but fewer impacts to prime and important farmlands, less 

residential relocation, fewer noise and vibration impacts, and a lower total cost. In addition, 

it has a neutral constructability and operability rating (compared to a negative rating for 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-61

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative VA1/NC1 has 

greater impacts compared to 

VA2/NC2, but fewer impacts to 

prime and important farmlands, 

less residential relocation, fewer 

noise and vibration impacts, and 

a lower total cost. 

Due to residential displacements, cost, 

and operability, as well as public 

sentiment, noise and vibration impacts, 

and impacts to prime and important 

farmlands, Alternative VA2/NC2 is not 

practicable. The impacts to streams and 

wetlands will be fully mitigated, and 

the design work will include 

coordination with USACE.

Alternative VA2/NC2) and has better support from 

the public. Seven public comments indicated a 

preference for Alternative VA1/NC1 compared to 

two for Alternative VA2/NC2. 

During Project coordination, USACE expressed 

concerns regarding the greater stream and wetland 

impacts on Alternative VA1/NC1 (2,809 feet of 

stream impacts and 0.57 acres of wetland impacts 

compared to 1,422 feet of stream impacts and 0.01 

acres of wetland impacts for Alternative VA2/NC2). In a letter to USACE dated January 6, 

2011, the Project team explained the differences between the alternatives. Based on the 

information in the letter, as well as previously submitted related information, USACE stated 

on January 13, 2011, that if the Project team assessed that Alternative VA2/NC2 is “not 

practicable due to residential displacements, cost, and operability, then [USACE] can concur 

with your assessment based on the information submitted.” Due to residential displacements, 

cost, and operability, as well as public sentiment, noise and vibration impacts, and impacts to 

prime and important farmlands, the Project team finds that Alternative VA2/NC2 is not 

practicable. The impacts to streams and wetlands will be fully mitigated, and the design work 

will include coordination with USACE. 

2.2.18.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated 

Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated 

Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Paschall Road- roadway bridge over 

railroad; on-site detour 

 Wise Five Forks Road- roadway bridge 

over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Felts Road 

 Faulkner Quarter Road 

2.2.18.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Roanoke River/Lake Gaston – Although the existing track has been removed throughout this 

area of the Project, the existing single-track bridge remains intact. Under Preferred 

Alternative VA1/NC1 the Project intends to utilize the piers and substructure of the existing 

bridge, as well as the superstructure (girders and decking). 

2.2.18.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Felts Road – The proposed roadway bridge over the railroad shown in the Project Tier II 

DEIS has been removed from the designs; the Project proposes to close this crossing, 

and construct a T-turn on the east side of the railroad. Additional evaluation subsequent 

to the Project Tier II DEIS led to a decision to eliminate the grade separation due to: low 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-62

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

traffic volumes, and the fact that properties on the west side of the railroad that that 

bridge was designed to serve would receive adequate access via the new access road 

(west of the railroad, connecting Felts Road at the north end to US1 at the south). 

 New Access Road (west of the railroad, connecting Felts Road at the north end to US-1 

at the south) – In response to comments, the alignment at the southern end was revised 

to reduce property impacts by shifting closer to an existing pathway, which moves the 

intersection further away from the intersection of US-1 and Carrie Dunn Road. In 

addition, the alignment was shifted slightly at the north end due to elimination of the 

proposed Felts Road bridge (described above). 

 Faulkner Quarter Road - The Project Tier II DEIS designs showed changes to the 

elevation of Faulkner Quarter Road in order to connect to the proposed new access road 

parallel to, and east of, the railroad. In order to reduce property impacts along Faulkner 

Quarter Road, the elevation of the new access road was raised (as shown in the 

Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS) such that changes to Faulkner Quarter Road are no 

longer required. Note, however, that the Faulkner Quarter Road existing at-grade 

railroad crossing is still proposed to be closed. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-63

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-17 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-64

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC1 minimizes stream 

impacts and has fewer impacts to 

forested uplands. Alternative NC1 

does not impact a repeater tower. 

The limiting speed for Alternative 

NC1 is 30 mph faster than the 

limiting speed of Alternative NC2. 

2.2.19 SECTION M 

The section begins north of Norlina, NC, at railroad MP S-95 and extends to southwest of 

Norlina, NC at railroad MP S-101, a distance of 6.14 miles for Alternatives NC1 and NC3, which 

are on common alignment, and 5.97 miles for Alternative NC2 (see Section M map, Figure 2-18). 

From the Ridgeway community southward to Raleigh, NC, the CSX S-Line tracks remain in 

place and there is active freight service. The section is located within both the Roanoke River 

Basin and the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and includes no major stream crossings. Norlina, NC, is 

the major population center in this section. Detailed maps for this section can be found in 

Appendix R, maps 096-102. 

2.2.19.1 SECTION M ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alignment provides better train performance due to a smoother curve in the 

approach to Norlina, NC at the north end of the section compared to Alternative NC2. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW, and more closely 

follow the existing curve in the approach to Norlina. 

 Limiting speed is 80mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

2.2.19.2 SECTION M PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section M is the 

common alignment of Alternatives NC1 and NC3. 

Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this 

section will be referred to as Alternative NC1. 

Table ES-5 shows that Alternative NC1 minimizes 

stream impacts and has fewer impacts to forested 

uplands compared to Alternative NC2. Neither 

alternative would impact wetlands. Alternative 

NC1 also does not impact a repeater tower that is a 

contributing element to the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad Corridor (a historic resource protected by Section 106 of the NHPA), whereas 

Alternative NC2 would require its relocation. In addition, the limiting speed for Alternative 

NC1 (110 mph) is 30 mph faster than the limiting speed of Alternative NC2, and Alternative 

NC1 has a neutral operability and constructability rating compared to a negative rating for 

Alternative NC2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-65

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Compared to Alternative NC2, Alternative NC1 has the same number of business relocations, 

one additional residential relocation, and fewer potentially impacted noise receptors. 

However, Alternative NC1 has a greater number of severely impacted noise receptors and a 

slightly greater number of structures potentially impacted by vibration compared to 

Alternative NC2. There were 11 comments received from the public expressing preference 

for an alternative based on property impacts. Seven people preferred Alternative NC1 and 

four people preferred Alternative NC2. 

2.2.19.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 US-158- replace existing bridge, construct new railroad bridge over roadway 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Warren Plains Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Ridgeway Drewry Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Weldon Road (close at railroad located on new location) 

 Town and Country east neighborhood entrance(close at railroad located on new 

location) 

 Town and Country west neighborhood entrance (close at railroad located on new 

location) 

 Ridgeway Warrenton Road 

2.2.19.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Washington Street – In the Town of Norlina, a connection between Town and Country 

Road, and Washington Street has been added to the designs. 

In response to comments, several modifications were made to the proposed roadwork for the 

area around the Ridgeway community (refer to Appendix R, map 102). The changes outlined 

below were made in coordination with Warren County, Kerr-Tar Council of Governments 

(the Rural Planning Organization) and the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch to better 

serve the needs of both the local community and the county as a whole. 

 St. Tammany Road/Ridgeway Warrenton Road - The Project Tier II DEIS designs, 

which showed closure of the existing Ridgeway Warrenton Road at-grade crossing and a 

realignment and roadway bridge over the railroad with a connection to St. Tammany 

Road on the north side of the railroad, have been eliminated. However, the existing atgrade crossing will still be closed under the current designs and traffic will be re-routed 

less than one half mile to the southwest to a new roadway bridge over the railroad for 

Ridgeway Drewry Road. 

 Ridgeway Drewry Road - A roadway bridge over the railroad for Ridgeway Drewry 

Road has been added to the designs. The road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to 

the northeast to cross over US-1 and the railroad on a bridge, and will connect to a new 

alignment for Axtell Ridgway Road on the south side of the railroad. The existing 

intersection between US-1 and Ridgeway Drewry Road will be retained and a short 

section of the old road will be used to provide a connection between US-1 and the new 

road and bridge. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-66

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Ridgeway Warrenton Road/Ed Petar Road/Axtell Ridgeway Road – The designs shown 

in the Project Tier II DEIS that were developed to provide a connection between 

Ridgeway Warrenton Road and Axtel Ridgeway Road have been revised. The new 

alignment retains connections to those roads on both ends, but is shifted away from the 

railroad in the middle section to accommodate an intersection with the new Ridgeway 

Drewry Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-67

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-18 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-68

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC1 minimizes 

impacts to streams, prime and 

important farmlands, and forested 

uplands. It has fewer residential 

relocations and potentially 

impacted noise receptors, and a 

positive operability and 

constructability rating. 

2.2.20 SECTION N 

The section begins southwest of Norlina, NC, at railroad MP S-101 and extends to north of 

Middleburg, NC, at railroad MP 105, a distance of 3.71 miles for Alternatives NC1 and NC3, 

which are on common alignment, and 3.77 miles for Alternative NC2 (see Section N map, Figure 

2-19). In all of Section N and southward to Raleigh, NC, the CSX S-Line tracks remain in place 

and there is active freight service. The section is located within both the Roanoke River Basin and 

the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and includes no major stream crossings. Detailed maps for this 

section can be found in Appendix R, maps 103-106. 

2.2.20.1 SECTION N ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening a series of curves 

in the railroad ROW beginning near Soul City Boulevard. 

 Limiting speed of 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive due to a faster design speed 

compared to Alternative NC2. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening the same series of 

curves in the railroad ROW beginning near Soul City Boulevard, but to a lesser degree 

than Alternative NC1/NC3, by maximizing use of the existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.20.2 SECTION N PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section N is the 

common alignment of Alternatives NC1 and NC3. 

Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section 

will be referred to as Alternative NC1. Table ES-5 

shows that Alternative NC1 minimizes impacts to 

streams, prime and important farmlands, and 

forested uplands compared to Alternative NC2. 

Alternative NC1 also has fewer residential 

relocations, fewer potentially impacted noise 

receptors, and a positive operability and 

constructability rating. There were no public comments expressing a preference for 

alternatives in this section. 

2.2.20.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-69

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Soul City Boulevard - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of proposed detour routes 

 Kimball Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Axtell Ridgeway Road 

 Collins Road, east of Crescent Drive 

 Collins Road, west of Manson Axtell Road (close road at railroad located on new 

location) 

2.2.20.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Kimball Road - The designs in the Project Tier II DEIS for the preferred alternative 

showed that Kimball Road would cross the new railroad alignment on a bridge, and 

would include a small westward shift in the existing road alignment. In addition, a new 

access road on the south side of the railroad was designed to intersect Kimball Road 

approximately 700 feet south of the railroad. The Project Tier II FEIS shows a revision 

that was developed to allow access to the nearby Manson Baptist Church during 

construction of the new road and roadway bridge over the railroad. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-70

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-19 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-71

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.21 SECTION O 

The section begins north of Middleburg, NC, at railroad MP S-105 and extends to the Greystone 

Quarry north of Henderson, NC, at railroad MP S-110; a distance of 5.09 miles for Alternative 

NC1, 5.16 miles for Alternative NC2, and 4.70 miles for Alternative NC3 (see Section O map, 

Figure 2-20). Middleburg is the major population center for this section. The section is located 

within both the Roanoke River Basin and the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and includes no major 

stream crossings. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 107-111. 

2.2.21.1 SECTION O ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 Limiting speed is 90 mph. 

 The alignment stays within existing railroad ROW through the Town of Middleburg, 

then swings east to straighten the large curves south of town. 

 The alternative requires ROW from the Holloway Farm historic property, which is 

located to the east of the large curves south of Middleburg. As a result, Alternative NC1 

would result in an adverse effect on the Holloway Farm under Section 106 of the NHPA 

and would require a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

 The alternative has a faster design speed than Alternative NC2, but a slower design 

speed than Alternative NC3 and a limiting speed of 90 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is also to improve train performance by straightening curves, but to 

a lesser degree than Alternative NC1. Alternative NC2 is on common alignment with 

Alternative NC1 through Middleburg and also shifts to the east to straighten the large 

curves in the existing railroad ROW south of town, but stays closer to the existing 

railroad ROW than Alternative NC1. 

 Similar to Alternative NC1, Alternative NC2 would result in an adverse effect on the 

Holloway Farm under Section 106 of the NHPA and require a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource 

 Limiting speed is 80 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

Alternative NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to avoid impacts to the Holloway Farm historic property and 

improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-72

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC3 

minimizes wetland, 

noise, and vibration 

impacts and has the 

fewest residential 

relocations.

 The alternative leaves the existing railroad ROW at the north end of the section, 

traversing to the east of Middleburg and east of the Holloway Farm historic property, 

before rejoining the existing railroad ROW just north of the Greystone Quarry. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.21.2 SECTION O PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section O is Alternative NC3, which 

is the Section 4(f) avoidance alternative in this section. Table ES5 shows that this alternative also minimizes wetland, noise, and 

vibration impacts, and has the fewest residential relocations. It 

does have greater stream and riparian buffer impacts, but those 

impacts will be fully mitigated, and the design work will include 

coordination with USACE. Alternative NC3 also had greater 

public support. Seven people indicated a preference for 

Alternative NC3, three people preferred Alternative NC1, and one person preferred 

Alternative NC2. 

2.2.21.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Carol Street - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Brookston Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for 

a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Greystone Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Currin Road (close at railroad located on new location) 

2.2.21.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

No changes were made subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-73

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-20 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-74

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.22 SECTION P 

The section begins north of Henderson, NC, at railroad MP S-110 and ends north of Kittrell, NC, 

at railroad MP S-118, a distance of 7.99 miles (see Section P map, Figure 2-21). The City of 

Henderson is the major population center in this section. The section is located within both the 

Roanoke River Basin and the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and there are no major river crossings. 

Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 111-118. 

2.2.22.1 SECTION P ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

All alternatives are on common alignment in this section. Table ES-5 displays information 

regarding potential impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as information 

about operability, constructability, and cost. 

Alternative NC1/NC2/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW through 

Henderson. 

 The limiting speed is 80 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.22.2 SECTION P PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section P is the common alignment of Alternatives 

NC1/NC2/NC3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this section will be referred to as 

Alternative NC1. 

2.2.22.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 US-1 Bypass (north end) - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Charles Street- underpass, railroad bridge over roadway 

 US-1 Bypass (south end) - roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Warrenton Road- underpass (road under railroad); on-site detour. 

 Main Street - underpass (road under railroad); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Andrews Avenue - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Peachtree Street - pedestrian underpass (pedestrian pathway under railroad) 

 Alexander Avenue - roadway bridge over railroad; construction on new location 

 JP Taylor Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Bear Pond Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for 

a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Oliver Drive 

 Harris Street 

 Unnamed crossing south of Crozier Street 

 Rock Spring Street 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-75

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Montgomery Street 

 Winder Street 

 Orange Street 

 East Spring Street 

 Chavasse Avenue 

 Miriam Avenue/St. Matthews Street 

 Welcome Avenue 

 East Minerals Road 

2.2.22.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

In response to comments from the City of Henderson on the Project Tier II DEIS, several 

changes were made to the road work designs and are presented in the Richmond to Raleigh 

Tier II FEIS. The revisions are to road work only, and did not affect selection of the 

preferred railroad alternative. A Project update meeting was held in Henderson, on 

September 11, 2012, to provide the public an opportunity to learn about the road work 

revisions and provide comments. Attendance at the meeting was 110 and 16 written 

comments were received; refer to Appendix B for a summary of comments. No changes 

were made to the revisions subsequent to the Project update meeting. The revisions presented 

in the Project Tier II FEIS are outlined below. 

 New roundabout in Downtown Henderson - In response to comments on the Project Tier 

II DEIS from the public and from the City of Henderson, a new roundabout was 

developed for the downtown area west of the railroad tracks. As was shown for the 

Project Tier II DEIS, an underpass will be constructed for Main Street (the railroad will 

cross over the road on a bridge). However, with the revision, Main Street and N. 

Beckford Drive will connect to the roundabout and provide east-west connectivity; N. 

Chestnut Street and N. Garnett Street will connect to the roundabout and provide northsouth connectivity. In addition, the new designs eliminate the need for the revisions to 

John’s Street that were shown in the Project Tier II DEIS. 

 Andrews Avenue - The designs were revised on the west side of the railroad such that 

the proposed retaining walls were shortened and associated new access roads on the 

north side of Andrews Avenue were eliminated. Designs in this area are constrained by 

the close proximity of the surrounding development situated on small lots. The longer 

retaining walls shown in the Project Tier II DEIS protected more properties from fill dirt 

associated with the approach to the roadway bridge over the railroad; however, driveway 

access along Andrews Avenue was not retained. Instead, alternative new access from 

the rear of the properties was included for the properties on the north side of Andrews 

Avenue. Analysis subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS showed that similar new rear 

access will need to be developed for the properties on the south side of Andrews 

Avenue. Based on the additional costs associated with constructing the longer retaining 

walls and the potentially unfavorable property impacts to the properties on both sides of 

Andrews Avenue that the retaining walls were attempting to protect, it was determined 

that the retraining walls should be shortened and the residential properties assumed to be 

potential relocations. Additionally, in response to comments from the City of 

Henderson, an eastbound left turn lane was added to Andrews Avenue at Rowland 

Street. 

 Alexander Avenue - In response to comments from the City and from the public, the 

Alexander Avenue design was revised to allow Nicholas Street to connect on the east 

side of the railroad, thereby retaining existing north-south connectivity. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-76

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 J P Taylor Road - In response to comments on the Project Tier II DEIS received from 

the City and nearby businesses regarding impacts to the existing road network, revisions 

were made to the J P Taylor Road design and several other nearby roads. The alignment 

for JP Taylor Road was shifted to provide a less expensive way for traffic to be 

maintained during construction. Nicholas Street on the east side and parallel to the 

railroad was extended southward to connect to J P Taylor Road across from Warehouse 

Road, providing north-south connectivity. These new designs eliminated the need for 

the King Street and Welcome Avenue extensions proposed in the Project Tier II DEIS. 

 Raleigh Road at Belmont Drive and Belmont Drive - In response to comments from the 

City, these roads were widened to accommodate turn lanes. 

 Raleigh Road at Bear Pond Road - Raleigh Road was widened to accommodate turn 

lanes; this design was shown on the Project Tier II DEIS public hearing maps, but did 

not appear in the Project Tier II DEIS Appendix R Map Book. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-77

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-21 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-78

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC1 has greater impacts 

to important farmland and forested 

uplands and more residential 

relocations. Based on the lower 

limiting speed and negative rating 

for operability and constructability 

for Alternative NC2, Alternative 

NC1 is the preferred alternative.

2.2.23 SECTION Q 

The section begins north of Kittrell, NC, at railroad MP S-118 and extends to the Tar River at 

railroad MP S-125.75, a distance of 7.70 miles for Alternatives NC1 and NC3, which are on 

common alignment, and 7.73 miles for Alternative NC2 (see Section Q map, Figure 2-22). The 

Town of Kittrell is the major population center in this section. The section is located in the TarPamlico River Basin and includes the Tar River crossing. Detailed maps for this section can be 

found in Appendix R, maps 118-124. 

2.2.23.1 SECTION Q ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with Alternative NC2, except south of Kittrell, 

where the alignment shifts east to flatten a curve in the existing railroad ROW. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with Alternative NC1/NC3, except south of 

Kittrell, where alignment follows the curve of the existing railroad, compared to 

Alternative NC1/NC3, which shifts eastward to flatten the curve. 

 Limiting speed is 90 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

2.2.23.2 SECTION Q PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section Q is the 

common alignment of Alternatives NC1 and NC3. 

Henceforth, the preferred alternative for this 

section will be referred to as Alternative NC1. 

Table ES-5 shows that Alternative NC1 has 

slightly greater impacts to prime and important 

farmland and forested uplands, and three more 

residential relocations compared to Alternative 

NC2, but otherwise the impacts are comparable 

between alternatives. Based on the lower limiting 

speed and negative rating for operability and constructability for Alternative NC2, 

Alternative NC1 is the preferred alternative. There were no public comments expressing a 

preference for alternatives in this section. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-79

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.23.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 S. Chavis Road - underpass, railroad over roadway 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Wildlife Lane - underpass (road under railroad); construction on new location 

 Edwards Road (Extension) - underpass (road under railroad); construction on new 

location 

 McClannahan Street/To Be Named - roadway bridge over railroad; construction on new 

location 

 Oak Ridge Church Road - underpass (road under railroad); on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Peter Gill Road 

 Chavis Road 

 Main Street 

 Beechtree Trail 

2.2.23.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Tar River - Under Preferred Alternative NC1 the Project intends to utilize the piers and 

substructure of the existing single-track bridge, as well as the superstructure (girders, and 

decking). There is active freight service in this location, and the existing concrete ballast 

single-track bridge built in 1975 is in good condition. There will be no impact to the 

historic Raleigh and Gaston Railroad bridge piers which are located in close proximity to the 

existing railroad bridge, but are no longer in use. 

2.2.23.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Extension of North Chavis Road (north of Kittrell) - In response to a property owner 

request, the public road will terminate approximately 250 feet south of the location 

presented in the Project Tier II DEIS; private driveway access will be determined during 

ROW acquisition. 

 Downtown Kittrell - Based on a request from the Town of Kittrell, the design shown in 

the Project Tier II DEIS for an extension of Church Street and roadway bridge over the 

railroad, and realignment of Williams Road, was eliminated and replaced with a design 

for a roadway bridge over the railroad further south at a realigned McClannahan Street. 

The new designs call for the road to be extended south to Kittrell Vance Avenue on the 

west side of the railroad, and extended north to Main Street on the east side of the 

railroad. In addition, Raleigh Road has been widened to accommodate turn lanes at the 

intersection with the new McClannahan Street extension. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-80

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-22 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-81

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The rail alignment crossed 

properties on Cornerstone 

Drive. These impacts were 

avoided by a shift in the 

rail alignment near 

Cornerstone Drive.

The recommendation is 

based on the more 

favorable operability and 

constructability rating, 

coupled with a similar 

degree of impacts to the 

environment

2.2.24 SECTION R 

The section begins at the Tar River at railroad MP S-125.75 and extends to north of Franklinton, 

NC, at railroad MP S-129, a distance of 3.21 miles for Alternatives NC1 and NC3, which are on 

common alignment, and 3.23 miles for Alternative NC2 (see Section R map Figure 2-23). The 

section is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and includes the Tar River crossing. Detailed 

maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 124-126. 

2.2.24.1 SECTION R ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alignment follows a straighter line east of the curve in the existing railroad ROW 

near Winston Street compared to Alternative NC2. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to maximize the use of existing railroad ROW. 

 The alignment also straightens the curve in the railroad near Winston Street, but follows 

the existing railroad ROW more closely. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.24.2 SECTION R PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section R is the common alignment of 

Alternatives NC1 and NC3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for 

this section will be referred to as Alternative NC1. The 

recommendation is based on the more favorable operability and 

constructability rating, coupled with a similar degree of impacts to the 

human and natural environment compared to Alternative NC2. As 

shown in Table ES-5, Alternative NC1 will impact approximately 500 

fewer feet of streams than Alternative NC2, but will impact more than 

10 acres of additional forested uplands and prime and important farmland. 

There was no difference in public support between alternatives. 

It should be noted that Table ES-5 shows no residential relocations for NC1. However, in 

straightening the existing railroad curve, the railroad 

alignment shown in the Project Tier II DEIS crossed 

properties on Cornerstone Drive in a subdivision that was 

developed after the ROW and relocation reports for the 

Project Tier II DEIS were completed in 2008. As described 

below, these impacts were avoided by a shift in the railroad 

alignment near Cornerstone Drive that was developed 

subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-82

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.24.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 To be Named (new road located approximately 0.3 miles north of Eric Medlin Road, 

connecting US-1 to Montgomery Road) - roadway bridge over railroad; construction on 

new location 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Winston Street (close at railroad located on new location) 

 Eric Medlin Road 

2.2.24.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Rail Alignment near Cornerstone Drive - The railroad alignment was shifted slightly 

westward to reduce impacts to a residential development that was constructed after the 

designs presented in the Project Tier II DEIS had been developed. 

 To be named (new road located north of Eric Medlin Road) - The bridge location was 

shifted to the west due to the revised railroad alignment described above. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-83

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-23 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-84

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The 

recommendation 

is based on public 

support and a 

smaller impact to 

streams. 

2.2.25 SECTION S 

The section begins north of Franklinton, NC, at railroad MP S-129 and extends to north of 

Youngsville, NC, at railroad MP S-136, a distance of 6.88 miles for Alternatives NC1 and NC3, 

which are on common alignment, and 6.71 miles for Alternative NC2 (see Section S map, Figure 

2-24). The Town of Franklinton is the major population center of this section. The existing 

railroad ROW follows a series of reverse (i.e., “S”) curves south of Franklinton. The section is 

located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and includes a crossing of Cedar Creek. Detailed maps 

for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 126-132. 

2.2.25.1 SECTION S ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves throughout 

the section 

 South of Franklinton, the alignment flattens a series of reverse (i.e., “S”) curves and 

crosses Cedar Creek on a new bridge east of the existing railroad bridge. 

 Limiting speed is 95 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves 

throughout the section, utilizing a faster design speed than Alternatives NC1/NC3. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with Alternative NC1/NC3 through the Town 

of Franklinton, then south of town the alignment provides an alternative approach to 

flattening a series of reverse (i.e., “S”) curves compared to Alternative NC1/NC3, and 

crosses Cedar Creek on a new bridge on the other side (west side) of the existing bridge. 

 Limiting speed is 95 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.25.2 SECTION S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section S is the common alignment 

of Alternatives NC1 and NC3. Henceforth, the preferred 

alternative for this section will be referred to as Alternative NC1. 

The recommendation is based on strong public support (267 for 

Alternative NC1 compared to 3 for Alternative NC2) and a 

smaller impact to streams. Table ES-5 shows that overall the 

alternatives have a similar degree of impacts to the human and 

natural environment. 

2.2.25.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Green Street- replace existing railroad bridge over roadway; off-site detour, refer to 

Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-85

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 To Be Named (new road on new location north of Franklinton Town Limits) - underpass 

(road under railroad); construction on new location 

 Mason Street - pedestrian underpass with ramp and stair access (pedestrian pathway 

under railroad) 

 College Street - pedestrian underpass (pedestrian pathway under railroad) 

 New pedestrian crossing near Hawkins Street - pedestrian underpass (pedestrian 

pathway under railroad) 

 Cedar Creek Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Bert Winston Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of proposed roads 

 Future NC 96 Bypass - roadway bridge over railroad; construction on new location 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Pearce Street 

 Joyner Street 

 Mason Street 

 College Street 

 Hawkins Street 

 Northbrook Drive (close at railroad located on new location) 

2.2.25.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Cedar Creek – There is active freight service in this location, however all alternatives 

presented in the Project Tier II DEIS require construction of a new roadway bridge over the 

creek in order to straighten a series of “s” curves in the existing railroad alignment. 

Under Preferred Alternative NC1, the Project will require construction of a new bridge on 

new piers east of the existing bridge. The historic Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge and Raleigh 

and Gaston Railroad bridge piers lie within the existing railroad ROW, but will not be 

impacted by the proposed Project alternatives. 

2.2.25.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Tanyard Street - In response to comments from the public, the proposed improvements 

to Tanyard Street were removed from the Project designs. An alternative design was 

developed for a north-south connection between East Green Street and East College 

Street near the eastern boundary of the Sterling Mill historic resource. 

 Mason Street - As a result of continued coordination with the Town of Franklinton, and 

the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), and in consultation 

with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), the design for a 

pedestrian bridge with towers that was shown in the Project Tier II DEIS was revised to 

provide a pedestrian underpass with ramps and stairs. 

 Northbrook Drive- In response to new information, the alignment was shifted to reduce 

impacts to the existing industrial development on Northbrook Drive. 

 Future NC 96 Bypass - The alignment of this new location road was shortened in 

conjunction with revisions made to Cross Street, described below in Section T. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-86

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-24 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-87

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC2 has 

slightly fewer impacts to 

streams, riparian buffers, 

wetlands, farmland, and 

forested uplands. 

2.2.26 SECTION T 

The section begins north of Youngsville, NC, at railroad MP S-136 and extends to north of Wake 

Forest, NC, at railroad MP S-139, a distance of 2.83 miles for Alternatives NC1 and NC3, which 

are on common alignment, and 2.96 miles for Alternative NC2 (see Section T map, Figure 2-25). 

The Town of Youngsville is the major population center of this section. The section is located in 

both the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and the Neuse River Basin, and includes no major stream 

crossings. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 132-134. 

2.2.26.1 SECTION T ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. 

Alternative NC1/NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objective is to improve train performance by straightening curves. 

 The alignment follows the existing railroad ROW through the center of Youngsville, 

NC, where the grade of the railroad would be lowered through town. South of town, the 

alignment flattens the wide curve of the existing railroad ROW near the industrial 

development at Nomaco Drive by following a straighter line on new ROW to the west. 

 Limiting speed is 110 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves, but use 

more existing railroad ROW than Alternatives NC1/NC3. 

 The alternative is on common alignment with Alternatives NC1/NC3 through the center 

of Youngsville where the railroad grade would be lowered; south of town the alignment 

provides some improvement to the wide curve in the existing railroad ROW, but stays 

more closely aligned with the existing rail. 

 Limiting speed is 95 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

2.2.26.2 SECTION T PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section T is the common alignment of 

Alternatives NC1 and NC3. Henceforth, the preferred alternative for 

this section will be referred to as Alternative NC1. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-88

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC2 has a lower 

limiting speed and a negative 

rating for operability and 

constructability. Alternative 

NC1 is the preferred 

alternative. 

Table ES-5 shows that Alternative NC2 has slightly 

fewer impacts to streams, riparian buffers, wetlands, 

farmland and forested uplands than Alternative NC1. 

However, Alternative NC2 has a lower limiting speed 

and a negative rating for operability and 

constructability. Based upon these considerations, 

Alternative NC1 is the preferred alternative. It should 

be noted that the greater stream and wetland impacts 

for Alternative NC1 (approximately 300 feet of stream and less than 0.1 acre of wetlands) are 

not significant in light of the entire Project and will be fully mitigated. Further, there would 

likely be 100 feet more stream impacts associated with Alternative NC2 as a result of a 

railroad detour route required during construction, so the effective difference in stream 

impacts is closer to 200 feet. Alternative NC1 also had greater public support: three people 

indicated a preference for NC1, while one person preferred NC2. 

2.2.26.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 None 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Franklin Street Extension - pedestrian bridge with ramp access over rail 

 Main Street - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G for a 

map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Pine Street - pedestrian bridge over railroad with ramp access 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Winston Street 

 Pine Street 

2.2.26.4 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

 Cross Street - In response to comments from the public and from the Town of 

Youngsville, the improvements to Nassau Street shown in the Project Tier II DEIS have 

been eliminated. Instead, Cross Street will be extended northward to intersect the Future 

NC 96 Bypass alignment, and will be used for the detour route during construction of 

the Main Street roadway bridge over the railroad. 

 Pine Street - The Project Tier II DEIS showed a closure of the at-grade crossing at Pine 

Street. In response to comments from the public and from the Town of Youngsville, a 

pedestrian bridge with ramps has been added to the designs at this location. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-89

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-25 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-90

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.2.27 SECTION U 

The section begins north of Wake Forest, NC, at railroad MP S-139 and extends to north Raleigh, 

NC (near Gresham Lake), at railroad MP S-148, a distance of 8.88 miles for Alternative NC1, 

8.89 miles for Alternative NC2, and 8.88 miles for Alternative NC3 (see Section U map, Figure 

2-26). Wake Forest is the major population center of this section, but the section also includes a 

populated area of North Raleigh. The section is located in the Neuse River Basin and includes a 

crossing of the Neuse River. Detailed maps for this section can be found in Appendix R, maps 

135-142. 

2.2.27.1 SECTION U ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives. The alternatives are on common alignment through Downtown Wake Forest, 

primarily on existing railroad ROW. 

South of downtown the existing railroad follows a series of reverse (i.e., “S”) curves. All 

three alternatives improve train performance by straightening these curves; however, they 

differ in the way they impact dual constraints posed by the Thales Academy, a one-building 

private K-12 school, to the east, and baseball fields associated with The Factory, an extensive 

private multi-sports complex, to the west. 

Alternative NC1 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves while 

minimizing impacts to the private baseball fields to the greatest extent possible (i.e., 

provide the needed reduction in railroad curvature but without fully avoiding impacts to 

the private school). 

 Limiting speed is 85 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

Alternative NC2 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves while 

minimizing impacts to both the private school and the private baseball fields (requiring 

ROW from both properties). 

 Limiting speed is 80 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is negative due to a sharper curvature in the 

railroad alignment, which would likely result in increased long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment, and a lower speed. This would cause deceleration and 

acceleration through the curves and lead to increased schedule time and fuel use. 

Alternative NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives are to improve train performance by straightening curves and to 

avoid impacts to the private school to the greatest extent possible, but allow greater 

impacts to the private baseball fields compared to Alternative NC2. 

 Limiting speed is 85 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is neutral. 

2.2.27.2 SECTION U PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section U is Alternative NC1 based primarily on balancing the 

degree of impacts to The Factory and the Thales Academy private school. While all three 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-91

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The preferred alternative 

is Alternative NC1, based 

on balancing the impacts 

to The Factory and the 

Thales Academy private 

school. 

alternatives have some degree of impact on the baseball complex, Alternative NC1 will be 

least harmful to its operation. Although The Factory is a private facility, its construction 

costs were defrayed by a grant from Wake County, NC, in recognition of the financial 

contributions of visitors attending annual tournaments. The facility is required to host 

baseball and softball tournaments throughout each year as a condition of the grant. 

Additionally, Alternative NC1 will avoid impacts to a large planned apartment complex 

located along Rogers Road. It is assumed the Thales Academy will be able to relocate within 

the community; no comments were received following the Project Tier II DEIS public 

hearings from the Town of Wake Forest, the school, or the public requesting that the Project 

avoid impacts to the school. 

Table ES-5 shows that, overall, the three alternatives have a 

similar level of impacts to the natural and human 

environment. Although Alternative NC2 minimizes impacts 

to streams (by approximately 460 feet), as well as to riparian 

buffers, the impacts for Alternative NC1 are not significant 

in light of the entire Project and will be fully mitigated. 

Alternative NC1 also has a higher limiting speed and 

operability and constructability rating compared to 

Alternative NC2 (and the same as Alternative NC3). There were five public comments on 

the Project Tier II DEIS that indicated a preference for an alternative in this section: two 

favored Alternative NC1 and three favored Alternative NC2. 

Comments about the preferred alternative were received at a Project update meeting that was 

held on May 15, 2012, to provide the public an opportunity to learn about revisions that had 

been made to road work in Section U subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. Eleven people 

were opposed to impacts to Thales Academy brought about by NC1, while four comments 

were provided in support of NC1. The meeting is described in greater detail below in 

2.2.27.5. 

2.2.27.3 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 Roosevelt Avenue- underpass, railroad over roadway 

 NC 98 Bypass – roadway bridge over railroad 

 Capital Boulevard/US-1 – roadway bridge over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Pedestrian Crossing near Cedar Avenue - pedestrian bridge over railroad with ramp 

access 

 Elm Avenue - pedestrian bridge over railroad 

 Holding Avenue - underpass (road under railroad); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Rogers Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Ligon Mill Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

 Durant Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Brick Street 

 Elm Avenue 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-92

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Friendship Chapel Road 

 Seawell Drive 

2.2.27.4 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Neuse River - There is active freight service in this location, and the existing single-track 

bridge with concrete ballast deck built in the early 1970s is in good condition. Under 

Preferred Alternative NC1, the Project intends to utilize the piers and substructure of the 

existing bridge, as well as the superstructure (girders and decking). The proposed work will 

not impact the historic Raleigh and Gaston Railroad bridge piers which are located in close 

proximity to the existing Neuse River railroad bridge, but are no longer in use. 

2.2.27.5 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

A Project update meeting was held in North Raleigh, on May 15, 2012, to provide the public 

an opportunity to learn about revisions that had been made to road work in Wake Forest and 

North Raleigh subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS, and to provide comments. Attendance 

at the meeting was 166, and 49 written comments were received. Refer to Appendix B for a 

summary of the meeting. All of the design changes discussed below were presented at the 

Project update meeting, except for Elm Avenue in Wake Forest where subsequent design 

changes were made in response to comments provided at the meeting. 

 Elm Avenue - The area around Elm Avenue presents several design constraints 

including topography, dense development, and the surrounding Downtown Wake Forest 

Historic District. The Project Tier II DEIS called for the existing at-grade crossing at 

Elm Avenue to be closed. Comments on the Project Tier II DEIS from the public and 

the Town of Wake Forest indicated a strong desire to maintain access across the railroad 

at Elm Avenue, if not vehicular, at least pedestrian. This led to the design of a 

pedestrian underpass, developed in coordination with the Town and the NC-HPO. The 

new design also included development of alternative access for properties on the 

northwest side that will lose the existing illegal access off of Elm Avenue along Railroad 

Street which lies within the railroad ROW. The new designs were presented at the May 

2012 Project update meeting. Strong opposition to the property impacts associated with 

the designs led to their elimination. Following the update meeting, additional 

coordination with the Town and the NC-HPO led to the development of a design for a 

pedestrian bridge with stairs. Additional design and analysis is needed to coordinate the 

implementation of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian 

crossing of the railroad in this location. The Project Team will coordinate the designs 

and selected access alternatives (e.g., elevators, ramps, or tunnel) with the Town of 

Wake Forest and NC-HPO (regarding potential impacts to the Downtown Wake Forest 

Historic District). Refer to the Project Commitments for additional information. 

As part of the consultation with the NC-HPO, it was determined that although the 

Project will not necessarily prevent access with the pedestrian bridge nor require 

enforcement of the railroad ROW, loss of access to Railroad Street is a foreseeable 

consequence of the Project ; therefore, the Project will need to address access to 

Railroad Street. The pedestrian bridge and associated new access to the properties on 

Railroad Street are included in the Project designs. 

 Rogers Road – The designs have been revised to show a connection to Rogers Road for 

Grandmark Street and Heritage Brand Road. 

 Steeple Run Drive - In response to requests from property owners, the road was 

redesigned. The road alignment was shifted westward, closer to the railroad to minimize 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-93

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

property impacts and minimize impacts to a family cemetery. Adjustments to property 

access at the northern end will be handled during the ROW phase of the Project. 

 New Access from Ligon Mill Road into the Smith Creek Neighborhood - In response to 

public comments on the Project Tier II DEIS, an alternative design for access into the 

neighborhood was developed. 

 Rail Alignment South of the Neuse River - A slight shift in the railroad alignment was 

made to ensure adequate industrial access. 

 Durant Road - In response to comments from the public and local officials, a revised 

bridge and road alignment was designed for this location. The road alignment and 

roadway bridge over the railroad has been shifted to the north, away from the residential 

and commercial development on the south side of Durant Road. This northward shift 

will take the road alignment through City of Raleigh property where Raleigh Fire 

Station No. 22 is located, requiring the fire station to be relocated. This design revision 

has been coordinated with the City of Raleigh. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-94

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-26 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-95

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

A new railroad 

alternative, Alternative 

NC5, was developed to 

provide an alignment 

for the downtown area. 

2.2.28 SECTION V 

The section begins in north Raleigh, NC, near Gresham Lake at railroad MP S-148 and extends to 

the Boylan Wye in Downtown Raleigh at railroad MP S-157.5, a distance of 9.89 miles for 

Alternative NC1, 9.91 miles for Alternative NC2, 9.97 miles for Alternative NC3, and 9.92 miles 

for Alternative NC5. (A “wye” is a triangle-shaped arrangement of railroad tracks with a switch 

at each corner that allows for trains to pass from one line to another or can be used for trains to 

reverse direction.) In response to the many comments received for 

Section V following publication of the Project Tier II DEIS, a new 

railroad alternative, Alternative NC5, was subsequently developed 

to provide an alternative alignment for the downtown area. 

Raleigh is the major population center of this section. The section 

is located in the Neuse River Basin and includes a crossing of 

Crabtree Creek. See Figure 2-27 for a map of Section V. Maps 

with greater detail can be found in Appendix R, maps 142-151. 

2.2.28.1 SECTION V ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DEIS 

Table ES-5 displays information regarding potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment, as well as information about operability, constructability, and cost for the 

alternatives presented in the Project Tier II DEIS (NC1, NC2, and NC3) for the entire section. 

All alternatives are on common alignment from the beginning of the section south to 

Whittaker Mill Road in Downtown Raleigh. The differences in impacts in Section V are 

between Whittaker Mill Road and the Boylan Wye. Table ES-5 displays the same categories 

of information for this area for all the alternatives, including the newly developed alternative 

NC5. 

Alternatives NC1 and NC2 have the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives for Alternatives NC1 and NC2 are to maximize the use of existing 

CSX railroad ROW through Downtown Raleigh. 

 There are minor differences between the NC1 and NC2 road and railroad alignments 

near the Boylan Wye. The differences reflect alternative approaches to facilitating the 

movement of freight traffic through the wye. 

 Limiting speed is 45 mph. 

 Both NC1 and NC2 have a negative operability and constructability rating. The 

negative rating is due to the fact that the designs create a permanent at-grade crossing 

between passenger and freight operations at Edgeton (near Whittaker Mill Road) and 

require SEHSR Corridor passenger trains to share tracks with active freight yard 

switching. Such at-grade crossings and shared use in the vicinity of the yard are not 

desirable because significant delays can occur to the freight and passenger trains due to 

overlapping operations. In addition, Alternatives NC1 and NC2 require a 

reconfiguration of the CSX Capital Yard to avoid conflicts with proposed Triangle 

Transit light rail tracks on the east. 

Alternative NC3 has the following characteristics: 

 The design objectives for Alternative NC3 are to respond to a request by the City of 

Raleigh to minimize disruption of traffic and pedestrian patterns in the congested area 

around Jones Street and Glenwood South presented by Alternatives NC1 and NC2. 

 The alternative is common with Alternatives NC1, NC2, and NC5 north of downtown. 

Through downtown, Alternative NC3 uses both NS ROW (from south of Whitaker Mill 

Road to Jones Street) and CSX ROW (south of Jones Street). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-96

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The “hybrid” designs were 

given careful consideration, 

but were not feasible from 

an engineering perspective. 

The general concept led to 

the development of 

Alternative NC5. 

 Limiting speed is 45 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

2.2.28.2 SECTION V ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEIS 

Following the Project Tier II DEIS and public hearing, there were 320 comments received 

from the public expressing preference for an alternative in Section V: 188 preferred 

Alternative NC1; 57 preferred Alternative NC2; and 75 preferred Alternative NC3. 

Additionally, an iterative series of alternative design proposals (dubbed “NC4” and “hybrid”) 

were submitted by citizens during the public comment period. The intent was to find a way 

to combine aspects of Alternatives NC1, NC2, and NC3 in a way that would minimize 

impacts to neighborhoods, the downtown area, and the freight railroad yards. Based on 

concerns expressed by members of the public, community organizations, and NS about the 

potential impacts of Alternative NC3, the Raleigh City Council held a public hearing on 

September 1, 2010, to hear from the public and ask additional questions of the Project team. 

The hearing was attended by more than 200 people. 

Afterward, the City Council requested that NCDOT analyze 

the possibility of developing a “hybrid” approach through 

Downtown Raleigh. 

The “hybrid” designs proposed by the public were given 

careful consideration, but were not feasible from an 

engineering perspective. However, the general concept of 

these proposals led to the development of Alternative NC5. 

Alternative NC5 has the following characteristics: 

 Alternative NC5 is common with Alternatives NC1, NC2, and NC3 north of downtown, 

then follows CSX ROW from Whitaker Mill Road southward (similar to Alternatives 

NC1 and NC2, but with the SEHSR Corridor railroad on the west side of the existing 

CSX tracks, further from residential areas, and grade separated with NS). The 

alternative crosses Capital Boulevard on a new bridge (near Wade Avenue) and then 

continues south to Jones Street adjacent to the NS tracks but on separate ROW (similar 

to Alternative NC3, but with the SEHSR Corridor railroad on the east side of the 

existing NS tracks, further from residential areas). South of Jones Street, Alternative 

NC5 follows CSX ROW similar to the other Project alternatives. 

 Alternative NC5 provides the benefit of avoiding both the CSX Capital Yard and the NS 

Glenwood Yard, which minimizes impacts to freight operations in Downtown Raleigh. 

It also avoids impacts to the Raleigh Electric Company Power House and Carolina 

Power and Light Company Car Barn historic properties (which would be impacted by 

Alternatives NC1 and NC2) and the Roanoke Park Historic District (which would be 

impacted by Alternative NC3). 

 Limiting speed is 45 mph. 

 The operability and constructability rating is positive. 

A Project update meeting was held in Raleigh, NC, on September 27, 2011, to provide the 

public an opportunity to learn about NC5 in Downtown Raleigh between Whitaker Mill Road 

and the Boylan Wye. Because all alternatives are on common alignment through Section V 

north of Whitaker Mill Road, the review was limited to the changes through Downtown 

Raleigh. In the weeks preceding the Project update meeting, a preliminary review of NC5 

was provided to members of the City of Raleigh’s Passenger Rail Task Force, the City 

Council, and state legislators representing the area. Local government officials and members 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-97

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative NC5 minimizes 

impacts to neighborhoods, 

freight operations, and 

historic resources, and was 

endorsed by the Raleigh 

City Council. 

of the public were informed that all alternatives were still under consideration, and they were 

asked to provide comments. Approximately 212 people attended the Project update meeting. 

2.2.28.3 SECTION V PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND BASIS FOR SELECTION 

The preferred alternative in Section V is Alternative NC5. This decision is based on the fact 

that it minimizes impacts to neighborhoods, freight operations, and historic resources, and 

was endorsed by the Raleigh City Council on October 4, 

2011. Table ES-5 shows that NC5 has the least impacts 

to streams, no residential relocations, fewer business 

relocations compared to NC3 (but greater than NC1 and 

NC2), and only one severely impacted noise receptor 

(compared to 40 for the other alternatives). 

Additionally, apart from the impact to the historic 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor that is common 

among all alternatives, Alternative NC5 has no additional impacts to historic resources. Each 

of the other alternatives (NC1, NC2, and NC3) would have an adverse effect on at least one 

resource protected under Section 106 of the NHPA, and also require a Section 4(f) use of 

those properties. 

NC5 is also favored by the public. Following the Project update meeting, 61 comments were 

submitted by the public expressing preference for an alternative: three were in favor of NC1 

(with no specific reason stated); three were in favor of NC2 (based partially upon cost 

considerations); three were in favor of NC3 (based upon railroad designs, interaction with 

freight railroads, and downtown connectivity); while 52 expressed a preference for NC5 

(based primarily upon minimized impacts to neighborhoods, freight operations, and historic 

resources). 

2.2.28.4 PUBLIC ROAD/RAIL CROSSINGS 

Public Roads with Existing Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses will be 

Retained, Expanded or Replaced) 

 I-540 - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Old Wake Forest Road - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Spring Forest Road - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Atlantic Avenue - railroad bridge over roadway 

 I-440 - roadway bridge over railroad 

 Six Forks Road - railroad bridge over roadway 

 Hodges Street – railroad bridge over roadway 

 Peace Street - a new separate parallel railroad bridge will be built east of existing NS 

railroad bridges, to span Peace Street, W. Johnson Street, Tucker Street, and North 

Street 

 W. Johnson Street a new separate parallel railroad bridge will be built east of existing 

NS railroad bridges, to span Peace Street, W. Johnson Street, Tucker Street, and North 

Street 

 Tucker Street a new separate parallel railroad bridge will be built east of existing NS 

railroad bridges, to span Peace Street, W. Johnson Street, Tucker Street, and North 

Street 

 North Street a new separate parallel railroad bridge will be built east of existing NS 

railroad bridges, to span Peace Street, W. Johnson Street, Tucker Street, and North 

Street 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-98

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Hillsborough Street- roadway bridge over railroad 

 Morgan Street - replacement/expansion of the existing roadway bridge over the railroad 

will utilize an offsite detour; refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed 

detour routes 

 Boylan Avenue - roadway over railroad 

Public Roads with New Grade Separated Crossings (Bridges or Underpasses) 

 Gresham Lake Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour utilizing a temporary 

new at- grade crossing, refer to Appendix G for a map of temporary proposed detour 

routes 

 Millbrook Road - underpass (road under railroad); off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 New Hope Church Road - roadway bridge over railroad; on-site detour with staged 

construction 

 Wolfpack Lane - roadway bridge over railroad and Atlantic Ave; on-site detour 

 Whitaker Mill Road - roadway bridge over railroad; off-site detour, refer to Appendix G 

for a map of temporary proposed detour routes 

 Capital Boulevard - underpass (road under railroad) 

 Old Williamson Road - underpass (road under railroad) 

 Capital Boulevard - underpass (road under railroad bridge that will span both Capital 

Boulevard and West Street) 

 West Street - underpass (road under railroad bridge that will span both West Street and 

Capital Boulevard) 

 Jones Street - pedestrian bridge over railroad with elevator access 

Public At-Grade Crossings to be Closed and Traffic Re-Routed 

 Jones Street 

 Hargett Street 

2.2.28.5 RIVER AND MAJOR CREEK BRIDGES 

Crabtree Creek - There is active freight service in this location utilizing an existing singletrack bridge with a concrete ballast deck that was built in the early 1970’s and is in good 

condition. A new bridge is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the existing single-track 

bridge. The new structure will span (but not touch) the historic Raleigh and Gaston bridge 

pier that lies within the drip line of the existing bridge. 

2.2.28.6 CHANGES TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIER II DEIS 

As discussed above, a Project update meeting was held in Raleigh, on May 15, 2012, to 

provide the public an opportunity to learn about and comment on revisions that had been 

made to road work in Wake Forest, NC, and north Raleigh, NC (north of Whittaker Mill 

Road) subsequent to the Project Tier II DEIS. Two alternative designs were presented for the 

New Hope Church Road area and Wolfpack Lane. The alternatives were developed to 

address numerous public comments requesting a grade separated crossing (for the sake of 

accessibility for neighborhoods on the east side of the railroad), or a bicycle/pedestrian 

crossing at Wolfpack Lane. Both alternatives included a small southward shift for New Hope 

Church Road, to allow more lanes of traffic to remain open during construction and to 

provide room for bike lanes. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-99

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternative A included a realignment and roadway bridge over the railroad at Wolfpack Lane, 

along with associated changes to the surrounding roads. 

Alternative B retained the closure of Wolfpack Lane that was shown in the Project Tier II 

DEIS, but included improvements for traffic mitigation. These improvements consisted of 

additional turn lanes at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and New Hope Church Road, and 

realignment of Saint Albans Drive across from Craftsman Drive to allow an intersection with 

full traffic movements. 

Attendance at the meeting was 166 and 49 written comments were received. Of the 21 

comments that indicated a preference at Wolfpack Lane, 17 were in favor of Alternative A, 

and 4 were in favor of Alternative B. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of the meeting. 

Based on favorable response from the public and from the City of Raleigh, Alternative A was 

selected and has been included in the designs presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II 

FEIS. 

Lacy Street - In addition to the changes contained in the two alternatives described above, a 

small change was made to the Lacy Street intersection with Millbrook Road. The designs 

presented in the Project Tier II DEIS mistakenly, did not show a connection to Lacy Street on 

the north side or that the south side connection to Lacy Street will be eliminated. The designs 

shown in the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS have been corrected. 

Gresham Lake Road – In response to comments received from the City of Raleigh, the 

designs for this road have been modified to provide curb and gutter on one side. This will 

allow the bridge to be widened in the future in accordance with the City’s plans for this road. 

Downtown Raleigh - The entire railroad alignment south of Whittaker Mill Road and 

associated road work for Preferred Alternative NC5 was developed subsequent to publication 

of the Project Tier II DEIS, as described above. Detailed maps can be found in Appendix R, 

maps 148-151. No changes were made to Alternative NC5 since the alternative was 

presented to the public at the Project update meeting in September 2011. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-100

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-27 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-101

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD 

The Project Tier II DEIS described three other alternative alignments that were considered, but 

subsequently excluded from further analysis (Figure 2-28). These alternatives and the reasons they 

were not carried forward are summarized in the sections below. For more detailed information, refer 

to Section 2.2.2 and Appendix G of the Project Tier II DEIS. 

It should also be noted that advanced HSR (where operating speeds average 185 to 200 mph), as well 

as electric trains as options for the SEHSR Corridor, were evaluated and dismissed in the SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS. Many comments received from the public on the Project Tier II DEIS asked why 

these alternatives were not still under consideration. Advanced high speed trains were dismissed 

because they require the construction of an entirely new separate railroad system that cannot be 

shared with freight (which would not meet the need of the Project to connect major urban centers), 

they would involve substantially higher costs and longer implementation time, and they would cause 

substantially greater community and environmental impacts. Electrified systems were dismissed 

because they have substantial initial costs (both monetary and environmental) that made them 

infeasible at this time, relative to the ridership/revenue projections for the SEHSR Corridor. 

2.3.1 ABANDONED S-LINE, FROM NEAR CENTRALIA TO LYNCH 

In the Chester, VA, area, the portion of the Seaboard Air Line Railway S-line from near Centralia 

(MP S-12.3) through Lynch (MP S-20) was considered as a possible alternative to the CSX ALine (Figure 2-28) in the early feasibility studies for the overall SEHSR Corridor. In this area, 

the railroad ROW is no longer intact and extensive development has taken place within the old 

ROW, including the Chester Linear Park. Based on relocation impacts, impacts to a public park, 

and lack of compatibility with county plans, the alternative was dropped from further 

consideration. 

2.3.2 S-LINE, FROM APPOMATTOX RIVER TO BURGESS 

In Petersburg, VA, the former S-line south of the Appomattox River (MP S-24) to Burgess (MP 

S-30) was considered as an alternative based on previous studies by both FRA and the states of 

Virginia and North Carolina (Figure 2-28). Early field work and public involvement revealed 

considerable issues with this alternative, notably impacts to two properties. The alignment would 

impact the Chaparral Steel processing plant in Dinwiddie County, VA. Chaparral Steel is the 

largest employer in Dinwiddie County with approximately 450 employees. The alignment would 

also impact the Petersburg Breakthrough Battlefield Historic District at Pamplin Historic Park, 

which is listed on the NRHP, and is both a Virginia Historic Landmark and a National Historic 

Landmark. In a joint letter dated June 23, 2006, the National Park Service Petersburg National 

Battlefield, Pamplin Historical Park, Civil War Preservation Trust, Chaparral Steel, and 

Dinwiddie County, recommended that the SEHSR Corridor should not be built using the former 

CSX S-Line ROW. The letter stated they anticipated “devastating impacts on historic resources,” 

as well as economic, safety, cultural, and environmental repercussions. They argued that the 

presence of HSR would “grossly compromise the battlefield’s historic integrity.” Based on the 

reasons outlined above, the alternative using the former CSX S-Line from south of Ettrick Station 

(MP S-24) to Burgess (MP S-30) was dropped from further consideration. 

2.3.3 ALTERNATIVES SERVING OLD UNION STATION IN PETERSBURG 

Early planning efforts by FRA developed railroad alignments that would serve old Union Station 

in Downtown Petersburg, VA. The routing used the former CSX AAP-line (Appomattox Lead) 

from Dunlop through Colonial Heights, VA, into Petersburg, VA (Figure 2-28). Two versions of 

the concept were developed; both crossed the Appomattox River near old Union Station on the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-102

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

east side of Petersburg, then paralleled the Appomattox River to the west and rejoined the CSX 

A-Line near Washington Street in Petersburg, VA. The alignments varied on the south side of the 

Appomattox River. One used the NS N-line ROW until curving south on a bridge to re-connect 

with the CSX A-Line. The other followed the NS N-line ROW until reaching the inactive CSX 

S-Line, where it crossed over the NS N-line on a bridge to follow the CSX S-Line ROW (past old 

Commerce Street Station) before re-connecting with the CSX A-Line. 

Design efforts, environmental evaluation, and public involvement identified the following issues 

associated with the alignments serving old Union Station: 

 Conformity with Local Plans/Local Support - Coordination with local officials from the 

cities of Colonial Heights and Petersburg, VA, indicated that the alternatives serving old 

Union Station would be in conflict with development plans in the region and face local 

opposition (refer to Appendix G of the Project Tier II DEIS). 

 Cultural Resources - The alternatives serving old Union Station would have adversely 

impacted several cultural resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966. These resources include the Battersea plantation, North 

Battersea/Pride’s Field Historic District, and Petersburg Old Town Historic District. 

 Residential and Business Relocations - Due to the sale of the former CSX AAP-line ROW 

and subsequent redevelopment, there would have been a significant number of relocations 

along this route. 

 Travel Time - The additional length of the route through Downtown Petersburg (a distance 

of approximately one mile), combined with the reduced train speed due to the curves in this 

area, would increase travel time compared to other Project alternatives. 

 Engineering Issues and Cost - The alternatives serving old Union Station were also 

identified to have significant construction issues due to constraints through Downtown 

Petersburg. These constraints include historic properties and districts, utilities (e.g., a 

substation), and the Appomattox River. As a result, the alternatives would require the use 

of retaining walls, additional service roads, and bridges, which add extra expense, ROW 

requirements, and construction complexity. 

As a result of these issues, the alternatives serving old Union Station in Petersburg, VA, were 

excluded from further consideration. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-103

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 2-28 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-104

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The process of developing 

environmental documentation 

for greenway has changed. 

FRA, FHWA, and the states of 

VA and NC have determined 

that the greenway project is 

more suitable for a pre-NEPA 

Greenway Corridor Plan.

2.4 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The No Build Alternative was evaluated in the Tier I EIS. This alternative consisted of the existing 

transportation network in the Southeast travel corridor. Included in this alternative were: 

 Major highways that make up the roadway network 

 Air travel 

 Existing conventional passenger rail service (Amtrak) 

 Intercity bus services 

 Local public transit services 

 Commuter rail services 

 Freight railroad services 

The No Build Alternative also included existing and committed highway, rail, and airport 

improvements. 

The SEHSR Corridor Tier I Record of Decision (ROD) rejected the No Build Alternative because it 

did not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. It did not account for growth or alleviate 

congestion; it did not improve travel times, connectivity, energy efficiency, or air quality; and it did 

not improve safety within the preferred SEHSR Corridor. The SEHSR Corridor Tier I ROD found 

that under the No Build scenario, commuter and freight traffic would face increased delays; planned 

improvements to air facilities and major highways would not meet projected increases in demand; 

safety concerns would continue along areas of railway that lacked grade separations; and there would 

be an increase in congestion and air pollution concerns in Study Area of the SEHSR Corridor. 

It was concluded that the No Build Alternative did not meet the purpose and need of the SEHSR 

Corridor project; therefore the No Build Alternative is not carried through in the Tier II EIS. 

However, “no-build” conditions are evaluated for comparison in numerous resource areas, such as air 

quality, noise, and traffic. 

2.5 GREENWAY CORRIDOR PLAN 

Section 2.4 of the Project Tier II DEIS was titled “Multiuse 

Greenway Concept” and included discussion of conceptual 

planning for a greenway located parallel to the Project from 

Dinwiddie, VA, to the Neuse River (just north of Raleigh, 

NC). The discussion noted that potential impacts associated 

with the Greenway Concept would be documented in the 

Project Tier II FEIS. The rationale for including the greenway 

in the Project Tier II FEIS was to allow the necessary 

environmental documentation for the greenway to be prepared 

so that local municipalities could more quickly pursue the 

construction of the greenway in their jurisdictions. The construction of the greenway was never 

intended to be funded as part of the Project because FRA (the source of Federal funding for HSR 

projects) does not have a mechanism to provide funding for greenways. Although the parallel 

greenway is still being studied along with the Project, the process of developing the environmental 

documentation for greenway has changed since publication of the Project Tier II DEIS. FRA, 

FHWA, and the states of Virginia and North Carolina have jointly determined that the greenway 

project is more suitable for a pre-NEPA Greenway Corridor Plan, rather than it being included in the 

Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS, as previously considered. This is primarily to give the local 

jurisdictions who will ultimately construct the greenway greater flexibility to pursue various funding 

types over time rather than limiting them to a particular funding agency's NEPA requirements. The 

details for the greenway will, therefore, not be contained within the Project Tier II FEIS, but rather in 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 2-105

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The details for the 

greenway will not be 

contained within this 

FEIS, but in a separate 

Greenway Corridor Plan.

a separate Greenway Corridor Plan. This document is currently under development by DRPT and 

NCDOT, with completion anticipated at the time of the ROD for this 

Project Tier II FEIS. The SEHSR website will provide additional 

details on this separate plan and opportunities for its public review 

and comment. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-1

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Much of the existing rail 

line follows the ridgelines 

that divide watersheds. 

Most of the potential 

impacts are at the 

headwaters of tributaries. 

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 

A condensed format was used for this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as clarified in the 

Executive Summary of this report. 

The following discussion on the existing environment describes existing conditions associated with the 

natural environment, land features, air quality, noise, visual conditions, cultural and community resources, 

transportation, and infrastructure within the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Study Area. The Study Area for the natural and physical environment, cultural resources, and 

infrastructure varies from 300 to 1,000 feet in width depending on the resource, and is centered about the 

existing rail line or right of way (ROW). In areas where the existing railroad curves do not meet the 

design standards for high speed rail, the Study Area expands to approximately 500 feet outside of the 

proposed rail realignments. 

The Study Areas for the human environment, noise, and air quality are generally larger than the Project 

area boundaries. The larger Study Areas are defined by regions of influence in which a resource may 

potentially have noticeable project-related impacts. Regions of influence for human resources account for 

factors such as community sizes, geographical and political boundaries, and census boundaries. These 

human resources include social and economic issues, community resources, and land use planning. The 

air quality Study Area is influenced by local and regional atmospheric conditions. The noise Study Area 

is determined by the limit of noise intrusions associated with the project. 

All references to “Study Area” and “Project” below pertain to the Richmond to Raleigh Project, unless 

otherwise noted. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Before determinations can be made on the potential of the Project to impact water resources, it is 

necessary to review those resources within the Study Area. This section provides discussions on 

surface waters, wetlands, floodplains and floodways, and Wild and Scenic rivers. 

SURFACE WATER 

Numerous waterbodies, including streams, unnamed tributaries, 

lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and swamps/marshes are located in the 

Study Area. The surface waters in Virginia and North Carolina 

are summarized in Table 3-1, and are depicted in the maps 

included in Appendix R. Streams in the Study Area range from 

headwater tributaries with undefined, braided channels to 

streams with well-defined, steep side slopes. These streams, 

including some intermittent ones, had flowing water during the 

survey periods. Within the Study Area, much of the existing rail 

line follows the ridgelines that divide watersheds. As a result, most of the potential impacts are at 

the headwaters of tributaries. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-2

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-1 

Summary of Streams, Wetlands, and Other Surface Waters within Study Area by State 

Section River Basin Streams 

(feet) Wetland (acres) Other Waters (acres) 

Virginia 

AA James 3,919 2.3 0.7

BB James 2,078 5.2 0.4

CC James 2,405 1.2 0.03

Chowan 0 1.4 0

DD Chowan 827 2.4 1.7

A Chowan 3,094 2.8 0.4

B Chowan 760 0.6 0

C Chowan 2,803 2.2 0

D Chowan 1,998 2 0.2

E Chowan 860 1.2 0.01

F Chowan 1,004 0.6 0

G Chowan 510 0.3 0

H Chowan 2,808 0.4 0.06

I 

Chowan 0 0.001 0

Roanoke 22 0 0

J Roanoke 420 0.2 0

K Roanoke 1,419 0.9 0.1

L Roanoke 497 0.0002 0.3

Virginia Total 25,182 23.70 3.90

North Carolina 

L Roanoke 2,005 0.7 1.3

M 

Roanoke 442 0 0

Tar-Pamlico 0 0 0

N 

Roanoke 42 0 0

Tar-Pamlico 344 1.2 0

O 

Roanoke 53 0 0.2

Tar-Pamlico 3,049 0.3 0

P 

Roanoke 777 0.5 0.03

Tar-Pamlico 755 0.4 0.001

Q Tar-Pamlico 1,127 0.03 0

R Tar-Pamlico 438 0 0.002

S Tar-Pamlico 1,620 0.5 0.01

T Tar-Pamlico 0 0 0
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-3

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Study Area lies 

within the James, 

Chowan, and Roanoke 

River Basins of VA 

and the Roanoke, TarPamlico, and Neuse 

River Basins of NC. 

Table 3-1 

Summary of Streams, Wetlands, and Other Surface Waters within Study Area by State 

Section River Basin Streams 

(feet) Wetland (acres) Other Waters (acres) 

Neuse 415 0.1 0

U Neuse 3,394 0.4 0.2

V Neuse 1,036 0.1 0

North Carolina Total 15,497 4.23 1.74

Study Area Total 40,679 27.93 5.64

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the North Carolina Division of 

Water Resources (NCDWR) use different conventions for identifying streams. Appendix H lists 

streams in the Study Area by name, river basin, hydrologic unit code, and regulatory 

classification. More detailed identification of the nature of affected streams (e.g. 

perennial/intermittent classification) will take place during Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification and Section 404 permitting required by of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 

1344). 

The determination of compensation ratios for stream mitigation has varied by state, and USACE 

District. In addition these ratios have changed over the duration of the SEHSR Tier-I EIS and 

Richmond-Raleigh Project Tier-II DEIS and FEIS. Federal and state protocols for quantifying 

stream impacts and mitigation for Section 404/401 purposes are still in flux; therefore, it is 

premature to base NEPA stream impact avoidance decisions on anything other than the basic 

dimension of the resource (length). Impact minimization and mitigation for NEPA decisions 

regarding streams are similarly limited by the recent and continuing changes in regulatory 

approach, which will be refined during the permitting process. 

DRAINAGE BASINS 

One way to study a river system is to look at the area drained by the water body. This is 

called a watershed. A drainage basin is the watershed of the largest river in an area. Often, 

these drainage basins are divided into smaller watersheds called subbasins. Subbasins can 

describe a tributary or a portion of a large river. For the purposes of this document, US 

Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit cataloging units (CU) are used to 

describe the subbasins in the Study Area. 

The Study Area lies within the James, Chowan, and Roanoke 

River Basins of Virginia and the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse 

River Basins of North Carolina. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1 list and 

illustrate, respectively, the basins in relation to the Study Area. 

The percentage of the river basins within the Study Area was 

determined using a geographic information system (GIS) analysis. 

Drainage basins within the Study Area ultimately flow into coastal 

bays and sounds that outlet into the Atlantic Ocean. A discussion of these basins is included 

below. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-4

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-2 

Major River Basins in the Study Area 

Major River Basins Drainage Area of 

Entire Basin (sq. mi.) 

Subbasins within Study 

Area 

Percent of 

Study Area 

James 10,265 Appomattox River 

Lower James 

Middle James-Willis River 

16% 

Chowan 4,908 Blackwater River 

Meherrin River 

Nottoway River 

35% 

Roanoke 6,981 Middle Roanoke River 

Roanoke Rapids 

16% 

Tar-Pamlico 6,417 Fishing Creek 

Upper Tar River 

22% 

Neuse 6,062 Upper Neuse River 11% 

Source: NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-5

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-6

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Study Area includes 

approximately 28 acres 

in the Middle JamesWillis River, 2,293 acres 

in the Lower James 

River, and 3,034 acres 

in the Appomattox River 

subbasins. 

The Study Area includes 

approximately 156 acres 

in the Blackwater River, 

8,171 acres in the 

Nottoway River, and 

3,573 acres in the 

Meherrin River subbasins.

JAMES RIVER BASIN 

The James River Basin is Virginia’s largest river basin, covering approximately 25% of the 

state’s land area. The James River originates in the Allegheny Mountains, along the 

Virginia/West Virginia state line. The basin continues southeast 

through the state towards Hampton Roads and ultimately the 

Chesapeake Bay. The Study Area includes approximately 28 

acres in the Middle James-Willis River (CU 02080205), 2,293 

acres in the Lower James River (CU 02080206), and 3,034 acres 

in the Appomattox River (CU 02080207) subbasins. 

The northern terminus of the Study Area, in the City of Richmond, 

lies within the Middle James-Willis River subbasin. It then 

continues into the Lower James River subbasin, where it crosses 

the James River, Walker Creek, Goode Creek, Grindall Creek, 

Falling Creek, Kingsland Creek, Proctors Creek, and Great Branch. Continuing south towards 

the City of Colonial Heights, the Study Area enters the Appomattox River subbasin. It crosses 

Timsbury Creek, Swift Creek, Oldtown Creek, Fleets Branch, and the Appomatox River before 

entering the City of Petersburg. Continuing south, the Study Area crosses unnamed tributaries to 

Lieutenant Run and Rohoic Creeks. 

Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) was enacted in 1988 to improve water 

quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by requiring the use of effective conservation 

planning and pollution prevention practices when using and developing environmentally sensitive 

lands. The CBPA established a cooperative relationship between the Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) and local governments within Tidewater Virginia. Under 

the CBPA, localities in Tidewater are those with waters that drain into the Chesapeake Bay. In 

the vicinity of the Project, the cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, as well as 

Chesterfield County are considered within Tidewater Virginia and fall under the requirements of 

the CBPA. 

The VDCR states that the CBPA addresses non-point source pollution by identifying and 

protecting certain lands called Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. The lands that make up 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas are those that have the potential to impact water quality most 

directly: Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs). RPAs 

are meant to protect and benefit water quality and include tidal waters, tidal wetlands, or 

perennial streams and related wetlands. RMAs are lands that, without proper management, have 

the potential to damage water quality and include highly erodible soils, highly permeable soils, 

steep slopes, non-tidal wetlands not included in the RPA, lands within the 100-year floodplain, 

and include at least the 100-foot area contiguous to the RPA. 

CHOWAN RIVER BASIN 

The Chowan River Basin is located in the northeastern Coastal 

Plain of southeastern Virginia. Approximately 76% of the 

drainage basin lies in Virginia and the remainder lies in North 

Carolina. The Study Area includes approximately 156 acres in 

the Blackwater River (CU 03010202), 8,171 acres in the 

Nottoway River (CU 03010201), and 3,573 acres in the 

Meherrin River (CU 03010204) subbasins. 

The Study Area traverses a small portion of the Blackwater 

River subbasin near the City of Petersburg before it enters the 

Nottoway River subbasin. It then crosses waters within the Nottoway River subbasin from south 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-7

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Study Area includes 

approximately 4,341 acres 

in the Roanoke Rapids 

and 584 acres in the 

Middle Roanoke River 

subbasins. 

The Study Area includes 

approximately 4,069 acres 

in the Upper Tar River and 

2,398 acres in the Fishing 

Creek subbasins. 

of the City of Petersburg to north of Dinwiddie County. Major stream crossings in this part of the 

Study Area include Arthur Swamp, Rocky Branch, Hatcher Run, Gravelly Run, and Little Cattail 

Creek. 

From north of Dinwiddie County south to the Town of Alberta in Brunswick County, the Study 

Area crosses the southernmost section of the Nottoway River subbasin. Major stream crossings 

in this section include Stony Creek, Snap Lodge Branch, Sappony Creek, Buckskin Creek, Great 

Creek, Nottoway River, Great Branch, Waqua Creek, and Sturgeon Creek. 

From the Town of Alberta to the Town of La Crosse in Mecklenburg County, the Study Area 

crosses waters within the Meherrin River subbasin. Major stream crossings in this area include 

Gum Branch, Roses Creek, Great Creek, Briery Branch, Shining Creek, Meherrin River, and 

Taylors Creek. 

The Meherrin River, which originates in Virginia, is the only major tributary to join the Chowan 

in North Carolina. Anadromous fish spawning areas have been identified in the main streams of 

the Meherrin and Chowan Rivers; however, no anadromous fish areas have been located within a 

one-mile vicinity of the Study Area. Anadromous fish are those like salmon, which hatch in fresh 

water, mature in the ocean, and return to fresh water to spawn. The Meherrin River in 

Brunswick County, VA, was designated a state Scenic River in June 2006. 

ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 

The Roanoke River Basin arises from the eastern slopes of 

the Blue Ridge Mountains and upper Piedmont of west 

central Virginia. In Virginia, the basin covers approximately 

6,380 square miles or about 16% of the state. The Study 

Area includes approximately 4,341 acres in the Roanoke 

Rapids (CU 03010106) and 584 acres in the Middle Roanoke 

River (CU 03010102) subbasins. Within the Study Area, the 

Roanoke River main stream is impounded by the Kerr 

Reservoir-Lake Gaston complex located along the 

Virginia/North Carolina state line. The Roanoke River continues southeastward through North 

Carolina towards the Albemarle Sound. 

Surface waters within the Study Area from the Town of La Crosse, VA, to Norlina, NC, drain 

into Lake Gaston, located in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin. Lake Gaston is a 49,000-acre 

impoundment used as water supply for the towns of Roanoke Rapids and Weldon and the City of 

Virginia Beach, and for recreation and hydroelectricity. Major stream crossings in the Virginia 

portion of the Study Area include Parham Creek, Hewey Creek, Roanoke River (Lake Gaston), 

and Smith Creek (Lake Gaston). 

Anderson Swamp Creek is the southernmost stream to drain into the Middle Roanoke subbasin. 

Its confluence is at the Kerr Scott Reservoir. 

TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN 

The Tar-Pamlico River Basin is the fourth largest in North 

Carolina and is one of four basins located entirely within the 

state. The Tar-Pamlico River system originates in the 

Piedmont of north central North Carolina and continues 

eastward towards the Pamlico Sound. The Study Area 

includes approximately 4,069 acres in the Upper Tar River 

(CU 03020101) and 2,398 acres in the Fishing Creek (CU 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-8

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Study Area 

includes 

approximately 

3,568 acres in the 

Upper Neuse 

River subbasin. 

03020102) subbasins. 

All surface waters within this basin are given a supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive 

Waters (NSW) (NCDWQ, 2000). This designation is given to waterbodies that are prone to 

excessive growth of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation (e.g., algal blooms) that can damage 

aquatic life. NCDWQ has developed certain management processes to limit the amount of 

nutrients entering these subbasins, thereby reducing the excessive growth. The Tar-Pamlico 

River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy includes a rule to maintain and 

protect riparian buffers in the basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259). A riparian buffer is a vegetated 

(usually forested) area adjacent to a stream that helps shade and partially protects a stream from 

the impact of nearby land uses by removing pollutants and runoff.

The City of Henderson is on the boundary of the Tar-Pamlico and Roanoke River Basins. The 

Study Area passes through downtown Henderson and closely follows US-1 to the Vance County 

line on the ridge between Long Creek to the west and Buffalo Creek to the east. The 

Vance/Franklin County boundary is the Tar River. 

Between the Vance County line and Franklinton, the Study Area crosses Taylor’s Creek and an 

unnamed tributary to the Tar River. The Study Area passes through the town of Franklinton. Just 

south of Franklinton it crosses Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek is a major tributary to the Tar River. 

The southernmost subbasin in the Tar River Basin is Brandy Creek. Brandy Creek does not have 

a NCDWQ data collection site within the watershed. 

NEUSE RIVER BASIN 

The Neuse River Basin is the third largest river basin in North Carolina 

and is one of four basins located entirely within the state. The Neuse 

River system originates from the headwaters of the Flat and Eno 

Rivers and continues eastward towards the Pamlico Sound. The Study 

Area includes approximately 3,568 acres in the Upper Neuse River 

(CU 03020201) subbasin. 

Like the Tar-Pamlico Basin, all surface waters within the Neuse Basin 

have been given a supplemental classification of NSW by NCDWQ 

(NCDWQ 2000). North Carolina has adopted the Neuse Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters 

Management Strategy that includes a rule to maintain and protect riparian buffers in the basin 

(15A NCAC 2B .0233). 

South of Youngsville and north of Wake Forest, the Study Area enters the Neuse River Basin at 

the eastern headwaters of Richland Creek watershed. This watershed is located within a rapidly 

developing area near Wake Forest. To the east of the Study Area is the Smith Creek Watershed. 

The southernmost section of the Study Area lies within the City of Raleigh in the Crabtree Creek 

watershed. Streams in and around Raleigh have been severely impacted by urbanization. 

WATER QUALITY 

Under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended in 1972, states were required to 

develop water quality standards (WQS). These standards are used to identify water quality 

problems and support efforts to achieve and maintain protective water quality conditions. A 

WQS consists of four basic elements: 

 The designated uses of a waterbody (e.g., recreation, water supply, aquatic life, 

agriculture) are those uses that society, through public hearings offered by various units 

of government, determines should be attained and maintained in the waterbody 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-9

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Sensitive surface waters 

include those used for 

water supplies and those 

listed as impaired under 

Section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act. 

 Water quality criteria are descriptions of the conditions in a waterbody necessary to 

support the designated uses 

 Anti-degradation policies protect the existing uses of waters and maintain waterbodies 

with qualities above those needed to meet established standards and/or exceeds levels 

necessary to protect aquatic life and recreational uses 

 General policies address implementation issues such as low flows, variances, mixing 

zones (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2004) 

States are required to assess the health of surface waters and to report the extent to which 

WQS are met as established under Section 305(b) of the CWA. When a waterbody cannot 

meet one of more of its assigned designated uses, it is listed as impaired under Section 303(d) 

of the CWA. To restore these waters, the state must establish total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) that are designed to reduce contamination to the level where designated uses can be 

met (Hoskinson et al., 2003). 

Surface waters that could be especially sensitive to impacts by the 

proposed Project include those used for water supplies and 

impaired waters that are listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list 

(see Tables 3-3 and 3-4). In the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS, Section 303(d) waters for Virginia were from the 

state’s 2008 list and waters for North Carolina were from the 

state’s 2006. 

Since the publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS, the following waterbodies in the Study Area have been added to the Virginia CWA 

Section 303(d) list: No Name Creek, Ashton Creek, Timsbury Creek, Blackwater River 

(Second Swamp), Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Buckskin Creek, Nottoway River, Meherrin 

River, Taylors Creek, Evans Creek, and Little Genito Creek. The following waterbodies in 

the Study Area have been added to the North Carolina CWA Section 303(d) list since 

publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS: Fishing Creek, Tar River, and 

Smith Creek (in the Neuse River Basin). Additionally, Perry Creek is no longer included in 

the North Carolina Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. 

Table 3-3 

Water Supply Surface Waters within Study Area

State Stream Name Basin Classifications 

VA Ashton Creek and unnamed tributaries James PWS 

VA Timsbury Creek and unnamed tributaries James PWS 

VA Swift Creek and unnamed tributaries James PWS 

VA Unnamed tributaries to Lieutenant Run James PWS 

VA Unnamed tributary to Flat Creek Roanoke PWS 

VA Unnamed tributary to Little Genito Creek Roanoke PWS 

VA Parham Creek and unnamed tributaries Roanoke PWS 

VA Hewey Creek and unnamed tributaries Roanoke PWS 

VA Roanoke River (Lake Gaston) and unnamed tributaries Roanoke PWS 

VA Smith Creek (Lake Gaston) Roanoke PWS 

VA Unnamed tributaries to Reedy Branch Roanoke PWS 

NC Anderson Swamp Creek and unnamed tributaries Roanoke WS-III 

NC Tar River and unnamed tributaries Tar-Pamlico WS-IV 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-10

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-3 

Water Supply Surface Waters within Study Area

State Stream Name Basin Classifications 

NC Unnamed tributary to Taylor's Creek Tar-Pamlico WS-IV 

Sources: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; 2000, 

Virginia State Water Control Board; 2003. 

Notes: 

PWS - VA Public Water Supply 

WS-III - NC waters listed as water supplies that are generally in low to moderately developed 

watersheds 

WS-IV - NC waters listed as water supplies that are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds 

Table 3-4 

CWA 303(d) List of Impaired Surface Waters within Study Area 

State Stream Name Basin 

VA Goode Creek James 

VA Broad Rock Creek James 

VA No Name Creek James 

VA Kingsland Creek James 

VA Proctors Creek James 

VA Ashton Creek James 

VA Timsbury Creek James 

VA Oldtown Creek James 

VA Appomattox River James 

VA Rohoic Creek James 

VA Lieutenant Run James 

VA Second Swamp Chowan 

VA Rowanty Creek and Tributaries Chowan 

VA Arthur Swamp Chowan 

VA Buckskin Creek Chowan 

VA Hatcher Run Chowan 

VA Nottoway River Chowan 

VA Roses Creek Chowan 

VA Great Creek Chowan 

VA Briery Branch Chowan 

VA Meherrin River Chowan 

VA Taylors Creek Chowan 

VA Shining Creek Chowan 

VA Little Genito Creek Chowan 

NC Fishing Creek Tar 

NC Tar River Tar 

NC Perry Creek (Greshams Lake) Neuse 

NC Marsh Creek Neuse 

NC Crabtree Creek Neuse 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-11

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Thirty streams in the 

SEHSR study area are 

on the NC or VA 

303(d) list of impaired 

waters. High E. coli

levels were the leading 

cause of impairment. 

Table 3-4 

CWA 303(d) List of Impaired Surface Waters within Study Area 

State Stream Name Basin 

NC Pigeon House Branch Neuse 

Sources: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2012; 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2010 

The 303(d)-listed streams are also described below, including the type of impairment. 

The 303(d)-listed streams in the Study Area are also described below, including the type of 

impairment. 

JAMES RIVER BASIN 

In the Lower James subbasin, streams that are on Virginia’s 303(d) list of impaired streams 

include Goode Creek (cause of impairment: Escherichia coli (E. Coli)), Broad Rock Creek 

(E. coli), No Name Creek (E. Coli), Kingsland Creek (E. coli and pH), Proctors Creek (E. coli 

and benthic macroinvertebrates), Ashton Creek (E. Coli), and Timsbury Creek (pH). Notable 

streams in the Appomattox River subbasin that are on Virginia’s 303(d) list of impaired streams 

include Oldtown Creek (benthic macroinvertebrates and fecal coliform), the Appomattox River 

(fecal coliform and PCB in fish tissue), Rohoic Creek (E. coli), and Lieutenant Run (E. coli). 

CHOWAN RIVER BASIN 

Second Swamp in the Blackwater River subbasin is listed on the 

Virginia 303(d) list of impaired streams due to E. coli, dissolved 

oxygen, and mercury in fish tissue. Streams in the Meherrin 

River subbasin on Virginia’s 303(d) list include Taylor’s Creek 

(E. coli), Shining Creek (E. coli), Briery Branch (E. coli), Little 

Genito Creek (benthic macro-invertebrates), Great Creek 

(E. coli), Roses Creek (E. coli), and the Meherrin River (E. coli). 

Streams in the Nottoway River subbasin that are on Virginia’s 

303(d) list of impaired streams include the Nottoway River 

(E. coli), Buckskin Creek (E. coli), Arthur Swamp (dissolved 

oxygen, mercury in fish tissue), Rowanty Creek and tributaries (dissolved oxygen), and Hatcher 

Run (dissolved oxygen, mercury in fish tissue). 

ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 

Lake Gaston (including the Roanoke River and Smith Creek arms) is on Virginia’s 303(d) list of 

impaired streams for dissolved oxygen and PCBs in fish tissue in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin. 

Also on the Virginia 303(d) list are Hagood Creek (E. coli) and Smith Creek above Lake Gaston 

(dissolved oxygen, pH, and E. coli). Smith Creek and Nutbush Creek in the North Carolina 

portion of this basin have impaired biological integrity. 

TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN 

Fishing Creek, south of Middleburg, is listed as imparired for aquatic life due to low dissolved 

oxygen. The Tar River is listed as impaired due to turbidity. 

NEUSE RIVER BASIN 

The southernmost section of the Study Area lies within Raleigh, NC in the Upper Neuse River 

and Crabtree Creek watershed. Streams in and around Raleigh have been severely impacted by 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-12

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

474 wetland 

systems were 

identified within 

the Study Area, 

with 425 located in 

VA and 49 in NC. 

810.5 acres of wetlands 

(760.8 acres in VA and 

49.7 acres in NC) were 

delineated within the 

Study Area. 

urbanization. These streams, which have impaired biological integrity, include Perry Creek 

(Gresham’s Lake) and Crabtree Creek, Pigeon House Branch, and Marsh Creek. 

WETLANDS 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, USGS 7.5-

minute topographic quadrangle maps, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys, and recent color aerial photography were reviewed 

prior to field reconnaissance to identify potential wetland locations. 

Wetlands within the Study Area were delineated from October 2003 to 

January 2004, from March 2007 to May 2007, and in October and 

November 2012. Wetlands were delineated based on criteria established 

in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987). 

Within North Carolina, wetlands were also evaluated based on criteria 

established in the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North 

Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). 

Criteria used to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic 

vegetation, and hydrology. A total of 474 wetland systems were identified within the Study Area, 

with 425 located in Virginia and 49 in North Carolina. Wetlands subject to potential impact from 

the Project are listed in Appendix I and depicted on the maps 

included in Appendix R. A total of 810.5 acres of wetlands 

(760.8 acres in Virginia and 49.7 acres in North Carolina) were 

delineated within the Study Area. Jurisdictional wetland 

determinations were approved by USACE for application of 

impact avoidance and minimization protocols and field verified in 

2013 for the preferred alternative. 

NCDWQ wetland ratings ranged from 14 to 90 (out of a possible 100 score) for wetlands in 

North Carolina. Wetlands in Virginia were similar to those found in North Carolina but were not 

rated using the NCDWQ rating protocol. Wetland communities are distinguished primarily by 

vegetation type and duration of hydrology. 

Based on the Cowardin Classification (Cowardin et al., 1979), there are four primary wetland 

categories in the Study Area: palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine 

scrub-shrub (PSS), and palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB). 

 Forested wetland occurs in narrow bands associated with rivers and streams and 

topographically low areas. Cowardin et al. (1979) typically identify this community as a 

Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous habitat with temporary to seasonal flooding 

(PFO1A and PFO1C). 

 Palustrine emergent communities occur most often within the Study Area in or near manmade or beaver-influenced ponds. These emergent wetlands are typically identified as 

Palustrine Emergent semi-permanently flooded habitats (PEM1F). 

 Shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small or have been stunted due to 

environmental conditions are all likely species to occur in a scrub-shrub wetland 

(Cowardin et al., 1979). This community within the Study Area is typically identified by 

Cowardin et al. (1979) as Palustrine Scrub-shrub Broad-leaved Deciduous habitat with 

temporary to seasonal flooding (PSS1A and PSS1C). 

 Most of the unconsolidated bottom communities (PUB) are farm ponds located near the 

headwaters of small drainages where the flow of water has been obstructed by man-made 

dams. They are typically identified by Cowardin et al. (1979) as PUBHh or PUBHx. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-13

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Cowardin Classification system is used and described on the NWI maps. However, some 

wetlands depicted on the NWI maps did not meet “jurisdictional” status within the Study Area. 

Also, many wetlands within the Study Area that were delineated in the field were not depicted on 

the NWI maps and did not have a Cowardin Classification. 

The majority of wetlands in the Study Area in both Virginia and North Carolina are headwater 

forests, which may be of high quality. The NCDWQ rating scores for these wetland types in 

North Carolina ranged between 50 and 90. A more detailed description of the wetland types 

found in the Study Area is located in the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) and 

Addendum prepared for the Project (NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008). A summary of 

wetlands delineated within the Study Area by section and state is provided in Table 3-1. 

The need for specific identification of wetland functions or quality (beyond that established 

during the jurisdictional determination process) will be resolved during the Section 404 

permitting process. If USACE determines the need for impacted wetland functional/quality 

analysis in order to evaluate mitigation options, then an appropriate method will be applied. 

Similar to the stream assessment approach (Section 3.1.1), determination of wetland impact 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for the purposes of NEPA decision-making is most 

efficiently approached by applying the basic dimension of the resource (area). More detailed 

approaches (such as the NC Wetland Assessment Methodology, NCWAM) to determine wetland 

function, quality, and value may be applied during the Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 

permitting processes in order to refine the mitigation requirement. This assessment has no 

bearing on the selection of the preferred alternative. 

FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a floodplain as any land area 

susceptible to being inundated by floodwater from any source during a 100-year flood event (also 

called a 1% flood). FEMA regulations provide management criteria for states and localities to 

follow in these areas. To assist states in determining 100-year floodplains, FEMA is involved in 

extensive mapping activities to delineate these areas (United States Department of Interior (US 

DOI) 1994)). 

A floodplain is composed of two parts, the floodway and the floodway fringe. FEMA defines the 

regulatory floodway as the “channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be 

kept free of encroachment so that the entire Base Flood (100-year flood) discharge can be 

conveyed with no greater than a 1.0-foot increase in the base flood elevation (BFE)” (FEMA, 

2002). The floodway fringe is the area between the floodway boundary and the 100-year 

floodplain boundary. 

Data from FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were analyzed and the FEMA Zone 

designations were determined for the 100-year FEMA floodplains that cross the Study Area. All 

of the FEMA floodplain crossings identified in the Study Area are shown on Figures 3-2 and 3-3. 

These flood zone crossings fall into three designations: Zone A, AE, or A1-A30. Zone A is the 

flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that are 

determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods of analysis. Because detailed 

hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no BFE or depths are shown within this 

zone. Zones AE and A1-A30 are the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to the 1-percent 

annual chance floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods 

of analysis. In most instances, BFE derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at 

selected intervals within this zone. 

The FEMA floodplain data were obtained from two different sources. The floodplain data for 

Virginia were obtained from the FEMA Map Service Center (USDOI, 2013). The floodplain data 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-14

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

for North Carolina were obtained from the North Carolina interactive mapping site (North 

Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, 2008). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-15

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-16

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-17

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Four rivers in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory (NRI) are also 

designated as Virginia Scenic 

Rivers in the Study Area. The 

James River (Historic Falls of the 

James) segments that are on the 

NRI are outside the Study Area. 

Tributaries to Lake Gaston (the 

Dan River, Bannister River, and 

Staunton River) are listed as 

Virginia Scenic Rivers upstream 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287) mandates that “[i]n all 

planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be 

given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river 

areas.” The act establishes Wild Rivers as those which: 

 Are free of impoundments (manmade dams) 

 Have unpolluted waters 

 Have watersheds or shorelines that are essentially primitive and undeveloped 

 Are inaccessible except by trails 

Scenic Rivers meet the first three of the above criteria; however, they can be accessible by 

roadways. Recreational Waters are readily accessible by road or railroad, have undergone some 

development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in 

the past. 

To meet requirements under Section 5(d) of this act, the National Park Service has established 

and maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) of river segments that potentially qualify as a 

national Wild, Scenic, or Recreational river area. The NRI qualifies as a comprehensive plan 

under Section 10(a) (2) (A) of the Federal Power Act. To be listed in the NRI, a river must be 

free-flowing and possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). ORVs relate to 

such attributes as the scenery, recreational opportunities, and habitat provided. 

Under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, if a Federal action compromises the 

designation of a Wild and Scenic River or forecloses the possibility of future designation (for 

rivers currently in the NRI), the implementation of the Federal action must be coordinated with 

the US Department of the Interior (USDOI). Applicable state standards for scenic rivers include 

the Commonwealth of Virginia Scenic Rivers Act and the 

North Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. 

There are four rivers in the NRI that are also designated 

as Virginia Scenic Rivers in the Study Area (see Table 

3-5). However, the James River (Historic Falls of the 

James) segments that are listed on the NRI are outside 

the Study Area. Tributaries to Lake Gaston (the Dan 

River, Bannister River, and Staunton River) are listed as 

Virginia Scenic Rivers upstream of the Study Area. It 

should be noted that the Virginia Scenic River 

designation does not “preclude the Commonwealth or a 

local government body from constructing, 

reconstructing, operating, or performing necessary 

maintenance on any road or bridge project.” 

Two waterbodies in North Carolina (Fishing Creek, Neuse River) that pass through the Study 

Area are also listed in the NRI. However, the listed segments of these streams are located outside 

of the Study Area, and their potential listing would not be impacted by this Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-18

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Project crossing 

of the James River 

in Richmond is the 

only waterway in 

the Study Area 

subject to USCG 

jurisdiction. 

Table 3-5 

Streams in the Study Area Included in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

River Location Listed 

ORV DOI Comments 

James River Big Island to Gladstone Railyard; east 

of Glasgow to east of Buchanan; 

Mogarts Beach to Hopewell; west of 

Buchanan to Eagle Rock, Above 

Bosher dam to Bremo Bluff; 

S, G, R, 

H, O 

Cliffs, diverse scenery, 

undeveloped reaches west of 

Richmond, historic sites at Bremo 

and Midway Mill, rare plant 

communities 

Appomattox 

River 

Headwaters to Lake Chesdin (outside 

of the Study Area) 

H,O Wild river (longest, largest, least 

developed river in the Upper 

Piedmont of Virginia, passes 

through Appomattox Court House 

and Wigwam Historic Sites 

Nottoway 

River 

Fort Nottoway to Nottoway Reservoir, 

Sussex, Greenville, Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick, and Nottoway Counties, 

VA 

O Wild River, corridor and 

surrounding watersheds largely 

undeveloped 

Meherrin 

River 

Emporia, VA, to US-1, Greenville, 

Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and 

Lunenburg Counties, VA 

O Wild River, corridor and 

surrounding watersheds essentially 

undeveloped 

Tar River River Mile 99, SR 1933 Bridge to 

River Mile 192, Nash, Franklin, 

Vance, Granville, and Person 

Counties, NC 

C, F, G, 

H, R, S, 

W 

Attractive stream with several 

whitewater segments; secluded 

picturesque ravines and gorges. 

Source: US DOI,2013 

Notes: 

O-Listed for other, unspecified reasons 

C-Cultural resources 

F-Fish resources 

G-Geologic resources 

H-Historic resources 

R-Recreational resources 

S-Scenic resources 

W-Wildlife resources 

US COAST GUARD WATERS 

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has jurisdiction over navigable waters. According to 33 

C.F.R. 2.05-25, navigable waters are defined as waters subject to 

the ebb and flow of tide; or any water that is presently used and/or 

is susceptible to use in its natural condition, or by reasonable 

improvement, as a means to transport interstate and foreign 

commerce. A bridge permit from the USCG may be required for 

projects that construct a new bridge or reconstruct an existing 

bridge over navigable water. 

In a letter dated November 5, 2009, the USCG determined that the 

Project crossing of the James River in Richmond is the only 

waterway in the Study Area subject to USCG jurisdiction (Richmond 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-19

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS Appendix A). The crossings of the Appomattox River (near 

Ettrick, VA), Nottoway River (near McKenney, VA), Meherrin River (vicinity of US-1 near 

South Hill, VA), Tar River (vicinity of US-1 at the border of Vance County, NC, and Franklin 

County, NC), and Neuse River (near Capital Boulevard just north of Raleigh) are not under 

USCG jurisdiction because they are not subject to tidal influence (Giese et al., 1985) nor are they 

used for interstate commerce. These rivers have active recreational use (e.g., kayaks and canoes), 

but cannot support commercial watercraft at these locations. 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

TOPOGRAPHY 

The natural regions of Virginia and North Carolina are differentiated by the interaction of 

topography, geology, and soils. The northern portion of the Study Area (Richmond to 

Petersburg) lies within the Southeastern Plains ecoregion (USEPA, 2007a). The Cretaceous or 

Tertiary-age sands, silts, and clays of the region contrast geologically to the older igneous and 

metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont, and the older limestone, chert, and shale found in the Interior 

Plateau. Streams in this area are relatively low-gradient and sandy-bottomed (Purdue University, 

undated). The remainder of the Study Area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. 

This physiographic province is generally characterized by broad uplands with low to moderate 

slopes and elevations between 130 to 600 feet above mean sea level. The slopes along the 

existing rail line range from 0 to 3%. 

GEOLOGY 

Bedrock within the Piedmont consists mainly of a variety of igneous and metamorphic rocks. 

There are some discrete zones of sedimentary rocks. Quaternary to Tertiary sandy clay and sandy 

saprolite with rock outcrops and joint-block boulders are located within the Study Area. In 

addition, much older Cambrian gneiss, schist, metavolcanic rock, and metamudstone are likely to 

occur within the Study Area. Mica schist is a typical source of parent material in the Piedmont, 

and soils are usually deep, rich in weathering products (clays and iron oxides), and have a red 

matrix color. Certain soils in the Study Area have a high shrink-swell potential. When these 

soils are wet, certain minerals will absorb large quantities of water, allowing the soil to expand or 

swell. As the soil dries, the clay minerals release the water and shrink. Shrink-swell potential is 

an important consideration when siting new structures. 

SOILS 

The process of soil development depends upon both biotic and abiotic influences. These 

influences include past geologic activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human 

influences, plant and animal activity, time, climate, and topography. The Study Area has been 

divided into the soil associations of each respective county. A soil association is a landscape that 

has a distinctive, proportional pattern of soils consisting of one or more major soils and at least 

one minor soil. The soils within an association can vary in slope, depth, stoniness, drainage, and 

other characteristics (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1995). 

These soil associations are described based on information obtained from USDA through 

published soils surveys, field technical guides, and unpublished information gathered from visits 

to NRCS county offices. The soil survey for City of Richmond was published in 2009 (NRCS, 

2009). However, as stated in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, communication with 

NRCS revealed that USDA no longer maps soil associations, therefore descriptions are not 

available for this portion of the project Study Area. It should also be noted that the general soil 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-20

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

descriptions for Franklin County are derived from a preliminary map obtained from the 

Geographical Information Systems unit of NRCS. Detailed descriptions of soil associations and 

individual soil units within the Study Area are located within the Project’s Natural Resource 

Technical Report (NRTR) (NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008). Table 3-6 shows the soil 

associations for counties within the Study Area. 

Table 3-6 

Soil Associations Found in Counties within the Study Area 

County State Most Common 

Soil Association Description Drainage Comments 

Chesterfield VA FacevilleGritneyKempsville Dominantly clayey or 

loamy; moderate to 

moderately slow 

permeability 

Well drained Moderate 

shrink-swell 

potential 

Bourne-AquultsTetotum Have a fragipan 

(subsoil layer 

consisting of high 

bulk density, brittle 

when moist and very 

hard when dry) or 

loamy or clayey; 

moderate to 

moderately slow 

permeability 

Moderately well 

drained 

Variable 

soils, High 

water table 

Tetotum-Bourne Dominantly loamy or 

have a fragipan; 

moderate to 

moderately slow 

permeability 

Moderately well 

drained 

High water 

table 

Gritney-AtleeLenoir Clayey to loamy; 

moderately slow to 

slow permeability 

Well drained to 

somewhat 

poorly drained 

Moderate 

shrink-swell 

potential 

LucyOrangeburgRumford Dominantly loamy; 

moderate to 

moderately rapid 

permeability 

Well drained to 

somewhat 

excessively 

drained 

Silty, erodible 

Ochrepts and 

Udults-Vaucluse 

Dominantly loamy; 

slow permeability 

Excessively well 

drained to well 

drained 

Highly 

variable soils 

Colonial 

Heights and 

Petersburg 

VA Appling-Cecil Sandy loam to clayey 

loam; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

MattaponiAppling-Cecil Dominantly clayey 

texture; Moderately 

permeable to 

permeable 

Moderately well 

drained to well 

drained soils 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-21

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-6 

Soil Associations Found in Counties within the Study Area 

County State Most Common 

Soil Association Description Drainage Comments 

Roanoke-SlagleMattaponi Clayey to loamy 

texture; Low to 

moderate 

permeability 

Poorly to 

moderately well 

drained soils; 

Moderate 

shrink swell 

potential 

Dinwiddie VA MattaponiAppling-Cecil Dominantly clayey 

texture; Moderately 

permeable to 

permeable 

Moderately well 

drained to well 

drained soils 

Roanoke-SlagleMattaponi Clayey to loamy 

texture; Low to 

moderate 

permeability 

Poorly to 

moderately well 

drained soils; 

Moderate 

shrink swell 

potential 

EmporiaMattaponiSlagle Loamy subsoil; 

Moderate 

permeability 

Moderately well 

drained to well 

drained 

Moderate 

shrink swell 

potential 

Appling-Cecil Sandy Loam to 

clayey loam; 

Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

HerndonGeorgeville Silty to clayey loam 

surface, silty loam 

subsurface; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained 

Brunswick VA Cecil-Appling Sandy loam to clayey 

loam; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

Appling-Helena Clayey soils; Low to 

moderate 

permeability 

Well drained to 

moderately well 

drained 

Mecklenburg VA ApplingWedoweeLouisburg Sandy loam to clayey 

loam; Moderate to 

High permeability 

Well drained 

Cecil-HiwasseePacolet Clayey loam; 

Moderate to 

moderately high 

permeability 

Well drained 

Cecil-MadisonEnon Sandy loam surface, 

clayey subsurface; 

Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Moderate 

shrink swell 

potential 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-22

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-6 

Soil Associations Found in Counties within the Study Area 

County State Most Common 

Soil Association Description Drainage Comments 

Warren NC Pacolet-Cecil Sandy loam or loam 

surface, clayey 

subsurface; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

Cecil-Appling Sandy loam to clayey 

loam; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained 

PacoletWedowee Sandy loam to clayey 

loam; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

Vance-Helena Sandy loam surface, 

clayey subsurface; 

Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained 

Pacolet-Saw Sandy loam surface, 

clayey to coarse 

loamy subsurface; 

Moderate to high 

permeability 

Well drained to 

excessively 

drained 

Vance NC Appling Loamy surface, 

clayey subsurface; 

Moderate to 

moderately high 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

WedoweeLouisburgPacolet Sandy to loamy 

surface, clayey to 

loamy subsurface; 

Moderate to high 

permeability 

Well drained to 

excessively 

drained 

Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

Franklin NC WedoweeHelena Loamy surface, 

clayey subsurface; 

Moderate to 

moderately high 

permeability 

Well drained to 

moderately well 

drained 

WakeWedoweeWateree Sandy or loamy 

surface, sandy, loamy 

or clayey subsurface; 

Very low to moderate 

permeability 

Well drained to 

excessively 

drained 

Cecil-Pacolet Loamy surface, 

clayey subsoil; 

Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-23

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Prime farmland” is defined as soils best 

suited for producing food, feed, fiber, 

forage, and oil seed crops. 

“Unique farmlands” are used for production 

and specific high-value food or fiber crops. 

“Statewide importance” and “locally 

important” are terms that are defined by the 

appropriate state or local government 

agency as soils important in the agriculture 

of an individual county. 

Table 3-6 

Soil Associations Found in Counties within the Study Area 

County State Most Common 

Soil Association Description Drainage Comments 

Appling-VanceHelena Sandy or loamy 

surface, clayey 

subsurface; Low to 

moderately high 

permeability 

Well drained 

WinnsboroWilkes Loamy surface, 

clayey subsurface; 

Very low to moderate 

permeability 

Well drained 

Wake NC Cecil -Appling Loamy surface, 

loamy to clayey 

subsurface; Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

Cecil Loamy surface, 

clayey subsurface: 

Moderate 

permeability 

Well drained Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

ApplingLouisburgWedowee Friable sandy loam to 

firm clay subsurface: 

Moderate to 

moderately high 

permeability 

Well drained to 

excessively 

drained 

Low shrink 

swell 

potential 

PRIME AND OTHER IMPORTANT FARMLAND 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 

U.S.C. 4202(a)) requires all Federal agencies to 

consider the impact of their activities on prime, 

unique, statewide, and locally important farmland 

soils, as defined by the USDA NRCS. The NRCS, 

in cooperation with state and local agencies, 

developed a listing of Prime and Statewide 

Important Farmland for Virginia and North Carolina 

by county. 

“Prime farmland” is defined as soils best suited for 

producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed 

crops. These soils are favorable for all major crops 

common to the county, have a favorable growing 

season, and receive the available moisture needed to 

produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land already in or committed to 

urban development or water storage is not considered prime farmland. In addition, the classification 

for a particular soil unit may be limited to only those lands that are drained and/or only those lands 

that are protected from or not frequently flooded. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-24

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

“Unique farmlands” are used for production and specific high-value food or fiber crops. They have 

the special combinations of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to 

economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and 

managed. 

“Statewide importance” and “locally important” are terms that are defined by the appropriate state or 

local government agency as soils important in the agriculture of an individual county. These 

definitions are based on measures of the capacity of the soil to support productive farm activity, not 

of current cultivation. 

To determine prime and other important soils in the Study Area, soils data were collected for each of 

the Project counties and GIS analyses were used to identify FPPA soils. Table 3-7 lists the 

approximate acres of prime and other important soils within each of the counties in the Study Area. It 

is important to note that although areas of water, or urban or built-up land uses are not considered 

prime farmland by definition, NRCS does not spell out exactly the manner in which they determine 

these areas. Therefore, there is the potential that Table 3-7 overstates the amounts of prime farmland 

soils in the Study Area. 

Table 3-7 

Acres of Prime and Other Important Farmland Soils within Study Area 

Location Prime Prime if 

drained 

Prime if 

drained and 

protected 

from/not 

frequently 

flooded 

Prime if 

protected 

from/not 

frequently 

flooded 

Statewide 

Importance 

Local 

Importance 

Richmond, 

VA 60 0 0 < 1 0 0 

Chesterfield 

County, VA 931 223 0 0 116 0 

Colonial 

Heights, VA 29 0 0 0 20 0 

Petersburg, 

VA 503 0 0 0 54 0 

Dinwiddie 

County, VA 3,096 0 0 0 785 0 

Brunswick 

County, VA 2,533 29 486 0 788 0 

Mecklenburg 

County, VA 1,883 0 0 0 1,332 0 

Subtotal – 

VA 9,035 252 486 < 1 3,095 0 

Warren 

County, NC 2,464 0 0 0 641 0 

Vance 

County, NC 2,393 0 0 0 514 0 

Franklin 

County, NC 1,304 0 49 0 486 0 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-25

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Crushed stone is, by 

value, the leading nonfuel mineral in both 

Virginia and 

North Carolina 

Table 3-7 

Acres of Prime and Other Important Farmland Soils within Study Area 

Location Prime Prime if 

drained 

Prime if 

drained and 

protected 

from/not 

frequently 

flooded 

Prime if 

protected 

from/not 

frequently 

flooded 

Statewide 

Importance 

Local 

Importance 

Wake 

County, NC 1,040 0 0 0 1,000 74 

Subtotal – 

NC 6,948 0 49 0 2,131 72 

Total – Study 

Area 15,983 252 535 < 1 5,226 72 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

Mineral resources have played an important role in the growth and development of North Carolina 

and Virginia since their settlement. According to the USGS, the estimated value of non-fuel mineral 

production for Virginia was $1.13 billion in 2008 and the estimated value for North Carolina in 2009 

was $846 million. In 2008, Virginia ranked twenty-first among the 50 states in total non-fuel mineral 

production value and North Carolina ranked twenty-fourth in 2009(USGS, 2012; USGS, 2013). 

Crushed stone is, by value, the leading non-fuel mineral in both 

Virginia and North Carolina, accounting for about 59% of Virginia’s 

total non-fuel mineral production value and about 69% of that of 

North Carolina. Construction gravel and sand was the second leading 

non-fuel mineral, followed by Portland cement, lime, and zirconium 

concentrates. These five mineral commodities represented 87% of the 

State’s total nonfuel mineral value (USGS, 2012). In North Carolina, 

phosphate rock was second based on value, followed by construction sand and gravel and industrial 

sand and gravel, dimension stone, and feldspar (USGS, 2012, and USGS, 2013). 

Based on a review of the USGS Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) online database and the 

North Carolina Permitted Active and Inactive Mines database, there are three listed mines in Virginia 

and four in North Carolina within the Study Area. These mines are: 

 Carter Sand and Gravel Company, located in Richmond, VA (listed as past producer) 

 McGowan Quarry, located in Richmond, VA (listed as past producer) 

 Rowlings Quarry, located in Brunswick County, VA (listed as past producer) 

 Vulcan-Greystone Quarry, located in Vance County, NC 

 Franklin Quarry, located in Franklin County, NC 

 Raleigh Quarry, located in Wake County, NC 

 Rowland Mine in Wake County, NC (listed as past producer) (USGS, 2008). 

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

Several Federal laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), regulate 

hazardous materials use and hazardous waste sites. RCRA defines hazardous waste as a material that 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-26

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

“because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may 

cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible 

or incapacitating illness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the 

environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or otherwise managed” 42 U.S.C. 

§§6901-6992k. 

Hazardous wastes can exist as solids, sludge, liquids, or vapors. Hazardous waste sites can include 

landfills, industrial facilities, lagoons, underground and aboveground storage tanks, solvent disposal 

sites, shooting ranges, and wood treatment plants. 

Environmental Data Resources (EDR) conducted a review of records in several state and Federal 

databases to gather data on sites that are listed in various hazardous waste inventories for the 

Petersburg to Raleigh corridor in 2004 and for the Richmond to Petersburg corridor in 2008. The 

purpose of this review was to determine if sites listed in these inventories were located within the 

proposed Study Area. The following Federal databases included information on sites within the 

Study Area: 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)/ Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) Tracking System 

 Corrective Action Report – CORRACTS 

 Formerly Used Defense Sites – FUDS 

 EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants Database 

 Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) 

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) 

 CERCLIS No Further Remediation Action Planned (CERCLIS-NFRAP) 

 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Activity Database (PADS) 

 Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS) 

 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) 

 Mines Master Index File (MINES) 

 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

 FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing ( HIST-FTTS) 

 RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) 

 RCRA – NRL-Non-generator) 

 Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) 

 Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report (FINDS) 

 Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) (EDR, 2004, 2008) 

Based on the EDR review, the following state databases provided information on sites within the 

Study Area: 

 Hazardous Substance Disposal Site (HSDS) – NC 

 State Dry Cleaners Database – NC 

 State Dry Cleaners Database – VA 

 Comprehensive Environmental Data System – CEDS 

 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) State Trust Fund Database – NC 

 Voluntary Remediation Program – VA 

 Voluntary Remediation Program, Brownfields – VA 

 Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks - NC, VA 

 Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory – NC 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-27

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

254 potentially hazardous sites 

in Virginia and 809 in North 

Carolina are within 2,000 feet 

of the SEHSR corridor. A vast 

majority of the sites were 

concentrated between 

Richmond and Petersburg in 

VA and in Wake County, NC. 

 Incident Management Database – NC 

 LUST Information System - NC, VA 

 Solid Waste Management Facilities - NC, VA 

 Pollution Complaint Database – VA 

 Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks – VA 

 Permitted Air Facility List – VA 

 Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database – NC 

 Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks - VA (EDR, 2004, 2008). 

The sites found by the EDR query are shown in Appendix J of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier 

II DEIS. Sites were included if they were located within American 

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) recommended distances 

to the Study Area. This distance extends 2,000 feet from the Study 

Area. There were 254 sites within Virginia and 809 in North 

Carolina. A vast majority of the sites were located between 

Richmond and Petersburg (225 sites) and in Wake County (602, of 

which 543 sites were within the Raleigh area). A number of the 

sites in Wake County are registered petroleum storage tanks 

(Appendix J, SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS) 

(EDR, 2004, 2008). 

In September 2010, Mallinckrodt, Inc., doing business as Covidien, informed NCDOT that one of its 

facilities is located in the Study Area. The site, located in Wake County at the intersection of Capital 

Boulevard and Durant Road, has operations on each side of the existing CSX S-Line, but was not 

identified during development of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. The parcels on 

which the site is located are large, and the georeferenced coordinates for the site were outside the 

boundary of the Study Area. The portion of the Covidien site within the Study Area includes transfer 

material lines, application fields, monitoring wells, stormwater retention basins, and fencing, impacts 

to this site are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 5 of this FEIS. 

Based on a review of the information queried by EDR, the list of potentially contaminated sites 

should be considered as a screening level study. There are some important caveats to these data. In 

some databases, sites that have completed the remediation process may be included with sites that 

require cleanup. Other data sources, such as petroleum tank listings or brownfield inventory 

databases, may list sites that are not contaminated. Some sites were listed in multiple databases, and 

in some cases there was repetition of sites in the same database. For some entries, the names for sites 

at the same latitude and longitude differ. When this occurs, it is not always possible to determine if 

the sites are unique. Additional research would be required to fully evaluate the potential Project 

construction and operation to impact these sites. 

AIR QUALITY 

Transportation sources generate varying amounts of ozone (O3) and its precursors; nitrogen oxides 

(NOX); hydrocarbons (HC) (specifically volatile organic compounds (VOCs)); particulate matter 

(PM); and/or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, all of which are concerns for human and 

environmental health. 

Ozone is a highly reactive pollutant that damages lung tissue, causes congestion, reduces vital lung 

capacity, and can also damage vegetation. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone 

and acid rain, and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The major mechanism for the 

formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO). 

NOX plays a major role with VOCs to produce O3. The two major emissions sources are 

transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-28

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

PM is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. 

Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) pose a health concern because they can be 

inhaled into and accumulate in the respiratory system. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

(PM2.5) are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the largest health risks. CO is a 

colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. Exposure 

to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning ability 

and performance of complex tasks (USEPA, undated). 

REGULATORY SETTING 

This section describes the applicable state and Federal regulations governing air quality in the 

Study Area. It also discusses the progress Virginia and North Carolina have made toward 

achieving air quality standards in the Study Area. 

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (40 CFR PART 50) 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required the 

USEPA to establish NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the 

environment. The NAAQS are implemented by USEPA in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) under 40 CFR Part 50. The CAA established two types of national air quality 

standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of 

“sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set 

limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to 

animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Table 3-8 lists the primary and secondary 

standards. 

Table 3-8 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

[final rule cite] 

Primary/ 

Secondary 

Averaging 

Time Level Form 

Carbon Monoxide 

[76 FR 54294, 

Aug 31, 2011] 

Primary 

8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year 1-hour 35 ppm 

Lead 

[73 FR 66964, 

Nov 12, 2008] 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Rolling 3 

month 

average 

0.15 μg/m3 (1) Not to be exceeded 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

[75 FR 6474, Feb 

9.2010] 

[61 FR 52852, Oct 

8, 1996] 

Primary 1-hour 100 μg/m3

 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary Annual 53 ppb (2) Annual mean 

Ozone 

[73 FR 16436, 

Mar 27, 2008] 

Primary and 

Secondary 8-hour 0.075-hour (3)

Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr concentration, 

averaged over 3 years 

Particle 

Pollution 

Dec 14, 

2012 

PM2.5

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-29

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-8 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

[final rule cite] 

Primary/ 

Secondary 

Averaging 

Time Level Form 

Primary and 

Secondary 24-hour 35 μg/m3

 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 

PM10

Primary and 

Secondary 24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per years on average over 3 years 

Sulfur Dioxide 

[75 FR 35520, Jun 

22, 2010] 

[38 FR 25678, 

Sept 14, 1973] 

Primary 1-hour 75 ppb (4)

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year 

Source: USEPA; December 14, 2012 

(1) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one 

year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 

standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 

(2) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer

comparison to the 1-hour standard. 

(3) Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, USEPA revoked the 1-hour 

ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued 

obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days 

per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. 

(4) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking. 

However, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain

or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. 

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS – TITLE I 

Title I of the CAAA addresses nonattainment issues related to O3, CO, and PM10. 

Nonattainment areas are progressively ranked according to the severity and type of their air 

pollution problems. Each category of nonattainment has a label such as severe or moderate 

and a date for meeting the NAAQS. 

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS – TITLE II 

Title II of the CAAA addresses mobile sources and stipulates more stringent emission 

standards for cars, trucks, and buses. This title also regulates fuel quality (such as gasoline 

volatility and diesel sulfur content); requires reformulated gasoline in the highest O3 areas 

and oxygenated fuels in the highest CO areas; and requires clean-fueled vehicles for certain 

fleets and other pilot programs. 

CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY 

The CAAA require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the appropriate 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). States are required to develop SIPs that explain how they 

will meet the requirements of the CAA. The SIP is a plan for implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of the NAAQS, and includes emission limitations and control measures to 

attain the standards. States must involve the public in the development of the SIP through 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-30

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The regulations require that funding for 

construction be identified before a project 

can be included in a conformity analysis. 

Projects that are “Exempt from Regional 

Emissions Analysis” are listed in 40 CFR 

Part 93.126, and include “Planning and 

technical studies.” Because the Project is 

currently funded only at the planning 

level and does not have a dedicated 

funding source for construction, it falls 

under the exempt status. 

hearings and opportunities to comment. In Virginia, the State Air Pollution Control Board 

administers the SIP. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Air Quality administers the SIP. 

Conformity to a SIP, as defined in the CAAA, means conformity to a SIP’s purpose of 

reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS to achieve attainment of such 

standards. The Federal agency responsible for the action is required to determine if its action 

conforms to the applicable SIP. The USEPA has developed two sets of conformity 

regulations: 

 Transportation projects developed or approved under the Federal Aid Highway Program 

or Federal Transit Act are governed by the “transportation conformity” regulation (40 

CFR Part 3, Subpart A) 

Other projects, which include the Federal action planned for the Project, are governed by the 

“general conformity” regulations. The regulations for Determining Conformity of General 

Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans were published in the Federal 

Register on November 30, 1993. The general conformity regulation (40 CFR Part 93, 

Subpart B) became effective January 31, 1994. In Virginia, general conformity criteria and 

procedures are set forth in 9VAC5-10-20. In North Carolina, these criteria and procedures 

are set forth in 15 NCAC.200-.2004 

The conformity regulations apply to Federal actions 

occurring in air basins designated as nonattainment 

areas for pollutants in the NAAQS (Table 3-8) or in 

attainment areas subject to maintenance plans 

(maintenance areas). Federal actions occurring in 

air basins that are in attainment with criteria 

pollutants are not subject to the conformity rule. 

The regulations require that funding for construction 

be identified before a project can be included in a 

conformity analysis. Projects that are “Exempt from 

Regional Emissions Analysis” are listed in 40 CFR 

Part 93.126 (Tables 2 and 3), and include “Planning 

and technical studies." Because the Project is 

currently funded only at the planning level and does not have a dedicated funding source for 

construction, it falls under the exempt status. Once funding is secured for ROW purchase and 

construction, conformity analyses will be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93. 

CLEAN AIR NONROAD DIESEL RULE 

In June 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, USEPA finalized new 

requirements for nonroad diesel fuel that will decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel 

used in locomotives by 99%. Since sulfur damages exhaust emission control devices, these 

fuel improvements will reduce PM from existing engines. Diesel fuel currently has a sulfur 

content of about 3,000 ppm. The new rule cut that amount to 15 ppm in 2014. 

MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSATS) RULE 

In February 2007, USEPA finalized a rule to reduce hazardous air pollutants from mobile 

sources (Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, February 26, 2007). The 

rule limited the benzene content of gasoline and reduced toxic emissions from passenger 

vehicles and gas cans. At that time, USEPA estimated that in 2030 this rule would reduce 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-31

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

total emissions of mobile source air toxics by 330,000 tons and VOC emissions (precursors to 

ozone and PM2.5) by over 1 million tons. 

USEPA has adopted many mobile source emission control programs that, in addition to 

controlling pollutants such as hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides, will also 

result in large air toxic reductions. Examples of these control programs include the following: 

 Heavy-duty Onboard Diagnostic Rule (PDF) (74 FR 8310, 119 pp, 825K, published 

February 24, 2009) 

 Small SI and Marine SI Engine Rule (PDF) (73 FR 59034, 347 pp, 3.69MB, October 8, 

2008) 

 Locomotive and Commercial Marine Rule (PDF) (73 FR 25098, 255 pp, 2.08MB, 

published May 6, 2008) 

 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (PDF) (69 FR 38957, 316 pp, 1,87K, published June 29, 

2004) 

 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 

Requirements (PDF) (66 FR 5002, 192pp, 1.71MB, published January 18, 2001) 

 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements 

(PDF) (65 FR 6698, 173 pp, 1.14MB, published February 10, 2000) 

USEPA has developed additional diesel-related programs to reduce diesel particulate matter 

under the National Clean Diesel Campaign, which encompasses a variety of programs to 

reduce diesel emissions. 

LOCOMOTIVE AND COMMERCIAL MARINE RULE 

In May 2008, USEPA published the final rule adopting a comprehensive program to dramatically 

reduce pollution from locomotives, applying to all types of locomotives. This final rule 

completes an important step in USEPA's ongoing National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) by 

adding new programs for locomotives and marine diesel engines to the clean diesel initiatives that 

have been already undertaken for highway, other nonroad, and stationary diesel engines in 2004. 

It significantly strengthens the locomotive and marine diesel programs proposed in April 2007, 

especially in controlling emissions during the critical early years through the early introduction of 

advanced technologies and the more complete coverage of existing engines. When fully 

implemented, this coordinated set of new programs will reduce harmful diesel engine emissions 

to a small fraction of their previous levels. 

Today, locomotives and marine diesel engines account for about 20% of mobile source NOX

emissions and 25% of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions in the U.S. Absent this final action, 

by 2030 the relative contributions of NOx and PM2.5 from these engines would have grown to 35 

and 65%, respectively. 

On a nationwide annual basis, these reductions will amount to 800,000 tons of NOX and 27,000 

tons of PM by the year 2030. For locomotives, the reduction from existing standards in PM Tiers 

0 through 4 locomotives will be approximately 60, 50, 50, 50, and 90%, respectively. The 

reduction in NOX for range year Tiers 0 through 4 will be approximately 20, 20, 20, 20, and 80%, 

respectively. All Tier idle emissions are predicted to be reduced by 50% for both PM and NOX. 

PM HOT-SPOT ANALYSIS 

On March 10, 2006, USEPA published a final rule (40 CFR 93.116) that establishes 

transportation conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation 

projects must be analyzed for local air quality impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. The rule was followed by a March 29, 2006, guidance document issued 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-32

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

In the project area, both VA 

and NC are listed as 

maintenance areas for the ozone 

standard. In 2012, the 8-hour 

O3 standard was exceeded 3 

days in Chesterfield County, 

VA, 1 day in Franklin County, 

NC, and 3 days in Wake 

County NC

jointly by USEPA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which provides 

information for state and local agencies to meet the hot-spot requirements established in the 

final transportation conformity rule. The USEPA published a final rule on January 15, 2013 

(effective March 13, 2013), making revisions to PM2.5 standards. The annual standard was 

lowered from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter to 12.0. Corresponding revisions were also 

made to the data handling conventions and to the ambient air monitoring, reporting and 

network design requirements. 

Hot-spot analyses are not required for projects in PM2.5 or PM10 attainment area or if they are 

exempt from regional transportation conformity according to 40 CFR93.126 or 93.128. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Potential air quality impacts of the proposed Project include: 

 Changes in rail-related emissions due to an increase in train operations each day and a 

change in equipment 

 Changes in the overall emissions from transportation sources 

 Changes in local (microscale) ambient air quality emissions, including changes from 

locomotive passbys, changes at various crossings that could handle additional traffic due 

to nearby highway-railroad crossing closures, and changes in vehicular delay due to 

increased traffic resulting from increased ridership 

In this section, existing ambient air quality conditions and emissions in the Project corridor and at 

specific locations are identified. 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IN THE STUDY AREA 

ATTAINMENT/NONATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE 

DESIGNATIONS 

The USEPA, VADEQ, and NCDENR maintain a network of monitoring stations that sample 

ambient air pollutant concentrations and provide data to assess the impact of control strategies. 

Monitoring data from these stations are stored in the USEPA Air Quality System (AQS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/). There are no ambient monitoring stations in the Virginia 

section of the Study Area. However, there are two stations in Chesterfield County that monitor 

various pollutants west of the Study Area. There is a PM2.5 monitor at 6700 Strathmore Road 

and an ozone monitor at the intersection of County Roads 655 and 654. There is also a nearby 

CO monitor in the City of Richmond, at the Science Museum of Virginia at the intersection of 

DMV Drive and W Leigh Street. Within the North Carolina section of the Study Area, there are 

two stations in Wake County and one station in Franklin County. Of the Wake County stations, 

the closest to the Study Area is located in Raleigh on Spring Forest Road. The Franklin County 

station is located on South Hillsborough Street. 

In the following section, AQS data for the transportation-related pollutants from 2012 (the last 

available full year) are presented and compared to the air quality standards in Table 3-8. The 

pollutants relevant to the Project are those emitted from transportation sources, including 8-hour 

O3, CO, NOX, and PM2.5. 

8-HOUR OZONE 

From 1980 to 2010, there was a 28% decrease in the 8-hour 

design value O3 concentrations in the United States. A design 

value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-33

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Project is in areas currently 

designated as being in 

attainment of the standard in 

VA and are in areas designated 

as maintenance for Wake and 

Franklin counties in NC. 

The Project is in areas that are 

currently designated as being 

in attainment of the PM2.5

standards. These standards 

were not exceeded at any of 

the Study Area monitoring 

stations during 2012. 

given area relative to the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

In the Project area, both Virginia (Richmond-Petersburg) and North Carolina (RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill) are listed as maintenance areas for the ozone standard. 

The 8-hour standard was exceeded 3 days in 2012 at the intersection of County Roads 655 and 

654 in Chesterfield County, VA. 

The 8-hour standard was exceeded 3 days in 2012 at the Spring Forest Road station in Raleigh, 

NC, in Wake County. 

The 8-hour standard was exceeded 1 day in 2012 at the South Hillsborough Street station in 

Franklin County, NC. 

CARBON MONOXIDE 

From 2000 to 2010, there was an 82% decrease in the 

annual 2nd maximum 8-hour average, which is the 

second highest 8-hour average concentration of CO in 

a year. Currently, there are no nonattainment areas in 

the United States. 

The Project is in areas that are currently designated as 

being in attainment of the standard in Virginia and are 

in areas designated as maintenance for Wake and 

Franklin counties in North Carolina. The 8-hour (9 

ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) CO standard was not exceeded at any of the Study Area monitoring 

stations during 2012 and there are currently no nonattainment areas in the United States. 

NITROGEN DIOXIDE 

From 1980 to 2010, there was a 52% decrease in the annual NO2 average (i.e., arithmetic mean) 

in the United States. 

The Project is in areas that are currently designated as being in attainment of the standard. 

There are no NO2 monitoring stations in the Study Area. 

PARTICULATE MATTER 

From 1990 to 2010, there was a 38% decrease in the design value PM10 concentration 

averages. From 2000 to 2010, there was a 27% decrease in the design value PM2.5 

concentration averages in the United States. 

The Project is in areas that are currently designated as 

being in attainment of the PM2.5 (15 μg/m3

 annual mean, 35 

μg/m3

 24-hour average) standards. These standards were 

not exceeded at any of the Study Area monitoring stations 

during 2012. 

AIR QUALITY INDEX 

The USEPA created the Air Quality Index (AQI) to enhance 

the public's understanding of air pollution. Previously known 

as the Pollutant Standards Index, this uniform air quality index is used by state and local agencies 

for reporting on daily air quality to the public. The AQI provides general information to the 

public about air quality and associated health effects. It provides information on pollutant 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-34

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

There are 3 AQI 

monitoring stations in 

the Study Area. All 3 

stations were rated 

good more than 85% 

of the time. 

In VA and NC, the 1-

hour and 8-hour ppm 

CO standards were 

not exceeded in the 

Project area for 2012. 

concentrations for ground-level O3, PM, CO, SOX, and NOX. The AQI is "normalized" across 

pollutants so that a value of 100 represents the level of health protection associated with the 

health-based standard for each pollutant and a value of 500 represents the significant harm level. 

An AQI value between 0 and 50 is considered “good.” Within this range, air quality is 

considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk. Values between 51 and 100 are 

considered “moderate.” “Moderate” air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there 

may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people. For example, people who 

are unusually sensitive to O3 may experience respiratory symptoms. AQI values between 101 

and 150 are considered “unhealthy for sensitive groups." This means they are likely to be 

affected at lower levels than the general public. For example, people with lung disease are at 

greater risk from exposure to O3, while people with either lung disease or heart disease are at 

greater risk from exposure to particle pollution. The general public is not likely to be affected 

when the AQI is in this range. AQI values greater than 150 are 

considered “unhealthy.” This includes the AQI categories unhealthy, 

very unhealthy, and hazardous. In general, very few locations across 

the United States ever have days in the very unhealthy or hazardous 

categories. 

There are three AQI monitoring stations in the Study Area. AQI 

summaries for 2012 for these stations are presented in Table 3-9. 

Table 3-9 

2012 Air Quality Index Summary 

County 

Percent of Days 

Good Moderate Unhealthy for 

Sensitive Groups Unhealthy 

Chesterfield County, 

VA 89% 10% 1% 0% 

Franklin County, NC 90% 10% <0.5% 0% 

Wake County, NC 85% 14% 1% 0% 

Source: USEPA, 2012 AQI Reports 

EXISTING AMBIENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED SITES 

This section describes the existing ambient pollutant conditions at selected sites within the 

Study Area. Carbon monoxide was chosen for microscale assessment because it is a sitespecific pollutant, with higher concentrations generally 

found adjacent to roadways. 

In contrast, ozone, and its precursors NOX and HC, are not 

site-specific; rather, they are of regional concern and, 

therefore, were not considered in the microscale analysis. 

PM2.5 analysis was not performed since the Project is in areas 

that are in attainment of the standard. 

CARBON MONOXIDE 

In Virginia and North Carolina, the 1-hour and 8-hour ppm CO standards (35 and 9 ppm, 

respectively) were not exceeded in the Project area for 2012. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-35

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Project is in areas that are 

currently designated as being in 

attainment of the PM standards. 

These standards were not exceeded 

at any of the Study Area monitoring 

stations during 2012. Therefore, no 

PM hot-spot analysis is required. 

Microscale CO analyses are presented in Chapter 4 for the worst-case signalized intersections in 

Virginia and North Carolina where traffic will be routed as a result of the consolidation of 

existing at-grade rail crossings to grade separations (see Section 2.2.1.2 for more information). 

The location of these intersections was chosen based on the worst Level-of-Service (LOS) and 

predicted traffic volumes. The LOS of an intersection is a qualitative measure of capacity and 

operating conditions and is directly related to vehicle delay. LOS is given a letter designation 

from A to F, with LOS A representing very short delays and LOS F representing very long 

delays. In the North Carolina portion of the Project, the worst-case intersection is New Hope 

Church Road and Atlantic Avenue in Wake County. In the Virginia portion of the Project, the 

worst-case intersection is Centralia Road and Chester Road in Chesterfield County. 

Microscale CO concentrations were predicted with the USEPA approved MOVES and 

CAL3QHCR computer models for the peak 1-hour and 8-hour time periods, corresponding to the 

averaging periods of the NAAQS. 

PARTICULATE MATTER 

Projects can initially be screened out and a conformity determination made if they do not fall 

within a PM2.5 or PM10 nonattainment area or if they 

are exempt from regional transportation conformity 

according to 40 CFR93.126 or 93.128. 

As mentioned above, the Project is in areas that are 

currently designated as being in attainment of the PM 

standards. These standards were not exceeded at any 

of the Study Area monitoring stations during 2012. 

Therefore, based on this information, no PM hot-spot 

analysis is required. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes the basic terminologies of noise and vibration used in this report, which is 

consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Impact Assessment (FTA, 

2006) methodology. This information will provide background for the assessment procedures 

described in the later sections. 

NOISE DESCRIPTORS 

Noise is usually defined as sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech 

communication and hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Under certain conditions, noise may cause 

hearing loss, interfere with human activities, and in various ways may affect people’s health and 

well-being. 

The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude of sound because it 

accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude. When describing sound and its 

effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound pressure levels are typically used to 

account for the response of the human ear. The term “A-weighted” refers to a filtering of the 

noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. The Aweighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the noisiness of 

different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community noise. Figure 3-4 

illustrates typical A-weighted sound pressure levels for various noise sources. 

Community noise levels usually change continuously during the day. The equivalent continuous 

A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq) is normally used to describe community noise. The Leq is 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-36

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

the equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound pressure level that would contain the same 

acoustical energy as the time-varying A-weighted sound pressure level during the same time 

interval. The maximum sound pressure level (Lmax) is the greatest instantaneous sound pressure 

level observed during a single noise measurement interval. 

Another descriptor, the day-night average sound pressure level (Ldn), was developed to evaluate 

the total daily community noise environment. The Ldn is a 24-hour average sound pressure level 

with a 10-dB time-of-day weighting added to sound pressure levels that occur during the nine 

nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This nighttime 10-dB adjustment is an effort to 

account for the increased sensitivity to nighttime noise events. The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) uses Ldn and Leq to evaluate train noise impacts at the surrounding 

communities. (FRA, 2012) 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-37

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-4 

Source: Parsons 

VIBRATION DESCRIPTORS 

Vibration is an oscillatory motion, which can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or 

acceleration. Displacement, in the case of a vibrating floor, is simply the distance that a point on 

the floor moves away from its static position. The velocity represents the instantaneous speed of 

the floor movement, and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. The response of humans, 

buildings, and equipment to vibration is normally described using velocity or acceleration. In this 

report, velocity will be used in describing ground-borne vibration. 

SOUND

LEVEL, dBA NOISE SOURCE

INDIVIDUAL OR

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO

CONTINUOUS NOISE

Threshold of Physical

Discomfort

Hearing Damage Criteria

for 8-Hour Workday

Most Residents Highly Annoyed

Acceptability Limit for

Residential Development

Goal for Urban Area

Threshold of Hearing

No Community Annoyance

Riveting Machine

Ambulance Siren (100’)

Diesel Bus (At Sidewalk)

Inside Boiler Room or

Printing Press Plant

Gas Lawn Mower (100’)

Inside Sports Car, 50 mph

Freight Train (100’)

Car Passby (50’)

Average Urban Area

Inside Department Store

Quiet Rural Area

Inside Business Office

Light Traffic (100’)

Inside Home

110

100

90

80

70

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

120 Commercial Jet Takeoff

(Near Runway)

Piledriver (50’)

Inside Recording Studio

Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-38

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root 

mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is used to evaluate the potential for building damage. It is 

defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is not considered the 

appropriate measurement for evaluating the human response to vibration. RMS is used to 

evaluate human response, since it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration 

signals. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. For sources 

such as trucks or motor vehicles, PPV levels are typically 6 to 14 dB higher than RMS levels. 

FRA uses the abbreviation, “VdB”, for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion 

with sound decibel. (USDOT, 2005) 

Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required in measuring vibration. Similar 

to the noise descriptors, Leq and Lmax can be used to describe the average vibration and the 

maximum vibration level observed during a single vibration measurement interval. 

Figure 3-5 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to 

ground-borne vibration. As shown in Figure 3-5, the threshold of perception for human response 

is approximately 65 dB; however, human response to vibration is not usually significant unless 

the vibration exceeds 70 dB. Vibration tolerance limits for sensitive instruments such as MRI or 

electron microscopes could be much lower than the human vibration perception threshold. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-39

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-5 

Source: High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, 1988 

50

60

70

80

100

90

Human/Structural Response

Typical Sources

(50 ft from source)

VELOCITY

LEVEL*

* RMS Vibration Velocity Level in dB relative to 10-6 inches/second

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage Blasting from construction projects

fragile buildings

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked

construction equipment

High speed rail, upper range

Bus or truck over bump

Bus or truck, typical

Rapid transit, upper range

Typical background vibration

Difficulty with tasks such as

reading a VDT screen

Residential annoyance, infrequent

events (e.g. commuter rail)

Residential annoyance, frequent

events (e.g. rapid transit)

Limit for vibration sensitive

equipment. Approximate threshold

for human perception of vibration

High speed rail, typical
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-40

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The southern and northern portions of the 

Project area have a higher concentration of 

commercial land use and residential 

development. The central portion is more 

rural, with a sizable number of residences 

being farmhouses. Throughout VA and 

NC, there are a significant number of 

historic and archaeological sites. The 

Study Area generally adheres to a late 

1800’s railroad alignment. Portions of the 

alignments are adjacent to historical and 

archaeological sites. 

EXISTING SETTING 

Sensitive receptors were selected by their proximity to the alignment and by land use. In general, 

the southern (between Henderson and Raleigh) and northern (between Richmond and Petersburg, 

VA) portions of the Project area have a higher concentration of commercial land use and 

residential development. The central portion (between Petersburg, VA, and Henderson, NC) is 

more rural, with a sizable number of residences being farmhouses. Throughout Virginia and 

North Carolina, there are a significant number of historic and archaeological sites including many 

associated with the American Civil War. The Study Area generally adheres to a late 1800’s (postCivil War) railroad alignment. For this reason, portions of the alignments are adjacent to 

historical and archaeological sites. 

Aerial photos and site visits were used to identify the noise and vibration receptor sites evaluated 

in this study and to select representative sites to 

conduct background measurements throughout 

the corridor. Noise and vibration field 

measurements were conducted between 

September 13 and 16, 2004, and May 18 and 29, 

2009. 

NOISE MEASUREMENTS 

Noise measurements were conducted using the 

following ANSI Type 1 instrumentation: Larson 

Davis (LD) Model 870 environmental noise 

monitors and LD Model 820 integrating sound 

level meters. The microphones used with these 

systems were LD Model 2559 and Bruel and Kjaer 

(B&K) Model 4134. All noise measurement systems were calibrated using LD Model CA250 

acoustical calibrators. The instruments were calibrated and operated according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

The purpose of measuring existing noise levels is to determine the appropriate impact criteria 

based on the FRA noise impact guidelines. A total of six long-term and ten short-term 

measurements were taken in 2004 and 17 long-term measurements were taken in 2009. Longterm measurement equipment was left overnight to record day-night levels (Ldnm, also known as 

DNL). Short-term measurements, 20 minutes in length, were used to determine Leq at 

representative sites. The noise measurement sites with results are listed in Table 3-10 and the 

locations of the measurement sites are shown on Figure 3-6. The measured values were used to 

estimate existing noise levels at all other sensitive receptors along the alignment. 

VIBRATION MEASUREMENTS 

Vibration measurements were conducted using a GeoSonic 3000EZplus portable seismograph. 

Vibration levels were measured on the vertical, transverse, and longitudinal axes, and the highest 

of the three was used for this analysis. The seismograph has an internal calibration sequence and 

was operated according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Peak particle velocity vibrations (in 

inches per second) were recorded to assess potential building damage impacts based on FRA 

procedures and guidelines. When converting from peak particle velocity measurements into VdB 

a correction factor of -12 VdB was added to the passby measurements and a correction factor of -

6 VdB was added to the background measurements. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-41

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

A total of 18 vibration measurements were taken. The locations of the measurement sites with 

the background vibration measurements are listed in Table 3-11 and shown in Figure 3-6. Table 

3-12 presents the results of the vibration measurements from train passbys. 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-42

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-6 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-43

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-6 (continued) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-10 

Noise Measurement Sites 

Site No. Location Location/Site Description Type of Measurement Date Start Time D

N-1 Richmond 3000 Krouse Street Long Term 5/18/09 11:56 AM N-2 Richmond 3431 Keighly Street Long Term 5/18/09 12:43 PM N-3 Richmond 2501 Alcott Street Long Term 5/18/09 4:49 PM N-4 Chester 9025 Chester Road Long Term 5/19/09 1:48 PM N-5 Chester 11435 Great Branch Drive Long Term 5/19/09 4:57 PM N-6 Chester 11542 Chester Station Drive Long Term 5/19/09 3:23 PM N-7 Chester 12818 Winfree Street Long Term 5/20/09 2:00 PM N-8 Colonial Heights 16111 Happy Hill Road Long Term 5/20/09 9:58 AM N-9 Colonial Heights 17010 Lansmill Drive Long Term 5/20/09 4:44 PM 

N-10 Colonial Heights 31115 Farris Avenue Long Term 5/26/09 3:49 PM N-11 Ettrick 20218 Loyal Avenue Long Term 5/21/09 2:23 PM N-12 Ettrick 3923 River Road Long Term 5/21/09 9:01 AM N-13 Petersburg 20914 Brick House Drive Long Term 5/21/09 11:28 AM N-14 Petersburg 1742 Montgomery Avenue Long Term 5/26/09 12:22 PM N-15 Petersburg 9313 Southwood Drive Long Term 5/27/09 2:23 PM N-16 Petersburg 7706 Halifax Road Long Term 5/27/09 1:45 PM N-17 Petersburg Petersburg National Battlefield – Fort Wadsworth Short Term 9/16/04 9:30 AM 2N-18 Petersburg Vaughan Road Short Term 9/16/04 10:31 AM 2N-19 Dinwiddie State Highway 703 Short Term 9/16/04 11:30 AM 2N-20 Dinwiddie State Highway 656 Short Term 9/16/04 12:10 PM 2

N-21 Alberta 136 1st Avenue – Alberta Town Office Long Term 9/16/04 4:46 PM 2

N-22 La Crosse La Crosse Town Office Long Term 9/16/04 3:42 PM 2
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-10 

Noise Measurement Sites 

Site No. Location Location/Site Description Type of Measurement Date Start Time D

N-23 Norlina 202 Liberty Street Short Term 9/15/04 1:45 PM 2N-24 Henderson 574 Williams Street Short Term 9/15/04 12:43 PM 2

N-25A Franklinton Cambridge Drive and U.S Route 1 Short Term 9/15/04 10:11 AM 2

N-25B Franklinton 20 Misty Way Long Term 5/27/09 8:54 AM 

N-26 Youngsville 123 Railroad Lane Long Term 9/16/04 3:32 PM 1N-27 Wake Forest 332 Railroad Lane Short Term 9/15/04 8:49 AM 2N-28 Wake Forest 2705 Steeple Run Drive (Smith Creek) Long Term 9/16/04 5:02 PM 1N-29 Raleigh 8401 Hobhouse Circle (Windsor Forest) Short Term 9/14/04 11:51 AM 2N-30 Raleigh Devonshire Apartments Long Term 9/15/04 4:40 PM 1N-31 Raleigh 327 Mulberry Long Term 9/15/04 1:57 PM 2N-32 Raleigh 620 West Hargett Street Short Term 9/14/04 9:42 AM 2

Note: 1. Ldn for long-term measurements only 

Table 3-11 

Vibration Sensitive Receptor Sites with Background Vibration Measurements 

Site 

No. Site Description/Location Side of Alignment Land Use1 Date Time 

Distance to 

Near Track 

Centerline, 

feet 

Max R

Veloc

Lev

Vd

V-1 

3021 Commerce Rd., Richmond, 

VA East COM Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu

V-2 

FTY Group Warehouse, Richmond, 

VA East COM Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-11 

Vibration Sensitive Receptor Sites with Background Vibration Measurements 

Site 

No. Site Description/Location Side of Alignment Land Use1 Date Time 

Distance to 

Near Track 

Centerline, 

feet 

Max R

Veloc

Lev

Vd

V-3 

11542 Chester Station Dr., Chester, 

VA East SFR Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu

V-4 

2801 Boulevard, Colonial Heights, 

VA East COM Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu

V-5 

1510 W Washington St 

Petersburg, VA East COM Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu

V-6 

Civil War Earthworks, (Petersburg 

National Battlefield), Petersburg, 

VA East HST 9/16/04 11:21 AM 600 68 

V-7 

B.T. Hargrave Hardware Store, 

Dinwiddie, VA West HST 9/16/04 12:16 PM 37 72 

V-8 

20714 First St (TrueValue 

Hardware Store), McKenney, VA East COM 9/15/04 4:30 PM 180 68 

V-9 

194 Connelly St. (Trinity St. Mark 

Episcopal Church), Alberta, VA West Church 9/15/04 3:06 PM 222 68 

V-10 

1950 Carter Rd. (La Crosse Baptist 

Church), La Crosse, VA East Church 9/15/04 2:37 PM 122 68 

V-11 

Junction Park (Junction Park 

Museum), Norlina, NC West HST 9/15/04 12:11 PM 67 74 

V-12 

611 North Garnett Rd. (The Rock of 

Reach Ministry Church), Henderson, 

NC West Church 9/15/04 10:29 AM 95 72 

V-13 Confederate Graveyard, Kittrell, NC East HST 9/16/04 3:30 PM 102 68 V-14 

Franklin Commerce Center, 

Franklin, NC. East HST Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-11 

Vibration Sensitive Receptor Sites with Background Vibration Measurements 

Site 

No. Site Description/Location Side of Alignment Land Use1 Date Time 

Distance to 

Near Track 

Centerline, 

feet 

Max R

Veloc

Lev

Vd

V-15 

204 Railroad St. Youngsville 

Cabinet Company, Youngsville, NC East COM 9/14/04 3:07 PM 75 68 

V-16 

237 Friendship Chapel Rd. 

(Friendship Chapel Baptist Church), 

Wake Forest, NC East Church 9/14/04 1:30 PM 57 68 

V-17 Amtrak Station, Raleigh, NC South COM Existing Train Passby Vibration MeasuV-18 

1101 Haynes St. (Pilot Mill), 

Raleigh, NC East HST Existing Train Passby Vibration Measu

Note: 1. SFR = Single Family Residences; COM = Commercial Property; HST = Historic Site. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-48

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-12 

Existing Train Passby Vibration Measurements 

Site 

No. Location Date Time 

Distance to 

Near Track 

Centerline, 

feet 

Max RMS 

Velocity 

Level, VdB 

PPV1, 

in/sec 

V-1 

3021 Commerce Rd., Richmond, 

VA 5/19/09 10:53 AM 51 85 0.068 

V-2 

FTY Group Warehouse, 

Richmond, VA 5/20/09 1:57 PM 55 74 0.020 

V-3 

11542 Chester Station Dr., 

Chester, VA 5/21/09 3:20 PM 118 78 0.030 

V-4 

2801 Boulevard, Colonial 

Heights, VA 5/22/09 12:04 PM 85 79 0.035 

V-5 

1510 W Washington St 

Petersburg, VA 5/27/09 11:38 AM 63 82 0.048 

V-14 

Franklin Commerce Center, 

Franklin, NC 9/14/04 5:04 PM 98 74 0.020 

V-17 Amtrak Station, Raleigh, NC 9/13/04 5:56 PM 30 87 0.090 

V-18 

1101 Haynes St. (Pilot Mill), 

Raleigh, NC2 9/14/04 11:19 AM 37 73 0.018 

Notes: 

1. The PPV is the highest measured peak particle velocity from all passby events at a particular location. 

2. Train passby measurement was taken at a train exchange yard with the engine moving at low speeds. 

ENERGY 

Because transportation accounts for a high percentage of the United States’ energy consumption, 

transportation choices are key elements in national energy conservation strategies. The SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS established the benefits of the Project in terms of energy savings. 

Energy is commonly measured in terms of British thermal units, or BTUs. A BTU is defined as the 

amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by 1° Fahrenheit. For 

transportation projects, energy usage is predominantly influenced by the amount of fuel used. Table 

3-13 shows U.S. Department of Energy estimates for average national energy use per passenger mile 

for the three primary transportation modes that operate within the Study Area The table shows that 

intercity passenger rail is 19% more efficient than domestic airline travel and 52% more efficient than 

auto travel on a per-passenger-mile basis. 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-49

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The visual environment of the 

Study Area ranges from 

undeveloped natural areas and 

small towns to large-scale 

industrial development and 

vibrant urban districts. A portion 

of the Study Area contains active 

freight and passenger rail service, 

while part of the Study Area 

follows an inactive rail corridor.

Table 3-13 

Passenger Energy Use - 2011 

Transportation Mode BTUs per Passenger Mile 

Intercity Rail 2,214 

Car 3,364 

Commercial Airline 2,638 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 

32 Released July 31,2013 

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

No changes have been made to the description of the visual environment for the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II FEIS. The visual environment is a critical element in people’s daily experience and is 

often a defining factor of their quality of life. Major transportation projects and facilities can affect 

the visual environment in many ways and to varying 

degrees. Impacts can range from aesthetic enhancements 

to an area, such as landscaping and stream restoration to 

detrimental impacts such as impaired vistas of open 

space, natural features or local landmarks. 

The visual environment of the Study Area ranges from 

undeveloped natural areas and small towns to large-scale 

industrial development and vibrant urban districts. A 

portion of the Study Area contains active freight and 

passenger rail service, while part of the Study Area 

follows an inactive rail corridor. 

VIRGINIA 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

Throughout Richmond, VA the Study Area follows the active CSX S-Line railroad; Amtrak 

also operates passenger service along these tracks. The northern terminus of the Study Area 

is the historic Main Street Station, built in 1901. The station building has been restored and 

its architecture is visually striking, making it one of the most visually distinctive landmarks 

within the Study Area. 

The area surrounding the station consists of elevated highway and rail structures, the James 

River floodwall, industrial land uses, and the Shockoe Bottom area – a former industrial area 

evolving into an entertainment district with residential lofts and apartments in converted 

warehouses. 

The corridor follows the CSX S-Line across the James River, which is listed on the National 

Rivers Inventory; a listing of free-flowing river segments possessing one or more 

“outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values of national significance. The segment 

of the James River within Richmond is listed as both “Historic” and “Recreational.” 

South of the James River, much of the Study Area includes large-scale industrial facilities, 

including above-ground storage tanks. The Study Area includes stretches of I-95 before 

turning southwest, where it runs between highways US-1 and I-95 through more 

industrialized areas. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-50

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Within Chesterfield County, the Study Area continues through industrial land uses as the 

active CSX S-Line runs south between US-1 and I-95. In the area of Bellwood, VA the Study 

Area passes the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) to the west, which includes a 

small forested elk refuge. The Study Area then turns to the southwest where the railroad 

passes under US-1. The Study Area includes the parallel Chester Road for a short distance 

before crossing highway 288 then joins the CSX A-Line railroad at Centralia, VA. From 

Centralia, the corridor curves to the southeast and passes through the community of Chester, 

VA. At this point, the corridor passes through the original “downtown” core area of Chester, 

which developed around Chester Station, a 19th century rail stop. As the Study Area 

continues to the southeast, it begins to traverse suburban and transitioning-to-suburban (from 

rural) areas. The Study Area continues to follow the CSX A-Line railroad as it crosses over 

US-1, Jefferson Davis Highway and then turns south, moving through industrial areas. The 

corridor traverses a short section of Colonial Heights, VA (described below) before reaching 

Ettrick Station. Ettrick Station is a one story brick building constructed in 1955; it is 

currently in use by Amtrak for passenger rail service to the Petersburg, VA area. The Study 

Area continues southward, passing just to the west of the Virginia State University campus 

and its associated land uses, then curves to the southeast, passing by the University’s 

agricultural research fields before crossing the Appomattox River into Petersburg, VA. 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

Approaching Colonial Heights, VA, land uses within the Study Area become more suburban 

in nature, and include fragmented woodlands, before transitioning to industrial use just north 

of Ellerslie Avenue, in the area of Dunlop, VA. At Dunlop, the Study Area begins to follow 

the active CSX A-line in a southwesterly direction through wooded and suburban areas. The 

Study Area crosses US-1, and then the alignment of an abandoned section of the CSX S-Line 

before reaching Ettrick Station, in Chesterfield County. 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

In Petersburg, VA as the Study Area continues south along the CSX A-Line the surrounding 

land use becomes mostly industrial, transitioning to suburban residential, before crossing I85. 

South of I-85, the Study Area parallels or includes Halifax Road through an area of largescale industrial properties and woodlands. The corridor crosses Halifax Road, which is on a 

bridge over the CSX A-Line railroad, then an active east-west NS freight rail line, before 

entering CSX’s Collier Yard and Dinwiddie County. Fort Wadsworth, a Civil War-era Union 

fort, was built on the site of the Battle of the Weldon Railroad. Fort Wadsworth is visible as 

a series of earthen embankments to the east of CSX’s Collier Yard. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

In Dinwiddie County, the Study Area continues along the CSX A-Line to the southern end of 

Collier Yard, where the north-south alignment transitions from the CSX A-Line to the CSX 

S-Line along CSX’s inactive east-west Burgess Connector rail corridor. Upon entering the 

county, the visual environment also shifts from urban industrial to rural agricultural. The 

area around Burgess, VA, is primarily scattered residential development and woodlands. 

Near Burgess, the Study Area begins to follow the existing but inactive CSX S-Line ROW. 

Along this segment of the Study Area, the surrounding land uses are a mix of agriculture and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-51

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

rural residential development. There are several important Civil War battlefields associated 

with the Siege of Petersburg found throughout this area of Dinwiddie County. 

Between Burgess and the community of Dinwiddie, VA, the Study Area crosses I-85 and 

contains views of the commercial corridor along one side and farmlands along the other. 

Near the community of Dinwiddie until it crosses under US-1, the Study Area is heavily 

wooded and the rail ROW is generally at a lower grade than nearby residential and 

commercial development. 

Between Dinwiddie and McKenney, VA, a rural landscape with scattered residential 

development predominates. Within McKenney, the Study Area passes a few commercial and 

industrial structures, a school, and a few residential areas, then returns to a mostly rural 

environment before crossing the Nottoway River into Brunswick County. The Nottoway 

River is listed on the National Rivers Inventory as “Wild,” meaning the river corridor and 

surrounding watershed area are largely undeveloped. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

In Brunswick County, the Study Area passes through mostly forests and farms, along with 

small rural communities such as Rawlings, Kress and Warfield. 

Midway through the county, the Study Area passes through the town of Alberta, VA, and 

crosses an inactive NS rail corridor, close to the town core. At the time of this document 

many of the commercial buildings are vacant and houses exist in varying states of 

maintenance, however the town has received substantial Federal funding for downtown 

revitalization efforts. 

South of Alberta, the Study Area crosses both I-85 and US-1, moving through more 

woodlands. The Study Area then crosses the Meherrin River in the location of the existing 

railroad bridge. The Meherrin River is also listed on the National Rivers Inventory as 

“Wild,” meaning the river corridor and surrounding watershed area are largely undeveloped. 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

Within the northern part of the county, the Study Area passes through mostly forested areas 

with some farmlands and occasional residential development. Near the Forksville 

community, the Study Area comes close to some residential areas before curving to the south. 

The rail ROW remains at a distance from Country Club Road until a few miles north of La 

Crosse, VA. Most of this area is wooded or agricultural. 

As the Study Area nears La Crosse, the rail ROW moves closer to Country Club Road. The 

South Hill Country Club golf course, which is located west of the road, and residential 

development along the road become more visible. The Study Area runs through the middle 

of the town center so the visual environment is that of a small town- mostly residential but 

with a small amount of commercial, institutional and industrial development present. 

Within the southern part of the county, the Study Area passes through mostly forested areas 

and some agricultural lands. Through the Marengo, VA, community, the rail ROW runs 

parallel with Marengo Road. This area contains several abandoned houses. Near Bracey, 

VA, the Study Area passes by commercial and trucking operations along VA 903. As the 

Study Area approaches the Lake Gaston area, it passes between lake-oriented subdivisions, a 

golf course and a wastewater treatment facility. 

The Study Area then crosses the Roanoke River/Lake Gaston along the existing railroad 

bridge, and includes views of the lake, dispersed shoreline residential development and the I-
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-52

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

85 highway bridges. After crossing the lake, the Study Area curves southeast where it 

crosses and then follows Paschall Road. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WARREN COUNTY 

At the North Carolina border, the surrounding area is largely agricultural as the Study Area 

widens to accommodate an alternative that avoids the Granite Hall historic property, and 

straightens a curve in the inactive CSX S-Line ROW. Moving southward into the 

community of Wise, NC, the corridor narrows, and again follows the CSX S-Line ROW 

through agricultural lands mixed woodlands and scattered residential development; the rail 

ROW then begins to parallel US-1 into Norlina, NC. 

Within Norlina’s town core, the CSX S-Line becomes an active railroad, and turns westward. 

Norlina is an old railroad town; therefore, views are of older, often rail-oriented buildings in a 

small town setting. 

After leaving Norlina, the Study Area continues to follow the CSX S-Line as it runs in close 

proximity to US-1 through the Ridgeway and Manson communities, passing through 

agricultural areas, wooded areas and scattered residential and small-scale commercial and 

industrial development. 

VANCE COUNTY 

Within Vance County, the visual environment remains mostly agricultural lands and forests 

until the Study Area approaches Middleburg, NC. The corridor widens through Middleburg 

to accommodate an alternative that avoids the Holloway Farm historic property, and 

alternatives that improve train performance by straightening curves in the CSX S-Line. 

Through Middleburg, the corridor includes mostly commercial and some industrial uses. As 

the Study Area approaches the town of Henderson, NC, it moves through an industrial area 

before crossing US-1 and heading west into Henderson. 

Within Henderson, the Study Area curves west and southwest, and the active CSX S-Line 

begins to parallel North Garnett Street, which serves as the “main street” for downtown 

Henderson (despite another road named Main Street). The visual environment in this area is 

that of a small city downtown; although for the most part the view is of the rear facades of 

downtown. Near Chevasse Avenue, the CSX S-Line curves to the south where it runs 

roughly parallel with Old Raleigh Road/US-1 Business. Much of this area has heavy 

commercial and industrial uses, along with some older neighborhoods. This pattern 

continues well outside of Henderson until the corridor intersects US-1. South of this point 

the CSX S-Line runs parallel with US-1 through areas that are agricultural or wooded, with 

some scattered residential development, and into the town of Kittrell, NC. 

Kittrell is a small, older community with several houses and churches adjacent to the railroad, 

including a Civil War era graveyard containing both soldiers and slaves. Leaving Kittrell, the 

visual environment of Southern Vance County is mostly rural with woods, fields, and 

occasional residences. The Study Area then crosses the Tar River along the CSX S-Line 

railroad bridge, and into Franklin County. The Tar River is listed on the National Rivers 

Inventory; and in Vance County, the Tar River is listed as “Wild.” 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-53

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Franklin County is 

transitioning from a 

predominately rural 

area to a bedroom 

community for 

employment centers in 

the Triangle region. 

South of the Tar River, the Study Area widens to 

accommodate an alternative that avoids the PersonMcGhee Farm historic property. This northern part of 

Franklin County is currently a mostly rural visual 

environment. In some places, large tracts are being 

cleared, both for agricultural lands and pre-development. 

Franklin County is transitioning from a predominately 

rural area to a bedroom community for employment 

centers in the Triangle region (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel 

Hill area). Through the northern part of the county, the CSX 

S-Line parallels US-1 into Franklinton, NC. North of Franklinton, new subdivisions are 

visible east of the Study Area. 

Franklinton is an old railroad town, and the CSX S-Line passes through the town core, so 

views are of older buildings in a small town setting of grid streets, small yards and large 

canopy trees. South of town, the Study Area moves away from US-1 through mostly wooded 

areas. 

North of Youngsville, NC, the corridor passes through an area that is mostly rural in nature 

with scattered residential development. The corridor then passes through the Youngsville 

Industrial Park on the north end of the town, then through the Youngsville town core. The 

dominant views are of industrial areas to the west and wooded areas to the east, in addition to 

aging core and residential areas. 

South of Youngsville the Study Area is largely wooded, interspersed with industrial and 

residential development. 

WAKE COUNTY 

As the Study Area crosses into Wake County it approaches the town of Wake Forest, NC. In 

this rapidly suburbanizing area, the current views north of town include some commercial 

and residential development interspersed with woodlands and agricultural lands. Shortly 

before crossing Chestnut Street, the Study Area enters the town proper. Here the active CSX 

S-Line ROW abuts White Street to the east, as it passes through established neighborhoods 

and then runs immediately behind the commercial buildings of the town core. This core area 

and several nearby neighborhoods are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. On 

the south side of town, the CSX S-Line moves away from White Street and begins running 

parallel with US-1-A. Much of this area consists of commercial uses with some wooded 

areas and open lands along with occasional clusters of housing. 

South of Wake Forest, the Study Area passes through an area of subdivisions and shopping 

centers. After crossing Friendship Chapel Road, the CSX S-Line moves away from the US1-A corridor so that the predominant views are of wooded areas, along with the backs of 

subdivisions and occasional commercial developments. After passing Ligon Mill Road, the 

Study Area crosses US-1 and its commercial and industrial development. The Study Area 

then curves almost due south, passing between commercial development to the east and 

wooded areas to the west before crossing the Neuse River. 

South of the Neuse River, the Study Area passes between a landfill and a chemical 

operation’s tanks and lagoons. As it crosses Durant Road, the Study Area enters Raleigh, 

NC, passing through subdivisions, commercial land uses, and the former Cheviot Hills golf 

course. As it approaches I-540, the Study Area passes through a heavy industrial area and by 

Gresham Lake. After crossing I-540, the Study Area curves south and passes through several 

miles of industrial and heavy commercial areas, eventually crossing the I-440 beltline. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-54

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Inside of the I-440 beltline, the industrial and heavy commercial development pattern 

continues. Shortly after passing over Whitaker Mill Road, the active CSX S-Line passes over 

Capital Boulevard. At this point, the Study Area widens to include both the CSX S-Line, on 

the east side of Capital Boulevard; and the Norfolk Southern NS-Line on the west side of 

Capital Boulevard. The CSX S-Line runs parallel with the highway along a ridge behind the 

commercial development along Capital Boulevard. The historic Mordecai neighborhood sits 

adjacent to the tracks along the east side, as does the historic Pilot Mill buildings and 

surrounding new urbanist Pilot Mill Village. On the west side of Capital Boulevard, the NSLine enters Glenwood Yard, the NS rail yard, which is bordered by residential and 

commercial development. The Study Area then curves south as it passes through the CSX 

rail yard and the redeveloping Seaboard district, where old industrial buildings have been 

converted to commercial uses. The corridor then crosses Peace Street as it enters downtown 

Raleigh. 

The initial view is of the state government office complex with the downtown Raleigh 

skyline in the background, although immediately adjacent to the Study Area are parking 

garages. The Study Area then passes through what is currently a mixed light industrial, 

commercial and back office district that is transitioning towards office, entertainment and 

housing. On the west side of the corridor, is the developing Glenwood South entertainment 

district. The NS-Line lies parallel to and west of the Study Area is at a higher grade, and 

crosses the downtown streets on bridges. The two rail lines meet at Jones Street, where the 

Study Area includes the Powerhouse Square entertainment district, a redeveloped former 

industrial area. Due to substantial grade changes, the rail line moves along a recessed 

corridor behind the adjacent commercial development, passing under Hillsborough and 

Morgan Streets. At this point, the Study Area enters the Boylan Wye area, where the Project 

terminates. The immediate view to the east is of older brick buildings within the Warehouse 

District (another industrial area transitioning towards entertainment and office uses) with the 

Raleigh skyline behind. The view to the south is of the Amtrak station with the Boylan 

Heights National Register District on the hill behind. The view to the west is of an older 

neighborhood, the Boylan Avenue bridge and both NS and North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) 

rail corridors. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The Study Area passes through several natural communities of associated plants and animals. These 

natural communities are defined by their dominant flora and fauna and how these biotic components 

relate to their environment. A brief discussion of natural communities in the Project area is provided 

in Section 3.10.1. 

Throughout the United States, there are populations of flora and fauna declining either as a result of 

natural forces or human impacts on the environment. Some of these declining species are protected 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884). 

North Carolina and Virginia have also established endangered species lists. Threatened and 

endangered species listed for each city and county in the Study Area are described in Section 3.10.2. 

NATURAL COMMUNITIES 

Natural communities provide habitat for a variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Generally, the most commonly found plants are used to classify natural communities. There are 

both terrestrial and aquatic natural communities in the Study Area. The terrestrial communities 

include mixed forest, pine forest, and maintained/disturbed systems. Wetlands, man-made and 

beaver ponds, streams, and river floodplains comprise the aquatic communities in the Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-55

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Terrestrial communities in the Study Area 

include natural and manmade systems that 

are characterized as mixed forest, pine 

forest, and maintained/disturbed systems. 

Maintained/disturbed communities account 

for about 53% of the terrestrial Study Area. 

Mixed forests account for about 30% of the 

terrestrial Study Area. 

Pine forest systems are located in 

fragmented areas throughout the Study Area 

and comprise about 17% of the total land.

TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES 

Terrestrial communities in the Study Area include 

natural and manmade systems that are 

characterized as mixed forest, pine forest, and 

maintained/disturbed systems. Naturally 

forested uplands are located upslope of the 

forested wetland and floodplain systems. 

Forested wetland and floodplain systems 

typically associated with the mixed forest and 

pine forest systems are described in the Aquatic 

Communities (Section 3.10.1.2). 

Biologists inventoried terrestrial communities in 

the Study Area. Field observations and 

additional research were compiled to assess 

areas of each system type in the Study Area. 

This assessment is included in the Project NRTR 

(NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008). 

Maintained/disturbed communities account for about 53% of the terrestrial Study Area. This 

community includes habitats that have recently been or are currently impacted by human 

disturbance, such as residential lawns, maintained roadside and railroad ROW, agricultural 

fields, and utility line easements. 

Mixed forests account for about 30% of the terrestrial Study Area. In general, mixed forest 

systems are typically found adjacent to agricultural fields and residential development and 

consist of a variety of hardwood species. 

Pine forest systems are located in fragmented areas throughout the Study Area and comprise 

about 17% of the total land area. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) is the dominant plant species in 

this system. The fragmented nature of this community is likely due to past hardwood 

timbering activities. 

Table 3-14 provides a list of representative terrestrial community flora and fauna species that 

may be found in the Study Area. Table 3-15 summarizes the acreage of terrestrial 

communities for localities in the Study Area. 

Table 3-14 

Terrestrial Community Representative Flora and Fauna 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Terrestrial Community System 

Mixed 

Forest Pine Forest Maintained/Disturbed 

Flora 

American beech Fagus grandifolia   

black gum Nyssa sylvatica  

black oak Quercus velutina  

highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum   

loblolly pine Pinus taeda   

netted chain fern Woddwardia areolata  

northern red oak Quercus rubra  
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-56

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-14 

Terrestrial Community Representative Flora and Fauna 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Terrestrial Community System 

Mixed 

Forest Pine Forest Maintained/Disturbed 

red maple Acer rubrum   

royal fern Osmunda regalis  

shag bark hickory Carya ovata   

southern red oak Quercus falcata   

sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua   

sycamore Platanus occidentalis  

tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera   

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica  

white oak Quercus alba   

Fauna 

American toad Bufo americanus  

box turtle Terrapene carolina  

Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis   

eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus   

eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis   

northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis   

rat snake Elaphe obsoleta   

whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus   

wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo   

Source: NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008 

 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-57

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The aquatic communities in the Study Area 

include wetlands, man-made and beaver 

ponds, streams, and river floodplains. 

There are 720 waterbodies including streams, 

unnamed tributaries, and man-made and 

beaver ponds within the Study Area (462 in 

Virginia and 258 in North Carolina). 

Wetland systems within the Study Area are 

closely associated with floodplain systems.

Table 3-15 

Terrestrial Communities Summary 

Location State Mixed Forest 

(Acres) 

Pine Forest Maintained/Disturbed 

(Acres) (Acres) 

Richmond VA 2.02 0 95.88

Chesterfield VA 109.48 13.13 241.03

Colonial Heights VA 3.31 0 17.41

Petersburg VA 15.16 1.33 54.63

Dinwiddie VA 225.66 132.23 173.3

Brunswick VA 190.93 136.84 160.72

Mecklenburg VA 147.50 104.28 154.27

Warren NC 88.6 59.31 227.53

Vance NC 75.16 33.55 364.53

Franklin NC 69.21 77.43 104.27

Wake NC 51.89 37.76 261.49

Source: NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008 

AQUATIC COMMUNITIES 

The aquatic communities in the Study Area include 

wetlands, man-made and beaver ponds, streams, and 

river floodplains. These aquatic communities may 

provide habitat cover and breeding opportunities for 

fish, aquatic organisms, amphibians, birds, reptiles, 

and mammals. In addition, these aquatic 

communities may provide food sources for 

terrestrial fauna. Aquatic communities also remove 

nutrients from the water, buffering adverse effects of 

upstream impacts to downstream water quality. 

As described in Section 3.1.1, there are 720 

waterbodies including streams, unnamed tributaries, 

and man-made and beaver ponds within the Study 

Area (462 in Virginia and 258 in North Carolina). Streams throughout the Study Area range 

from headwater tributaries with undefined braided channels to streams with well-defined 

moderate, moderately sloping, or steep side slopes. A more detailed description of 

waterbodies within the Study Area is provided in the Project NRTR (NCDOT and Virginia 

DRPT, 2004a, 2008). 

As described in Section 3.1.2, wetland systems can be divided into four general palustrine 

categories: PFO, PSS, PEM, and PUB. Wetland systems are typically located along the 

streams and include a combination of headwater forest, seeps, freshwater emergent marsh, 

and bottomland depressions. These well-saturated forested wetlands exist along small 

headwater stream bottoms and seeping toe-slopes and are characterized by braided channels. 

Wetland systems within the Study Area are closely associated with floodplain systems. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-58

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Wetland and floodplain systems are located down slope of terrestrial communities and have 

production export functions as a result of organic litter development from high densities of 

vegetation. A more detailed description of wetland and floodplain systems within the Study 

Area is provided in the Project NRTR. Table 3-16 provides a list of representative aquatic 

community flora and fauna species that may be found in the Study Area. 

Table 3-16 

Aquatic Community Representative Flora and Fauna 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Aquatic Community System 

Wetlands 

Floodplain Stream 

ManMade / 

Beaver 

Pond PFO PSS PEM PUB 

Flora 

American beech Fagus grandifolia   

black gum Nyssa sylvatica   

highbush blueberry Vaccinium 

corymbosum     

loblolly pine Pinus taeda     

netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata     

northern red oak Quercus rubra   

possom-haw Viburnum nudum var. 

nudum     

red maple Acer rubrum     

river birch Betula nigra    

royal fern Osmunda regalis     

shag bark hickory Carya ovata   

smooth alder Alnus serrulata     

southern red oak Quercus falcata     

sweetgum Liquidambar 

styraciflua     

sycamore Platanus occidentalis     

tulip poplar Liriodendron 

tulipifera     

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia 

virginica     

white oak Quercus alba     

Fauna 

American toad Bufo americanus      

bluegill Lepomis macrochirus   

box turtle Terrapene carolina     

Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis    

common carp Cyprinus carpio   

eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus     
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-59

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-16 

Aquatic Community Representative Flora and Fauna 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Aquatic Community System 

Wetlands 

Floodplain Stream 

ManMade / 

Beaver 

Pond PFO PSS PEM PUB 

eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis     

green frog Rana clamitans       

mallard Anas platyrhynchos  

mud salamander Pseudotriton 

montanus 

      

northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis   

rat snake Elaphe obsoleta    

snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina  

swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme   

two lined 

salamander Eurycea bislineata   

whitetail deer Odocoileus 

virginianus 

   

wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo   

wood duck Aix sponsa  

Source: NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008 

RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES 

Natural causes or human impacts can contribute to the declines in some populations of plants and 

animals. Under Federal law, any action that could potentially have a negative impact on plant or 

animal species classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or 

Proposed Threatened (PT) is subject to review by the USFWS under Section 7 provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries) also has regulatory authority under the ESA; however, the species regulated by NOAA 

Fisheries are not found in the Study Area. The Virginia and North Carolina USFWS field offices 

have listed ten Federally protected species for counties in the Study Area. 

Biologists conducted field surveys to inventory natural resources, wildlife communities and 

habitats, for threatened and endangered species. Assessments of wildlife community composition 

involved general qualitative habitat evaluations based on the existing vegetative communities. 

Table 3-17 summarizes the Federally listed species and provides a habitat assessment for these 

species in the Study Area. A detailed description of the threatened and endangered species 

survey performed for each Federally listed species is provided in the Project NRTR (NCDOT and 

Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008). It should be noted that a population of an endangered plant 

(Michaux’s sumac) was discovered within the existing rail ROW in Brunswick County. Field 

work was not conducted for the Northern long-eared bat, because it was listed after completion of 

field surveys. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-60

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-17 

Federally Protected Species Listed for Counties in the Study Area 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name Status County/State Species Habitat Habitat Present 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

bald eagle BGPA Richmond, 

Chesterfield, 

Mecklenburg/ 

VA 

Warren, Vance, 

Wake/ NC

mature forests near large 

bodies of water 

Yes

Picoides 

borealis 

red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

E Wake/ NC mature open pine forests 

(mainly longleaf pine) 

No

Myotis 

septentrionalis 

Northern longeared bat T Richmond, 

Colonial 

Heights, 

Chesterfield, 

Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick, 

Mecklenburg 

/VA 

Wake/NC 

Live and dead trees of at least 

3-inch diameter at breast 

height, caves, mines, barns, 

sheds, old buildings, bridges, 

and large culverts 

Yes 

Percina rex Roanoke 

logperch 

E Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick/VA

medium to large streams and 

rivers with moderate gradient 

and relatively silt-free 

substrates 

Yes

Alasmidonta 

heterodon 

dwarf 

wedgemussel 

E Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick/VA 

Warren, Vance, 

Franklin, 

Wake/NC 

streams with a slow to 

moderate current; clean, 

nearly silt free, welloxygenated water with a firm 

sand, gravel, or muddy sand 

substrate 

Yes 

Elliptio 

steinstansana 

Tar River 

spinymussel 

E Warren, 

Franklin/NC 

fast-flowing rivers and large 

streams with well oxygenated 

riffles; relatively silt-free 

gravel and/or coarse sand 

substrate 

Yes 

Rhus michauxii Michaux’s 

sumac 

E Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick/ VA 

Franklin, 

Wake/NC 

rocky or sandy open woods, 

woodland edges, and 

roadsides; dependent on 

disturbance; needs full 

sunlight 

Yes 

Ptilimnium 

nodosum 

harperella E Mecklenburg/ 

VA 

rocky or gravel shoals and 

margins of clear, swiftflowing stream sections; 

edges of intermittent pineland 

ponds in the Coastal Plain 

No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-61

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The VA and NC 

USFWS field 

offices list 20 FSC 

species for the 

counties in the 

Study Area. 

Table 3-17 

Federally Protected Species Listed for Counties in the Study Area 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name Status County/State Species Habitat Habitat Present 

Aeschynomene 

virginica 

sensitive jointvetch T Chesterfield/ 

VA 

fresh to slightly brackish tidal 

river shores and estuarine 

river marsh borders. 

No 

Echinacea 

laevigata 

smooth 

coneflower 

E Chesterfield, 

Mecklenburg/ 

VA 

openings in woods, such as 

cedar barrens and clear cuts, 

along roadsides and utility 

line rights-of-way, and on dry 

limestone bluffs 

No 

Helonias 

bullata 

swamp pink T Chesterfield/ 

VA 

forested wetlands that are 

groundwater influenced and 

are perennially watersaturated with a low 

frequency of inundation 

No 

Source: USFWS, 2012 

Notes: 

E Endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 

T Threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range." 

BGPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Individual states may provide additional protections for rare plant and animal species, such as 

Federal Species of Concern (FSC), which are not afforded Federal protection under the ESA. 

FSC species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) on the Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) and North Carolina Natural Heritage 

Program (NCNHP) lists of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded protection under state 

laws (the Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of Virginia of 1979, the Virginia Wildlife 

Diversity and Fisheries Regulations, and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation 

Act of 1979). Currently, these laws do not apply to state transportation projects; however, the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has requested that 

transportation projects include a listing of Federal or state designated 

threatened, endangered, or special concern species (NC Wildlife Resources 

Commission, 1997). 

The Virginia and North Carolina USFWS field offices list 20 FSC species 

for the counties in the Study Area. Project Team biologists conducted 

habitat surveys throughout the Study Area for FSC species habitat. Table 

3-18 summarizes FSC species listed for counties in the Study Area and states 

whether habitat was found present for the species during the survey. Additional information on 

protected plant and animal species is included in the Project NRTR (NCDOT and Virginia DRPT, 

2004a, 2008). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-62

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-18 

Federal Species of Concern Listed for Counties in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name NCNHP 

Status 

VDCR 

Status County/State Habitat Present 

Aimophila 

aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC NL Warren, Wake/NC Yes 

Etheostoma collis 

lepidinion Carolina darter SC NL Wake/NC No 

Heterodon simus southern hognose 

snake SC NL Wake/NC Yes 

Lythrurus 

matutinus pinewoods shiner W2 NL Warren, Vance, Franklin, 

Wake/NC Yes 

Myotis 

austroriparius southeastern myotis SC NL Wake/NC Yes 

Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom T NL Vance, Franklin, 

Wake/NC Yes 

Anguilla rostrata American eel NL NL Franklin, Vance, Warren, 

Wake/NC Yes 

Ambloplites 

cavifrons Roanoke bass SR NL Franklin, Warren, 

Wake/NC Yes 

Elliptio lanceolata yellow lance E NL Warren, Vance, Franklin, 

Wake/NC Yes 

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe E LT 

Dinwiddie, Brunswick, 

Mecklenburg/VA 

Warren, Franklin, 

Wake/NC 

Yes 

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel E NL Vance, Franklin/NC Yes 

Lasmigona 

subviridus green floater E NL Wake/NC Yes 

Speyeria diana Diana fritillary 

butterfly W2 NL Wake/NC Yes 

Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush NL LT Dinwiddie/VA Yes 

Lindera 

subcoriacea bog spicebush SR-T NL Wake/NC No 

Monotropsis 

odorata sweet pinesap SC-V NL Wake/NC Yes 

Phacelia covillei buttercup phacelia SR-T NL Vance/NC Yes 

Lotus unifoliolatus 

var. helleri 

prairie birdsfoottrefoil SC-V NL Warren/NC Yes 

Sagittaria 

weatherbiana grassleaf arrowhead E NL Wake/NC Yes 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-63

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

There are more than 800 

species of birds covered 

under the MBTA; 

however, the Project is 

not located near a major 

bird migration flyway. 

Table 3-18 

Federal Species of Concern Listed for Counties in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name NCNHP 

Status 

VDCR 

Status County/State Habitat Present 

Trillium pusillum 

var. virginianum 

Virginia least 

trillium E NL Wake/NC Yes 

Source: USFWS, 2012; NCNHP, 2013; VADCR, 2013 

Notes: 

E Endangered. Any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of 

NC's fauna is determined by NCWRC to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an 'endangered species' 

pursuant to the NC Endangered Species Act. (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the NC General Statutes; 1987). 

“Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in 

jeopardy" (NCGS 19B 106: 202.12). 

T Threatened. "Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant 

to the NC Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the NC General Statutes; 1987). 

LT Listed Threatened (VA) 

SC Special Concern. "Any species of wild animal native or once-native to NC which is determined by the NCWRC to 

require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article." (Article 25 of Chapter 

113 of the NC General Statutes; 1987). 

SC-V Special Concern-Vulnerable. “Any species or higher taxon of plant which is likely to become a threatened species 

within the foreseeable future" (NCAC 02 NCAC 48F .0401). 

SR Significantly Rare. Any animal species which has not been listed by the NCWRC as an Endangered, Threatened, or 

Special Concern species, but which exists in North Carolina (or recently occurred in North Carolina) in small numbers and has 

been determined by the NCNHP to need monitoring. 

SR-T Significantly Rare-Throughout. The species is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100 populations total). 

W2 Watch Category 2. Rare, but taxonomically questionable. Any other species believed to be rare and of conservation 

concern in North Carolina but not warranting active monitoring at this time. 

NL Not Listed 

Migratory birds are those that fly long distances from their winter habitats to summer nesting 

grounds and back to their over-wintering grounds annually. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) is included in 50 CFR 10.13 and provides a list of species of birds protected by the Act. 

The USFWS interprets migratory bird protections under MBTA to extend to structures and trees 

that are being actively used by migratory birds for nesting. At those times, it is illegal to destroy 

migratory bird nests (including trees with nests) that contain eggs or young or cause an adult to 

abandon its nest due to disturbances from any sort of construction. However, it is not illegal to 

prevent birds from nesting during or prior to the construction period. 

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires 

Federal agencies to take action to implement the MBTA. Appropriate actions include evaluating 

the effect agency actions have on migratory birds and identifying impacts with a measureable 

negative effect on migratory bird populations. If such actions are identified, the Federal agency 

must mitigate the effects and consult with USFWS prior to 

initiating the action. 

There are more than 800 species of birds covered under the 

MBTA; however, the Project is not located near a major bird 

migration flyway. The closest flyway is the Atlantic Flyway, 

the main branch of which passes over the North Carolina and 

Virginia coast. However, several species of birds may migrate 

through the Study Area, while other migratory birds live in the 

North Carolina and Virginia Piedmont and Virginia Coastal Plain 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-64

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

during winter or summer. Examples of some of the more common species and when they are 

present in the Mid-Atlantic Piedmont are listed in Table 3-19. 

Table 3-19 

Migratory Bird Species of the North Carolina and Virginia Piedmont 

Common Name Scientific Name Residence 

wood duck Aix sponsa Yearlong 

ring-necked duck Athya collaris Winter 

red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Yearlong 

mourning dove Zenaida macroura Yearlong 

yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Summer 

chimney swift Chaetura pelagic Summer 

ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris Summer 

belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Yearlong 

red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Yearlong 

yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Summer 

eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens Summer 

eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe Yearlong 

purple martin Progne subis Summer 

blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Yearlong 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Yearlong 

Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinsis Yearlong 

red-breasted nuthatch Sitta Canadensis Winter 

Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Yearlong 

ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Winter 

eastern bluebird Sialia Sialis Yearlong 

American robin Turdus migratorius Yearlong 

northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Yearlong 

northern parula Parula Americana Spring/fall migrant 

black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens Spring/fall migrant 

scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Summer 

northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Yearlong 

indigo bunting Passerina cyanea Summer 

field sparrow Spizella pusilla Yearlong 

red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Yearlong 

Source: North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, 2009 

COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

This section has been revised to include updated information on established communities and other 

elements of the human environment existing within the Study Area. The Community Resources 

section helps define the context and character of the Study Area and the varied communities and 

neighborhoods within it. Documenting these elements of the human environment helps create an 

understanding of the values and needs of the communities in the Study Area. Incorporating these 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-65

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

As of the 2010 Census, the 

population increased by 7.6% to 

219,845 people in the 

demographic Study Area. While 

there is an overall increase in 

population in the demographic 

Study Area, the growth rate is 

lower than that of the combined 

localities (26.8%) during the 

same period. 

values and needs into the decision-making process allows transportation projects to be compatible 

with the human environment and become an asset to communities and neighborhoods affected by the 

Project, as well as to the region as a whole. 

Community resources are discussed by topical subsection and, where applicable, these are further 

defined by geographic subsections. Community resource subsections include: 

 Demographics – by political groupings and Census areas, by race and ethnicity, by age bracket, 

and by income group. 

 Economics – current economic resources and conditions within each community and the Project 

region. 

 Land Use and Planning – adopted plans and related guides for development and infrastructure. 

 Neighborhoods and Communities – social and cultural elements that create and define the human 

environment. 

 Community Facilities and Services – existing social infrastructure and services that support 

people and communities. 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

The 2010 Census data became available subsequent to the release of the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS. This section uses 2000 and 2010 Census data and American Community 

Survey (ACS) 5-Year Summary File estimates to examine population and demographic data, 

including race, English-speaking ability, age, income, and poverty. For this Project, the 

Demographic Study Area was defined as the census block groups within or adjacent to the rail 

Study Area. Data for this area are compared with the same measures for the city or county and 

for the state. Note that the use of 2010 data resulted in some changes to the list of census tract and 

block group numbers in the Demographic Study Area that were used in the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS; the 2010 census tracts and block groups 

in the Demographic Study Area are shown in Appendix J. 

The Project traverses urban state capitals to booming 

suburbs to rural and small town areas with stable or 

declining populations. At the time of the 2000 Census, a 

total of 204,345 people were living in the Demographic 

Study Area. As of the 2010 Census, the population 

increased by 7.6% to 219,845 people in the Demographic 

Study Area. While there is an overall increase in 

population in the Demographic Study Area, the growth 

rate is lower than that of the combined localities (26.8%) 

during the same period. (Table 3-20).
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-20 

Population and Minority Changes: 2000 and 2010 Comparison in VA and NC Localities and Demograph

(Within Each Locality) 

Location 2000 Pop.Total 2010 Pop. Total % Change 2000 to 2010 2000 White (Alone) Not Minority 2010 White (Alone) Not Minority % Change 2000 to 2010 2000 Minority (All Categories) 20

C

Virginia 7,078,515 8,001,024 13.0% 

5,116,929 5,186,450 1.4% 1,961,586 

72.3% 64.8% -7.5% 27.8% 

Richmond City 197,790 204,214 3.2% 

76,204 79,813 4.7% 121,586 

38.5% 41.7% 3.2% 61.6% 

Demographic 

Study Area 10,646 15,954 49.9% 

2,835 4,394 55.0% 7,811 

26.60% 27.5% 0.9% 73.4% 

Chesterfield 

County 259,903 316,236 21.7% 

198,872 206,792 4.0% 61,031 

76.5% 65.4% -11.1% 23.4% 

Demographic 

Study Area 38,142 44,568 16.8% 

25,165 23,352 -7.2% 12,977 

66.00% 52.4% -13.6% 34.0% 

Colonial Heights 

City 16,897 17,411 3.0% 

15,148 14,020 -7.4% 1,749 

89.6% 80.5% -9.1% 10.3% 

Demographic 

Study Area 7,875 8,303 5.4% 

6,648 6,202 -6.7% 1,329 

84.4% 74.7% -9.7% 15.4% 

Petersburg City 33,740 32,420 -3.9% 

6,212 4,902 -21.1% 27,528 

18.4% 15.1% -3.3% 81.7% 

Demographic 

Study Area 12,098 12,655 4.6% 

1,620 1,764 8.9% 10,478 

13.4% 13.9% 0.5% 86.5% 

Dinwiddie County 24,533 28,001 14.1% 

15,913 17,617 10.7% 8,620 

64.9% 62.9% -2.0% 35.3% 

Demographic 11,517 13,608 18.2% 6,996 8,463 21.0% 4,521 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-20 

Population and Minority Changes: 2000 and 2010 Comparison in VA and NC Localities and Demograph

(Within Each Locality) 

Location 2000 Pop.Total 2010 Pop. Total % Change 2000 to 2010 2000 White (Alone) Not Minority 2010 White (Alone) Not Minority % Change 2000 to 2010 2000 Minority (All Categories) 20

C

Study Area 60.70% 62.2% 1.5% 39.3% 

Brunswick County 18,419 17,434 -5.3% 

7,723 6,943 -10.1% 10,696 

41.9% 39.8% -2.1% 58.0% 

Demographic 

Study Area 7,067 8,471 19.9% 

2,680 3,067 14.4% 4,378 

37.9% 36.2% -1.7% 61.8% 

Mecklenburg 

County 32,380 32,727 1.1% 

19,190 19,215 0.1% 13,190 

59.3% 58.7% -0.6% 40.7% 

Demographic 

Study Area 5,595 6,141 9.8% 

3,235 3,708 14.6% 2,360 

57.8% 60.4% 2.6% 41.6% 

North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 18.5% 

5,802,165 6,223,995 7.3% 2,247,148 

72.1% 65.3% -6.8% 27.9% 

Warren County 19,972 20,972 5.0% 

7,793 7,971 2.3% 12,179 

39.0% 38.0% -1.0% 61.0% 

Demographic 

Study Area 5,205 5,768 10.8% 

2,113 2,205 4.4% 3,092 

40.6% 38.2% -2.4% 59.4% 

Vance County 42,954 45,422 5.7% 

20,778 19,101 -8.1% 22,176 

48.4% 42.1% -6.3% 51.6% 

Demographic 

Study Area 25,432 26,032 2.4% 

10,925 9,232 -15.5% 14,507 

43.0% 35.5% -7.5% 57.0% 

Franklin County 47,260 60,619 28.3% 31,290 38,478 23.0% 15,970 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-20 

Population and Minority Changes: 2000 and 2010 Comparison in VA and NC Localities and Demograph

(Within Each Locality) 

Location 2000 Pop.Total 2010 Pop. Total % Change 2000 to 2010 2000 White (Alone) Not Minority 2010 White (Alone) Not Minority % Change 2000 to 2010 2000 Minority (All Categories) 20

C

66.2% 63.5% -2.7% 33.7% 

Demographic 

Study Area 14,471 17,516 21.0% 

9,821 11,635 18.5% 4,650 

67.9% 66.4% -1.5% 32.1% 

Wake County 627,846 900,993 43.5% 

453,928 560,536 23.5% 173,918 

72.3% 62.2% -10.1% 27.8% 

Demographic 

Study Area 66,297 60,829 -8.2% 

44,466 35,196 -20.8% 21,831 

67.1% 57.9% -9.2% 32.9% 

VA/NC Localities 

Combined 1,321,694 1,676,449 26.8% 

853,051 975,388 14.3% 468,643 

64.5% 58.2% -6.4% 35.5% 

VA/NC 

Demographic 

Study Area 

204,345 219,845 7.6% 

116,504 109,218 -6.3% 87,934 

57.0% 49.7% -7.3% 43.0% 

Source: Census 2000 and Census 2010 Summary File 1; QTP4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-69

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The combined population of the 

localities along the project is 

42% minority. However, the 

population within the 

demographic Study Area is a 

greater percentage minority at 

50.3%. The demographic Study 

Area location with the highest 

percentage of minority residents 

is Petersburg, VA, where 86.1% 

of the demographic Study Area 

is non-white or mixed race. 

RACE 

Minorities are defined as all race/ethnicity categories except non-Hispanic White persons. 

Based on the 2010 Census, the combined population of the 

localities along the project is 42% minority. However, the 

population within the Demographic Study Area is a greater 

percentage minority at 50.3%. The Demographic Study Area 

location with the highest percentage of minority residents is 

Petersburg, VA, where 86.1% of the Demographic Study Area is 

non-white or mixed race. Conversely, the locality with the 

lowest percentage of minority residents is directly to the north in 

Colonial Heights, VA, where 80.5% of the overall population is 

white. In the Demographic Study Area portion of Colonial 

Heights, 74.7% of the population is white. Racial diversity 

within the Study Area is presented in Tables 3-20 and 3-21. 

Black or African Americans make up the largest minority group 

throughout the Study Area. 

As shown in Table 3-20, the percentage of minority populations is increasing in Virginia and 

North Carolina as a whole. This trend is even more pronounced in the Study Area localities 

and in the census block groups adjacent to or within the Project corridor. 

Table 3-21 

2010 Race: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) 

Location Total 

Population 

White 

(Alone) 

Black or 

African 

American 

(Alone) 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

(Alone) 

Asian 

(Alone) 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

(Alone) 

Some 

Other 

Race 

(Alone) 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

MultiRacial 

Virginia 

8,001,024 5,186,450 1,523,704 20,679 436,298 5,061 15,338 631,825 181,669 

100% 64.8% 19.0% 0.3% 5.5% 0.1% 0.2% 7.9% 2.3% 

Richmond 

City 

204,214 79,813 102,264 514 4,679 93 367 16,484 3,681 

100% 41.7% 53.4% 0.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 1.9% 

Demographic 

Study Area 15,954 4,394 9,118 74 475 13 52 1,532 296 

100% 27.5% 57.2% 0.5% 3.0% 0.1% 0.3% 9.6% 1.9% 

Chesterfield 

County 

316,236 206,792 68,196 849 10,219 142 606 22,864 6,568 

100% 65.4% 21.6% 0.3% 3.2% 0.0% 0.2% 7.2% 2.1% 

Demographic 

Study Area 44,568 23,352 14,605 166 834 32 91 4,495 993 

100% 52.4% 32.8% 0.4% 1.9% 0.1% 0.2% 10.1% 2.2% 

Colonial 

Heights City 

17,411 14,020 1,732 63 570 8 14 674 330 

100% 80.5% 9.9% 0.4% 3.3% 0.0% 0.1% 3.9% 1.9% 

Demographic 

Study Area 8,303 6,202 1,152 25 320 6 3 417 178 

100% 74.7% 13.9% 0.3% 3.9% 0.1% 0.0% 5.0% 2.1% 

Petersburg 32,420 4,902 25,419 87 263 12 31 1,216 490 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-70

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-21 

2010 Race: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) 

Location Total 

Population 

White 

(Alone) 

Black or 

African 

American 

(Alone) 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

(Alone) 

Asian 

(Alone) 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

(Alone) 

Some 

Other 

Race 

(Alone) 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

MultiRacial 

City 100% 15.1% 78.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 3.8% 1.5% 

Demographic 

Study Area 12,655 1,764 10,157 30 56 2 11 449 186 

100% 13.9% 80.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 3.5% 1.5% 

Dinwiddie 

County 

28,001 17,617 9,134 83 122 7 18 674 346 

100% 62.9% 32.60 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 2.4% 1.2% 

Demographic 

Study Area 13,608 8,463 4,489 32 67 2 6 351 198 

100% 62.2% 33.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 1.5% 

Brunswick 

County 

17,434 6,943 9,944 35 47 4 9 298 154 

100% 39.8% 57.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 1.7% 0.9% 

Demographic 

Study Area 8,471 3,067 5,109 27 22 1 3 147 95 

100% 36.2% 60.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.1% 

Mecklenburg 

County 

32,727 19,215 11,958 73 213 10 22 806 430 

100% 58.7% 36.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 2.5% 1.3% 

Demographic 

Study Area 6,141 3,708 2,019 14 31 1 5 273 90 

100% 60.4% 32.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 4.4% 1.5% 

North 

Carolina 

9,535,483 6,223,995 2,019,854 108,829 206,579 5,259 15,088 800,120 155,759 

100% 65.3% 21.2% 1.1% 2.2% 0.1% 0.2% 8.4% 1.6% 

Warren 

County 

20,972 7,971 10,911 1,026 49 3 21 692 299 

100% 38.0% 52.0% 4.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 3.3% 1.4% 

Demographic 

Study Area 5,768 2,205 3,240 35 14 3 4 198 69 

100% 38.2% 56.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 3.4% 1.2% 

Vance 

County 

45,422 19,101 22,477 79 199 7 41 3,518 46 

100% 42.1% 49.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 7.7% 0.1% 

Demographic 

Study Area 26,032 9,232 14,076 49 80 1 30 2,316 248 

100% 35.5% 54.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 8.9% 1.0% 

Franklin 

County 

60,619 38,478 15,995 253 272 5 67 4,776 773 

100% 63.5% 26.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 7.9% 1.3% 

Demographic 

Study Area 17,516 11,635 4,136 68 128 2 19 1,293 235 

100% 66.4% 23.6% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 7.4% 1.3% 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-71

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The highest percentages of 

Limited English Proficiency 

(LEP) within the 

Demographic Study Area 

are in Mecklenburg County, 

VA, and Wake County, NC. 

The Hispanic or Latino 

population makes up the

The age dependency 

ratio is 54.7:100 in 

VA and 58.4:100 in 

NC, compared to 

58.9:100 in the 

United States.

Table 3-21 

2010 Race: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) 

Location Total 

Population 

White 

(Alone) 

Black or 

African 

American 

(Alone) 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

(Alone) 

Asian 

(Alone) 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

(Alone) 

Some 

Other 

Race 

(Alone) 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

MultiRacial 

Wake County 

900,993 560,536 182,793 2,537 48,287 317 1,755 87,922 16,846 

100% 62.2% 20.3% 0.3% 5.4% 0.0% 0.2% 9.8% 1.9% 

Demographic 

Study Area 60,829 35,196 14,748 167 1,402 34 97 8,013 1,172 

100% 57.9% 24.2% 0.3% 2.3% 0.1% 0.2% 13.2% 1.9% 

VA/NC 

Localities 

Combined 

1,676,449 975,388 460,823 5,599 64,920 608 2,951 139,924 29,963 

100% 58.2% 27.5% 0.3% 3.9% 0.0% 0.2% 8.4% 1.8% 

VA/NC 

Demographic 

Study Area 

Combined 

219,845 109,218 82,849 687 3,429 97 321 19,484 3,760 

100% 49.7% 37.7% 0.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 8.9% 1.7% 

Source: Census 2010 Summary File 1; QTP4. 

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) occurs when a person or 

population speaks English less than “very well.” The 2010 

census indicates that 5.7% of Virginia and 2.8% of North 

Carolina residents are classified as LEP (Table 3-22). Table 3-

22 also presents the LEP percentages for the localities along 

the Project corridor and the Demographic Study Area. The 

highest percentages within the Demographic Study Area are 

found in Mecklenburg County, VA, and Wake County, NC. 

Based on the race data provided in Table 3-21, the Hispanic or 

Latino population makes up the majority of LEP individuals. 

AGE 

According to the 2010 Census, 23% of Virginians were under age 18, while 12% were age 65 

or older. In North Carolina, 23.9% were under age 18, while 12.9% were age 65 or older 

(Table 3-23). The age dependency ratio is the ratio of dependent-age population to the 

working age population and is derived by dividing the combined 

under 18 and 65-and-over populations by the 18-to-64 population 

and multiplying by 100 (US Census Bureau, 2012). The higher 

the ratio, the greater the support burden is for those working. The 

age dependency ratio is 54.7:100 in Virginia and 58.4:100 in 

North Carolina, compared to 58.9:100 in the United States. As the 

data Table 3-23 demonstrate, the Study Area ranges from urban 

centers with large working age populations to rural counties with 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-72

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

With the exception of Chesterfield 

County, VA, and Wake County, NC, 

all Study Area localities had lower 

median household than their respective 

states. Only Wake County exceeded 

the state per capita income of Study 

Area localities. Demographic Study 

Area tends to have a greater percentage 

of households below the poverty 

threshold than do the localities within 

which they are located. 

higher proportions of younger and older residents. 

INCOME AND POVERTY 

The Study Area is not monolithic nor does it represent a single economic region. To paint a 

more detailed picture along the corridor, state and local household and per capita income 

measures are compared with those of the highest and lowest block groups within each 

locality. 

For 2010, the US Census Bureau established the poverty threshold for a household/family of 

four as $22,314. Based on the 2010 Census, 429,533 Virginia households (14.4%) and 

755,625 North Carolina households (20.8%) were found to live below the poverty threshold 

(Table 3-24). In the Virginia portion of Study Area, both urban centers and rural counties had 

poverty levels higher than the state average, while suburban counties had lower poverty rates. 

In the North Carolina portion of Study Area, the urban center had poverty levels lower than 

the state average, adjacent suburban counties had a poverty rate equivalent with the state 

average, and rural counties had higher poverty levels. With the exception of Chesterfield 

County, VA, and Wake County, NC, all Study Area localities had lower median household 

than their respective states. Only Wake County exceeded the state per capita income of 

Study Area localities. Overall, Demographic Study Area 

tends to have a greater percentage of households below 

the poverty threshold than do the localities within 

which they are located. 

Federal poverty rates are based in large part on the 

available food budget with the result that most high 

poverty areas are also more rural. Recent studies 

indicate that in urban and suburban areas housing 

costs, followed by transportation, are more indicative 

of poverty levels. To this end, rates of home 

ownership and households without vehicles are 

documented in Table 3-25. In Virginia and North 

Carolina, the lowest percentages of owner occupied 

housing are in the Demographic Study Area within the cities of Richmond and Raleigh. This 

is not surprising given that house prices are typically greater per square foot in urban areas 

than in rural areas. Similarly, the highest percentages of households without vehicles are also 

in Richmond and Raleigh. While this is a reflection of low-income households, the lack of 

vehicle ownership is somewhat offset by the availability of public transportation in these 

urban areas. In rural areas, the lack of a vehicle is more onerous as public transportation is 

often not available, compounding the cycle of rural poverty. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-22 

Limited English Proficiency: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Lo

Location 

Population by Age Group Who Speak English Less Than "Very Well" 

Ages 5-17 Ages 18-64 Ages 65 and over Total Population Ages 5 and over 

Estimate Standard Error 

(SE) 

Estimate Standard Error (SE) Estimate Standard Error (SE) Estimate Standard Error (SE) 

Virginia 41,250 2,710 336,330 4,789 37,817 1,069 7,335,505 488 

Richmond City 931 232 6,963 670 281 101 188,805 11 

Demographic Study 

Area 51 491 722 261 11 501 13,799 761 

Chesterfield County 1,439 447 10,742 598 815 158 288,569 19 

Demographic Study 

Area 285 725 1,844 620 72 783 37,364 940 

Colonial Heights City 86 35 377 165 65 133 16,608 19 

Demographic Study 

Area 42 316 271 245 65 344 7,615 393 

Petersburg City 31 157 195 146 62 109 30,246 52 

Demographic Study 

Area 13 482 78 480 13 482 11,218 632 

Dinwiddie County 22 121 311 69 16 113 25,875 57 

Demographic Study 

Area 12 463 118 412 12 457 11,960 575 

Brunswick County 0 0 144 0 27 0 16,847 N/A 

Demographic Study 

Area 0 353 80 290 27 353 8,628 503 

Mecklenburg County 79 95 452 81 52 78 31,133 38 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-22 

Limited English Proficiency: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Lo

Location 

Population by Age Group Who Speak English Less Than "Very Well" 

Ages 5-17 Ages 18-64 Ages 65 and over Total Population Ages 5 and over 

Estimate Standard Error 

(SE) 

Estimate Standard Error (SE) Estimate Standard Error (SE) Estimate Standard Error (SE) 

Demographic Study 

Area 11 797 75 360 362 0 5,369 413 

North Carolina 58,675 2,346 161,324 3,189 18,570 1,004 8,649,307 390 

Warren County 29 134 242 58 47 3,624 19,643 57 

Demographic Study 

Area 0 309 117 253 0 299 4,161 432 

Vance County 188 151 850 222 10 3,625 41,825 1 

Demographic Study 

Area 162 654 740 615 10 668 24,364 977 

Franklin County 316 206 1,756 264 72 108 54,556 24 

Demographic Study 

Area 59 358 399 328 0 401 14,557 598 

Wake County 6,872 952 42,246 1,607 3,050 3,468 786,528 2 

Demographic Study 

Area 346 784 2,962 523 62 840 51,316 1,330 

Source: 2010 ACS 5yr Estimate. Population by Age Group Who Speak English Less Than Very Well – BG B16004. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-23 

Age: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locality) 

Virginia North Carolina 

Location Under Age 18 Age 65 or Older Location Under Age 18 Age 65 or Older 

Virginia 23.0% 12.0% North Carolina 23.9% 12.9% 

Richmond City 18.6% 11.1% Warren County 20.3% 18.9% 

Demographic Study 

Area 21.4% 6.3% Demographic Study Area 18.9% 15.2% 

Chesterfield County 26.1% 10.4% Vance County 25.4% 14.1% 

Demographic Study 

Area 25.1% 9.4% Demographic Study Area 26.3% 12.3% 

Colonial Heights 

City 22.3% 19.6% Franklin County 24.5% 12.7% 

Demographic Study 

Area 22.8% 18.5% Demographic Study Area 26.4% 10.6% 

Petersburg City 20.7% 15.0% Wake County 26.0% 8.5% 

Demographic Study 

Area 19.5% 15.3% Demographic Study Area 24.0% 8.2% 

Dinwiddie County 22.8% 13.7% Source: 2010 Census Summary File 1; Detailed Table P12. 

Demographic Study 

Area 22.1% 14.7% 

Brunswick County 19.3% 16.5% 

Demographic Study 

Area 21.7% 17.5% 

Mecklenburg 

County 19.5% 20.7% 

Demographic Study 

Area 20.9% 21.0% 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-24 

Income and Poverty: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locali

Location 

Median Household Income Per Capita Income Households Below P

Low* High* Low* High* 

Low 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

SE 

High 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

SE 

Low 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

SE 

High 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

SE 

Total # 

Households 

Standard 

Error 

(SE) 

# 

Househo

s Below 

Povert

Level 

Estima

Virginia $61,406 143 SE $32,145 95 SE 2,974,481 5,858 429,53

Richmond 

City $38,266 533 SE $26,034 428 SE 83,498 657 23,26

Demographic 

Study Area $17,368 5,380 $54,000 4,297 $10,684 1,159 $46,387 7,840 6,044 210 1,845 

Chesterfield 

County $71,321 712 SE $31,711 278 SE 112,404 452 9,271 

Demographic 

Study Area $12,031 10,015 $91,923 15,939 $8,310 819 $44,186 2,704 14,940 310 2,118 

Colonial 

Heights City $50,571 2548 SE $26,115 741 SE 7,075 137 938 

Demographic 

Study Area $36,522 6,299 $52,593 10,470 $18,966 1,277 $27,302 1,401 3,272 141 663 

Petersburg 

City $36,449 1208 SE $19,142 521 SE 12,305 222 3,125 

Demographic 

Study Area $21,192 1,883 $61,413 10,503 $9,186 1,703 $28,895 2,184 4,626 203 1,129 

Dinwiddie 

County $51,459 1942 SE $23,423 744 SE 9,800 154 1,449 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-24 

Income and Poverty: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locali

Location 

Median Household Income Per Capita Income Households Below P

Low* High* Low* High* 

Low 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

SE 

High 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

SE 

Low 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

SE 

High 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

SE 

Total # 

Households 

Standard 

Error 

(SE) 

# 

Househo

s Below 

Povert

Level 

Estima

Demographic 

Study Area $41,618 8,176 $56,354 10,414 $23,105 1,981 $26,212 2,671 4,763 197 791 

Brunswick 

County $35,184 1753 SE $16,739 835 SE 6,086 229 1,644 

Demographic 

Study Area $29,556 4,333 $47,500 7,774 $12,721 1,300 $21,077 1,924 3,509 202 1,109 

Mecklenburg 

County $36,431 1245 SE $20,162 790 SE 12,594 249 3,533 

Demographic 

Study Area $20,625 5,607 $60,625 30,045 $15,846 1,113 $24,815 2,194 2,320 148 749 

North Carolina $45,570 125 SE $24,745 71 SE 3,626,179 5,799 755,62

Warren 

County $30,641 2,137 SE $17,838 1,119 SE 7,835 217 2,776 

Demographic 

Study Area $21,143 5,272 $35,196 5,276 $17,599 2,351 SE 1,776 154 718 

Vance 

County $34,025 1019 SE $17,622 607 SE 16,473 261 5,154 

Demographic 

Study Area $9,583 4,643 $47,366 8,106 $9,620 1,596 $27,345 2,495 9,012 311 3,115 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-24 

Income and Poverty: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area (Within Each Locali

Location 

Median Household Income Per Capita Income Households Below P

Low* High* Low* High* 

Low 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

SE 

High 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

SE 

Low 

Estimate 

Low 

Estimate 

SE 

High 

Estimate 

High 

Estimate 

SE 

Total # 

Households 

Standard 

Error 

(SE) 

# 

Househo

s Below 

Povert

Level 

Estima

Franklin 

County $43,710 1,170 SE $21,331 407 SE 22,765 332 4,884 

Demographic 

Study Area $38,269 8,114 $70,754 6,382 $19,410 1,709 $25,229 1,576 6,286 223 1,186 

Wake 

County $63,770 447 SE $32,592 210 SE 325,486 971 39,41

Demographic 

Study Area $11,094 6,719 $83,698 8,422 $2,913 483 $48,512 4,638 22,980 412 4,312 

Sources: Census 2010 SF1: Owner Occupied Housing – H11. 2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Median Household Income – B19013; Per Capita Income – Poverty Level – B19001 (1) Households below the poverty level were determined based on the 2010 ACS 5yr Estimates and 2010 Census Bureau poverty threshold of $22,314 

persons. * Of the Census Block Groups or Census Tracts in the Study Area within the county. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-79

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-25 

Vehicle and Home Ownership: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area 

 (Within Each Locality) 

Location 

Total Households No Vehicle Household 

Owner 

Occupied 

Housing 

(1) # Standard 

Error (SE) Estimate Standard Error (SE) 

% No 

Vehicle 

Households 

Estimate 

Virginia 2,974,481 5,858 102,149 1,861 3.4% 68.9% 

Richmond City 83,498 657 8,283 501 9.9% 43.7% 

Demographic Study Area 6,044 210 1,044 140 17.3% 26.0% 

Chesterfield County 112,404 452 1,848 258 1.6% 78.4% 

Demographic Study Area 14,940 310 465 220 3.1% 66.0% 

Colonial Heights City 7,075 137 177 86 2.5% 65.4% 

Demographic Study Area 3,272 141 177 139 5.4% 49.9% 

Petersburg City 12,305 222 702 159 5.7% 45.1% 

Demographic Study Area 4,626 203 365 141 7.9% 43.3% 

Dinwiddie County 9,800 154 285 91 2.9% 76.5% 

Demographic Study Area 4,763 197 261 84 5.5% 74.6% 

Brunswick County 6,086 229 205 90 3.4% 72.2% 

Demographic Study Area 3,509 202 205 91 5.8% 68.1% 

Mecklenburg County 12,594 249 380 97 3.0% 70.9% 

Demographic Study Area 2,320 148 32 81 1.4% 77.2% 

North Carolina 3,626,179 5,799 104,197 1,876 2.9% 67.8% 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-80

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-25 

Vehicle and Home Ownership: VA and NC Localities and Demographic Study Area 

 (Within Each Locality) 

Location 

Total Households No Vehicle Household 

Owner 

Occupied 

Housing 

(1) # Standard 

Error (SE) Estimate Standard Error (SE) 

% No 

Vehicle 

Households 

Estimate 

Warren County 7,835 217 216 55 2.8% 72.1% 

Demographic Study Area 1,776 154 30 18 1.7% 66.3% 

Vance County 16,473 261 705 157 4.3% 61.4% 

Demographic Study Area 9,012 311 653 165 7.2% 56.8% 

Franklin County 22,765 332 309 97 1.4% 74.2% 

Demographic Study Area 6,286 223 30 111 0.5% 78.2% 

Wake County 325,486 971 9,577 541 2.9% 68.2% 

Demographic Study Area 22,980 412 1,593 240 6.9% 50.7% 

Sources: Census 2010 SF1: Owner Occupied Housing – H11; 2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates: No Vehicle Household – B09141 

(1) Owner Occupied Housing was determined from 2010 Census Summary File 1 data. All other determinations were derived 

from 2010 ACS 5yr Estimates. 

ECONOMICS 

 COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILE 

The Study Area traverses three distinct macro-regions across two states (Table 3-26). Within 

these regions are smaller areas and communities ranging from city centers and suburbs to 

small towns and rural areas. Some of these areas are bustling job centers or booming 

bedroom communities, while others may be stable or declining. 

The 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Source File DP03) data on 

Selected Economic Characteristics was used to update the employment data presented in the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS for the cities, counties, and communities described 

in Table 3-27.
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-81

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-26 

State Profile Comparisons 

Selected Economic Characteristic Virginia North Carolina 

Civilian Labor Force (2011) 4,210,000 4,723,000 

Labor Force Participation Rate (2011) 66.6% 63.0% 

Total Employment (2011) 3,962,000 4,275,000 

Total Unemployment (2011) 247,000 448,000 

Unemployment Rate (2011) 5.9% 9.5% 

High School Graduates – 25+ years (2011) 86.6% 84.1% 

College Graduates – 25+ years (2011) 34.4% 26.5% 

Per Capita Income (2011) $31,746 $23,955

Median Family Income (2011) $75,962 $57,171

Population (2011-Projected) 8,064,574 9,658,876 

North Carolina Department of Commerce, State to State Comparisons, 2013
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-82

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Table 3-27 

Percent Employment by Sector by Community

State 

Area 

Employment Sector 

Construction 

Financial 

Government 

Information 

Manufacturing 

Mining 

Services 

Trade: Combined 

(Wholesale and Retail) 

Transportation/Utilities 

Virginia 

Richmond City 6.1% 8.4% 16.5% 2.1% 6.1% 0.3% 21.0% 8.3% 4.2% 

Chesterfield County 6.9% 9.5% 19.4% 2.0% 8.9% 0.3% 13.9% 14.9% 5.4% 

Colonial Heights 8.9% 5.6% 20.9% 0.7% 9.4% 0.2% 19.1% 16.8% 5.2% 

Petersburg City 5.50% 3.5% 26.2% 0.7% 10.4% 0.4% 24.9% 14.4% 4.3% 

Dinwiddie County 10.8% 3.8% 23.1% 0.8% 12.6% 2.3% 17.3% 18.4% 6.1% 

Brunswick County 9.3% 4.5% 25.9% 1.6% 12.6% 2.9% 24.7% 14.3% 4.1% 

Mecklenburg County 8.8% 3.8% 21.7% 1.9% 11.7% 3.8% 19.0% 14.5% 7.2% 

North Carolina 

Warren County 6.5% 3.0% 24.9% 0.7% 12.5% 4.5% 19.6% 15.4% 4.9% 

Vance County 6.0% 3.7% 20.7% 0.4% 16.1% 1.3% 21.5% 17.2% 3.9% 

Franklin County 12.5% 4.9% 16.6% 1.5% 13.4% 2.3% 14.90

% 15.8% 4.7% 

Wake County 6.5% 7.3% 15.6% 3.2% 9.4% 0.4% 13.0% 13.3% 3.5% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. Selected Economic Characteristics: 2007-2011 American Community 

Survey. Source File DP03.
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-83

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Richmond, Chesterfield 

County, Colonial Heights, and 

Petersburg, and Dinwiddie 

County are part of the 

Richmond-Petersburg 

metropolitan statistical area 

(MSA). In each of these areas, 

the 3 of the top 4 employers 

are the government, 

wholesale/retail trade, and the 

service industry. 

VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND 

Richmond is the largest city within the Richmond-Petersburg 

metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and, as the state capital, 

state government is one of the city’s largest employers, 

second only to the service industry. The city is also a major 

financial center and wholesale and retail trade center. 

Major manufacturing employers include International Paper 

Company and Philip Morris USA. Other major employers 

include Chippenham Medical Center, Dominion Resources 

Inc., Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia 

Commonwealth University (VCU), Medical College of 

Virginia (MCV) Hospitals, UPS Freight, SunTrust Banks, 

and Verizon. Recent closings, reductions and layoffs have 

affected building products, back office operations, medical 

supplies and food products manufacturing. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Chesterfield is located between Richmond and Petersburg/Colonial Heights and is one of the 

fastest growing communities in the state. The area has attracted a highly skilled labor force and 

the county has a substantial inventory of available commercial and industrial properties. 

Similar to Richmond, government is one of the largest employers, followed by wholesale/retail 

trade and the service industry. 

Major manufacturing employers are Alcoa, Alstom Power Inc., Armkel, EI DuPont Inc., Hill 

PHOENIX Inc., and Philip Morris. Other major employers include Capital One, CJW Medical 

Center, Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Food Lion Inc., JC Penney, Ukrop’s Super 

Markets, and UPS. Recent closings, reductions and layoffs have affected fabric manufacturing 

and tobacco products. 

COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

Colonial Heights directly abuts Petersburg and these two cities function as a single economic 

entity. Colonial Heights serves as the retail center for the area. Government, the service 

industry, and wholesale/retail trade account for the majority of employment. 

Major manufacturing employers are Metal Building Components Inc., Mundet Inc., Roslyn 

Converters Inc., Sun Chemical Corp, and The Antioch Company. Other major employers 

include Colonial Heights Convalescent Co, JC Penney, Ukrop’s Super Markets, and Wal-Mart. 

PETERSBURG 

Petersburg directly abuts Colonial Heights and these two cities function as a single economic 

entity. Petersburg serves as the industrial center for the area. As the site of a critical Civil War 

battle, Petersburg has numerous historic sites and buildings, and heritage tourism is a growing 

part of the economy. Like Colonial Heights, government, the service industry, and 

wholesale/retail trade account for the majority of employment. 

Major manufacturing employers are BI Chemicals Inc., Boars Head Provisions, Brenco Inc., 

and Inland Temple Container. Other major employers include BP Short and Son Paving 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-84

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Brunswick and 

Mecklenburg counties are 

part of Southside Virginia. 

Agriculture, manufacturing, 

government, service, and 

wholesale/retail trade are 

important industries in this 

area.

Company, Roper Bros Lumber, Southside Regional Medical Center, the Fort Lee Army Base, 

Virginia State University and Virginia T’s. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

Dinwiddie County is part of the Petersburg/Colonial Heights economic region such that roughly 

twice as many county residents commute to jobs outside the county as work within it. Much of 

the northern Dinwiddie is associated with the Petersburg National Battlefield. As with the 

communities to the north, government, the service industry, and wholesale/retail trade account 

for the majority of employment. 

Major manufacturing employers are Chaparral Virginia Inc., Philip Morris USA and Tindal 

Concrete Co. Other major employers include Central State Hospital and Wal-Mart. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

Brunswick County is part of the south-central Piedmont Region 

of Virginia, which is also known as Southside Virginia. This is 

an agricultural area between the Richmond-Petersburg region 

in Virginia and the Triangle region (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel 

Hill area) in North Carolina. Recreation associated with Lake 

Gaston accounts for some of service and trade employment. 

Almost as many residents commute to work outside the county 

as remain within it, with about a third of these commuting to 

jobs in Mecklenburg County. Government, the service 

industry, and wholesale/retail trade account for the majority of 

employment. 

Major manufacturing employers include Brick and Tile Corp, Brunswick Box Co, Hyponex 

Corp, Virginia Carolina Forest Inc., and Vulcan Materials. Other major employers include 

Brunswick Correctional Center, Southside Virginia Community College, and St. Paul’s 

College. 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

Mecklenburg County is part of the south-central Piedmont Region of Virginia, which is also 

known as Southside Virginia. This is traditionally an agricultural area between the RichmondPetersburg region in Virginia and the Triangle region in North Carolina, although 

manufacturing has increased in importance. Recreation associated with Lake Gaston and Kerr 

Lake (also known as Buggs Island Lake) accounts for some of service and trade employment. 

Government, the service industry, and wholesale/retail trade account for the majority of 

employment. 

Major manufacturing employers include American Building Company, Brodnax Mills Inc., 

Carlisle Motion Control, International Veneer Company, Lawson Mardon Wheaton Inc., 

Sherwood Foods Inc., Virginia Homes Manufacturing, and Virginia Quilting Inc. Other major 

employers include Community Memorial Health Center, Huss Inc., Mecklenburg Electric 

Cooperative, Parker Oil Co., and The DRS Group. Recent closings, reductions and layoffs 

have affected textiles and clothing-related operations. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-85

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Raleigh-Durham MSA starts 

in Warren County and continues 

through Vance and Franklin 

counties before reaching Wake 

County, becoming more urban 

towards the south. Government, 

the service industry, and 

wholesale/retail trade account for 

the majority of employment. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WARREN COUNTY 

Warren County is a peripheral part of the 

Triangle region. This is traditionally an 

agricultural area, although manufacturing has 

increased in importance. Recreation associated 

with Lake Gaston accounts for some of service 

and trade employment. Government, the 

service industry, and wholesale/retail trade 

account for the majority of employment. 

Major manufacturing employers include Elberta 

Crate and Box Company, Temple Inland, Glen 

Raven Mills, and Cast Stone Systems. Other major employers include Cochrane Furniture Co 

and Data Services America. 

VANCE COUNTY 

Vance County is also a peripheral part of the Triangle Region. Recreation associated with Lake 

Gaston accounts for some of service and trade employment. Service, government, and 

wholesale/retail trade account for the majority of employment in the area. 

Major manufacturing employers include Wal-Mart distribution center, Pacific Coast Feather 

Co, Saint-Gobain Containers, Purolator Products, Handcrafted Homes and IAMS. Other major 

employers include Variety Stores, Royal Home Fashions, mental health services and Corporate 

Express. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 

Franklin County is a suburbanizing county within the Triangle Region. Along with its own 

employment base much of the county’s recent population growth has been fueled by proximity 

to jobs in Wake County and Research Triangle Park. Government, service, and wholesale/retail 

trade account for the majority of employment in the area. 

Major manufacturing employers include Flextronics International, Novozymes NA, Nomaco KFlex, Hon Industries, Food Lion distribution center, and Captive-Aire Systems. Other major 

employers include Sprint, Franklin Regional Medical Center, Wal-Mart and Louisburg College. 

WAKE COUNTY 

Wake County is the most populous county within the Raleigh-Durham MSA and is, along with 

Research Triangle Park, a hub of the Triangle region. Government, wholesale/retail trade, and 

the service industry account for the majority of employment in the area. 

Major manufacturing employers include Cisco Systems, Eaton Corp, Waste Industries, and 

Food Lion distribution center. Other major employers include WakeMed, SAS Institute, Rex 

Healthcare, Progress Energy, Verizon Wireless, First Citizens Bank, Longistics, and Misys 

Healthcare Systems. 

AGRICULTURE 

The Virginia and North Carolina Departments of Agriculture statistics indicate that 

agriculture is an important element of the state economies. The Virginia Department of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-86

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Agriculture is a minor element of the economy 

within the Richmond metropolitan area. It 

employs only about 0.3% of the Richmond, 

Petersburg, and Chesterfield County workforce, 

and 0.2% of Colonial Heights. Agricultural 

employment increases in suburban fringe 

Dinwiddie County to 2.3% and in more rural 

Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties to 2.9% 

and 3.8%, respectively. 

In NC, agriculture employs 4.5% of the 

workforce in rural Warren County. In suburban 

fringe Vance and Franklin counties, agricultural 

employment drops to 1.3% and 2.3%, 

respectively. Much like metropolitan Richmond, 

only 0.4% of the workforce in urban Wake 

County is involved with agriculture. 

Tourism within the Study 

Area is as varied as the 

local economies. Tourist 

activities include arts, 

recreation, sporting 

events, and historical sites. 

Agriculture and Consumer Services states agriculture is the largest industry by far, with no 

other business sector even a close second. The agriculture industry has an economic impact 

of $52 billion annually and provides more than 357,000 jobs in Virginia. Agriculture and 

forestry combined have a total economic impact of almost $70 billion. The total employment 

impact was approximately 414,700 employees. Every job in agriculture and forestry supports 

1.6 jobs elsewhere in the Virginia economy (VDACS, 2013). 

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services states that North 

Carolina's agricultural industry, including food, fiber, and forestry; contributes $70 billion 

annually to the State's economy; accounts for 18% of the State's income; and employs over 

17% of the work force (NCDACS, 2013). 

Cities and counties within the Study Area 

vary from urban state capitals to suburban 

bedroom communities to rural areas; 

therefore, the relative economic 

importance of agriculture varies 

substantially. Agriculture is a minor 

element of the economy within the 

Richmond metropolitan area. It employs 

only about 0.3% of the Richmond, 

Petersburg, and Chesterfield County 

workforce, and 0.2% of Colonial Heights. 

Agricultural employment increases in 

suburban fringe Dinwiddie County to 

2.3% and in more rural Brunswick and 

Mecklenburg Counties to 2.9% and 3.8%, 

respectively (US Census Bureau, 

American Fact Finder, 2013). 

In North Carolina, agriculture employs 4.5% 

of the workforce in rural Warren County. In 

suburban fringe Vance and Franklin counties, agricultural employment drops to 1.3% and 

2.3%, respectively. Much like metropolitan Richmond, only 0.4% of the workforce in urban 

Wake County is involved with agriculture (US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, 2013). 

While agriculture does not employ many people within the overall Study Area, in places it 

makes a substantial contribution to the local economy. Based on the most recent 2007 

Census of Agriculture, the agricultural market value of products sold in rural and exurban 

counties in Virginia was $12.6 million in Dinwiddie County, $32.2 million in Brunswick 

County, and $32.2 million in Mecklenburg County. In North Carolina, the agricultural 

market value of products sold was $22.9 million in Warren County and $48.1 million in 

Franklin County. 2007 data for Vance County was not disclosed (USDA, 2007). 

TOURISM 

Tourism within the Study Area is as varied as the local 

economies. Tourist activities include arts, recreation, 

sporting events, and historical sites. 

VIRGINIA 

As the state Capital of Virginia, the Richmond metropolitan 

area is home to numerous museums and arts centers, including 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-87

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

the Science Museum of Virginia, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Virginia Historical Society, 

Virginia Performing Arts Center, Children’s Museum of Richmond, the Museum of the 

Confederacy and the Chesterfield Museum Complex. Other attractions include numerous historic 

houses, plantations and districts; regional battlefields; the Lewis Ginter Botanical Gardens; 

various theaters and performing arts companies; ethnic festivals ranging from the Richmond 

Highland Games to a “Taste of India,” and the Metro Richmond Zoo. University cultural and 

sporting events are also important tourist draws, as are minor league professional sports. Several 

major universities are located in Richmond, including Virginia Commonwealth University, the 

University of Richmond, and Virginia Union University, as well as several community colleges. 

Richmond is also home to minor league professional soccer, baseball, and ice hockey clubs. Both 

the Richmond International Raceway and Southside Speedway bring National Association for 

Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) fans to the area. Richmond Region Tourism estimates over 6 

million visitors come to the region each year and spend over $1.93 billion annually (Richmond 

Region Tourism, 2013). 

The central focus of visitors to the Petersburg-Dinwiddie area is Civil War history associated 

with the Siege of Petersburg. Within the region are various battlefields and historic sites, such as 

Pamplin Park and the Petersburg National Battlefield Park. Related attractions include the 

National Museum of the Civil War Soldier, Siege Museum, Blandford Church and Centre Hill 

Museum. Fort Lee houses the Army Quartermaster and Army Women’s Museums. In addition, 

Petersburg continues to revitalize its downtown as an arts and entertainment district. For 

example, the Shockoe Bottom Arts Center recently relocated there from Richmond. There are 

also local theater groups, a symphony, and a ballet company. The popular Artfest (previously 

called the Poplar Lawn Arts Festival) is held in the spring. The Virginia Motorsports Park also 

brings drag racing fans to the area. Virginia State University is located in Ettrick across the 

Appomattox River from Petersburg. 

Tourism in Brunswick and Mecklenburg counties is primarily associated with Lake Gaston, 

especially for activities such as bass fishing tournaments. However, visitors are also drawn to the 

Brunswick County Lake, Great Creek Lake, Nottoway River reservoir and Buggs Island Lake. In 

Mecklenburg County, other attractions include MacCallum More Museum and Gardens and the 

Roanoke River Museum in the Prestwould Plantation house. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Vance and Warren counties also depend heavily on Lake Gaston and Kerr Lake, as well as 

other water-related recreation destinations, to attract visitors. In Warren County, other attractions 

include the Lakeland Cultural Arts Center, Norlina Train Museum and Medoc Mountain State 

Park. Vance County is home to the East Coast Drag Times Hall of Fame, which includes the 

annual Corbitt Truck Show and “Show, Shine, Shag and Dine Car Show.” Harper’s Motor 

Speedway is located near Kittrell. 

Tourism is a very minor economic activity in Franklin County. Agri-tourism is the most 

common activity, as well as some arts and crafts activities. 

As a state capital, the Raleigh metropolitan area is home to the North Carolina Museum of 

History, Museum of Science and Art, and Marbles Kids Museum, among others. Other 

attractions include historic sites and houses, the JC Raulston Arboretum, Progress Energy Center 

for the Performing Arts, Time Warner Cable Music Pavilion at Walnut Creek, Booth 

Amphitheater, and various other theaters and performing arts companies, as well as festivals 

ranging from St. Patrick’s Day to Lazy Daze Arts and Crafts. Raleigh is home to the Carolina 

Hurricanes hockey team, as well as the athletic and cultural events of North Carolina State 

University, Peace College, Shaw University, Meredith College, Saint Augustine’s College and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-88

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The intent of the Project is not to 

build local, planned 

improvements along its path; 

however, the designs for the 

preferred alternative were 

developed to ensure that they 

would include improvements 

that either worked in conjunction 

with other plans, or assure that 

the Project would not preclude 

future planned improvements. 

other schools. The Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau estimates approximately 

12.4 million visitors to the region contributed over $1.9 billion to the economy in the 2012-2013 

fiscal year (GRCVB, 2013). 

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 

This section identifies the entities responsible for the oversight of general land development 

planning and transportation planning in and around the SEHSR Study Area. Updated information 

has been added to summarize the most recent adopted plans and studies from each agency (as 

relevant to the Project), as well as an expanded discussion of relevant planning activities by state, 

regional and local agencies. Connectivity to other modes of transportation is an important aspect 

of planning for existing and future passenger rail stations. Refer to Section 1.4.3 for additional 

discussion regarding local planning efforts related to development of stations, which are being 

undertaken separately, outside of this Project. 

STATE PLANNING 

The following section identifies existing state 

improvement plans in the Study Area. The intent of 

the Project is not to build local, planned 

improvements along in its path; however, the designs 

for the preferred alternative (as discussed further 

throughout this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

FEIS) were developed to ensure that they would 

include improvements that either worked in 

conjunction with other plans, or assure that the 

Project would not preclude future planned 

improvements. 

 VIRGINIA 

Virginia 2035 Surface Transportation Plan (VSTP) (April 2013) This plan identifies 

deficiencies in Virginia’s transportation systems, and recommends improvements including 

capacity expansion and spot improvements, as well as intelligent transportation systems and 

transportation demand management solutions. No projects requiring detailed coordination with 

the Project were identified in the VSTP 2035. 

Virginia Statewide Rail Plan (2013) This newly updated business plan issued by the Virginia 

DRPT is intended to provide a defined vision for rail transportation in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia through 2040. The SEHSR Corridor alignment is shown on the Passenger Rail map 

(Figure ES-6) as a route under study. Section ES.3.4 provides a discussion of SEHSR Corridor 

planning efforts, including the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS; this Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II EIS; the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I FEIS ; and the Washington, 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II EIS. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NCDOT Draft State Transportation Improvement Program: 2013-2023 (STIP) (September 

2012) The following projects from the STIP in the vicinity of the rail corridor were identified: 

 R-2587 – US-158, Warren and Halifax Counties. I-85 to SR 1405 east of Littleton - 

Widen to multi-lanes with bypasses of Norlina, Macon, and Littleton. The proposed 

Project alignment would intersect with the R-2587 new location section east of US-1 and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-89

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

south of the Town of Norlina. Currently, R-2587 is unfunded and in the planning stage, 

and as such, has no approved alignment. 

 U-5307 – US-1, Wake County. Corridor improvement project from I-540 to NC 98 - 

there is one crossing of US-1 and the Project alignment in this area; the crossing location 

has an existing grade separation. 

North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors NCDOT has identified specific facilities 

throughout the State as critical mobility corridors. Three North Carolina Strategic Highway 

Corridors were identified in the Study Area: 

 US-1 (Warren, Vance, Franklin, Wake County) 

 I-440 (Wake County) 

 I-540 (Wake County) 

North Carolina Statewide Transportation Plan, From Policy to Projects 2040 Plan (NCDOT 

August 2012) This plan is a policy-based document intented to set investment and policy 

priorities for the State’s transportation system. The Richmond to Raleigh Project portion of the 

SEHSR Corridor is identified as an underserved market; and SEHSR Corridor service is 

identified as the largest future passenger rail expenditure. 

REGIONAL PLANNING 

Regional planning in both states is performed by a regional planning agency tasked to 

promote the orderly and efficient development of the physical, social, and economic elements 

of the region by planning, encouraging and assisting governmental subdivisions to plan for 

the future. In Virginia, this task is performed by Planning District Commissions (PDC) and 

in North Carolina it is performed by Councils of Government (COG). 

Regional transportation planning is performed by a Federal and state designated organization 

called a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). An MPO is a transportation policymaking organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation 

authorities. In 1962, the US Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an 

MPO for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000. In North Carolina’s rural 

counties, Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) are the rural equivalent of MPOs. MPOs and 

RPOs are responsible for preparing the Federally-required regional long-range 20-year 

Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 

(which provides a four-year program of Federal, state, and locally funded transportation 

projects for which MPO/RPO approval is required), regional transit (including bus) planning, 

and related plans and studies. The regional PDC or COG often administers the MPO or RPO 

in its area. Areas of authority for regional land use and transportation agencies in the Study 

Area are provided in Figures 3-7 through 3-11. 

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Virginia and North Carolina have both evaluated the feasibility of 

adding conventional passenger train service to eastern and western portions of the states to 

allow proposed SEHSR Corridor service to serve as the spine to these added routes, 

connecting conventional rail service passengers to the proposed SEHSR Corridor service and 

other points in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. 

 VIRGINIA REGIONAL PLANNING 

In Virginia, each PDC is made up of professional staff and is directed by elected officials and 

citizens appointed by its member local governments. The Study Area traverses three PDC regions 

– Richmond Regional, Crater, and Southside. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-90

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The RRPDC focuses on regional 

transportation, land use planning, housing, 

community development, environmental 

planning, and local technical assistance 

and information services including 

demographic and geographic information 

systems. 

The RRPDC’s Urban Transportation 

Planning Division’s staff, with staff from 

the PDC’s other two divisions, provide 

administrative support to RAMPO. 

RICHMOND REGIONAL PDC 

The Richmond Regional Planning District 

Commission (RRPDC) focuses on regional 

transportation, land use planning, housing, 

community development, environmental 

planning, and local technical assistance and 

information services including demographic 

and geographic information systems. The 

RRPDC serves the Town of Ashland; City of 

Richmond; and counties of Charles City, 

Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, 

New Kent, and Powhatan. Relative to the 

Study Area, the Richmond Regional PDC 

serves all of Richmond and all but the 

southern portion of Chesterfield County. 

The RRPDC’s Urban Transportation Planning Division’s staff, with staff from the PDC’s other 

two divisions, provide administrative support to the Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (RAMPO). RAMPO’s geographic coverage extends to that area which is 

projected to be urbanized within the next 20 years; it includes approximately two-thirds of the 

Richmond Regional Planning District (see Figure 3-7). 

Figure 3-7 

Richmond Area MPO Study Area 

Source: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, 2012 

RAMPO has recently produced several transportation planning documents pertinent to the 

Project, including: 

Plan 2035: RRPDC Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (adopted July 12, 2012) 

Portions of the plan pertinent to the Project are: 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-91

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

None of the roadway 

improvement projects on the 

Regional Transportation 

Priority List 2013 need to be 

coordinated with the SEHSR 

design; however, the list 

includes two projects at Main 

Street Station, which is the 

northern terminus of the 

SEHSR project. 

 Rail in the Richmond Region (Chapter 10) - summarizes the National Rail Policy, 

Virginia’s Statewide Rail Policy, the role of the CSX and Norfolk Southern in 

statewide goods movement, and HSR. This Plan identified a variety of potential rail 

investment projects important to Virginia, including Class I and short-line railroads, the 

Port of Hampton Roads, passenger rail initiatives, and HSR initiatives. The Plan also 

states that with the return of passenger rail service to Main Street Station in 2003, 

continued investments in the rail system will be required in order to fully realize the 

potential of center-city to center-city rail service envisioned in the National Rail Policy. 

 Summary of the 2008 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan (Chapter 10) – Included in the 

summary is a reference to the Project in noting that higher-speed rail will operate in 

Virginia in the near future (Note that as described above, the Virginia Statewide Rail 

Plan was updated in 2013). 

 Rail System Investments (Chapter 10) - A chart of rail system investments includes 

infrastructure improvements for HSR between Richmond and the North Carolina state 

line, and between Richmond and Hampton Roads; projects that are both in progress. 

 Regional Transit (Chapter 7) – The chapter describes Greater Richmond Transit 

Company (GRTC) transit system, the principal mass transit option for travel within the 

Richmond metropolitan area. GRTC provides bus fixed route services to the Cities of 

Richmond and Petersburg, and the Counties of Henrico and Chesterfield as well as 

paratransit service on demand through the CARE program and a van and carpool 

service (i.e. Ridefinders). GRTC is the local bus service provider for the proposed 

SEHSR Corridor station (Main Street Station) in Richmond. 

 Fiscally Constrained Project List (Chapter 17) – The projects within the Project 

corridor are listed below: 

o Project 5 - Replace Bridge on US-1 near VA 145 (Chester Road) 

o Project 74 - Add center turn lane to Commerce Road from Bells Road to 

Bellemeade Road; the Project alignment currently crosses Commerce Road at 

an existing at-grade crossing 

o High-Speed Intercity Rail - Listed under Transit Type, Rail Improvements 

Project, Richmond (Main Street Station) to Raleigh Termini; it notes the cost is 

to be determined via mix of Federal, state and local funds, with completion 

date of 2018-2022. 

 Unconstrained Project List (Chapter 21) – Other projects within the study corridor are 

listed below: 

o Widen Centralia Road to three lanes from Nott Lane to Chester Road 

o Construct E/W Freeway from Route 360 (Hull Street Road) to I-95. 

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) FY12-15 (Amended September 20, 

2012) The TIP is multimodal, and includes highway and public transit projects as well as 

bicycle, pedestrian, air, rail (mostly improving at-grade 

crossings), port and freight-related projects. 

Although the TIP does not specifically include Project 

elements, it does state that RAMPO is “working to fund 

projects to benefit implementation of high-speed rail in 

region”. 

Regional Transportation Priority Projects (2013) 

There are no roadway improvement projects on this list 

that need to be coordinated with the Project design; 

however, two Main Street Station projects are listed. 

Although Main Street Station planning is not part of the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-92

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Relative to the Study Area, the 

Crater PDC serves all of Colonial 

Heights, VA and Petersburg, VA but 

only the southern portion of 

Chesterfield County. Transportation 

planning for the urbanized area of 

the Crater PDC is performed by the 

Tri-Cities MPO

Project, it is the northern terminus for this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS: 

 Restoration/Construction of Main Street Station, Phase 3 - This is the final phase of a 

joint city/state project that totaled $79.8 million with projected completion in 2017. The 

project is intended to create a multimodal transportation center that will accommodate 

the SEHSR Corridor as well as serve Amtrak trains, GRTC buses, airport shuttles, 

taxis, and tour buses, with bicycle and pedestrian access at one centralized location in 

downtown Richmond. 

 Extension of Main Street Station Platforms 

In addition, the list includes the Virginia DRPT/FRA SEHSR/Intercity Passenger Rail, 

Richmond (Main Street Station) to Washington D.C. project (Washington, DC to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail). The MPO supports the extension of the SEHSR Corridor from 

Washington D.C. to Richmond (Main Street Station). The description notes that the project 

covers a critical section of the SEHSR Corridor, and includes a discussion of the connection at 

Main Street Station to the Richmond to Raleigh portion of the SEHSR Corridor studied by this 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS. 

RRPDC 2035 Rural Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2011) The 2035 Rural 

LRTP was developed to guide planning of the rural transportation network in the Richmond 

planning area. Recommendations for the rural district plans also serve as a component of the 

overall Surface Transportation Plan described previously. 

CRATER PDC 

The Crater PDC is a regional entity serving the 

counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, 

Greenville, Prince George, Surry and Sussex, and the 

Cities of Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Emporia and 

Hopewell (Figure 3-8). Relative to the Study Area, 

the Crater PDC serves all of Colonial Heights, VA 

and Petersburg, VA but only the southern portion of 

Chesterfield County. Transportation planning for the 

urbanized area of the Crater PDC is performed by the 

Tri-Cities MPO (Figure 3-9). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-93

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

Figure 3-8 

Source: Crater Planning District Commission, 2012 

Figure 3-9 

Source: Crater Planning District Commission, 2012 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-94

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

The Tri-Cities Area Year 2035 

Transportation Plan references 

the SEHSR project, describes 

the approved alignment through 

the Tri-Cities region, and 

provides a link to the SEHSR 

project website. 

The Southside PDC is a regional 

entity serving Brunswick, 

Halifax, and Mecklenburg 

counties and the Towns of South 

Boston and South Hill 

Transportation planning within 

this region is the responsibility 

of VDOT in coordination with 

the local governments.

The Crater PDC and Tri-Cities MPO have produced the following transportation planning 

documents pertinent to the Project: 

Tri-Cities Area (TCA) Year 2035 Transportation Plan (June 2012) The intent of the 2035 

TCA Plan is to meet future-oriented, multimodal transportation needs of the region, such as 

autos, transit, marine, rail, bicycling and pedestrians. The plan 

references the Project, describes the approved alignment through 

the Tri-Cities region, and provides a link to the Project website. 

The plan notes that intercity passenger rail service in the TriCities area is provided by Amtrak, and that the existing Amtrak 

Ettrick Station serves the Tri-Cities portion of the Richmond 

area providing an important modal connection. Planning is 

included for PAT, the fixed-route public transportation system 

operating within the Tri-Cities area. The plan further references 

the Tri-Cities Multimodal Station Study, which was anticipated but not yet under way at the 

time the TCA was released. This plan has since been completed, and is referenced below. 

The plan also outlines the ongoing planning assistance provided to the rural portion of the 

Crater Planning District, noting ongoing coordination with the Project. 

Tri-Cities Multimodal Station Study (August 2012) This pre-NEPA study was developed by 

Virginia DRPT in cooperation with the Tri-Cities MPO to present comparative data for two 

alternate station sites in the Petersburg, VA area: the existing Amtrak Station at Ettrick, VA, 

and a site near the CSX Collier Rail Yard south of Petersburg, VA. Section 1.4 contains 

information about the planning work for the project, which began in August 2014. Currently, 

and Environmental Assessment is under development that will be used to select the preferred 

location for a multimodal station in the Petersburg, VA area 

Crater Planning District Regional Planning District Commission 2035 Long Range 

Transportation Plan (2011) This plan was developed to guide planning of the rural 

transportation network in the Crater planning area. Recommendations for the rural district 

plans also serve as a component of the overall VSTP. Portions of the plan pertinent to the 

Project include three projects in Dinwiddie County: 

 Project 7 - VA 40 from VA 1009 to US-1. Mid-term: Widen to 4 lanes. 

 Project 15 - VA 646 from VA 647 to US-1. Long-term: Reconstruct road to address 

geometric deficiencies (10-foot lanes). 

 Project 23 - VA 613 from VA 1 South to VA 670 West. Long-term: Reconstruct road 

to address geometric deficiencies (12-foot lanes). 

SOUTHSIDE PDC 

The Southside PDC is a regional entity serving the counties 

of Brunswick, Halifax, and Mecklenburg and the Towns of 

South Boston and South Hill (Figure 3-10). The Southside 

PDC lacks any sizable urbanized areas; therefore, this region 

does not have an MPO. Transportation planning within this 

region is the responsibility of the Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) in coordination with the local 

governments. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-95

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Southside PDC’s 2035 

Regional Long Range 

Transportation Plan 

references the SEHSR. 

Portions of the plan pertinent 

to the SEHSR project include 

four projects in Dinwiddie 

County and one project in 

Mecklenburg County.

Figure 3-10 

Southside Planning District Commission Study Area 

Source: Southside Planning District Commission 2012 

VDOT worked with the Southside PDC and its local governments to produce the following 

transportation planning document pertinent to the Project: 

Southside PDC 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (April, 2011) This plan 

was developed to guide planning of the rural transportation network in the Southside planning 

area. Recommendations for the rural district plans also 

serve as a component of the overall state-wide Surface 

Transportation Plan. The plan states that there is 

currently no intercity rail or commuter rail service 

within the region, and that the nearest Amtrak services 

are provided in Danville (10 miles west of the region) 

on the New York to New Orleans Crescent Service and 

in Petersburg (25 miles northeast of the region). 

The plan references the SEHSR Corridor, stating that 

“one of the most anticipated rail projects in the 

Commonwealth is the planned SEHSR” that is planned to 

traverse the region in a corridor that follows the CSX line which parallels I-85 and US-1. The 

plan notes that regionally preferred locations for SEHSR Corridor rail stops include Alberta and 

La Crosse. 

The plan also covers the public transportation systems operating within the Southside PDC 

area, including Lake Area Bus (LAB), which operates within Mecklenburg County, La Crosse, 

and Alberta. 

Portions of the plan pertinent to the Project include four projects in Dinwiddie County, and one 

project in Mecklenburg County. 

Brunswick County Projects – 

 Project 35 - VA 630 (Sturgeon Road) from I-85 to US-1- Long-term: reconstruct road 

to address geometric deficiencies. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-96

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Kerr-Tar Regional COG 

serves Warren, Vance, 

Franklin, Granville, and 

Person Counties and the 

municipalities within these 

counties. Transportation 

planning for the Kerr-Tar 

Regional COG is performed 

by the Kerr-Tar RPO. 

The Warren County 

CTP includes the 

SEHSR project in its 

transportation 

improvement plans. 

 Project 36 - VA 629 from VA 630 to US-1- Long-term: reconstruct road to address 

geometric deficiencies. 

 Project 38 - VA T-628 (Church Street) from VA 136 to VA T-106 - Long-term: 

reconstruct road to address geometric deficiencies. 

 Project 39 - VA T-1404 (Virginia Avenue) VA T-606 (Virginia Avenue) to VA T-628 

(Church Street) - Long-term: reconstruct road to address geometric deficiencies 

Mecklenburg County Projects – 

 Project 38- VA T-618 from southern city limits of La Crosse to VA T-1507 - Long-term: 

widen to urban two-lane roadway. 

NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL PLANNING 

Within North Carolina, each COG is a political subdivision made up of elected officials 

appointed by its member local governments. The Study Area traverses two COG regions, KerrTar (Region K) and Triangle J (Region J) COGs.

KERR-TAR REGIONAL COG 

The Kerr-Tar Regional COG serves Warren, Vance, Franklin, 

Granville, and Person Counties and the municipalities 

within these counties. Transportation planning for the 

Kerr-Tar Regional COG is performed by the Kerr-Tar 

Rural Planning Organization (RPO). 

Kerr-Tar Area Rural Transportation System Authority 

(KARTS) - KARTS provides public transit throughout 

these region K counties: Franklin, Granville, Vance and 

Warren Counties. Planning for KARTS is partially 

funded by the state through the STIP, and is undertaken by 

the Kerr-Tar COG. 

The Kerr-Tar RPO has worked with NCDOT and the local governments to develop the 

following transportation planning documents that contain projects pertinent to the Project: 

Warren County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) (adopted June 2008; 

Technical Report dated March 2010) This plan replaced the 2004 Norlina, NC Thoroughfare 

Plan and covers the entire county. The planning was a joint effort between the Town of 

Norlina, NCDOT, and the Kerr-Tar RPO. The plan includes a 

description of the SEHSR Corridor and includes the following 

relevant elements: 

 Public Transportation and Rail Map – The alignment of 

the Project preferred alternative is shown along with a 

recommended station and park and ride facility in 

Norlina, NC. 

 Rail Recommendations - As part of improvements for the Project, a grade separated 

crossing of Ridgeway Rd. (SR 1107), west of Norlina, to be constructed and to re-align 

Ridgeway Rd. (SR 1107) with St. Tammany Rd. (SR 1210) to create a continuous route 

to I-85 from US-401 as referenced below. 

 US-158 Bypass – A recommended primary route improvement is a bypass of US-158, 

extending along a new location from the existing US-158 to US-1 just north of SR 

1210 (St. Tammany Road) was originally included in the 2004 Norlina Plan, and then 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-97

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The CTP acknowledges the 

planned SEHSR Corridor 

through the county along the 

current CSX S-Line, and 

addresses the initial 

recommendations from the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS, including the 

locations of grade separations 

and road connections. 

carried forward into the Warren County CTP. Both plans call for the bypass to intersect 

the Project rail corridor by-way of a grade separated crossing. 

 US-401/Warrenton Loop – A recommended primary route improvement is for US-401 

to be rerouted around Warrenton and Norlina, intersecting the Project rail corridor. 

Vance County CTP, Draft (June, 2012) The Vance County CTP plan was a joint effort 

between Vance County, its municipalities, NCDOT, and the Kerr-Tar RPO. The Vance County 

CTP replaced the 2002 Henderson Thoroughfare Plan (which was used to develop the Project 

designs shown in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS) when it was adopted in 2012. 

The CTP acknowledges the planned SEHSR Corridor 

through the county along the current CSX S-Line, and 

addresses the initial recommendations from the Richmond 

to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, including the locations of 

grade separations and road connections. It notes that the 

proposed road crossings and grade separations are not final 

and are subject to change, and that they were coordinated 

with the local governments and the NCDOT Rail Division. 

The updated CTP, however, does not include the Main Street 

Extension project previously shown in the Henderson, NC Thoroughfare Plan. 

 Proposed road closings due to the Project - The plan shows road closings at the 

following locations along the Project railroad alignment: 

o Oak Ridge Church Road 

o Beechtree Trail Road 

o McClanahan Street, (Kittrell, NC) 

o Main Street 

o North Chavis Road 

o Cole Lane 

o Bobbitt Road 

o Eastern Minerals Road 

o Welcome Avenue 

o Warehouse Road (does not cross railroad) 

o Miriam Street 

o Chavasse Avenue 

o West Spring Street 

o Orange Street 

o Winder Street 

o Montgomery Street 

o Rock Spring Street 

o Harris Street 

o North Oliver Drive 

o Currin Road 

 Proposed grade separated crossings due to the Project - The plan shows proposed 

grade separated crossings at the following locations along the Project alignment: 

o Oak Ridge Church Road 

o Egypt Mountain Road 

o Church Street 

o Edwards Road 

o Wild Life Lane 

o Bear Pond Road 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-98

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

o JP Taylor Road 

o Dabney Drive to Alexander Avenue 

o NC39 

o Beckford Drive 

o Warrenton Road 

o Brookston Road 

o Greystone Road 

 Public Transportation and Rail Map and Highway Map – These maps show the Project 

alignment through downtown Kittrell, NC, Henderson, NC, and Middleburg, NC with 

a recommended rail stop and intermodal connector in Henderson on US-158 Business 

(Garnett Street). 

 KARTS bus transit system- Several changes are proposed to the KARTS bus transit 

system (“Around Town Shuttle”) in Henderson due to the proposed Project road 

closings. 

Franklinton Thoroughfare Plan (1997) This plan was the basis for the traffic analysis 

conducted for the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. Projects in the plan pertinent to 

the Project include: 

 South Franklinton Connector - proposed to extend from NC 56 east of SR 1118 (Lane 

Store Road) to US-1 south of SR 1127 (Pocomoke Road). The plan calls for the 

Connector to intersect the rail corridor by way of a grade separated crossing. 

Subsequently, the 2012 Franklin County CTP was adopted and is described below. 

Franklin County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (July 2011) This plan was a joint 

effort between all the municipal and county areas in Franklin County, NCDOT, the Capital 

Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), and the Kerr-Tar RPO. The plan was 

coordinated with the Project team, and includes the grade separated crossings that are presented 

in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS designs. 

The CTP maps were adopted by Franklin County and the Towns of Centerville, NC and 

Louisburg, NC and endorsed by the Kerr-Tar RPO and the Towns of Bunn, NC, Franklinton, 

NC, and Youngsville, NC. The CTP maps contain the following notation: "Exact rail 

alignment, grade separation locations and other corresponding projects to be determined by 

SEHSR project study." Specific details of the CTP maps include: 

 Public Transportation and Rail Map - shows the Project alignment through downtown 

Franklinton and Youngsville with no recommended rail stops. 

 Highway Map Inset for Franklinton - shows proposed grade separations of the Project 

corridor at these locations: 

o Winston Street 

o Mason Street 

o South of existing Cedar Creek Road 

o Planned Bypass Expressway 

o Bert Winston Road new alignment 

 Highway Map Inset for Youngsville - shows proposed grade separations of the Project 

corridor at these locations: 

o Proposed NC 98 bypass 

o Main Street. 

 Franklin County Projects - projects pertinent to the Project include: 

o Project 100 – Future commuter rail with stops at Franklinton and Youngsville 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-99

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Triangle J COG is a regional 

entity serving Chatham, Durham, 

Johnston, Lee, Moore, Orange, and 

Wake counties. Transportation 

planning for the urbanized areas of 

the COG is performed by CAMPO 

and the adjacent Durham-Chapel 

Hill-Carrboro MPO. CAMPO 

serves the portion of the region 

within the Study Area, including 

Wake County and the southern 

portion of Franklin County. 

o Project 101-104 – Provide a grade-separated pedestrian crossing across the 

railroad per the Project plan at the following locations: College Street, 

Hillsborough/Hawkins Street, Franklin Street, and Mason Street 

o Project 111 – Improve existing grade separations over railroad (Project 

alignment) at NC 56 

o Project 112 – Provide grade separation for NC 96. 

Kerr-Tar Regional Planning Organization (KTRPO) Project Priority Listing (2014-2020) 

The following projects from the KTRPO are within the Study Area: 

 Project 5 - Widen Warrenton Road (SR 1001) to 

12-foot lanes 

 Project 7 - Continuation of Western Outer Loop 

 Project 12 - Create southbound movements from 

I-85 to US-1 

 Project 14 - Upgrade SR 1151 

 Project 24 - Widen US-1 Business from Peter 

Gill Road (SR 1548) to Dabney Drive (SR 1267) 

 Project 31 - Widen US-1/US-158 through Vance 

County to four lanes. 

TRIANGLE J COG 

The Triangle J COG is a regional entity serving 

Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Moore, Orange, and 

Wake counties. Transportation planning for the urbanized areas of the COG is performed by 

CAMPO and the adjacent Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (Figure 3-11). CAMPO serves 

the portion of the region within the Study Area, including Wake County and the southern 

portion of Franklin County. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-100

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-11 

CAMPO Study Area 

Source : North Carolina Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2012 

CAMPO has recently produced several transportation planning documents pertinent to the 

Project, including: 

US-1 Corridor Study - CAMPO prepared a two-phased report with the involvement of the 

affected localities and Franklin, Vance and Wake Counties. It is a comprehensive multimodal 

transportation and growth plan intended to preserve the functional characteristic of the corridor, 

manage the overall growth within the area, enhance the quality of life of its surrounding 

communities, while providing for the local and regional transportation needs along US-1, which 

closely parallels the Project corridor. 

 Phase I (September 2006) – The Phase I study includes 13 miles of US-1 in Wake and 

Franklin Counties, between I-540 in Raleigh and the northern intersection of US-1/ 

Park Avenue (US-1A) in Youngsville. 

 Phase II Study (Draft Report December 2012) – The Phase II Study is a continuation of 

the Phase I Study, and includes sections of the US-1 (Capital Boulevard) corridor 

through Franklin County and the Town of Franklinton, starting from Park Avenue in 

Youngsville and ending at the Vance County line to the north, with planned 

implementation between years 2015 and 2050. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-101

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The CAMPO/DCHCMPO LRTP 

specifically supports the SEHSR 

project as well as “any other 

passenger rail initiatives that the 

MPO might designate in the 

future” with a clear goal of 

prioritizing transit facilities and 

services, including bus and rail, to 

create a more modally balanced 

and interconnected system. 

Phase II recommends a land use vision and phased multimodal transportation 

improvements that are consistent with regional transportation and land use plans, 

including the proposed Project alignment. 

The study also recommends long range roadway, highway, transit, bicycle and transit 

improvements needed to facilitate proposed future land uses in the corridor, including 

industrial and economic development in the 

immediate vicinity of the Project corridor, to 

take advantage of enhanced freight access. 

CAMPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 

(DCHCMPO) 2035 Joint Long Range 

Transportation Plan (March 2011) The proposed 

Project alignment crosses a number of projects 

identified on mapping for the CAMPO 2035 Joint 

LRTP: 

 A-126a - Ligon Mill Road Widening from 

Burlington Mills Road to US-1A - currently 

an at-grade crossing of the rail corridor. 

 A-10 - Widening of Old Wake Forest Road from Litchford Road to Capital Boulevard 

(US-1) - Currently, SR 3555 (Old Wake Forest Road) crosses over the proposed rail 

corridor via a two-lane bridge. 

 F-11 - US-1 - Upgrade to Freeway - US-1 crosses the proposed Project alignment via 

two two-lane bridges. 

The Plan specifically supports the development of the SEHSR Corridor as well as “any other 

passenger rail initiatives that the MPO might designate in the future” with a clear goal of 

prioritizing transit facilities and services, including bus and rail, to create a more modally 

balanced and interconnected system. 

The plan also includes a focus on the connection between transportation and land use, including 

transit station area development, roadway access management and developing “complete 

streets” to allow a variety of transportation modes. The plan incorporates a “Regional Transit 

Vision Plan” developed by a Special Transit Advisory Commission that includes plans for 

linking major activity centers to regional and intercity rail services (such as the SEHSR 

Corridor). Bus service within the CAMPO area is currently provided by the City of Raleigh, the 

Town of Cary, NCSU and TT. These bus service providers currently cover these areas: 

Raleigh, Cary, Morrisville, Wake Forest, Garner, Apex, Durham, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and 

Hillsborough 

The plan includes TT proposed light rail service between Durham, Raleigh and North Raleigh, 

which is planned to operate within existing railroad ROW, some portions of which are adjacent 

and parallel to the Project proposed ROW.

2012-2018 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (September 2011)

The CAMPO TIP includes the following projects pertinent to this Project: 

 P-3819 SEHSR between Charlotte, NC and the Virginia state line, including 

environmental study, preliminary engineering, ROW, design, and construction. 

 TE-4903 Fixed Guideway – Alternatives Analysis for Major Transit Corridor Projectsin Durham, Orange and Wake Counties. 

Capital Area Bus Transit Development Plan (TDP) Final Report (October 2011) This 2040 

Transit Development Plan was prepared for CAMPO and the City of Raleigh/Capital Area 

Transit (CAT), along with partner agencies TT, Cary Transit, North Carolina State University 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-102

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Planning for the Wake 

County TT transit 

corridor is on-going, and 

has included extensive 

coordination with the 

NCDOT Rail Division 

and the Project team. 

Wolfline, and Wake County. The TDP is intended to serve as a guide in developing a transit 

vision for the entire CAMPO area. The City of Raleigh’s planned Union Station multimodal 

transportation center (which includes plans to serve future SEHSR Corridor trains) is included 

in Recommended Capital Facility Enhancements. 

TRIANGLE TRANSIT (TT) 

TT (formerly, Triangle Transit Authority) operates regional bus and 

shuttle service throughout the CAMPO area, and has been 

planning for a regional fixed guideway system of transit since 

the 1980. Plans have continued to evolve since a 2003 Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) ROD on the Phase I Regional Rail 

System FEIS (Triangle Transit, 2013). TT’s current focus for 

regional light rail is on Orange and Durham Counties, which are 

outside the Project Study Area. Planning for the Wake County 

TT transit corridor, which includes ROW adjacent and parallel to 

the proposed Project ROW is on-going, and has included 

extensive coordination with the NCDOT Rail Division and the Project team. 

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PLANNING 

 VIRGINIA LOCAL PLANNING 

In Virginia, cities are independent from counties in that residents from cities are not considered 

part of the surrounding county. Residents in Virginia cities, therefore, cannot vote for county 

representatives, are not able to receive county services, nor are they subject to county taxes. In 

Virginia, towns are different from cities, in that towns are not independent from counties. 

Residents of Virginia towns are still residents of the county in which the town is located and are 

therefore able to vote for county representatives, may have to pay for (and receive) county 

services and are subject to county taxes as well as any town taxes. 

All localities (cities and counties) in Virginia are required to prepare and adopt a plan to guide the 

physical development of land within their jurisdictions, and to review the plan at least every five 

years and update as necessary. The planning or development department within each locality is 

responsible for developing and updating the locality’s long range plans. The following 

summarizes the most pertinent sections of the long range land use plans for the localities in the 

Study Area. 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

Richmond Master Plan 2000-2010 (2000) This plan is out of date, and as such, includes the 

renovation and return to operations for Main Street Station as a goal. Subsequently, Main 

Street Station has re-opened and is currently serving two round-trip Amtrak passenger trains 

per day to Newport News (4 daily trains). The plan does incorporate the concept behind the 

Project by including goals for establishment of HSR passenger service connections to the 

northeast corridor, south to Charlotte, NC, as well as connections to eastern and western parts 

of the state. In addition, the Transportation and Roadway improvements map shows a HSR 

alignment that follows the SEHSR Corridor. 

Richmond Connects (Richmond’s Strategic Multimodal Transportation Plan) (July 2013) 

This 20-year plan for transportation within Richmond, VA describes actions and plans that 

Richmond will take over the next 20 years to implement the plan’s vision of a truly multimodal 

transportation system that will support economic development, tourism and sustainability goals. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-103

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Richmond Connects

recommends using Main 

Street Station as the 

City’s multimodal hub, 

with the SEHSR’s 

Preferred Alternative 

connecting to the Station 

along the HSR Corridor.

The plan’s implementation strategies were developed to support 

the following guiding principles: Safety, System Preservation, 

Multimodal Linkages, Complete Streets, Equity and 

Accessibility, Regional Coordination, sustainable 

Transportation, Alternative Mode Support, Historic Character, 

and Innovation. The Plan’s Transit and Rail Recommendations 

includes Main Street Station as the city’s “Multimodal Hub,” 

with the SEHSR Corridor’s Preferred Alternative connecting to 

Main Street Station along the “High Speed Rail Corridor”. 

These planned transit improvements also include the Richmond 

BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) (discussed below), Priority Transit Corridors, Local Route 

Improvements and Extensions as well as Transfer Centers. The plan includes the following 

implementation tasks and investment strategies for intercity passenger rail: Coordinate closely 

with Virginia DRPT and regional entities to ensure the City has a seat at the table during the 

planning process for expanding passenger rail services; continue to promote the enhancement 

of Main Street Station as multimodal hub for passenger rail services; and, Continue 

coordination with state and Federal agencies to incrementally improve intercity passenger rail 

service. 

Richmond Downtown Plan (July 2009) This plan notes that in 2003, Main Street Station was 

fully restored and re-opened to limited Amtrak service, serving two trains per day to Newport 

News, VA. A key recommendation of this Plan is to consider Main Street Station as a 

multimodal transportation hub. 

Richmond Riverfront Plan (November 2012) As a continuation of the 2009 Downtown Plan, 

the Riverfront Plan provides a strategy to revitalize a 2.25 mile long stretch of the James River, 

from the Lee Bridge to Rocketts Landing, extending at least 200 feet inland from both banks of 

the river. The plan shows the CSX S-Line railroad (utilized by the Project) and bridge over the 

James River. 

Broad Street Bus Rapid Transit Study (BRT) Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) 

oversees planning for the City’s transit system. GRTC is working in partnership with Virginia 

DRPT to plan for bus rapid transit along the Broad Street corridor in Richmond, VA. Broad 

Street BRT is a 7.6 mile proposed project to provide rapid transit service along the Broad Street 

corridor of Richmond. This project was recommended in the Richmond Connects Plan, 

described above. The project begins at Willow Lawn in Henrico County in the west and extends 

on Broad Street through the City of Richmond to 14th Street, then continues from 14th on Main 

Street where buses will continue at limited BRT stops to the eastern terminus at Rocketts 

Landing. Within the corridor, a median-running guideway for BRT buses only will be provided 

from Thompson Street to Adams Street, and a dedicated curb lane for all buses will be provided 

on Broad from 4th Street to 14th Street. In total, buses will run on dedicated lanes for about 

half of the corridor and in mixed traffic for the remainder. A total of 14 BRT stations are 

planned, including a stop at Main Street Station, the northern terminus of this Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS. A locally preferred alternative was selected in June, 2014 and the 

study project is moving toward the preliminary design phase. Current estimates of project 

completion show the project opening at the end of 2017 or beginning of 2018. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield County (October 2012) includes the following 

regarding passenger rail service in the County: 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-104

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Comprehensive Plan for 

Chesterfield County acknowledges 

Ettrick Station would have a stop for 

the new passenger service to Norfolk, 

VA, which began in December 2012. 

The Plan indicates that expanded rail 

service provided by SEHSR would 

have a positive economic impact, 

could potentially increase housing 

demand, and would benefit the growth 

and expansion of Virginia State 

University (adjacent to the existing 

Ettrick Station). 

 Chapter 13- Transportation- The plan 

indicates that Ettrick Station is the 

passenger rail station in the county and is 

owned by CSX Transportation and leased 

by Amtrak, which operates daily service 

via the Carolinian/Piedmont service 

between New York, NY and Charlotte, NC, 

and the Silver Star/Palmetto, serving New 

York, NY to Miami, FL. The plan also 

acknowledges Ettrick Station would have a 

stop for the new passenger service to 

Norfolk, VA, which began in December 

2012. 

The plan references ongoing planning for 

the SEHSR Corridor authorized under the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and shows the location of 

the SEHSR Corridor as “Potential High Speed Rail” on the Rail Facilities Figure. 

 Chapter 10 Land Use – The plan acknowledges the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier 

II EIS study, indicating that expanded rail service would have a positive economic 

impact, and would potentially increase housing demand, and would benefit the growth 

and expansion of Virginia State University (adjacent to the existing Ettrick Station). 

Ettrick Village Plan (adopted 2004) work is currently underway to update this plan. The 

2004 plan recommends using the existing local street network around the Ettrick Station to 

accommodate traffic from the SEHSR Corridor. It also notes that the proposed conservation 

and recreation area along the Appomattox River should not interfere with SEHSR Corridor 

river crossing. Refer to Section 4.13 for additional discussion related to parks within the Study 

Area. Work is underway to update this plan 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

City of Colonial Heights Comprehensive Plan 2044 (Updated January 2015) The plan 

makes no specific reference to the Project. The update does not mention the SEHSR Corridor, 

but does reference the existing Amtrak Ettrick Station located nearby. 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

Petersburg Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2011) This plan supports HSR in the region, and 

references passenger rail as follows: 

 Proposed high speed rail service along the east coast rail corridor through the City of 

Petersburg includes possible facilities for the city - “The City of Petersburg should 

position itself a transit ready City by adopting policies that 1) combine land use and 

transportation, 2) promote the current transit service and facilities, and 3) encourage 

transit oriented development at preferred location of pending HSR station. This would 

include developing a specific Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zoning 

ordinance that clearly defines the appropriate densities, uses, and types of development 

that must occur within the zone for HSR to be feasible. Without such market inducing 

actions, the City risks being over-looked by Amtrak as a viable station area.” 

 Multimodal transit center – The plan describes the City’s new multimodal transit center 

that houses bus lines from PAT, GRTC and Greyhound Bus Lines. In addition, shuttle 

buses provide service to the Petersburg Amtrak Station in Ettrick. The plan notes that the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-105

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

transit center shelters riders in a multimodal, multi-purpose facility and enables travelers 

to move between local, regional, and national travel routes from one central location. 

Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) Planning for PAT is undertaken by the City of Petersburg. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

Dinwiddie County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (adopted 2007) This plan also covers the 

communities of Dinwiddie, VA and McKenney, VA, and supports passenger and freight rail as 

well as an integrated multimodal transportation system, and specifically mentions actions 

needed to plan for the SEHSR Corridor, as follows: 

 Objectives of the Transportation Chapter include: 

o “Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to provide for an 

efficient, intermodal transportation system.” (1d) 

o “Study / plan for public transportation.” (1j) 

o “Study the potential impact of high speed rail on Dinwiddie County.” (1m) 

o “Study the development of a zoning overlay district for the proposed high 

speed rail corridor.” (1p) 

o “Promote the utilization of railways for economic and industrial growth.” (2b). 

 Map X-3, Dinwiddie Corridor Plan, identifies the “Potential High Speed Rail Corridor” 

along the alignment of the Project corridor. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

Vision 2015 Brunswick County, 2006 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update This plan, 

which covers the Town of Alberta (and others outside the Study Area), references the SEHSR 

Corridor as well as the importance of rail freight to the county, as follows: 

 Support the development of existing rail and air facilities and encourage the 

development of additional rail and air service – This support is outlined within the 

Transportation Element of the plan as a strategy for promoting a balanced 

transportation system that supports growth. 

 Southeast High Speed Rail – The SEHSR Corridor is discussed under the Parks and 

Recreation Element of the plan as it pertains to the planned Tobacco Heritage Trail. 

Refer to Section 3.14 for additional discussion related to parks located within the 

SEHSR Corridor. 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

Mecklenburg County Strategic Economic Development Plan (adopted in 2010) This plan 

establishes a goal of assisting in implementing the SEHSR Corridor from Richmond to Raleigh, 

with a station in La Crosse, VA. 

Mecklenburg 2035 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in October 2012) This plan, which covers 

the county as well as the Towns of South Hill and La Crosse (and others outside the Study 

Area), supports the SEHSR Corridor as follows: 

 Proposed SEHSR Corridor map - The Existing Transportation Section includes a map 

from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS showing the proposed Project 

corridor; also included is the Section I location map from the Project Recommendation 

Report (NCDOT, Virginia DRPT, 2012) which shows the alignment of the preferred 

alternative through La Crosse. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-106

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Vance County Land 

Use Plan notes that the 

project has “the potential 

to provide great benefit 

and exposure to Vance 

County and may include a 

passenger stop in 

downtown Henderson.”

Municipal corporations (also 

referred to as cities, towns or 

villages) in NC are not 

independent from the 

counties wherein they reside. 

 Challenges and Opportunities, Item 1 - states “The most significant opportunity that 

can affect transportation in the future is the construction of the high speed rail line 

between Charlotte and Richmond.” 

 Potential Action Items, Infrastructure Planning - states “Careful land use management 

along transportation (arterial and high-speed rail) corridors will ensure effective 

movement of traffic and attractive business areas that enhance the image of 

Mecklenburg County.” 

 Policies and Action Strategies - “Champion construction of the high speed rail line 

between Charlotte and Richmond, with a dedicated stop in La Crosse.” 

 NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL PLANNING 

Unlike Virginia, municipal corporations (also referred to as cities, towns or villages) in North 

Carolina are not independent from the counties wherein they reside. Residents of North 

Carolina’s municipalities are also residents of the county in 

which the city or town is located; therefore, they are able to 

vote for county representatives, may have to pay for (and 

receive) county services and are subject to county taxes as 

well as city or town taxes. 

Local governments (or localities) in North Carolina (which 

refers to both counties and cities) are empowered to prepare 

and adopt plans to guide the physical development of land. 

While state law does not require localities to adopt a land development plan, for a transportation 

plan to be adopted, localities must have a land development plan adopted no more than five years 

earlier. Likewise, a North Carolina locality is not required to have zoning regulations, but if it 

does, those regulations must be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. 

The county planning department is responsible for providing planning services, including 

developing and updating the county’s long range plans, to the unincorporated portions of their 

county; however, some counties also provide these services to their smaller towns. The city 

planning department is responsible for providing planning services, including developing and 

updating the city’s long range plans, for its incorporated areas as well as its extra-territorial 

jurisdiction (ETJ), a special zoning area outside of its current municipal boundary, in order to 

plan for future expansion and growth. The following summarizes the most pertinent sections of 

the long range land use plans for the localities in the Study Area. 

WARREN COUNTY 

Warren County 2022 Comprehensive Development Plan (adopted 2002) This plan covers 

the Town of Norlina (and other towns outside the Study Area) as well as the unincorporated 

portions of the county, and indicates support for the SEHSR Corridor through the stated goal of 

creating and updating the County Thoroughfare Plan with 

consideration of the SEHSR Corridor. 

VANCE COUNTY 

Vance County Land Use Plan (adopted 1996 and amended 

August 2010) This plan covers the unincorporated portions of 

the county as well as the Towns of Middleburg and Kittrell 

(and other towns outside the Study Area). The plan includes a 

summary and schedule of the SEHSR Corridor in the 

Transportation Resources Section, noting the SEHSR Corridor 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-107

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

would “utilize portions of existing rail lines and would involve building overpasses or 

underpasses at virtually all intersections of the rail line and roads within the county” and that 

the SEHSR Corridor has “the potential to provide great benefit and exposure to Vance County 

and may include a passenger stop in downtown Henderson.” The plan also states that “with the 

timetable for this project inside of 10 years, it is important that the county is prepared for the 

development pressures which could be a result of the rail line.” 

CITY OF HENDERSON 

Henderson 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted May 2010) This plan includes consideration 

of the SEHSR Corridor, stating that “[a] portion of the proposed Southeast High Speed Rail 

Corridor from Raleigh to Petersburg VA is planned along the CSX rail line, with a planned stop 

in Henderson. One of the major challenges facing the city is to maintain safe and convenient 

access across the railroad tracks.” The plan includes two goals related to the Project: 

 Identify economic development opportunities related to proposed HSR station. 

 Develop land conservation plan for the proposed SEHSR Corridor. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 

Franklin County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (adopted 2000) This plan also covers the 

Towns of Youngsville and Franklinton (and other towns outside the Study Area). The Plan 

makes no specific reference to the SEHSR Corridor, which is expected, given its age. The Plan 

does, however, recommend industrial land uses to be located along existing rail corridors for 

future freight access. 

TOWN OF FRANKLINTON 

Franklinton Comprehensive Land Use Plan (adopted in 1989 and updated in 2006) This 

plan makes no reference to the SEHSR Corridor. 

TOWN OF YOUNGSVILLE 

Youngsville 2000-2010 Land Use Plan (adopted October 2000) This plan references the 

SEHSR Corridor, noting that plans are underway to include HSR on the CSX railroad corridor 

within the Town limits. The Plan’s Implementation Measure A states that, “The Planning 

Board strongly recommends that the town officials meet with the Department of Transportation 

to study the needs of the growing area and to learn and plan for the future plans of the state 

concerning improvements in the roadway system in and about Youngsville. Included in this 

study should be the proposed high-speed train and its effect on the road system.” 

WAKE COUNTY 

Wake County Transportation Plan (adopted April 2003) This plan covers unincorporated 

portions of the county, which are not impacted by the Project. The Study Area is located within 

areas of the county that fall within the planning jurisdictions of the Town of Wake Forest and 

the City of Raleigh, rather than greater Wake County. 

TOWN OF WAKE FOREST 

Wake Forest Community Plan (adopted September 2009) This plan incorporates and 

updates previously adopted town-wide plans, including the Land Development Plan, 2020 

Community Comprehensive Plan, and Downtown Renaissance Plan. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-108

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Wake Forest Community Plan

notes that the SEHSR corridor is not 

expected to seriously impact existing 

developments or land uses in the 

vicinity. The Plan also notes that 

typical concerns associated with 

HSR through a community include 

noise and traffic conflicts, but also 

notes that the high speed trains will 

pass through the community so 

quickly that noise and interruption of 

traffic should be of short duration. 

The plan identifies the SEHSR Corridor as following a 

general alignment with the existing rail line with 

only minor changes and realignments, noting that 

the realignments are not expected to seriously 

impact existing developments or land uses in the 

vicinity. The plan indicates that the SEHSR 

Corridor trains are expected to pass through the 

town without stopping. 

The plan notes that typical concerns associated 

with HSR through a community include noise and 

traffic conflicts, but also notes that the high speed 

trains will pass through the community so quickly 

that noise and interruption of traffic should be of 

short duration. The plan discusses the fact that atgrade intersections with local streets are viewed with particular concern by rail officials and 

that there are often initiatives undertaken to permanently close such crossings. Additionally: 

 Policy RT-1 (Regional Transportation in the Growth Management Section) - states that, 

“the Town should continue to anticipate and plan for the impacts of new High Speed 

Rail Service as it passes through Wake Forest en route to major urban centers north and 

south along the east coast.” 

NC 98 Bypass Corridor Master Plan (approved August 2003) The Master Plan does not 

specifically mention the SEHSR Corridor, but the Railroad Crossings Section contains the 

following recommendations: 

 Pedestrian bridge – a pedestrian crossing is needed at the NC 98 Bypass railroad 

crossing because the highway bridge over the railroad does not include sidewalks. 

 Vehicular and pedestrian grade-separated crossing - is needed to provide a safe 

crossing of the railroad in the southern area of downtown. 

The Wake Forest Transportation Plan (Updated July 2010) This plan is considered both a 

comprehensive planning element, as well as the Federally required 20-year CTP. The Plan 

includes a section describing the SEHSR Corridor and proposed service through town, noting 

that there is no planned stop in Wake Forest. 

 Transit connection to Raleigh Station - in reference to the fact that there is no planned 

stop for Wake Forest, the Plan calls for existing bus service between downtown Wake 

Forest and downtown Raleigh to be modified to include a stop at the proposed Raleigh 

Union Station. 

 Comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS - the Plan includes a 

reiteration of the Town’s comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS 

(which have been responded to in Chapter 8 of this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

FEIS). 

CITY OF RALEIGH 

2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Raleigh (adopted Oct 2009, last amended 

October 2013) This plan references high speed intercity passenger rail, and includes several 

elements that pertain to the proposed SEHSR Corridor, including: 

 Growth Framework Map – a description of the Downtown Regional Center notes the 

area’s most intense growth and highest levels of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-109

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Many of Richmond’s 

historically industrial and 

commercial districts are 

transitioning to mixed-use 

areas. Adaptive reuse projects 

are converting former industrial 

spaces to condominiums, art 

galleries, restaurants, and 

entertainment venues. 

and “a true hub for a rapidly growing region, served by highways, rail transit, highspeed intercity rail, and local and express bus.” The planned multimodal transportation 

center is identified as the heart of this Center, and would serve SEHSR Corridor trains. 

 Transportation Element - policies and action elements pertinent to the SEHSR Corridor 

including: 

o Map T-5, Future Interchange Locations, shows proposed new grade separations 

along the CSX S-Line alignment at these locations: 

 Durant Road 

 Gresham Lake Road 

 Millbrook Road 

 New Hope Church Road 

 Whittaker Mill Road 

o Action T 4.1 calls for the City to pursue the development of a multimodal 

transportation center in downtown Raleigh, linking multiple travel modes 

including local, regional, and long-distance bus; regional, commuter, and longdistance rail (Amtrak); taxis, cars, and downtown transit circulators. Note that 

subsequent to the adoption date of this report that advancements have been 

made on development of the Raleigh Union Station multimodal transportation 

center. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2015; refer to Section 1.4 for 

additional information on this project which is a joint undertaking by the City 

of Raleigh, the NCDOT, and FRA. 

o Policy T 8.2 states that outside of the downtown street grid, the City should 

“seek additional opportunities to provide grade-separated street connections 

across the City’s passenger and freight rail corridors, and look to grade separate 

existing crossings where feasible and desirable.” 

The plan also provides policies and strategies guiding growth of the CAT transit system, 

including those related to coordination with future regional commuter and long-distance 

passenger rail. 

Small Area Plans The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS reported that most small area 

plans acknowledge that the SEHSR Corridor generally follows the existing CSX rail line 

through Raleigh; however, these plans either simply document the existence of the rail corridor 

or predicate any land use classifications on current freight or proposed regional commuter rail 

services. The Glenwood South small area plan does not reference the SEHSR Corridor 

specifically, but makes frequent references to pedestrian and transit options to reduce 

dependence on automobiles within this mixed-use district. This plan calls for extending 

pedestrian connections between the West Street area and Glenwood South “to strengthen 

pedestrian and land use connections” (City of Raleigh, 2007). The SEHSR Corridor passes 

through this “Pedestrian Business Overlay District”, which was put in place subsequent to the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 

Capital Area Transit In addition to long-range 

planning contained in the 2040 TDP referenced 

above in the regional planning section, short range 

planning for the CAT system is conducted by the 

City of Raleigh.

NEIGHBORHOODS AND 

COMMUNITIES 

This section has been repeated in its entirety from the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-110

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Most of Chesterfield 

County contains a 

suburban development 

pattern of subdivisions, 

commercial corridors and 

shopping centers, and 

industrial areas. 

describes the urban residential areas, small towns and distinct neighborhoods within the Study 

Area. Industrial and commercial areas, subdivisions, scattered rural development, and farmlands 

are documented elsewhere in this chapter. 

VIRGINIA 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

The neighborhoods adjacent to Main Street Station are Shockoe Bottom and Shockoe Slip. 

Historically an industrial area, they now comprise an emerging district of high end 

condominiums, art galleries, restaurants and entertainment venues. For example, Tobacco Row 

in Shockoe Bottom is an adaptive reuse project turning former warehouses into a grocery, 

pharmacy, and condos. According to the 2010 Census, the area includes one of Richmond’s 

fastest growing census tracts. 

The area below the James River is often called the Southside of Richmond, which should not be 

confused with the Southside Virginia region along the North Carolina border. Much of this area 

is industrial and heavy commercial with the exception of Old Manchester, located west of the 

railroad. Old Manchester is a largely industrial and heavy commercial district that is transitioning 

to mixed use. Adaptive reuse projects in recent years converted former industrial spaces to 

apartments and art studios. 

One of the first neighborhoods along the Study Area on the southside of Richmond is just north 

of Philip Morris Industries along Ruffin Road. This is a workforce neighborhood straddling the 

existing rail corridor between I-95 and US-1. The Ruffin Road neighborhood is primarily 

residential, with an elementary school, community center and city park east of the corridor, and a 

small church to the west. A similar neighborhood exists west of the rail corridor south of Bells 

Road. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Most of Chesterfield County contains a suburban development pattern of subdivisions, 

commercial corridors and shopping centers, and industrial areas. 

The community core area of Chester extends from Hundred Road 

to around Daniels Street. Chester developed around a stop on the 

Richmond & Petersburg Railroad, with Railroad Street 

paralleling the rail corridor. Grid-pattern blocks are laid out 

with their long sides paralleling the tracks so the old core area is 

nine blocks long but only four deep (two streets on either side of 

the rail corridor). Most development within this grid pattern is 

residential, the bulk of which fronts internal streets rather than 

the rail corridor. Commercial and institutional development first 

developed along Hundred Road at the northern end of the core. 

As the surrounding area suburbanized, most new commercial development has occurred around 

the intersection of US-1 and VA 10 and the I-95 interchange area. 

Ettrick also straddles the existing rail corridor, but its development pattern and demographics 

appear to be shaped more by Virginia State University, an historically black college of 5,300 

students, founded in 1882. As the Study Area passes Dupuy Road, Ettrick Park abuts the rail 

corridor to the west while a fairly dense residential neighborhood abuts it to the east. This 

neighborhood, unlike Chester’s old core, was not built along the railroad but adjacent to the 

university. The influence of the university is also evident in that, according to the 2010 Census, 

78% of the population is African-American and 44% is in the 15-24 age bracket. The long term 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-111

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Most of Dinwiddie County 

contains a rural residential 

and agricultural development 

pattern, within large tracts of 

woodlands, with some 

scattered residential and 

commercial development 

along major roads such as 

US-1. 

Colonial Heights and Petersburg 

form a single urbanized area, 

with Colonial Heights accounting 

for much of the suburban 

residential and commercial 

development. Petersburg 

accounts for much of the urban 

residential and commercial 

development in the region. 

presence of the railroad is evidenced by the Amtrak station’s location at the southern end of 

Ettrick Park, which itself straddles the active rail corridor. Ettrick’s growth appears to be mostly 

to the west and northwest. 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

Colonial Heights and Petersburg essentially form a single urbanized area, with Colonial Heights 

accounting for much of the suburban residential and commercial development. The central 

development focus of Colonial Heights is US-1, known locally as the “Boulevard.” Except where 

it crosses both Ellerslie Avenue and US-1, the Study Area is almost completely hidden from most 

of the community as it generally runs behind the developed area fronting the Boulevard. The 

linear development pattern of Colonial Heights is auto-oriented and thus shielded by the presence 

of a rail corridor. City plans indicate future growth may continue to the north and towards the 

east. 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

In contrast to Colonial Heights, Petersburg accounts for 

much of the urban residential and commercial 

development in the region. After the Study Area 

passes Washington Street, it passes through a semiindustrial area, with older workforce residential 

neighborhoods to the east and west. A similar urban 

neighborhood abuts the tracks south of Stuart Avenue 

west of the rail corridor. Suburban-style infill 

neighborhoods are adjacent to the Study Area around 

Youngs Road to the west and Juniper Road to the east. 

A few older workforce houses are located along 

Lincoln Street west of the Study Area, while a large, 

urban workforce neighborhood extends north and south along the rail corridor to the east. The 

remainder of the Study Area is adjacent to either industrial development or undeveloped lands. 

Urbanized Petersburg essentially ends as the Study Area crosses I-85. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

Most of Dinwiddie County contains a rural residential and 

agricultural development pattern, within large tracts of 

woodlands, with some scattered residential and 

commercial development along major roads such as US-1. 

The community core of Dinwiddie (also called Dinwiddie 

Courthouse) is clustered around the intersection of 

Boydton Plank Road (US-1) and Courthouse Road. This 

cluster serves as the county’s center for government and 

commerce. Residential development patterns adjacent to 

the core are mostly linear, following roads radiating out 

from the core. A small commercial development cluster 

exists along the inactive rail corridor south of Haddon Street; however, all other development is 

linear and oriented towards roadways, particularly Boydton Plank Road. 

McKenney is an old railroad village where part of the core area developed along Railroad Street 

and Factory Street adjacent to the inactive rail corridor. The village core has a loose street grid, 

six blocks long and three deep, southeast of the rail corridor and northeast of Doyle Boulevard 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-112

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Most of Brunswick and 

Mecklenburg counties in VA 

contain a rural residential and 

agricultural development pattern, 

within large tracts of woodlands, 

with some scattered residential and 

commercial development along US 

1. Lake-oriented subdivisions and 

development occur at the southern 

end of the Mecklenburg County 

near Lake Gaston. 

(VA 40). More recent development is in a linear pattern, mostly oriented northwest-southeast 

along Doyle Boulevard, Sunnyside Road and Depot Road, with minor clusters at the Boydton 

Plank Road intersection and I-85 interchange. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

Most of Brunswick County contains a rural residential and agricultural development pattern, 

within large tracts of woodlands, with some scattered residential and commercial development 

along US-1. 

Alberta is an old railroad village, with an intersection of 

the now inactive CSX S-Line and NS rail corridors 

within its town core. Most of the town is older 

buildings, some well-maintained and some in need of 

repair, and many commercial buildings are vacant or 

underutilized. In 2003, the town commissioned the 

Alberta Downtown Plan as part of an effort to secure 

Federal Community Development Block Grant funds 

to assist with redevelopment and revitalization 

projects. Alberta’s plans for economic development 

include converting the inactive NS rail corridor to 

become part of the Tobacco Heritage Trail and creating 

an industrial park straddling the CSX S-Line rail corridor 

adjacent to the south side of Boydton Plank Road. 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

Most of Mecklenburg County contains a rural residential and agricultural development pattern, 

within large tracts of woodlands, with some residential and commercial development along US-1. 

Lake-oriented subdivisions and development occur at the southern end of the county near Lake 

Gaston. 

The Town of La Crosse straddles the inactive CSX S-Line rail corridor from US-58 south to 

Hillcrest Street. La Crosse was a former rail stop and the now closed La Crosse Hotel was built 

just east of the CSX S-Line rail corridor in the early 20th century. Most of the town’s 

commercial and industrial buildings face the CSX S-Line rail corridor across Main Street to the 

west. The fire station, the town’s main building, faces the CSX S-Line rail corridor from across 

Carolina Street. The town is actively working on economic development projects for the core 

area, including renovating and reopening the hotel for use as a railway station to serve this 

Project, and creating a Tobacco Heritage Trail greenway along the inactive east-west NS rail 

corridor. Residential areas are mostly older, some well maintained and some in need of repair. 

The residential parts of town are arranged on a loose street grid around all sides of the core. 

Some development continues south of town along St. Tammany Road west of the CSX S-Line 

rail corridor. 

Bracey is a tiny highway crossroads area with a few scattered houses; however, the predominant 

development pattern is commercial and trucking operations oriented toward VA 903 and its 

interchange with I-85. Several structures in this area are dilapidated or vacant. The old Bracey 

railroad station building has been moved and is located within the Study Area on the north end of 

Bracey. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-113

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Most of Warren County contains a 

rural residential and agricultural 

development pattern, within large 

tracts of woodlands, with some 

residential, commercial and industrial 

development along US-1. Lakeoriented subdivisions and 

development occur at the northern 

end of the county near Lake Gaston.

NORTH CAROLINA 

WARREN COUNTY 

Most of Warren County contains a rural residential and agricultural development pattern, within 

large tracts of woodlands, with some residential, commercial and industrial development along 

US-1. Lake-oriented subdivisions and development occur at the northern end of the county near 

Lake Gaston. 

Norlina is an old railroad town developed around the 

intersection of the active CSX S-Line from the 

south and the inactive CSX SA-Line to the east, as 

well as the intersection of US-1 with US-158/401. 

Within the town core area, some heavy commercial 

buildings are oriented toward the railroad corridors 

along Liberty and Hyco Streets. Many of the core’s 

buildings are oriented towards streets perpendicular 

to the rail corridors and most non-residential 

buildings are located between Main Street south of 

the rail corridors and US-1 to the north. Residential 

areas are along a loose street grid to the north and south of the core area. Some lower density 

suburban development has occurred east of the core between the two rail corridors. 

VANCE COUNTY 

Middleburg is a small, predominantly minority community straddling both US-1 and the active 

CSX S-Line rail corridor. A small residential area of about eight square blocks lies north of US-1 

along both sides of Lee Avenue. E.O. Young Elementary school is immediately to the southwest. 

Most of the area south of US-1 and the CSX S-Line rail corridor is large scale commercial 

development, including a large Georgia-Pacific operation. Middleburg is immediately east of the 

US-1 interchange with I-85, with Chex Truck World and related restaurants located to the 

northwest. 

Henderson is a much larger, predominantly minority, city south of I-85 and west of the US-1 

Bypass, through which the active CSX S-Line passes. Henderson is a heavy industry center, 

much of which is located along the Study Area to the northeast and south of the urban core. 

Within the urban core, the active CSX S-Line rail corridor essentially separates residential 

neighborhoods and commercial activities to the east from Garnett Street, Henderson’s “main 

street,” to the west. Henderson’s older neighborhoods are mostly smaller houses along a 

rectilinear street grid commonly aligned with the CSX S-Line rail corridor. Housing towards the 

northeast is a mix of middle class and workforce housing. Adjacent to the core, the housing is a 

mix of workforce and lower income housing. Residential areas in South Henderson are mostly 

lower income and often vacant. Outside of the Study Area, newer residential development is 

mostly to the west and follows a more suburban pattern. South Henderson is almost entirely 

heavy commercial and industrial development as far south as Bear Pond Road and Peter Gill 

Road. Many industries located here to have access the CSX S-Line rail corridor and to US-1. 

Kittrell is a small village originally built straddling the active CSX S-Line rail corridor with much 

of the core area oriented towards the CSX S-Line rail corridor as well as towards Main and 

Church Streets, which run perpendicular to the tracks. Much of this “interior” area is now 

residential and institutional, including Zeb Vance Elementary. The community’s limited 

commercial development is oriented to the US-1 corridor. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-114

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 The SEHSR corridor in Wake 

County crosses suburban, industrial, 

and commercial development. 

Urban development is found in the 

own core of Wake Forest and inside 

the Beltline in Raleigh. Most 

residential development inside the 

Beltline has occurred since 2000 

and consists primarily of mill 

conversions and high-end condos. 

In Franklin County, 

Franklinton and 

Youngsville are small 

towns that were built 

straddling the rail 

corridor and US 1. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 

Franklinton is an old railroad town built straddling both the active 

CSX S-Line rail corridor and the old alignment for US-1 (now 

US-1-A), which remains the town’s main street. The street grid 

reflects the orientations of US-1 and NC 56. The Study Area is 

mostly residential and institutional, including both Franklinton 

Elementary and Franklinton High schools, but the commercial 

core is centered on Mason Street just west of the CSX S-Line rail 

corridor. Although there is some commercial development 

around the US-1 interchange with NC 56, the dominant growth 

pattern appears to be to the east. 

Youngsville is another small community built straddling the active CSX S-Line rail corridor and 

the old alignment for US-1. The street grid reflects the orientation of US-1, NC 96, and the CSX 

S-Line rail corridor, with older houses surrounding the town core. Most structures are oriented 

towards streets running perpendicular to the active CSX S-Line rail corridor. Northwest of the 

core is a newer industrial park developed along the west side of the CSX S-Line rail corridor. 

Youngsville does not exhibit a clear growth pattern; however, Wake County’s growth is 

expanding towards the community. 

WAKE COUNTY 

Wake Forest is the northernmost community in 

Wake County and its subdivisions are spreading 

into Franklin County. The town’s core and urban 

neighborhoods developed on both sides of the 

active CSX S-Line rail corridor. Initially, it was a 

small town heavily focused on mills and the local 

college. (Wake Forest University has since moved 

to Winston-Salem – Southeastern College and 

Seminary has taken its place.) Today, Wake Forest 

is a bedroom community for people commuting to 

Raleigh and Research Triangle Park. Most new 

housing is for middle to upper income households, 

as is the restored historic housing. However, pockets of lower income and workforce housing 

remain. The DuBois Center, for example, is a community center serving lower income residents 

through special school programs, tutoring, job training and a food bank. Wake Forest has active 

plans to revitalize its downtown core area. Regardless, most new commercial development is 

drawn to the US-1 corridor, because it is the primary commuter route. 

Between Wake Forest and the area within Raleigh known as “inside the [I-440] Beltline,” lie a 

combination of newer, middle to upper income subdivisions and master planned communities, 

such as Heritage Wake Forest, and older workforce housing, apartments and manufactured 

housing communities, such as Litchford Mobile Homes. This outer area of suburban housing is 

separated from more urban neighborhoods and districts by a swath of industrial and commercial 

development along the Study Area. 

Once the rail corridor crosses Capital Boulevard (inside the Beltline), the Study Area enters urban 

Raleigh, with the historic Mordecai and neo-traditional Pilot Mill Village neighborhoods adjacent 

to the ROW, and Peace College near by. The state government office complex lies along much 

of the eastern edge of the Study Area. The active CSX S-Line rail corridor travels through 

several districts (Glenwood South, Powerhouse Square and the Warehouse District, collectively 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-115

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Following publication of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS, 3 schools 

previously located within the 

Study Area moved to 

locations outside the Study 

Area. The description below 

is the same as that provided in 

the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS, except 

where otherwise noted below. 

known as West Side) transitioning from industrial and commercial to mixed use entertainment, 

office and residential. Most residential development in this area has occurred since 2000 and 

consists primarily of mill conversions and high-end condos. Most downtown neighborhoods 

were oriented towards workforce housing, government employees and college faculty, but now 

gentrification and high cost infill development are causing a demographic shift within downtown. 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

This section of the chapter documents and describes the public facilities and services located 

within the Study Area. Regional facilities located outside of the Study Area as well as services 

provided throughout an entire jurisdiction are also documented. Updates to the information 

provided in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS are noted within the sections below. 

PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 

Following publication of the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS, three schools previously 

located within the Study Area moved to locations 

outside the Study Area: Franklinton High School in 

Franklinton, NC; Forest Pines Drive Elementary in 

Wake Forest, NC; and Raleigh Charter High School 

in Raleigh, NC. The description below is the same 

as that provided in the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS, except where otherwise noted below. 

VIRGINIA 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

Ruffin Road Elementary is located at 2001 Ruffin Road, east of the existing CSX S-Line rail 

corridor and at-grade railroad crossing. The school is located in an isolated, lower income 

neighborhood just north of the Philip Morris industrial complex. Ruffin Road provides the only 

access to this school via the at-grade railroad crossing, which is also connected with a city park 

and community center. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Bensley Elementary is located at 6600 Strathmore Road in Chesterfield County, west of the 

CSX S-Line and east of the CSX A-Line existing rail corridors. The Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS mistakenly included Bensley Elementary in the list of schools located 

within the Study Area. Because the school is outside the Study Area, it has not been evaluated 

for Project impacts in Chapter 4 of this Tier II FEIS. 

Perrymont Middle is located at 8610 Perrymont Road, east of the existing CSX S-Line rail 

corridor. The school is located southeast of the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR). 

Kingsland Road is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line and CSX A-Line 

rail corridors at-grade. 

Chester Middle is located at 3900 W. Hundred Road in Chester, east of the existing CSX ALine rail corridor. The school is located in close proximity to old town Chester. Hundred Road 

is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX A-Line rail corridor, which is grade 

separated with a five-lane roadway bridge over the CSX A-Line. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-116

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Ettrick Elementary is located at 20910 Chesterfield Avenue in Ettrick, east of the existing CSX 

A-Line rail corridor. The school is located about two blocks west of Virginia State University. 

Chesterfield Avenue is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX A-Line rail corridor, 

which is grade separated with a four-lane roadway bridge over the CSX A-Line. 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

North Elementary is located at 3201 Dale Avenue, west of the existing CSX A-Line rail 

corridor. The school is located east of Boulevard. East Ellerslie Avenue is the closest access 

road crossing the existing rail corridor, which is grade separated with a five-lane roadway 

bridge over the CSX A-Line. 

Lakeview Elementary is located at 401 Taswell Avenue, west of the existing CSX A-Line rail 

corridor. The school is located south of Lakeview Avenue and west of the Boulevard. The 

Boulevard is the closest access road crossing the existing rail corridor, which is grade separated 

with the CSX A-Line passing over the four-lane roadway. 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

J.E.B. Stuart Elementary is located at 100 Pleasants Lane, west of the existing CSX A-Line rail 

corridor. The school is located about seven blocks east of Central State Hospital. Dupuy Road 

is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX A-Line rail corridor, which is grade 

separated with the CSX A-Line passing over the two-lane roadway. 

Westview Elementary is located at 1100 Patterson Street, east of the existing CSX A-Line rail 

corridor. The school is centrally located within a residential neighborhood. Lincoln Street is 

the closest access road crossing the existing CSX A-Line rail corridor at-grade. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

Southside Elementary is located at 10305 Boydton Plank Road, west of the former CSX S-Line 

rail corridor. The school is located between Burgess and Dinwiddie village. Dabney Mill Road 

and Quaker Road are the closest access roads crossing the Study Area. 

Sunnyside Elementary is located at 10203 Sunnyside Road in McKenney, northwest of the 

former CSX S-Line rail corridor. The school is located northwest of McKenney’s town core. 

Doyle Road is the closest access road crossing the Study Area. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

No schools in Brunswick County are located within the Study Area. 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

No schools in Mecklenburg County are located within the Study Area. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WARREN COUNTY 

Northside Elementary is located at 164 Elementary Avenue (on US-1) north of the existing 

CSX S-Line rail corridor. The school is located within the Norlina town core. Division Street 

and US-158 are the closest access roads crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor, with 

Division Street crossing at-grade and US-158 grade separated with the CSX S-Line passing 

over the two-lane roadway. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-117

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

No changes have been 

made to the description 

of Emergency Services 

that was provided in the 

Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS. 

VANCE COUNTY 

E.O. Young Jr. Elementary is located at 6655 Broad Street (US-1) in Middleburg, west of the 

existing CSX S-Line rail corridor. The school is located just southwest of the town core. 

Allison Cooper Road is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor 

at-grade. 

L.B. Yancey Elementary is located at 311 Hawkins Drive in Henderson, east of the existing 

CSX S-Line rail corridor. The school is located in south Henderson. St. Matthews Street is the 

closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor at-grade. 

Zeb Vance Elementary is located at 4800 Raleigh Road in Kittrell, west of the existing CSX SLine rail corridor. Peter Gill Road is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line 

rail corridor at-grade. 

Henderson Middle is located at 219 Charles Street in Henderson, east of the existing CSX SLine rail corridor. The school is located in central Henderson. Charles Street and East 

Andrews Avenue are the closest access roads crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor, 

with Charles Street grade separated with the CSX S-Line passing over the four-lane roadway 

and East Andrews Avenue crossing at-grade. 

Northern Vance High is located at 293 Warrenton Road in Henderson, north of the existing 

CSX S-Line rail corridor. The school is located in northeast Henderson. Warrenton Road is 

the closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor at-grade. 

The Kittrell Job Corp Center is located at 1096 US-1 South, west of the existing CSX S-Line 

rail corridor. The training center is located along Kittrell’s highway corridor. East Main Street 

is the closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor at-grade. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 

Franklinton Elementary is located at 431 South Hillsborough Street in Franklinton, west of the 

existing CSX S-Line rail corridor. The school is located near the town core. Hawkins Street is 

the closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor at-grade. 

Since publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, Franklinton High moved 

from 3 North Main Street in Franklinton to a location outside the Study Area, and Franklinton 

Middle School moved into the building at 3 North Main Street. East Mason Street is the closest 

access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor at-grade. 

WAKE COUNTY 

Since publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, Forest Pines Drive 

Elementary moved from its temporary location at 530 E. Perry Avenue in Wake Forest to a 

location outside the Study Area on Forest Pines Drive, southwest of the town core. 

Wake Forest Elementary is located at 136 W. Sycamore Avenue 

in Wake Forest, west of the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor. 

The school is located south of the town core. Elm Avenue is the 

closest access road crossing the existing CSX S-Line rail 

corridor at-grade. 

Raleigh Charter High School moved from 1111 Haynes Street in 

Raleigh, to a location outside the Study Area at 1307 Glenwood 

Avenue, Raleigh, NC. 

Peace College is located at 15 Peace Street in Raleigh, east of the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-118

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, 

Mecklenburg, Warren, Vance, Franklin 

and Wake Counties all provide some 

degree of policing through their 

Sheriff’s Department. Richmond, 

Colonial Heights, Petersburg, 

Henderson, Franklinton, Youngsville, 

Wake Forest and Raleigh all have their 

own municipal police departments.

existing CSX S-Line rail corridor. The college is located immediately north of downtown 

Raleigh. Wake Forest Road and Peace Street (both of which are currently grade separated) are 

the closest access roads crossing. 

EMERGENCY SERVICES 

No changes have been made to the description of Emergency Services that was provided in 

the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

VIRGINIA 

Emergency management for the Virginia segment of the Study Area is administered by the 

Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Divisions 1 and 3. 

The Virginia hazardous materials emergency response program provides enhanced, state-ofthe-art technical response capabilities and extensive, multi-level, broad-based environmental 

planning and training programs. Team G, based in Henrico County, is responsible for the 

Virginia segment of the Study Area. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Emergency management for the North Carolina segment of the Study Area is administered by 

the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of Emergency 

Management, Central Branch Areas 6 and 7. 

The North Carolina Hazardous Materials Regional Response Team (RRT) program is a system 

of six teams strategically located within the state to provide hazardous materials response 

services to the citizens of North Carolina. An RRT is available to respond with technical 

support, manpower, specialized equipment and/or supplies whenever an incident exceeds local 

capabilities. Team 4, based in Durham, is responsible for the North Carolina segment of the 

Study Area. 

POLICING 

Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, 

Mecklenburg, Warren, Vance, Franklin and 

Wake Counties all provide some degree of 

policing through their Sheriff’s Department. 

Richmond, Colonial Heights, Petersburg, 

Henderson, Franklinton, Youngsville, Wake 

Forest and Raleigh all have their own 

municipal police departments. 

FIRE AND EMERGENCY 

MEDICAL SERVICES 

Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are provided at county and municipal level 

throughout the Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-119

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VIRGINIA 

The City of Richmond’s Department of Fire and Emergency Services provides fire, rescue and 

EMS within municipal boundaries through 20 fire stations. The City has several specialty 

unites, including river rescue, heavy rescue, repelling, and hazardous materials. There are no 

emergency facilities located within the Study Area in Richmond, but the Medical College of 

Virginia Campus of Virginia Commonwealth University, the Richmond Fire Station 1/R1, 

Richmond Fire Station 13, and Richmond Fire Station 21 are located nearby. 

Chesterfield County’s Fire and EMS Department, a combination career/volunteer system, 

provides fire, rescue and EMS throughout the county through 20 fire and 9 rescue stations. The 

Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad’s Station 2 and Station 3, and the Chesterfield Fire 

and EMS Station 17 are located within the Study Area; while the Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer 

Rescue Squad Station 12, and the Chesterfield Fire and EMS Station 1 and Station 3 are located 

nearby. 

Colonial Heights’ Fire and EMS Department, a combination career/volunteer system, provides 

fire, rescue and EMS within municipal boundaries through 2 stations. Neither of these stations 

are in the Study Area, but both are nearby. 

Petersburg’s Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services provides fire, rescue and 

EMS within municipal boundaries. None of Petersburg’s emergency facilities are located 

within the Study Area, however Petersburg Company 3 and Company 5 are located nearby. 

Dinwiddie County’s Division of Fire and EMS, a combination career/volunteer system provides 

fire, rescue and EMS throughout the county through 6 fire stations and 3 rescue squads. There 

are no emergency facilities located within the Study Area; however the Dinwiddie Rescue 

Squad, the Dinwiddie Volunteer Fire Department Company 1, and the McKenney Volunteer 

Fire Department Company 3 are located near or adjacent to the Study Area. 

Brunswick County’s Fire and EMS is a combination career/volunteer system that provides fire, 

rescue and EMS services throughout the county. The system includes five fire companies, two 

EMS agencies, and two fire and EMS companies. There are no emergency facilities located 

within the Study Area; however the Alberta Volunteer Fire Department Company 1 and the 

Brunswick Volunteer Rescue Squad are located nearby. 

Mecklenburg County’s volunteer fire department provides fire and EMS services throughout 

the county through 5 fire stations and 4 rescue squads. Additional municipal volunteer fire 

stations are located in the towns of South Hill, Chase City, La Crosse, Boydton and Clarksville. 

The La Crosse Volunteer Fire Department is adjacent to the Study Area. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Warren County’s volunteer fire department provides fire services throughout the county 

through 17 fire stations. Warren County EMS provides EMS throughout most of the county 

while the Warren County Rescue Squad covers the northeast quadrant. The Wise Hawtree 

Volunteer Fire Department, Ridgeway Volunteer Fire Department and Soul City Volunteer Fire 

Department are located within the Study Area, while the Norlina Station #2 is located nearby, 

but outside the Study Area. 

Vance County’s Fire and Ambulance Department provides fire and EMS services throughout 

the county. In addition, the City of Henderson’s Fire and Rescue Department provides fire and 

EMS services within municipal boundaries through 2 stations. The City of Henderson Fire 

Station #2 and Bearpond Volunteer Fire Department are inside the Study Area; while the Vance 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-120

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

No changes have been 

made to the 

description of Health 

Services that was 

provided in the 

Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS.

County Ambulance and Fire Service, City of Henderson Fire Station #1, and Kittrell Volunteer 

Fire Department are adjacent to, or nearby the Study Area. 

Franklin County’s Fire Department, a combination career/volunteer system, provides fire and 

EMS services throughout the county and within municipalities through 8 stations. The 

Youngsville EMS is located within the Study Area, while the Franklinton EMS and 

Youngsville Fire Department Station #1 are just outside the Study Area. 

Wake County’s Fire/Rescue Division provides fire and rescue services within unincorporated 

areas of Wake County through approximately 45 stations (because Wake County is a rapidly 

growing area new stations are periodically added). Wake County EMS operates approximately 

9 stations within the county and 4 within municipalities. The Town of Wake Forest provides 

fire and EMS services within municipal boundaries through 2 stations. The City of Raleigh 

provides fire, rescue and EMS services within municipal boundaries through 27 stations. The 

Wake Forest Fire Station #2, Raleigh Fire Department #22, Durant EMS and Glenwood South 

EMS are located within the Study Area. Located near the Study Area are the Wake Forest Fire 

Station #1, Wake Forest EMS, Wake Forest South EMS, Raleigh Fire Department # 15, Mini 

City EMS, Duke Health Raleigh Hospital, Highwoods EMS, Whittaker Mill EMS, Raleigh Fire 

Department #1 and Downtown EMS. 

HEALTH SERVICES 

No changes have been made to the description of Health 

Services that was provided in the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS. 

VIRGINIA 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

Major medical facilities include the Children’s Hospital of Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth 

University Health System, Chippenham Hospital, McGuire Veterans Medical Center, 

Cumberland Hospital, St. Marys Hospital, Johnston-Willis Hospital, and Richmond 

Community Hospital, all of which are located outside of the Study Area. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Johnston-Willis Hospital and St. Francis Medical Center are located outside the Study Area. 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

There are no major medical facilities within this city. 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

Major medical facilities include the Southside Regional Medical Center and the John Randolph 

Medical Center, both of which are outside of the Study Area. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

There are no major medical facilities within this county. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

There are no major medical facilities within this county. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-121

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The list of places of worship and 

cemeteries in the Study Area has 

been revised since the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS to 

include new listings based upon 

comments or additional 

information. Churches that have 

moved or are no longer in existence 

are also noted here, but are not 

discussed in Chapter 4. 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

The Community Memorial Health Center is located outside of the Study Area. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WARREN COUNTY 

There are no major medical facilities within this county. 

VANCE COUNTY 

Maria Parham Medical Center is located outside of the Study Area. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 

Franklin Regional Medical Center is located outside of the Study Area. 

WAKE COUNTY 

Major medical facilities include WakeMed, WakeMed North, Western Wake Medical Center, 

Duke Raleigh Community Hospital, and Rex Healthcare. State medical institutions include 

Dorothea Dix Hospital and the Central Prison Hospital. All of these facilities are located 

outside of the Study Area. 

PLACES OF WORSHIP AND 

CEMETERIES 

The list of places of worship and cemeteries in the 

Study Area has been revised since the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS to include new 

listings based upon comments or additional 

information (Table 3-28). Churches that have 

moved or are no longer in existence are also noted 

here, but are not discussed in Chapter 4. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-122

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

AA 3 Richmond, VA All Saints Apostolic Church, 

2001 Royall Ave. 

 4 Richmond, VA Shekinah Temple Church of Our Lord Jesus 

Christ, 2102 Ruffin Rd. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

4 Richmond, VA Church of God in Christ, 

2208 Summer Hill Ave. 

8 Near Bellwood in 

Chesterfield County, VA 

Kingsland Baptist Church, 

8801 Perrymont Rd. 

10 Chester, VA Historic First Baptist Church, 

4412 Centralia Rd. 

10 Chester, VA Centralia Presbyterian Church, 

4625 Centralia Rd. 

BB 12 Chester, VA Chester Church of Christ, 

12100 Winfree St. 

12 Chester, VA St. John’s Episcopal Church, 

12201 Richmond St. 

CC 17 Near Colonial Heights in 

Chesterfield County, VA 

Calvary Baptist Church, 

17001 Jefferson Davis Highway 

18 Colonial Heights, VA Church of Nazarene, 

601 Ellerslie Ave. 

18 Chesterfield County, VA Kingdom Hall, 

3635 Halifax Rd. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

18 Colonial Heights, VA St. Michael’s Episcopal Church, 

Old Town Rd. 

20 Near Ettrick in Chesterfield 

County, VA 

Macedonia Tabernacle, 

3615 E. River Rd. 

20 Near Ettrick in Chesterfield 

County, VA 

God Mission of Faith Church, 

3718 East River Rd. 

24 Petersburg, VA Shining Light Pentecostal Holiness Church, 

1417 Farmer St. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-123

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

24 City of Petersburg, VA Third Presbyterian Church, 

1660 Dupuy Rd. 

Tier II DEIS 

incorrectly 

listed the 

location as 

Chesterfield 

County 

25 City of Petersburg, VA Greater Faith AME Zion Church, 

1301 Youngs Rd. 

25 City of Petersburg, VA New First Baptist Church, 

1346 Grant Ave. 

25 City of Petersburg, VA Zion Apostolic Church, 

1601 Youngs Rd. 

DD -- N/A N/A 

A 38 Dinwiddie County, VA Olive Branch Baptist Church, 

11119 Boydton Plank Rd. 

B 41 Near the County courthouse 

in Dinwiddie County, VA 

Smyrna Baptist Church, 

18725 Carson Rd. 

C 45 Dinwiddie County, VA Mount Calvary Baptist Church, 

16609 Glebe Rd. 

D 54 Between McKenney and 

Alberta in Brunswick 

County, VA 

Lovely Zion Baptist Church, 

Lovely Zion Rd. 

60 North of Alberta in 

Brunswick County, VA 

Mercy Seat RZUA Church, 

Waqua Creek Rd. 

62 North of Alberta in 

Brunswick County, VA 

Warfield Baptist Church and Cemetery, 

7318 Flat Rock Rd. 

E 66 Alberta, VA United Methodist Church, 

304 Church St. 

66 Alberta, VA Trinity-St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, 

194 Connelly St. 

F 

to 

H 

-- N/A N/A 

I 83 South of La Crosse in 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

First Baptist Church, 

Marengo Rd. 

83 South of La Crosse in 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

La Crosse Cemetery, 

Marengo Rd. 

New listing 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-124

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

83 South of La Crosse in 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

Morning Star Apostolic Church, 

142 Morris Town Circle 

83 South of La Crosse in 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

Mecklenburg United Methodist Church, 6503 

Marengo Rd. 

J 85 South of La Crosse in 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

Pleasant Hill Reformed Zion Union Apostolic 

Church, 4143 Marengo Rd. 

86 South of La Crosse in 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

Sardis United Methodist Church, 

3152 Marengo Rd. 

K -- N/A N/A 

L 93 Community of Wise in 

Warren County, NC 

Jerusalem United Methodist Church, 

850 Paschall Station Road 

94 Community of Wise in 

Warren County, NC 

Bethlehem Baptist Church, 

1258 Cole Farm Road 

95 Community of Wise in 

Warren County, NC 

Locust Grove Baptist Church, 

Paschall Station Road 

95 Community of Wise in 

Warren County, NC 

Providence Church , 

1908 US Highway 1 N. 

95 Community of Wise in 

Warren County, NC 

Wise Baptist Church, 

1840 US-1 North 

New listing 

M 99 Norlina, NC First Baptist Church, 

300 Washington St. 

100 Warren County, NC New Creation Church, 

108 Hyco St. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

100 Norlina, NC Norlina United Methodist Church, 

401 US-1 N. 

100 Warren County, NC Unity Prayer House of Faith, 

291 US-1 S. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

101 East of Ridgeway 

Community in Warren 

County, NC 

Chapel of the Good Shepherd, 

NC Rt.1107 

102 Ridgeway Community in 

Warren County, NC 

Ridgeway Baptist Church, 

156 Wycoff Rd. 

N 106 Manson Community in 

Warren County, NC 

Manson Baptist Church, 

Kimball Rd. 

O 108 Middleburg, NC Middleburg Baptist Church, 

80 N. Plummer Ave. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-125

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

110 Between Middleburg and 

Henderson in Vance 

County, NC 

Young’s Memorial Holy Church, 

1379 Brookston Rd. 

111 Between Middleburg and 

Henderson in Vance 

County, NC 

Brookston Baptist Church and Cemetery, 

242 Baptist Church Rd. 

Cemetery 

added to 

listing 

P 112 North of Henderson in 

Vance County, NC 

North Henderson Church of God, 

305 John Deere Rd. 

114 Henderson, NC North Henderson Baptist Church, 

1211 North Garnett Street 

114 Henderson, NC St. John’s Episcopal Church, 

100 Main Street 

114 Henderson, NC Cotton Memorial Presbyterian Church, 511 

Chestnut Street 

114 Henderson, NC Calvary Temple Holy Church, 

215 Kitchen Ave. 

114 Henderson, NC Mt Zion Christian Church of Henderson 

995 Burr St. 

114 Henderson, NC City Road United Methodist Church, 

N. Garnett St. 

New listing 

114 Henderson, NC Davis Chapel 

742 N. Chestnut St. 

114 Henderson, NC First Congregational Christian Church, 

427 Rowland St. 

114 Henderson, NC Rock of the Reach Ministry, 

611 N. Garnett St. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

115 Henderson, NC A Touch of Faith Community Church, 

601 S. Williams St. 

Moved 

outside 

corridor 

115 Henderson, NC First Presbyterian Church, 

222 Young St. 

115 Henderson, NC First United Methodist Church, 

114 Church Street 

115 Henderson, NC First Baptist Church, 

205 W. Winder St. 

115 Henderson, NC Shiloh Baptist Church, 

 635 S. College St. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-126

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

116 Henderson, NC Fisher of Men Church of Our Lord Jesus 

Christ, 163 Elsie St. 

116 Henderson, NC United Prayer of Faith Church, 

Miriam St. 

116 Henderson, NC Cooks Chapel Zion Church, 

210 Center St. 

116 South of Henderson in 

Vance County, NC 

Victory Baptist Church, 

475 J P Taylor Rd. 

116 South of Henderson in 

Henderson, NC 

Welcome Chapel Baptist Church, 

237 Welcome Ave. 

117 South of Henderson in 

Vance County , NC 

Raleigh Rd Baptist Church, 

3892 Raleigh Rd. 

Q 120 Vance County, NC Union Chapel United Methodist Church, 

6479 Raleigh Rd. 

120 Vance County, NC New Hope Baptist Church, 

Raleigh Rd. 

121 Kittrell, NC Taylor’s Chapel AME Zion Church, 

106 William St. 

121 Kittrell, NC Confederate Cemetery, 

West Chavis Rd. 

New listing 

121 Kittrell, NC Kittrell Baptist Church, 

100 W. Williams St. 

New listing 

121 Kittrell, NC St. James Episcopal Church, 

William St. 

121 South of Kittrell in Vance 

County, NC 

Grace Missionary Baptist Church, 

1625 US-1 South 

New listing 

122 South of Kittrell in Vance 

County, NC 

Long Creek United Holy Church, 

313 Oak Ridge Rd. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

122 South of Kittrell in Vance 

County, NC 

Oak Ridge Baptist Church and Cemetery, Oak 

Ridge Church Road 

New listing 

122 South of Kittrell in Vance 

County, NC 

Kittrell Church of God, 

2540 US-1 South 

R -- N/A N/A 

S 127 Franklinton, NC Franklinton United Methodist Church, 

109 N. Main St. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-127

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

127 Franklinton, NC First United Church of Christ, 

20 W. Green St. 

127 Franklinton, NC Franklinton Baptist Church, 

102 W. Mason St. 

127 Franklinton, NC Mt. Pleasant Presbyterian Church, 

S. Main St. 

127 Franklinton, NC Holy Trinity Church, 

118 S. Hawkins St. 

New listing 

128 Franklinton, NC First Baptist Church, 

S. Main St. 

132 North of Youngsville, in 

Franklin County NC 

Union Grove Baptist Church, 

552 N. College St. 

T 132 Youngsville, NC Youngsville Baptist Church, 

315 E. Main St. 

Tier II DEIS 

incorrectly 

listed under 

Section S 

132 Youngsville, NC Grace Fellowship Church, 

120 W. Franklin St. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

133 Wake Forest, NC Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, 

1841 N. White St. 

Tier II DEIS 

incorrectly 

listed under 

Section U 

U 133 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest Cemetery, 

N. White Street 

135 Wake Forest, NC Glen Royal Baptist Church, 

731 Elizabeth Ave. 

135 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest Church of God, 

155 E. Cedar Ave. 

135 Wake Forest, NC Olive Branch Baptist Church, 

326 E. Juniper Ave. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Spring Street Christian Church, 

E. Spring St. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Hope Baptist Church, 

new temporary location at 403 Brooks St. 

New address 

136 Wake Forest, NC Tri-Area Ministry, 

149 E. Holding Ave. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-128

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-28 

Places of Worship by Section 

Section 

Map Sheet 

Location Place of Worship 

Change 

From 

Project 

Tier II DEIS 

136 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest Baptist Church, 

107 E. South St. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Church of God of Prophecy, 

122 N. White St. 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

136 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest United Methodist Church, 

905 S. Main St. 

136 Wake Forest, NC South Main Baptist Chapel Church, 

S. Main St 

137 Wake Forest, NC Friendship Chapel Baptist Church, 

237 Friendship Chapel Rd. 

139 Between Wake Forest and 

Raleigh in Wake County, 

NC 

Living Word Family Church, 

Capital Boulevard 

V 145 Raleigh, NC Millbrook United Methodist Church, 

1712 E. Millbrook Rd. 

Tier II DEIS 

incorrectly 

listed under 

Section U 

149 Raleigh, NC Deliverance Holy Church of God, 

626 Capital Boulevard 

Moved or no 

longer in 

existence 

149 Raleigh, NC EMI New Covenant Global Ministries, 

911 N. West St. 

New listing 

149 Raleigh, NC Powerhouse Church of Jesus Christ, 

1130 N. Blount St. 

150 Raleigh, NC St Paul AME Church, 

402 W. Edenton St. 

150 Raleigh, NC Victory Tabernacle Church, 

W. South St. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project is subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 306108), and implementing regulations 

(see 36 CFR Part 800), which require Federal agencies to consider the effects of Federally funded, 

licensed, or permitted actions on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). Section 106 also gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an 

opportunity to comment on such actions. The following section identifies archaeological and 

historical resources located within the Study Area and describes the methods used to identify them. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-129

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Based on the Phase II 

investigations, there are 18 

archaeological sites eligible 

for or listed on the NRHP in 

the VA portion of the 

preferred alternative APE and 

none in the NC portion. 

The NRHP is a list of the nation’s cultural resources that are considered worthy of preservation. 

Listed and eligible resources must meet at least one of the four NRHP key criteria: 

 Criterion A - associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; or 

 Criterion B - associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

 Criterion C - embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 

or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 

 Criterion D - have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

Section 106 coordination for the Project was conducted with the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (VDHR) and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO). In addition, 

the National Park Service was consulted regarding Civil War battlefields. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach was developed to determine the eligibility of 

archaeological sites within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project. The APE is the 

geographic area within which the character or use of resources may be changed as a result of the 

Project. For potential archaeological resources in the Study Area, the APE was defined as a 100-

foot corridor that extends 50 feet on either side of the centerline of proposed construction 

activities when they are within current rail ROW. The APE was extended to a 200-foot corridor 

where construction is proposed on new location. 

For the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, preliminary investigations were completed to 

identify potentially eligible archaeological resources along all Project alternatives. For the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS, more intensive (Phase II) surveys were completed at 

the potential eligible sites located within the APE for the preferred alternative, as well as in areas 

that were not within the APE footprint at the time of Tier II DEIS submission, but became part of 

the Project APE after modifications to the associated engineering designs. 

Between 2009 and 2011, the Project Team’s consultant, Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 

(Dovetail), conducted Phase II testing at 17 sites in the Virginia portion and five sites in the North 

Carolina portion of the APE that were determined to be potentially eligible for the NRHP, and 

were located along areas where all Project alternatives overlapped. All sites were investigated 

through close-interval shovel testing, test unit excavation, and archival research, where 

applicable. 

After establishment of the preferred alternative, Dovetail 

examined the non-common alignment areas of the APE and 

identified 12 additional archaeological sites within the 

limits of construction in Virginia that were determined to be 

potentially eligible for the NRHP and three additional sites 

in North Carolina. As such, these 15 sites were the subject 

of archaeological Phase II work in 2012 and 2013. 

Based on the Phase II investigations, there are 18 

archaeological sites eligible for or listed on the NRHP in the Virginia portion of the preferred 

alternative APE and none in the North Carolina portion. Table 3-29 summarizes these sites by 

location. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-130

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-29 

Summary of Eligible Archaeological Sites Located within Preferred Alternative 

by State and County 

Jurisdiction NRHP Listed Sites NRHP Eligible Sites Total Sites 

Virginia 

City of Richmond 0 1 1 

Chesterfield County 3 6 9 

City of Colonial Heights 0 0 0 

City of Petersburg 1 0 1 

Dinwiddie County 0 2 2 

Brunswick County 0 3 3 

Mecklenburg County 1 1 2 

Total in VA 5 13 18 

North Carolina 

Warren County 0 0 0 

Vance County 0 0 0 

Franklin County 0 0 0 

Wake County 0 0 0 

Total in NC 0 0 0 

Total in Study Area 5 13 18 

Source: Berger, 2005; Legacy Research, 2005; 2007; Legacy Research, 2005, 2007; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of 

Dovetail reports). 

The following discussion identifies the archaeological resources within the APE that are listed in 

or eligible for the NRHP. Specific location information is not provided due to the nature of the 

resources. 

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY (SITE 44CF0724) 

The Williams Bridge Company (44CF0724) in Richmond, VA, was constructed in 1918 as a 

manufacturing facility for ship parts during World War I. Subsequent uses included a 

Depression-era City of Richmond facility storage, recommissioned during World War II for 

additional shipbuilding services, and later twentieth century private iron working. Today, the 

facility is used to manufacture bridge components. Due to this multi-faceted and notable history, 

the property was determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, C, and D in 2009. 

Archaeological investigations determined that a segment of the site was used as an occupation 

and personal well-being area during both the World War I and World War II periods, only to be 

abandoned when the facility became a private enterprise. The property is also the only known 

remaining Emergency Fleet Corporation domestic complex in Virginia. The above- and belowground remains have the potential to reveal information on Richmond and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia during the World War I to World War II period (1917–1945); therefore, the property is 

also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-131

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

FALLING CREEK IRONWORK (SITE 020-0063) 

The Falling Creek Ironwork archaeological site was originally recorded as the location of the 

Virginia Company Ironworks in Chesterfield County, VA, established in 1619. Subsequent 

investigation suggests that it could also be Cary's Ironworks, destroyed in 1781 during the 

American Revolution. It is believed that the site has intact subsurface remains including features 

and an abundance of in situ artifacts. The site was listed on the NRHP in 1995 under Criterion D 

for its ability to contain information on area history. It is also a locally designated historic site. 

SHEFFIELDS (SITE 020-0007) 

Sheffields, or Bellwood, is significant as a representative of an early-nineteenth century 

antebellum plantation that evolved into a modern, twentieth-century farm and dairying operation 

in Chesterfield County. The main house is an excellent example of vernacular interpretaion of 

the Early Classical Revival style in the piedmont area constructed in an I-form. During the Civil 

War, the house served as General P.G.T. Beauregard’s headquarters in 1864 and was a meeting 

site for General Braxton Bragg, General Beauregard, and Jefferson Davis to discuss the defense 

of Richmond. In 1887, the property was purchased by James Bellwood, who along with his sons 

transformed the plantation into a nationally reowned farm and dairying operation. In 1941, the 

Federal government purchased the property for use as a military supply depot, now known as the 

Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR). The period of significance is from the approximate 

date of construction circa 1804 to 1924. Sheffields is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A for 

agriculture, Criterion B for its association with James Bellwood, Criterion C for architecture, and 

potentilally eligible under Criterion D pending archaeological testing. 

USDOD SUPPLY CENTER DISTRICT (SITE 020-5336) 

The USDOD Supply Center District in Chesterfield County is a group of residential, industrial, 

and military buildings dating from the construction of Sheffield/Bellwood Manor (020-0007), 

circa 1804, to the development of the Korean Conflict era buildings in 1952. The district is 

eligible for the NRHP under Critera A, B, C, and D. 

CENTRALIA EARTHWORKS (SITE 44CF0680) 

The Centralia Earthworks, located in Chesterfield County, were developed in the 1862 by 

Confederate troops as part of the Outer Line of defenses for Drewry’s Bluff, a line of protection 

around the City of Richmond. This series of trenches and artillery batteries was situated near 

Centralia, a major railroad/road crossroads in Chesterfield County. Although some segments of 

the earthworks has been destroyed, the extant areas remain in excellent condition and the 

remaining elements of the artillary battery, trenches, and gun emplacements are representative of 

earthworks developed in this area during the Civil War. For its association with the Civil War 

and its important role during battle, specifically the Battle of Wooldridge’s Hill, and as an 

example of military engineering, the site is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C, and 

potentially eligible under Criterion D pending archeaological testing. 

CHESTER HOTEL SITE (SITE 44CF0304) 

Site 44CF0304 in Chesterfied County is a mid-nineteenth through early-twentieth century site 

representing many occupations ranging from the Chester Hotel to its transformation to a domestic 

residence and doctor’s office in the 1930s. Due to the presence of intact structural features, the 

quantity of artifacts and the site’s data potential to reveal information on the early years of 

Chester, this site is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-132

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SWANEE SITE (SITE 44CF0748) 

Site 44CF0748 in Chesterfield County was identified as a late-nineteenth century domestic 

archaeology site during the Phase I archaeology survey completed for the Project in 2009. 

Dovetail attempted to complete a Phase II survey in February 2011. However, testing was not 

completed at this site as archaeologists were asked to leave by the property owners during the 

shovel test portion of the work. Because Phase II testing was not finished at this site, the Site 

44CF0748 is still formally considered “potentially eligible” for the NRHP under Criterion D. For 

the purposes of determining Project effects and potential mitigation as part of the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS, the site is assumed eligible, and it is included in all Project 

mitigation documents as such, pending futher review once access is granted. 

SITE 44CF0707 

Site 44CF0707 in Chesterfield County is a prehistoric site dating to the Middle Woodland Period 

with a small scatter of late-nineteenth century debris. Due to the presence of stratified deposits, 

quantity of prehistoric pottery, and integrity of the soils, this site is eligible for listing on the 

NRHP under Criterion D. 

ARROWFIELD PLANTATION (SITE 44CF0708) 

Site 44CF0708 in Chesterfield County contains the archaeological remains of Arrowfield, an 

early-nineteenth through mid-twentieth century farmstead with a prehistoric component dating to 

the Middle Woodland and Late Archaic Periods. Based on the presence of intact building 

remains, high artifact densities, and the potential for this site to yield a plethora of data on 

Antebellum Chesterfield County, this site is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D. 

SITE 44CF0710 

Site 44CF0710 in Chesterfield County is a multicomponent site primarily dating to the Terminal 

Archaic prehistoric period with an ephemeral mid-late nineteenth century occupation. Based on 

the presence of diagnostic materials, intact stratigraphy, and the potential for this site to yield 

additional information on the prehistoric occupation of Chesterfield, this site is eligible for the 

NRHP under Criterion D. 

BATTERSEA (SITE 123-0059) 

Battersea, located in Petersburg, is significant as one of the earliest surviving examples of a fivepart, Robert Morris-style Palladian house form in the United States and is the earlist extant, fully 

developed example of this house type in Virginia. The house was built in 1768 for Colonel John 

Banister, who was a Virginia Revolutionary War Delegate, a framer of the Article of 

Confederation, and the first mayor of Petersburg. During the Revoluationary War. Banister 

contributed to the war effort politically, militarily, financially, and materially. The stables and 

fields at Battersea were used by the Continental Army throughout the war, and during the 

invasion of Petersburg, the British occupied the property three different times. Also 

archaeological studies have yielded Woodland Period lithic fragments, as well as eighteenth-, 

nineteenth-, and twentieth-century architectural and ceramic artifacts. For these reasons, 

Battersea is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with military activity, 

Criterion B for its association with Colonel John Banister, Criterion C for its architectural merit, 

and Criterion D in the area of archaeology. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-133

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS (SITE 44DW0373) 

The Dimmock Line/Earthworks in Dinwiddie County is a nineteenth century site featuring 

multiple components dating to the Civil War era. The trench line, known as the Dimmock Line, 

is a series of Confederate defenses around Petersburg. Construction began in 1862 and was 

erected in a shape similar to a horseshoe around the city. These defense works are an excellent 

example of a trench line used throughout the Civil War. This site is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criteria A, B and C and is potentially eligible under Criteria D pending further archeaological 

testing. 

FORT DAVIS EARTHWORKS (SITE 44DW0314) 

Fort Davis Earthworks in Dinwiddie County comprises a 4,000-foot long portion of Civil War 

earthworks that led south from Fort Davis to protect the county during the Siege of Petersburg. 

Fort Davis and the earthworks served as the southern anchor for Union troop occupation from 

1864 to 1865. Based on their association with notable Civil War activity in the area and the 

excellent physical integrity of the earthwork system as a whole, the resource was determined to 

be eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. The resource is also potentially eligible under 

Criterion D due to its ability to yield additional information on the Civil War occupation of 

Dinwiddie, but additional testing is required. 

ORGAIN HOUSE (SITE 44BR0280) 

The 1940s Orgain House in Brunswick County was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP 

under Criterion C as an excellent representative example of Tudor Revival-style architecture. 

The property also contains above-ground remnants of the original mid-nineteenth century 

plantation complex, including the preserved stone foundation of the original circa-1840 Orgain 

home, a ground depression marking the site of a former ice house, and a variety of historic 

artifacts and landscape features. Although no formal archaeology was conducted on the parcel, 

historic artifacts litter the entire ground surface, and oral histories with living relatives attest to 

the retention of all subsurface manifestations of historic properties, wherever possible. As such, 

the property was determined eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion D for the potential of these 

remains to reveal important information regarding the physical and cultural development of both 

the Orgain property and the surrounding area. 

OAK SHADES (SITE 44BR0179/012-5048) 

David Meredith built Oak Shades in 1812 on a plantation that once totaled 1,000 acres and 

stretched far across Old Indian Road and present-day US-1. The Meredith family, including 

David’s son, William, and grandson, David, farmed the land and operated a store until after the 

Civil War. In 1820, Oak Shades was licensed as an ordinary. Oak Shades is a two-story, L-shaped 

dwelling featuring features a center-hall plan, a hipped roof clad in standing seam metal, 

clapboard siding, and a brick foundation and exterior-end chimneys. Oak Shades represents a 

rural interpretation of the Federal style that was popular in the early nineteenth century, and the 

house is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C for its architectural merit. 

The surrounding domestic archaeological site is eligible under Criterion D. 

DAVIS SITE (SITE 44BR0225) 

The Davis Site (44BR0225) in Brunswick County is a mid-nineteenth through early-twentieth 

century domestic site, likely occupied around 1914 by Charlie Davis, an African American 

resident. Given the artifact concentration, preservation of cultural features, and the lack of 

intensive archaeological studies of mid-nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century domestic 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-134

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

sites in Brunswick County, this site has the potential to reveal information on rural domestic sites 

and/or settlement patterns in the Piedmont during the Reconstruction and Growth Period (1865–

1917) and the World War I and World War II Period (1917–1945) (NRHP Criterion D). This site 

is also eligible under Criterion A for its potential to reveal significant data on nineteenth century 

domestic life in Brunswick County. As such, the site is eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

Criteria A and D. 

LA CROSSE HOTEL (SITE 44MC0888) 

The La Crosse Hotel (Site 44MC0888) in Mecklenburg County is a historic hotel dating to the 

first-half of the twentieth century. The resource was previously listed on the NRHP under Criteria 

A and C. Archaeological surveys determined the site is also eligible for listing in the NRHP 

under Criterion D. 

WRIGHT FARMSTEAD (SITE 44MC0707) 

The Wright Farmstead (Site 44MC0707) is located south of Belfield Road on the edge of an 

agricultural field. Mecklenburg County records indicate that the Wright Farmstead was originally 

a 125-acre tract that remained in the Wright family from as early as 1864 until 1941.The principle 

building is a two-story, three-bay, single family dwelling that dates to the mid-nineteenth century. 

It has been uninhabited for many years, and is in a dilapidated state. In addition, three hand hewn 

log buildings and a shed of milled lumber are located on the property. Artifacts were noted on the 

ground surface surrounding all of the extant buildings, including ceramics, glass, and 

architectural materials. Based on the results of the investigations, it was determined that the site is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with mid-nineteenth 

century farming in Mecklenburg County and Criterion D for its ability to reveal information on 

area history. 

HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

As described in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the APE for potential historical 

resources in the Study Area extends 250 feet on either side of the corridor center line in those 

areas where the proposed HSR corridor would remain within existing rail ROW. However, in 

town or urban settings, the APE was reduced during the field survey because dense modern 

development would often limit the effect of the proposed railroad on any historic resources. 

Where the rail designs are on new alignment, the APE was enlarged where necessary. Finally, 

where the railroad closely parallels modern four-lane highways, the APE extends to, but not 

beyond, the highway. 

Similar to archaeology, historical resource surveys were also performed in the Study Area in two 

phases. In the first phase, historians for the Project team identified all properties within the APE 

listed on or eligible for the NRHP. In the second phase, investigators for the Project team 

performed in-depth evaluations of those properties to determine whether or not they are eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. During the initial investigation, historians from Mattson, Alexander, 

and Associates (Petersburg, VA, to Raleigh, NC) and Louis Berger, Inc. (Richmond, VA, to 

Petersburg, VA), conducted a Phase I preliminary architectural survey for all properties within 

the APE that appeared to be 50 or more years old. The investigators performed the survey and 

compiled their results pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

and the ACHP's Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800), in order to meet the 

requirements of that document. The surveys were also done pursuant to Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which provides additional protection for listed or 

eligible historic resources. These lands can only be used for a Federally-funded transportation 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-135

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

139 historical resources 

that are listed or eligible for 

the NRHP are along the 

Project corridor. 

project if there is no other feasible and prudent alternative, and the project incorporates all 

possible planning to minimize harm (see Chapter 5). 

The historians researched files at the North Carolina Division of Archives and History and the 

VDHR to identify all known, historic architectural resources fitting any of the following 

categories: 

 Listed on the NRHP 

 Listed on the North Carolina Study List 

 Determined eligible for the NRHP through environmental assessment 

 Designated as a local landmark 

 Listed on the Virginia Landmarks Registry (VLR) 

 Inventoried previously 

The historians performed a drive-through (windshield) survey of the APE to photograph and map 

all resources that appeared to be 50 or more years old. They also evaluated each property and 

recommended further investigation of those properties appearing to be eligible for the NRHP. 

Phase II investigations were performed by Mattson, Alexander, and 

Associates (Virginia-North Carolina state line to Raleigh, NC), 

Louis Berger, Inc. (Petersburg, VA, to Virginia-North Carolina 

state line), and Dovetail (Richmond to Petersburg, additional 

roadwork areas and historic district evaluations throughout 

Virginia, and additional roadwork areas throughout North 

Carolina). Mattson, Alexander, and Associates (Petersburg, VA, 

to Raleigh, VA) and Dovetail (Richmond, VA, to Petersburg, VA) also conducted research on the 

Seaboard Air Line (CSX S-Line) and Atlantic Coastline (CSX A-Line) railroad corridors to 

determine if the existing railroad lines were eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Detailed evaluations included a site file review and background check, field surveys, evaluation, 

and documentation. Tax records were consulted to determine construction dates and the current 

owners of each resource. Research was conducted in county and local libraries and historical 

societies to gather resource-specific information. GIS was used to map the boundaries of each 

individual resource within the architectural APE. Sufficient narrative physical information was 

collected to describe each property, characterize its integrity, and assess its potential for NRHP 

eligibility. Table 3-30 summarizes by state and county the historic resources in the APE that are 

listed on or eligible for the NRHP. 

Table 3-30 

Summary of Historical Resources Located within Study Area 

by State and County 

Jurisdiction NRHP Listed Sites NRHP Eligible Sites Total Sites 

Virginia 

City of Richmond 4 5 9 

Chesterfield County 1 16 17 

City of Colonial Heights 1 0 1 

City of Petersburg 2 5 7 

Dinwiddie County 1 12 13 

Brunswick County 0 6 6 

Mecklenburg County 1 8 9 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-136

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-30 

Summary of Historical Resources Located within Study Area 

by State and County 

Jurisdiction NRHP Listed Sites NRHP Eligible Sites Total Sites 

Multi-county resources* 0 2 2 

Total in VA 10 54 64 

North Carolina 

Warren County 3 5 8 

Vance County 7 16 23 

Franklin County 4 5 9 

Wake County 22 12 34 

Multi-county resources* 0 1 1 

Total in NC 36 39 75 

Total in Study Area 46 93 139 

Source: Berger, 2005; Mattson, Alexander, and Associates, 2005, 2007, 2009; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of Dovetail 

reports). 

* Includes battlefields, historic railroad corridors, and other large resources. 

Table 3-31 through Table 3-33 provide information on the individual resources from north to 

south as they appear in the Study Area. The tables include a general description of all resources 

in the Study Area. For resources that were identified subsequent to the publication of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS or where information presented in the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS has changed, additional information is included in the sections 

below. For more detailed information on the remaining resources, refer to Section 3.12 of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor 

AA, BB, CC/ 1-19, 23-24 

Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Richmond 

 Eligible/A Historic railroad corridor 

origins and growth of the Richmond to Petersburg cpost-Civil War trend of moperations to provide bettmore economical 

C. & O. and Seaboard Railroad Depot 

AA/1 Richmond Listed Listed/A, C Built 1901, the monumen

the importance of the rail gateway to Richmond; exof the French Ecole des Bbuilding 

Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District 

AA/1 Richmond Listed Listed/A, C Circa 1740, encompasses 

earliest residential, commmanufacturing activity; arranging from Federal throindustrial vernacular 

Shockoe Slip Historic District 

AA/1 Richmond Listed Listed/A, C Circa late-nineteenth and 

erected as wholesale food with some serving light ingenerally are modified Ita

James River and Kanawha Canal Historic District 

AA/1 Richmond Listed Listed/A, C Circa 1785, canal improv

James River from Richmoa distance of approximatecomprises of the canal an

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor 

AA, BB, CC/ 10-24 

Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Richmond 

 Eligible/A Historic railroad corridor 

origins and growth of the Richmond to Petersburg cpost-Civil War trend of moperations to provide bettmore economical 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Manchester Industrial Warehouse Historic District 

AA/1-2 Richmond Listed Listed/A, C Post 1880, industrial area 

community of Mancheste

Williams Bridge Company 

AA/2 Richmond Eligible/A, C, 

D 

Built in 1919 to assist witefforts; also used by the UWorld War II; eligible bofactory and apartment struworkers during both worl

Lucky Strike/RJ Reynolds Tobacco 

AA/2 Richmond Eligible/A,C Circa 1955 industrial com

buildings and metal storag

Transmontaigne Product Services, Inc. 

AA/2 Richmond Eligible/A Used to refine, store, ship

extracts for almost 80 yeaGulf Refinery Company; history of oil production aRichmond 

Davee Gardens Historic District 

AA/4 Richmond Eligible/A, C Planned, symmetrical sub

established in 1947 

DuPont Spruance AA/5-6 Chesterfield, 

Richmond 

 Eligible/A 1,500 acre processing pla

constructed in 1929; factorole in the development othe US 

Sheffields; Auburn Chase; Bellwood; Building 42 - DSCR Officer's Club; New Oxford* 

AA/8 Chesterfield Listed Listed/A, B, C, 

D 

Circa 1797, representative Richmond area economy, tenant farm to military deis a Federal style structure modifications 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

USDOD Supply Center Historic District; BellwoodRichmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District 

AA/7-8 Chesterfield Eligible/A, B, 

C, D 

Resource encompasses Shdescribed above; circa 19established as the central area activities associated 

Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 

AA, BB, CC/ 4-12, 18, 22-23 

Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Richmond 

 Eligible/A Circa 1902, creation of th

impetus for large-scale msettlement patterns in cen

House at 3619 Thurston Rd 

AA/9 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1900, 1.5-story Col

with a gambrel roof and f

Centralia Post Office BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/A Served as one of the pivo

centers of the Centralia co

Ragland House/4626 Centralia Rd* 

BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1890, 2.5-story fram

dwelling with brick foundbasement 

Circle Oaks/4510 Centralia Road* 

BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1840, two-story sin

with slave quarters and a 

Centralia Earthworks BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/A, C; 

Potentially Eligible/D 

Earthworks built in 1862 Confederate outer defensiassociated with the battle and the Bermuda Hundred Civil War military engine

Chester Historic District 

BB/11-13 Chesterfield Eligible/A, C About 10 blocks within V

demonstrates a successful the mid-nineteenth centurextant architectural resoursignificance (1830 to 195
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Chester #94 Masonic Lodge 

BB/12 Chesterfield Eligible/A Circa 1905, simple two-st

meeting hall; important at historic Masonic lodge th1878 

Pretlow House BB/12 Chesterfield Eligible/B Circa 1850 home to two n

residents, Joseph Snead a

Eichelberger House BB/12-13 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1890, 1.5-story vern

Eastlake style single dwelPassage plan; eligible bougate near of the intersectiRichmond & Petersburg R

Ellerslie CC/17-18 Colonial 

Heights 

Listed Listed/A, C Circa 1857, associated wi

Colonial Heights; an exceItalianate architecture 

Appomattox River Railroad Bridge 

CC/24 Petersburg Eligible/A, C Built 1915, open steel, de

with 11 steel latticework brailroad bridges that crossRiver into Petersburg durtwentieth century, it is the 

Battersea CC/24 Petersburg Listed Listed/A, B, C, 

D 

Built 1768 for Colonel Jomayor of Petersburg and of Confederation; a substahouse that still retains its 

North Battersea/Pride’s Field Historic District 

CC/23-24 Petersburg Listed Listed/C Circa mid-to-late nineteen

century, Italianate, Gothic Revival styles residences 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Defense Road CC/25-27 Petersburg Eligible/A, C Colonial Revival-era publ

the National Park Service by the Civilian Conservataiding tourists visiting the area Civil War earthworkits original white/grey pavsurrounding park-like sett

Dimmock Line/Earthworks 

CC/26-27 Petersburg Eligible/A, B, 

C, D 

Series of Confederate defPetersburg; construction bprimarily built with slave guidance of Captain Charexample of a trench line uCivil War 

Bridge over Defense Road 

CC/26-27 Petersburg Eligible/A, C Single-span, three-lane, se

constructed in 1936 as paRoad parkway project 

Fort Davis Earthworks DD/34 Dinwiddie Eligible/A, C; 

Potentially Eligible/D 

Civil War era earthworks troops in 1864 during the good physical integrity 

Evergreen A/37 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1790, example of a Courtworth C/44 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1878, example of a 

vernacular dwelling incormotifs 

Bowen House C/45 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1878, example of la

vernacular architecture 

W. Boisseau's Store, Warehouse, Dwelling 

C/45 Dinwiddie Eligible/A, C Circa 1900, examples of r

commercial/domestic comtwentieth century in south
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Bank of McKenney (referred to as Bank Building in Tier II DEIS) 

C/50 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Circa 1906 commercial b

surviving early banks assosmall communities openinearliest banks in all of Din

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company (C & P) Building 

C/50 Dinwiddie Eligible/A, C Circa mid-1920s industria

time when the telephone fcommunication; excellent local telephone company percentage of original ele

Mayton House C/51 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1905, example of ea

vernacular Colonial Revivarchitecture 

Zehmer Farm/ Honeymoon Hill Farm 

C/51 Dinwiddie Listed Listed/C Circa late nineteenth cent

vernacular dwelling 

Wynnhurst D/54-55 Brunswick Eligible/C Built 1925, example of an 

century Dutch Colonial d

Blick's Store D/54-55 Brunswick Potentially 

Eligible/C 

Circa 1909, example of an century crossroads store 

House/458 Second Avenue 

E/66 Brunswick Eligible/C Circa 1924 Craftsman sty

of an unmodified kit dwel

Orgain House G/73 Brunswick Eligible/A, C, 

D 

Circa 1840 Tudor Revivawith regional landscape c

memory of a single family their familial land in a rapeconomic environment; cremnants of original mid-plantation complex 

Tourist Guest House G/74 Brunswick Eligible/C Circa 1926, Craftsman-sty
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Oak Shades G/74 Brunswick Eligible/C Built 1812, rural interpret

style 

Evans House H/78-79 Meckenburg Eligible/C Built 1930, ornate examp

Foursquare dwelling 

Smelley House I/82 Mecklenburg Eligible/C Built 1880, Victorian-era 

interpretation of the highlstyle 

La Crosse Commercial Historic District 

I/83 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C Collection of early twenti

buildings; significant as a created by the constructiobrought economic expans

La Crosse Hotel I/83 Mecklenburg Listed Listed/A, C, D Early twentieth century sm

with excellent integrity; oposition across the tracks location of the Seaboard Amain commercial strip in 

Wright Farmstead J/84-85 Mecklenburg Potentially 

Eligible/A, C, D 

Associated with the historarea, particularly the late-twentieth century change industry; farmstead includoutbuildings, and an arch

Sardis Methodist Church 

J/86 Mecklenburg Eligible/C Built 1911, example of a 

twentieth century ecclesia

Bracey Historic District 

K/89 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C Circa late nineteenth cent

community created by the railroad that brought econregion; architectural examcommunity 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-31 

Historical Resources in the Study Area - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County VLR 

Status 

NRHP 

Status/Criteria 

Descri

Bracey Depot K/89 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C, 

Consideration B (as a moved property) 

Rare surviving example ocentury depot with much architectural elements; ascounty-wide, state-wide, of development of railroalandscape in the second hcentury and early-twentie

Bracey & Company Store 

K/89 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C Circa 1917 commercial b

example of an important etype of commerce that waareas though the US; rare vernacular commercial fo

Granite Hall/Fitts House 

L/92-93 Mecklenburg Eligible/C Circa early twentieth cent

Classical Revival architec

Source: Berger, 2005; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of Dovetail reports). 

* Also a locally designated historic site. 

Table 3-32 

Battlefields in the Study Area – Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descri

Proctor’s Creek AA, BB/7-10 Chesterfield Eligible/A Battlefield consists of m

interpretive markers, a bed, buildings and trenc

Port Walthall Junction BB/14-16 Chesterfield Eligible/A Area associated with th

Walthall Junction; consbed, trenches, and an ol
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-32 

Battlefields in the Study Area – Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descri

Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church 

CC/16-18 Chesterfield, 

Colonial Heights 

Eligible/A Area associated with th

Petersburg III/The Breakthrough 

CC, DD/25-28 

Dinwiddie, Petersburg 

Eligible/A Area associated with th

Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern 

CC, DD/26-30 

Dinwiddie, Petersburg 

Eligible/A Area associated with th

fought near the Weldon 

Peebles Farm CC, DD/27, 

31-33 

Dinwiddie, Petersburg 

Eligible/A Location of the Battle o

Boydton Plank Road DD, A/32-37 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Location of the Battle oHatcher’s Run DD, A/31-36 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Area associated with th

Run 

Lewis Farm A/36-38 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Location of an episode 

Grant’s final drive to ouPetersburg force 

Dinwiddie Courthouse B/40-41 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Location of the Battle a

Courthouse 

Source: Berger, 2005; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of Dovetail reports). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Warren County Training School 

L/94-95 Warren Listed/A, C Built 1922, first and only high sch

Americans in the county; large ansophisticated example of the rural communities 

Wise School L/95 Warren Eligible/A, C Built 1904, reflects the era of scho

NC; imposing and rare surviving public schools 

House (East side of US-1, Wise, NC) 

M/96 Warren Eligible/C Circa 1890, especially stylish exp

regional design 

Holtzmann Farm M/101 Warren Eligible/A Circa 1880, illustrates the agricult

sufficiency of a middling Ridgew

Chapel of the Good Shepherd 

M/101-102 Warren Listed/A, C Built 1871, Gothic Revival chape

Ridgeway community 

Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office 

M/102 Warren Eligible/C Circa 1890 residence, size and arc

embellishments reflected the wealWilliams family 

Marshall House/Tavern (House No 245) 

M/102 Warren Eligible/C Early timber-framed structure, wh

over time to become one of the lavicinity of Ridgeway; unique examvernacular, and Folk Victorian arcCounty; associated with the plannof the town of Ridgeway and the R

William J. Hawkins House N/103 Warren Listed/A, B, C Circa 1850, Greek Revival and Ita

illustration of the prosperous planDr. William J. Hawkins 

Middleburg Community House (Middleburg Steakhouse) 

O/108 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1930; financed by the Civil 

Administration; rustic style for De
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

House (Allison Cooper Rd, Middleburg vicinity) 

O/108 Vance Eligible/C Circa 1880, Greek Revival residen

Holloway Farm O/109-110 Vance Eligible/A, C Late nineteenth century farm; illu

tobacco cultivation; traditional dobuildings 

William Haywood Harris Farm 

O/109-110 Vance Eligible/A, C Built 1860 for tobacco cultivation

residence 

Forrest Ellington Farm O/110 Vance Eligible/A Circa 1920-1950 farmstead R. B. Carter House P/114 Vance Eligible/C Built 1892, adaptation of up-to-da

architecture to traditional forms 

Henderson Historic District and Proposed Boundary Expansion 

P/114-115 Vance Listed/A, C Circa 1890-1930, tobacco market 

center; represents the national desthe period 

Vance County Courthouse P/115 Vance Listed/A, C 1884 and 1908 Neoclassical RevivZollicoffer’s Law Office P/115 Vance Listed/B, C 1887 small brick Victorian comm

landmark of downtown Hendersopreserved reminders of the town’s prosperity; associated with the A. was prominent in local and regionbusiness circles 

Henderson Fire Station and Municipal Building 

P/115 Vance Listed/A, C 1908 brick firehouse with tower; a

twentieth century improvement of safety, and improved firefighting 

Houses (2 bungalows on E Young Ave) 

P/115 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1900, gabled bungalows 

Mistletoe Villa P/115 Vance Listed/C Built in 1885, Queen Anne reside
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

South Henderson Industrial Historic District 

P/115-116 Vance Eligible/A, C Early twentieth century small-sca

buildings, workers dwellings, and complexes; illustrates rail-orientedevelopment 

Vance Flour Mill (Sanford Milling Co.) 

P/115-116 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1920 factory; contributing e

Henderson Industrial Historic Disinnovation in industrial constructi

Houses (5 worker houses on 1400 block of Nicholas St) 

P/116 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1910-1920 worker dwelling

elements to South Henderson Indu

Houses (3 side gable houses on 1500 block of Nicholas St) 

P/116 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1910-1920 worker dwelling

elements to South Henderson Indu

Esso Gasoline Station P/117 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1930, pre-World War II gas

Colonial Revival 

Confederate Cemetery Q/121 Vance Eligible/A Circa 1864-1865, one of the few C

in North Carolina 

Saint James Episcopal Church 

Q/121 Vance Listed/C Circa 1850, Carpenter Gothic styl

Hedgepeth and Finch Store Q/121 Vance Eligible/A, C Late nineteenth century general m

marshalling point for agricultural 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Kittrell Residential Historic District 

Q/121 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1865-1960, district of histor

diversity in style, scale, and lot sizTown of Kittrell’s small populatiopace at which this area was develoefforts of several local merchants their proximity to the Raleigh and other area roadways to an economwith important events at the local establishment of the Raleigh and G

the broad impacts it made on Kittrsocio-cultural development by ext

Josiah Crudup House Q/123 Vance Listed/C 1830s Federal two-story tripartite 

1900 expansion 

Person-McGhee Farm Q, R/124-

125 

Franklin, Vance 

Listed/A, C Circa 1830, well-preserved farmst

dwelling surrounded by an array o

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Bridge Piers (Tar River) 

Q, R/124 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1840 railroad piers; oldest r

the state; illustrate the design, matconstruction employed in building 

Franklinton Historic District (Includes Sterling Mill Historic District) 

S/127-128 Franklin Eligible/A, C Epitomizes the development of a 

town circa 1890-1920; remains onsmall railroad towns in the Piedm

Aldridge H. Vann House S/127 Franklin Listed/C Built 1918, Classical Revival twoFranklinton Depot S/127 Franklin Listed/A, C Built 1886, Raleigh & Gaston Rai

associated with one of North Caroimportant railroads and with the dTown of Franklinton 

Church S/127-128 Franklin Eligible/A, C Circa 1891, Gothic Revival churcSterling Cotton Mill S/127-128 Franklin Listed/A, C Circa 1895, two-story, simplified 

textile operation in Franklin Coun
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge Piers 

S/129 Franklin Eligible/A, C Circa 1840 railroad piers; illustrat

and method of construction emplo

the Civil War 

Youngsville Historic District 

T/132 Franklin Eligible/A, C Circa 1890, tobacco market; com

residential building types of the pand several fine, Queen Anne resi

J. B. Perry House T/132 Franklin Eligible/C Circa 1900, Queen Anne residencGlen Royall Mill Village Historic District* 

U/135 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1900, village that provided 

the Royall Cotton Mill; district incommissary, additional stores, chu

Wake Forest Historic District* 

U/135-136 Wake Listed/A, C Original campus of Wake Forest C

1890; oldest denominational colleRevival buildings, Greek Revival

Anne, and Classical Revival resid

Downtown Wake Forest Historic District 

U/136 Wake Listed/A Epitomizes the small, rail-oriented 

circa 1820-1890; Colonial RevivaArt Deco elements 

Purefoy-Chappell House and Outbuildings 

U/137 Wake Listed/C Built 1838 and 1895 two-story fra

outbuildings 

Oakforest* U/138 Wake Listed/C Circa 1807, Federal style hall and 

additions during the nineteenth cea Greek Revival house 

Powell House U/139-140 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1790, centerpiece of a large 

most imposing and earliest dwelliWake County 

Neuse Railroad Station U/142 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1900 station; typical of the pCrabtree Creek Railroad Bridge Pier 

V/148 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1840 railroad pier; illustrate

and method of construction emplo

the Civil War 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse 

V/148 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1926 warehouse with utilita

industrial architecture; associated industry in Wake County during tWorld Wars; reflects a larger histogas companies to establish distribgasoline and other petroleum prodrailroads following the exponentiaautomobiles across the country afWar I 

Raleigh Bonded Warehouse V/148-149 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1923, cotton warehouse; one 

storage space strategically located growers of the Coastal Plain and tPiedmont 

Mordecai Place Historic District 

V/148-149 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1916, subdivision of the pla

encircled Raleigh; variety of Revi

Bungalows, and Minimal Traditio

Pilot Mill* V/149 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1892; illustrates the emergen

textile industry; example of the siwith long, rectangular plans and l

Roanoke Park Historic District 

V/149 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1913-1926, residential neig

Revival, American Foursquare, DRevival, Minimal Traditional, PerRanch residences 

Noland Plumbing Company Building 

V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Built 1960; represents wholesale d

during the postwar years when sunear customers in the new subdivipostwar modernist movement 

John A. Edwards and Company Building 

V/149 Wake Eligible/C Built 1960; example of postwar co
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District 

V/149 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1905; first of a series of sub

Queen Anne, Craftsman, Tudor RRevival style residences 

Seaboard Railway Station V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Built 1942, Colonial Revival railr

the important role of rail transport

Seaboard Railway Warehouses 

V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1940 warehouses; represent 

rail transportation; representative warehousing 

Raleigh Cotton Mills* V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1890; illustrates the rise of t

typifies the small-scale textile mil

Pine State Creamery* V/150 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1928, dairy farmers’ cooper

building 

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Office Building* 

V/150 Wake Listed/C Built 1861, brick commercial buil

Italianate design 

Melrose Knitting Mill V/150 Wake Eligible/A, C Built 1902; illustrates the rise of r

manufacturing; typifies the small-the period 

Raleigh Electric Company Power House* 

V/150 Wake Listed/A Built 1910, primarily to power the 

streetcar system 

Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage* 

V/150 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1925 Art Deco style garage; 

the company’s streetcars and serv

St. Paul A.M.E. Church* V/150 Wake Listed/A, B, C Built 1909, Gothic Revival brick 

the first independent African-AmeRaleigh, ministers were influentiaAmerican community during Rec
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Depot Historic District V/150 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1880-1952; illustrates the tr

downtown neighborhood into a spzone and transportation center; aronly important collection of rail-rwarehouse buildings 

Depot Historic District Expansion Area 

V/150 Wake Eligible/A, C Twelve additional warehouses and 

buildings and their associated tax northwest side of the existing hista cohesive collection of resources industrial and commercial significdistrict during its period of signifi

Montford Hall* V/150-151 Wake Listed/C 1858 Italianate-style plantation ho

northern entrance to the Boylan HDistrict; one of the few mansions survived during the American Civ

Boylan Heights Historic District* 

V/150-151 Wake Listed/A, B, C Circa 1907, Colonial Revival, Ne

and picturesque dwellings; exempcentury suburban development; asdevelopers and civic leaders, Fran

Stanhope Wynne 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-33 

Historical Resources in the Study Area – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s)

County Status/Criteria Description 

Joel Lane House* V/150-151 Wake Listed/A, B, C Built in late 1760s; manor plantat

the future site of Raleigh; associatwas a member of the colonial Genlobbied to create Wake County, ainvolved in the decision to locate of the state in Wake County; durinWar, house was the site of importmeetings, both formal and informColonial Dames of America in the Carolina continues to operate this Landmark as a house museum 

Boylan Apartments* V/150-151 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1935, three-story brick Colo

apartments 

Raleigh Hosiery Company Building 

V/151 Wake Eligible/A Circa 1900; illustrates the small-s

warehousing properties built alon

North Carolina School Book Depository 

V/151 Wake Eligible/A Circa 1940; exemplifies the auxili

to serve the expanding statewide p

Governor Morehead School Historic District 

V/151 Wake Eligible/A, C The North Carolina Institution of 

and Blind (now the Governor Moin 1845 and moved to its current lsignificant state-wide for its role iwhite students in North Carolina; collection of Colonial Revival sch

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor 

M-V/29 Franklin, 

Warren, Vance, Wake 

Eligible/A Circa 1836-1840; one of the state

and grew to become one of the masoutheastern United States 

Source: Mattson, Alexander, and Associates, 2005, 2007, 2009; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of Dovetail reports). 

* Also a locally designated historic site. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-155

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HISTORICAL RESOURCES – VIRGINIA 

The following discussion identifies the historic architecture resources within the Virginia 

APE for the Project that are listed in or eligible for the NRHP and were identified subsequent 

to the publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS or where information 

presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS has changed. They are ordered 

from north to south through the Study Area. For more detailed information on the remaining 

resources, refer to Section 3.12 of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (127-6271) 

The Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor is a historic railroad corridor in Virginia that extends 

from Richmond, VA south to the North Carolina state line. The Seaboard Air Line opened in 

1900 and continued to expand and develop throughout the first-half of the twentieth century. In 

the 1960s, the Seaboard Airline and Atlantic Coast Line railroads joined as a conglomeration to 

form the “Seaboard Coast Line Railroad,” which was a predecessor of CSX Transportation. 

Over the years, the orientation of the rail line was notably modified, but it kept its general northsouth trend. Overall, this railroad represents the origins and growth of the railroad industry in the 

Richmond, VA to North Carolina corridor. It also reflects the post-Civil War trend of merging 

smaller operations to provide better service while being more economical. For these reasons, the 

Seaboard Line Railroad Corridor is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association 

with transportation history and community planning. The Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor is 

generally congruent with the current CSX S-Line from Richmond through Petersburg to Raleigh, 

paralleling I-85. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (127-6251) 

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor was fully completed in 1898 with the merger of the 

Richmond & Petersburg and Petersburg Railroads into the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. The rail 

line connected Richmond and Petersburg, and throughout the early twentieth century it absorbed 

many smaller railroads eventually creating a line that traveled from Richmond to Tampa, Florida. 

In the 1960s, the Seaboard Airline and Atlantic Coast Line railroads joined as a conglomeration 

to form the “Seaboard Coast Line Railroad,” which was a predecessor of CSX Transportation. 

Over the years, the orientation of the rail lines has been notably modified but has generally kept 

the north-south trend. This resource is a historic railroad corridor that represents the origins and 

growth of the railroad industry in the Richmond to Petersburg corridor. It reflects the post-Civil 

War trend of merging smaller operations to provide better service while being more economical. 

For these reasons, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its association with transportation history and community planning. The Atlantic 

Coast Line Railroad Corridor is generally congruent with the current CSX A-Line from 

Richmond through Petersburg to eastern North Carolina, paralleling I-95. 

MANCHESTER INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT 

(127-0457) 

The Manchester Industrial Warehouse Historic District in Richmond, VA, was listed in the 

NRHP in 2000 under Criterion A for its association with industrial history in South Richmond 

and under Criterion C for its architectural merit. The boundary of the district was expanded in 

2004, and again in 2011. The district comprises an area of industrial development associated 

with the growth and development of the community of Manchester, an area south of the James 

River that was once a separate town but later incorporated within the boundaries of the City of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-156

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Richmond. The district includes a variety of industrial buildings, alleyways, parking lots, and 

other landscape attributes needed to accommodate the busy warehouse traffic. Most buildings, 

dating from 1880 until the 1940s, are two or three stories in height and fabricated of brick or 

timber frame covered with pressed metal sheeting. The 2011 boundary Increase includes all 

remaining contributing buildings in the Manchester industrial area between the James River and 

Commerce Road and from Semmes Avenue on the east to Maury Street on the west that are 

associated with the most recent period of industrial growth in this area between about 1930 and 

1959. 

RICHMOND & PETERSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY (020-5351) 

The Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway is a circa 1902 interurban rail line that extends 

from Richmond, through Chesterfield County and Colonial Heights, to Petersburg. The railway 

is defined by the railway prism and several associated structures including the 1925 Electric 

Building in Petersburg (southern terminal) and the 1909-1910 Northern Terminal in Richmond. 

Between these two terminals, most of the track and structures have been destroyed, but fragments 

of track are still visible in Petersburg and Richmond. The extant features are significant as relics 

of an early electric-powered interurban railway. Overall, the creation of this line was the direct 

impetus for large-scale modifications to settlement patterns in central Virginia, and as such this 

railway is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with transportation history. 

CENTRALIA EARTHWORKS (020-0022) 

The Centralia Earthworks were constructed in 1962 as part of the Confederate outer defense line 

for Drewry’s Bruff, a line of protective fortifications around Richmond. They are associated with 

the May 1864 action at Wooldridge’s Hill during the Bermuda Hundred Campaign. The 

earthworks are eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of their association with the 

battle at Wooldridge’s Hill and the Bermuda Hundred Campaign, and under Criterion C as an 

example of Civil War military engineering. They are also potentially eligible under Criterion D 

pending additional archaeological testing. 

APPOMATTOX RIVER RAILROAD BRIDGE (020-5579) 

The Appomattox River Railroad Bridge is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its 

association with transportation history and under Criterion C for engineering. The structure is an 

open steel, deck-plate-girder bridge built in 1915 that extends 1,212 feet across the Appomattox 

River. It is supported by 11 steel latticework bents visible along the waterway, and at least one 

multistoried, poured-concrete pier on the south side of the river, all of which elevate the bridge to 

a height of roughly 79 feet. Of the three railroad bridges that crossed the Appomattox River into 

Petersburg during the first half of the twentieth century, it is the only one that survives. Still in 

use on the CSX A-Line, this resource continues to illustrate its significant role in the region’s 

railroad history and economic, as well as physical, development. 

FORT DAVIS EARTHWORKS (026-5012) 

The Fort Davis Earthworks are also recorded as archaeological site 44DW0314 (see above). The 

earthworks comprise a 4,000-foot long earthen structure built by Union troops during the Seige of 

Petersburg in 1864. The earthworks are eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C and are 

potentially eligibile under Criterion D pending further archaeological testing. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-157

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

BANK OF MCKENNEY (257-5004) 

The Bank of McKenney (referred to as Bank Building in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS) in McKenney, VA, is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as one of the few surviving 

early banks associated with the trend of small communities opening banks. It is also one of 

earliest banks in all of Dinwiddie County. The building was presented in the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS as being “potentially eligible” for the NRHP because permission to 

survey the building interior had not been granted during the original Section 106 investigations. 

At that time, it was thought the building was potentially eligible under Criterion C for its 

architectural merit; however, the subsequent evaluation determined that much of the interior has 

been compromised by recent modifications and the building is not eligible for the NRHP under 

this criterion. 

CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY (C & P) 

BUILDING BUILDING (257-5010) 

The C & P Building in McKenney, VA, is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because the 

building represents a time when communication technology was rapidly changing. Although the 

telephone had been around for over thirty years, the process was still being refined and was 

considered a relatively advanced form of technology for most of the public. It is also eligible for 

the NRHP under Criterion C as an excellent example of an elaborate local telephone company 

building with a notable percentage of its original elements intact. 

ZEHMER FARM/HONEYMOON HILL FARM (257-5008) 

Zehmer Farm (also known as Honeymoon Hill Farm House) in McKenney, VA, is listed on the 

NRHP under Criterion C for its collection of agricultural architecture. The house is a good 

example of an early twentieth century vernacular dwelling possessing integrity of materials, 

workmanship, setting, feeling, design and location. As an intact collection of agricultural 

architecture, the outbuildings are significant for their association with the evolution of 

agricultural practices in Dinwiddie County. The main house and its domestic outbuildings 

constitute a collection typical for an early twentieth century tobacco and dairy farming complex 

in Dinwiddie County and with its 309 acres the farm represents an unusually intact example of 

this property type. Taken together, the house and agricultural buildings, modest structures 

concerned more with function than design, represent an unusually complete farmstead that 

documents the county’s agricultural architectural history in the era before agricultural 

specialization. 

HOUSE/458 SECOND AVENUE (012-5013) 

The House at 458 Second Avenue in Alberta, VA, is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as 

rare example of an unmodified Craftsman style kit dwelling. The circa 1924 house has had very 

few alterations or modifications during its 90-year history. The exterior of the building is in 

excellent condition and has been maintained extremely well. The interior also retains nearly all of 

its original fabric. It has all of the original door hardware, floors, crown and corner molding, 

baseboards, light fixtures, and door and window frames. The lot also contains most of its original 

outbuildings. 

ORGAIN HOUSE (012-5076) 

The Orgain House in Brunswick County, VA, is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A due to 

its embodiment on regional landscape changes in the nineteenth and twentieth century and, 

moreover, its association with the pervading cultural memory of a single family struggling to 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-158

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

maintain their familial land in a rapidly-changing economic environment. The 1940s house is 

also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as an excellent representative example of Tudor 

Revival-style architecture, one of only a few such examples currently recorded in Brunswick 

County. Last, the resource is also eligble for the NRHP under Criterion D for the potential of 

above-ground remnants of the original mid-nineteenth century plantation complex to reveal 

important information regarding the physical and cultural development of both the Orgain 

property and the surrounding area. 

LA CROSSE HOTEL (250-5001-0003) 

The La Crosse Hotel is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A for commerce and Criterion C for 

architecture. It is also eligible under Criterion D for its subsurface data potential. It is locally 

significant as an outstanding example of an early twentieth century small town railroad hotel with 

excellent integrity. The two-story brick hotel occupies a prominent position across the tracks from 

the former location of the Seaboard Air Line depot and the main commercial strip in La Crosse, 

and for nearly half a century it drew travelers and locals alike to its communal dining table. 

Under the guidance and management of three respected business women, the hotel flourished at 

the center of town. Today it serves as a representative example of many of the defining 

characteristics of the American hotel industry. The period of significance is from the date of 

construction, 1917, through 1958, for the central role that it played in the community. 

BRACEY DEPOT (058-5001-0001) 

The Bracey Depot in Bracey, VA, is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association 

with the large county-wide, state-wide, and nation-wide trend of development of railroad across 

the American landscape in the second half of the nineteenth century and early-twentieth century. 

It is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C and Consideration B (as a moved property) 

because, unlike many depots that have been heavily remodeled or demolished, the Bracey Depot 

retains much of its historic fabric, both on the interior and the exterior, and is a rare example of 

this type of architecture. 

BRACEY & COMPANY STORE (058-5001-0002) 

The Bracey & Company Store in Bracey VA, is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as 

excellent example of an important early-twentieth century type of commerce that was common in 

rural areas though the United States, but quickly stopped being applicable as times and 

technologies changed. The circa 1917 commercial building is also eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion C as a rare intact example of vernacular commercial form of architecture. 

BATTLEFIELDS – VIRGINIA 

Table 3-32 identifies the 10 Civil War battlefields within the Virginia APE for the Project 

that are listed on or eligible for the NRHP. They are ordered from north to south through the 

Study Area. For more detailed information on the battlefields in the Study Area, refer to 

Section 3.12 of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. It should be noted that the 

battlefield boundaries described in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS are those 

adopted by the VDHR and have not changed since production of the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS. 

In July 2009, subsequent to resource eligibility coordination on the Project, the American 

Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) proposed new National Register-eligible boundaries 

for the 10 battlefields in the Study Area (see Figures 3-12 and 3-12 continued). Although 

there are differences between the individual VDHR and ABPP battlefield boundaries, when 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-159

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

considered in total, the two sets of boundaries almost completely overlap within the APE. 

There are seven exceptions where the ABPP battlefield boundaries within the APE are not 

included in the VDHR boundaries: 

 Just south of Highway 288 in Chester, VA – the ABPP boundary for the Proctor’s Creek 

battlefield extends just south and east of the VDHR boundary 

 Vicinity of Walthall Industrial Parkway just north of Colonial Heights, VA – the ABPP 

boundaries for the Proctor’s Creek, Port Walthall Junction, and Swift Creek battlefields 

include an area south of Woods Creek Road and north of Pine Forest Drive that is not 

included in the VDHR battlefield boundaries 

 Vaughn Road near the Burgess Connector – the ABPP boundary for the Petersburg III 

battlefield includes an area near Vaughn Road that is not included in the VDHR 

battlefield boundaries 

 Carson Road near the Dinwiddie Courthouse community – the ABPP boundary for the 

Hatcher’s Run battlefield includes an area near Carson Road that is not included in the 

VDHR battlefield boundaries 

 Courthouse Road near the Dinwiddie Courthouse community – the ABPP boundary for 

the Hatcher’s Run battlefield includes an area near Courthouse Road that is not included 

in the VDHR battlefield boundaries 

 Gatewood Road south of the Dinwiddie Courthouse community – the ABPP boundary 

for the Hatcher’s Run battlefield includes an area near Gatewood Road that is not 

included in the VDHR battlefield boundaries 

 Keelers Mill Road south of the Dinwiddie Courthouse community – the ABPP boundary 

for the Hatcher’s Run battlefield includes an area near Keelers Mill Road that is not 

included in the VDHR battlefield boundaries 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-160

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-12 

continued...
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-161

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-12 continued 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-162

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HISTORICAL RESOURCES – NORTH CAROLINA 

The following discussion identifies the historic architecture resources within the North 

Carolina APE for the Project that are listed in or eligible for the NRHP and were identified 

subsequent to the publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS or where 

information presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS has changed. They 

are ordered from north to south through the Richmond to Raleigh Project study corridor. For 

more detailed information on the remaining resources, refer to Section 3.12 of the Richmond 

to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 

MARSHALL HOUSE/TAVERN (HOUSE NO 245) 

The Marshall House/Tavern is eligible for the NHRP under Criterion A for its associations with 

the planning and development of the town of Ridgeway and the Ridgeway Company. Although 

the house is primarily known for its long-standing association with the Marshall family and is 

considered to be one of Warren County’s early taverns, it also has historical associations with the 

Ridgeway Company and their efforts to develop the town of Ridgeway. The Marshall House is 

one of just a few buildings that remain in the area from this era and on what was briefly Company 

land. The parcel on which the house sits was created by the Company before the town of 

Ridgeway was incorporated and continues to be defined by some of the 1868 boundaries. This 

resource is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as a unique example of Colonial, 

vernacular, and Folk Victorian architecture in Warren County. 

VANCE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

The Vance County Courthouse is listed in and remains eligibile for the NRHP under Criterion A. 

The courthouse was listed in the NRHP in 1979 as part of a thematic nomination of Courthouses 

in North Carolina. The courthouse in each county has been associated for however long it has 

stood with the broad patterns of county life, as the center of the local county political process, the 

administration of justice, and a social and cultural focal point. On a statewide basis, the 

courthouses have been the subsidiary outlets of political processes and the law. 

ZOLLICOFFER’S LAW OFFICE 

Zollicoffer’s Law Office is listed in and remains eligibile for the NRHP under Criterion A for its 

association with the post-Civil War development of Henderson as a county seat and trade center; 

under Criterion B for its association with A. C. Zollicoffer, who was prominent in local and 

regional legal, political, and business circles, and under Criterion C for embodying distinctive 

characteristics of Victorian commercial architecture, practically unaltered on the exterior. The 

building is a rare survival in the town and region. 

HENDERSON FIRE STATION AND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 

The Henderson Fire Station and Municipal Building is listed in and remains eligibile for the 

NRHP under Criterion A for its association with early twentieth century improvement of 

municipal service and safety, and improved firefighting efforts. It is also eligible for the NRHP 

under Criterion C for embodying distinctive characteristics, particularly the fire station tower, of 

functional, dramatic early twentieth century eclectic architecture. The municipal building was 

added to the rear in the 1920s and is constructed in an irregular L shape around the fire station. 

KITTRELL RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Kittrell Residential Historic District is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its 

association with important events at the local level, such as the establishment of the Raleigh and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-163

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Gaston Railroad and the broad impacts it made on Kittrell’s economic and socio-cultural 

development by extension. Furthermore, as one of three incorporated towns in Vance County, 

the community of Kittrell has developed and evolved in response to local conditions, 

predominantly reflecting the continued success that tobacco and cotton farming had on the area, 

and also various other types of commerce created by entrepreneurial citizens and the town’s 

location at the center of several overland transportation routes. The Kittrell Residential Historic 

District is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for architecture. This district plays a vital 

role in the character and rural setting of the town. The historic houses in Kittrell embody diversity 

in style, scale, and lot size that illustrate the town’s small population and relatively slow pace at 

which this area was developed, but also reflects the efforts of several local merchants and 

companies to use their proximity to the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad and other area roadways to 

an economic benefit. 

JOSIAH CRUDUP HOUSE 

The Josiah Crudup House is listed in the NRHP under Criterion C for architecture. With 

construction beginning in the 1830s, this handsome house was designed as a Federal tripartite 

dwelling for planter, Baptist minister, and politician Josiah Crudup. The wings were given 

second stories circa 1900. The two story dwelling has a hip roof, a projecting, central pavilion 

capped by a pitched pediment, a pedimented entrance porch, and double leaf doors. 

ALDRIDGE H. VANN HOUSE 

The Aldridge H. Vann House is listed in the NRHP under Criterion C as an excellent example of 

an early-twentieth century architect-designed residence combining elements from nationally 

popular styles. The dwelling is the only known poured concrete residence in Franklin County and 

is significant locally for both its design and construction. It retains exceptional integrity of design 

and materials. The dwelling’s period of significance is 1918, the year construction was 

completed. 

FRANKLINTON DEPOT 

The Franklinton Depot is listed in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with one of the 

state's first and most important railroads and with the development of the town of Franklinton, 

and under Criterion C as a well-preserved example of late nineteenth century picturesque railroad 

architecture along the route of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad. The building is one of the last 

surviving railroad structures built along the route of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad before the 

line merged with the Seaboard system at the turn of the century. Constructed in 1886, the small 

frame building combines simple Italianate, Gothic Revival, and Queen Anne period details and is 

the only remaining example of a type that was built at other stops along the line at the same time. 

The depot served passenger operations until the early 1970s. When abandoned by the Seaboard 

Coast Line in 1973, the depot was acquired by the Franklinton Woman's Club and moved a short 

distance to become the group's clubhouse. 

PUREFOY-CHAPPELL HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS 

The Purefoy-Chappell House and Outbuildings is listed in the NRHP under Criterion C for 

architecture. The antebellum house and outbuildings, including the circa 1862 doctor’s office, are 

rare survivors of once common forms. The period of significance for these locally significant 

buildings is circa 1838 for when the original portion of the house, the smokehouse, and 

kitchen/dining building were constructed; circa 1862 for the building of the doctor’s office; and 

circa 1895 for the construction of the two-story wing. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-164

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

OAKFOREST 

Oakforest in Wake Forest, NC, is listed in and remains eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C 

for architecture. It is one of the oldest and most prominent homes in the Wake Forest area, built 

circa 1807 as a Federal style hall and parlor home. Various additions during the nineteenth 

century converted it into a Greek Revival house. The location of the front door was changed 

from the south side to the west side, exterior chimneys were replaced with interior chimneys, the 

delicate Federal baluster stairwell was moved to the rear of the hallway, the veranda was covered, 

and a portico and four Doric columns were added. A rear 2-story ell was built circa 1865. The 

kitchen wing was built by slave labor during the Civil War. 

GULF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE 

The Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse in Raleigh, NC, is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its association with commerce and industry in Wake County during the period 

between the World Wars, and under Criterion C for its utilitarian, small-scale, industrial 

architecture. The Gulf Company Petroleum Products complex stands out among the warehouse 

complexes of Raleigh as a unique example of this building type and the vernacular industrial 

architecture it embodies from the years between the World Wars. Furthermore, as a warehouse 

and distribution facility, the Gulf Company complex reflects a larger historic trend for oil and gas 

companies to establish distribution centers for gasoline and other petroleum products adjacent to 

major railroads following the exponential growth in automobiles across the country after the end 

of World War I. 

SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY OFFICE 

BUILDING 

The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Office Building is listed in the NRHP under 

Criterion C for architecture. One of the city's earliest surviving office buildings, the three-story 

brick Seaboard Building served as railroad offices for more than a hundred years. The building, 

which has a restrained Italianate design, originally stood on N. Halifax Street. The state 

purchased the land for the its Government Mall in 1977 and moved the building to N. Salisbury 

Street. The building has also been designated as a local landmark. The Seaboard Coast Line 

Railroad was a successor conglomeration of the Seaboard Air Line and Atlantic Coast Line 

Railroads, and a predecessor of CSX Transportation. 

ST. PAUL A.M.E. CHURCH 

St. Paul A.M.E. (African Methodist Episcopal) Church is listed in the NRHP under Criterion A 

for both politics/ government and ethnic heritage (black), under Criterion B for its associations 

with Reverend R.W.H. Leak, and under Criterion C for architecture. This imposing, brick, 

Gothic Revival building was constructed between 1884 and 1909 by African-American masons, 

and the church displays both elements of the national style and interpretations made by the 

masons who worked on the building. The building was constructed by the first independent 

African-American congregation, and thus is important to the religious history of Raleigh. The 

church also has political significance because the ministers of St. Paul were influential leaders of 

the African-American community during Reconstruction. In particular, Reverend R.W.H. Leak, 

minister during the 1880s, was a prominent leader of the black Republicans and served as editor 

of the Outlook, the second oldest black newspaper in Raleigh. The church has also been 

designated as a local landmark. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-165

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DEPOT HISTORIC DISTRICT EXPANSION AREA 

In early 2013, NC-HPO concurred that an expansion area for the Depot Historic District in 

Raleigh, NC, was eligible for the NRHP, which included ten additional warehouses and 

commercial buildings and their associated tax parcels that abuts the northwest side of the existing 

NRHP-listed Depot Historic District. Later in 2013, NC-HPO concurred that two additional 

properties, the former US Post Office Morgan Street Station and former Capital Coca-Cola 

Bottling Company Garage, were also contributing elements to the district and the boundaries 

should be expanded to include them. The additional industrial and commercial properties 

contribute to the significance of the Depot Historic District under Criterion A for industry, 

transportation, and commerce. The Depot Historic District was nominated for its significance in 

the areas of industry and commerce as the city's wholesale distribution center from the 1880s to 

the early 1950s. The newly surveyed resources are all wholesale warehouses and commercial 

buildings that are similar in design, scale, materials, and function to those found within the 

existing district, and the new properties date to the same period of significance. Furthermore, the 

Depot Historic District contains the only significant collection of rail-related buildings, factories, 

and warehouses in Raleigh that date to the period when the railroads predominated in freight 

transportation, and the additional properties share these characteristics and strengthens the 

significance of this collection. 

The additional properties are also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for 

design/construction. The Depot Historic District was listed in the NRHP under Criterion C 

because this area, west of the center city, has a locally significant collection of industrial, 

commercial, and railroad related architecture dating from the 1880s to 1952. The additional 

warehouses and commercial buildings on the east side of the rail corridor add to the architectural 

significance and cohesion of the district. 

On March 12, 2014, FRA, in partnership with NCDOT, completed an Environmental Assessment 

for Phase I of the proposed Raleigh Union Station to be constructed at the Boylan Wye to support 

the expansion of intercity passenger rail service in Raleigh; for which FRA subsequently issued a 

Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) on June 24, 2014. In support of the FONSI, FRA, 

NCDOT and the NC-HPO executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Phase I of the 

proposed Raleigh Union Station on May 22, 2014. 

The MOA determined that Phase I of the Raleigh Union Station project will have an Adverse 

Effect upon the Depot Historic District and the Proposed Boundary Amendment to the Depot 

Historic District. Specific areas of effect include the Capital Feed and Grocery and Southern 

Railway Passenger Station, which may be subject to demolition for Phase I of the Raleigh Union 

Station project. Although Phase I of the Raleigh Union Station project will provide the primary 

station building and access facility, it is considered independent from the Richmond to Raleigh 

Tier-II EIS. A future phase of the Raleigh Union Station will include the expansion of facilities 

to construct a platform and passenger access to the CSX S-Line on the SEHSR corridor. This 

future phase will require a separate environmental determination from the Phase I activity as well 

as this Richmond to Raleigh Tier II FEIS. 

MONTFORT HALL 

Montfort Hall was listed in the NRHP in 1978 under Criterion C for architecture. It is an 

Italianate-style plantation home located at the northern entrance to the Boylan Heights Historic 

District and is one of the few mansions in Raleigh that survived during the American Civil War 

era. The house was built for William Montfort Boylan in 1858. The centerpiece of the house's 

interior is a rotunda supported by four Corinthian columns and lit by a stained glass window 

located on the roof. Montfort Hall has also been designated as a local landmark. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-166

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

JOEL LANE HOUSE 

The Joel Lane House in Raleigh, NC, is listed in and remains eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for politics/government, Criterion B for its association with Joel Lane, and Criterion 

C for architecture. 

In the late 1760s, Joel Lane began building a home in colonial Johnston County. Lane and his 

house subsequently played a key role in North Carolina’s transition from colony to state and in 

the establishment of Raleigh as the state capital. The manor plantation house stood on a small hill 

overlooking the future site of Raleigh. In 1770, as a member of the colonial General Assembly, 

Lane successfully lobbied to create Wake County, which was then a sparsely settled wilderness. 

In 1771, Wake’s first county court is believed to have convened at his house. Lane was 

appointed a member of the court, a position he held until his death. During the Revolutionary 

War, Lane's house was the site of important government meetings, both formal and informal. In 

1776, Lane hosted the colony Council of Safety; the following year, he obtained a license for a 

small ordinary (i.e., inn). From May to June 1781, Lane’s property was the setting for a session 

of the state General Assembly. Lane served in the state Senate in 11 of the 14 sessions from 1782 

to 1794. He was also a delegate to the 1789 convention in Halifax that ratified the United States 

Constitution. 

Lane was directly involved in the decision to locate the permanent capital of the state in Wake 

County. In 1792, the legislature authorized the purchase of 1,000 acres of his land upon which to 

establish the city of Raleigh as the new center of state government. The community’s western 

boundary was drawn just east of Lane’s house, and a street of the city was named in his honor. 

After Lane’s death in 1795, the house served several owners before being purchased by planter 

William Boylan in 1818. The house, along with Montfort Hall, remained in the Boylan family 

until 1909. During this time, the city of Raleigh absorbed the house into its expanding boundaries. 

Lane’s former plantation lands became the site of new streets, homes and businesses. In 1912, 

the house was moved a short distance. In 1927, it was purchased by the National Society of 

Colonial Dames of America in the State of North Carolina to ensure its preservation. The 

organization continues to operate this Raleigh Historic Landmark as a house museum. 

BOYLAN APARTMENTS 

The Boylan Apartments are listed in the NRHP under Criterion C as a well-executed and intact 

local example of a 1930s garden apartment complex. Built in 1935, one-half-mile due west of the 

state Capitol, the Boylan Apartments are Raleigh’s earliest garden-style apartment complex. The 

complex is comprised of three three-story brick Colonial Revival-style buildings arranged around 

an open courtyard. The buildings and site retain integrity of design, setting, and materials. 

The Boylan Apartments also meet NRHP Criterion A for their important association with 

community planning and development and social history. The project to construct the complex, 

led by local businessman Rufus Boylan, was one nation’s first to participate in a Public Works 

Administration program that loaned Federal money to private developers. The program’s goal 

was to provide jobs for the unemployed at the close of the Depression while creating quality 

“modern” housing for lower income residents. The project’s controversial three-year road to 

completion was reported in local and national newspapers. The period of significance is 1935, the 

year construction was completed. The complex has also been designated as a local landmark. 

GOVERNOR MOREHEAD SCHOOL HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The North Carolina Institution of the Deaf and Dumb and Blind (now the Governor Morehead 

School) opened in 1845. The school moved to its current location in 1923. The Governor 

Morehead School Historic District is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for education and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-167

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

has state-wide significance for its role in the training of blind, white students in North Carolina. 

The Governor Morehead School Historic District was established at this location in the 1920s as 

the state’s premier educational facility for visually impaired, white girls and boys. The 

assemblage of substantial, Colonial Revival scholastic buildings erected mainly in the 1920s, as 

well as its tree-lined pathways, open space, and recreational fields, illustrate the school’s major 

role in the education and care of the state’s blind, white students. 

The district is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for design/construction. The 

school’s well-preserved collection of Colonial Revival scholastic architecture possesses the 

integrity of design, materials, and workmanship needed for eligibility under Criterion C. Erected 

during the school’s original construction phase in the 1920s, the administration building, 

dormitories, library, home economics building, and gymnasium are all notable, well-preserved 

expressions of the Colonial Revival style as adapted for educational facilities. 

RESOURCES NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP 

It should be noted that one resource described in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS was subsequently determined by NC-HPO to no longer be eligible for the NRHP in 

April 2013. The Commercial Block at 524-530 Hillsborough Street in Raleigh (referred to as 

“National Art Interiors” in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS), lacks sufficient 

integrity to be eligible for the NRHP due to alterations to the first-floor storefronts and the 

interior of the property. Therefore, it is no longer included in the discussion of historic 

resources in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS. 

LOCAL LANDMARKS 

VIRGINIA 

As indicated in Table 3-31, 11 of the historical resources in the Study Area in Virginia are 

listed on the VLR, a statewide program established in 1966 and managed by the VDHR. It is 

the state’s official list of properties important to Virginia’s history. While these resources are 

evaluated under the same criteria used for the NRHP, listing on the VLR should not be 

confused with listing on the NRHP, which is a Federal program. All 11 of the historical 

resources within the Study Area listed on the VLR are also listed on the NRHP. 

Also indicated in Table 3-31 are several historical resources within the Study Area that are 

also designated as local historic landmarks. Local historic landmarks are designated by 

county or city governments, and in some cases, such as in the City of Petersburg and the City 

of Richmond, are participants in the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, which 

partners the local government with state and Federal preservation programs. Several county 

governments in Virginia have crafted ordinances to create and designate local historic 

districts and landmarks. For example, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors amended 

the County Code in 1987 to include Article XXIII, the Historic Districts and Landmarks 

Ordinance, which enables to the Board to designate historic landmarks, landmark sites, and 

historic districts. This has led to the designation of 46 local historic resources within the 

county, including four within the Study Area (Falling Creek Ironwork [020-0063], 

Sheffields/Auburn Chase/Bellwood [020-0007], Ragland House [020-0432], and Circle Oaks 

[020-0140]). The other counties and cities in the Study Area did not provide formal lists of 

their local historic landmarks. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-168

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NORTH CAROLINA 

As indicated in Table 3-33, several of the historical resources in the Study Area in North 

Carolina are locally-designated landmarks. State law (North Carolina General Statutes 160A400.1-400.14) enables counties and municipalities to create historic preservation 

commissions and to designate local historic districts and landmarks. These regulations 

require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the local historic commission in order to make 

alterations to a landmark property or local district. Local designation should not be confused 

with listing in the NRHP, which is a Federal program. Although some properties may carry 

both types of designation, the two designations are separate programs with different 

requirements and benefits. Within the Study Area, there is one local landmark that was 

determined not eligible for the NRHP as part of the Project evaluations. All other local 

landmarks within the Study Area are either listed on or eligible for the NRHP. 

The circa 1803 Heartsfield House on Ligon Mill Road in Wake Forest, NC, was designated a 

Wake Forest Local Landmark in 2011 (subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS). At the request of the property owners and Capital Area Preservation 

(CAP, a nonprofit), the NC-HPO and NCDOT reviewed the original Section 106 eligibility 

survey for the Heartsfield House, which stated the property was not eligible for the NRHP 

due to its extensive alternations. Based on their review of the survey, NC-HPO and NCDOT 

do not recommend altering its NRHP eligibility determination. Both the property owners and 

CAP have stated they will provide additional information in support of the property's 

eligibility. Additional materials have not been received at press; once received, NC-HPO and 

NCDOT will review it and reevaluate the eligibility. 

PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES 

This section documents Federal, state and local parklands, public recreational areas and wildlife 

refuges located within the vicinity of the Study Area. Figures 3-13 and 3-13 continued show the 

locations of these areas. A Community Profile Report, including a detailed discussion of parklands, 

recreational areas, and refuges within the Study Area, was prepared in January 2004 (NCDOT and 

Virginia DRPT, 2004d); the data from this report have been updated to reflect changes to the Study 

Area and newly available materials. The following subsections document each resource by 

jurisdiction (Federal, state, or local) and location. 

FEDERAL PARKLANDS 

Petersburg National Battlefield is the only National Park located within the Study Area. The 

existing active rail corridor passes through both the Confederate defense and Union siege lines 

south of the city along a route parallel with the old Petersburg and Weldon Railroad of the Civil 

War era. Fort Wadsworth and the site of the Battle of the Weldon Railroad are part of the 

Petersburg National Battlefield Fort Wadsworth Unit, which is managed by the National Park 

Service and located directly adjacent to the rail corridor near Collier rail yard. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-169

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-13 

continued 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-170

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-13 continued 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-171

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Petersburg Breakthrough Battlefield at Pamplin Historical Park, located several miles west of 

the Study Area, is also a National Historic Landmark. 

No National Forests or Wildlife Refuges are located within the Study Area. 

STATE PARKLANDS AND RECREATION AREAS 

No Virginia or North Carolina state parks, natural area preserves, forests or recreation areas are 

located within the Study Area. The nearest state parks to the Study Area are discussed below. 

VIRGINIA 

Staunton River State Park is one of the six original state parks in Virginia that opened in June 

1936. It is located on approximately 1,600 acres of shoreline along the John H. Kerr 

Reservoir, the Dan River and the Staunton River (Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation, 2004b). 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Kerr Lake State Recreation Area is located along the John H, Kerr Reservoir. The recreation 

area's headquarters are located north of Henderson, NC, at Satterwhite Point (North Carolina 

Division of Parks and Recreation, 2004a). 

Falls Lake State Recreation Area covers an area of over 12,400 acres. The manmade 

reservoir is located in Durham and Wake counties. Falls Dam is located in the upper Neuse 

River basin, approximately 200 miles upstream from New Bern, NC, 47 miles above 

Smithfield, NC, and about 10 miles north of Raleigh, NC. The main body of the lake is in 

Wake and Durham counties, but some of the embayments extend into Granville County 

(North Carolina, Division of Parks and Recreation, 2004b). 

COUNTY/CITY PARKLANDS 

There are several county and city parks and greenways within or in the immediate vicinity of the 

Study Area. 

VIRGINIA 

The City of Richmond’s Canal Walk is located between 5th and 17th Streets along the James 

River and the Kanawha and Haxall Canals on the north side of the James River. The James 

River Park System within the City of Richmond includes the Slave Trail along the south bank 

of the James River. The City also operates the Thomas B. Smith Community Center near the 

existing Ruffin Road at-grade crossing. Both resources are located within the Study Area. 

The City’s Jefferson Park on Jefferson Avenue and Great Shiplock Park along the north bank 

of the James River are both located just east of the Study Area. 

Chesterfield County is planning several parks and greenways in the SEHSR Study Area. The 

County plans to acquire property just north of Falling Creek and east of Jefferson Davis 

Highway to use for a public park, expanding on the Falling Creek Ironworks Park directly 

south of the creek. This nearby park at the site of the Falling Creek Ironworks is the first 

ironworks in English North America. Chesterfield County is also planning a greenway on the 

north side of Kingsland Creek in the vicinity of the Defense Supply Center Richmond 

(DSCR) in Bellwood, and an expansion of Chester Linear Park, a strip of land situated in the 

Chester Village area. The county is also planning the Chester Kiwanis Historical Park along 

Curtis and Richmond Streets within the Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-172

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The County’s Ettrick Park on Laurel Road is located within the Study Area and the County’s 

Ettrick Riverfront Park is located along the Appomattox River just east of the Study Area. In 

Ettrick, the County also operates the Ettrick Park and Mayes-Colbert Ettrick Community 

Building. In addition, the County is planning the Appomattox Riverfront Trail, which will 

extend for 1.8 miles along the Appomattox riverfront between Virginia State University 

(VSU) and the Village of Ettrick. 

The Upper Appomattox Canal Trail associated with Appomattox Riverside Park is located on 

the south bank of the Appomattox River in Petersburg within the Study Area. West End Park 

Fairgrounds in Petersburg is adjacent to the Study Area. 

Dinwiddie County is home to the privately-owned Pamplin Historical Park, which is located 

at the site of the Petersburg Breakthrough Battle and includes the Museum of the Civil War 

Soldier. The park is located approximately three miles west of the Study Area along a rail 

alternative that was considered, but not carried forward (see Section 2.2.2). 

The Tobacco Heritage Trail, a Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (www.railstotrails.org) corridor 

along an abandoned Norfolk-Southern rail corridor, intersects the Study Area in Alberta and 

La Crosse, VA. The Tobacco Heritage Trail will connect existing trail segments and create 

new trail within five Virginia counties: Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Halifax, Charlotte, and 

Lunenburg, with a potential spur trail connection to Dinwiddie County. 

La Crosse is home to Centennial Park on South Main Street. The park includes a railroad 

caboose and is located within the Study Area. The town also operates a playground on a 

vacant parcel at the intersection of College Street and Central Avenue, just south of the 

historic La Crosse Hotel. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Vulcan Materials Company at Greystone Quarry in Henderson, NC, operates a privatelyowned park facility adjacent to its mining operations and the existing rail line within the 

Study Area. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS discussed a proposed park in the Town of 

Wake Forest, NC, on approximately one acre of land at the intersection of South White Street 

and East Holding Avenue (All People’s Park). The park has not been developed and does not 

appear in a planning document adopted by the town. 

J.B. Flaherty Park is located in the Town of Wake Forest, NC, and is approximately a quarter 

mile south of the Study Area. This 100-acre park currently houses three lighted fields for 

baseball and softball, a restroom /storage and picnic shelter facility, two ponds, four lighted 

tennis courts, and a community center. The center has a regulation high school gymnasium, 

arts and crafts room, game room, and a meeting room with a small kitchen (Town of Wake 

Forest, Department of Parks and Recreation, 2004). 

The portion of the Neuse River Greenway in Raleigh, NC, that crosses the Study Area was 

constructed in 2011. This segment, the Upper Neuse Greenway, is part of the City of Raleigh 

Capital Area Greenway System and provides connections from the Falls Canoe Launch and 

Falls Lake Recreation Area at Falls of Neuse Road to the private soccer complex on Perry 

Creek Road. The City is also planning two greenways in the Study Area. The proposed 

Simms Branch Greenway corridor crosses the CSX S-Line rail corridor between Gresham’s 

Lake Road and Durant Road, and the proposed Marsh Creek Greenway corridor crosses the 

CSX S-Line rail corridor just north of Millbrook Road. The City of Raleigh’s Middle 

Crabtree Creek greenway also intersects the Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-173

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

WILDLIFE REFUGES 

There are no wildlife refuges in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area in either Virginia or 

North Carolina. 

SECTION 4(F)/SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES 

Several Federal laws protect parklands and other natural and recreational areas described 

above, as well as public recreation areas associated with schools described in Section 

3.11.5.1. This section does not discuss the application of Section 4(f) to historic properties. 

Please refer to Section 3.12 and Chapter 5 for more information about historic and cultural 

resources and the assessment of potential impacts to these resources. 

SECTION 4(F) REQUIREMENTS 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1996 (49 U.S.C. § 303) requires that 

a special effort be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside, including public 

park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. Section 4(f) 

prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving projects that require the direct or 

indirect use of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or any 

significant historic sites protected under Section 4(f) unless a determination is made that there 

is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and that the projects include all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the properties. 

SECTION 6(F) REQUIREMENTS 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (Public Law 88-578) 

requires that recreation land acquired or developed with assistance under this section remain 

in use exclusively for public outdoor recreation. State and local governments can obtain 

Federal grants through the LWCF to improve parks and recreational areas. Section 6 (f) 

prohibits the conversion of these lands to non-recreational use without the approval of the 

USDOI National Parks Service and, as appropriate, other departments. Under Section 6(f), 

USDOI is directed to assure that replacement lands are of equal value and location. 

Regardless of the mitigation proposed, the Section 6(f) evaluation should document the 

National Park Service’s position relative to the Section 6(f) conversion. 

SECTION 4(F) AND 6(F) RESOURCES 

Section 4(f) resources were identified through a search of databases for Federal, state, county, 

and locally owned park sites and recreational facilities, and publicly owned lands. This 

information was supplemented with information obtained from municipal and county 

planning documents, as well as meetings with local officials. 

The following is a list of Section 4(f) resources located within the Study Area: 

 Canal Walk, Richmond, VA 

 Slave Trail (James River Park System), Richmond, VA 

 Thomas B. Smith Community Center, Richmond, VA 

 Falling Creek Park Expansion (Planned), Chesterfield County, VA 

 Falling Creek Ironworks Park (Under Development), Chesterfield County, VA 

 James River Greenway (Kingsland Creek) (Planned), Chesterfield County, VA 

 Chester Linear Park, Chester, VA 

 Chester Kiwanis Historical Park (Planned), Chester, VA 

 Ettrick Park and Mayes-Colbert Ettrick Community Building, Ettrick, VA 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-174

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Appomattox Riverfront Trail (Planned), Ettrick, VA 

 Upper Appomattox Canal Trail ( Appomattox Riverside Park), Petersburg, VA 

 Petersburg National Battlefield (Fort Wadsworth Unit), Petersburg, VA 

 Tobacco Heritage Trail, Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA 

 Centennial Park, La Crosse, VA 

 Town of La Crosse Playground, La Crosse, VA 

 Franklinton Elementary School, Franklinton, NC 

 Neuse River Greenway, Raleigh, NC 

 Simms Branch Greenway (Proposed), Raleigh, NC 

 Marsh Creek Greenway (Proposed), Raleigh, NC 

 Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway, Raleigh, NC 

There are several other recreational resources described in the above sections that are located 

outside the Study Area and, therefore, are not included in the Section 4(f) evaluation in 

Chapter 5. 

Section 6(f) properties were identified through a search of the LWCF website, which listed 

two potential Section 6(f) resources in the vicinity of the Project: Appomattox River City 

Park (grant ID 89; approved 1973) and James River Park (grant IDs 31, 54, and 59; approved 

1968, 1970, and 1972). A scoping letter was sent to the Virginia Department of Conservation 

and Recreation to determine if these Section 6(f) resources are potentially impacted by the 

Project alternatives. Subsequent coordination determined that the Project alternatives will not 

require ROW from or otherwise impact these Section 6(f) resources. 

In addition, the Project team coordinated with the National Park Service’s American 

Battlefield Protection Program and Northeast Region land office to determine if any 

properties acquired using LWCF funds are located within the Study Area. This coordination 

determined that there were no such properties. 

At the time of publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the Roanoke 

River Rails-to-Trails, Inc. (RRRT) was in the process of applying for LWCF funds for the 

Tobacco Heritage Trail in Alberta, VA. The RRRT has communicated to the Project team 

that LWCF funds will not be used for any of the ROW potentially required for the Project. 

TRANSPORTATION 

ROADS 

 The discussion below is mostly unchanged from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS, with corrections noted within the descriptions by location. 

 There are numerous transportation facilities within the Study Area, including many that 

cross the rail ROW within the Study Area. Low-volume, two-lane roads are the most 

common type; although facilities range from Interstate highways to the US Bicycle 

Highway 1; from small town main streets to city-center, transit-oriented developments; 

and from rural roads to private access roads. 

 This section highlights major road facilities that cross the rail ROW within the Study 

Area, with average daily traffic counts (2002) greater than 1,000 vehicles per day. 

CITY OF RICHMOND, VA 

Within the City of Richmond, VA, the Study Area is centered along the active CSX S-Line, 

which crosses under, then loosely parallels I-95. The largest volume of north/south traffic 

through Richmond is carried on I-95. Jefferson Davis Highway/US-1 also parallels the Study 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-175

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Area, crossing the James River west of the Study Area, and serves local north/south traffic. 

Within the downtown area, most of the roads that cross the CSX S-Line are grade separated 

by bridges or underpasses. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 East Main Street, existing railroad bridge over roadway 

 I-95, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 I-195 Powhite Expressway, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Maury Street, crosses at-grade 

 I-95 exit ramp at Maury Street, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 East Commerce, crosses at-grade 

 Ruffin Road, crosses at-grade 

 West Bells Road, crosses at-grade 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA 

Within Chesterfield County, major north/south traffic near the Study Area is served by I-95 

and Jefferson Davis Highway. The major east/west traffic is carried on Chippenham 

Parkway, Highway 288, and West Hundred Road. In Chesterfield County, the Study Area is 

centered along the active CSX S-Line until reaching Centralia, where it begins to follow the 

active CSX A-Line. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX S-Line and CSX A-Line are listed from 

north to south: 

 Chippenham Parkway, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Station Road, crosses at-grade 

 Jefferson Davis Highway, existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 Kingsland Road, crosses at-grade 

 Brinkley Road, crosses at-grade 

 VA-288, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Old Lane, crosses at-grade 

 Centralia Road, crosses at-grade 

 West Hundred Road, existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 Curtis Street, crosses at-grade 

 Jefferson Davis Highway, existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 Ruffin Mill Road, existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 Woods Edge Road, crosses at-grade 

 Pine Forest Drive, crosses at-grade 

 Branders Bridge Road, crosses at-grade 

 Dupuy Road, crosses at-grade (correction; was not included in Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS) 

 River Road, existing bridge 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VA 

Major north/south traffic in Colonial Heights, VA, is served by I-95 and Boulevard/Jefferson 

Davis Highway. The major east/west traffic is carried on East Ellerslie Avenue and Temple 

Avenue. Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX A-Line are listed from north 

to south: 

 East Ellerslie Avenue, existing roadway bridge over railroad 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-176

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Boulevard, existing railroad bridge over roadway 

CITY OF PETERSBURG, VA 

I-95 and I-85 carry the largest volume of north/south traffic through the City of Petersburg, 

VA; I-85 additionally serves some east/west traffic after splitting from I-95 in south 

Petersburg. Local north/south traffic is served by 2nd Street and Fleet Street, which cross the 

Appomattox River to the west of I-95, as well as Crater Road, well to the east of the Study 

Area. The largest east/west traffic volume is carried by Boydton Plank Road and Washington 

Street. Within Petersburg the Study Area follows the active CSX A-Line. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX A-Line are listed from north to south: 

 Washington Street, existing railroad bridge passing over roadway 

 Farmer Street, existing railroad bridge over roadway 

 Halifax Street, existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 I-85, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Defense Road, existing railroad bridge over roadway 

 Halifax Road, existing roadway bridge over railroad 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY, VA 

The largest volume of north/south traffic in Dinwiddie County is carried by I-85 and US1/Boydton Plank Road; both roads closely parallel as well as cross the CSX S-Line and the 

Study Area. VA 703/Carson Road carries the greatest east/west traffic volume across the 

Study Area in the northern part of the county, while VA 40/Doyle Boulevard, which passes 

through the Town of McKenney, serves as the major east/west corridor in southern 

Dinwiddie County. The Study Area follows the inactive Burgess Connector and the inactive 

CSX S-Line. No major public roads cross the Burgess Connector. 

Major public road facilities that cross the inactive CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 I-85, existing highway bridge over railroad 

 VA 703/Carson Road (community of Dinwiddie), existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 Courthouse Road (community of Dinwiddie), existing roadway bridge over railroad 

 US-1/Boydton Plank Road (south of community of Dinwiddie), existing highway bridge 

over railroad 

 VA 40/Doyle Boulevard (McKenney), crosses at-grade 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY, VA 

Within Brunswick County, the largest volume of north/south traffic is carried by I-85 and 

US-1/Boydton Plank Road; both roads closely parallel as well as cross the CSX S-Line and 

the Study Area. In the Town of Alberta, Main Street runs north/south, and carries the largest 

volume of traffic through the town. 

Major public road facilities that cross the inactive CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 Main Street (Alberta), crosses at-grade 

 I-85 (south of Alberta), existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Boydton Plank Road/US-1 (south of Alberta), existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Christianna Highway/Route 46 (south of Alberta), existing roadway bridge over railroad 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-177

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, VA 

In Mecklenburg County, I-85 and US-1 continue to loosely parallel the Study Area, but 

remain on the west side; these two highways carry the heaviest volume of north/south traffic 

through the county, with US-1 serving more local traffic. US-58 bears the largest east/west 

traffic load, crossing the Study Area in the Town of La Crosse. Main Street in La Crosse 

carries the bulk of the local north/south traffic. 

Major public road facilities that cross the inactive CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 US-58 (La Crosse), existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Main Street (La Crosse), crosses at-grade 

 Morris Town Circle (La Crosse), crosses at-grade 

 Route 903 (Bracey community), existing roadway bridge over railroad 

Note that the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS incorrectly included St. Tammany 

Street in the listing of roads that cross the railroad in La Crosse, VA (with an AADT over 

1,000). The road has been removed from the listing here in the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II FEIS. St. Tammany ties to Main Street very near the Main Street at-grade railroad 

crossing, with Main Street the road that actually crosses the railroad. 

WARREN COUNTY, NC 

Within Warren County, I-85 carries the largest volume of north/south through traffic, while 

US-1 serves more local north/south traffic. The CSX S-Line closely parallels US-1, which 

curves to the east away from I-85. US-158 provides east/west access through the county, 

and crosses under the CSX S-Line by way of an underpass in the center of Norlina, NC, 

where the CSX S-Line becomes an active freight railroad. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 Wise Five Forks Road, crosses at-grade (inactive railroad segment) 

 Warren Plains Road(Norlina), crosses at-grade (inactive railroad segment) 

 US-158 (Norlina), existing railroad bridge over roadway 

 Ridgeway Road SR 1107 (south of Norlina), crosses at-grade 

 Axtell Ridgway Road (south of Norlina), crosses at-grade (correction; was not included 

in Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS) 

VANCE COUNTY, NC 

Within Vance County, I-85 continues to carry the bulk of north/south through traffic while 

US-1 provides local north/south access. I-85, US-1, and the Study Area briefly come 

together near Middleburg, NC; however, at this location I-85 diverges from the Study Area 

and remains well to the west throughout the remainder of the corridor. US-1 Bypass crosses 

the active CSX S-Line on a bridge north of Henderson, NC. US-158 provides east/west 

access through the Henderson, area, but does not cross the railroad, while Andrews 

Avenue/NC39 provides a connection from US1 to the east. There are many public roads that 

cross the active CSX S-Line at-grade as it moves through the central areas of Middleburg, 

Henderson and Kittrell, NC. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 US-1 Bypass (north of Henderson), existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Warrenton Road (north of Henderson), crosses at-grade (correction to description) 

 Main Street (Henderson), crosses at-grade 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-178

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Unnamed crossover (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Rock Spring Road (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Andrews Avenue/NC39 (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Charles Street (Henderson), existing railroad bridge over roadway (correction to 

description) 

 Montgomery Street (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 E. Winder Street (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Orange Street (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Chavasse Avenue (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Miriam Avenue/ St. Matthews Street/ Nicholas Street (Henderson), crosses at-grade 

(revised name) 

 Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive (south of Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 JP Taylor Road (south of Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 Bearpond Road (south of Henderson), crosses at-grade 

 US-1 Bypass (south of Henderson), existing highway bridge over railroad 

 Peter Gill Road (north of Kittrell), crosses at-grade 

 Chavis Road (north of Kittrell), crosses at-grade 

 Main Street (Kittrell), crosses at-grade 

FRANKLIN COUNTY, NC 

Within Franklin County, US-1 carries the highest volume of north/south traffic near the Study 

Area, while NC 56, which crosses the Study Area in Franklinton, provides primary east/west 

access. In the towns of Franklinton and Youngsville, many low traffic volume public roads 

cross the CSX S-Line at-grade. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX S-Line are listed from north to south: 

 Eric Medlin Road (north of Franklinton), crosses at-grade 

 Mason Street (Franklinton), crosses at-grade 

 Green Street/NC 56 (Franklinton), existing railroad bridge over roadway 

 College Street (Franklinton), crosses at-grade 

 Bert Winston Road (north of Youngsville), crosses at-grade (correction; was not 

included in Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS) 

 Main Street/NC 96 (Youngsville), crosses at-grade 

WAKE COUNTY, NC 

In Wake County, the preferred alternative primarily follows the active CSX S-Line along the 

busy US-1 corridor, although in Downtown Raleigh, it parallels the NS line on the east side 

for a short distance. US-1, US-401 to the east, and NC 50 to the west carry the bulk of 

north/south through traffic near the corridor. Many roads provide a network of east/west 

access across the county, including the NC 98 Bypass in Wake Forest, the I-540 beltline in 

north Raleigh, and the I-440 beltline around Downtown Raleigh. 

The listing below of major public road facilities that cross railroad ROW has been revised 

from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS to reflect the alignment of Preferred 

Alternative (NC5) in Downtown Raleigh. 

Major public road facilities that cross the active CSX S-Line or NS rail alignment are listed 

from north to south: 

 Roosevelt Avenue (Wake Forest), existing CSX railroad bridge over roadway 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-179

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Elm Avenue (Wake Forest), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Holding Avenue (Wake Forest), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 NC 98 Bypass (Wake Forest), existing roadway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Rogers Road (Wake Forest), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Ligon Mill Road (Wake Forest), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Capital Boulevard/US1 (north of Raleigh), existing highway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Durant Road (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Gresham Lake Road (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 I-540 Outer Beltline (Raleigh), existing highway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Old Wake Forest Road (Raleigh), existing roadway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Spring Forest Road (Raleigh), existing CSX railroad bridge over roadway 

 Atlantic Avenue (Raleigh), existing roadway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Millbrook Road (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 New Hope Church Road (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Wolfpack Lane (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 I-440 Beltline (Raleigh), existing highway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Six Forks Road (Raleigh), existing CSX railroad bridge over roadway 

 Hodges Street (Raleigh), existing CSX railroad bridge over roadway 

 Whitaker Mill Road (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Capital Boulevard/US-1 (Raleigh), existing CSX railroad bridge over roadway 

 Peace Street (Raleigh), existing NS railroad bridge over roadway 

 W. Johnson Street (Raleigh), existing NS railroad bridge over roadway 

 Tucker Street (Raleigh), existing NS railroad bridge over roadway 

 North Street (Raleigh), existing NS railroad bridge over roadway 

 Jones Street (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Hillsborough Street (Raleigh), existing roadway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Morgan Street (Raleigh), existing roadway bridge over CSX railroad 

 Hargett Street (Raleigh), crosses CSX railroad at-grade 

 Boylan Avenue (Raleigh), existing roadway bridge over NCRR railroad 

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 

Locations where the Study Area crosses existing or planned roadways were reviewed to identify 

locations requiring a traffic analysis screening to determine the effects of the rail crossing 

closures and consolidations. Determination of select locations for the traffic analysis screening 

was based on annual average daily traffic (AADT), roadway classification, thoroughfare plan 

projections, Strategic Highway Corridor inclusion, connectivity and presence of Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) projects. In addition, specific locations requested by the design 

team or stakeholders were also analyzed. Traffic analyses were not performed in places where 

the design caused little or no change in the existing travel pattern, rerouted only a minimal 

amount of traffic, or relocated an existing connection in a way that was not assumed to affect the 

system. 

Appendix P includes figures displaying existing traffic configurations (e.g., stop signs, stop 

lights, turn lanes) and the predicted traffic in 2030 without the proposed Project (“No Build”). 

More detailed information on the traffic analysis methodology is located in the traffic report 

prepared for the Project (SEHSR Traffic Review, Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2013). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-180

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

RICHMOND, VA 

As stated above, the traffic analysis followed a general screening procedure that eliminated 

traffic analysis in places where the design caused little or no change in the existing travel 

pattern, rerouted only a minimal amount of traffic, or relocated an existing connection in a 

way that was not assumed to affect the system. Based on this screening, there are to be no 

sections within the City of Richmond that warranted detail study. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA 

KINGSLAND ROAD/NORCLIFF ROAD AND PERRYMONT ROAD – 

BELLWOOD AREA 

Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US-1: This intersection is a signalized intersection with several 

yield movements. US-1 is a north-south US highway while Chester Road is a major north-south 

arterial. Appendix P Figures 1 and 2 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build volumes of 

the Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US-1 intersection, respectively. The area surrounding the 

intersection is industrial/undeveloped. 

Perrymont Road and Chester Road/Driveway: This intersection is a stop controlled intersection 

with a stop condition on the Chester Road/Driveway approaches. Perrymont Road is a minor, 

relatively short facility that parallels US-1. Chester Road is an arterial and VA route, VA 145, 

which connects US-301 and VA 10 and interchanges with VA 288. Appendix P Figures 1 and 2 

provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build volumes of the Perrymont Road and Chester 

Road/Driveway intersection. The area around the intersection is a mixture of business and 

residential land use. 

Kingsland Road and Chester Road: This intersection is a three-leg stop controlled intersection 

with a stop condition on the Kingsland Road approach. Kingsland Road is a local collector type 

facility serving mostly residential land use and runs mainly east-west. Chester Road is an arterial 

and VA route, VA 145, which connects US-301 and VA 10 and interchanges with VA 288. 

Appendix P Figures 1 and 2 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build volumes of the 

Kingsland Road and Chester Road intersection. The western side of the intersection is bounded 

by the CSX S-Line rail corridor, while the rest of the area around the intersection is mostly 

undeveloped with some residential land use. 

Norcliff Road and Perrymont Road/Church Parking Lot: This intersection is an unsignalized 

intersection with Norcliff Road and the Church Parking Lot experiencing the stop condition. 

Norcliff Road is a local collector type facility while Perrymont Road is a minor, relatively short 

north-south facility that parallels US-1. Appendix P Figures 1 and 2 provide the existing laneage 

and 2030 No Build volumes of the Norcliff Road and Perrymont Road/Church Parking Lot 

intersection. The intersection is bounded on the west side by a church facility and its associated 

parking, in the southeast quadrant by a church, and in the northeast quadrant by a parking lot. 

Norcliff Road and US-1: This intersection is a four-leg, unsignalized intersection collector type 

facility while US-1 is a four-lane undivided major US highway in the area that runs north-south. 

Appendix P Figures 1 and 2 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build volumes of the 

Norcliff Road and US-1 intersection. The intersection has development in all four quadrants. 

Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road: This intersection is a three-leg unsignalized intersection with 

Kingsland Road the stop condition. Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road are local collector type 

facilities serving mostly residential land use. Kingsland Road runs mainly east-west while Dorsey 

Road runs primarily north-south. Appendix P Figures 1 and 2 provide the existing laneage and 

2030 No Build volumes of the Kingsdale Road and Dorsey Road intersection. There is a 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-181

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

residence on the east side of the intersection while the northwest and southwest quadrants are 

undeveloped. 

CHESTER ROAD AND BRINKLEY ROAD – BELLWOOD AREA 

Chester Road and Brinkley Road: The intersection of Brinkley Road and Chester Road is located 

approximately one quarter mile north of the intersection of Kingsdale Road and Chester Road. 

This intersection is a stop controlled "T" intersection, with a stop condition on Brinkley Road. 

Brinkley Road is a local connector while Chester Road is an arterial and VA route, VA 145, 

which connects US-301 and VA 10 and interchanges with VA 288. Appendix P Figures 5 and 6 

provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build volumes for the Chester Road and Brinkley Road 

intersection, respectively. The intersection is bounded on the west side by CSX S-Line railroad 

tracks, while the east side is relatively undeveloped. 

Hopkins Road and Thurston Road: The intersection of Hopkins Road and Thurston Road is 

located northwest of the intersection of Park Road and Chester Road, and is a stop controlled "T" 

intersection, with the stop condition on Thurston Road. Thurston Road is a local collector type 

facility, while Hopkins Road is more of a major collector that runs north-south from US-301 to 

Centralia Road. Appendix P Figures 5 and 6 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build 

volumes for the Hopkins Road and Thurston Road intersection, respectively. 

Kingsdale Road and Chester Road: The intersection of Kingsdale Road and Chester Road is 

located approximately one quarter mile north of the intersection of Park Road and Chester Road, 

and is a signalized "T" intersection. Kingsdale Road is a local collector that connects Chester 

Road to US-301, while Chester Road is an arterial and VA route, VA 145, which connects US301 and VA 10 and interchanges with VA 288. Appendix P Figures 5 and 6 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build volumes for the Kingsdale Road and Chester Road intersection, 

respectively. The area immediately adjacent to the intersection is undeveloped; however, it should 

be noted that the western side is bounded by the CSX S-Line railroad tracks and there is low 

density residential development in the southeast area. 

Park Road and Chester Road/Driveway: The intersection of Park Road and Chester Road is a stop 

controlled intersection, with a stop condition on the driveway and Park Road approaches. The 

northbound approach of Chester Road is two through lanes (which narrows to one through lane 

approximately 300 feet downstream of the intersection). The southbound approach has two 

through lanes as well; however, neither the northbound nor southbound approach functions as a 

true two lane approach. Since the northbound through lane drops shortly after the intersection, 

traffic skews to the lane that does not drop. Also, since the second southbound through lane is so 

short (approximately 300 feet), the amount of vehicles able to reach the second through lane is 

limited. A fire station is located 300 feet north of the intersection. There is an emergency access 

signal at the intersection of the fire station driveway and Chester Road to facilitate egress from 

the fire station onto Chester Road. Park Road is a short residential road, while Chester Road is an 

arterial and VA route, VA 145, which connects US-301 and VA 10 and interchanges with VA 

288. Appendix P Figures 5 and 6 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build volumes for the 

Park Road/Driveway and Chester Road intersection, respectively. The area on the western side of 

the intersection is undeveloped while the eastern side has low density land use along with the 

aforementioned fire station. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-182

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CHESTER, VA 

OLD LANE, CENTRALIA ROAD AND CHESTER ROAD 

Old Lane and Hopkins Road: Old Lane is a short local collector type facility, while Hopkins 

Road is more of a major collector that runs north-south from US-301 to Centralia Road. The 

existing intersection of Old Lane and Hopkins Road is a stop controlled “T” intersection with Old 

Lane and the northern leg of Hopkins Road experiencing the stop condition. Appendix P Figures 

9 and 10 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes, respectively. The 

land use around the intersection is a mixture of low density residential and undeveloped. 

Old Lane and Chester Road: Old Lane is a local collector type facility, while Chester Road is a 

four-lane divided arterial/VA route (VA 145) that connects US-301 and VA 10 and interchanges 

with VA 288. The existing intersection of Old Lane and Chester Road is an unsignalized “T” 

intersection with Old Lane experiencing the stop condition. Currently, there is a daycare on Old 

Lane between the intersection of Old Lane with Chester Road and the Old Lane at-grade rail 

crossing of the CSX A-Line. Appendix P Figures 9 and 10 provide the existing laneage and 2030 

No Build peak hour volumes, respectively. The area immediately adjacent to the intersection is 

not developed; however, there is development behind that buffer in each quadrant. 

Centralia Road and Chester Road: The existing intersection of Centralia Road and Chester Road 

is a signalized four-leg intersection with development in all but the southeast quadrant. There is 

an existing at-grade rail crossing of the CSX A-Line approximately 280 feet west of the 

intersection on Centralia Road. Centralia Road is an east-west, two-lane arterial/VA route (VA 

145) and Chester Road is a north-south, four-lane divided arterial/VA route (VA 145 and VA 

144) in this area that connects US-301 and VA 10 and interchanges with VA 288. Appendix P 

Figures 9 and 10 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes, 

respectively. 

Centralia Road and Hopkins Road: The existing intersection of Centralia Road and Hopkins Road 

is an unsignalized four-leg intersection with Hopkins Road experiencing the stop condition. 

Centralia Road is an east-west, two-lane arterial/VA route (VA 145) and Hopkins Road is more 

of a major two-lane collector that runs north-south from US-301 to Centralia Road. Appendix P 

Figures 9 and 10 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes, 

respectively. 

LA CROSSE, VA 

PINE STREET AND MAIN STREET 

US-58 and Main Street/Country Club Road: The intersection of US-58 and Main Street is a 

signalized intersection. US-58 is a US highway, while Main Street is north-south facility that 

traverses through the center of La Crosse. Country Club Road is a local north-south access 

facility that extends to US-1. The existing laneage and 2030 No Build traffic volumes for the 

intersection of US-58 and Main Street are shown in Appendix P Figures 13 and 14, respectively. 

Aside from a convenience mart/gas station, the area around the intersection is largely 

undeveloped; however, the southeast and northeast sides are bounded by Main Street as it curves 

to parallel US-58 in the intersection area. 

Pine Street and Main Street: The intersection of Main Street and Pine Street is a stop controlled 

intersection with a stop condition on Pine Street. Pine Street is a local collector, while Main Street 

is more of a major type collector. The existing laneage and 2030 No Build traffic volumes for the 

intersection of Pine Street and Main Street are shown in Appendix P Figures 13 and 14, 

respectively. The area around the intersection is low density residential. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-183

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Carter Street and Pine Street: The intersection of Carter Street and Pine Street is a stop controlled 

intersection with a stop condition on Carter Street. Carter Street is a north-south local collector, 

while Pine Street is an east-west local connector. The existing laneage and 2030 No Build traffic 

volumes for the intersection of Carter Street and Pine Street are shown in Appendix P Figures 13 

and 14, respectively. The area around the intersection is a mix of business, recreational and 

undeveloped land use. It should be noted that US-58 is only approximately 200 feet north of the 

Carter Street and Pine Street intersection and somewhat bounds the northern side of the 

intersection. 

US-58 and Pine Street: The intersection of US-58 and Pine Street is a stop controlled “T” 

intersection with Pine Street experiencing the stopped condition. US-58 is a US highway running 

east-west in the area, while Pine Street is east-west local connector. The existing laneage and the 

2030 No Build traffic volumes for the intersection of Pine Street and US-58 are provided by 

Appendix P Figures 13 and 14, respectively. The land use surrounding the intersection is low 

density residential or undeveloped. 

Hillcrest Road: Hillcrest Road is a local roadway that runs east-west and between Saint Tammany 

Road and Carter Street. 

Central Avenue: Central Avenue is a local roadway that runs north-south in the La Crosse area. 

Central Avenue begins at Main Street near the intersection of Saint Tammany Road, Seaboard 

Avenue, and College Street, and extends northward approximately 770 feet just beyond Carolina 

Street. 

Meredith Street: Meredith Street is a short local roadway that runs north-south and has a break 

between Jones Street and Seaboard Avenue. 

Jones Street: Jones Street is a local east-west street that is only approximately 400 feet long. 

Jones Street connects Saint Tammany Road to Meredith Street. 

St. Tammany Road: Saint Tammany Road is a very short north-south facility that becomes 

Morris Town Circle to the south and terminates at Main Street to the north. 

NORLINA, NC 

WARREN PLAINS ROAD AND YANCEY ROAD 

US-1/US-401 and Norlina Pines Drive: The existing intersection of US-1/US-401 and Norlina 

Pines Drive is an unsignalized “T” intersection with Norlina Pines Drive experiencing the stop 

condition. Norlina Pines Drive is a “no outlet” road that serves approximately 50 apartment units. 

US-1/US-401 is a major US route in the area. Appendix P Figures 17 and 18 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes, respectively of the US-1/US-401 and Norlina 

Pines Drive intersection. Aside from the apartment units, the area around the intersection is 

largely undeveloped; however, it should be noted the western side of the “T” intersection is 

bounded by the CSX S-Line railroad property. 

Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Yancey Road: The existing intersection of Warren PlainsNorlina Road and Yancey Road is a stop controlled “T” intersection, with Yancey Road 

experiencing the stop condition. Both Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Yancey Road are local 

collector type facilities. Current land use in the area is agricultural and residential in nature. 

Appendix P Figures 17 and 18 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes, respectively for the Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Yancey Road intersection. 

Weldon Road and Warren Plains-Norlina Road: The existing intersection of Warren PlainsNorlina Road and Weldon Road is a stop controlled “T” intersection, with Weldon Road 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-184

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

experiencing the stop condition. Both Weldon Road and Warren Plains-Norlina Road are local 

collector type facilities. Currently, the land surrounding the intersection is agricultural and 

residential in nature. Appendix P Figures 17 and 18 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No 

Build peak hour volumes, respectively of the Warren Plains Road and Weldon Road intersection. 

WARREN PLAINS ROAD AND HYCO STREET 

Warren Plains Road and Hyco Street: The existing intersection of Warren Plains Road and Hyco 

Street is an unsignalized “T” intersection with Hyco Street experiencing the stop condition. Both 

Warren Plains Road and Hyco Street are local collector type facilities. Appendix P Figures 17 and 

18 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Warren Plains 

Road and Hyco Street intersection. Hyco Street is bordered on the north side by the Downtown 

Norlina Business District and on the south side by the CSX S-Line rail corridor. There is a small 

museum in the southwest corner of the intersection and unpaved parking in the southeast corner. 

US-1/US-401 and Hyco Street/North Street: The existing intersection of US-1/US-401 and Hyco 

Street/North Street is a four-leg stop controlled intersection with Hyco Street and North Street 

experiencing stop conditions. Both Hyco Street and North Street are local collector type facilities, 

while US-1/US-401 is a US highway. Appendix P Figures 17 and 18 provide the existing laneage 

and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US-1/US-401 and Hyco Street/North Street 

intersection. The land use around intersection varies from residential to business to undeveloped. 

Warren Plains Road and Division Street: The existing intersection of Warren Plains Road and 

Division Street is an unsignalized “T” intersection with Division Street experiencing the stop 

condition. Both Warren Plains Road and Division Street are local collector type facilities, with 

Warren Plains running east-west and Division Street running north-south. Appendix P Figures 17 

and 18 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Warren Plains 

Road and Division Street intersection. The intersection is bordered on the south side by the CSX 

S-Line rail corridor and the area just north of the intersection is undeveloped. 

Liberty Street and US-401/US-158: The existing intersection of Liberty Street and US-401/US158 is a stop controlled “T” intersection with a stop condition on Liberty Street. Liberty Street is 

a local collector type facility, while US-401/US-158 is a north-south US highway. It should be 

noted that the existing CSX S-Line railroad structure creates sight distance concerns at this 

intersection. Appendix P Figures 17 and 18 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak 

hour volumes for the Liberty Street and US-401/US-158 intersection. Liberty Street is bounded 

by the CSX S-Line railroad property to the north, low density residential land use to the 

southeast, and undeveloped property to the southwest. 

Liberty Street and Division Street: The existing intersection of Liberty Street and Division Street 

is a stop controlled “T” intersection with a stop condition on Liberty Street. Liberty Street is an 

east-west local collector, while Division Street is a north-south local connector. Appendix P 

Figures 17 and 18 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 

Liberty Street and Division Street intersection. This intersection is bounded by the CSX S-Line 

railroad property to the north, a business to the southeast, and a vacant facility to the southwest. 

Main Street and US-401/US-158: The existing intersection of Main Street and US-401/US-158 is 

a stop controlled intersection with a stop condition on Main Street. Main Street is a local collector 

type facility, while US-401/US-158 is a north-south US highway. There are houses located in 

close proximity to each corner of the intersection. Appendix P Figures 17 and 18 provide the 

existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Main Street and US-401/US-158 

intersection. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-185

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US-1 AND AXTELL-RIDGEWAY ROAD AND RIDGEWAY-DREWRY 

ROAD 

US-1/US-158 and Axtell Ridgeway Road/Driveway: Currently, the intersection of US-1/US-158 

and Axtell Ridgeway Road is a four-leg unsignalized intersection. A private drive that forms the 

northern leg of the intersection and Axtell Ridgeway Road operates under stop control. There is 

an at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on Axtell Ridgeway Road approximately 50 feet 

south of the intersection. US-1/US-158 is a US highway that generally runs northwest-southeast, 

while Axtell Ridgeway Road is a local type facility that runs from Manson-Axtell Road to US1/US-158. Appendix P Figures 21 and 22 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak 

hour volumes for the US-1/US-158 and Axtell Ridgeway Road intersection, respectively. The 

CSX S-Line rail corridor runs parallel to US-1 at this location, and thus Axtell Ridgeway Road 

crosses the CSX S-Line rail corridor in close proximity to the intersection of Axtell Ridgeway 

Road and US-1/US-158. The area surrounding the intersection is rural-agricultural in nature, with 

low density sporadic development. The south side of the intersection is bounded by the CSX SLine rail corridor. 

US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road: The intersection of Ridgeway-Drewry Road and US1 is a “T” intersection with stop control on Ridgeway-Drewry Road. US-1/US-158 is a US 

highway that runs generally northwest-southeast, while Ridgeway-Drewry Road is a local-type 

facility that interchanges with I-85 northwest of this intersection. Appendix P Figures 21 and 22 

provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US-1 and RidgewayDrewry Road intersection, respectively. The area surrounding the intersection is low density 

rural-agricultural and residential in nature. 

US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Lane: The intersection of US-1/US-158 and 

Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Lane is a four-leg stop controlled intersection with Grant Lane 

and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road experiencing the stop condition. US-1/US-158 is a US highway 

that runs generally northwest-southeast, while Ridgeway-Warrenton Road is a local type facility 

that connects US-1/US-158 to US-401/US-158 Business near Warrenton. Appendix P Figures 21 

and 22 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US-1/US-158 

and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Road intersection, respectively. The area surrounding the 

intersection is a mixture of low density residential and undeveloped land. 

US-1/US-158 and Saint Tammany Road: The intersection of St. Tammany Road and US-1/US158 is a "T" intersection with Saint Tammany Road experiencing the stop condition. US-1/US158 is a US highway that runs generally northwest-southeast, while Saint Tammany Road is a 

minor north-south facility that connects US-1/US-158 and Oine Road (which interchanges with I85). Appendix P Figures 21 and 22 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the US-1/US-158 and St. Tammany Road intersection, respectively. The area 

surrounding the intersection is rural-agricultural or undeveloped in nature. 

COLLINS ROAD AND SOUL CITY BOULEVARD - SOUL CITY 

AREA 

Soul City Boulevard and US-1/US-158: The intersection of US-1/US-158 and Soul City 

Boulevard is an unsignalized “T” intersection, with Soul City Boulevard operating under stop 

control. There is also a small raised median on the northbound approach to the intersection. The 

area around the intersection is undeveloped. Soul City Boulevard is a local minor facility, while 

US-1/US-158 is a US highway. Appendix P Figures 25 and 26 provide the existing laneage and 

2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Soul City Boulevard and US-1/US-158 intersection, 

respectively. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-186

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Collins Road and Manson-Axtell Road: The intersection of Collins Road and Manson-Axtell 

Road is an unsignalized “T” intersection with Manson-Axtell Road experiencing the stop 

condition. The intersection is bounded to the north by the CSX S-Line railroad. The land use 

adjacent to the intersection is very rural in nature. Both Collins Road and Manson-Axtell Road 

are local-type facilities. 

Collins Road and Soul City Boulevard: The intersection of Collins Road and Soul City Boulevard 

is a four-leg unsignalized intersection with Collins Road experiencing the stop condition. There is 

development on the south side of the intersection, but little on the north side. 

MIDDLEBURG, NC 

SOUTH CAROL STREET AND US-1/US-158 

The current intersection of South Carol Street and US-1 is an un-signalized “T” intersection with 

a left and right-turn lane for the northbound approach. The westbound approach has a shared 

through and left-turn movement. The eastbound approach has a shared through and right-turn 

movement. The area around the intersection is rural, agricultural land and a house is located 

directly across from the “T” intersection. 

HENDERSON, NC 

MAIN STREET/BECKFORD DRIVE AND OLD NORLINA ROAD 

Beckford Drive, Chestnut Street, and US-1 Business/US-158 (Garnett Street): The intersection of 

Beckford Drive, Chestnut Street, and Garnett Street operates under signal control. The 

northbound movement from Garnett Street is a slip lane and does not go through the signal. Main 

Street does not directly feed into the intersection; however, it does tie into the northbound slip 

lane for Garnett Street. Old Norlina Road provides access to the Beckford Drive, Chestnut Street, 

and Garnett Street intersection for Main Street traffic and vice-versa. 

Garnett Street is an urban arterial that essentially parallels US-1 in Henderson. Chestnut Street is 

a local type facility that parallels Garnett Street from this intersection to Corbitt Road. Beckford 

Road is a four-lane undivided east-west facility, while Main Street is a minor local connector. It 

should be noted that the Henderson Thoroughfare Plan recommends extending Main Street 

eastward to connect with a new north-south facility that would connect to John Deere Road near 

Warrenton Road. While traffic volumes on Main Street are currently relatively low, this extension 

project could increase the volume on Main Street on and around the crossing well above current 

levels which was accounted for in this analysis process. 

The area around the intersection of Main Street and the North Garnett Street northbound slip lane 

is a mix of low density residential land use, businesses, and churches. Appendix P Figures 29a 

and 30a provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Beckford 

Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street, and Garnett Street intersections, respectively. 

Main Street and Old Norlina Road: The Main Street and Old Norlina Road intersection is a twoway stop controlled intersection with Main Street experiencing the stop conditions. Main Street 

has an existing at-grade crossing of the CSX S-Line rail corridor approximately 200 feet east of 

this intersection, which is proposed to be grade separated under the Project. Main Street also has 

an offset at this intersection, with the west leg approximately 25 feet north of the east leg at the 

intersection. Both Main Street and Old Norlina Road are local-type facilities and run for 

relatively short distances. Appendix P Figures 29a and 30a provide the existing laneage and 2030 

No Build peak hour volumes for the Main Street and Old Norlina Road intersection, respectively. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-187

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US-1 BUSINESS (GARNETT STREET) AND NC 39 (ANDREWS 

AVENUE) 

Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street: The intersection of Rock Spring Street and Chestnut 

Street is a four-leg unsignalized intersection with Rock Spring Street experiencing the stop 

conditions. Rock Spring Street is a relatively short minor facility that mainly serves residential 

land use. While also a relatively short facility, Chestnut Street is an arterial type facility and 

parallels Garnett Street. Appendix P Figures 29a and 30a provide the existing laneage and 2030 

No Build peak hour volumes for the Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street intersection, 

respectively. The area surrounding the Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street intersection is 

currently either low density residential or undeveloped. 

Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street: The intersection of Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street 

is a four-leg offset unsignalized intersection with eastbound Rock Spring Street experiencing a 

stop condition and westbound Rock Spring Street experiencing a yield condition. There is an 

existing at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on Rock Spring Street approximately 50 feet 

east of the intersection. The two legs of Rock Spring Street (southeast-northwest) are offset 

approximately 100 feet. Rock Spring Street is a relatively short minor facility that serves mainly 

residential land use. Garnett Street serves as US-1 Business/US-158 and is an arterial type 

facility. Appendix P Figures 29a and 30a provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak 

hour volumes for the Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street intersection, respectively. There is 

development that abuts the intersection on the west side while the east side is bounded by the 

existing CSX S-Line railroad tracks and associated right-of-way. 

Rock Spring Street and Williams Street: The intersection of Rock Spring Street and Williams 

Street is a four-leg unsignalized intersection with Williams Street experiencing the stop condition. 

There is an existing at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line approximately 50 feet northwest of 

this intersection on Rock Spring Street. Williams Street is local-type facility that parallels Garnett 

Street in this area. Rock Spring Street is a relatively short minor facility that serves mainly 

residential land use. Appendix P Figures 29a and 30a provide the existing laneage and 2030 No 

Build peak hour volumes for the Rock Spring Street and Williams Street intersection, 

respectively. Each quadrant on east side of the intersection currently has development, while the 

west side is bounded by the CSX S-Line railroad tracks and its associated right-of-way with no 

development. 

Chestnut Street and Andrews Avenue (NC 39): The intersection of Chestnut Street and Andrews 

Avenue is a four-leg signalized intersection. Chestnut Street is a relatively short arterial type 

facility and parallels Garnett Street. Andrews Avenue is a major arterial and serves as NC 39 in 

this area, providing access from Henderson to US-1 and I-85. Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b 

provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Chestnut Street and 

Andrews Avenue intersection, respectively. Development exists on all four corners of the 

intersection and abuts the intersection in three of the four quadrants, with the exception of 

southwest quadrant. 

Garnett Street and Andrews Avenue (NC 39): Garnett Street and Andrews Avenue is a four-leg 

signalized intersection. Garnett Street serves as US-1 Business/US-158 and is an arterial type 

facility. Andrews Avenue is a major arterial and serves as NC 39. Andrews Avenue provides 

access between Henderson and US-1 and I-85. Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b provide the 

existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Garnett Street and Andrews 

Avenue intersection, respectively. Development exists on all four corners of the intersection and 

there is an at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on Garnett Street approximately 150 feet 

southeast of the intersection. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-188

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Williams Street and Andrews Avenue (NC 39): Williams Street and Andrews Avenue is a fourleg unsignalized intersection. Williams Street is local-type facility that parallels Garnett Street in 

this area. Andrews Avenue is a major arterial and serves as NC 39. Andrews Avenue provides 

access between Henderson and US-1 and I-85. Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b provide the 

existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Williams Street and Andrews 

Avenue intersection, respectively. Aside from a residence in the southeast quadrant the area 

adjacent to the intersection is relatively undeveloped; however, the existing at-grade CSX S-Line 

rail crossing and associated right of way on Andrews Avenue approximately 80 feet from the 

intersection bounds the western side of the intersection. 

Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street: The intersection of Montgomery Street and Chestnut 

Street is a four-leg signalized intersection. Chestnut Street is a short arterial type facility that 

parallels Garnett Street. Montgomery Street is a relatively short local type facility that parallels 

Andrews Avenue in this area. Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b provide the existing laneage and 

2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street intersection, 

respectively. Development extends up to the intersection in every quadrant aside from the 

southeast quadrant, which has a buffer between an existing parking lot and the intersection. 

Montgomery Street and Garnett Street: The intersection of Montgomery Street and Garnett Street 

is a four-leg signalized intersection with pedestrian crossings on Garnett Street and the southern 

leg of Montgomery Street. Montgomery Street is a short local-type facility that parallels Andrews 

Avenue in this area. Garnett Street serves as US-1 Business/US-158 and is an arterial facility. 

Marked parking spaces are located on both sides of Garnett Street. There is an at-grade CSX SLine rail crossing on Montgomery Street approximately 180 feet southwest of the intersection. 

Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the Montgomery Street and Garnett Street intersection, respectively. Development 

abuts the intersection on all four corners, as well as along each leg of the intersection. 

Montgomery Street and Williams Street: The intersection of Montgomery Street and Williams 

Street is four-leg unsignalized intersection with Williams Street experiencing the stop condition. 

Montgomery Street is a relatively short local type facility that parallels Andrews Avenue in this 

area. Williams Street is a local type facility that parallels Garnett Street in this area. Appendix P 

Figures 29b and 30b provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 

Montgomery Street and Williams Street intersection, respectively. The western side of the 

intersection is bounded by the CSX S-Line railroad; however, parking is provided in the 

southwest quadrant between the intersection and the CSX S-Line railroad tracks. Development 

exists in the southeast quadrant, while the northern quadrants are undeveloped. 

Charles Street and Garnett Street: The intersection of Charles Street and Garnett Street is a split 

intersection. The northeastern intersection is unsignalized with Charles Street under yield control 

and the southwestern intersection is signalized with pedestrian crosswalks on Charles Street and 

parking on Church Street. Charles Street ends/begins at Garnett Street. Church Street, which is an 

access facility to parking and businesses, is located across from Charles Street at the western 

intersection forming a four-leg signalized intersection. Approximately 160 feet east of the 

intersection, Charles Street has an existing grade separated crossing of the CSX S-Line rail 

corridor, crossing under the CSX S-Line rail corridor. Garnett Street serves as US-1 Business/US158 and is an arterial type facility. Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b provide the existing laneage 

and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Charles Street and Garnett Street intersection, 

respectively. All sides of this intersection are developed with the southeast side bounded by the 

grade separation. 

Williams Street and Charles Street: The intersection of Williams Street and Charles Street is a 

four-leg signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks on each leg. Charles Street is a local-
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-189

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

type facility that runs from Garnett Street to Cherry Street and has a grade separated crossing of 

the CSX S-Line rail corridor, crossing under the rail line. Williams Street is a local type facility 

that parallels Garnett Street in this area. Appendix P Figures 29b and 30b provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Williams Street and Charles Street 

intersection, respectively. Development exists in the northeast and southeast quadrants while the 

northwest and southwest quadrants are bounded by the CSX S-Line railroad grade separation 

which is approximately 50 feet from the intersection. 

CHAVASSE AVENUE/DABNEY DRIVE/ALEXANDER AVENUE 

Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street: The intersection of Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street 

is currently a four-leg signalized intersection. There is an at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line 

on Chavasse Avenue approximately 70 feet west of the intersection. Chavasse Avenue is a short, 

local east-west facility that provides access to US-1 Business. Williams Street is a local facility 

that runs approximately north-south, paralleling the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor. Appendix 

P Figures 35 and 36 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 

Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street intersection, respectively. The eastern side of the 

intersection is bounded by the CSX S-Line railroad tracks, while the western side has some 

residential development that does not encroach upon the intersection. 

Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Road and Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business: The intersection of 

Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Road and Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business is a five-leg signalized 

intersection. The northwest leg (Dorsey Avenue) is stop controlled and allows for right-turn 

egress only, but allows for all movements to enter. Chavasse Avenue is a short local east-west 

facility that provides access to US-1 Business while Oxford Street is an arterial in the area and 

serves as US-158 west of this intersection. Dorsey Avenue is a short local east-west facility 

running from Young Street to Dabney Drive. US-1 Business is a major arterial connecting 

Henderson to points north and south. Appendix P Figures 35 and 36 provide the existing laneage 

and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Street and Dorsey 

Avenue and US-1 Business intersection, respectively. This intersection is developed in every 

quadrant. 

Dabney Drive and Oxford Road: The intersection of Dabney Drive and Oxford Road is a four-leg 

signalized intersection. Dabney Drive runs northwest-southeast and provides access to I-85. 

Oxford Road is an arterial in the area and serves as US-158 west of the intersection. There is 

development in each quadrant consisting of residential and commercial land uses. This 

development is close to the intersection. Appendix P Figures 35 and 36 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Dabney Drive and Oxford Road 

intersection, respectively. 

Dabney Drive and Garnett Street/Deer Court: The intersection of Dabney Drive and Garnett 

Street/Deer Court is an offset signalized intersection with Deer Court serving as a one-way loop 

and Garnett Street intersecting Dabney Drive between the two Deer Court intersections. The split 

intersections are operated by one signal controller. Dabney Drive runs northwest-southeast and 

provides access to I-85, while Deer Court is a local access facility. Garnett Street serves as US158 and is an arterial facility in this location. There is development in each quadrant consisting of 

residential and commercial land uses. Appendix P Figures 35 and 36 provide the existing laneage 

and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Dabney Drive and Garnett Street/Deer Court 

intersection, respectively. 

Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business: The intersection of Dabney Drive and US-1 

Business is a signalized four-leg intersection. The east leg of this intersection serves as access to a 

shopping center. Dabney Drive runs northwest-southeast and provides access to I-85. US-1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-190

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Business is a major arterial connecting Henderson to points north and south. Appendix P Figures 

35 and 36 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Dabney 

Drive and US-1 Business intersection, respectively. There is development along the eastern side 

of the intersection, while both the northwest and southwest quadrants are currently undeveloped. 

Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street: The intersection of Alexander Avenue and Nicholas 

Street is a four-leg, two-way stopped controlled intersection with Alexander Avenue experiencing 

the stop condition. The western leg of the intersection is currently unpaved and provides access to 

industrial facilities. Alexander Avenue is a local east-west access facility, while Nicolas Street is 

a north-south local type access facility that parallels the existing CSX S-Line rail corridor in this 

area. Appendix P Figures 35 and 36 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street intersection, respectively. This 

intersection is currently bounded by development on all sides. 

BELMONT DRIVE AND WELCOME AVENUE 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive: The intersection of US-1 

Business and Belmont Drive/Welcome Avenue is a signalized intersection. This is an offset 

intersection in the east-west direction. Approximately 100 feet north of Belmont Drive, Welcome 

Drive intersects US-1 Business from the east. Both Belmont Drive and Welcome Avenue are 

short, local-type facilities. US-1 Business is an arterial route that was converted to the Business 

designation with the completion of US-1 on new alignment east of this facility. Appendix P 

Figures 39 and 40 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US1 Business and Belmont Drive/Welcome Avenue intersection, respectively. This area has 

development on the west side and the southeast sides of the intersection while the intersection is 

bounded by Matthews Street on the northeast side. There is an existing at-grade rail crossing of 

the CSX S-Line on Welcome Avenue approximately 275 feet east of the intersection. 

Welcome Avenue and Nicholas Street: The intersection of Welcome Avenue and Nicholas Street 

is a four-leg unsignalized intersection with Nicholas Street experiencing the stop condition. The 

at-grade crossing on Welcome Avenue is approximately 30 feet west of the Intersection. 

Welcome Avenue is a short, local-type facility, while Nicholas Street is currently a minor dirt 

facility in the intersection area. Appendix P Figures 39 and 40 provide the existing laneage and 

2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Welcome Avenue and Nicholas Street intersection, 

respectively. While there is development on the east side of the intersection, aside from fences, it 

is offset from the intersection. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and JP Taylor Road: The intersection of US-1 Business and JP 

Taylor Road is an unsignalized three-leg intersection with JP Taylor experiencing the stop 

condition. This is an existing at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on JP Taylor Road 

approximately 60 feet east of the intersection. JP Taylor Road is a short, east-west, local-type 

facility connecting US-1 Business to Facet Road, which has access to Old Epson Road adjacent to 

its interchange with US-1. US-1 Business is an arterial route that was converted to the Business 

designation with the completion of US-1 on new alignment east of this location. Appendix P 

Figures 39 and 40 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US1 Business and JP Taylor Road intersection, respectively. There is development on all sides of the 

intersection. 

US-1 BUSINESS (RALEIGH ROAD) AND BEAR POND ROAD AND 

PETER GILL ROAD 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Bear Pond/Lynnbank Road: US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) 

and Bear Pond Road/Lynnbank Road is a four-leg signalized intersection. Bear Pond 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-191

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Road/Lynnbank Road is a relatively short, east-west facility that provides access to US-1 and US1 Business. US-1 Business is an arterial that provides long distance north-south travel. Appendix 

P Figures 43 and 44 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 

US-1 Business and Bear Pond Road/Lynnbank Road intersection, respectively. Buildings are 

located in the southeast, northeast and northwest quadrants of the intersection. The southwest 

quadrant is currently undeveloped and wooded. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and US-1 NB Ramp/Eastern Minerals Road: US-1 Business 

(Raleigh Road) and US-1 northbound off ramp/Eastern Minerals Road is a four-leg unsignalized 

intersection. The US-1 Business northbound off ramp is one-way eastbound and is offset with 

Eastern Minerals Road by approximately 50 feet. Eastern Minerals Road provides access to an 

industrial area and to Commerce Drive which intersects Bear Pond Road. US-1 Business is an 

arterial that provides long distance north-south travel. Appendix P Figures 43 and 44 provide the 

existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US-1 Business and US-1 

northbound off ramp/Eastern Minerals Road intersection, respectively. While each quadrant of 

the intersection is undeveloped, the eastern quadrants are bounded by the existing CSX S-Line 

railroad tracks, approximately 200 feet away. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Peter Gill Road/Driveway: US-1 Business and Peter Gill 

Road is a four-leg stop controlled intersection. The western leg serves as a driveway to a gas 

station/convenience mart. Both Peter Gill Road and the driveway experience the stop conditions. 

Peter Gill Road is a local east-west facility that connects US-1 Business and Bear Pond Road. 

Appendix P Figures 43 and 44 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road/Driveway intersection, respectively. Each 

quadrant of the intersection is currently developed aside from the southwest quadrant. The 

existing CSX S-Line rail corridor located approximately 150 feet west of the intersection, bounds 

the intersection on the east side. 

US-1 BUSINESS (RALEIGH RD) AND CHAVIS ROAD 

Chavis Road and US-1 Business: Chavis Road currently intersects US-1 Business at an angled 

“T” intersection located north of the US-1 Business connection to US-1. The Chavis Road and 

US-1 intersection is an unsignalized intersection with Chavis Road experiencing the stop 

condition. The existing at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line is on Chavis Road approximately 

180 feet southeast of its US-1 Business intersection. Chavis Road is a local access facility that 

runs north-south east of US-1. US-1 Business is a north-south arterial that becomes US-1 

approximately 2,300 feet south of this intersection. Appendix P Figures 47 and 48 provide the 

existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US-1 Business and Chavis Road 

intersection, respectively. The area around the intersection is a mix of low density residential land 

use and open land. 

US-1 Business and Edwards Road: US-1 Business and Edwards Road is a stop controlled “T” 

type intersection with the stop condition on Edwards Road. Currently, Edwards Road is a 

relatively short local facility in the Kittrell area that generally runs north-south. US-1 Business is 

a north-south arterial that becomes US-1 approximately 4,000 feet south of this intersection. 

Appendix P Figures 47 and 48 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the US-1 Business and Edwards Road intersection, respectively. The area around the 

intersection is a mix of low density residential land use and open land. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-192

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

KITTRELL, NC 

US-1 (CAPITAL BOULEVARD) AND KITTRELL COLLEGE 

ROAD/NEW CONNECTOR 

US-1 and Kittrell College Road/College Street: The intersection of Kittrell College Road/College 

Street and US-1 is an unsignalized four-leg intersection with the stop control on Kittrell College 

Road/College Street. Kittrell College Road is a local east-west facility west of US-1, while 

College Street is east of US-1 and is only approximately 400 feet long ending at Railroad Street. 

US-1 is a north-south arterial that runs through Kittrell, paralleling the existing CSX S-Line rail 

alignment. Appendix P Figures 51 and 52 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak 

hour volumes for the US-1 and Kittrell College Road/College Street intersection, respectively. 

The area around the intersection is developed with low density land use. 

US-1 and Kittrell Vance Avenue: Currently, the intersection of Kittrell Vance Avenue and US-1 

is a three-leg stop controlled intersection with a stop condition on Kittrell Vance Avenue. Kittrell 

Vance Avenue is a short east-west residential street. US-1 is a north-south arterial that runs 

through Kittrell, paralleling the existing CSX S-Line rail alignment. Appendix P Figures 51 and 

52 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the US-1 and Kittrell 

Vance Road intersection, respectively. The area around the intersection is developed with low 

density residential land use. 

Main Street and Railroad Street: Currently, the intersection of Main Street and Railroad Street is a 

three-leg stop controlled intersection with Railroad Street experiencing the stop condition. There 

is a driveway to a residence on the northern side of the intersection. Railroad Street is a short 

north-south access facility, while Main Street is a minor east-west facility. Appendix P Figures 51 

and 52 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Main Street 

and Railroad Street intersection, respectively. The area around the intersection is developed with 

low density land use. 

FRANKLINTON, NC 

MAIN STREET AND NC 56 (GREEN STREET) 

Subsequent to the traffic counts that were taken in this area for the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS, Franklinton High School, which was in very close proximity to the intersection of 

Mason Street and Main Street, has relocated to Cedar Creek Road near its intersection with Lane 

Road. At the time traffic studies were completed, there was a plan for Franklinton Middle School 

to occupy the old high school (the plan has subsequently been implemented). Based on this 

information, new counts were performed and data were obtained on the future middle school. 

Based on information found on the new school, the amount of new school trips that would be 

added to the area was estimated. These new trips were added to the 2030 No Build traffic 

volumes, which were estimated by comparing counts taken and historic traffic volumes in the 

area to determine a growth rate. The counts from 2006 to 2012 showed little to no growth in this 

area. Therefore, along with the fact that considerable traffic was being added to the area to 

account for the proposed middle school, a 1% growth rate was used to estimate background 

growth. 

Mason Street and Main Street: The intersection of Mason Street and Main Street is a four leg 

signalized intersection. On-street parking is provided on each leg of the intersection. Mason 

Street is a local type east-west facility that parallels NC 56 and provides access to US-1. Main 

Street is a north-south facility that runs through Franklinton and connects to US-1 at its northern 

and southern termini. There is an existing at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on Mason 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-193

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Street approximately 300 feet east of this intersection. Appendix P Figures 55 and 56 provide the 

existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Mason Street and Main Street 

intersection, respectively. This intersection is in an urban area with development in each 

quadrant. Development or its associated parking abuts the intersection in each quadrant. 

NC 56 (Green Street) and Main Street: The intersection of NC 56 and Main Street is a four leg 

signalized intersection. On-street parking is provided on the north leg of the intersection. In the 

Study Area, NC 56 is an east-west highway that travels through Franklinton. NC 56 has a grade 

separated rail crossing of the CSX S-Line at the proposed Project alignment. Main Street is a 

north-south facility that runs through Franklinton and connects to US-1 at its northern and 

southern termini. Appendix P Figures 55 and 56 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build 

peak hour volumes for the NC 56 and Main Street intersection, respectively. This intersection is 

in an urban area with development in each quadrant. Development abuts the intersection in each 

quadrant aside from the southeast quadrant. 

College Street and Main Street: The intersection of College Street and Main Street is currently a 

four-leg unsignalized intersection with College Street experiencing the stop condition. There is an 

at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on College Street approximately 300 feet east of its 

intersection with Main Street. College Street is a minor east-west facility that runs from Chavis 

Street on the east to Cheatham Street on the west. Main Street is a north-south facility that runs 

through Franklinton and connects to US-1 at its northern and southern termini. Appendix P 

Figures 55 and 56 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 

College Street and Main Street intersection, respectively. The area around the intersection is 

either undeveloped or low density residential. 

College Street and Hawkins Street: The intersection of College Street and Hawkins Street is 

currently a three-leg unsignalized intersection with Hawkins Street experiencing the stop 

condition. There is an at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line approximately 350 west of the 

intersection on College Street. The rail crossing is between this intersection and the intersection 

of College Street and Main Street. College Street is a minor east-west facility that runs form 

Chavis Street on the east to Cheatham Street on the west. Hawkins Street is a local-type facility 

that connects College Street and Main Street. Appendix P Figures 55 and 56 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the College Street and Hawkins Street 

intersection, respectively. The area around the intersection is either vacant or low density 

residential. 

CEDAR CREEK ROAD AND MAIN STREET 

Person Street and Main Street: The intersection of Person Street and Main Street is currently a 

three leg unsignalized intersection with Person Street experiencing the stopped condition. Person 

Street is a one-way street in the eastbound direction and serves school traffic. Main Street is a 

north-south facility that runs through Franklinton and connects to US-1 at its northern and 

southern termini. Appendix P Figures 55 and 56 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build 

peak hour volumes for the Person Street and Main Street intersection, respectively. The area 

surrounding the intersection is low density residential. 

Hillsborough Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street: The intersection of Hillsborough 

Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street is currently a four leg unsignalized intersection with 

Hillsborough Road and Hawkins Street experiencing the stopped conditions. Hillsborough Street 

services school traffic and can be gated to prevent through traffic. Hawkins Street is a local-type 

facility that connects Main Street and College Street. Main Street is a north-south facility that 

runs through Franklinton and connects to US-1 at its northern and southern termini. Appendix P 

Figures 55 and 56 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-194

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Hillsborough Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street intersection, respectively. The western 

quadrants are developed by the school while the remaining area around the intersection is low 

density residential. 

Cedar Creek Road and Main Street: The intersection of Cedar Creek Road and Main Street is 

currently a three leg unsignalized intersection with Cedar Creek Road experiencing the stopped 

conditions. Cedar Creek Road provides access to Franklinton High School. There is an existing 

at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line approximately 450 feet east of the intersection on Cedar 

Creek Road. Main Street is a north-south facility that runs through Franklinton and connects to 

US-1 at its northern and southern termini. Appendix P Figures 55 and 56 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Cedar Creek Road and Main Street 

intersection, respectively. The development surrounding the intersection is a mix of low density 

land use including athletic fields, residential, and a church all in the vicinity of the intersection. 

RALEIGH, NC 

ATLANTIC AVENUE AND WOLFPACK LANE/HIGHWOODS 

AVENUE 

Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive: The intersection of Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive is 

currently a three-leg unsignalized intersection with an offset driveway on the south side. Tarheel 

Drive experiences the stop condition. For the purposes of the analysis and based on the peak hour 

traffic counts, this intersection was analyzed as a “T” intersection. Wolfpack Lane is a local-type 

facility that provides access from an industrial area to Atlantic Avenue. Tarheel Drive serves the 

same industrial area and connects Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive. Appendix P Figures 59 and 

60 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Wolfpack Lane and 

Tarheel Drive intersection, respectively. The area around the intersection is developed with 

industrial type land use. 

Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue: The intersection of Wolfpack 

Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue is a four-leg signalized intersection. There is an 

at-grade rail crossing of the CSX S-Line on Wolfpack Lane approximately 200 feet northwest of 

the intersection. Wolfpack Lane is a facility that provides access from an industrial area to 

Atlantic Avenue. Highwoods Boulevard is a short multilane facility that provides access to a 

business park and connects Atlantic Avenue and Capital Boulevard. Atlantic Avenue is a northsouth arterial in the Study Area. Appendix P Figures 59 and 60 provide the existing laneage and 

2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic 

Avenue intersection, respectively. The intersection is bounded by the CSX S-Line rail corridor on 

the west side and the Highwoods Office Park on the east side. 

Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court: The Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court 

intersection is a four-leg unsignalized intersection with Beechleaf Court experiencing the stop 

condition. This intersection is closely spaced (approximately 400 feet) to the Wolfpack 

Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue intersection. Highwoods Boulevard is a short 

multilane facility that serves a business park and connects Atlantic Avenue and Capital 

Boulevard. Beechleaf Court is an access facility to office buildings and their associated parking. 

Appendix P Figures 59 and 60 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court intersection, respectively. The 

immediate area adjacent to the intersection is wooded, but parking and office buildings are offset 

behind the tree line. 

Highwoods Boulevard and Smoketree Court: The Highwoods Boulevard and Smoketree Court 

intersection is a four-leg unsignalized intersection with Beechleaf Court experiencing the stop 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-195

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

condition. Highwoods Boulevard is a short arterial that serves a business park and connects 

Atlantic Avenue and Capital Boulevard. Smoketree Court is an access facility to office buildings 

and their associated parking. Appendix P Figures 59 and 60 provide the existing laneage and 

2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Highwoods Boulevard and Smoketree Court 

intersection, respectively. The immediate area adjacent to the intersection is wooded but parking 

and office buildings are offset behind the tree line. 

DOWNTOWN RALEIGH 

It should be noted that there is active freight service on both the Norfolk Southern and CSX 

railroads through Downtown Raleigh. 

Glenwood Avenue and North Street: The intersection of Glenwood Avenue and North Street is an 

urban four-leg intersection located in the northern section of Downtown Raleigh and is 

signalized. There is an existing grade separated rail crossing of North Street on the Norfolk 

Southern NS-Line east of this intersection between Glenwood Avenue and West Street. 

Glenwood Avenue is a north-south downtown grid facility that transitions to an arterial and 

becomes US 70 north of Downtown Raleigh. North Street is a downtown grid street that runs 

east-west on the northern side of Downtown Raleigh. North Street has two segments; one runs 

from Saint Mary’s Street to Harrington Street and the other runs from Wilmington Street to 

Person Street. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build 

peak hour volumes for the Glenwood Avenue and North Street intersection, respectively. 

North Street and West Street: The intersection of West Street and North Street is an urban fourleg intersection located in the northern section of Downtown Raleigh. It is a stop controlled 

intersection with North Street experiencing the stopped condition. An existing grade separated 

crossing of North Street and the Norfolk Southern NS-Line is located just west of this 

intersection. West Street runs north-south from the Boylan Wye to Wade Avenue, servicing 

downtown facilities as well as industrial uses north of downtown. North Street is a downtown 

grid street that runs east-west on the northern side of Downtown Raleigh. North Street has two 

segments; one runs from Saint Mary’s Street to Harrington Street and the other begins 

Wilmington Street and ends at Person Street. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the North Street and West Street intersection, 

respectively. 

North Street and Harrington Street: The intersection of Harrington Street and North Street is a 

three-leg intersection located in the northern section of downtown Raleigh. It is a stop controlled 

intersection with North Street experiencing the stopped condition. Harrington Street crosses the 

CSX S-Line at-grade between North Street and Lane Street. North Street is a downtown grid 

street that runs east-west on the northern side of downtown Raleigh. North Street has two 

segments; one runs from Saint Mary’s Street to Harrington Street and the other runs from 

Wilmington Street to Person Street. Harrington Street is a north-south downtown grid street. 

Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the North Street and Harrington Street intersection, respectively. 

Lane Street and Harrington Street: The intersection of Lane Street and Harrington Street is a fourleg intersection located in the northern section of downtown Raleigh. The western leg serves a 

parking area and is not part of Lane Street. The Lane Street and Harrington Street intersection is 

stop controlled with Lane Street experiencing the stopped condition. Lane Street is an east-west 

downtown grid street that is one-way westbound at this intersection. Lane Street is currently split 

in the area of the existing CSX S-Line and NS rail lines west of Harrington Street. Harrington 

Street is a north-south downtown grid street. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-196

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Lane Street and Harrington Street 

intersection, respectively. 

Jones Street and Glenwood Avenue: The intersection of Jones Street and Glenwood Avenue is an 

urban four-leg intersection located in eastern Downtown Raleigh. It is signalized with pedestrian 

signal heads and crosswalks on each approach. There is an at-grade rail crossing approximately 

200 feet to the east of the intersection on Jones Street. Jones Street is an east-west downtown grid 

facility, while Glenwood Avenue is a north-south downtown grid facility that transitions to an 

arterial and becomes US 70 north of Downtown Raleigh. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide 

the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Jones Street and Glenwood 

Avenue intersection, respectively. 

Jones Street and West Street: The intersection of Jones Street and West Street is an urban four-leg 

intersection located in Downtown Raleigh. It is unsignalized with West Street experiencing the 

stop condition. Sidewalks and crosswalks are located along each leg of the intersection. There is 

an at-grade rail crossing of the combined CSX S-Line and Norfolk Southern NS-Line 

approximately 300 feet east of the intersection on Jones Street. West Street runs north-south from 

the Boylan Wye to Wade Avenue, servicing downtown facilities as well as industrial land uses 

north of downtown. Jones Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that varies from one-way 

to two-way operations in the Study Area. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Jones Street and West Street intersection, 

respectively. 

Jones Street and Harrington Street: The intersection of Jones Street and Harrington Street is an 

urban four-leg intersection located in Downtown Raleigh. It is unsignalized with Harrington 

Street experiencing the stop condition and sidewalks and crosswalks located along each leg of the 

intersection. The eastern leg is one-way in the eastbound direction, while all other legs are in twoway operation. Jones Street is an east-west downtown grid facility than varies from one-way to 

two-way operations in the Study Area. Harrington Street is a north-south downtown grid street. 

Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the Jones Street and Harrington Street intersection, respectively. 

Glenwood Avenue and Hillsborough Street: The intersection of Glenwood Avenue and North 

Street is an urban four-leg intersection located in the western section of Downtown Raleigh. It is 

signalized, including pedestrian phases. Crosswalks and sidewalks are located on each leg of the 

intersection. There is an existing grade separated crossing of Hillsborough Street located 

approximately 150 feet east of this intersection. Glenwood Avenue is a north-south downtown 

grid facility that transitions to an arterial and becomes US 70 north of Downtown Raleigh. 

Hillsborough Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that transitions to an arterial and 

services North Carolina State University west of downtown. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 

provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Glenwood Avenue 

and Hillsborough Street intersection, respectively. 

West Street and Edenton Street: The intersection of West Street and Edenton Street is an urban 

four-leg intersection located in Downtown Raleigh and is signalized, including pedestrian phases. 

Crosswalks are located on three approaches and sidewalks are on each leg of the intersection. 

Edenton Street is one-way in the westbound direction. There is an existing grade separated 

crossing of Hillsborough Street where Edenton Street becomes Hillsborough Street located 

approximately 150 feet west of this intersection. West Street runs north-south from the Boylan 

Wye to Wade Avenue servicing downtown facilities as well as industrial land uses north of 

downtown. Edenton Street is an eastbound downtown grid facility that terminates at Hillsborough 

Street. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the West Street and Edenton Street intersection, respectively. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-197

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Hillsborough Street and Edenton Street: The intersection of Hillsborough Street and Edenton 

Street is an urban, unsignalized, two-leg intersection located in Downtown Raleigh. Edenton 

Street is one-way in the westbound direction. Hillsborough Street in the westbound direction 

experiences the stop condition, while the eastbound direction is free-flow. Sidewalk is located on 

one side of each leg of the intersection. The intersection is located on the eastern edge of the 

bridge for the existing grade separated roadway crossing over the combined CSX S-Line and 

Norfolk Southern NS-Line. Hillsborough Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that 

transitions to an arterial and services North Carolina State University west of downtown while 

Edenton Street is an eastbound downtown grid facility that terminates at this intersection with 

Hillsborough Street. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No 

Build peak hour volumes for the Hillsborough Street and Edenton Street intersection, 

respectively. 

Boylan Street and Morgan Street: The intersection of Boylan Street and Morgan Street is an 

urban four-leg intersection located in the southern section of Downtown Raleigh and is 

signalized, including pedestrian phases. Crosswalks and sidewalks are located on each leg of the 

intersection. Morgan Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that begins at Hillsborough 

Street to the west and becomes New Bern Avenue east of the Study Area. Boylan Street is a 

north-south downtown grid facility and is one of the few in Downtown Raleigh that traverses the 

the combined CSX S-Line, Norfolk Southern NS-Line, and NCRR H-LIne railroad tracks south 

of the Boylan Wye. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No 

Build peak hour volumes for the Boylan Street and Morgan Street intersection, respectively. 

Morgan Street and Glenwood Avenue: The intersection of Morgan Street and Glenwood Avenue 

is an urban three-leg intersection located in the southern section of Downtown Raleigh north of 

the Boylan Wye and is signalized, including pedestrian phases. Crosswalks and the associated 

pedestrian phases are located on two of the three legs of the intersection while sidewalks are 

located on every leg of the intersection. The eastern leg of the intersection crosses the combined 

CSX S-Line and Norfolk Southern NS-Line rail corridor on an existing grade separated crossing 

adjacent to the intersection. Morgan Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that begins at 

Hillsborough Street to the west and becomes New Bern Avenue east of the Study Area. 

Glenwood Avenue is a north-south downtown grid facility that transitions into an arterial and 

becomes US 70 north of Downtown Raleigh. Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing 

laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Boylan Street and Glenwood Avenue 

intersection, respectively. 

Boylan Street and Hargett Street: The intersection of Boylan Street and Hargett Street is an urban 

four-leg intersection located in the southern section of Downtown Raleigh north of the Boylan 

Wye and is signalized. Crosswalks and sidewalks are located on each leg of the intersection; 

however, no pedestrian phasing is currently provided. There is an existing at-grade rail crossing 

of the combined CSX S-Line and Norfolk Southern NS-Line approximately 300 feet east of the 

intersection on Hargett Street. Boylan Street is a north-south downtown grid facility and is one of 

the few in Downtown Raleigh that traverses the railroad tracks at the Boylan Wye. Hargett Street 

is an east-west downtown grid facility that serves City of Raleigh offices. Appendix P Figures 63 

and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the Boylan Street 

and Hargett Street intersection, respectively. 

West Street and Hargett Street: The intersection of West Street and Hargett Street is an urban 

four-leg intersection located in the southern section of Downtown Raleigh and is unsignalized. 

West Street experiences the stop condition and crosswalks are located on both legs of West 

Street. Sidewalks are located on each leg of the intersection. There is an existing at-grade rail 

crossing of the combined CSX S-Line and Norfolk Southern NS-Line approximately 300 feet 

west of the intersection on Hargett Street. West Street runs north-south from the Boylan Wye to 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-198

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Wade Avenue, servicing downtown facilities as well as industrial land uses north of downtown. 

Hargett Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that serves City of Raleigh offices. 

Appendix P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour 

volumes for the Boylan Street and Hargett Street intersection, respectively. 

Harrington Street and Hargett Street: The intersection of Harrington Street and Hargett Street is 

an urban four-leg intersection located in the southern section of Downtown Raleigh. It is 

unsignalized. Hargett Street experiences the stop condition and crosswalks are located on both 

legs of Hargett Street. Sidewalks are located on each leg of the intersection and parking is 

allowed on each intersection leg. Hargett Street is an east-west downtown grid facility that serves 

City of Raleigh offices, while Harrington Street is a north-south downtown grid street. Appendix 

P Figures 63 and 64 provide the existing laneage and 2030 No Build peak hour volumes for the 

Harrington Street and Hargett Street intersection, respectively. 

RAIL 

The discussion below is largely unchanged from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, 

with the exception of minor corrections, and an update to reflect the new and planned passenger 

rail connections to the area of Hampton Roads, VA (refer to Section 1.1.2 for additional 

discussion regarding new Amtrak NEC Regional service to Norfolk, VA, and information on the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS). 

The two main Class I railroads operating in Virginia and North Carolina are Norfolk Southern 

and CSX. There are several Class III shortline railroads operating in the two states, and these 

play an important role in the rail network. A large portion of the rail network in both states is 

single track, which creates bottlenecks in high traffic areas. Amtrak passenger rail operates 

within a portion of the Study Area on the private freight railroad system. The following section 

describes the active railroads within the Study Area, including rail lines that cross the corridor. 

Figure 3-14 displays the railroads in Virginia that intersect the Study Area, while Figure 3-15 

shows the railroads that intersect the Study Area in North Carolina. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-199

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-14 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-200

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 3-15 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-201

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VIRGINIA 

The Study Area begins in Richmond, VA, at Main Street Station, following the CSX S-Line 

south. The CSX S-Line is a secondary mainline and carries approximately 12 freight trains 

daily. Just south of the station, the CSX S-Line is elevated on a bridge, and crosses two 

railroads at the well-known “triple crossing” (one of the few places in North America where 

three Class I railroad lines cross each other at different levels). The CSX S-Line bridge 

crosses over the NS F-Line, and under the CSX Rivanna Subdivision (RV-Line). The NS FLine is a freight line serving West Point, VA, to the east. The CSX RV-Line is part of an 

important freight corridor serving the port at Newport News, VA. Amtrak passenger service 

to Newport News, VA also uses the CSX RV-Line, making a connection from Main Street 

Station, to the east of the triple crossing. The CSX RV-Line is the preferred route for 

expanded conventional passenger rail service from Richmond Main Street Station to Newport 

News, VA as part of the extension of the SEHSR Corridor to Hampton Roads. 

From the triple crossing, the CSX S-Line continues south elevated on structure, crossing the 

James River on a single track bridge. After crossing the river, the NS F-Line intersects the 

CSX S-Line via an interchange track and a rail diamond. The F-Line terminates beyond the 

diamond at the City of Richmond’s wastewater treatment facility. The interchange track 

provides an important link for NS’s intermodal freight service to the City of Richmond’s Port 

(CSX currently has direct access between the CSX S-Line and the Port). In Chesterfield 

County at the south end of the Bellwood rail yard, there is a rail wye connection for the CSX 

SAC-Line; this line provides freight service to industries in Hopewell, VA. The Richmond to 

Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS selected the CSX S-Line as the preferred route 

for the extension of the SEHSR Corridor to Hampton Roads from Richmond Main Street 

Station to Norfolk through Centralia. 

At Centralia, VA, the Study Area and the CSX S-Line join the CSX A-Line; this track carries 

approximately 30 freight trains daily, and the 10 daily Amtrak passenger trains (including one 

Amtrak Auto Train) that serve the Staples Mill Station on the northwest side of Richmond. 

Continuing south into Petersburg, VA, the CSX A-Line crosses the Appomattox River and 

the NS N-Line on a single track bridge. The N-Line parallels the south bank of the 

Appomattox, and provides important freight service to industries in Hopewell, VA. On the 

south side of Petersburg, VA (just north of Collier Yard), the CSX A-Line crosses the NS 

N&W Beltway on a bridge. The N&W provides direct access to the port at Norfolk, VA, and 

is part of the Heartland Corridor (NS’s primary intermodal train system). This line is 

undergoing improvements to handle more double-stack intermodal trains, and recent 

upgrades have also allowed the introduction of Amtrak NEC Regional passenger service to 

Norfolk. The CSX A-Line and NS N&W Line is the preferred route for the extension of the 

SEHSR Corridor to Hampton Roads from Richmond Main Street Station to Norfolk south of 

Centralia. 

At the south end of Collier Yard, the CSX A-Line continues south, while the Study Area 

curves westward along the inactive Burgess Connector rail line. The tracks have been 

removed along the Burgess Connector, and small portions of the ROW have been sold for 

driveway access. 

At Burgess, the Study Area curves south, joining again with the alignment of the CSX SLine. Although the tracks along this section of the CSX S-Line were removed in 1987, CSX 

retains exclusive ownership with exceptions, of the CSX S-Line (i.e., fee simple) and leases a 

portion of the corridor for operation of an underground fiber optic cable. The exceptions are 

located along the Burgess Connector south of Collier Yard, where portions of the ROW have 

been sold to individual property owners for driveway access, and in southside Virginia, where 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-202

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

sections of the ROW have been sold to adjacent landowners, such as a 1.3 mile long section 

at the Nottoway River in Dinwiddie County owned by Reedy Creek Farm Associates. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

There are no changes to the description provided in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS of the rail network within the Study Area in North Carolina. 

In North Carolina, the Study Area continues to follow the inactive CSX S-Line to Norlina, 

NC. Between Norlina, NC, and Raleigh, NC, the CSX S-Line is an active freight railroad 

that carries approximately four local trains daily. There are no active railroads that intersect 

the Study Area until it reaches Capital Boulevard in downtown Raleigh, NC. At this point, 

the Study Area widens to include both the CSX S-Line and the Norfolk Southern NS-Line. 

At this same location, the Carolina Coastal Railway (CNLA) short line railroad intersects 

both the NS and CSX lines through at-grade switch connections. 

In the downtown area of Raleigh, NC, the Norfolk Southern NS-Line carries eight trains 

daily, and there are approximately eight trains operating daily on the CSX S-Line between 

Capital Yard and the Boylan Wye, which is the southern terminus of the Project. The North 

Carolina Railroad (NCRR) intersects the corridor at the Boylan Wye. The NCRR leases 

trackage rights to both NS and CSX, and it is a more heavily used freight and passenger 

corridor, carrying approximately 16 trains daily. The SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS identified 

the NCRR corridor for service between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC. The NS Fuquay Line 

also intersects the corridor at the Boylan Wye, with a diamond connection at the Boylan 

Avenue bridge. 

STATIONS 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS contained a discussion regarding station locations 

in Chapters 3 and 4. However, this document does not evaluate environmental impacts related to 

specific station locations, but rather provides a general discussion of potential station locations in 

relationship to the larger transportation network. As stated in the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II DEIS, specific station locations within municipalities will be determined in the future by 

the local governments with the passenger service operator, and appropriate levels of 

environmental documentation will be undertaken at that time. For the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II FEIS, the Project Team determined the discussion regarding stations was more 

appropriately placed within Chapter 1 and was, therefore, moved to the Project Description in 

Section 1.4. 

TRANSIT 

In the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, connectivity to local public transportation was 

discussed under “Stations” (Sections 3.17 and 4.1). To address public comments, a new separate 

section has been added to the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS. 

As described in Chapter 1, the intent of the Project is to be connected to other forms of transit to 

enhance regional connectivity. The following public transit service agencies either currently 

provide, or are anticipated to be expanded to provide public transit (bus or van) services for 

SEHSR passengers at rail stations in the following locations: 

 Richmond, VA - GRTC 

 Petersburg Area, VA - Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) and GRTC 

 La Crosse, VA - Lake Area Bus (LAB) 

 Henderson, NC - Kerr Area Rural Transportation System (KARTS) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-203

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Raleigh, NC - CAT and TT 

Discussion regarding the impact of the preferred alternative on existing and planned transit 

systems (bus, light rail, commuter rail, etc.) is provided in Chapter 4. 

AVIATION 

This section is new to the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS and was added to address a 

request by the Virginia Department of Aviation’s Airport Services Division to identify all 

applicable airport runways within 20,000 linear feet of the Preferred Alternative. Chapter 4 

contains discussion regarding the likelihood of the Project in penetrating an existing or proposed 

Part 77 surface or approach path as defined in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory 

Circular 150/5300. 

Table 3-34 below, lists airports located within 20,000 feet of the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Tier II FEIS Preferred Alternative. 

Table 3-34 

Airports Located Near Study Area 

Name Airport ID Location Runway 

Length (ft.) 

Distance 

Between 

Runway and 

Study Corridor 

(ft.) 

Mecklenburg-Brunswick 

Regional Airport AVC South Hill, VA 5,000 10,300 

Chesterfield County FCI Richmond, VA 5,500 18,900 

Dinwiddie County PTB Petersburg, VA 5,000 10,000 

UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES 

The text for this section has been summarized from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, 

except for the discussion on water supply, which has been amended to address public and agency 

questions and comments. 

Utilities are, by definition, a commodity or service provided for public use. As discussed in Section 

3.18 of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the Study Area contains municipal, regional, 

interstate and private utility infrastructure systems, including: sanitary sewer collection and treatment; 

storm water collection and discharge; electric power generation and distribution; communications 

facilities and cabling; natural gas storage and distribution; petroleum storage and transportation; solid 

waste collection and management facilities; and, interstate pipelines. For more detail on those systems 

in the Study Area, please see Section 3.18 of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. For a 

discussion of the potential impact to these utilities from the proposed Preferred Alternative for the 

Project, see Section 4.15. 

WATER SUPPLY 

Water treatment and supply facilities are owned, operated and maintained by municipalities, 

counties or private entities in the Study Area. Some of the rural counties and communities have 

joined together to form regional water authorities that serve the municipal water system function. 

The infrastructure for water systems varies throughout the Study Area. Each system may include 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-204

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

different combinations of major structures such as groundwater wells, water supply reservoirs and 

intakes, water treatment plants, pumping stations, and water towers/tanks. Most water systems 

also include minor structures, e.g., fire hydrants, meters, valves and back-flow preventers. A 

network of underground pipes integrates these major and minor structures. 

The data sources were different for each state. Table 3-35 lists groundwater wells that are within 

a 1,000 foot radius of the SEHSR Study Area in Virginia. Table 3-36 lists the public water supply 

groundwater wells that are located within the SEHSR Study Area in North Carolina. 

Table 3-35 

Virginia Groundwater Wells Within 1,000 Feet of Study Areaa 

Well Owner Milepost Marker (Approximate) 

Southside Elementary School S-32.5/S-33 

Food Lion S-36.25 

Dinwiddie Elementary School S-37 

Hoagie Bob's S-38.5 

Home Place Restaurant S-38.5 

Town of McKinney-North Well S-47 

Town of McKinney-South Well S-47 

Town of McKinney-Well 01 S-48.5 

Hillcrest Mobile Home Park* S-77/S-78 

Source: Virginia Department of Health, 2010 

* The wells at Hillcrest Mobile Home Park are no longer required to follow Virginia Waterworks Regulations (Virginia 

Department of Health correspondence, 20120); however, the Project team confirmed two active wells at the location. 

Table 3-36 

North Carolina Public Water Supply Groundwater Wells Within Study Area 

ID Owner Site Location 

0235452 Church of God of Prophecy Left side of church 

0392222 Aqua North Carolina Inc. Ligon Mill Rd at RR crossing 

0291470 Brookston Baptist Church Far right of parking lot 

0291538 Kittrell Church of God Front yard adjacent to house 

4035007 Living Springs Church of God Front left corner of parking lot 

Source: NCDENR, 2009 

In Virginia, the Study Area falls within Zone 2 (greater than 5 miles into the watershed) of five 

surface water intakes, as shown in Table 3-37. The Study Area does not fall within Zone 1 (up to 

5 miles into the watershed) of any public surface water intakes. 

In North Carolina, there is one surface water intake located within the Study Area. The 

Burlington Industries Inc. – Wake Forest site at 9701 Capital Boulevard, on the Neuse River, in 

Section U is not currently in use. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-205

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 3-37 

Virginia Surface Water Intakes with Zone 2 (greater than 5 miles into the watershed) 

River Basin Surface Water Intake Owner Water Source 

James Virginia American Water Company 

Hopewell 

Appomattox 

Chowan Greensville County WSA-Jarratt Nottoway 

Chowan Town of Lawrenceville Meherrin 

Chowan Town of Lawrenceville Great Creek 

Chowan City of Emporia Meherrin 

Chowan City of Norfolk Nottoway 

Roanoke City of Norfolk- Left VB Intake Lake Gaston 

Roanoke City of Norfolk- Right VB Intake Lake Gaston 

Source: Virginia Department of Health, 2010. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

The text for this section is repeated in its entirety from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, 

with no changes. In Virginia, safety measures appropriate to the existing average daily traffic at each 

crossing are in place along the active rail line between Main Street Station in Richmond, and Collier 

Yard in south Petersburg. These measures range from crossbucks only at very low volume and 

private crossings; to quad gates with signals; to fully grade separated crossings such as bridges or 

underpasses. In addition, all the trains operating along the CSX S-Line and CSX A-Line are 

equipped with on-board horns, which are used to warn vehicular and pedestrian traffic of the 

approach of trains at every at-grade crossing. 

In the areas of Virginia within and south of Petersburg, where the corridor follows inactive or 

abandoned rail ROW, the safety measures remaining in place are those that have not been removed 

since the rail line became inactive. 

In North Carolina, between the state line and Norlina, where the rail is inactive, the safety measures 

remaining in place are those that have not been removed since the rail line became inactive. 

From Norlina, NC, where the CSX S-Line becomes an active freight railroad to the Boylan Wye in 

Raleigh (including the active NS-Line in Downtown Raleigh) common safety measures are in place at 

all active grade crossings. Common safety measures include the appropriate crossing protection for 

the existing volume of traffic using that crossing on the average day. The safety measures range from 

crossbucks only at very low volume and private crossings; to four quadrant gates with median barriers 

and signals at high traffic volume, public locations; to fully grade separated crossings such as bridges 

or underpasses. The safety measures in place are considered adequate for the current freight service, 

which operates between 10 and 25 miles per hour (mph). In addition, all the trains operating along 

the active CSX S-Line and the Norfolk Southern NS-Line in Raleigh are equipped with on-board 

horns, which are used to warn vehicular and pedestrian traffic of the approach of trains at every atgrade crossing. 

In the current security climate, rail line security continues to be a prominent concern. Access points 

are of particular concern. The entire corridor is accessible from many miles of arterial and secondary 

roadways where no security measures are practicable. Standard rail security practices are in place at 

all rail yards throughout the corridor. 

This Project assumes that all freight and passenger trains will share all tracks along all segments of 

the Project corridor (refer to Figure 1-4 for proposed rail improvements and associated MAS 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 3-206

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

throughout the Project corridor). However, FRA regulations will require the preparation of a system 

safety plan, with partnership from the operating freight railroads, for the delivery of the new 

passenger HSR service or shared freight service prior to authorization to operate the new service at 

any speed. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

A condensed format was used for this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as clarified in the 

Executive Summary of this report. 

The discussion on environmental consequences in this chapter summarizes the potential effects on the 

human, physical, and natural environments that may result from the construction and operation of the 

Preferred Alternative for the Richmond to Raleigh Project. All references to “Study Area” and “Project” 

below pertain to the Richmond to Raleigh Project, unless otherwise noted. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative was selected as the “best-fit” from the three 

alternative alignments presented in the Tier II DEIS within each of the 26 sections of the Project. The 

impacts presented in this chapter are therefore based on the proposed preliminary engineering designs for 

the Preferred Alternative, composed of the recommended rail alignment within each section and its 

associated roadway modifications. 

As presented in Chapter 2, and further discussed in this chapter, several changes have been made to the 

railroad and roadway designs for the Preferred Alternative (from the alternative designs presented in the 

Tier II DEIS), to avoid or minimize impacts to human, physical or natural resources. To further mitigate 

impacts of the Preferred Alternative on affected resources, other mitigation measures are also identified, 

and are discussed within the resource sections, as applicable. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Potential Project impacts to streams, wetlands, and other jurisdictional waters are discussed in the 

following sections, followed by discussion of potential permits required. Clean Water Act - Waters of 

the US, Clean Water Act Permits, Construction Moratoria, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

regulations, North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules, and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 - 

Navigable Waters are addressed. Stormwater, floodplain, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act impacts are 

also discussed. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to these resources, and mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams are addressed in Sections 4.1.5 and 4.1.6. 

SURFACE WATERS 

Impacts to the surface waters described in Section 3.1.1 are likely to result from activities associated 

with Project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, 

in-stream construction, extending or replacing existing pipes and culverts, bridge construction, 

fertilizer and pesticide application during re-vegetation, and railroad installation. 

Erosion associated with construction activities can be 200 times greater than that from cropland and 

2,000 times greater than that naturally occurring in woodlands. The majority of the Study Area is 

located in woodland areas. Erosion problems associated with construction activities include water 

pollution, flooding, stream channel damage, decreased groundwater storage, slope failures, damage to 

adjacent and/or downstream properties, and the time and costs associated with addressing these 

issues. 

The following impacts to surface water resources could potentially result from Project construction 

activities: 

 Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to forest clearing, necessary for the 

maintenance of the railroad corridor 

 Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to increased light incidence from 

vegetation removal 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Increased sedimentation as a result of vegetation removal primarily from access roads and 

skid trails 

 Increased sedimentation from erosion in the Study Area associated with grading new 

alignments and repairing old slopes on the existing railroad corridor 

 Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and 

groundwater flow from construction 

 Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater 

drainage patterns 

 Channel alteration from stream crossings because culverts are often under or oversized 

causing destabilization of the stream channel morphology up and downstream 

 Increased siltation downstream of the stream crossings as culverts are repaired or installed 

 Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas 

 Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction 

equipment and other vehicles 

VDRPT and NCDOT will minimize construction related impacts by implementing erosion and 

sediment control (ESC) measures on construction sites to prevent soil movement/loss in the first 

place, enhance Project aesthetics, reduce complaints, and most importantly, eliminate appreciable 

damage to off-site receiving channels, property and natural resources. 

In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the Study Area, VDRPT and NCDOT 

will strictly enforce the most recent edition of VDCR’s Erosion Sediment Control Handbook and 

NCDOT’s Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters during the construction 

phase of the Project. 

VDRPT and NCDOT will limit in-stream activities and re-vegetate streambanks immediately 

following the completion of grading in order to further reduce impacts. In addition, whenever 

possible, VDRPT and NCDOT will use bridges or bottomless culverts to maintain adequate fish 

passage and stream channel morphological integrity. 

STREAMS 

Jurisdictional streams in the Study Area have been designated as warm water streams for the 

purposes of stream mitigation. Potential Project impacts to 40,679 linear feet of jurisdictional 

intermittent and perennial channels, including 3,651 linear feet of Section 303(d) listed streams are 

anticipated. Stream impacts were calculated by determining the length of field-delineated 

jurisdictional channel within 25 feet of the Project slope-stake line. As noted in Section 3.1.1, more 

detailed identification of the nature of affected streams (e.g. perennial/intermittent classification) 

will take place during Section 401 Water Quality Certification (33 U.S.C. § 1341) and Section 404 

permitting required by of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1344). The Project is not 

anticipated to cause or contribute to significant degradation of 303(d) listed streams or other 

jurisdictional aquatic resources. 

VIRGINIA 

Potential Project impacts (in linear feet) to streams in the James, Chowan, and Roanoke River 

Basins in Virginia are summarized by section in Table 4-1. The portion of these impact totals 

that are Section 303(d)-listed streams are also tabulated. 

Potential Project impacts to streams in the James River basin were the same for each of the three 

Virginia alternatives, so selection of Alternative VA1 as the Preferred Alternative for these 

sections offers no advantage for impact minimization. 

In the Chowan River Basin, the Project alternative with the least potential impact to streams was 

selected for all sections except for Sections B and D. Alternative VA1/VA3 was selected for 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Section B in part to minimize noise impacts, business relocations, and to maintain operating 

speed to meet purpose and need. In Section D, a new alternative (VA4) was developed to avoid 

effects to an historic property, avoid impacts to a Michaux’s sumac population, and reduce 

wetland impacts compared with alternative VA2. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional discussion 

regarding selection of the Preferred Alternative in these sections. 

In the Roanoke River Basin in Virginia, the Project alternative with the least potential impact to 

streams was selected as the Preferred Alternative for all sections. 

Streams to be potentially impacted in Virginia include Goode Creek (S010, S010A); No Name 

Creek (unnamed tributary to the James River; S025A, S025B, S025C, & S029); Kingsland Creek 

(S035); Proctors Creek (S040); Oldtown Creek (S071); and Buckskin Creek (S178) on the 303(d) 

list due to Escherichia coli. Kingsland Creek and Timsbury Creek (S059A) are also listed due to 

pH. Proctors Creek and Oldtown Creek are listed due to Benthic Macroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments. Rowanty Creek and tributaries (S103, S103A, & S104) and Hatcher Run (S107) 

are listed due to Dissolved Oxygen and Hatcher Run is also listed due to Mercury in Fish Tissue. 

Table 4-1 

Potential Impacts to Stream Channels in Virginia (linear feet) 

Section River Basin Streams 303(d) Listed 

Streams 

AA 

James 

3,919 2,391 

BB 2,078 28 

CC 2,405 31 

James Subtotal: 8,402 2,450 

DD 

Chowan 

585 85 

A 3,094 284 

B 760 0 

C 2,803 203 

D 1,998 0 

E 860 0 

F 1,004 0 

G 510 0 

H 2,808 0 

Chowan Subtotal: 14,422 606 

I 

Roanoke, VA 

22 0 

J 420 0 

K 1,419 0 

L 497 0 

Roanoke, VA Subtotal: 2,358 0 

VA Total: 25,182 3,056 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Potential Project impacts to streams in the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse River Basins in 

North Carolina are summarized by section in Table 4-2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-4 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Potential Project impacts to streams in North Carolina have been minimized through selection of 

the Project alternative affecting the least linear footage for all sections except for Sections L, O, 

T, and U. In Sections L and O in the Roanoke River Basin, the Preferred Alternatives are Section 

4(f) avoidance alternatives, which necessitate additional stream impacts. In Sections T and U in 

the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, selection of Preferred Alternative was based on many factors 

including operating speed, operability and construction limitations. Refer to Chapter 2 for 

additional discussion regarding selection of the Preferred Alternative in these sections. 

Streams potentially impacted in North Carolina include Perry Creek (S487) and Marsh Creek 

(S495) on the Section 303(d) list due to Ecological/Biological Integrity - Benthos. Fishing Creek 

(S370) is 303(d) listed due to Dissolved Oxygen. 

Table 4-2 

Potential Impacts to Stream Channels in North Carolina 

(linear feet) 

Section River Basin Streams 303(d) 

L 

Roanoke, NC 

2,005 0 

M 442 0 

N 42 0 

O 53 0 

P 777 0 

Roanoke NC Subtotal: 3,319 0 

N 

Tar-Pamlico 

344 0 

O 3,049 565 

P 755 0 

Q 1,127 0 

R 438 0 

S 1,620 0 

Tar-Pamlico Subtotal: 7,333 565 

T 

Neuse 

415 0 

U 3,394 0 

V 1,036 95 

Neuse Subtotal: 4,845 95 

NC Total: 15,497 660 

The James, Appomattox, Nottoway, Meherrin, and Roanoke Rivers in Virginia; and the Tar and 

Neuse Rivers in North Carolina are Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act. As discussed in Chapter 4.14.3.1, the three proposed rail alternatives are on common 

alignment at the crossings of these rivers and major creeks (Cedar Creek and Crabtree Creek in 

North Carolina). 

RIPARIAN AREAS AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 

Within Tidewater Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-2100) 

(CBPA) regulates Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas that include land areas adjacent to water 

bodies. Within the Study Area, the cities of Richmond, VA, Colonial Heights, VA, and Petersburg, 

VA, as well as Chesterfield County, VA, are subject to the CBPA. Chapter 20 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-5 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Section 9VAC 10-20-150 of the CBPA, “Nonconformities, exemptions, and exceptions,” excludes 

public utilities, railroads, public roads, and facilities from the requirements of the CBPA. The 

Project is subject to this exemption, provided that the Project and related construction activities 

follow local, state, and Federal water quality regulations. The Project is committed to complying 

with all applicable water quality regulations and permit requirements, as well as to minimizing all 

impacts to water quality as designs are finalized. This includes complying with the Virginia 

Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§62.1-44.15:51 et seq.) and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Act.(§62.1-44.15:24 et seq). 

Streamside riparian zones within the Study Area in North Carolina are protected under provisions 

of the Tar-Pamlico and the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0259 and 

15A NCAC 02B .0233, respectively) administered by NCDWR. The rules protect two riparian 

zones: Zone 1 extends 30 feet from stream bank and Zone 2 extends from 30 to 50 feet from the 

stream bank. Table 4-3 summarizes the potential impacts (in square feet) to each riparian buffer 

zone for each section of the Project in the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River Basins. 

Table 4-3 

Potential Impacts to Tar-Pamlico and Neuse Riparian Buffers (square feet) 

Section Zone 1 Zone 2 Total 

N 21,964 16,097 38,061 

O 145,656 115,503 261,159 

P 48,940 33,741 82,681 

Q 77,743 61,031 138,774 

R 23,935 13,337 37,272 

S 104,397 73,537 177,934 

Tar-Pamlico: 422,635 313,246 735,881 

T 25,937 17,638 43,575 

U 219,901 148,808 368,709 

V 71,017 55,067 126,084 

Neuse: 316,855 221,513 538,368 

Total: 739,490 534,759 1,274,249 

The Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules provide that: 

 Railroad crossings that impact equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer are 

exempt. 

 Railroad crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear 

feet or one-third of an acre (14,520 square feet) of riparian buffer are allowable provided that 

there are no practicable alternatives. 

 Railroad crossings that impact greater than 150 linear feet or one-third of an acre of riparian 

buffer will require mitigation. 

Based on the buffer impacts listed in Table 4-3, as well as the linear footages of the corresponding 

stream impacts (from Table 4-2), mitigation will be required for impacts to riparian buffers at each 

stream crossing in North Carolina. Mitigation for impacted riparian buffers, where required, will 

be coordinated directly with NCDWR. 

As described in Chapter 2, recommendations for the preferred alternative in Sections O, T, and U 

were based on avoidance of resources other than streams, and subsequently do not result in the least 

impacts to riparian buffers. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-6 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Other Jurisdictional Surface Waters - The Project will potentially affect other jurisdictional 

waters (such as lakes, ponds, and reservoirs). Potential Project impacts (in acres) to other waters in 

the Chowan and Roanoke River Basins in Virginia are summarized by section in Table 4-4. The 

alternatives selected for each of the Virginia sections with potential impacts to lakes, ponds, and 

reservoirs were not necessarily the ones involving lowest impact to other waters. Other water 

resources (streams, wetlands, riparian buffers) were assigned more value in determining the least 

environmentally damaging practicable alternative, consistent with the relative environmental value 

of man-made lakes, ponds, and reservoirs versus natural streams, rivers, riparian areas, and 

wetlands. 

Table 4-4 

Potential Impacts to Other Jurisdictional Surface Waters in 

Virginia 

Section River Basin Impact (acres) 

AA 

James 

0.7 

BB 0.4 

CC 0.03 

James Subtotal: 1.13 

DD 

Chowan 

1.7 

A 0.4 

D 0.2 

E 0.01 

H 0.06 

Chowan Subtotal: 2.37 

K 

Roanoke, VA 

0.1 

L 0.3 

Roanoke, VA Subtotal: 0.4 

VA Total: 3.9 

Potential Project impacts (in acres) to other waters in the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse Rivers 

Basins in North Carolina are summarized by section in Table 4.5. Selection of the alternative 

having the least impacts to other waters was recommended for all North Carolina sections with the 

exception of Sections L and U. As described in Section 4.1.1.1, other factors more heavily 

influenced the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative for these sections. Refer to Chapter 2 

for additional discussion regarding selection of the Preferred Alternative in these sections. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-7 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-5 

Potential Impacts to Other Jurisdictional Surface Waters in 

NC 

Section River Basin Impact (acres) 

L 

Roanoke, NC 

1.25 

O 0.16 

P 0.03 

Roanoke, NC Subtotal: 1.44 

P 

 

0.001 

R 0.002 

S 0.01 

Tar-Pamlico Subtotal: 0.013 

U 0.24 

Neuse Subtotal: 0.24 

NC Total: 1.693 

Water Supply Reservoirs - No direct impacts to water supply reservoirs are contemplated by the 

Project in VA or NC. 

STORMWATER/DRAINAGE 

Increased stormwater runoff from Project development can impact stream channel networks and 

land surfaces through two means: longer-term impacts caused by runoff from increased impervious 

surface and short-term impacts caused by land disturbance during construction. These separate 

impacts are discussed in this section, followed by a discussion regarding strategies for mitigation. 

The Project will increase the amount of impervious surface in the watersheds, which can cause 

increased stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff from roadways carries substantial quantities of 

silt, heavy metals, petroleum products, nitrogen, and phosphorus. These materials can potentially 

degrade water quality and aquatic habitat integrity. The effects on water quality depend on the size 

of the waterways crossed and the number of such crossings. In general, additional road runoff as a 

result of the Project will be minimal because the increases in impervious surface are small. Streams 

with low flow are more severely affected since they have less volume to dilute the runoff. 

Stormwater runoff from railroads is less pronounced than that from roadways because much of the 

railroad corridor is permeable to rainfall (i.e., ballast and side slopes). However, some runoff will 

collect in ditches adjacent to the railroad corridor. This runoff may carry similar pollutants to and 

have similar impacts to surface waters as runoff from roadways with shoulders. 

Short-term impacts on water quality within the Study Area may result from soil erosion and 

sedimentation due to land-disturbing activities during construction. Land-disturbing activities 

include construction of the tracks, bridges, communication facilities, and other related structures 

and facilities of the railroad, including road crossings and alterations, as well as clearing of ROW, 

staging areas, access roads, and borrow/spoil areas. Construction-related impacts are likely to be 

similar for road and rail. Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation can potentially destroy aquatic 

algae, eliminate benthic macroinvertebrate habitat, eradicate fish spawning habitat, and remove 

food resources for many stream species. 

The Project will be designed and constructed to meet all current Federal, state, and local 

requirements for water quality and stormwater management. These requirements include permits, 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-8 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

plans, and temporary best management practices (BMPs) to manage stormwater runoff during 

construction, as well as design criteria for permanent rail and road runoff control and treatment 

measures. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized 

through implementation of stringent erosion control practices and use of BMPs. The regulations 

and their requirements are discussed below for both Virginia and North Carolina. 

Long-term impacts on water quality are also possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic 

matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway and railway 

runoff. 

The Project Team will incorporate the following mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce shortterm and long-term water quality impacts wherever practicable: 

 Development of roadway and railway alignments that avoid streams and ponds to the extent 

possible 

 Use of design measures to protect water quality, including avoiding stormwater discharge 

into public water supplies, minimizing stream crossings, and minimizing segments of 

roadway or railway that closely parallels streams 

 Use of grass shoulders, grass lined ditches, and vegetative buffers to intercept 

highway/railway runoff 

 Implementation of construction practices that protect stream bottom habitat from siltation by 

sedimentation control, retention of riparian vegetation buffers, and restoration of stream 

bottom habitat taken by construction 

 Countersink culverts to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms 

 Avoid installation of bridge bents in creeks 

 Avoid placing sediment and erosion control measures in wetlands or streams 

 Restricting the use of scuppers (bridge deck drains) in bridges that span water bodies. 

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES 

Impacts to water supplies are not anticipated. Best Management Practices will be employed along 

the Project corridor, including erosion and sediment controls and Spill Prevention Controls and 

Countermeasures. 

GROUNDWATER WELLS 

The Preferred Alternative avoids direct impacts to all identified public groundwater wells with the 

exception of one on Ligon Mill Road in Wake Forest, NC, in Section U. It is anticipated that the 

impact to this well can be mitigated with a connection to a public water supply or the well will be 

relocated, if necessary. This issue will be addressed during the final design stage of the Project, at 

which time the Project Team will coordinate with the owner of the well. 

The Preferred Alternative will impact a private well serving Hillcrest Mobile Home Park, located 

north of La Crosse, VA in Section I. The Mecklenburg County, VA, Health Department has 

indicated that there is sufficient land available within the Hillcrest property to accommodate 

relocation of the drinking water well. During final design, a suitable new water source will be 

identified to ensure a continuous, safe, and sanitary water source for the residents. 

WETLANDS 

Wetlands are categorized as “Waters of the United States” as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in 

accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1344). These 

waters are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to 

dredge or place fill material into wetlands is subject to these provisions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-9 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Potential Project impacts (in acres) to jurisdictional wetlands in the James, Chowan, and Roanoke 

River Basins in Virginia are summarized by section in Table 4-6. The alternative with least impact to 

wetlands has been selected for each Virginia section with the exception of Sections DD, B, and D in 

the Chowan River basin; and Section J in the Roanoke River basin. 

Table 4-6 

Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands in Virginia 

Section River Basin Impact (acres) 

AA 

James 

2.3 

BB 5.2 

CC 1.2 

James Subtotal: 8.7 

CC 

Chowan

1.4 

DD* 2.4 

A 2.8 

B 0.6 

C 2.2 

D 2.0 

E 1.2 

F 0.6 

G 0.3 

H 0.4 

I 0.001 

Chowan Subtotal: 13.9 

I 

Roanoke, VA 

0.0 

J 0.2 

K 0.9 

L 0.0002 

Roanoke, VA Subtotal: 1.1 

VA Total: 23.7 

In Section DD, the Preferred Alternative was selected to minimize the effect to the Weldon 

Railroad/Globe Tavern Battlefield, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). In Section B the Preferred Alternative was selected to minimize noise impacts, business 

relocations and to maintain operating speed directed by the purpose and need. In Section D, the 

Preferred Alternative (VA4) was developed to avoid effects to an historic property, avoid impacts to a 

Michaux’s sumac population, and reduce wetland impacts compared with Alternative VA2. In 

Section J, the Preferred Alternative was selected in part to avoid stream impacts. Refer to Chapter 2 

for more information regarding selection of the Preferred Alternative in these sections. 

Potential Project impacts to wetlands (in acres) in the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, and Neuse River Basins 

in North Carolina are summarized by section in Table 4-7. The alternative with least impact to 

wetlands has been selected for each North Carolina section with the exception of Sections L, N, S, T, 

and U. In these sections, avoidance of significant resources other than wetlands led to Preferred 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-10 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alternatives that do not have the least impact to wetlands. In Sections N and S, additional wetland 

impacts are recommended in order to minimize impacts to significant stream and other natural 

resources. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional information regarding selection of the Preferred 

Alternative in these sections. 

Table 4-7 

Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands in North Carolina 

Section River Basin Impact (acres) 

L 

Roanoke, NC 

0.72 

P 0.49 

Roanoke Subtotal: 1.21 

N 

Tar-Pamlico 

1.25 

O 0.3 

P 0.42 

Q 0.03 

S 0.48 

Tar-Pamlico Subtotal: 2.48 

T 

Neuse 

0.07 

U 0.38 

V 0.05 

Neuse Subtotal: 0.5 

NC Total: 4.19 

FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS 

This section discusses the potential for floodplain impacts within the Study Area. Floodplain areas 

were defined in Section 3.1.1 and shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. Data from Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were analyzed and the FEMA 

zone designations were determined for the 100-year FEMA floodplains crossed by the Study Area. 

The alignment of the Preferred Alternative was reviewed to determine the area it will encroach on a 

FEMA floodplain within each section of the Project. Specific designs (i.e., including elevations) 

were considered. Also, the analysis considered whether the floodplain crossing was at grade or over a 

structure that would minimally contact the floodplain (e.g., a wide span bridge). 

Table 4-8 lists the area of FEMA floodplain that will be encroached upon by section. 

Reviewing the impacts at each crossing allows for determination of specific acreages of potential 

impact. The slope stakes (i.e., construction limits) in the current design files do not extend under the 

existing or proposed bridges, so no floodplain impacts are counted in these areas. Some of the 

structures may have piers on the floodplain. Placement of the structure piers will not be decided until 

final design so it is not possible to assess the floodplain impact of piers at this stage. NCDOT and 

VDRPT will re-examine these floodplain crossings once the final designs have been completed. 

Mitigation includes designing the proposed floodplain crossing to minimize or eliminate an increase 

in the base flood elevation. Mitigation measures include right angle crossings and typical section 

reductions. 

FEMA Executive Order 11988, (May, 1977) (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to 

avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-11 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall 

provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following actions: 

 Acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; 

 Providing Federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; 

 Conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to 

water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing activities. 

Summary of Requirements 

The guidelines for Executive Order 11988 address an eight-step process that agencies should carry 

out as part of their decision-making on projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain. 

The eight steps, which are summarized below, reflect the decision-making process required in Section 

2(a) of the Order. 

 Determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain (that area which has a one percent or 

greater chance of flooding in any given year). 

 Conduct early public review, including public notice. 

 Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base floodplain, including 

alternative sites outside of the floodplain. 

 Identify impacts of the proposed action. 

 If impacts cannot be avoided, develop measures to minimize the impacts and restore and 

preserve the floodplain, as appropriate. 

 Reevaluate alternatives. 

 Present the findings and a public explanation. 

 Implement the action. 

Among a number of things, the Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management clarified the 

Executive Order with respect to development in floodplains, emphasizing the requirement for 

agencies to select alternative sites for projects outside the floodplains, if practicable, and to develop 

measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts. 

The Project Team will coordinate with FEMA and local authorities during final design to ensure 

compliance with applicable floodplain management/development ordinances. Also, the NCDOT 

Hydraulics Unit and Virginia DRPT will coordinate with FEMA to determine if a Conditional Letter 

of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required for 

the Project. Floodplain development permits will be obtained from the local jurisdictions and include 

a no-rise/impact certification for each regulated floodplain/floodway and/or non-encroachment area 

crossing or a submittal for a CLOMR per 44 CFR Section 65.12. 

Table 4-8 

FEMA Mapped 100-Year Floodplain Impacts 

Section 

Preferred Alternative 

Floodplain Impact 

(acres) 

AA 25.72 

BB 11.4 

CC 6.16 

DD 4.63 

A 4.67 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-12 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-8 

FEMA Mapped 100-Year Floodplain Impacts 

Section 

Preferred Alternative 

Floodplain Impact 

(acres) 

B 0.85 

C 6.38 

D 1.31 

E 0.85 

F 3.2 

G 0.32 

H 0.06 

I 0 

J 0 

K 0.19 

L (VA) 0.04 

L (NC) 0 

M 0 

N 0 

O 0 

P 0 

Q 0 

R 0.04 

S 0.42 

T 0 

U 0 

V 1.38 

Total 67.62 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

As stated in Section 3.1.4, there are four rivers in the Study Area designated as Virginia Scenic 

Rivers: the James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River. The Nottaway 

River and Meherrin Rivers are listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) (see Table 3-5). In 

North Carolina, the Tar River is listed on the NRI through the Study Area. For all of the proposed 

crossings, the Project alternatives cross the listed rivers on common alignments, and the river will be 

spanned by a bridge. 

In Virginia, the Project will cross the James River on a new bridge adjacent to the existing singletrack bridge. At the Appomattox River, a new parallel bridge is proposed for high speed passenger 

trains, located to the east of the existing single-track bridge. The Project will utilize the existing 

bridge piers and substructure of the bridges at the Nottaway and Meherrin Rivers (pending results of a 

detailed bridge investigation that would occur prior to final design). The superstructure (girders, 

decking and track) will be replaced at the Nottoway River, while the existing girders and decking will 

be retained at the Meherrin River. There is no conflict with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; 

however, coordination with the Virginia Scenic Rivers Board will be required to comply with the 

Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 for the new structures on the James and Appomattox Rivers. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-13 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

In North Carolina, the Tar River will be crossed on the existing single-track bridge. The substructure 

will be utilized, as well as the superstructure (girders and decking). 

PERMITS 

A discussion of permitting requirements for impacts to wetlands and surface waters is provided 

below, and is followed by a discussion of permitting requirements for waters over which the US 

Coast Guard has jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Project is exempt from the CBPA, 

provided that the Project complies with all applicable local, state, and Federal water quality 

regulations and permit requirements. Permit applications will be filed after the ROD is signed, prior 

to construction. 

SECTION 404/401 PERMITS 

Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of “Waters of the United States” as 

defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1344). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface 

waters or wetlands is subject to these provisions. Some excavation/dredging in waters of the U.S. 

may not be considered a jurisdictional activity, depending on how the activity is conducted. 

The USACE issues either general or individual permits. An individual permit (IP) is generally 

reserved for projects with potential for substantial environmental impacts. An IP requires a full 

public interest review, including public notices and coordination with involved agencies, interested 

parties, and the general public. A general permit, either through the Nationwide Permit and the 

Regional General Permit programs, is reserved for only the most minor impacts to streams, 

wetlands, and other waters. An IP is required for impacts greater than 1/2-acre of wetlands and/or 

300 linear feet streams. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and perennial streambed or important 

intermittent streambed that result from activities authorized under an IP require compensatory 

mitigation. 

Due to the placement of fill associated with crossing over and filling in of jurisdictional waters (i.e., 

wetlands and surface waters), it will be necessary for the Project Team to obtain permits for the 

Project from the USACE, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and NCDWR. 

Section 401 of the CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be 

violated for activities that either involve issuance of a Federal permit or license, or require 

discharges to waters of the United States. The USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a 

Section 401 certification is issued. Therefore, the Project Team must apply to VDEQ and NCDWR 

for Section 401 Water Quality Certification as part of the permit process. Based on the assessments 

summarized in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, it is likely that a Section 404 IP requiring mitigation will 

be required for the Project. Temporary activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or 

temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation should also be 

included in the permit application. The USACE will determine what permit(s) will be required to 

authorize Project construction. 

In Virginia, the Project Team will complete a Joint Permit Application to apply for a Section 404 

permit, Section 401 certification (Virginia Water Protection Permit), and a subaqueous permit from 

the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The Virginia Water Protection Permit 

(VWPP) is a state permit which governs wetlands, surface water, and surface water 

withdrawals/impoundments. It also serves as § 401 certification of the Federal Clean Water Act § 

404 permits for dredge and fill activities in waters of the U.S. The subaqueous permit is needed to 

encroach upon or over bottomlands under VMRC jurisdiction, which include submerged lands 

(beds of lakes, rivers, and streams) including non-tidal, perennial tributaries draining five square 

miles or greater. To issue the permit, the VMRC must determine that the Project is necessary, that 

there are no reasonable alternatives requiring less environmental disruption, and that adverse effects 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-14 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

do not unreasonably interfere with other private and public rights to the use of waterways and 

bottomlands. 

The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program was established in 1986 to protect and manage 

Virginia’s coastal areas. This program is part of national coastal preservation effort authorized 

under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451-1464, Chapter 33). Virginia’s 

Coastal Zone Management area consists mostly of Tidewater Virginia as defined by the Code of 

Virginia §28.2-100. In particular, several localities within the Study Area are within Virginia’s 

coastal zone, including; City of Richmond, VA, Chesterfield County, VA, City of Colonial Heights, 

VA, and City of Petersburg, VA. As a result, final design plans for the Project will be subject to a 

Federal Consistency Review, which outlines any affects to the land, water, or natural resources 

within Virginia’s coastal zone. Regulations pertaining to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act are 

discussed in Section 4.1.1.2. 

STORMWATER PERMITS 

Since the Project would disturb more than 10,000 square feet, it must obtain a Virginia Stormwater 

Management Program (VSMP) general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit (CWA Section 402) through the VDCR. A site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented. The SWPPP outlines the steps and techniques 

the operator will take to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit, including water 

quality and quantity requirements that are consistent with the VSMP permit regulations, to reduce 

pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the construction site. The SWPPP also includes a 

description of post development stormwater management measures to be installed, including design 

calculations. Prior to construction, an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan and a stormwater 

management (SWM) plan to ensure compliance with state law and regulations will be prepared and 

implemented. 

In North Carolina, the Project Team may also need to obtain an NPDES permit from the NC 

Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NCDEMLR). Although NCDOT has a 

statewide NPDES permit for roads, the railroad portion of the Project is potentially subject to 

NPDES permitting within urban areas. NCDEMLR will determine if such a permit is required. 

The requirements for this permit include public education, illicit discharge identification, and postconstruction stormwater management. 

In North Carolina, a sediment and erosion control permit also must be obtained from the 

NCDEMLR. The Project Team will implement the appropriate sediment and erosion control 

measures as detailed in the most recent version of the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control 

Planning and Design Manual. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, the Project Team 

will investigate and implement appropriate stormwater treatment measures as detailed in the most 

recent version of NCDEMLR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, which may include 

grassed swale treatment, preformed scour holes, other energy dissipater devices, stormwater 

detention basins, pipe-end treatments, and level spreaders to the extent practicable. In addition, the 

Project Team will develop a stormwater management plan and obtain a State Stormwater Permit 

prior to construction. 

NCDOT and VDRPT will require the contractor(s) constructing the Project to follow contract 

specifications pertaining to erosion control measures (as outlined in 23 CFR Part 650, Subpart B 

and Article 107-13) entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution. These measures include 

the following: 

 Use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff during 

construction. Regular maintenance and inspection of these structures is recommended to 

insure effectiveness. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-15 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams and tributaries 

to help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or discharges of other hazardous 

materials into receiving waters. 

 Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites to help alleviate sediment loading and reduce runoff. 

Increased runoff from new highway surfaces can be partially mitigated by providing for 

grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching. 

 Careful management and use of herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds, or other 

chemical constituents to minimize potential negative impacts on water quality. Roadside 

maintenance crews should be well versed in the use of these chemicals. 

 Avoidance of direct discharges into streams whenever feasible. Runoff effluent should be 

allowed to filter through roadside vegetation in order to remove contaminants and to 

minimize runoff velocities. 

In general, sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetlands or streams, 

outfalls will be designed to prevent adverse impacts to the receiving stream or wetland, and impacts 

to riparian buffers and stream bottom habitat will be minimized to the extent practicable. All 

relevant directives with regards to invasive species will be complied with during construction. 

US COAST GUARD PERMITS 

The USCG has jurisdiction over navigable waters (see Section 3.1.5 for discussion regarding 

navigable waters as defined by 33 CFR 2.05-25). A USCG permit will be required for the Project 

crossing of the James River near I-95 in Richmond, VA, which is subject to tidal influence. 

Permits are not required for the crossings of the Appomattox River, Nottoway River, Meherrin 

River, Neuse River, or Tar River because these waterways are not subject to tidal influence nor are 

they used for interstate commerce (see Section 3.1.5). In addition, a permit is not required for the 

crossing of Lake Gaston because the Project will use the existing bridge piers; work will involve 

upgrading the deck of the bridge to the Project design standards. 

At the James River crossing (where all alternatives are on common alignment), the Preferred 

Alternative will construct a new rail bridge immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge located 

between the South 14th Street and I-95 roadway bridges in Richmond, VA. The new bridge will 

provide an additional track that is necessary to accommodate the high speed trains associated with 

the Project. The bridge will provide approximately the same vertical and horizontal clearance for 

boats that the existing bridge provides (within one to two feet, depending on the deck material). 

The existing bridge is at an elevation of 26.3 feet above the average water surface. 

The bridge permit will be prepared as the bridge design is developed. Coordination with the USCG 

has been initiated and will continue throughout the development of the Project. 

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION EVALUATION 

Mitigation is defined in NEPA regulations (40 CFR Section 1508.20 and 40 CFR Part 230) as efforts 

that a) avoid, b) minimize, c) rectify, d) reduce or eliminate, or e) compensate for adverse impacts to 

the environment. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with CWA 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the 

USACE/USEPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); Page and Wilcher 1990), Executive 

Order 11990 (42 FR 26961 [1977]), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mitigation policy 

directives (46 FR 7644-7663 [1981]), and the USACE/USEPA New Mitigation Rule (Compensatory 

Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR 

Part 230, effective on June 6, 2008). 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/USEPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990 stress 

avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of Waters of the US. These 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-16 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

efforts, and other measures that may be implemented later in the design process in consultation with 

the USACE, are described below. 

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION 

The Project designs attempt to maximize use of the existing rail ROW in order to avoid new 

impacts to aquatic resources. However, due to the need to straighten curves (to meet design speed 

dictated by purpose and need) or to avoid impacts to other resources (such as historic properties), 

there are occasions when it is necessary for Project impacts to extend outside the existing ROW. 

During the development of the preliminary engineering designs for each Project alternative, efforts 

were made to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams wherever practicable. Where 

stream crossings were unavoidable, they were located, within design constraints, as perpendicular 

as practicable, in order to minimize the length of stream impacted. Bridges are generally preferred 

over culverts for road crossings, to minimize impacts to streams. 

OTHER AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 

Jurisdictional impacts have been minimized by reducing, where applicable, fill slopes at stream and 

wetland crossings. Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures has 

been applied to minimize degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic 

habitat viability in streams and tributaries. Sediment and erosion control measures will not be 

placed in wetlands or streams and outfalls will be designed to prevent adverse impacts to the 

receiving stream or wetland. Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to 

streams, wetlands, and tributaries will help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or 

discharges of other hazardous materials into receiving waters. Impacts to riparian buffers and 

stream bottom habitat will be minimized to the extent practicable. All relevant directives with 

regards to invasive species will be complied with during construction. More detailed information 

concerning potential impacts to “other waters” and mitigation may be developed during the final 

design and permitting phases of the Project. 

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 

The purpose of compensatory mitigation is to replace the lost functions and values from the impact 

of a project to Waters of the US. Mitigation activities include restoration, creation, enhancement, 

or preservation of wetlands and streams. The amount of mitigation required is determined on a 

case-by-case basis. Typical mitigation ratios (amount of mitigation required compared to amount 

impacted) for wetland mitigation are 2:1 for restoration (meaning 2 acres must be restored for every 

1 acre impacted), 3:1 for creation, from 3:1 to 9:1 for enhancement, and from 10:1 to 20:1 for 

preservation, depending on the type and quality of the wetland being preserved and the extent of 

uplands included in the preserved area. Typical ratios for stream mitigation are 2:1 (2 feet of 

mitigation for every 1 foot impacted) for restoration, 4:1 for enhancement, and 10:1 for 

preservation. In Virginia, the Unified Stream Methodology (USM), developed jointly by the 

Norfolk District and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, provides a guide for 

determining appropriate stream compensation requirements. Appropriate specific mitigation ratios 

for the Norfolk and Wilmington District USACE will be applied during the Section 404 permitting 

process. 

DRPT and NCDOT are responsible for developing compensatory mitigation separately for the their 

respective portions of the Project according to 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332. This rule creates a 

flexible preference for the use of mitigation bank credits to satisfy requirements for mitigation, 

since banks can help reduce many of the risks and uncertainties associated with compensatory 

mitigation. The watershed approach to mitigation also provides for application of in-lieu fee 

programs and permittee-responsible mitigation. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-17 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

In Virginia, mitigation will be provided through the use of mitigation banks and/or the Virginia 

Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (VARTF). The VARTF pursues stream and wetland mitigation 

projects throughout Virginia as an in-lieu fee program. It is administered in partnership with the 

USACE Norfolk District and The Nature Conservancy in Virginia. The use of the VARTF as a 

mitigation option is at the discretion of the appropriate regulatory agencies. There are currently 12 

USACE-pending and 22 USACE-approved mitigation banks listed for the seven Norfolk District 

hydrologic units (HU) intersected by the Project (Regional Internet Banking Information System or 

“RIBITS”). However, there are no credits listed as “available” for the Roanoke River Basin or the 

Meherrin (03010204) HU of the Chowan River basin. Bank credit availability may not currently be 

adequate for potential Project wetland impacts in the Nottoway (03010201) HU or stream impacts 

in the Blackwater (03010202) HU of the Chowan River basin. 

In North Carolina, mitigation will be provided through coordination with the North Carolina 

Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) within the same HU as the potential impacts to 

jurisdictional waters occur. The USACE, NCDOT, and NC Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources entered into a MOA in July 2003 that established procedures for providing 

compensatory mitigation through NCEEP to offset impacts to streams and wetlands from NCDOT 

projects. The three parties agreed that mitigation for transportation projects should occur before 

impacts and using a watershed approach. Appropriate compensatory mitigation requirements for 

wetland and stream impacts from the Preferred Alternative will be determined in consultation with 

the appropriate Federal and state environmental resource and regulatory agencies. 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

TOPOGRAPHY 

The Study Area lies in the Northern Outer Piedmont and Rolling Coastal Plain ecoregions of Virginia 

and the Northern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion of North Carolina. Topography of the Study Area 

ranges from 9 feet above sea level in Richmond, VA, to approximately 445 feet above sea level in 

Youngsville, NC. The various sections chosen as the Preferred Alternative are not anticipated to have 

an effect on area topography. 

GEOLOGY 

There is little difference in the geology along the Project alternatives through the Study Area. All 

alternatives pass through coastal plain sediments in Richmond, VA, and Piedmont igneous and 

metamorphic complexes from Petersburg, VA, through Raleigh, NC, with some isolated areas of 

sedimentary rock. The various sections chosen as the Preferred Alternative are not anticipated to 

have an effect on area geology. 

Within a specific section of the Project, soil and subsurface geology may influence the levels of 

ground-borne vibration, especially the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to 

bedrock (Federal Transit Administration, 2006). See Section 4.7 for more information on specific 

vibration impacts. 

SOILS 

There is little difference in soil types between the Project alternatives. The soils in the Study Area 

will affect the constructability of the various Project sections, however they are not anticipated to be a 

major concern for the various sections chosen as the Preferred Alternative. Soil drainage 

characteristics, shrink-swell potential, and erodibility vary depending on soil types. Generally, well 

drained soils with low shrink swell potential and low erodibility are best suited for rail transport. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-18 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

PRIME AND OTHER IMPORTANT FARMLANDS 

As stated in Section 3.3 and shown in Table 3.7, substantial Prime and Important Farmlands, as well as 

farmlands of statewide and local importance, are located in the Study Area. As required by the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4202(a)) and North Carolina Executive 

Order Number 96, coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for the 

Project was initiated by submittal of Form AD-1006, requesting the Farmland Conversion Impact 

Rating for each county in the Study Area. This coordination effort served as the basis for determining 

the farmland impacts of the Project alternatives. The NRCS responded by completing their portions of 

this form and providing a relative value of farmland that may be affected (converted) by the proposed 

Project. Land that was owned by CSX railroad prior to 1981 is exempt from consideration as prime or 

important farmland, as defined by the regulation. 

The NRCS assigns ratings to potential farmland impacts in order to determine the level of significance 

of these impacts. The ratings are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value 

represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted and is determined by the NRCS on a scale 

from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a sale of 0 to 160 points, evaluates 

farmland soil based on its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. 

The two ratings are combined for a possible total rating of up to 260 points. Sites receiving a total 

score of less than 160 should be given a minimal level of protection, and sites receiving a total score of 

160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR Section 658.4). 

Completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Rating Forms for the Study Area were provided in the Tier 

II DEIS Appendix E. Farmland ratings are not required for areas designated as urban. Based on 2000 

Census data, two urban areas are in the SESHR Study Area: Richmond, VA (which includes 

Richmond, VA, Colonial Heights, VA, and Petersburg, VA) and Raleigh, NC (which includes Raleigh, 

NC, Wake Forest, NC, and Youngsville, NC). There is also one urban cluster (Henderson, NC). 

The Tier II DEIS noted that the NRCS did not provide Land Evaluation Criterion Values for Sections 

AA through C in Virginia. However, values for the remainder of the Project were provided and were 

used in the evaluation for the Tier II DEIS. The Tier II DEIS indicated that no special protections for 

farmland were needed in these sections (D through V). 

Subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, in September 2013, NRCS provided Land Evaluation Criterion Values 

for Sections AA through C for the Preferred Alternative (Appendix D). Based on the 2013 completed 

forms for Sections AA through C, the Preferred Alternative does not result in an average site 

assessment score greater than 160 points. Therefore, special protections for farmland are not required 

for this part of the Project Study Area. 

Table 4-9 summarizes the acreage of prime farmland, and farmland of statewide or local importance 

impacted by the preferred alternative for each section. Sections O and D have the most impacted 

acreage (all types, combined) with 124.4 and 99.9 acres, respectively. Sections AA through CC have 

the smallest area of farmland impacts with acreages ranging from 0 to 16.4 acres. 

Project Sections D in Virginia through V in North Carolina were reviewed to determine if the minor 

design changes developed since the publication of the Tier II DEIS were sufficient to require resubmittal of AD-1006 forms to NRCS. There was a net gain of 28.3 acres of Prime and Important 

farmland in Virginia as compared with the Tier II DEIS. The change in North Carolina was a net 

decrease of 38 acres as compared with the Tier II DEIS. Because of the increases in farmland totals in 

Sections D and G in Virginia, Virginia NRCS requested an update of AD-1006 forms for those sections. 

Based on the completed forms, no special protections for farmland were needed. North Carolina NRCS 

was contacted about the design changes and updated AD-1006 forms were submitted for all sections. 

None of the sites exceeded the 160 point threshold, therefore no special protections for farmland are 

required. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-19 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-9 

Prime and Other Important Farmland Acres 

Impacts for the Preferred Alternative by Section 

(where values had changed since DEIS) 

Section Selected Alternative Prime / Statewide Acreage 

(Virginia) 

AA VA1 0 / 0 

BB VA1 13.3 / 0 

CC VA1 16.4 / 0 

DD VA3 31.6 / 4.1 

A VA2 49.3 / 2.5 

B VA1 44.4 / 20.4 

C VA1 79.3 / 7 

D VA4 84.8 / 15.1 

E VA1 51.7 / 8.1 

F VA1 22.5 / 2.5 

G VA3 30.2 / 2.9 

H VA1 47.3 / 34.7 

I VA1 36.9 / 20.7 

J VA2 45.2 / 26.9 

K VA1 12.1 / 25.5 

L (VA) VA1 14.8 / 17.4 

(North Carolina) 

L (NC) NC1 68.9 / 8.9 

M NC1 86.0 / 1.4 

N NC1 64.0 / 0.7 

O NC3 82.1 / 42.3 

P NC1 83.2 / 3.8 

Q NC1 82.6 / 14.1 

R NC1 25.1 / 0 

S NC1 63.3 / 29.3 

T NC1 32.3 / 9.6 

U NC1 40.5 / 55.0* 

V NC5 28.9 / 26.6* 

* Includes farmland of local importance 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

As stated in Section 3.4, the main non-fuel resources in Virginia and North Carolina are crushed stone, 

sand and gravel, and lime. The alternatives pass over areas that contain bedrock, as well as sand and 

gravel resources; however, only eight mine sites are located in the Study Area. In late 2013 Dinwiddie 

County, VA, contacted the Project Team to obtain information about Project designs near Burgess, VA 

(Section A) in relation to a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed stone quarry that the 

County was reviewing but had not yet approved. 

The eight existing mine sites located in the Study Area are: 

 Carter Sand and Gravel Company, Richmond, VA (listed as past producer) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-20 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 McGowan Quarry, Richmond, VA (listed as past producer) 

 Rawlings Quarry, Brunswick County, VA (listed as past producer) 

 Vulcan-Greystone Quarry, Vance County, NC 

 Carolina Sun Rock, L.L.C., Vance County, NC 

 Franklin Quarry, Franklin County, NC 

 Raleigh Quarry, Wake County, NC 

 Rowland Mine, Wake County, NC (listed as past producer) (USGS, 2008) 

Of these sites, five are in areas where rail alternatives remain within existing railroad ROW, and where 

there would be no direct impacts from proposed rail or roadway designs: 

 Carter Sand and Gravel Company, Richmond, VA 

 McGowan Quarry, Richmond, VA 

 Franklin Quarry, Franklin County, NC 

 Raleigh Quarry, Wake County, NC 

 Rowland Mine, Wake County, NC 

For the Preferred Alternative, no impacts are anticipated to Rawlings Quarry, as there is no active mine 

pit. At the Vulcan-Greystone Quarry, the Preferred Alternative would require the acquisition of mine 

ROW due to necessary road realignments. However, the realigned road would be relocated further 

away from the current pit, so impacts to mine operations are not anticipated. 

Based on preliminary designs, there will be minor ROW impacts to Carolina Sun Rock, L.L.C. 

However, impacts would be limited to areas adjacent to existing railroad ROW and it is anticipated that 

mining operations would remain unaffected. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

As stated in Section 3.5 and listed in Appendix Q, a number of hazardous waste sites are within the 

Study Area, particularly in the urban areas of Virginia and North Carolina. These sites were plotted 

based on data in publicly available databases that have varying degrees of data quality. Sites found 

within the Study Area were classified as underground storage tanks (USTs), dry cleaners, hazardous 

waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous areas. The vast majority of these sites are USTs. 

Hazardous waste sites fall under various state and Federal regulations. State regulations include: 

 Virginia Waste Management Act (Code of Virginia Section 10.1-1400 et seq.) 

 Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR) (9 VAG 20-60) 

 Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (VSWMR) (9 VAG 20-80) 

 Virginia Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials (9 VAG 20-110) 

 North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulation (15A NCAC 13A.0101) 

 North Carolina Solid Waste Management Law (15A NCAC 13A290 to 310.22) 

 North Carolina Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of 

Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (40 CFR 266 as adopted in 15A NCAC 13A.0111) 

 North Carolina Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR 263 as adopted 

in 15A NAC 13A.0108). 

Federal regulations include: 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.) 

 Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

 U.S. Department of Transportation Rules for Transportation of Hazardous materials (49 CFR Part 

107). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-21 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

During the impact assessment, if a construction alternative crossed any part of a parcel listed in the 

hazardous waste summary, it was counted as a potentially impacted site. This allowed for a 

conservative, defensible assessment of potential impacts. Potential impacts to hazardous waste sites are 

included in Table 4-10. As stated in Section 3.5, one additional site (Covidien, previously called 

Malinckrodt) was added to the site list based on comments received for the Tier II DEIS. This site is 

located in Section U of the Project, just north of the intersection of Durant Road and Capital Boulevard. 

The Project will not impact Superfund sites in Virginia or North Carolina. Two Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Facility sites, one in Virginia and the other in North 

Carolina, are located within the Study Area. The Virginia site, the First Energy Corporation (FEC) 

Bioremediation Facility, is in Section AA and is impacted by the Preferred Alternatives. The North 

Carolina Site, the Covidien/Mallinckrodt SCC Raleigh Site, is located in Section U and is impacted by 

the Preferred Alternative. One polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) site, owned by the Town of Wake 

Forest, NC, is located in Section U and is impacted by the Preferred Alternative. 

If any potential hazardous waste sites cannot be avoided during final design, further assessments of the 

properties will be conducted. Based on current knowledge, it is not expected that any of these sites 

would preclude the construction of the Preferred Alternative. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-22 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-10 

Hazardous Waste Sites by Section, Preferred 

Alternative 

Section VA 

AA 59 

BB 10 

CC 20 

DD 1 

A 1 

B 3 

C 3 

D 1 

E 0 

F 0 

G 0 

H 0 

I 2 

J 1 

K 0 

L (VA) 0 

Section NC 

L (NC) 1 

M 0 

N 1 

O 1 

P 31 

Q 4 

R 0 

S 7 

T 4 

U 20 

V 79 

AIR QUALITY 

Please refer to Section 3.6.1 for regulatory information on air quality. This section analyzes criteria 

pollutant air emissions associated with the proposed railroad engine operations and affected (i.e., 

diverted) motor vehicles. While mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are not a criteria pollutant nor 

subject to conformity requirements, they are considered in this section in accordance with US 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance. Potential air quality impacts of the proposed 

Project include: 

 Changes in rail-related emissions due to an increase in train operations each day and a change in 

equipment 

 Changes in the overall regional emissions 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-23 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Changes in local (microscale) emissions, including changes at various crossings that could handle 

additional traffic due to nearby highway-railroad crossing closures, and changes in vehicular delay 

due to increased traffic resulting from increased ridership. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), NCDOT, Virginia 

Department of Transportation (VDOT), and USEPA guidance manuals were used to analyze the 

potential air quality impacts. Data sources for the project-level analysis in Virginia included VDOT 

and Project traffic data. Data sources for the project-level analysis in North Carolina included NCDOT, 

NCDENR (Division of Air Quality) Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Area (CAMPO), Triangle Air 

Quality Partnership (air quality conformity documents), and Project traffic data. 

LOCOMOTIVE OPERATIONS - CO, NOX, HC, AND PM 

Locomotive operations are subject to Federal air quality conformity regulations (40 CFR 51.853). In 

2008, USEPA proposed a comprehensive program to dramatically reduce emissions from 

locomotives, including line-haul, switch, and passenger engines (see 73 FR 25097 (May 6, 2008) and 

40 CFR, Part 92). The program establishes emission standards with applicability dependent on the 

date a locomotive is first manufactured. The first set of standards (Tier 0) applies to most 

locomotives originally manufactured before 2001. The most stringent set of standards (Tier 4) 

applies to locomotives originally manufactured in 2015 and later. 

Locomotives contribute to air pollution by generating notable emissions of fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). USEPA estimates that by using the new standards to control the 

exhaust emission standards and idle reduction requirements of diesel locomotives of all types (linehaul, switch, and passenger), that PM reductions of 90 percent and NOX reductions of 80 percent 

would be possible by the year 2030, as compared to the engine emissions that would be encountered 

under the previous guidance. 

To advance this goal, Motive Power (located in Boise, ID) designed and developed the MP40 

locomotive, which is anticipated to be used for SEHSR Corridor service and, therefore, was used for 

the Project air quality analysis. With improved fuel efficiency, a diesel oxidation catalyst, and a 

diesel particulate filter, this locomotive provides the advanced emissions reduction technology 

currently required to be Tier 2 compliant and the company estimates that their engines will be Tier 3 

compliant by either 2014 or 2015. 

Tier 2 emission rates for this locomotive are assumed to be the following (in grams/brake 

horsepower-hour) as referenced in the Federal Register listed above. 

 CO - 1.5* 

 PM - 0.2 

 NOX - 5.5 

 HC - 0.3 

*USEPA did not propose new standards for CO. Emissions of CO are relatively low in diesel engines 

compared to non-diesel pollution sources. Locomotives are already subject to relatively stringent CO 

standards in Tier 2 compared to the former heavy-duty highway diesel engine CO standard of 15.5. 

Additionally, even though USEPA did not set more stringent standards for CO (for Tier 4), note that 

after-treatment devices using precious metal catalysts projected to be employed to meet Tier 4 PM, 

NOX and HC standards will provide meaningful reductions in CO emissions as well. 

Based on the above calculations, the emission rates are expressed as grams emitted per gallon of fuel 

consumed by multiplying the Tier 2 emission rates by a conversion factor. USEPA has estimated the 

appropriate conversion factor to be 20.8 bhp-hr/gal (USEPA Technical Highlights: Emission Factors 

for Locomotives USEPA420-F-97-051, December, 1997). These converted emission factors (in 

grams/gallon) are shown here: 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-24 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 CO - 31.20 

 PM - 4.16 

 NOX - 114.40 

 HC - 6.24 

The next step in developing air quality impacts is to estimate the amount of fuel that the diesel 

engines will consume. At a conservative Notch 6 throttle setting, the fuel consumption rate is 

approximately 146.5 gallons/hr. This is based on Motive Power fuel consumption measured at their 

Federal Test Procedures (FTP) emissions test facility in Boise, ID. Therefore, for an approximate 2-

hour trip for the Project, the total fuel consumed during a one-way trip is 293 gallons and 586 gallons 

for a round trip. The Project estimates four round trips a day between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC. 

Table 4-11 presents calculated emissions for CO, NOX, PM, and HC for SEHSR locomotive 

emissions in the Project corridor based on the collected data. 

Table 4-11 

Predicted Locomotive Emissions 

County/Area 

Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

CO NOX PM HC 

Richmond-Chesterfield * (Virginia) 3.55 13.02 0.47 0.71 

Colonial Heights-Petersburg-Dinwiddie (Virginia) 5.98 21.94 0.80 1.20 

Brunswick (Virginia) 4.11 15.09 0.55 0.82 

Mecklenburg (Virginia) 3.37 12.34 0.45 0.67 

Warren (North Carolina) 2.62 9.60 0.35 0.52 

Vance (North Carolina) 3.93 14.40 0.52 0.79 

Franklin-Wake ** (North Carolina) 5.80 21.25 0.77 1.16 

De minimis (allowable) levels in the various counties/areas 

according to 40 CFR 51.853, as applicable 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

* Within the Richmond Regional Planning District 

** Within the North Carolina Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Note that the above emissions are conservative because of the Notch 6 setting and that actual 

pollutant emission rates are lower than the Tier 2 standards (according to Motive Power, Inc.). 

However, these rates have not been certified; therefore, the conservative rates were used in the 

analysis. 

Nonetheless, the predicted annual emissions are well below the de minimis levels established in 40 

CFR 51.853 for the respective areas and no further action or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, 

note that the above emissions are for the proposed SEHSR operations only. Between Richmond, VA, 

and Petersburg, VA, there is currently a mixture of freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains. There 

are currently no trains operating in the Project corridor between Petersburg, VA, and Norlina, NC. 

Between Norlina, NC, and Raleigh, NC, there is some limited existing freight service. It is estimated 

that with the Project, there will be eight additional intermodal trains between Petersburg, VA, and 

Raleigh, NC, with improvements made to the rail infrastructure, along with two to four additional 

freight trains. (Two freight trains per day are assumed between Petersburg, VA, and Youngsville, 

NC, and four freight trains per day are assumed between Youngsville, NC and Raleigh, NC. Between 

Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, growth in freight and Amtrak is projected, but is not anticipated 

as a result of the Project.) 

From an air quality perspective, the additional intermodal and freight trains will likely result in a 

regional efficiency improvement as a result of freight providers switching from long haul trucking to 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-25 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

intermodal and freight rail. Quantification of the reductions and re-routing of truck hauling was 

determined to be outside the scope of the Project. The intermodal and freight trains are not 

considered to be induced by the Project, but rather represent an improved and more efficient transfer 

from other fuel-consumption sources. Regardless, even if they were hypothetically 100% induced by 

the Project, the intermodal and freight emissions could be triple the HSR locomotive operation 

emissions (conservatively) and still not exceed the de minimis levels. 

LOCOMOTIVE OPERATIONS - MSATS 

Currently there is no Federally approved model to perform a quantitative MSAT hot spot analysis. A 

hot spot analysis is known as a “microscale” analysis because it focuses on a relatively small 

geographic area. In the absence of a microscale model, regional MSAT impacts from locomotives are 

discussed qualitatively. 

Effective April 27, 2007, USEPA adopted controls on locomotive MSATs. At that time, USEPA 

proposed more stringent standards for large diesel engines used in locomotives. 

In May 2008, USEPA published the final rule adopting a comprehensive program to dramatically 

reduce pollution from locomotives, applying to all types of locomotives. This final rule strengthened 

the locomotive and marine diesel programs proposed in April 2007. When fully implemented, the 

programs will reduce harmful diesel engine emissions to a small fraction of their previous levels. 

On a nationwide annual basis, these overall reductions from all MSAT sources are projected to reduce 

annual MSAT emissions by 83% from 1999 to 2050. Specific to locomotives, the reduction from 

existing standards in PM Tiers 0 through 4 locomotives will be approximately 60, 50, 50, 50, and 90 

percent, respectively. The reduction in NOX for range year Tiers 0 through 4 will be approximately 

20, 20, 20, 20, and 80 percent, respectively. All Tier idle emissions are predicted to be reduced by 50 

percent for both PM and NOX. 

HIGHWAY VEHICLE OPERATIONS - CO 

CO emissions are associated with large volumes of slow-moving traffic, such as highly congested 

intersections. Areas experiencing high levels of CO are referred to as CO “hot spots.” The purpose of 

a CO hot spot analysis is to determine if CO emissions generated by a proposed project would cause 

or contribute to an exceedance of the air quality standard for CO as promulgated by USEPA. 

The state and Federal ambient air quality standards for CO are 35 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour). 

An analysis was made to determine the CO impacts at the worst-case intersections along the Study 

Area in North Carolina and Virginia. 

The consolidation of rail crossings throughout the Study Area will necessitate that some automobiles 

travel an additional distance to reach a grade-separated crossing. The additional distance vehicles 

will need to travel to the nearest bridge or underpass is typically less than one mile. The anticipated 

CO emissions associated with the additional distance are likely to be offset by the removal of the 

vehicle idling that currently occurs while trains pass at-grade crossings. As an example, a vehicle 

idling for one minute as a train crosses an at-grade crossing will produce approximately 70 grams of 

CO. Were the same car to travel two miles out of its way to use a grade-separated crossing (one mile 

in each direction), it will generate approximately 16 grams of CO. Although many factors can effect 

vehicle emissions, the benefit of removing vehicle idling should more than offset the additional 

vehicle miles traveled. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-26 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VIRGINIA 

According to VDOT’s Consultant Guide for Air Quality Project-Level Analysis, the level of CO 

analysis is determined by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between VDOT and FHWA 

that outlines when a quantitative or qualitative CO hot spot analysis is required. 

The intersections in Virginia are exempt from a quantitative analysis based on the following criteria 

from Section II-Level of Analysis, subsection B, “Projects meeting one of the following criteria 

require only a qualitative analysis”: 

“Any project affecting capacity for roadways with intersections and/or freeway interchanges for 

which the build scenario design year intersection/freeway interchange LOS is E or better (or 

reasonable proxy thereof) and the corresponding ADT does not exceed the following levels for the 

roadway being improved as part of the project or any intersecting roadway within the Study Area: 

(i) 59,000, for intersections and freeway interchanges for which the minimum skew angle 

(defined here as the smallest angle modeled between intersecting roadways in a 

reasonable representation of the intersection or interchange selected for air quality 

analysis following applicable state and Federal guidance) is 60 degrees or more” 

Since the ADTs at all potentially affected Virginia intersections are predicted to be less than 

59,000, have a skew angle of 60 degrees or more and an LOS E or better condition for the build 

scenario design year, the qualitative analysis applies. As a result, the following language from the 

VDOT Consultant’s Guide applies: 

“The project does not include or directly affect any roadway whose design year average daily 

traffic volume, skew angle or level of service would exceed the threshold criteria specified in the 

Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of 

Transportation for streamlining the project-level air quality analysis process for carbon monoxide. 

Modeling using “worst-case” parameters has been conducted for these thresholds and it has been 

determined that projects, such as this one, for which the thresholds would not be exceeded would 

not significantly impact air quality and would not cause or contribute to a new violation, increase 

the frequency or severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide.” 

NORTH CAROLINA 

An analysis was performed for the worst-case intersection based on traffic modeling (see Section 

4.14.2), and Level of Service (LOS). The worst-case intersection in North Carolina is predicted to 

be Oxford Road and Dabney Drive in Henderson, NC. 

For the North Carolina analysis, the concentrations were evaluated at locations (receptors) just 

outside the mixing zone. The mixing zone is considered to be the area of uniform emissions and 

turbulence. These receptors were placed where the general public has access and at 25 and/or 50 

foot intervals along the intersection roadway approach and departure links. 

The CO hot spot analysis compared the 2011 Existing (Base), 2015 Interim Build and No-Build, 

and 2030 Design Year Build and No-Build scenarios. 

On December 20, 2010, USEPA (as coordinated with FHWA and FTA) issued guidance for using 

the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) in project-level CO analysis. For CO hot spot 

analyses (outside California) that are started during the 2 year MOVES grace period ending 

December 20, 2012, either the MOBILE 6.2 emission modeling software or MOVES2010 can be 

used. The air quality analysis for the Project was started prior to December, 20, 2012. Therefore, 

MOBILE 6.2 emissions factors are applicable and were used in the analysis. The CAL3QHC 

dispersion model was used to estimate CO concentrations in accordance with Section 5.2.3 of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-27 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. (CAL3Q interface software with NC input parameters.) The land 

use near the intersection is composed of residential, some small retail stores and a school. Model 

input parameters included MOBILE 6.2 emissions factors, CO background levels (from NCDENR), 

persistence factors (from NCDENR), peak-hour volumes, free-flow speeds and traffic signal 

operations data (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014). 

The results of the analyses indicated that the 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations for both 

intersections in any scenario were well below the NAAQS. Based on these results, no mitigation is 

required and additional analysis is not recommended. The results are presented in Table 4-12. 

Table 4-12 

Predicted CO Concentration (in pp,m) Screening Analysis (Including background) 

Worst-Case Intersection 

Analysis Scenario 

2010-Base 

Year 

2020-No 

Build 

2020-Build 2030-No 

Build 

2030-Build 

1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 

NC: Oxford/Dabney 

(Henderson) 4.2 3.3 4.0 3.2 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.2 4.2 3.3 

VA: Centralia/Chester 

(Chester) 

Exempt from quantitative analysis per VDOT guidance (because the 

ADT is below the analysis threshold) 

NAAQS: 35 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour) 

HIGHWAY VEHICLE OPERATIONS - PM2.5

The Project is located in areas that are currently designated as being in attainment of the PM2.5

standards. These standards were also not exceeded at any of the Study Area monitoring stations 

during 2012. For projects within PM2.5 attainment areas, quantitative and/or qualitative analyses are 

not required. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed and further analysis is not recommended. 

HIGHWAY VEHICLE OPERATIONS - MSAT 

Currently, there is no Federally approved model to perform a quantitative MSAT hot spot analysis. 

On September 30, 2009, FHWA issued an update to its guidance concerning MSATs, which included 

a three-tiered approach to determine the level of analysis. Subsequent interim guidance was published 

on December 6, 2012. The update reflects recent changes in methodology for conducting emissions 

analysis and updates of research in the MSAT arena. All analysis beginning on or after December 20, 

2012, should use the MOVES model. Any analysis initiated prior to that date may continue to 

operate under the previous guidance and utilize MOBILE 6.2. 

The FHWA developed a tiered approach with three categories for analyzing MSAT in NEPA 

documents, depending on specific project circumstances: 

1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects; 

2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or 

3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT 

effects. 

The Project falls under the Qualitative analysis category for projects with low potential MSAT 

effects. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-28 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The types of projects included in this category are those that serve to improve operations of highway, 

transit, or freight without adding substantial new capacity or without creating a facility that is likely to 

meaningfully increase MSAT emissions. This category covers a broad range of projects. 

Most highway projects that need an MSAT assessment fall into this category. Any projects not 

meeting the criteria in category (1) or category (3) below should be included in this category. 

Examples of these types of projects are minor widening projects; new interchanges, replacing a 

signalized intersection on a surface street; or projects where design year traffic is projected to be less 

than 140,000 to 150,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT). 

For these projects, a qualitative assessment of emissions projections should be conducted. This 

qualitative assessment would compare, in narrative form, the expected effect of the project on traffic 

volumes, vehicle mix, or routing of traffic and the associated changes in MSAT for the project 

alternatives, including no-build, based on VMT, vehicle mix, and speed. It would also discuss 

national trend data projecting substantial overall reductions in emissions due to stricter engine and 

fuel regulations issued by USEPA. Because the emission effects of these projects typically are low, 

we expect there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various 

alternatives. 

Please note that sensitive receptors within the Study Area were not identified for the Tier II FEIS as 

this task is no longer recommended by FHWA for qualitative analyses. Performing the highly 

intensive task of identifying sensitive sites from Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, and looking at 

anticipated traffic volume change for each of these sites would not produce meaningful information, 

especially given the low volumes of the roads along the Study Area and the fact that MSATs are 

anticipated to decrease throughout the United States based on improvements in vehicle operation 

standards. 

In addition to the qualitative assessment, a NEPA document for this category of projects must include 

a discussion of information that is incomplete or unavailable for a project specific assessment of 

MSAT impacts, in compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 

CFR 1502.22(b)). This discussion should explain how current scientific techniques, tools, and data 

are not sufficient to accurately estimate human health impacts that could result from a transportation 

project in a way that would be useful to decision-makers. Also in compliance with 40 CFR 

1502.22(b), it should contain information regarding the health impacts of MSAT. 

The qualitative analysis for highway vehicle MSATs for the Project is included in Appendix M. 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction activities will result in temporary increases in air pollution. The greatest increases are 

likely to occur in the areas where new bridges are proposed for construction. At this time, it is not 

known over what time frame the bridges will be constructed. However, it is not expected that 

increased pollutants from trucks and site equipment will cause violations of the NAAQS. 

Generally, air quality along detour routes may be affected by an increase in vehicle idling or miles 

traveled during crossing closures. These will be temporary and where possible, the proposed road 

improvements will be constructed prior to the diversion of traffic. 

VDOT and NCDOT require that BMPs are in place to control particulate emissions (e.g., fugitive 

dust) during construction activities. Operators of fugitive dust sources are expected to take 

reasonable precautions to prevent airborne dust such as requiring the appropriate emission-control 

devices on all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel fuel to reduce exhaust emissions. 

In conclusion, the predicted project-level and regional level values are below either the de minimis

levels established in 40 CFR 51.853, the NAAQS, and or do not require a formal detailed analysis for 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-29 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the respective area conditions. As a result, no mitigation is required and no further action is 

necessary. 

SUMMARY 

In the Study Area, USEPA has designated the Richmond-Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC, regions as being maintenance areas of the 8-hour ozone standard. For CO, the 

Study Area is in attainment within Virginia and designated as being in maintenance for Wake and 

Franklin counties, NC. Additionally, the Study Area is in attainment for NOX and particulate matter 

(PM10, PM2.5). 

A CO hot spot analysis was performed for the Project. There were no predicted CO impacts as the 1-

hour and 8-hour concentrations were well below the NAAQS. Based on these results, no mitigation 

is required and additional analysis is not recommended. 

For particulate matter, the Study Area is in attainment of the NAAQS. As a result, no analysis or 

mitigation is required. 

Because the estimated VMT for the Preferred Alternative is less than the No-Build condition, it is 

expected there will be a positive impact in overall MSAT emissions. Also, emissions will likely be 

lower than present levels in the design year as a result of USEPA's national control programs that are 

projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. Therefore, 

the Project was found to result in low potential MSAT effects and no further action is required. 

For ozone, the Project is currently funded only at the planning level and does not yet have a dedicated 

funding source for construction. As a result, it falls under the exempt status for transportation 

conformity. Once funding is secured for ROW purchase and construction, NCDOT and VDRPT will 

perform conformity analyses in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93. 

For general conformity, the predicted locomotive operations are well below the de minimis levels 

established in 40 CFR 51.853 and no further action or mitigation is necessary. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

The following section describes the potential noise and vibration impacts from the Project, and includes 

highway noise analysis that was conducted for the Preferred Alternative. 

OPERATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Noise and vibration impacts from operation and construction activities related to the Project are 

presented in this section. Noise and vibration mitigation will be addressed during final design using 

FRA’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Impact Assessment (FRA, 2012b) procedures. 

RAIL OPERATION NOISE 

Noise emissions were regulated under the Noise Control Act of 1972. Locomotive operations are 

subject to Federal noise emission standards (see 40 CFR, Part 201). Train noise impacts were 

evaluated based on projected noise level increases relative to existing conditions at noise-sensitive 

receptors. Depending upon the land use, this increase was measured in terms of either one-hour 

equivalent sound level (Leq(h)) or the day-night sound level Ldn. 

The Project noise exposure was calculated based on the operating characteristics listed in Table 4-

13. These characteristics were developed during preparation of the Tier II DEIS, at which time the 

initial noise analysis was completed. The most current ridership and revenue analysis (see Section 

1.5), which was completed after the Tier II DEIS was published, anticipates potential increases in 

the number of passenger trains using the Project corridor over what was assumed in the Tier II 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-30 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DEIS noise analysis. Notably, the updated ridership and revenue analysis estimated that one 

existing round trip Amtrak long distance train will divert to the Project corridor between 

Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, and one additional round trip train will travel the Project corridor 

between Richmond, VA and Petersburg, VA, to/from Norfolk, VA, to serve the Richmond, VA, to 

Hampton Roads, VA, SEHSR Corridor. In addition, three existing round trip Amtrak trains would 

continue to use the Project corridor between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA. These changes 

are not anticipated to substantially affect the results of the original rail operation noise analysis 

because the noise impact resulting from a small number of additional passenger trains is negligible 

compared to the overall impact of relatively heavier and longer freight and intermodal trains. If any 

impacts occur as a result of these changes, they will be addressed by the Project Team during the 

final design phase of the Project. 

The Tier II DEIS noise analysis also did not account for the existing freight traffic in the Project 

corridor between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, in which more than 20 trains currently 

operate. It is assumed that this large number of freight trains would render the impacts of any 

passenger trains negligible. In addition, existing and future freight operations in this section of the 

Project corridor are not dependent on the Project, and can be changed at the discretion of the 

operating railroad. Therefore, the model applied no freight trains in order to identify impacts 

resulting directly from the Project. 

It is important to note that the alternatives evaluated in the Project corridor between Richmond, 

VA, and Petersburg, VA, (Sections AA through DD) were on common alignment, with the 

exception of slight differences in a small area just below the city limits of Petersburg, VA, at the 

south end of the Collier rail yard. Therefore, potential noise impacts did not have any bearing on 

the selection of the Preferred Alternative in these sections of the Project. 

In addition to the operating assumptions listed above, it was also assumed that the track would 

consist of continuously welded rail and would generally be in very good condition. Based on these 

assumptions, distance-to-impact contours were developed for the different land use categories and 

existing noise levels. These distances were then used to tabulate the rail noise impacts that would 

occur as a result of the Project. A summary of projected noise impacts for the Project is provided in 

Table 4-14. The results in Table 4-14 represent a fairly conservative estimate in terms of the 

number of projected impacts. This is mainly due to the fact that maximum authorized speed was 

assumed throughout the corridor 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-31 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-13 

Noise Modeling Projected Train Operating Characteristics 

Operating Characteristic HSR Passenger Trains Intermodal Trains Freight Trains 

Richmond, VA, to Petersburg, VA (1)

Total Number of Daily Trains 14 -- -- 

Number of Trains - Day 14 -- -- 

Number of Trains – Night (2) 0 -- -- 

Number of Peak Hour Trains 2 -- -- 

Maximum Operating Speed 

(mph) 79-90 (3) -- -- 

Petersburg to Raleigh 

Total Number of Daily Trains 8 8 2-4 (4)

Number of Trains - Day 8 5 2-4 

Number of Trains – Night (2) 0 3 0 

Number of Peak Hour Trains 1 2 0 

Maximum Operating Speed 

(mph) 110 60 50 

Notes: 

(1) Since there is existing freight train traffic between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, project noise exposure is only 

calculated for projected high speed rail trains through this section. 

(2) Night trains are those that operate between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 

(3) 79 mph – Richmond to Chester; 90 mph – Chester, VA, to Petersburg, VA. 

 (4) Two freight trains per day (one round trip) are assumed between Petersburg, VA and Youngsville, NC, and 

four freight trains per day (two round trips) are assumed between Youngsville, NC and Raleigh, NC. 

Table 4-14 

Land Use Categories and Metrics for High Speed Rail Noise Impact Criteria 

Land Use 

Category 

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor Leq(h)* 

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. 

This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land 

uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National 

Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. 

2 Outdoor Ldn

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category 

includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise 

is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor Leq(h)* 

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to 

avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and 

concentration on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where 

quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording 

studios, and concert halls fall into this category. Places for meditation or 

study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain 

historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities are also included. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-32 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-14 

Summary Total of Rail Noise Impacts

Section/Preferred 

Alternative 

Noise Impacts along Preferred Alternative 

Land Use Category 1* Land Use Category 2* Land Use Category 3* 

Moderate 

Impact 

Severe 

Impact 

Moderate 

Impact 

Severe 

Impact 

Moderate 

Impact 

Severe 

Impact 

AA / VA1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

BB / VA1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CC / VA1 0 0 11 0 0 0 

DD / VA3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

A / VA2 0 0 4 1 0 0 

B / VA1 0 0 13 0 0 0 

C / VA1 0 0 9 0 0 0 

D / VA4 0 0 4 2 0 0 

E / VA1 0 0 22 6 1 0 

F / VA1 0 0 6 0 0 0 

G / VA3 0 0 2 0 0 0 

H / VA1 0 0 18 2 0 0 

I / VA1 0 0 49 5 1 0 

J / VA2 0 0 21 1 0 0 

K / VA1 0 0 9 0 0 0 

L / VA1/NC1 0 0 20 1 0 0 

M / NC1 0 0 41 6 0 0 

N / NC1 0 0 4 0 0 0 

O / NC3 0 0 10 5 0 0 

P / NC1 0 0 77 11 1 0 

Q / NC1 0 0 12 5 1 0 

R / NC1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

S / NC1 0 0 22 1 0 0 

T / NC1 0 0 25 0 0 0 

U / NC1 0 0 159 17 0 0 

V / NC5 0 0 79 2 0 0 

Total 0 0 618 64 4 0 

DIVERTED ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS 

The highway noise impact focused on the secondary/indirect impacts resulting from two build 

actions of the Project: 

 The creation of grade-separated crossings (bridges and underpasses) and; 

 The diversion of traffic to the grade-separated crossings from closed at-grade crossings. 

The selection of a Preferred Alternative was primarily the choice of a preferred railroad alignment. 

Highway noise did not affect the decision process because of 84 proposed grade separations, about 

80% were common to all alternatives. Furthermore, given the estimated traffic volumes, the 

diverted volumes and the rural land use at most crossings, it is highly unlikely that these changes 

will result in noise impacts and/or feasible and reasonable abatement measures according to North 

Carolina or Virginia policies. Less than 10% of the grade separations will have greater than 10,000 

annual average traffic volumes (AADT) in the design year. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-33 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The grade separations are considered to be a Type I improvement under FHWA regulations because 

of the proposed substantial vertical change in the road alignment. An interagency screening 

process was developed to analyze the likely sound level environment changes in both qualitative 

and quantitative methods for the new crossings, appropriately addressing both the NCDOT and 

VDOT noise policies. FHWA has established noise abatement criteria (NAC), which are noise 

levels for various activities or land uses which represent the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise 

level conditions. These regulations do not require meeting the abatement criteria in every instance; 

rather, they require highway agencies make every feasible and reasonable effort to provide noise 

mitigation when the criteria are approached or exceeded. 

The methodology for completing this assessment was developed in coordination with FHWA, 

NCDOT and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In summary, it applies a screening 

process so that all crossings are appropriately addressed per state transportation policies and 23 

CFR 772. The screening process was conducted in the following manner for each crossing: 

 Step 1 – Identify existence of receptors in the area of each proposed grade separation 

 Step 2 – Identify receptors within 60 dBA cordon line (66 dBA is the NAC for categories B 

and C, which include residences, daycare centers, parks, and historic sites). The 60 dBA 

cordon was initially applied as a conservative measure. Ultimately, receptors with predicted 

levels of 66 or greater were identified. (Note: there were no “substantial increase” criteria 

impacts) Industrial and retail land uses were not analyzed because they do not have impact 

criteria.) 

 Step 3 – Mitigation analysis, applying NCDOT reasonable and feasible criteria, as applicable. 

 Step 4 – Reporting. 

Road closure areas and crossings where there were no traffic volume changes nor physical 

realignment were not analyzed. For planning purposes, the 60 and 66 dBA contours for various 

AADT are presented in Table 4-15. 

The results are shown in Table 4-16. In addition to the location and type of each crossing, the table 

also represents a fairly conservative estimate in terms of the number of projected highway traffic 

noise receptors within the 60 dBA contour. The number and type of these receptors was estimated 

based on Project mapping aerials and Google Earth data. Possible impacts (those within the 66 

dBA contour) and mitigation rationale are also included in the table. There were no predicted 

impacts based on the criteria for a “substantial increase.” 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-34 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-15 

Comparison of Sound Level Contours for Various Traffic Volumes 

(for Planning/Screening Purposes) 

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) 

Approximate Distance to Contour From the 

Edge of the Nearest Traveled Way (in feet): 

60 dBA 66 dBA 

1,000 <10 <10 

2,500 <10 <10 

5,000 55 <10 

7,500 120 <10 

10,000 140 30 

15,000 185 65 

20,000 225 85 

25,000 250 105 

30,000 260 115 

Note: the sound level contour results are based on an operational speed of 45 mph. Distances for slower speeds will be 

slightly less and distances for faster speeds will be slightly greater. They are also based on a peak hour factor of 12% (the 

highest factor used for the analyzed crossings, many are 10% or less) and a truck factor of 5% (most of the analyzed 

crossings were less). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

AA-2 Goodes Street Petersburg, VA Grade separated road over rail - - 0 No AA-3 VA 7521-East Commerce road Petersburg, VA Grade separated road over rail - - 0 No AA-4 Ruffin Road Petersburg, VA Underpass, grade separated rail over road 4,300 300’ 3 residences 1 church No 

AA-4.5 VA 161-West Bells Road Petersburg, VA Grade separated road over rail 15,400 200’ 11 residences No 

AA-6 VA 1479-Station Road Chesterfield, VA Grade separated road over rail - - 0 No AA-9 New Crossing-from Dorsey to Perrymount Chesterfield, VA New access road over rail 2,200 450’/200’ 0 No 

BB-10 VA 145-Centralia Road Chesterfield, VA Grade separated road over rail 24,200 1000’/220’ 17 residences No BB-12 Curtis Street Chesterfield, VA Realign, underpass, grade separated rail over road 5,770 700’ 5 residences No BB-16 VA 620-Woods Edge Road Chesterfield, VA Grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

CC16,17 VA 1144-Pine Forest Drive Chesterfield, VA Grade separated road over rail 3,000 330’ 6 residences No CC18,19 VA 625 Branders Bridge Road Chesterfield, VA Grade separated road over rail 8,850 230’/120’ 8 residences No 

CC-19 VA 1106-Dupuy Road Chesterfield, VA Grade separated road over rail 700 300’ 0 No 

DD-31 VA 675-Vaughn Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 1,100 200’ 0 No DD-32 VA 613-Squirrel Level Road. Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 600 200’ 0 No 

A-34 VA 670-Duncan Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 850 220’ 0 No A-35 VA 613-Dabney Mill Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 1,600 200’ 0 No A-37 VA 660-Quaker Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 970 450’/110’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

B-39 VA 605-Honeycutt Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 980 220’ 0 No B-41 VA 703-Carson Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 6,100 630’ 0 No 

B-42,43 Gatewood Drive Dinwiddie, VA Underpass, grade separated rail over road 800 500’ 0 No 

C-45 VA 646-Glebe Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 2,000 250’ 0 No 

C-47,48 Karla Drive Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 50 300’ 0 No C-49,50 VA 652-Asbury Road Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 

C-50 VA 40-Doyle Boulevard Dinwiddie, VA Grade separated road over rail 4,400 130’ 2 residences No 

D-55 VA 629 Rawlings Road Brunswick, VA 

Close road at new 

rail, realign, grade 

separated road over 

rail 

700 240’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

D-60 VA 636-Kress Rd Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail - - 0 No D-62 VA 643-Flat Rock Road Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail 1,100 350’ 0 No 

E-64 VA 726-Chestnut Road Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail 460 680’ 0 No E-65 

VA 628-Littlemont 

Road 

Church Street 

Brunswick, 

VA 

Grade separated 

over rail 570 500’ 0 No 

E-66 VA 136-Second Avenue Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail 750 240’ 0 No E-66 VA 1401-Main Street Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail 1,400 400’ 0 No 

F-67 Rosebud Lane Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail - - 0 No F-68 US-1 SB Boydton Plank Road Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail - - 0 No F-70 VA 763-Millville Road Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail - - 0 No 

G-73 Old Indian Road Brunswick, VA Realign, grade separated road over rail 200 350’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

G-74 Old Indian Road. Brunswick, VA Grade separated over rail - - 0 No H-77 Tannertown Road Brunswick, VA Realign, underpass, grade separated rail over road 900 400’ 0 No 

H-78,79 VA 638-Wilson Road Mecklenburg, VA Realign grade separated road over rail 650 550’/130’ 0 No 

I-82 Northington Road Connector Mecklenburg, VA New underpass, rail over road 380 600’ 0 No I-83 Jones Street Mecklenburg, VA Realign, underpass, grade separated rail over road 3,400 140’/100’ 0 No 

J-84 VA 630-Belfield Road Mecklenburg, VA Realign, grade separated road over rail - - 0 No J-86 VA 618-Marengo Road. Mecklenburg, VA Realign, grade separated road over rail 1,750 500’/200’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

J-87 VA 627-Gaulding Road Mecklenburg, VA Realign, grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 

K-89 VA 903 Mecklenburg, VA Realign, grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 

L-92 VA 712-Paschall Road Mecklenburg, VA Realign, grade separated road over rail 500 500’ 0 No L-93 NC 1302-Felts Road Mecklenburg, VA Grade separated road over rail 100 350’ 0 No L-95 NC 1300-Wise Five Forks Road Warren, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 1,900 200’ 0 No 

M-98,99 NC 1320-Warren Plains Road Warren, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 

M101,102 NC 1107-Ridgeway Warrenton Road Warren, NC New grade separated road over rail 3,000 400’/300’ 0 No 

N-104 NC 1151-Soul City Boulevard Warren, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 1,200 500’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

N105,106 NC 1101-Kimball Road Warren, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 700 700’ 0 No 

O-108 NC 1501-Carol Street Warren, NC Grade separated road over rail - - 0 No O-110 NC 1507-Brookston Road Vance, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 1,100 450’ 0 No O-111 NC 1508-Greystone Road Vance, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 670 520’ 0 No 

P-112 Warrenton Road Vance, NC 

Realign, underpass, 

replace existing rail 

over road 

14,000 300’ 2 residences No 

P-114 Main Street Vance, NC 

Realign, underpass 

grade separated rail 

over road 

7,900 170’ 30 residences No 

P-114 NC 39-Andrews Avenue Vance, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 19,840 180’ 19 residences, 1 church No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

P-115 Alexander Avenue Vance, NC 

Realign, grade 

separated road over 

rail 

12,535 700’ 10 residences No 

P-116 NC 1139-JP Taylor Road Vance, NC 

Realign, grade 

separated road over 

rail and US1 

BUSINESS 

5,800 1660’/170’ 9 residences No 

P-117 NC 1115-Bear Pond Road. Vance, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail and US1BUS 5,900 100’ 6 residences No 

Q119,120 Edwards Road Vance, NC 

Extend road 

underpass, grade 

separated rail over 

road 

3,000 300’ 0 No 

Q-120 NC 1552-Chavis Road Vance, NC Close crossing, realign grade separated over rail 3,200 400’ 0 No Q-121 McClannahan Vance, NC 

Realign, grade 

separated road over 

rail 

3,100 420’/100’ 2 residences No 

Q122,123 Oak Ridge Church Road Vance, NC Realign, grade separated rail over road 650 250’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

R-125 New Eric Medlin Road Franklin, NC Grade separated road over rail 1,100 200’ 0 No 

S-127 New Winston-Main Street Connector Franklin, NC New underpass, grade separated rail over road 1,800 150’ 0 No 

S127,128 Green Street Franklin, NC Widen road, underpass, rail over road 1,900 100’ 0 No 

S-128 NC 1125-Cedar Creek Road Franklin, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 6,400 300’100’ 2 residences No S-132 NC96 Franklin, NC 

New alignment, 

grade separated 

road over rail 

21,700 550’ 0 No 

T-132 East Main Street/Holden Road Franklin, NC Grade separated road over rail 14,800 300’/60’ 6 residences Youngsville Historic District Yes 

U-136 Holding Avenue Wake, NC 

Realign, underpass, 

grade separated rail 

over road 

6,400 200’/100’ 7 residences No 

U137,138 NC 2052-Rogers Road Wake, NC Grade separated road over rail 19,900 650’ 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

U138,139 NC 2044-Ligon Mill Road Wake, NC Realign grade separated road over rail 9,500 300’/70 7 residences No 

U-142 NC 2006-Durant Road Wake, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail 19,800 300’ 16 residences No 

V142,142 NC 2013-Gresham Lake Road Wake, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 

V-145 Millbrook Road Wake, NC 

Underpass, grade 

separated rail over 

road 

- - 0 No 

V46,147 New Hope Church Road Wake, NC Realign, grade separated road over rail - - 0 No 

V-147 Wolfpack Lane Wake, NC 

Close crossing, 

realign grade 

separated road over 

rail 

- - 0 No 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-16 

Detailed Summary of Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts

SectionMap # Road City or County Crossing Type Build AADT* 

Approximate Distance 

from Crossing/Local 

Access Road (where 

applicable)** 

Number-type 

of receptors 

(within 60 

dBA) 

Possible 

Project 

Impact 

(66 

dBA) 

V-148 Whitaker Mill Road Wake, NC 

Realign, grade 

separated road over 

rail 

12,900 550’ 0 No 

* No AADT is listed when there are no applicable criteria that require analysis (e.g., all industrial or commercial land uses) 

** If there is no local access road in the vicinity (i.e., there is only the rail crossing), the only distance provided is to the rail crossing. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-46 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

OPERATION VIBRATION 

FRA guidelines (FRA, 2012b) provide a calculation method for predicting vibration levels for a 

generalized assessment, but recommend field measurements for detailed analyses. Within the 

Project corridor, freight, intermodal, Amtrak, and high speed passenger trains will operate. This 

means that there are different vibration sources that need to be analyzed for vibration impact. 

Currently, there are freight trains operating in the northern and southern portions of the Study Area. 

Field measurements of train passbys were taken at ten locations along the Study Area. At least one 

train passby was measured at each site. Measured results for the high speed passenger train were 

not taken because there are no high speed trains currently operating through the Study Area. The 

measured freight train values were compared to the generalized ground surface vibration curves 

presented in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment (FTA Manual).1

 The vibration levels listed in the FTA Manual are higher than the 

measured data. The vibration levels in the FTA Manual are also higher than those presented for 

high speed trains in the 2012 FRA guidelines (see Table 4-17). After reviewing the data, it was 

determined that the FTA generalized ground surface vibration curve for a typical freight train 

should be used for operation impact assessment between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, since 

the improvements that will be provided as part of the Project will not only add high speed 

passenger trains, it will also allow for freight traffic where it currently does not exist. Between 

Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, the FRA generalized curve should be used since freight traffic 

currently operates through this area. 

Table 4-17 

Comparison of Ground Vibration Impact Curves 

Ground Vibration Estimation Techniques 

Distance to Human Annoyance Vibration 

Impacts (in feet) 

Residential Commercial 

Measured Freight Train Passby 60 40 

FTA Generalized Curve for Freight Trains (1) 80 64 

FRA Generalized Curve for High Speed Passenger 

Trains (2) 47 30 

Notes: 

(1) The selected distances used to determine impacts between Petersburg and Raleigh. 

(2) The selected distances used to determine impacts between Richmond and Petersburg. 

Based on the FTA generalized curve (FTA. 1995), annoyance vibration impacts (i.e., where 

vibration levels will be 80 VdB or higher) would occur at residences located 47 feet or closer to the 

proposed track between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, and 80 feet or closer to the proposed 

track between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC. For commercial and institutional uses, annoyance 

vibration impacts (i.e., where vibration levels will be 83 VdB or higher) would occur at structures 

located 30 feet or closer to the proposed track between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, and 64 

feet or closer to the proposed track between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC. The annoyance 

impact criteria for residences and commercial/institutional property established by the FRA apply 

to vibrations inside building structures. Table 4-18 provides a summary of the number and type of 

vibration sensitive structures that will be potentially impacted by the Project. 

 

1

 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-47 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The building damage criteria of 0.50 inch per second would not be exceeded at any building along 

the corridor due to train passbys. Therefore, the Project is not expected to cause damage, due to 

vibration, to any buildings in the Study Area. 

Throughout the Study Area, the vibration levels would be 5 to 10 VdB higher when there are 

crossovers, turnouts, jointed track, switches, or other special trackwork present. These conditions 

can cause annoying sustained and/or forced vibration levels called “transients” that are 

characterized by a repetitive sounding, “thump-thump...thump-thump” that one would experience 

during a train passby. Vibration mitigation may be required for the areas were these conditions 

exist. 

Table 4-18 

Summary of Vibration Impacted Areas 

Section / 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Number of Sensitive Structures Impacted by Land Use Type for the 

Preferred Alternative 

Single Family Multi Family Commercial 

AA / VA1 0 0 1 

BB / VA1 1 0 1 

CC / VA1 7 7 1 

DD / VA3 0 0 0 

A / VA2 0 0 0 

B / VA1 1 0 1 

C / VA1 5 0 5 

D / VA4 2 0 0 

E / VA1 9 0 0 

F / VA1 0 0 0 

G / VA3 0 0 0 

H / VA1 4 0 1 

I / VA1 15 0 9 

J / VA2 5 0 0 

K / VA1 1 0 0 

L / VA1/NC1 6 0 1 

M / NC1 25 0 5 

N / NC1 5 0 1 

O / NC3 3 0 0 

P / NC1 30 0 44 

Q / NC1 16 0 4 

R / NC1 2 0 1 

S / NC1 17 0 5 

T / NC1 2 0 3 

U / NC1 24 0 21 

V / NC5 0 0 4 

Total 180 7 108 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-48 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CONCLUSION 

The effects of the proposed action were evaluated based on the number and type of impacts. The 

following impacts were identified for the Project Preferred Alternative: 

Rail Noise 

Noise impacts are projected for the Preferred Alternative. The FRA Manual rail noise criteria are 

divided into moderate impact and severe impact categories. 

Based on FRA criteria, the Preferred Alternative is predicted to have zero moderate impacts and 

zero severe impacts for Category 1 receptors (studios, concert halls, etc.); 618 moderate impacts 

and 64 severe impacts for Category 2 receptors (residences, hospitals, hotels, etc.), and; four 

moderate impacts and 0 severe impacts for Category 3 receptors (schools, libraries, churches, etc.). 

Rail Vibration 

Vibration impacts are projected for the Preferred Alternative. Unlike the rail noise criteria with its 

differentiation of moderate impact and severe impact, there is only an impact condition for the FRA 

vibration criteria; therefore, all vibration impacts for the Project are considered to be of the same 

level. Vibration effects will be noticeable, but are not anticipated to result in property damage. 

Based on FRA Manual vibration criteria, the Preferred Alternative potentially impacts 180 single 

family homes, 7 multi-family homes and 108 commercial sites. Vibration annoyance from the 

existing freight trains occurs within 80 feet or less for residential sites and 64 feet for commercial 

sites. Vibration annoyance from the proposed high speed passenger train would occur within 47 

feet for residential sites and 30 feet for commercial sites. 

Highway Noise 

The noise associated with diverted roadway traffic at proposed grade-separated intersections is 

expected to cause an exceedance of the FHWA criteria for an estimated 6 residences in the 

proposed Youngsville, NC, Historic District. However, these residential sites are currently assessed 

with sound levels above the FHWA criteria. Additionally, since a noise barrier would have to be 

placed between the homes and the road, mitigation would not be practical. 

No impacts due to “substantial increase” criteria were predicted as a result of the diverted traffic. 

Mitigation was not required at other locations because there were no predicted impacts. The “noimpact” determinations were made as a result of noise receptors that were either too far away or 

were in the vicinity of roads with low traffic volumes and/or had no traffic volume changes as a 

result of the Project. 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

CONSTRUCTION NOISE 

The predominant construction activities associated with the Project are expected to be earth 

removal, hauling, grading, and paving. Temporary and localized construction noise impacts may 

occur as a result of these activities (see Table 4-19). During daytime hours, the effects of these 

impacts may be temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living, working, 

or attending school near the Project. During evening and nighttime hours, if applicable, steadystate construction noise emissions such as from paving operations may be audible, and may cause 

impacts to activities such as sleep. Sporadic evening and nighttime construction equipment noise 

emissions such as from backup alarms, lift gate closures (slamming of dump truck gates), etc., may 

be perceived as distinctly louder than the steady-state acoustic environment, and may cause greater 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-49 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

impacts to the general peace and usage of noise-sensitive areas – particularly residences and hotels 

in the Study Area. 

Extremely loud construction noise activities such as usage of pile-drivers and impact-hammers 

(jack hammer, hoe-ram) will provide sporadic and temporary construction noise impacts in the near 

vicinity of those activities. It is suggested that construction activities that will produce extremely 

loud noises be scheduled during times of the day when such noises will create as minimal 

disturbance as possible. 

Generally, low-cost and easily implemented construction noise control measures should be 

incorporated into Project plans and specifications. These measures include, but are not limited to, 

work-hour limits, exhaust muffler requirements, haul-road locations, elimination of tail gate 

banging, ambient-sensitive backup alarms, construction noise complaint mechanisms, and 

consistent and transparent community communication. 

While discrete construction noise level prediction is difficult for a particular receiver or group of 

receivers, it can be assessed in a general capacity with respect to distance from known or likely 

Project activities. Although construction noise impact mitigation should not place an undue burden 

upon the financial cost of the Project or the Project construction schedule, it is suggested that: 

 Earth removal, grading, hauling, and paving activities in the vicinity of residences should be 

limited to weekday daytime hours. 

 If meeting the Project schedule requires that earth removal, grading, hauling and/or paving 

must occur during evening, nighttime and/or weekend hours in the vicinity of residences, the 

contractor shall notify the appropriate state agency (Virginia DRPT and/or VDOT, or 

NCDOT) as soon as possible. In such instance(s), all reasonable attempts shall be made to 

notify and to make appropriate arrangements for the mitigation of the predicted construction 

noise impacts upon the affected property owners and/or residents. 

 If construction noise activities must occur during context-sensitive hours in the vicinity of 

noise-sensitive areas, discrete construction noise abatement measures including, but not 

limited to portable noise barriers and/or other equipment-quieting devices shall be 

considered. 

 Some construction activities may create extreme noise impacts for nearby noise-sensitive 

land uses. It is the recommendation of this analysis that considerations be made for any 

nearby residences for all evening and/or nighttime periods (7:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.), and for all 

weekend hours throughout which extremely loud construction activities might occur. 

For additional information on construction noise, please refer to the FHWA Construction Noise 

Handbook (FHWA-HEP-06-015) and the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), available 

online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/cnstr_ns.htm. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-50 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-19 

Construction Equipment typical Noise Level Emissions1

Equipment Noise Level Emissions (dB(A)) at 50 Feet From Equipment2

70 80 90 100 

Pile Driver3 

 

Jack Hammer 

 

 

Tractor 

 

 

Road Grader 

 

Backhoe 

 

 

Truck 

 

 

 

Paver 

Pneumatic Wrench 

Crane 

 

 

 

Concrete Mixer 

 

Compressor 

 

Front-End Loader 

 

Generator 

 

Saws 

 

Roller (Compactor) 

1. Adapted from Noise Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 

USEPA. Washington D.C. 1971. 

2. Cited noise level ranges are typical for the equipment cited. Noise energy dissipates as a function of distance 

between the source and the receptor. For example, if the noise level from a pile driver at a distance of 50 feet 

= 100 decibels (dB(A)), then at 400 feet, it might be 82 decibels (dB(A)) or less. 

3. Due to project safety and potential construction noise concerns, pile driving activities are typically limited to 

daytime hours. 

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION 

Vibration levels produced by construction equipment were obtained from FRA’s High Speed 

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (USDOT, 2012) (see Table 6-2) 

and from field measurements. Based on the typical vibration levels listed, calculations were 

performed to determine the distances at which vibration impacts would occur according to the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-51 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

criteria discussed in Section 3.2. Table 4-20 shows the results of those calculations. The distances 

shown in Table 4-21 are the maximum distances at which short-term construction vibration impacts 

may occur. Mitigation measures will need to be considered if construction equipment will operate 

near wood-framed buildings within the distances shown in Table 4-21. 

Two types of construction vibration impact were analyzed: (1) human annoyance and (2) building 

damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the 

threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or 

structural. Fragile buildings such as historical structures are generally more susceptible to damage 

from ground vibration. Normal buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any 

cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet based on typical construction 

equipment vibration levels. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition 

and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all 

buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The potential for 

vibration annoyance and building damage was analyzed for major vibration producing construction 

equipment that will be used on the Project. 

Table 4-20 

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 

Equipment (projected use) PPV 1 at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Velocity Level 2 

at 25 ft (VdB) 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87 

Loaded trucks 0.076 86 

Vibratory compactor/roller 0.210 94 

Source: USDOT, 2012 

Notes: 

1. Peak particle ground velocity measured at 25 feet unless noted otherwise 

2. RMS ground velocity in decibel (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch/second 

Table 4-21 

Construction Equipment Vibration Impact Distances 

 Distance to Vibration 

Annoyance Impact 1

feet 

Distance to Vibration 

Building Damage 2

feet 

Large bulldozer 43 15 

Loaded trucks 40 13 

Small bulldozer <10 <10 

Auger/drill rigs 45 <10 

Vibratory hammer 130 25 

Vibratory compactor/roller 73 26 

Notes: 

1. This is the distance at which the RMS velocity level is 80 VdB or less at the inside of the building structure. 

When propagating from the ground surface to the building structure foundation, there is a vibratory coupling loss 

of approximately 5 dB; however, this loss is offset by the building amplification in light-frame construction. 

Thus, no additional adjustments are applied. 

2. This is the distance at which the peak particle velocity is 0.20 inch/sec or less. 

MITIGATION 

This section discusses the possible mitigation measures that can be implemented to either reduce or 

mitigate the impacts generated by the construction and operation of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-52 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION 

Noise and vibration impacts caused by construction activities are temporary. However, standard 

construction mitigation measures may be required to minimize these impacts. Construction 

activities conducted during daytime hours will have a lesser impact than nighttime construction. 

However, there may be locations where nighttime construction would be unobtrusive, such as 

commercial areas where the land use is unoccupied during nighttime hours, or industrial areas that 

are generally not sensitive to noise and vibration. Nighttime construction may be necessary to 

avoid unacceptable disruptions to current rail operations or street traffic during daytime hours. 

Once details of the construction activities become available, Virginia DRPT, NCDOT, and the 

contractor will work with local authorities to develop an acceptable approach to minimize 

interference with the business and residential communities, traffic disruptions, and the total 

duration of the construction. 

There are a number of measures that can be taken to minimize intrusion without placing 

unreasonable constraints on the construction process or substantially increasing costs. These 

include noise and vibration monitoring to ensure that contractors take all reasonable steps to 

minimize impacts when near sensitive areas and that noise testing and inspection of equipment to 

ensure that all equipment on the site is in good condition and effectively muffled. 

DRPT and NCDOT will determine appropriate noise mitigation control measures during the final 

design phase of the Project. The following are possible control measures that can be implemented 

in order to minimize noise and vibration disturbances at sensitive areas during construction: 

 Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling and ensure that all equipment items have 

the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine covers, 

and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Newer equipment will generally be 

quieter in operation than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at 

periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., 

mufflers and shrouding, etc.). 

 Perform all construction in a manner to minimize noise and vibration. Utilize construction 

methods or equipment that will provide the lowest level of noise and ground vibration impact, 

e.g., avoid impact pile driving near residences and consider alternative methods that are also 

suitable for the soil condition. The contractor should be required to select construction 

processes and techniques that create the lowest noise levels. 

 Perform independent noise and vibration monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the 

noise limits, especially in particularly sensitive areas. Require contractors to modify and/or 

reschedule their construction activities if monitoring determines that maximum limits are 

exceeded at residential land uses. 

 Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations so that noise and vibration are kept 

to a minimum by carefully selecting routes to avoid going through residential neighborhoods 

to the greatest extent possible. 

 Construction lay-down or staging areas should be selected in industrially zoned districts. If 

industrially zoned areas are not available, commercially zoned areas may be used, or 

locations that are at least 100 feet from any noise sensitive land use such as residences, hotels 

and motels. Ingress and egress to and from the staging areas should be on collector streets or 

greater (higher street designations are preferred). 

 Turn off idling equipment. 

 Minimize construction activities during evening, nighttime, weekend, and holiday periods. 

Permits may be required in some cities before construction can be performed in noise 

sensitive areas between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 

 The construction contractor should be required by contract specification to comply with all 

local noise and vibration ordinances and obtain all necessary permits and variances. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-53 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

It is expected that ground-borne vibration from construction activities would cause only intermittent 

localized intrusion along the rail corridor. Processes such as earth moving with bulldozers, the use 

of vibratory compaction rollers, and the operation of vibratory pile drivers can create annoying 

vibration. There are cases where it may be necessary to use this type of equipment in close 

proximity to residential buildings. DRPT and NCDOT will determine if mitigation measures are 

needed during the final design phase of the Project. Following are some procedures that can be 

used to minimize the potential for annoyance or damage from construction vibration: 

 When possible, limit the use of construction equipment that creates high vibration levels, 

such as vibratory rollers and hammers, operating within 130 feet of building structures. 

 Require vibration monitoring during vibration-intensive activities. 

 Restrict the hours of vibration-intensive equipment or activities such as vibratory rollers so 

that impacts to residents are minimal (e.g., weekdays during daytime hours only when as 

many residents as possible are away from home). 

A combination of the mitigation techniques for equipment noise and vibration control as well as 

administrative measures, when properly implemented, can be selected to provide the most effective 

means to minimize the effects of construction activity impacts. Application of the mitigation 

measures will reduce the construction impacts; however, temporary increases in noise and vibration 

would likely occur at some locations. DRPT and NCDOT will determine if mitigation measures 

are needed during the final design phase of the Project. 

MITIGATION DURING OPERATION 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project would provide a completely new, fully road/rail grade separated 

Class 6 railroad (speeds up to 110 mph) to allow high speed passenger and intermodal freight 

movement, as well as providing opportunities for conventional passenger service (i.e., same speeds 

and equipment, but more stopping locations), commuter passenger service, and standard freight 

service. Because of the potential for increased freight usage, the potential effects of this increase 

are discussed in this section. 

Train Noise Mitigation. The noise results and recommendations for the Tier II FEIS are 

preliminary, as final mitigation requirements will be development based on final designs. DRPT 

and NCDOT will conduct a detailed noise analysis during the development of final designs. This 

analysis will reassess the potential impact of new intermodal and freight train service between 

Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC; refer to Section 1.4 for Project assumptions regarding the 

number of passenger and freight trains that will operate in the corridor. As part of the analysis 

summarized in this document (with the results presented in Table 4-14 Summary Total of Rail 

Noise Impacts), it has been assumed that new freight and intermodal train traffic will occur south of 

Petersburg, VA, as a result of the Project. This projected freight and intermodal train traffic 

dominates the Project noise impact exposure. If only the new HSR trains were included in the 

Project noise impact exposure (as was modeled north of Petersburg, VA), the number of projected 

noise impacts would be reduced substantially. Therefore, the detailed noise assessment undertaken 

during development of final design for the Project will use any updated information on estimated 

freight operations. 

Additionally, the train noise impact results previously shown in Table 4-14 represent a fairly 

conservative estimate in terms of the number of projected impacts because maximum operating 

speed was assumed throughout the corridor. During the design phase of the Project, when more 

detailed analysis will be conducted, operating speeds through applicable impacted areas will be 

evaluated further prior to DRPT and NCDOT making a final determination on mitigation. 

During the final design study, the following mitigation measures should be considered and 

applied as appropriate per Federal and state regulations: 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-54 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Wheel Treatments – A major source from steel-on-steel high speed train systems is the 

wheel-rail interaction. Various wheel designs and other mitigation measures to reduce the 

wheel noise include: resilient or damped wheels, spin-slide control systems, and 

maintenance. 

 Rail Treatments – Rail surfaces that are degraded over time due to wear generate noise 

levels that are significantly higher than those produced by a well-maintained system. 

Roughness of rail surfaces can be eliminated by grinding rails. 

 Vehicle Treatments – Mechanical systems associated with rail cars themselves can be a 

source of noise. For example, fans necessary to ventilate the interior of cars can be a major 

noise source, especially when the cars are stopped, such as in a station and/or farther from the 

engines. Fan quieting, if required, can be accomplished by installation of one of several new 

designs of quiet, efficient fans. The vehicle body design itself can also provide shielding and 

absorption of noise generated by the vehicle components. 

 Building Insulation – In cases where rights-of-way are restricted, the only practical noise 

mitigation measure may be to provide sound insulation for the building. The most effective 

treatments are to caulk and seal gaps in the building and to install windows that are specially 

designed to meet acoustical transmission-loss requirements. 

 Noise Barriers – Noise reduction can be achieved by using noise barrier walls in areas along 

the corridor where significant train noise impacts have been identified. If the noise barrier 

walls are implemented prior to Project construction, the walls could then also serve as an 

effective means of mitigating construction noise impacts as well. The cost-effectiveness and 

optimum height of the walls would need to be determined by specific acoustical analysis for 

each area of impact identified. An important consideration in determining areas where noise 

mitigation might be appropriate is whether the railroad and any adjacent residential 

developments may have coexisted for many years. Some land uses may be less sensitive to 

train noise because of its established, long history in the communities, and because of the 

services the rail operation provides to the communities. The USEPA (1974) has indicated 

that these considerations would likely reduce community reactions to noise. Before 

implementation of a mitigation measure such as noise barrier walls, the FRA guidelines 

recommend that the agreement of the community should be obtained. Some communities 

would rather not have a wall because of adverse visual effects. For preliminary estimate 

purposes, an average noise barrier height of 8 feet is an assumed cost-effective height for 

high-speed rail noise impact. (16 feet if there are higher noise sources (such as propulsion 

units) or for protecting higher floors of residences, if desired.) The barrier length needs to 

extend long enough to shield the entire train length for an angle of at least 60 degrees in 

either direction from the impacted receptor. Unit costs are assumed to be $20 per square foot. 

Maximum costs (or square footage) per benefited unit are determined by the project sponsor 

or the sponsor can apply the respective State DOT criteria. Barrier effectiveness is achieved 

with an attenuation of 5 dBA for an 8-foot-high barrier and 8 dBA for a 16-foot-high barrier. 

Both Virginia and North Carolina have traffic noise abatement policies that address impacts 

related to highway noise. While impacts associated with Project will be a result of rail activity, 

review of these abatement policies is useful in understanding how noise abatement is evaluated to 

determine if it will be cost-effective. Table 4-22 provides a summary of the noise abatement 

policies of the respective states. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-55 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-22 

Summary of Highway Noise Abatement Policies* 

Noise 

Abatement 

Criteria 

Virginia North Carolina 

Feasibility 

(1) At least a 5 dB(A) highway traffic noise 

reduction at impacted receptors. VDOT 

requires that fifty percent (50%) or more of 

the impacted receptors experience 5 dB(A) or 

more of insertion loss (the reduction of traffic 

noise levels that directly results from 

installation of a noise reduction measure) to be 

feasible; and; 

(2) The determination that it is possible to 

design and construct the noise abatement 

measure. The factors related to the design and 

construction include: safety, barrier height, 

topography, drainage, utilities, and 

maintenance of the abatement measure, 

maintenance access to adjacent properties, and 

general access to adjacent properties 

(a) Any receptor that receives a minimum 

noise level reduction of five dB(A) due to 

noise abatement measures shall be 

considered a benefited receptor. Noise 

reduction of five dB(A) must be achieved 

for at least one impacted receptor. 

(b) Engineering feasibility of the noise 

abatement measure(s) shall consider 

adverse impacts created by or upon 

property access, drainage, topography, 

utilities, safety, and maintenance 

requirements. 

Reasonableness 

(1) Cost-Benefit Factors 

 Surface Area (Total square foot) of the 

proposed noise barrier. (ft2) 

 Total number of benefited receptors. 

 Surface Area per benefited receptor unit 

(ft2/BR) less than or equal to the 

maximum square feet per benefited 

receptor (MaxSF/BR) value of 1600 

 Must provide a decibel reduction of at 

least 7 decibels (dB(A)) for at least one 

impacted receptor in the design year 

(2) Community Desires Related to the Barrier 

 Do at least 50 percent of the benefited 

receptor unit owner(s) and renters desire 

the noise barrier? 

The combination of social, economic, and 

environmental factors considered in the 

evaluation of a noise abatement measure. 

(a) Viewpoints of the property owners and 

residents of all benefited receptors shall be 

solicited. 

(b) The maximum allowable base quantity 

of noise walls and/or earthen berms per 

benefited receptor shall not exceed 2,500 

ft2 and 7,000 yd3, respectively. 

(c) A noise reduction design goal of at least 

7 dB(A) must be evaluated for all front row 

receptors. At least one benefited front row 

receptor must achieve the noise reduction 

design goal of 7 dB(A). 

*As taken from the respective VDOT and NCDOT highway traffic noise policy guidance manuals. 

Train Vibration Mitigation. The Tier II FEIS vibration results and recommendations are 

preliminary. DRPT and NCDOT will develop a more detailed vibration analysis during the final 

design phase of the Project, to determine: 

 The soil characteristics and the efficiency at which the vibration propagates through the 

ground at various locations along the alignment, 

 The most appropriate method of vibration mitigation, and 

 The extent where mitigation would be required at specific locations. 

In order to ensure that vibration is reduced to an acceptable level, FRA has established the 

following mitigation measures to be considered and applied according to the results of the final 

design study: 

 Maintenance – Wheel and rail surfaces that are degraded over time due to wear generate 

vibration levels that are significantly higher than those produced by a well-maintained 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-56 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

system. However, these conditions are not uncommon on rail systems. Up to 20 VdB of 

vibration reduction can be gained when comparing new or well-maintained rail systems to 

older systems showing wear. The following measures would help to minimize vibration 

impacts if done regularly: 

1. Rail grinding on a regular basis, especially on rails that tend to develop 

corrugations. 

2. Wheel truing to re-contour the wheel and remove wheel flats. This can result in a 

dramatic vibration reduction. However, significant improvements can be gained 

from simply smoothing the running surface. Install wheel-flat detector systems 

to identify vehicles that are most in need of wheel truing. 

3. Implement vehicle reconditioning programs, particularly with components such 

as suspension systems, brakes, wheels, and slip-slide detectors. 

 Relocation of Special Trackwork – Crossovers, turnouts, and other special trackwork that 

cause an irregular rail surface should be considered for relocation to less vibration sensitive 

areas when feasible. The use of special “spring-loaded rail frogs” should be considered at 

turnouts and crossovers that cannot be relocated away from residential and commercial 

structures. The special frogs incorporate mechanisms that close the gaps between running 

rails. Frogs with spring-loaded mechanisms and frogs with movable points can significantly 

reduce vibration levels near crossovers. 

 Ballast Mats – Ballast mats are rubber or another type of elastomer pads that are placed 

under the ballast. The mat must be placed on a concrete pad to be effective. They will not be 

effective if placed on the soil or the sub-ballast. Ballast mats can provide up to 10 to 15 VdB 

of reduction at frequencies above 35 to 40 hertz, but are generally ineffective at frequencies 

below 35 hertz. 

 Resiliently Supported Ties – This is a system that consists of concrete ties supported by 

rubber pads. The rails are fastened directly to concrete ties using standard rail clips. This 

measure can provide a 10 VdB reduction at frequencies in the 15 to 40 hertz range. 

 High Resilience Fasteners – These are used in conjunction with a concrete slab base. The 

fastener must be very compliant (resilient) in the vertical direction. If standard resilient 

fasteners are used (vertical stiffness of 200,000-lbs/inch; stiffness refers to the 

compressibility of the resilient material), little or no improvement in the vibration level would 

be achieved. Special soft fasteners with a vertical stiffness in the 30,000-lbs/inch range 

would reduce vibration levels as much as 5 to 10 VdB at frequencies above 30 to 40 Hz. 

 Floating Slab Trackbed – This type of trackbed consists of a concrete base with 5-foot long 

floating concrete slabs supported above the base using resilient isolation elements such as 

rubber or similar elastomeric pads. The effectiveness of this method depends on the resonant 

frequency of the resilient pads and the mass of the concrete slab. These have been shown to 

be very effective at frequencies in the 5 to 20 hertz range. However, this method is very 

expensive and would normally be considered only in areas where irregular surfaces exist. 

ENERGY 

Overall, there is a positive impact on energy use from the Project. This improvement is due to a 

reduction in energy per passenger mile traveled within the corridor between Washington, DC, and 

Charlotte, NC. Generally speaking, rail is more energy efficient than both automobile and air travel; in 

fact, rail travel is one of the most energy efficient forms of transportation due to the low rolling 

resistance of steel wheels on steel rail. 

The Tier II DEIS showed that the mileage differences between alternatives within each section of the 

Project between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, was relatively small. The discussion in Section 4.8 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-57 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

of the Tier II DEIS noted that because the difference in length between alternatives was so small, the 

difference in impact related to energy would be negligible. Table 4-22 of the Tier II DEIS showed that 

the shortest possible combination of alternatives for the 26 sections of the Project, would total 157.95 

miles, and the longest possible combination of alternatives would total 159.90 miles. The total length 

of the Preferred Alternative (as described in Chapter 2) is 158.92 miles. 

The Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC, estimated a net 

energy fuel reduction value for the implementation of the SEHSR Corridor compared to a no build 

alternative. This energy savings was based on projected ridership, and continues to be supported by 

results of the recently updated ridership and revenue model described in Chapter 1. 

It should be noted that non-recoverable energy will be consumed during construction of the Project on a 

short term basis. This consumption will be related to construction activities as well as potential 

construction-related delays for freight and passenger trains in the areas with existing service. Best 

Management Practices (BMP) will be followed during construction which may include measures to 

minimize energy use such as: 

 Use of energy-efficient equipment 

 Restrictions on unnecessary idling of construction equipment 

 Proper maintenance of equipment and machinery to meet original standards 

 Consolidation of material delivery when possible, and use of local materials where possible. 

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

The following discussion of impacts to the visual environment provides a summary of the information 

presented in the Tier II DEIS and new analyses for areas where the Preferred Alternative was redesigned and not addressed in the Tier II DEIS analysis. 

The regional landscape establishes the general visual environment of a Study Area (USDOT, 1981). 

Regional landscape is defined by the area’s landform (topography) and land cover, including 

vegetation, water, and manmade development. Overall, the visual environment of the Project Study 

Area ranges from undeveloped natural areas to large expanses of agricultural areas and small towns to 

large-scale industrial development and vibrant urban districts. Section 3.9 identifies the existing visual 

elements of the Study Area, which have not changed substantively since publication of the Tier II 

DEIS. 

OVERVIEW OF VISUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that an EIS should identify any 

significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed environment (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999). The visual elements of the proposed Project include single or multiple sets of 

tracks, the supporting rock ballast, vegetated ROW, trains, and associated grade-separated bridge and 

road crossings. The actual configuration of the tracks often would be unnoticeable by the train 

passenger or bystander. A rail corridor is most visible when trains pass and or when one train is 

waiting on a siding for another train to pass. Passing siding improvements allow trains to pass more 

quickly through the view of the onlooker. The Project has been designed to include either double 

tracks or passing sidings (about five miles long, located approximately every ten miles between ends). 

A number of bridges will have to be constructed, reconstructed, or modified. Most bridges will be 

built adjacent to the existing bridge structure or the existing structure will be modified to 

accommodate the proposed Project. 

The incremental addition of HSR service where passenger rail service and/or freight rail service is 

currently active will not substantially alter the visual setting, character, or experience for those 

adjacent to the rail line because they are already exposed to trains passing through. Thus, the overall 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-58 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

degree of change in the visual environment where rail service currently exists will be low. 

Maximizing the use of existing rail ROW further minimizes visual impacts. 

In locations where rail service is not currently active (from the Burgess Connector in Dinwiddie 

County, VA, southward to Norlina in Warren County, NC), the physical components of the rail line 

itself (e.g., railroad tracks) will introduce a change to the existing visual environment. In some 

instances, the tracks have been removed and small portions of ROW sold for driveway access. 

Communities without active rail lines include the Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse area, McKenney, VA, 

Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA, and Norlina, NC. Although each of these towns developed along 

the railroad and had active rail service until the 1980s, the return of rail operations in a community 

could serve as a visual intrusion, albeit a short and periodic one. Some individuals and communities 

adjacent to the new rail service may never get used to the sight of trains adjacent to their property and 

may perceive this as a negative impact on their quality of life. However, others may view the visual 

changes as a sign of progress and economic opportunity. Outside of the urbanized areas, dense stands 

of forest and agricultural operations dominate the landscape. The existing wooded areas would 

provide a visual barrier for those living in rural areas. 

Throughout the Study Area along the rail alignment, landscaping will be consistent with what 

currently exists. Along road work, landscaping will be addressed during final design using VDOT or 

NCDOT standards/procedures. Details for landscaping in historic districts may be specified under the 

Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which is being developed with input from property 

owners and other consulting parties. Refer to Section 4.12 for additional discussion regarding 

mitigation for visual impacts relative to Section 106 historic resources. 

Impacts to visual resources will also result from construction activities. Construction of physical 

improvements may cause some temporary degradation of visual quality. Construction BMPs often 

include use of silt fencing or construction barriers, which would have a temporary visual presence. 

Section 4.9 of the Tier II DEIS provided an analysis of the area-specific and resource-specific visual 

impacts within each section of the Project for each of the alternatives presented in the Tier II DEIS. 

The methodology for that analysis focused on potential visual changes to cities, towns, communities, 

and scenic or visually sensitive resources along the Project corridor. Potential changes to the visual 

environment were described and ranked as either low, moderate, or high depending on the degree of 

visual change. Visual Impact Ratings are defined below. 

 Low Visual Impacts: If rail or roadway features of the alignment are consistent with the 

existing line, form, texture, and color of other elements in the landscape and do not stand out. 

 Moderate Visual Impacts: If rail or roadway features of the alignment are obvious but do not 

dominate the landscape or detract from existing visual features. 

 High Visual Impacts: If the rail or roadway features of the alignment are obvious, thereby 

dominating the landscape and detracting from the existing landscape characteristics or scenic 

qualities. 

The visual impacts of the Preferred Alternative are summarized by section in Table 4-23. As 

discussed in Section 4.9 of the Tier II DEIS, there was no difference between alternatives in terms of 

visual impacts, except in Project Section R (Franklin County, NC), and Project section V (Wake 

County, NC). Subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, a revision was made to the Preferred Alternative in 

Section R that results in a reduction of the visual impacts described in the Tier II DEIS, and an 

entirely new rail alignment was developed and selected as the Preferred Alternative in Section V; in 

addition, a new rail alignment was developed and selected as the Preferred Alternative in Section D 

(Brunswick County, VA). An analysis of the visual impacts for the Preferred Alternative in these 

three sections is provided below. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-59 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SECTIONS WITH NEW ANALYSES 

SECTION D, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Section D is located in northern Brunswick County, VA, where the visual setting is dominated by 

forested, agricultural, and rural residential uses. As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred 

Alternative (VA4) was developed subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, and follows an alignment on new 

location, predominantly east of the existing rail ROW, where the tracks have been removed. The 

Preferred Alternative will require construction of three new grade-separated crossings and the 

closure of one public at-grade crossing. Under the Preferred Alternative, new HSR service and 

road/rail features will be obvious elements on the landscape. However, the overall visual impacts 

will be low because dense forest cover dominants the landscape, and views of the new rail will be 

screened from view throughout the most of the section. 

SECTION S, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NC 

Section S is located in the northern portion of Franklin County, NC, where CSX operates freight 

service along the existing CSX S-Line railroad. South of the Tar River, the Preferred Alternative 

(NC1) shifts from existing rail ROW to new location east the existing railroad in order to flatten a 

curve, and then rejoins the existing rail ROW near Misty Way. The Preferred Alternative calls for 

one public road to be closed at the new rail alignment, and one bridge over the new rail alignment 

to be constructed. 

The surrounding visual setting is dominated by agricultural and forest uses with homes sparsely 

dotting the landscape. The exception to this is the residential community located to the east of the 

rail line along Cornerstone Drive, which is buffered from the existing rail line (approximately 900 

feet to the west) by vegetation and terrain. 

The residential development along Cornerstone Drive was constructed after alternatives had been 

developed for the Tier II DEIS. The Alternative NC1 alignment shown in the Tier II DEIS crossed 

through the vegetated buffer behind the new neighborhood and through several residential 

properties, which would have resulted in a high visual impact to the community. Alternative NC1 

was selected as the Preferred Alternative in this section. However, as described in Chapter 2 of this 

document, subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, the rail alignment for NC1 was revised to avoid 

impacting the new residential development. The revised alignment still flattens the curve of the 

existing rail, but a westward shift away from the residential properties retains the existing terrain 

and vegetated buffer behind the neighborhood, resulting in a low visual impact for the 

neighborhood. 

Because the Preferred Alternative follows the active railroad ROW throughout the remainder of this 

section, it will not present an obvious visual intrusion; therefore, the visual impact will be low. 

SECTION V, WAKE COUNTY, NC 

Section V contains the southern terminus of the Project, and is located within Wake County, a 

rapidly suburbanizing county where the visual landscape is becoming dominated by residential, 

commercial, and industrial development. Large tracts of forested and agricultural lands are 

interspersed throughout the county, but are not the dominant landscape features. 

As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative (NC5) was developed for Section V 

subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, and predominantly follows existing freight rail ROW. Nine new 

bridges or underpasses and one pedestrian bridge will be constructed, fourteen existing grade 

separated crossings will be maintained or replaced, and two public crossings will be closed. Much 

of the northern portions of this section are heavily wooded; however, the dominant landscape 

features vary from suburban residential and commercial to industrial to forested to dense urban 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-60 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

mixed-use development. From Gresham Lake Road to Whittaker Mill Road, the Preferred 

Alternative remains primarily within the existing rail ROW. Thus, the visual impact will remain 

low because freight rail is currently active on the tracks and the rail ROW and the adjacent land is 

heavily wooded. 

The roadway improvements proposed for Gresham Lake Road will have a low visual impact given 

that the adjacent landscape is either heavily wooded or high density commercial/industrial. 

Similarly, the roadway improvements associated with new bridges over the rail at East Millbrook 

Road, New Hope Church Road, Wolfpack Lane and Whitaker Mill Road will be obvious, but not 

inconsistent with the existing urban commercial setting. 

The Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway is a visually sensitive resource located just south of the I-440 

Beltline. The Project will introduce new HSR service essentially within existing freight ROW. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, a new bridge will be constructed adjacent to the existing singletrack bridge that spans the Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway, Crabtree Creek, and Hodges Street. 

The new adjacent, parallel bridge will not substantially alter the existing landscape and setting for 

individuals using the Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will 

result in a low degree of visual change. 

South of Whitaker Mill Road to the CSX Capital Yard, the Preferred Alternative maximizes use of 

the existing, active CSX S-Line while incorporating a new HSR bridge parallel to the existing CSX 

bridge to cross over both the CNLA short line railroad and Capital Boulevard, before entering the 

west side of CSX Capital Yard. Because the alignment remains within or immediately adjacent to 

existing rail ROW, and because the existing rail line is active, the introduction of HSR will not 

create a visually intrusive feature nor will it be inconsistent with the historic Mordecai 

neighborhood, the historic Pilot Mill buildings, or the new urbanist Pilot Mill Village. Therefore, 

the Preferred Alternative will result in a low degree of visual change in this area. 

Just south of the Wade Avenue/Capital Boulevard interchange, the Preferred Alternative branches 

west out of Capital Yard to cross back over Capital Boulevard and West Street on a new HSR 

bridge in a new location. The surrounding area is that of a commercial urban setting, which is not 

inconsistent with rail. However, because the bridge represents an entirely new structure, it will 

bring a moderate visual change to this location. 

The Preferred Alternative then follows the active Norfolk Southern NS-Line southward within new, 

adjacent ROW, utilizing new parallel bridges to cross over Peace Street, West Johnson Street, 

Tucker Street, and West North Street. Because the alignment remains adjacent to the existing 

ROW, and because the existing rail line is active, the introduction of HSR service along this 

alignment will not be an obvious visual intrusion nor will it be visually inconsistent with the 

surrounding development patterns. 

At Jones Street, the existing at-grade crossing will be closed and a pedestrian bridge will be 

constructed. While not inconsistent with the existing urban setting that is transitioning toward 

entertainment and office uses, the new structure will be obvious, and will have a moderate to high 

level of visual impact. Because of the close proximity to historic properties (the Carolina Power 

and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage, and the Raleigh Electric Company Power 

House) the appearance of the bridge will be a condition of the MOA being developed as part of 

coordination under Section 106 of the NHPA. Refer to Section 4.12 for additional discussion. 

At the approach to the Boylan Wye and the terminus of the Project, the immediate view to the east 

is of older brick buildings within the Warehouse District (another industrial area transitioning 

towards entertainment and office uses) with the Raleigh, NC, skyline in the background. The view 

to the south is of the current Amtrak station with the Boylan Heights Historic District on the hill 

behind. The view to the west is of an older neighborhood, the Boylan Avenue bridge and both NS 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-61 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

and NCRR rail corridors. Because this is an active freight rail area and the alignment is primarily 

within existing rail ROW, the visual impact will be low. 

Table 4-23 

Visual Impacts (Low, Moderate, High) 

Section VA Communities Impacts 

AA Richmond, Chesterfield County, VA Low to Moderate 

BB Chesterfield County, Centralia, Chester, VA Low to Moderate 

CC Colonial Heights, Ettrick, Petersburg, VA Low 

DD Dinwiddie County, VA Low to Moderate 

A Dinwiddie County, VA Low to Moderate 

B Dinwiddie County, Dinwiddie Courthouse, VA Low to Moderate 

C Dinwiddie County, McKenney, VA Moderate 

D Brunswick County, VA Low 

E Brunswick County, Alberta, VA Low to Moderate 

F Brunswick County, VA Low 

G Brunswick County, VA Low 

H Brunswick County, Mecklenburg County, VA Low to Moderate 

I Mecklenburg County, La Crosse, VA Low to Moderate to High 

J Mecklenburg County, VA Low to Moderate 

K Mecklenburg County, VA Low to Moderate 

L (VA) Mecklenburg County, VA, Lake Gaston area Low to Moderate 

Section NC Communities Impacts 

L (NC) Warren County, NC Moderate to High 

M Warren County, Norlina, NC Low to Moderate to High 

N Warren County, NC Low to Moderate 

O Vance County, Middleburg, NC Low to Moderate 

P Vance County, Henderson, NC Low to Moderate 

Q Vance County, Kittrell, NC Low to Moderate to High 

R Franklin County, NC Low 

S Franklin County, Franklinton, NC Low 

T Franklin County, Youngsville, NC Low to Moderate 

U Wake County, Wake Forest, Raleigh, NC Low to Moderate to High 

V Wake County, Raleigh, NC Low to Moderate to High 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Proposed Project impacts to the natural terrestrial communities occurring within the preferred 

alternative are described in the following sections (aquatic community impacts are summarized in 

Sections 4.1 and 4.2). Impact minimization, threatened and endangered species, and bald eagles are 

also addressed. 

NATURAL COMMUNITIES 

Project construction will have various impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic communities described in 

Section 3.10.1. Construction activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact 

biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural 

communities within the Study Area in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals affected. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-62 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with recommendations to minimize or 

eliminate impacts. 

TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

Clearing and paving for Project construction, and loss of terrestrial community area will potentially 

cause permanent impacts to terrestrial communities in the Study Area. Destruction of natural 

communities within the Study Area will potentially result in the loss of foraging and breeding 

habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal species will potentially be 

displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile 

enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less mobile species may suffer 

direct loss during construction. 

Potential Project impacts (in acres) to the various different land cover types classified by the 

Southeast Gap Analysis for Virginia and North Carolina are summarized by Project section for each 

alternative in Appendix N. Appropriate land cover types were combined into “Mixed Forest,” 

“Pine Forest,” and “Maintained/Disturbed” to summarize the impacts in Table 4-24. Project 

impacts were calculated by determination of the acreage of applicable forested community types 

from the Southeast GAP data (BaSIC, 2008) within 25 feet of the slope-stake line. Impacts to 

“Maintained/disturbed” communities, though not “natural”, are included for reference. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-63 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-24 

Potential Project Impacts to Natural Communities (acres) 

Section Mixed Forest Pine Forest Forest 

Subtotal 

Maintained/ 

Disturbed Total 

AA 34.09 8.48 42.57 181.26 223.83 

BB 53.90 0.26 54.16 96.18 150.34 

CC 40.24 4.81 45.05 127.85 172.90 

DD 51.67 10.74 62.41 49.17 111.58 

A 42.41 21.79 64.20 42.46 106.66 

B 48.18 33.27 81.45 22.43 103.88 

C 87.78 67.27 155.05 63.67 218.72 

D 45.82 55.89 101.71 39.17 140.88 

E 33.85 18.16 52.01 40.31 92.32 

F 35.94 31.08 67.02 33.90 100.92 

G 25.89 17.67 43.56 18.45 62.01 

H 82.37 28.27 110.64 47.88 158.52 

I 22.02 13.51 35.53 67.60 103.13 

J 38.13 24.93 63.06 40.06 103.12 

K 40.38 38.83 79.21 10.03 89.24 

L (VA) 11.27 12.80 24.07 16.83 40.90 

VA Subtotal 693.94 387.76 1,081.7 897.25 1,978.95 

L (NC) 40.67 23.72 64.39 51.50 115.89 

M 25.79 14.71 40.50 128.95 169.45 

N 22.14 21.29 43.43 47.16 90.59 

O 27.15 19.07 46.22 93.00 139.22 

P 9.98 2.88 12.86 171.40 184.26 

Q 38.04 11.18 49.22 100.03 149.25 

R 8.18 21.27 29.45 14.91 44.36 

S 54.68 37.51 92.19 57.99 150.18 

T 6.91 18.74 25.65 37.35 63.00 

U 40.69 31.25 71.94 92.89 164.83 

V 10.63 6.42 17.05 162.62 179.67 

NC Subtotal 284.86 208.04 492.90 957.80 1,450.70 

Total: 978.80 595.80 1,574.60 1,855.05 3,429.65 

The Project has minimized impacts to natural terrestrial communities by selecting to the maximum 

extent practicable, alternatives having the lowest impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and 

other waters, which generally coincide with the remnant forested habitats for each section. Plant 

and animal communities are also threatened by habitat fragmentation which can increase the risk of 

predation or the displacement of native species by invasive, exotic species. 

Loss of habitat, mortality due to collisions, barrier effect, and reduction in habitat quality are the 

main impacts of habitat fragmentation by railroads. On a local scale, trains may affect wildlife 

habitats through the introduction of exotic plant species (e.g. seeds), emission of toxic contaminants 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-64 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

like heavy metals, or management (e.g. herbicides) (Wild Earth Guardians, 2014). Potential habitat 

fragmentation may occur in Section D, where the Preferred Alternative is on new location, 

bisecting existing forested tracts. Of concern in Section D is the potential constraining of the 

Michaux’s sumac (Table 4-25) population and its ability to expand to the potential habitat on the 

other side of the rail line. However, the proposed location is over 80 feet from the sumac 

population and does not present an immediate barrier to expansion due to the extensive suitable 

habitat to the north and the south. To further minimize potential impacts here, herbicide application 

will be restricted in this vicinity. 

Species requiring large, unbroken tracts of forest, offering deep interior forest conditions to carry 

out some portion of their life cycle may be impacted in Project sections on new location and to a 

lesser degree on existing inactive rail line. Review of 2010 aerial photography from Collier Yard, 

south of Petersburg, VA to the beginning of Section N, south of Norlina, NC (the only Project 

locations involving currently inactive rail line and/or new location within non-urban settings), 

revealed the following potential for habitat fragmentation and/or impacts to wildlife and riparian 

corridors. Potential impacts to forest interior-dependent species are also considered. 

There are 27 areas in the Study Area where potentially natural habitat (mixed forest natural 

community exceeding 200 acres) is traversed by approximately 22.5 miles of existing inactive or 

proposed new rail corridor. Of these locations, 15 include existing inactive rail corridor where 

there is a berm with no ballast, ties, or rails; berm with ballast only; or berm with ballast and 

ties. New railroad is proposed at 16 of the 27 locations (4 of the locations include a combination of 

existing and new rail corridor). Where inactive rail corridor exists, the adjacent potential habitat is 

already fragmented by this variably maintained interruption and riparian corridors have been 

affected by culverts and, to a lesser extent, bridges. Habitat edge zones and wildlife travel, 

however, may be newly disturbed by reintroduction of train travel at these 15 locations. Reactivating the railway would increase collision mortality and toxic contaminants at these locations 

along approximately 11.2 miles of existing currently inactive railroad corridor through contiguous 

mixed forested areas. 

The Preferred Alternative is located up to 5,000 feet from the existing rail corridor (but average 

maximum distance is about 1,500 feet) at 16 new locations through contiguous mixed forested 

habitat. Depending on the distance from existing natural community edges, there is variable 

potential for habitat fragmentation at each of these sites. Minimal impacts are anticipated due to 

the combination of stream-bridging, proximity to existing habitat barriers, and the size, orientation, 

and quality of the mixed forested communities. Approximately 2.15 miles of the 11.26-mile 

Preferred Alternative on new location within mixed forested community would be over 500 feet 

from the nearest existing potential habitat edge. Within these areas (at 8 locations) the 3 locations 

in North Carolina present the most significant potential for habitat fragmentation and/or impacts to 

wildlife and riparian corridors or forest interior-dependent species. In Sections L and M, location 

of the over 8,000 feet of Preferred Alternative up to 2000 feet west of the existing rail corridor 

would result in direct impacts to over 18 acres of mixed forest community within contiguous tracts 

over 50 acres in size, including over 1,000 linear feet of direct stream impacts. Avoidance and 

minimization of these areas is summarized in Section 2.2 but potential adverse effects to 

Section 4(f) resources necessitated the additional habitat (and stream) impacts. 

As discussed above, the avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts, including forested 

areas, has been maximized throughout Project planning and design after consideration of variably 

competing priorities such that impacts of the Preferred Alternative to potential riparian and/or 

forest-interior habitat through fragmentation, are unavoidable. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-65 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AQUATIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

Aquatic habitat in the Study Area will be both directly and indirectly affected by the construction of 

the Project. Direct impacts will include the destruction of habitat by the placement and replacement of culverts at stream crossings and clearing and filling of adjacent floodplain and 

wetlands (see Tables 4-1 through 4-7). Many of the historic railroad culverts were bottomless 

arched rockwork placed on bedrock with rock walls at the entrance and exit. These were 

morphologically stable. As a result of their bottomless design, the natural streambed was able to 

fully function and did not impede fish migration or impair benthic habitat. In subsequent years, the 

exterior rock walls on some culverts have been supplemented with concrete culvert extensions. 

These extensions have increased plunge pool depths at outfalls and downstream stream bank 

erosion. This erosion was observed to embed stream substrate typically for hundreds of linear feet 

downstream of the culverts. Many culverts are creating fish migration blockages either at their 

outfall or as a result of the shallow water that passes through them with swift currents and high 

velocities. 

Impacts to aquatic communities for new construction would include fluctuations in water 

temperatures as a result of the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the 

aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms’ life cycles, would be affected by losses in the 

terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna, which 

rely on them as a food source. 

Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased sedimentation. 

While aquatic invertebrates may be severely impacted, some may drift downstream during 

construction and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the 

potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of 

gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, 

altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may cause 

decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. Dissolved oxygen rates may be lower 

as well. 

NATURAL COMMUNITY IMPACT MINIMIZATION 

VDRPT and NCDOT will minimize terrestrial and aquatic impacts by including the following 

measures: 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity 

 Limiting or eliminating discharges into streams 

 Reducing fill slopes at stream/wetland crossings 

 Placing drainage structures with care 

 Using spanning structures or bottomless culverts over streams 

 Reestablishing vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide 

management 

 Scheduling “in-stream” activity during dry or low flow periods 

 Using responsible litter control practices 

RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES 

Coordination with the USFWS is continuing through the design phase of the Project regarding 

Threatened and Endangered Species (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.), the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712). 

The Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis) has been historically documented in the Study 

Area. Although the species is currently not listed as threatened or endangered by USFWS, Virginia 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-66 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DRPT and NCDOT will review the status of the species during final design to determine if field 

surveys are necessary. 

The USFWS recently listed the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as “Threatened” 

and issued an interim species-specific rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

effective May 4, 2015. Furthermore, this species is included in USFWS’s current list of protected 

species for the project study area. Virginia DRPT and NCDOT will continue working closely with 

the USFWS to determine how this listing may impact the SEHSR project. Approximately 1,575 

acres of trees (see Table 4-26) and numerous structures may be impacted by project construction over 

the anticipated three-year phased schedule. Prior to project permitting, Virginia DRPT and NCDOT 

will coordinate with USFWS to determine if this project will incur potential effects to the Northern 

long-eared bat and how to address these potential effects, if necessary. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. The ESA also prohibits any action that causes a "taking" of any 

listed species of endangered fish or wildlife. 

Biological conclusions regarding potential Project impacts for the ten Federally protected species 

within the Study Area described in Section 3.10.2 are summarized in Table 4-25. More detailed 

information can be found in the natural resource technical reports for the Project (NCDOT and 

Virginia DRPT, 2004a, 2008). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-67 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-25 

Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species in the Study Area 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name Status County/State Biological Conclusion 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

bald eagle BGEPA Richmond, 

Chesterfield, 

Mecklenburg/ 

VA 

Warren, Vance, 

Wake/ NC

No Effect for VA1, VA2, and VA3 in Virginia – 

see discussion below regarding population west 

of Petersburg, VA 

No Effect for NC1, NC2, or NC3 in North 

Carolina 

Picoides borealis red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

E Wake/NC No Effect for all alternatives - No habitat in the 

project study area

Percina rex Roanoke 

logperch 

E Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick, 

Mecklenburg/ 

VA

Informal Section 7 consultation is ongoing with 

USFWS; surveys will be conducted followed by 

additional coordination with USFWS

Alasmidonta 

heterodon 

dwarf 

wedgemussel 

E Chesterfield, 

Dinwiddie/VA 

Warren, Vance, 

Franklin, 

Wake/NC 

Informal Section 7 consultation is ongoing with 

USFWS; surveys will be conducted followed by 

additional coordination with USFWS 

Pleurobema 

collina 

James River 

spinymussel 

E Chesterfield/ VA Informal Section 7 consultation is ongoing with 

USFWS; surveys will be conducted followed by 

additional coordination with USFWS 

Elliptio 

steinstansana 

Tar River 

spinymussel 

E Warren, 

Franklin/NC 

May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect for 

all alternatives 

Rhus michauxii Michaux’s 

sumac 

E Chesterfield, 

Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick, 

Mecklenburg/ 

VA 

Franklin, 

Wake/NC 

No Effect for VA2; May Affect – Is Likely to 

Adversely Affect for VA1/VA3 in Section D only 

(No Effect for VA1/VA3 in all other sections – 

see discussion below) 

No Effect for NC1, NC2, or NC3 in North 

Carolina 

Ptilimnium 

nodosum 

harperella E Mecklenburg/ 

VA 

No Effect for all alternatives - No habitat in the 

project study area 

Aeschyno-mene 

virginica 

sensitive jointvetch 

T Chesterfield/ VA No Effect for all alternatives - No habitat in the 

project study area 

The Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) is presumed to occur within the Study Area as it crosses over 

Nottoway River and Stony Creek. The species has been observed in streams above and below the 

Study Area and suitable habitat is present where the Study Area crosses these streams. At the 

request of USFWS, surveys along the Nottoway River and suitable tributaries where the Roanoke 

logperch may be found, will be scheduled as required when the Project is funded for construction. 

Construction of the Project should not impact Roanoke logperch populations in the Nottoway River 

or Stony Creek if in-stream activities and sedimentation are appropriately minimized. 

Additional surveys for listed freshwater mussels will be scheduled prior to Project construction for 

Sappony Creek, Nottoway River, Tar River, Neuse River, and Cedar Creek in order to determine 

potential Project impacts to the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River 

spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and James River spinymussel (Pleurobema collina). The 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-68 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

results of these surveys will be coordinated with USFWS in continuing informal Section 7 

consultation. Stringent erosion controls will be enforced during construction to minimize impacts 

to the dwarf wedgemussel population downstream of the Project crossing at Cedar Creek. 

The area of the Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) population described in Section 3.10.2 has been 

avoided in Section D Alternative VA4, with the limits of construction being approximately 80 feet 

from the closest extent of the population. 

Based on informal Section 7 consultation, the USFWS stated in a letter dated November 8, 2004, 

that “...this project is not likely to adversely affect Michaux’s sumac provided the following 

conditions apply: 

 The railway footprint would be located a minimum of 20 feet from the closest extent of the 

population, 

 No construction activity would occur within 20 feet of the closest extent of the population, 

 During and following construction, no herbicide treatment would occur within 500 feet of the 

population...” 

Based on this coordination, FRA has determined that Alternative VA4 within Section D of the 

Project would have no effect on the Michaux’s sumac. As encouraged by USFWS, the Army 

National Guard Maneuver Training Center, Fort Pickett, was contacted regarding potential 

management of the sumac population and coordination is on-going. 

The sumac population is located along an inactive portion of the CSX S-Line; therefore, the 

population area is not currently sprayed by CSX for maintenance. Following Project construction, 

typical practice along active lines with high density traffic would be to spray once in the spring, and 

perform heavy cutting and spraying of the ROW 25 feet from the centerline as needed. The 

spraying is done using Hi-Rail trucks with booms that can be raised and lowered. The equipment 

operators use railroad mile post numbers to identify locations along the line where they are 

prohibited from spraying. During and after construction, the Project Team will identify the sumac 

population area as an area where spraying is prohibited. 

Although no suitable habitat was identified for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) and sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica) during field surveys, these surveys have expired or will expire 

prior to anticipated Project permitting and construction. Informal Section 7 consultation is ongoing 

with USFWS and additional surveys will be conducted (as required) when the Project is funded for 

construction, followed by further coordination with USFWS prior to the permitting phase of the 

Project. Additional survey for potential Michaux’s sumac habitat will be similarly coordinated with 

USFWS. 

BALD EAGLE AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended 

several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, 

from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. 

Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open 

water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within one mile of 

open water. While conducting field surveys for Federally listed species, a pair of bald eagles was 

observed on September 14, 2005, along the Appomattox River, just west of the City of Petersburg, 

VA. The area was revisited on February 2, 2006 (after leaf fall), to survey nest locations. Two 

potential nests were found in mature loblolly pine trees along the north bank of the Appomattox 

River outside the Study Area. The nest locations were reported to USFWS and the Virginia 

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Because the Project will be located more than 

1,000 feet from the nests, it is anticipated that Project will have no effect on the bald eagle. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-69 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, 

import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory 

bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued 

pursuant to Federal regulations. 

The Project can have effects on migratory bird populations, including habitat loss, habitat 

degradation, and habitat fragmentation. The Preferred Alternative passes through areas of 

developed land, farm fields, and forested areas. However, in all Project sections, impacts are 

focused on the existing rail corridor and do not include large areas of undisturbed land. 

COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

This Section has been updated from the Tier II DEIS to address public and agency comments, unless 

otherwise noted. 

In this section, direct impacts to the human environment and economy from the proposed Project are 

discussed. These issues are directly related to one another; as communities and neighborhoods are 

affected by development (be it transportation or urban uses), so too is the land on which we live and our 

local economies. This assessment analyzes and reviews critical areas such as socio-economics, 

communities, facilities, services, environmental justice, vulnerable populations and land use planning 

on a local and regional level. 

SOCIO-ECONOMICS 

This section assesses the economic benefits and consequences (negative impacts) that are likely to 

accrue within the Study Area from the Preferred Alternative. 

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES 

PROPERTY VALUE IMPACTS 

A significant loss in adjacent property values is not anticipated from the Project, given that: 

 Along active rail lines, residents are used to the sights and sounds of trains. 

 Where the lines are currently inactive, the reactivation of rail service may be viewed 

negatively; however, the low number of trains and the speed at which they will be traveling 

will limit the exposure to rail activities. 

 Along active lines in communities with planned stations, residents are not only used to trains, 

it is predicted that the demand for office, retail, hotel and higher density housing will increase 

sharply near the proposed stations. And, as demand for redevelopment and infill 

opportunities increase, property values may actually increase over the long term. 

 Where crossings are planned to be closed or access to parcels modified, residents and 

businesses should not witness a loss in property values given that access to all uses will be 

retained and the overall change in travel patterns for the community will not be substantially 

altered because most of the consolidated crossings have been designed to be no more than 

one mile apart. 

 Although train horn noise has been shown to affect property values, under the Preferred 

Alternative all crossings will be grade-separated which will eliminate horn noise in the Study 

Area (refer to Section 4.7 for additional discussion related to noise). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-70 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

LOSS OF USE 

As noted in other sections of this chapter, the Preferred Alternative will impact approximately 

2,288 acres of potentially developable land (farm, forest, open, undeveloped), as shown on Table 

4-26. This land will be indefinitely lost from existing and future agricultural uses as well as future 

development. In addition, it is anticipated that this land will be removed from the tax rolls, and as 

such will have a fiscal impact on both states. 

Table 4-26 

Potentially Developable Land Lost to Preferred Alternative 

Forest (ac) Farmland & Other 

(ac) 

TOTAL (ac) 

VA 1,082 313 1,395 

NC 493 400 893 

TOTAL 1,575 713 2,288 

Source: Baker GIS Analysis, 4-15-14 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

As discussed below and in Chapter 1, the addition of the HSR proposed by the Project will provide 

substantial transportation, environmental, and community benefits to the residents of Virginia and 

North Carolina. Although the economic consequences discussed above are not quantified, the 

economic benefits of the Project, as quantified in this section, would appear to far exceed any 

negative economic impacts. 

Sections 1.1 and 1.8 summarize several detailed economic and fiscal analyses that have been 

prepared for the SEHSR Corridor, including two cost-benefit studies: one prepared in 1997 by FRA 

for the entire national HSR system (the SEHSR Corridor is only one segment); and, a second 

detailed feasibility study prepared by NCDOT in 1998 specifically for the Washington, DC, to 

Charlotte, NC, SEHSR Corridor. Table 4-27 presents the results of these studies, with inflationadjusted values to the year 2014 based on the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 

Although the two studies used different assumptions and methods, and a direct comparison is not 

feasible, this table shows that independent evaluations found implementation of HSR in the SEHSR 

Corridor to be economically justified. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-71 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-27 

Results of SEHSR Cost-Benefit Studies – Updated to 2014 Dollars 

 1997 FRA Study* 1998 SAIC Study** 

Total Benefits (in millions) $9,597 $1,789 

Total Costs (in millions) $3,779 $1,191 

NET Benefits (Total Benefits – 

Total Cost) $5,818 $598 

Benefit Ratio^ (Total Benefits / 

Total Cost) 2.54 1.46 

Sources: FRA 1997 Study; SAIC (Science Application International Corporation and Corporate Strategies, Inc.) “Cost 

Benefit Analysis of the Piedmont High Speed Corridor” (Dec 1998), as reported in NCDOT SEHSR Feasibility Study 

(1999). 

Figures from the initial reports have been updated to 2014 Dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, Inflation Calculator, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Accessed 4/16/14 

* Assumes 27 RTS (round trips) between Charlotte/NYC. 

** This reports “Scenario 6”, which assumed 4 RTS between Charlotte/Raleigh and 4 RTS Charlotte/NYC. 

^ This ratio estimates the amount of benefits for every $1.00 spent to build and operate the SEHSR corridor. Thus, for the 

1997 study, the project was estimated to provide $2.54 worth of benefits for every $1.00 spent to build and operate the 

project. 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EFFECTS 

Construction of the SEHSR Corridor would create 23,952 temporary full-time jobs for 

individuals to upgrade the railroad road bed, install signal and safety devices, build 

frontage/service roads, improve grade separated crossings, and build bridges to replace grade 

crossings (KPMG, 1995). Additional jobs, possibly within the Study Area, would be created 

within the manufacturing sector to produce the equipment and materials needed to make these 

improvements. The additional jobs would increase income, and benefit the regional economy. 

During construction, the economic impact would depend on the location of the firms supplying 

labor and materials. It is estimated that a high percentage of the new employment during the 

construction phase would come from within the SEHSR Corridor. Communities along the 

SEHSR Corridor will also benefit as construction crews spend money in local hotels, restaurants, 

and shops. 

The impact from operation expenditures would likely be more concentrated; the majority of new 

jobs would likely be created in communities served by the proposed service. Ticket agents and 

other railroad personnel are likely to be located in these communities and the secondary impacts 

of their employment would be spread throughout the areas in which stations are located. Once 

HSR service is in place there would be additional needs such as maintaining the equipment and 

the track. 

However, it is feasible that once the system is up and running, railroad personnel could live 

anywhere along the corridor and use the system to get to their work location. In addition the 

installation of high speed compatible track will enable even communities without stops to benefit 

from potential freight enhancements, an added incentive to draw new industry locations. 

Communities without stops will have new potential freight access, providing enhanced incentives 

for new industrial locations. Together, these impacts would expand the economic benefits of the 

Project beyond those communities with stations. 

As shown in Tables 4-28 and 4-29, it is estimated that in North Carolina alone, construction of 

the SEHSR Corridor will generate almost $800 million in economic (business sales, employee 

earnings and jobs) and fiscal benefits (tax and fee revenues). Over 20 years, the operation and 

maintenance of the system will create over 800 permanent full-time jobs and generate over $661 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-72 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

million in economic and fiscal benefits in North Carolina alone. Although the studies did not 

include the Virginia portion of the SEHSR Corridor, it can be assumed that Virginia will see 

similar economic and fiscal benefits from constructing and maintaining the proposed system. 

Table 4-28 

Estimate of Annual Economic and Fiscal Impacts (NC Only) 

  1996 Dollars 2014 Dollars^ 

Economic Impacts Earning Income $10,507,629,189 15,824,596,700 

Fiscal Impacts State Income Taxes $332,041,082 $500,057,256 

 Corporate Income Taxes $62,873,699 $94,684,932 

 State Sales Tax $204,898,768 $308,579,634 

 Property Taxes / Recordation Fees $44,874,257 $67,581,089 

 Franchise Taxes $2,124,158 $3,199,004 

Employment Security Taxes $72,230,023 $108,779,151 

 Sum of Fiscal Impacts $719,041,987 $1,082,881,066 

Total Economic and 

Fiscal Impacts $11,226,671,176 $16,907,477,766 

Source: From Tier I EIS, KPMG Economic Impact Analysis, 1995, using Net Present Value of 1996 dollar values. Covers 

NC only. Does NOT include station construction (see Table 4-29). Construction of SHSR and the Stations are assumed for 

a 1 year duration; Other impacts are over the 20 years after construction. 

^ Updated to 2014 Dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, Inflation Calculator, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Accessed 4/14/14 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-73 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-29 

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of SEHSR by Project Activity 

(NC Only; Updated to 2014 Dollars) 

Activity Economic Impact 

(Earnings Income) 

Fiscal Impacts 

(Fees & Taxes) TOTAL 

SEHSR Construction 

(1 year duration) $739,660,600 $52,902,034 $792,562,634 

Operations & 

Maintenance (over 20 

years) $619,401,095 $41,791,367 $661,192,462 

Station 

Construction^ (1 

year duration) 

$37,736,526 $38,772,233 $76,508,759

Construction 

Surrounding Stations 

(1 year duration) $224,123,748 $16,713,764 $240,837,512 

Recurring 

Employment (20 yrs) $14,241,424,820 $971,477,399 $15,212,902,219 

TOTAL $15,862,346,789 $1,121,656,797 $16,984,003,586 

Sources: ^ From NCDOT Feasibility Study Summary & Implementation Plan (April 1999); Other data originally presented 

by KPMG Economic Impact Analysis, 1995 (from Tier I EIS). 

Note: Totals do not exactly total to figures in Table 4-28 due to application of inflation factors. 

STATION DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS 

Transportation investments like HSR will provide specific locations with improvements to attract 

growth. This growth is most likely around planned stations, but as discussed in Section 3.11, the 

Project’s freight improvements along the Study Area have already been noted by affected local 

governments (with and without planned stations) as a benefit to their existing and planned 

industrial zones as well as a means to attract economic development. 

As noted in the NCDOT Feasibility Study (NCDOT,1999), construction of the stations 

themselves in NC is projected to create 1,222 temporary construction jobs, and re/development 

surrounding the proposed stations will create 7,438 additional temporary construction jobs. 

Re/development surrounding the NC stations will also create 18,980 permanent jobs in the hotel, 

office, retail and residential management industries. The economic and fiscal benefits from 

constructing the stations in NC have been estimated to exceed $76 million and the resulting 

secondary development around the NC stations is projected to result in over $240 million in 

economic and fiscal benefits (one time benefits). However, the recurring employment in these 

station growth areas is expected to exceed $15 billion in economic and fiscal benefits over 20 

years (see Table 4-29). Similar results are anticipated for the planned Virginia stations. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-74 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The following comments from affected local governments in the Study Area (in response to this 

Project’s Tier II DEIS) support the long-standing assertion that the economic impacts of the 

Project will be significantly positive (See Tier II DEIS, Appendix A): 

City of Richmond, VA 

“Connecting multi-state urbanized areas with improved passenger rail service and eventual high 

speed passenger rail infrastructure will provide competitive travel alternatives, enhance the 

environment, attract jobs, promote tourism and bolster economic vitality. Passenger rail service 

provides safe and highly reliable transportation service between the downtown areas of multiple 

cities for all segments of the population. This type of transportation service is extremely desirable 

and in many cases rail travel is quicker, more convenient, reliable, comfortable and less 

expensive than air or automobile travel. A city connected by quality passenger rail service 

coupled with convenient public transportation services becomes a more attractive destination and 

the areas near downtown stations become prime locations for investment. Such stations invite 

transit oriented development and present the opportunity to improve the livability and 

sustainability of the communities that they serve. In this way passenger rail service fosters 

economic development for the city, state and nation. 

The location of the Southeast high speed corridor directly connected to Amtrak's existing 

successful NEC provides a tremendous opportunity and further enhances the rail infrastructure 

investment. Federal and state agencies along with HSR supporters should continue their efforts to 

make the implementation of the Southeast high speed rail corridor project a priority and a 

reality.” 

Town of Henderson, NC 

“The location of a passenger rail station in downtown Henderson, NC, would be a significant 

boost to the redevelopment of the local economic base that has been devastated by the loss of the 

traditional economic stalwarts of textiles and tobacco in the early part of the decade as well as the 

lingering negative effects of the current Recession.” 

City of Raleigh, NC 

“The high speed train brings an additional dimension connecting the city to the Northeast 

Corridor and offers potential opportunity for creating a powerful economic zone with Virginia. 

The Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes this aspiration by providing density and better 

connectivity to the city fabric in the hope to invigorate urban and economic development. The 

city’s goals of urban development and excellence need to be fully integrated with the rail project 

to yield an overall positive result and sustainable economic development.” 

Also, the EA for the proposed Raleigh Union Station in Raleigh, NC, made the following 

conclusions of the economic impact of the proposed station (Proposed Raleigh Union Station, 

Phase I and Associated Track Improvements, TIP NO. P-5500; Draft Environmental Assessment 

& Section 4(f) Evaluation, NCDOT Rail Division, Dec 2013.): 

 The Raleigh Union Station will provide economic development benefits to Raleigh, NC, and 

the surrounding region in the form of jobs, increases in tourism, and development 

opportunities. 

 Centrally located in downtown Raleigh, NC, the site is surrounded by property offering 

tremendous development potential. 

 The project will benefit the local economy by creating jobs and the housing, goods and 

services that these workers will need. 

 The return on investment is profound and is estimated to impact the area for years to come. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-75 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CHANGES IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 

In addition to impacts from direct expenditures on system construction and operation, and 

construction of the stations and surrounding induced development around the stations, the 

proposed HSR system will increase the flow of travelers between cities along the route and thus 

enhance economic activity in those communities with station stops. 

The Ridership/Revenue projection model recently updated for the Project by AECOM estimated 

current demand and projected future travel between cities along the travel corridor, as well as 

along the entire Atlantic Coast for all modes of travel; refer to Section 1.5 for additional 

discussion regarding the updated ridership and revenue forecasts. Over 10,000 auto, air, and rail 

travelers were surveyed to find their stated and revealed preferences. The study estimated over 

two million annual riders will be utilizing North Carolina service trains by 2030. Most of these 

trips were for personal and other discretionary travel. The next largest category was recreation 

trips, closely followed by business trips. Based on current trends and experience along the high 

speed corridor between New York and Washington, DC, business travel is anticipated to be the 

fastest growing sector of rail travel. 

NET ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

As discussed above and in Chapter 1, the previous economic and fiscal studies on the SEHSR 

Corridor repeatedly concluded that the tangible and intangible benefits of the planned 

improvements for the SEHSR Corridor (to rail users as well as the public at large) exceed its costs. 

And, specific to the most recent ridership and revenue study completed for the Preferred 

Alternative for the Project (see Section 1.5), projected revenues of the SEHSR system are projected 

to exceed annual operating costs by the design year (2030). 

Overall, it is estimated that in North Carolina alone, over the first 20 years of operation, SEHSR 

Corridor service would bring over $1 billion in new state and local tax revenues, $15.8 billion in 

employee wages (Table 4-28), over 32,600 new one-year construction jobs, more than 800 

permanent new railroad operation positions, and nearly 19,000 permanent fulltime jobs from 

businesses which choose to locate or expand in North Carolina because of the SEHSR service 

(KPMG, 1995). And this 20-year period is a conservative cut-off assumption, since a HSR 

system’s components (apart from the track) have a life of 30 to 40 years. 

A similar evaluation was not prepared for Virginia as part of the original study; however, it can be 

reasonably assumed that similar, if not greater, positive benefits would accrue in Virginia, given 

that it will initially have one more station than NC. 

In summary, the substantial long term positive economic, environmental, and fiscal benefits of HSR 

in the SEHSR Corridor will include: 

 Creation of jobs in the railroad, roadway, commercial and residential construction industries, 

as well as railroad operation and maintenance; 

 Increased manufacturing jobs in the rail passenger transportation industry, including car, 

equipment and part manufacturers; 

 Enhanced economic development and revitalization of urban areas around stations, creating 

jobs in the office, commercial, hotel and housing management industries; 

 Increased tourism; 

 Improved transportation safety, including enhanced safety at rail crossings; 

 Improved speed and reduced cost of service for freight-rail commerce; 

 Reduced dependence on highways and airports, leading to: 

o Reduced use of carbon fuel, leading to: 

 Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-76 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Reduced dependence on foreign oil; 

o Reduced need to build new (or widen existing) highways; 

o Deferred need to invest in airport expansions; 

o Reduced transportation delays, including reduced truck congestion on interstates; 

 Increased productivity of business travel through consistently reliable and comfortable travel 

combined with the potential for reduced business-travel expenses; 

 Increased generation of personal and business income and sales; 

 Additional generation of tax revenues for both Virginia and North Carolina; and 

 Billions of dollars in sustainable economic development. 

NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

The neighborhoods and communities along the Project corridor are of many types, ranging from 

mobile home parks to upscale neighborhoods. Surrounding land uses range from agricultural to 

commercial to densely developed industrial areas. Commercial, industrial, upscale residential and 

mixed uses are found along the southern reaches of the Project. Medium sized communities are 

found in towns such as Dinwiddie, VA, La Crosse, VA, and Henderson, NC. They are typified by 

older grid patterned street systems close to the heart of the original town center or central business 

district (CBD). The larger, urbanized communities such as Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, Colonial 

Heights, VA, Wake Forest, NC, and Raleigh, NC, have residential areas typified by a mixture of 

distinct urban and suburban areas. 

Table 4-30 provides an overview of the rail and road impacts and benefits; it puts the discussion of 

community impacts in context and aids in understanding the intensity of the proposed improvements 

relative to each community and the Project in its entirety. 

 COMMUNITY CONCERNS 

Overall, community officials and citizens who provided input during the public outreach effort for 

the Project agreed that it would enhance and improve most areas along the corridor and surrounding 

areas. The Project is seen as providing an opportunity for business, retail, tourism, and residential 

growth possibilities. While there was overall support for the Project, the following concerns still 

remained. 

HIGH SPEED RAIL (HSR) BYPASSING A COMMUNITY 

Communities not identified as receiving a stop as a part of the Project were concerned they would 

miss out on the economic and community benefits associated with HSR. While only five 

locations are proposed to receive HSR stops (Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, and La Crosse, 

VA; Henderson, NC, and Raleigh, NC), this does not preclude the addition of other stations in the 

future. Table 4-30 provides a list of communities with an existing rail station, those for which a 

rail station is proposed, and those without a rail station (refer to section 1.4.3 for additional 

discussion about proposed station locations). While not all communities will have a rail station in 

their own backyards, the addition of two more stations will reduce the distance many must travel 

to access a station. While multiple communities will not have a station within their community 

limits, new freight rail service will be available to communities in Dinwiddie County, VA, 

Brunswick County, VA, Mecklenburg County, VA, and Warren counties, NC (Table 4-30). For 

those communities with industries that already have access to industrial freight, those services 

will be improved. Overall, new and improved freight rail service will provide economic benefits 

that would not otherwise be possible without the Project. 

The new or improved rail lines constructed for the Project would be available for future, 

conventional passenger rail service once the Project is developed. This would allow residents not 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-77 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

served by high speed service to utilize conventional speed service to access the high speed stops. 

This option will be given further consideration as the system develops based on user demand 

along the route. 

Table 4-30 

Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community 

Section 

Community 

Minority 

Low-Income 

Elderly Populations* 

Higher than Average Presence 

Existing** Freight | Passenger 

Trains per Day 

Existing Public Pedestrian 

Structures (to be Retained)

Impacts Benefits 

Projected* * * Freight | 

Passenger Trains per Day 

Existing At-Grade Public 

RR Corridor / Crossings 

Cl d^

Existing Public Roads 

Closed (Crossed by New 

Rail)^

SEHSR 

Station 

Existing Public Grade 

Separations Maintained / 

Additional Public Grade 

Separations

Additional Public Pedestrian 

Structures

Freight Rail Service 

Available for Industries 

A

A 

City of 

Richmond, VA   --- 29 | 10 0 29 | 24 3 0 Existing Station 20 8 0 Enhanced 

B

B 

Chesterfield Co. 

between 

Richmond, VA 

and Colonial 

Heights, VA 

(includes 

Chester) 

  --- 29 | 

10 0 29 | 24 1 0 --- 3 3 1 Enhanc

ed 

C

C 

City of Colonial 

Heights, VA    29 | 

10 0 29 | 24 0 0 --- 2 1 0 Enhanced 

C

C 

Chesterfield 

County between 

Colonial Heights, 

VA, and 

Petersburg, VA 

(includes Ettrick, 

VA) 

   29 | 

10 0 29 | 24 0 0 Existing Station1 1 2 0 Enhanced 

City of 

Petersburg, VA    29 | 10 0 29 | 24 2 0 Existing Station1 7 0 1 Enhanced 

D

D 

Dinwiddie Co. 

from Petersburg, 

VA, to Gatewood 

Road, VA 

(includes 

community of 

Dinwiddie, VA) 

   --- 0 10 | 8 0 0 --- 1 3 0 New 

A, 

B, 

C 

Dinwiddie Co. 

from south of 

Gatewood Road 

to Brunswick 

County line, VA 

(includes 

McKenney) 

   --- 0 10 | 8 4 0 --- 5 10 0 New 

D, 

E 

Brunswick Co. 

from Dinwiddie 

Co. to I-85, VA 

(includes of 

Alberta) 

   --- 1 10 | 8 3 0 --- 0 7 0 New 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-78 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-30 

Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community 

Section 

Community 

Minority 

Low-Income 

Elderly Populations* 

Higher than Average Presence 

Existing** Freight | Passenger 

Trains per Day 

Existing Public Pedestrian 

Structures (to be Retained)

Impacts Benefits 

Projected* * * Freight | 

Passenger Trains per Day 

Existing At-Grade Public 

RR Corridor / Crossings 

Cl d^

Existing Public Roads 

Closed (Crossed by New 

Rail)^

SEHSR 

Station 

Existing Public Grade 

Separations Maintained / 

Additional Public Grade 

Separations

Additional Public Pedestrian 

Structures

Freight Rail Service 

Available for Industries 

F, 

G 

Brunswick Co. 

from south of I85 to 

Mecklenburg Co. 

line, VA 

   --- 0 10 | 8 0 0 --- 6 4 0 New 

H, 

I, 

J 

Mecklenburg Co. 

from Brunswick 

Co. to Bellfield 

Rd, VA (includes 

La Crosse) 

  --- 0 10 | 8 6 1 

Recomm

ended 

Station 

2 7 1 New 

K 

Mecklenburg Co. 

from south of 

Bellfield Rd, VA 

to NC state line 

   --- 0 10 | 8 0 0 --- 1 1 0 New 

L 

Warren Co. from 

VA state line to 

Norlina, NC 

   --- 0 10 | 8 2 0 --- 0 2 0 New 

M 

Town of Norlina, 

NC (Warren 

County) 

   2 | 0 0 12 | 8 1 4 --- 1 2 0 Enhanc

ed 

N 

Warren Co. from 

Norlina to Vance 

Co. line, NC 

(includes 

Ridgeway) 

   2 | 0 0 12 | 8 2 1 --- 0 2 0 Enhanc

ed 

O 

Vance Co. from 

Warren Co. line 

to Henderson, NC 

(includes 

Middleburg) 

  2 | 0 0 12 | 8 0 1 --- 0 3 0 Enhanc

ed 

P 

City of 

Henderson, NC 

(Vance County) 

  2 | 0 0 12 | 8 11 0 

Recomm

ended 

Station 

2 3 1 Enhanc

ed 

Vance Co. 

between 

Henderson and 

Kittrell, NC 

   2 | 0 0 12 | 8 1 0 --- 1 3 0 Enhanc

ed 

Q 

Town of Kittrell, 

NC (Vance 

County) 

  2 | 0 0 12 | 8 1 0 --- 0 1 0 Enhanc

ed 

Vance Co. south 

of Kittrell to 

Franklin Co. line, 

NC 

   2 | 0 0 12 | 8 3 0 --- 1 3 0 Enhanc

ed 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-79 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-30 

Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community 

Section 

Community 

Minority 

Low-Income 

Elderly Populations* 

Higher than Average Presence 

Existing** Freight | Passenger 

Trains per Day 

Existing Public Pedestrian 

Structures (to be Retained)

Impacts Benefits 

Projected* * * Freight | 

Passenger Trains per Day 

Existing At-Grade Public 

RR Corridor / Crossings 

Cl d^

Existing Public Roads 

Closed (Crossed by New 

Rail)^

SEHSR 

Station 

Existing Public Grade 

Separations Maintained / 

Additional Public Grade 

Separations

Additional Public Pedestrian 

Structures

Freight Rail Service 

Available for Industries 

R 

Franklin Co. from 

Vance Co. line to 

Franklinton, NC 

  --- 2 | 0 0 12 | 8 1 1 --- 0 1 0 Enhanc

ed 

S 

Town of 

Franklinton, NC 

(Franklin County) 

  --- 2 | 0 0 12 | 8 4 0 --- 1 1 2 Enhanc

ed 

S 

Franklin Co. 

between 

Franklinton and 

Youngsville, NC 

  --- 2 | 0 0 12 | 8 1 1 --- 0 3 1 Enhanc

ed 

T 

Town of 

Youngsville, NC 

(Franklin County) 

  --- 4 | 0 0 16 | 8 2 0 --- 0 1 2 Enhanc

ed 

Franklin Co. from 

Youngsville, NC 

to Wake County 

line 

  --- 4 | 0 0 16 | 8 0 0 --- 0 0 0 Enhanc

ed 

U 

Wake Co. from 

Franklin Co. line 

to Wake Forest, 

NC 

  --- 4 | 0 0 16 | 8 0 0 --- 0 0 0 Enhanc

ed 

Town of Wake 

Forest, NC 

(Wake County) 

  --- 4 | 0 0 16 | 8 3 0 --- 2 2 2 Enhanc

ed 

Wake Co. 

between Wake 

Forest and 

Raleigh, NC 

  --- 4 | 0 0 16 | 8 1 0 --- 1 2 0 Enhanc

ed 

V 

City of Raleigh, 

NC (Wake 

County) (includes 

unincorporated 

islands south of 

northern city 

limit) 

  --- 

6 

(CSX

) 

0 

20 

(CSX) 

2 0 Existing 

Station 14 9 1 Enhanc

18 ed 

(NS) 

| 8

18 

(Norfol

k 

Souther

n) | 16

Project Totals --- --- --- 1 --- 54 9 

3 

Existing 

and 

2 

Recomm

ended 

71 84 12 

7 New 

21 

Enhanc

ed 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-80 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-30 

Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community 

Section 

Community 

Minority 

Low-Income 

Elderly Populations* 

Higher than Average Presence 

Existing** Freight | Passenger 

Trains per Day 

Existing Public Pedestrian 

Structures (to be Retained)

Impacts Benefits 

Projected* * * Freight | 

Passenger Trains per Day 

Existing At-Grade Public 

RR Corridor / Crossings 

Cl d^

Existing Public Roads 

Closed (Crossed by New 

Rail)^

SEHSR 

Station 

Existing Public Grade 

Separations Maintained / 

Additional Public Grade 

Separations

Additional Public Pedestrian 

Structures

Freight Rail Service 

Available for Industries 

Project Totals - EJ 

Only --- --- --- 1 --- 39 7 

2 

Existing 

and 

2 

Recomm

ended 

42 48 5 

4 New 

11 

Enhanc

ed 

% Impacts to EJ Pop. --- --- --- 1 --- 72.2

% 

77.8

% 80.0% 59.2% 

57.

1% 

41.

7% 

57.1% 

New 

52.4% 

Enhanc

ed 

 

 = EJ Populations (see Section 4.11.5) 

 = Disproportionately High Impacts Relative to % Miles within Section having EJ community 

61.6

% = Threshold value used to determine if impacts are disproportionate within Section having EJ community 

 *Elderly Populations are those age 65 and older whose total percentages in their demographic study area are 

greater than the percentage of elderly reflected in their respective city, county, and/or state. See Section 3.11.1.3, 

Age, Table 3-23 for elderly population data. 

 Notes – 

* * Existing freight trains are estimates only due to the nature of freight service which does not run on 

specific, published schedules. The number of existing total train trips is up to the noted figures per day. It 

is estimated that up to 29 freight trains per day currently use the CSX corridor between Richmond, VA and 

Petersburg, VA; up to 2 freight trains per day use the CSX corridor between Norlina, NC, and Youngsville, 

NC; and up to 4 freight trains per day use the CSX corridor between Youngsville, NC, and Raleigh, NC. 

There are also up to 2 additional freight trains a day estimated to use the CSX corridor between the CSX 

rail yard in downtown Raleigh and points south and west (for a total of up to 6 freight trains per day in the 

SEHSR project study area in Raleigh). In addition, it is estimated that up to 8 freight trains per day use the 

Norfolk Southern corridor in downtown Raleigh, NC, between the Norfolk Southern rail yard and the 

Boylan railroad wye, and an additional estimated 10 freight trains per day leave the Boylan Wye for points 

south and west (for a total of up to 18 freight trains per day in the SEHSR project study area in Raleigh). 

Note that the 8 existing passenger trains in Raleigh are Amtrak trains headed west or south out of the 

existing Raleigh, NC, station (Carolinian / Piedmont and Silver Service / Palmetto). 

 * * * Projected freight (including intermodal) and passenger trains are based on assumptions in DEIS, 

which assumes projected HSR passenger trains are in addition to existing Amtrak trains. Eight intermodal 

trains were estimated to use the corridor south of Petersburg, VA. In addition, two non-intermodal freight 

trains per day (one round trip) are assumed to use the corridor between Petersburg, VA, and Youngsville, 

NC, and four non-intermodal freight trains per day (two round trips) are assumed to use between 

Youngsville, NC and Raleigh, NC, for a total of 10 additional freight trains in the corridor between 

Petersburg, VA, and Youngsville, NC, and 12 additional freight trains in the corridor between Youngsville, 

NC, and Raleigh, NC. In Raleigh, it is assumed all additional freight trains would remain in the CSX 

corridor and not cross over Capital Boulevard with the SEHSR passenger trains. 

 Between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, it is assumed the SEHSR project would operate 8 passenger 

trains per day (4 round trips). Between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, it is assumed an additional 6 

trains per day (3 round trips) would operate on the SEHSR corridor originating in Hampton Roads as part 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-81 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-30 

Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community 

Section 

Community 

Minority 

Low-Income 

Elderly Populations* 

Higher than Average Presence 

Existing** Freight | Passenger 

Trains per Day 

Existing Public Pedestrian 

Structures (to be Retained)

Impacts Benefits 

Projected* * * Freight | 

Passenger Trains per Day 

Existing At-Grade Public 

RR Corridor / Crossings 

Cl d^

Existing Public Roads 

Closed (Crossed by New 

Rail)^

SEHSR 

Station 

Existing Public Grade 

Separations Maintained / 

Additional Public Grade 

Separations

Additional Public Pedestrian 

Structures

Freight Rail Service 

Available for Industries 

of the planned Richmond, VA, to Hampton Roads, VA, Passenger Rail Project (for a total of 14 additional 

trains per day). 

 ^ “Existing At-Grade Public RR Corridors / Crossings Closed” are those locations, under the Preferred 

Alternative, where existing roads intersect with existing railroad corridors (including those with, as well as 

without, existing active rail) at at-grade crossings, and those intersections/crossings are proposed to be 

closed and all traffic would be rerouted. “Existing Public Roads Closed (Crossed by New Rail)” are those 

locations, under the Preferred Alternative, where existing roads are proposed to be crossed by new 

constructed rail lines. In those instances, the roads on both sides of the new rail location would be closed 

and all traffic would be rerouted. 

 [1] The Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and FRA are addressing the issue of whether 

the existing station in Ettrick or another location in the Petersburg area should serve as the SEHSR station.

[2] There are 2 additional public grade separations proposed just outside of Franklinton, NC, Town Limits. 

Those additional grade separations are counted within the Franklin County figures because they were not 

within the official Corporate Limits of Franklinton, NC.

NEIGHBORHOOD DISRUPTIONS 

Because the Project maximizes the use of existing rail corridors, neighborhood disruptions and 

relocations have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Along active rail lines, overall 

impacts to neighborhoods and communities from the operation of SEHSR trains is expected to be 

minor because residents are used to the sights and sounds of trains through their communities, the 

introduction of high speed passenger rail would not substantially alter their current quality of life. 

In addition, the Project accommodates pedestrian traffic in that all new bridges and underpasses 

are designed to have sufficient width so as not to create a hazard for pedestrian movement. In 

locations where existing pedestrian accommodations (e.g., sidewalks) currently exist, these 

accommodations will be provided on the bridges/underpasses. At other locations,NCDOT and 

VDOT will evaluate pedestrian accommodations on the bridges/underpasses during final design 

based on the current NCDOT and VDOT pedestrian policies. Both NCDOT and VDOT have 

established Complete Streets policies which provide for consideration of all modes of 

transportation including pedestrians and cyclists, when building new projects or making 

improvements to existing infrastructure. 

From the Burgess Connector in Dinwiddie County, VA, southward to Norlina, NC, in Warren 

County, NC, the rail corridor is inactive and, in some instances, the tracks have been removed and 

small portions of ROW sold for driveway access. Communities without active rail lines include 

the Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse area, McKenney, VA, Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA, and 

Norlina, NC. In these communities and other areas adjacent to the inactive rail line, residents 

may view the reactivation of rail service as a negative impact on their quality of life. The sights 

and sounds of the rail would require a degree of adjustment for the families and businesses 

adjacent to it. However, given the number of trips planned (eight high speed trains and up to 

eight additional intermodal trains and two to four additional freight trains), and the speed at which 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-82 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the trains will be traveling, exposure to rail activity would be of a limited duration and frequency 

for those communities without a rail stop. In La Crosse, VA, and Henderson, NC, the duration of 

exposure to HSR trains will be greater given that two stops daily are planned for each town. 

Residents and businesses within the communities not currently living with an active rail line 

could also experience a sense of their community being split by the newly active rail line. What 

has in recent years been a situation of unencumbered access to and from either side of the tracks 

would now only be possible at designated bridges and underpasses. Given that the vast majority 

of consolidated crossings were designed to be no more than one mile apart, the change in 

community travel patterns would not be substantially altered. 

There will also be some changes to the visual environment within communities. The required 

minimum clearance for a road over a rail line is 24 feet three inches from the bottom of the 

bridge. The required minimum clearance for a rail line over a road is 17 feet. Because of these 

vertical clearance requirements and topographical constraints, the average new bridge will be 

between 25 feet and 38 feet high at its tallest point. This is about the height of a three to fourstory building. Even in the rural communities with existing rail activity, the new bridge structure 

will be an obvious, new landmark. Some may see the new structures as a sign of progress 

whereas others may find it to be inconsistent with their community’s setting and sense of place. 

Relocations are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6. 

SAFETY AND FENCING 

Because of the speeds at which the SEHSR trains will be traveling, fencing on both sides of the 

rail line may be necessary in some areas, particularly in urban areas. NCDOT and VDOT will 

determine the location and type of fencing during final design. While such fencing would serve 

as a physical barrier between communities on either side of the tracks, it would provide a 

necessary measure of safety to keep vehicles, pedestrians, and animals off of the tracks. Refer to 

Section 4.16 for additional discussion about fencing. 

RAIL NOISE AND VIBRATION 

An analysis was completed to identify and evaluate the potential noise and vibration impacts 

associated with the operation of trains in the Study Area. (See Section 4.7 for more information.) 

The conclusions of that analysis are as follows: 

 Rail Noise – Based on FRA Manual noise criteria, the Preferred Alternative is predicted to 

have zero moderate impacts and zero severe impacts for Category 1 receptors (studios, 

concert halls, etc.); 618 moderate impacts and 64 severe impacts for Category 2 receptors 

(residences, hospitals, hotels, etc.), and; four moderate impacts and 0 severe impacts for 

Category 3 receptors (schools, libraries, churches, etc.). 

 Highway Noise – For vehicular noise associated with the diversion of traffic, no impacts due 

to “substantial increase” criteria were predicted. The noise associated with diverted roadway 

traffic at proposed grade-separated intersections is expected to cause an exceedance of the 

FHWA criteria for an estimated 6 residences in the proposed Youngsville, NC, Historic 

District. However, these residential sites are currently assessed with sound levels above the 

FHWA criteria. Additionally, since a noise barrier would have to be placed between the 

homes and the road, mitigation would not be feasible because of the need to maintain 

driveway access 

 Rail Vibration – Based on FRA Manual vibration criteria, the Preferred Alternative 

potentially impacts 180 single family homes, 7 multi-family homes and 108 commercial sites. 

Vibration annoyance from the existing freight trains occurs within 80 feet or less for 

residential sites and 64 feet for commercial sites. Vibration annoyance from the proposed 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-83 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

high speed passenger train would occur within 47 feet for residential sites and 30 feet for 

commercial sites. 

It should be noted that for safety reasons, trains are required to sound their horns when 

approaching at-grade crossings. Train horn noise will decrease or be eliminated in locations with 

active rail traffic under the Project as a result of grade-separating all rail crossings within the 

corridor. Communities without active rail would not experience any new grade-crossing related 

horn noise for the same reason. As stated previously, mitigation for noise and vibration impacts 

will be determined during final design. 

TRAFFIC CHANGES & PUBLIC ROAD AND PRIVATE DRIVE CLOSURES 

This section on traffic changes, public road and private drive closures is repeated in its entirety 

from the Tier II DEIS. 

Travelers in areas with active rail lines are accustomed to waiting at at-grade crossings for 

stopped or passing trains. While construction activities and the consolidated or realigned closings 

may be an initial inconvenience for these travelers, the short-term inconvenience will be offset by 

having a grade-separated rail crossing that allows for continuous, unimpeded access to and from 

both sides of the rail line. Owners of parcels with current, legal access to existing roads will have 

access to their parcels maintained (or will be compensated if it is not possible to maintain the 

access); driveway access to these parcels will be determined during final design when detailed 

survey level data is available. 

Whether the existing rail line is active or inactive, rail crossing consolidations and associated 

improvements to adjacent roadways could have an impact on community cohesion within 

neighborhoods and communities. Potential impacts were identified and described if an 

alternative created a new physical barrier that isolated one part of an established community from 

another and potentially resulted in a physical disruption to community cohesion. However, the 

railroad line predates existing development and the railroad already acts as a boundary for many 

neighborhoods and businesses along the corridor. With the rail line already in existence, such 

adverse impacts are expected to be minor. The impacts of the Preferred Alternative within each 

community are addressed in the discussion that follows. 

IMPACTS FROM CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 

The proposed improvements to existing at-grade crossings included in the Project are in response to 

documented needs for increased safety. Safety improvements are currently underway on active rail 

lines in North Carolina and Virginia to consolidate and close crossings where possible, and gradeseparate those that remain (i.e., replace with bridges or underpasses) to separate vehicular and 

pedestrian traffic from rail traffic. The effect of these grade crossing closures is enhanced 

community safety. 

One of the benefits of the Project is the opportunity to consolidate unsafe and redundant at-grade 

rail crossings along the corridor into safer, grade-separated crossings that do not adversely affect 

the surrounding communities. Increased train speeds and frequencies along the Project corridor 

will require an increased degree of protection at crossings. The safest such measure is the closure 

and consolidation of at-grade crossings in proximity to each other, rerouting traffic to new or 

existing bridges or underpasses. In addition, crossing closures can save money by eliminating 

installation and maintenance costs associated with warning devices, crossing surfaces, and foliage 

removal to improve sight distance. Consolidating crossings also improves a community's quality of 

life by eliminating noise from train horns sounded at crossings. An additional benefit is that grade 

separations are an “always open” crossing of the rail line for the community. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-84 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The construction of new railroad bridges and underpasses and the associated roadwork would 

impact highway traffic through temporary lane closures and changes to traffic patterns. The degree 

of impact will vary based on the level of service of the roadway, the proximity of alternate routes, 

and the extent of construction required at a given crossing. 

Communities and neighborhoods along the Project corridor have a deep interest in the impacts of 

the proposed at-grade crossing changes, access consolidations, and road closures. Throughout the 

design process, meetings were held with local government representatives along the corridor to 

obtain input on local conditions that would affect design considerations. This information was used 

to refine proposed designs to better suit the needs of the local communities; comments on Tier II 

DEIS were used to further refine many of the railroad crossing designs for the Preferred 

Alternative. The decision to consolidate a crossing in a community considered accessibility and 

connectivity to the larger transportation network. Local and regional land use and transportation 

plans were taken into account and natural resource constraints, such as wetlands and cultural 

resources, were also considered. Descriptions for each crossing and associated roadwork, are 

included in Appendix F. Maps displaying the proposed roadwork are included in Appendix R. 

To examine potential impacts to the transportation network from the Preferred Alternative, the 

proposed improvements were divided into the following categories and tabulated by section (Table 

4-31). 

 Existing Bridge / Underpass Maintained - In some instances, an existing bridge is 

proposed to be expanded or replaced in the same location. 

 New Bridge / Underpass Provided 

 Public Crossing Relocated - “Relocated” means the current public road crossing location 

will be closed and the traffic re-routed to an adjacent, grade-separated, public road 

crossing via improved roadways, as appropriate. 

 Private Crossing Closed, Alternative Access Provided 

 Existing Pedestrian-Only Bridge / Underpass Maintained 

 New Pedestrian-Only Bridge / Underpass Provided 

Undocumented rail crossings such as informal footpaths across the rail line are considered 

trespassing and, for safety reasons, will be eliminated. 

Table 4-31 

Crossing Consolidations for Preferred Alternative by Section 

Location Action 

Section From To 

Existing Bridge / 

Underpass 

New Bridge / 

Underpass 

Public Crossing 

Relocated 

Private Crossing 

Closed (Alternate 

Access Provided) 

Existing Public 

Pedestrian Bridge / 

Under

pass 

New Pedestrian Bridge 

/ Underpass 

Public Road Closed at 

New Rail 

AA Main Street 

Station Centralia 20 8 3 3 0 0 0 

BB Centralia North of 

Dunlop 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-85 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-31 

Crossing Consolidations for Preferred Alternative by Section 

Location Action 

Section From To 

Existing Bridge / 

Underpass 

New Bridge / 

Underpass 

Public Crossing 

Relocated 

Private Crossing 

Closed (Alternate 

Access Provided) 

Existing Public 

Pedestrian Bridge / 

Under

pass 

New Pedestrian Bridge 

/ Underpass 

Public Road Closed at 

New Rail 

CC North of 

Dunlop Collier Yard 10 3 2 4 0 1 0 

DD Collier Yard North of 

Burgess 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 

A North of 

Burgess 

North of 

Dinwiddie 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 

B North of 

Dinwiddie 

South of 

Dinwiddie 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 

C South of 

Dinwiddie 

South of 

Nottaway 

River 

2 4 4 7 0 0 0 

D 

South of 

Nottaway 

River 

North of 

Alberta 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 

E North of 

Alberta 

South of 

Alberta 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 

F South of 

Alberta 

South of 

Tower Rd. 5 2 0 4 0 0 0 

G South of 

Tower Rd. 

Meherrin 

River 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 

H Meherrin 

River 

North of 

Wray Rd. 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 

I North of 

Wray Rd. 

South of La 

Crosse 2 2 5 9 0 1 1 

J South of La 

Crosse 

North of 

Bracey 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 

K North of 

Bracey 

Roanoke 

River 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

L Roanoke 

River 

North of 

Norlina 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 

M North of 

Norlina 

Southwest of 

Norlina 1 2 1 6 0 0 4 

N Southwest of 

Norlina 

North of 

Middleburg 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-86 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-31 

Crossing Consolidations for Preferred Alternative by Section 

Location Action 

Section From To 

Existing Bridge / 

Underpass 

New Bridge / 

Underpass 

Public Crossing 

Relocated 

Private Crossing 

Closed (Alternate 

Access Provided) 

Existing Public 

Pedestrian Bridge / 

Under

pass 

New Pedestrian Bridge 

/ Underpass 

Public Road Closed at 

New Rail 

O North of 

Middleburg 

North of 

Henderson 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 

P North of 

Henderson 

North of 

Kittrell 3 6 12 3 0 1 0 

Q North of 

Kittrell Tar River 1 4 4 3 0 0 0 

R Tar River North of 

Franklinton 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 

S North of 

Franklinton 

North of 

Youngsville 1 4 5 0 0 3 1 

T North of 

Youngsville 

North of 

Wake Forest 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 

U North of 

Wake Forest 

North 

Raleigh 3 4 4 2 0 2 0 

V North 

Raleigh Boylan Wye 14 9 2 0 0 1 0 

In general, public road and private drive closings and consolidations could result in slightly longer 

travel distances and time, but not to the extent that the impact would be considered adverse. As 

noted in Chapter 2, all existing at-grade crossings located between proposed and existing bridges or 

underpasses will be closed and vehicular traffic rerouted to the nearest bridge or underpass. 

Bridges or underpasses will be located at a maximum distance of approximately one mile apart. In 

addition, the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of roads proposed for closure is typically very 

low, indicating that the numbers of drivers inconvenienced by the consolidations and reroutes 

would not be substantial. Drivers and pedestrians would experience the benefits of safety 

improvements via the elimination of at-grade road and pedestrian crossings and improvements to 

existing access roads for better sight distance and roadway geometrics. In addition, by replacing atgrade crossings with bridges and underpasses, driver and pedestrian access will not be impeded by 

a passing or stopped train. 

The following discussion identifies how the individual communities will be changed and 

challenged by the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to communities and their resources are described 

below. Impacts from proposed changes to the transportation network from a traffic perspective are 

provided in Section 4.14.2. Impacts from potential relocations are discussed in Section 4.11.6. 

The communities discussed below were chosen because they are formally recognized as 

communities, towns, or cities, and have the potential to be impacted by the alignments under 

consideration for the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-87 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CITY OF RICHMOND, VA 

The areas along the corridor in the City of Richmond, VA, are located on the “Southside” 

between Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA. Most of the area is developed with industrial and 

commercial establishments. The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW 

through Richmond, VA. Because the rail line is active, the proposed rail improvements within 

the City of Richmond, VA, are not expected to divide communities or create community barriers. 

Impacts would primarily be associated with road closures and consolidations and new, gradeseparated crossings. 

The proposed ROW for the new Maury Street bridge over the existing rail line may require the 

removal or relocation of several large petroleum storage tanks and small businesses. The existing 

I-95 ramps will be shifted slightly to the south of their current location, and a new roundabout 

will be constructed at the intersection of Maury Street/I-95 ramps/E. 4th Street. 

Relocation of East Commerce Road and a new bridge over the rail line may require the relocation 

of several businesses in this heavily industrialized part of the city. In these industrial areas, a safe 

and unimpeded crossing of the rail line should be a welcome improvement to businesses. 

Further to the south, the Study Area is a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial 

uses. At Ruffin Road, the rail line would bridge the road. The ROW needed for this underpass 

may require the relocation of several residences and commercial facilities. During final design, 

further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will occur; this will likely lower the 

numbers ultimately displaced. At Bells Road, a new bridge over the rail line will be constructed. 

Roadway improvements and ROW may require the acquisition of a portion of the Philip Morris 

parking lot to the east of the rail line, as well as the relocation of several residences to the west of 

the rail line. During final design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will 

occur; this will likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW through Chesterfield County. 

Because the rail line is active, the proposed rail improvements within Chesterfield County are not 

expected to divide communities or create community barriers. Impacts would primarily be 

associated with road closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated crossings. Station 

Road is an existing at-grade crossing and serves as the only point of access to Chesterfield 

County’s water treatment plant. Station Road will be realigned with a new, grade-separated 

crossing provided to maintain access to the plant. A new road connecting Thurston Road with 

Chester Road will improve access within the Bellwood community. Near the southern boundary 

of Chesterfield County, the designs shown in the Tier II DEIS called for a closure of the existing 

Woods Edge Road at-grade rail crossing. However, in response to comments on the Tier II DEIS, 

the designs have been revised to include a bridge over the railroad, which will maintain 

community connectivity in this location. 

CHESTER, VA 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes use of the existing rail ROW through Chester, VA. Because 

the rail line is active, the proposed rail improvements within the community of Chester are not 

expected to divide communities or create community barriers. Impacts would primarily be 

associated with road closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated crossings. 

Centralia Road will be relocated with a bridge that crosses both the rail line and Chester Road 

with a connection to Chester Road. For those traveling on Centralia Road, access to Centralia 

Road across the tracks would be slightly circuitous in that drivers would be rerouted to Chester 

Road to reconnect to Centralia Road. In response to comments received from the County, the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-88 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

designs for West Street closure have been revised to include a pedestrian bridge over the railroad, 

maintaining pedestrian access between the communities on either side of the rail. 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VA 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW through the City of Colonial 

Heights, VA. There are no road closures or realigned roadways within Colonial Heights, VA. 

An additional rail bridge over Cedar Lane will not have a negative effect on travel or adjacent 

communities. The rail alignment is proposed to cross over Boulevard US-1 on expanded new 

adjacent rail bridge. 

ETTRICK, VA 

The community of Ettrick, VA, straddles the existing railroad corridor. Although located within 

Chesterfield County, it is a small bedroom community for the City of Petersburg, VA. Recent 

development within this community has been driven by Virginia State University, which is 

located within Ettrick, VA. 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW through Ettrick, VA. Because 

the rail line is active and the Amtrak passenger rail station at Ettrick, VA is currently in operation, 

the proposed rail improvements within the community of Ettrick, VA, are not expected to divide 

communities or create community barriers. Impacts would primarily be associated with road 

closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated crossings. 

ROW required for the realignment and new bridge crossing for Branders Bridge Road, along with 

the associated roadway improvements, may require the relocation of approximately two homes in 

the residential development along Maurer Lane. The realignment and new bridge crossing for 

Dupuy Road will potentially displace between 15 and 20 homes on the north side of the road 

between Roosevelt Avenue and Laurel Road. While these homes may be displaced, the Ettrick, 

VA, community as a whole will experience improved access through the area. During final 

design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will be implemented; this will 

likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 

CITY OF PETERSBURG, VA 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes use of the existing rail ROW through the City of Petersburg, 

VA. Because the rail line is active, the proposed rail and roadway improvements within 

Petersburg, VA, are not expected to divide communities or create community barriers. Impacts 

would primarily be associated with road closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated 

crossings. While the Washington Street underpass will be realigned and the existing rail bridge 

widened, these improvements will not have a negative effect on travel or adjacent communities. 

At Lincoln Street, the at-grade crossing will be closed but a pedestrian crossing will be provided, 

maintaining pedestrian access between the communities on either side of the rail. 

DINWIDDIE COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY, VA 

The Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse community is clustered around the intersection of Boydton 

Plank Road (US-1) and Courthouse Road, approximately 600 feet to 2,000 feet to the west of the 

inactive CSX S-Line rail line. It is a small community whose main business and residential core 

is along Boydton Plank Road. The Preferred Alternative diverges from the existing rail 

alignment onto new alignment; the new alignment provides improved train performance by 

straightening two curves. The Preferred Alternative will require a new bridge over the railroad 

for Carson Road. There are no communities within the new alignment area. Therefore, the 

portion of new rail alignment would not be considered adverse or disruptive. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-89 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

MCKENNEY, VA 

Although the rail line is currently inactive, the Town of McKenney, VA, is historically an old 

railroad village and most of the development in town has occurred along the rail line and Factory 

Street. The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of the existing rail line and ROW through 

McKenney, VA. Town officials were concerned about preserving the historic nature and features 

of their town with any proposed grade-separated rail crossing. The design for a bridged crossing 

of the railroad at Doyle Boulevard was developed through coordination efforts with the Town. 

The designs call for lowering the existing rail alignment approximately 15 feet, and raising the 

elevation of Doyle Boulevard approximately 15 feet, so that Doyle Boulevard can cross over the 

railroad on a bridge in the existing location. This design feature will help to maintain the historic 

setting of Doyle Boulevard and the surrounding area. Aside from the short-term disruption from 

construction activities, the proposed road and rail improvements will have minor adverse effects 

on community cohesion. 

ALBERTA, VA 

The Town of Alberta, VA, is historically a former railroad village with the intersection of the 

inactive CSX and NS rail lines at its core. The town has minimal development in terms of 

industrial, commercial, and retail establishments. Development and neighborhoods are relatively 

evenly dispersed within the town limits. The Town of Alberta, VA, is actively pursuing 

downtown revitalization and is hopeful that the Project will provide positive economic benefits to 

the town. 

Through town, the Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of the existing rail ROW. Because of 

this, improvements to the rail corridor itself will have minimal effect on adjacent neighborhoods 

and businesses. However, roadway improvements associated with the Project will be substantial, 

including road closings, road realignments, and grade-separated rail crossings. 

The current at-grade rail crossing of Church Street will be closed and Church Street will be 

realigned approximately 1,700 feet to the northeast, crossing over the railroad on a bridge. This 

realignment will provide a better connection with Littlemont Road and the new residential 

development currently under construction around Brunswood Avenue. The new Littlemont Road 

bridge over the rail line will be approximately 31 feet high. Several of the homes on the 

southeast side of Littlemont Road may be displaced because of the need for ROW for the new 

bridge approach. During final design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will 

occur; this will likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 

The current at-grade rail crossing of Second Avenue will be closed and the road realigned 

through an undeveloped parcel approximately 500 feet to the northeast. While this undeveloped 

parcel has been subdivided, the realignment of Second Avenue through it will not disrupt any 

existing neighborhoods. The realigned road will include an approximately 30-foot high bridge 

over the railroad. 

The current at-grade rail crossing of Main Street will be closed and Main Street will be realigned 

approximately 200 feet to the north, crossing over the railroad on a bridge. This roadway 

improvement will not separate communities or have an adverse effect on community cohesion. 

The Tobacco Heritage Trail follows the inactive NS rail line through town. The Town of Alberta, 

VA, includes the Tobacco Heritage Trail as a vital component of its downtown revitalization 

effort as it would stimulate tourism in the region. To ensure the safety of those using the Tobacco 

Heritage Trail, the Preferred Alternative proposes to replace the existing railroad superstructure to 

provide an improved pedestrian underpass where the Tobacco Heritage Trail intersects with the 

Preferred Alternative railroad alignment. Given that the Tobacco Heritage Trail follows an 

inactive rail line through a town built around the railroad, the re-introduction of passenger rail in 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-90 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the area would be in keeping with the historic context of the Town of Alberta, VA, and will not 

likely have a negative impact on the trail user’s experience. 

LA CROSSE, VA 

The Town of La Crosse, VA, is becoming a suburb of South Hill, VA, a larger town 

approximately 2.5 miles to the northwest. La Crosse, VA, was originally built around the now 

inactive railroad corridor. 

Through town, the Preferred Alternative follows the inactive rail corridor and maximizes the use 

of the existing rail ROW. Improvements to the rail corridor itself would have minimal disruptive 

effects on adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. However, there are several roadway 

improvements associated with the rail improvements, including road closings, road realignments, 

and grade-separated rail crossings. 

The current at-grade rail crossing of Main Street will be closed and relocated to a new, gradeseparated crossing (rail-over-road) approximately 1,000 feet to the south. This crossing will 

connect to a traffic circle that will include the intersections of Meredith Street and St. Tammany 

Road. The traffic circle element was designed in response to community requests that traffic be 

maintained on downtown roads, especially Main Street. Closing the existing Main Street rail 

crossing and relocating the feeder roads to it will alter the character of the downtown area. 

However, the change was designed with input from town residents with the idea that passenger 

rail service and a future rail stop will encourage business, residential, and tourism development 

opportunities. 

As with Alberta, VA, the Tobacco Heritage Trail follows the inactive NS rail line through town. 

To ensure the safety of those using the Tobacco Heritage Trail, a railroad bridge will be 

constructed where the Tobacco Heritage Trail intersects with the Preferred Alternative railroad 

alignment, providing a pedestrian-only underpass. Given that the Tobacco Heritage Trail follows 

an inactive rail line through a town built around the railroad, the re-introduction of passenger rail 

in the area will be in keeping with the historic context of the Town of La Crosse, VA, and will not 

likely have a negative impact on the trail user’s experience. 

NORLINA, NC 

Like Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA, the Town of Norlina, NC, is an old railroad town and its 

development has been evenly divided along either side of the now-inactive CSX S-Line and the 

inactive CSX SA-Line which join together in the middle of the town. The Preferred Alternative 

diverges from the CSX S-Line to the east, then joins the old CSX SA-Line ROW near Town and 

Country Road, thereby improving train performance by straightening curves. 

Close to Main Street and US-158, the Preferred Alternative re-joins the CSX S-Line ROW 

crossing over US-158 on a bridge; improvements to the existing US-158 underpass (rail over 

road) are proposed by the Preferred Alternative. There is active freight service on the CSX SLine just south of Norlina, NC, and the rails remain in place through town, however rail 

operations through the town have been inactive for over 20 years. Therefore, in general, 

reactivation of rail operations in Norlina, NC, would be disruptive to the community. The 

proposed relocation of Warren Plains Road just north of the Town limits, will create new travel 

patterns for access across the rail line; however, the proposed realignment includes construction 

of a bridge over the railroad to provide safe access. 

MIDDLEBURG, NC 

Middleburg, NC, is an old town that developed along US-1 and what is now the current, active 

CSX line. Most of the town’s development is located west of US-1 and the railroad corridor. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-91 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Preferred Alternative is on new location to the southeast. Under the Preferred Alternative, 

Carroll Street will bridge over the rail line on new alignment further to the east. Because of the 

existing terrain, this new road-over-rail crossing will be raised approximately 30 feet. Overall, 

the proposed road consolidations and crossings would not have an adverse effect on travel 

patterns and quality of life within this predominately agricultural community. 

CITY OF HENDERSON, NC 

Henderson, NC, is equally developed on either side of the existing CSX S-Line. The Preferred 

Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW through the city. Because the rail line is 

active, the proposed rail improvements within Henderson, NC, are not expected to divide 

communities or create community barriers. Impacts will primarily be associated with road 

closures and consolidations and new bridges or underpasses. 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS, several revisions have been made to the roadwork 

designs in Henderson, NC (refer to Chapter 2 for a description of the changes). Of the 15 existing, 

public at-grade road/rail crossings within the vicinity of Henderson, NC, 10 will be closed and 

consolidated into 7 new or existing grade-separated crossings. The new crossings include Main 

Street, Andrews Avenue, Alexander Avenue, JP Taylor Road, and Bear Pond Road. The existing 

crossings include Charles Street and the US-1 Bypass. A new pedestrian crossing will be located 

at Peachtree Street. 

The ROW required for the construction of an underpass at Main Street with connections to a new 

roundabout on the west side of the railroad, and construction of the other grade separated 

crossings will require the relocation of approximately eleven residences. However, the designs 

provide improved access across the rail line and the roundabout will improve the transportation 

network for the community on the west side of the railroad. The designs for an Andrews Avenue 

bridge over the railroad will also require the relocation of several residences and approximately 

two businesses; however, the designs provide improved access across the rail line. During final 

design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will occur; this will likely lower 

the numbers ultimately displaced. 

The Alexander Avenue bridge over the rail line and its extension to Dabney Drive will potentially 

require the relocation of between one and five businesses. However, this will improve access for 

both sides of the rail line in this area. During final design, further measures to avoid and 

minimize displacements will occur; this will likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 

Because the roadway network is well developed within Henderson, NC, the road closures and 

travel reroutes would not have an adverse effect on travel patterns or the quality of life within 

Henderson, NC. The City of Henderson, NC, has been supportive of the Project in hopes that a 

future rail stop will encourage business, residential, and development opportunities. 

KITTRELL, NC 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW through Kittrell, NC. The 

majority of Kittrell, NC, development is to the east of the existing rail line. Because the rail line 

is active, the proposed rail improvements within Kittrell, NC, are not expected to divide 

communities or create community barriers. As such, impacts will primarily be associated with 

road closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated crossings. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the existing at-grade crossing of E. Main Street will be closed. 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS, the designs for a grade separated crossing in 

Kittrell, NC, have shifted from a location near Church Street to McClannahan Street. The new 

designs reduce the number of potential residential relocations from approximately seven to one, 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-92 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

and would potentially require one business relocation. During final design, further measures to 

avoid and minimize displacements will occur. 

FRANKLINTON, NC 

The Town of Franklinton, NC, is an old railroad town that historically developed along the 

current, active rail line and old US-1. Commercial development is primarily west of the rail line. 

The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW; because the rail line is active, 

the proposed rail improvements within Franklinton, NC, are not expected to divide communities 

or create community barriers. Impacts will primarily be associated with road closures and 

consolidations and new, grade-separated crossings. 

Existing at-grade crossings at Pearce, Joyner, Mason, College, and Hawkins Streets will be 

closed. Automobile travelers needing to cross the rail line will use the existing (but improved) 

Green Street underpass or the realigned and new Cedar Creek Road bridge over rail that connects 

to Main Street. The design for a pedestrian bridge at Mason Street has been revised in response 

to comments on the Tier II DEIS; the Preferred Alternative now provides a pedestrian-only 

underpass with ramps at Mason Street. Pedestrian underpasses are also provided between E. 

College and W. College Streets, and south of Hawkins Street. An additional design revision 

affecting the Franklinton, NC, road network was made in response to comments; the proposed 

improvements to Tanyard Street have been eliminated from the designs. An alternative design 

was developed for a north-south connection east of the railroad between East Green Street and 

East College Street, near the eastern boundary of the Sterling Mill historic resource. 

Because the roadway network is well developed within Franklinton, NC, the road closures and 

travel reroutes would not have an adverse effect on travel patterns or the quality of life within 

Franklinton, NC. 

YOUNGSVILLE, NC 

This small community is located adjacent to the active rail corridor and old US-1. It is a bedroom 

community of the Raleigh, NC, and Wake Forest, NC, areas. Through town, much of the 

development faces the railroad line. The Preferred Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail 

ROW through the town. Because the rail line is active, the proposed rail improvements within 

Youngsville, NC, are not expected to divide communities or create community barriers. Impacts 

will primarily be associated with road closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated 

crossings. 

A major feature of the proposed improvements will be the lowering of the rail corridor by 

approximately 30 feet between Main Street and Winston Street in order to maintain the 

architectural and historic integrity of the town. The lowering of the rail line through this area will 

require the closing of both East Railroad Street and West Railroad Street on both sides of the rail 

line. The end result will be a new Main Street bridge over the rail line; however, the crossing will 

maintain its current grade. The Winston Street and Pine Street at-grade crossings will be closed, 

while a new pedestrian bridge will be built over the railroad connecting E. Franklin Street to W. 

Franklin Street. In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS, an additional pedestrian crossing 

in town has been added to the designs; a bridge with ramps will be built at Pine Street. Additional 

revisions include elimination of the proposed extension of Nassau Street. Instead, Cross Street 

will be extended northward to intersect the Future NC 96 Bypass alignment that will cross over 

the railroad on a bridge, and will be used for the detour route during construction of the Main 

Street bridge over the railroad. The inconvenience of the road closures and consolidations in 

Youngsville, NC, will be offset by the improved connectivity and safety of roads and the 

maintenance of the historic integrity of the town. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-93 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

WAKE FOREST, NC 

The Town of Wake Forest, NC, is the second largest urban area in the North Carolina Study Area 

and is considered a bedroom community for the City of Raleigh, NC,. Development has occurred 

on both sides of the active CSX railroad corridor over the years. The Preferred Alternative 

maximizes the use of existing railroad ROW. Because the rail line is active, the proposed rail 

improvements within Wake Forest, NC, are not expected to divide communities or create 

community barriers. Impacts will primarily be associated with road closures and consolidations 

and new, grade-separated crossings. 

Wake Forest, NC, officials expressed concern about maintaining pedestrian access across the rail 

line. Undocumented pedestrian crossings will be eliminated near Brick/N. White Streets and near 

Cedar Avenue/ Brewer Avenue/N. White Street, and a new grade-separated, pedestrian-only 

bridge over the railroad will be constructed near the latter of the two. While the Elm Avenue 

crossing will be closed, new crossing access will be available nearby at a realigned Holding 

Avenue. The realignment will connect E. Holding to W. Holding Avenue which may require the 

displacement of several homes along W. Holding Avenue and S. Main Street. During final 

design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will occur; this will likely lower 

the numbers ultimately displaced. 

Comments on the Tier II DEIS from the public and the Town of Wake Forest, NC, indicated a 

strong desire to maintain access across the railroad at Elm Avenue, if not vehicular, at least 

pedestrian. Refer to Chapter 2 for a description of coordination that has occurred subsequent to 

the Tier II DEIS that led to inclusion of new designs for a pedestrian-only bridge at Elm Avenue. 

The new design maintains pedestrian connectivity across the railroad for the community located 

along Elm Avenue. 

The existing crossing at Friendship Chapel Road will be closed and a new road will be 

constructed to the east that connects to the NC 98 Bypass. This new access point to NC 98 will 

provide an improvement to the traffic network and would not disturb residential communities. 

The Preferred Alternative provides improved access to Heritage Middle and Elementary Schools 

to the east of the crossing and Wake Forest – Rolesville Middle School to the west of the new 

crossing. The alignment will impact private baseball fields west of the railroad, and will likely 

require the displacement of a private school (Thales Academy) on the east side of the railroad. 

During final design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will occur. 

CITY OF RALEIGH, NC 

As North Carolina’s state capitol, Raleigh, NC, is the largest urban area in North Carolina within 

the Project corridor. A variety of residential, commercial, and industrial development has 

occurred on both sides of the active railroad corridor over the years. The Preferred Alternative 

maximizes the use of existing rail ROW, while crossing over Capital Boulevard on a new 

passenger train-only rail bridge, adjacent to the existing CSX S-Line bridge, just north of the 

downtown area. Because the rail line is active, the proposed rail improvements within Raleigh, 

NC, are not expected to divide communities or create community barriers. Impacts will primarily 

be associated with road closures and consolidations and new, grade-separated crossings. 

Outside the Route I-440 Beltline, Durant Road will become grade-separated with a bridge over 

the rail line. The designs for Durant Road improvements have been revised subsequent to the 

Tier II DEIS (refer to Chapter 2). The improvements minimize ROW impacts to homes and 

businesses on the south side of Durant Road, however the relocation of one or two homes at the 

entrance to the Windsor Forest neighborhood will be required. In addition, the Preferred 

Alternative will require relocation of the City of Raleigh, NC, Fire Station 22. The new Durant 

Road bridge will provide unimpeded access across the rail line; a feature that will be beneficial to 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-94 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Durant Road Middle School, Durant Road Elementary School, and Durant Road Park, all located 

west of the railroad. 

The Preferred Alternative will require a new Gresham Lake Road bridge over the rail line. The 

new bridge and associated roadway improvements will provide unimpeded ingress and egress to 

the adjacent industrial areas on either side of the rail. 

The Preferred Alternative will maintain the existing bridges at I-540, Old Wake Forest Road, 

Spring Forest Road, and Atlantic Avenue. Therefore, there will be no disruption to existing 

access at these crossings. A new rail bridge over Millbrook Road will be required by the 

Preferred Alternative. Aside from the temporary inconveniences associated with construction 

activities, the new rail bridge will improve ingress and egress through this commercial/industrial 

area. 

The Preferred Alternative will require a new bridge over the rail line at New Hope Church Road. 

Design revisions subsequent to the Tier II DEIS include a small southward shift for New Hope 

Church Road, to allow more lanes of traffic to remain open during construction and to provide 

room for bike lane. Roadway improvements associated with the grade-separated crossing will 

include St. Albans Drive, Tarheel Drive, Craftsman Drive, and New Hope Church Road. These 

improvements will provide unimpeded access between the commercial area to the west of the rail 

line and the many residential communities to the east of the line. 

The Preferred Alternative has been revised to include a realignment and bridge over the railroad 

at Wolfpack Lane, which will retain connectivity across the railroad (refer to Chapter 2 for more 

information). 

Given the well-developed roadway network in the downtown area, inconveniences associated 

with reroutes will be minimal. Inside the Beltline, the Preferred Alternative will maintain the 

existing I-440 bridge, replace the existing bridges over Six Forks Road, and construct a second 

bridge adjacent to the existing bridge over Hodges Street. This will result in minimal community 

disruption. 

The Preferred Alternative will require a new Whitaker Mill Road bridge over the rail line. This 

will likely result in the displacement of several industrial buildings for the realignment of 

Whitaker Mill Road. During final design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements 

will occur; this will likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 

In the downtown area, the Preferred Alternative will maintain grade separated crossings at Capital 

Boulevard, Hodges Street, Hillsborough Street, Morgan Street, and Boylan Avenue; a new 

separate parallel rail bridge will be built east of existing NS rail bridges, to span Peace Street, W. 

Johnson Street, Tucker Street, and North Street, therefore disruptions and reroutes will be 

avoided. New grade separated crossings will be provided at Old Williamson Road, and a new 

bridge spanning both Capital Boulevard and West Street, south of the CSX Capital Yard. Both 

Jones Street and Hargett Street will be closed under the Preferred Alternative. However, to 

accommodate strong public interest in maintaining pedestrian access across the railroad at Jones 

Street, the Preferred Alternative includes a pedestrian-only bridge at this location, near the heart 

of the burgeoning Glenwood South downtown development. 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

The effect of rail crossing consolidations and road closures on community facilities and services such 

as schools, places of worship, and emergency services are evaluated in this section. Noise and 

vibration impacts to community facilities and services are discussed in Section 4.7. An evaluation of 

impacts to parks and recreation areas is provided in Section 4.13. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-95 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 

There are 27 public educational facilities located within the designated communities of the Study 

Area, with 11 in Virginia and 16 in North Carolina. In the Tier II DEIS, schools potentially 

impacted by the proposed alternatives were evaluated in light of changes in accessibility and safety 

improvements due to elimination of at-grade crossings. Section 3.11 of this Tier II FEIS noted that 

the Tier II DEIS mistakenly included Bensley Elementary School in Richmond, VA, in the list of 

schools located in the Study Area. This school is not included for evaluation in this chapter. In 

addition, the three schools previously located within the Study Area have subsequently moved to 

locations outside the Study Area; although one former site is being re-used for a different school. 

Table 4-32 provides a summary of the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative by section. 

As mentioned above, noise and vibration impacts at these sensitive receptors are addressed in 

Section 4.7. 

Overall, there will be a net benefit to all schools from roadway safety improvements provided by 

grade-separated rail crossings (bridges and underpasses), the elimination of at-grade rail crossings, 

and the addition of pedestrian-only crossings. Inconveniences associated with construction 

activities will be temporary. The negative impacts of potentially longer driving distances to cross 

the rail line would be minimal and offset by the benefits gained in safety and unimpeded “always 

open” access. 

Table 4-32 

Impacts to Schools 

Section 

Map 

Sheet Location School Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

AA 4 Richmond, VA Ruffin Road 

Elementary 

Replacement of existing Ruffin Road at-grade crossing with 

new underpass will provide safer travel and unimpeded 

access 

8 Chesterfield 

County, VA 

Perrymont 

Middle 

Realignment and new grade-separated bridge for Kingsland 

road will improve safety and provide better access to the 

school at Perrymont Road 

BB 12 Chesterfield 

County, VA 

Chester Middle No impact 

CC 17 Colonial 

Heights, VA 

North 

Elementary 

No impact 

18 Colonial 

Heights, VA 

Lakeview 

Elementary 

No impact 

20 Ettrick, VA Ettrick 

Elementary 

No impact 

24 Petersburg, VA JEB Stewart 

Elementary 

No impact 

25 Petersburg, VA Westview 

Elementary 

No impact 

DD 37 Dinwiddie 

County, VA 

Southside 

Elementary 

Quaker Road realignment with new grade separated bridge 

over rail and new intersection with Boydton Plank Road 

provides improved, safer access from the east 

39 Dinwiddie 

County, VA 

Dinwiddie 

Middle 

Honeycutt Road realignment with new grade separated 

bridge over rail provides improved, safer access from the 

southeast 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-96 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-32 

Impacts to Schools 

Section 

Map 

Sheet Location School Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

A & 

B 

-- Dinwiddie 

County, VA 

There are no 

schools in these 

sections 

N/A 

C 51 McKenney, VA Sunnyside 

Elementary 

Doyle Boulevard would have new grade separated bridge 

over rail, improving access to Sunnyside Road and 

Sunnyside School 

D 

- 

L 

-- Brunswick & 

Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

There are no 

schools in these 

sections 

N/A 

M 99 Norlina, NC Northside 

Elementary 

Realignment of Warren Plains Rd with bridge over new rail 

alignment and direct connection to US 1 improves safety 

and access from the southeast 

N & 

O 

-- Warren & 

Vance County, 

NC 

There are no 

schools in these 

sections 

N/A 

P 108 Middleburg, 

NC 

E.O Young 

Elementary 

Closure of existing Carroll Street crossing and realignment, 

with new bridge over existing rail improves access to school 

from the south 

110 Middleburg, 

NC 

Carver 

Elementary 

Realignment of Carver School Road improves access to 

school 

112 Henderson, NC Northern Vance 

High 

Improvements to Warrenton Road (realignment and new 

rail bridge) improve access to school 

115 Henderson, NC Henderson 

Middle 

No impact to nearby existing Charles Street underpass, 

which provides access to school 

116 Henderson, NC L.B. Yancey 

Elementary 

No impact 

Q 118 Henderson, NC Zeb Vance 

Elementary 

Direct access from east of the railroad via Peter Gill Road 

will be eliminated and traffic rerouted less than 0.5 miles to 

new Wildlife Lane extension and underpass of the rail. 

New route will be longer, but unimpeded and safer with 

removal of at-grade rail crossing 

121 Kittrell, NC Kittrell Job 

Corps Center 

Extension of Church Street and bridging of rail line will 

provide improved, unimpeded access from the east 

R -- Franklin 

County, NC 

There are no 

schools in this 

section 

N/A 

S 127 Franklinton, NC Franklinton 

Middle School 

Direct access from east of the railroad at Mason Street, 

located one block away, will be restricted to pedestrian and 

bicycle access via new underpass with stairs and ramps. 

Existing underpass at nearby Green Street located two 

blocks away, would be replaced for better clearance 

128 Franklinton, NC Franklinton 

Elementary 

Pedestrian access to school from east of rail line will be 

safer and unimpeded with two new pedestrian-only 

underpasses near College Street (approximately 0.25 miles 

north) and Hawkins Street (approximately 0.15 miles south) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-97 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-32 

Impacts to Schools 

Section 

Map 

Sheet Location School Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

T 132 Youngsville, 

NC 

Youngsville 

Elementary 

Access to school from east of rail line will be safer and 

unimpeded with new Main Street bridge over rail. Main 

Street connects to US 1 where school is located 

U 136 Wake Forest, 

NC 

Wake Forest 

Elementary 

The closure of the nearby existing Elm Avenue at-grade 

crossing will re-route vehicular traffic to the existing 

Roosevelt Avenue underpass approximately 0.3 miles north, 

and to the new underpass at Holding Avenue, 

approximately 0.3 miles south; The new pedestrian bridge 

at Elm Avenue will provide direct, safe, pedestrian access to 

the school 

137 Wake Forest, 

NC 

Heritage 

Elementary 

New Rogers Road bridge over rail line provides improved, 

safer, and unimpeded access to school from west of rail line 

137 Wake Forest, 

NC 

Heritage 

Middle 

New Rogers Road bridge over rail line provides improved, 

safer, and unimpeded access to school from west of rail line 

138 Wake Forest, 

NC 

Wake Forest – 

Rolesville 

Middle 

New Rogers Road bridge over rail line provides improved, 

safer, and unimpeded access to school from west of rail line 

V 144 Raleigh, NC Millbrook High No impact 

149 Raleigh, NC Peace College No impact 

PLACES OF WORSHIP AND CEMETERIES 

In terms of the human environment, places of worship are very important to the lifestyle and overall 

health of the population of a community. In the Tier II DEIS, potential impacts of the Project 

alternatives related to changes in accessibility and safety from elimination of at-grade crossings 

were evaluated for places of worship and cemeteries within the corridor. Property impacts related 

to ROW required for new rail and road work were also addressed. Noise and vibration impacts 

were addressed separately in Section 4.7 of the Tier II DEIS. 

The Tier II DEIS identified 100 places of worship and/or cemeteries located within the Project 

corridor. As noted in Section 3.11.5, the list of resources has been revised to reflect inclusion of 

new listings based on information and comments received after publication of the Tier II DEIS. In 

addition, 10 churches either moved or are no longer in existence, and have been removed from the 

list. Table 4-33 provides a summary of impacts from the Preferred Alternative to the 98 places of 

worship and cemeteries within the Study Area. 

Overall, there will be a net benefit to all places of worship from roadway safety improvements 

provided by grade-separated rail crossings, the elimination of at-grade rail crossings, and the 

addition of pedestrian-only crossings. Inconveniences associated with construction activities will 

be temporary. The negative impacts of potentially longer driving distances to cross the rail line will 

be minimal (less than 1 mile) for most places of worship, and offset by the benefits gained in safety 

and unimpeded access. However, as shown in Table 4-33, there are 17 churches where the 

Preferred Alternative may require ROW and/or where driveway access may be changed as part of 

the final design process. Of these, the Preferred Alternative will result in the relocation of two 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-98 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

churches: God Mission of Faith Church in Ettrick, VA; and EMI New Covenant Global Ministries 

in Raleigh, NC. 

In February 2013, letters were sent to Chesterfield County, VA property owners within the Study 

Area, to announce the February 26, 2013 Project Update Meeting in Chesterfield. God Mission of 

Faith Church was included in the mailing. Following the mailing, Virginia DRPT staff attempted 

to contact the church to discuss the potential impacts from relocating the church. Two phone calls 

were made, and two voicemails were left that mentioned the letter and the upcoming meeting. The 

message included an invitation to discuss the impacts of relocating, either by telephone, or at the 

Project Update Meeting. The telephone calls were not returned, and church representatives did not 

attend the Project Update Meeting. Future coordination will be undertaken as needed, as part of 

Virginia’s right of way procedures for relocation assistance. It appears from current parcel data, 

that the Church owns a larger vacant tract of land next to the church building that may be suitable 

for relocation. 

EMI New Covenant Global Ministries rents space in a commercial building at 909 N. West Street 

in Raleigh, NC. In summer 2013, NCDOT staff attempted to contact the church in order to discuss 

the fact that the Project designs impact the property where the church is currently located, and the 

fact that implementation of the Project will result in a need for the church to relocate. No phone 

number is listed on the church’s website, but emails were sent to links provided on the website. In 

addition, a certified letter was sent to the owner of the property, but was not claimed. Although 

there was no response to this outreach, future coordination will be undertaken as needed, as part of 

NCDOT’s right of way procedures for relocation assistance. An internet search in spring 2013 

found that similar suitable rental properties are available throughout downtown Raleigh, NC; 

therefore, it appears the church should be able to relocate within the community. 

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

AA 3 Richmond, VA All Saints Apostolic 

Church, 

2001 Royall Ave. 

Access to the church across the railroad from the east 

will be unimpeded via the new bridge and realignment of 

Commerce Road. 

4 Richmond, VA Church of God in 

Christ, 

2208 Summer Hill 

Ave. 

ROW may be required for the extension of Lynnhaven 

Avenue along west side of the church. Access to the 

church will be improved through the new bridge over the 

railroad at Ruffin Road, one block south. 

8 Near Bellwood in 

Chesterfield 

County, VA 

Kingsland Baptist 

Church, 

8801 Perrymont 

Rd. 

Access to the church will be improved due to an 

extension of Kingsland Road, which will cross the 

railroad on a bridge. 

10 Chester, VA Historic First 

Baptist Church, 

4412 Centralia Rd. 

ROW is required for new access roads west of the 

church property through adjacent undeveloped property, 

and along the southern parcel boundary. Access across 

the railroad will be improved through realignment of 

Centralia Road, which includes a bridge over the railroad 

and Chester Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-99 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

10 Chester, VA Centralia 

Presbyterian 

Church, 

4625 Centralia Rd. 

ROW is required along the northern property for the 

realignment of Centralia Road. Access across the 

railroad will be improved through realignment of 

Centralia Road, which includes a bridge over the railroad 

and Chester Road. 

BB 12 Chester, VA Chester Church of 

Christ, 

12100 Winfree St. 

Access from the north will not be altered, while there 

will be improved access from the south due to the new 

underpass at Curtis Street. 

12 Chester, VA St. John’s Episcopal 

Church, 

12201 Richmond 

St. 

Access from the north will not be altered, while there 

will be improved access from the south due to the new 

underpass at Curtis Street. 

CC 17 Near Colonial 

Heights in 

Chesterfield 

County, VA 

Calvary Baptist 

Church, 

17001 Jefferson 

Davis Highway 

Access across the railroad from the east will be improved 

due to a new bridge over the railroad on Pine Forest 

Drive. 

18 Colonial Heights, 

VA 

Church of 

Nazarene, 

601 Ellerslie Ave. 

No impact 

18 Colonial Heights, 

VA 

St. Michael’s 

Episcopal Church, 

Old Town Rd. 

No impact 

20 Near Ettrick in 

Chesterfield 

County, VA 

Macedonia 

Tabernacle, 

3615 E. River Rd. 

No impact 

20 Near Ettrick in 

Chesterfield 

County, VA 

God Mission of 

Faith Church, 

3718 East River Rd.

The DEIS stated there would be no substantive change in 

access, but failed to account for ROW impacts. Rail 

ROW requirements will displace the church. Assistance 

with relocation is provided as needed as part of Virginia 

right of way acquisition procedures. 

24 Petersburg, VA Shining Light 

Pentecostal 

Holiness Church, 

1417 Farmer St. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

24 City of Petersburg, 

VA 

Third Presbyterian 

Church, 

1660 Dupuy Rd. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

25 City of Petersburg, 

VA 

Greater Faith AME 

Zion Church, 

1301 Youngs Rd. 

Vehicular access will be altered due to the closure of the 

Lincoln Street at-grade crossing. Vehicular traffic from 

east of the rail line will be rerouted a maximum of 1.5 

miles to access the church. Pedestrian access will be 

improved with a pedestrian-only, grade-separated 

crossing at Lincoln Street. 

25 City of Petersburg, 

VA 

New First Baptist 

Church, 

1346 Grant Ave. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-100 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

25 City of Petersburg, 

VA 

Zion Apostolic 

Church, 

1601 Youngs Rd. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

DD -- N/A N/A- no places of 

worship in Section 

N/A 

A 38 Dinwiddie County, 

VA 

Olive Branch 

Baptist Church, 

11119 Boydton 

Plank Rd. 

There will be no impact to the parcel on which the 

church is located or to the outlying parcel behind the 

church, which lies close to the rail ROW. 

B 41 Near the County 

courthouse in 

Dinwiddie County, 

VA 

Smyrna Baptist 

Church, 

18725 Carson Rd. 

There will be improved access from the east across the 

railroad via a new bridge over the railroad on Carson 

Road. 

C 45 Dinwiddie County, 

VA 

Mount Calvary 

Baptist Church, 

16609 Glebe Rd. 

ROW is required along the front of the church property 

to accommodate the realignment of Glebe Road. Access 

across the railroad will be improved due to new bridge 

over railroad on Glebe Road. 

D 54 Between McKenney 

and Alberta in 

Brunswick County, 

VA 

Lovely Zion Baptist 

Church, 

Lovely Zion Rd. 

Access will be altered slightly due to a realignment of 

Rawlings Road; however, access to the church will 

continue to be provided via the old Rawlings Road 

alignment on the west side of the railroad. A bridge over 

the railroad on the new Rawlings Road alignment will 

provide improved access from the east across the 

railroad. 

60 North of Alberta in 

Brunswick County, 

VA 

Mercy Seat RZUA 

Church, 

Waqua Creek Rd. 

The rail alignment will be located near the back of the 

church property, but there will be no direct impact and 

no substantive change in access. 

62 North of Alberta in 

Brunswick County, 

VA 

Warfield Baptist 

Church and 

Cemetery, 

7318 Flat Rock Rd. 

ROW will be required for road work associated with new 

Flat Rock Road bridge. 

E 66 Alberta, VA United Methodist 

Church, 

304 Church St. 

Church Street will be realigned beginning just north of 

the church to cross the railroad on a bridge. Road work 

will end near the church, but no ROW will be required 

and there will be no substantive change in access. 

66 Alberta, VA Trinity-St. Mark’s 

Episcopal Church, 

194 Connelly St. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

F 

to 

H 

-- N/A N/A- no places of 

worship in Sections 

N/A 

I 83 South of La Crosse 

in Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

First Baptist 

Church, 

Marengo Rd. 

Access will be altered due to the closure of the Morris 

Town Circle crossing south of the church. Travelers 

west of the railroad tracks will utilize a new underpass at 

a re-configured Main Street, less than 0.5 miles north. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-101 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

83 South of La Crosse 

in Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

La Crosse 

Cemetery, 

Marengo Rd. 

(New listing) 

Access will be altered due to the closure of the Morris 

Town Circle crossing next to the cemetery. Travelers 

west of the railroad tracks will utilize a new underpass at 

a re-configured Main Street, approximately 0.6 miles to 

the north. 

83 South of La Crosse 

in Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

Morning Star 

Apostolic Church, 

142 Morris Town 

Circle 

Access will be altered due to the closure of the Morris 

Town Circle crossing. Travelers from the east of the 

railroad tracks will have to travel northward to Hillcrest 

Road (maximum reroute of 1.25 miles) to access the 

church. 

83 South of La Crosse 

in Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

Mecklenburg 

United Methodist 

Church, 6503 

Marengo Rd. 

Access will be altered due to the closure of the Morris 

Town Circle crossing north of the church will be closed. 

Travelers west of the railroad tracks will utilize a new 

underpass at a re-configured Main Street, less than 0.75 

miles north. 

J 85 South of La Crosse 

in Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

Pleasant Hill 

Reformed Zion 

Union Apostolic 

Church, 4143 

Marengo Rd. 

The DEIS stated no impact, but failed to note a change in 

access. Access will be altered in that the private crossing 

in front of the church will be closed, with a new access 

road provided on the west side of the railroad. Travelers 

will have to travel approximately 0.35 miles south to 

new bridge over the railroad for Marengo Road 

(maximum reroute of approximately .75 miles). 

86 South of La Crosse 

in Mecklenburg 

County, VA 

Sardis United 

Methodist Church, 

3152 Marengo Rd. 

The existing at-grade access across the railroad will be 

closed, with alternate access provided on the east side of 

the railroad. Travelers will have to travel approximately 

0.5 miles north to new bridge over the railroad for 

Marengo Road (maximum reroute of approximately 1.25 

miles). 

K -- N/A N/A- no places of 

worship in Section 

N/A 

L 93 Community of Wise 

in Warren County, 

NC 

Jerusalem United 

Methodist Church, 

850 Paschall 

Station Road 

No impact 

94 Community of Wise 

in Warren County, 

NC 

Bethlehem Baptist 

Church, 

1258 Cole Farm 

Road 

No impact 

95 Community of Wise 

in Warren County, 

NC 

Locust Grove 

Baptist Church, 

Paschall Station 

Road 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

95 Community of Wise 

in Warren County, 

NC 

Providence Church, 

1908 US Hwy 1 

North 

A new public access road will intersect US 1 just south 

of the church property and existing driveway, but no 

ROW will be required and access will be improved 

through a new bridge over the railroad on the nearby 

Wise-Five Forks Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-102 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

 95 Community of Wise 

in Warren County, 

NC 

Wise Baptist 

Church, 

1840 US Hwy 1 

North 

A small amount of ROW may be required for 

realignment of Wise Five Forks/Carrie Dunn Road, but 

access will be improved through new bridge over 

railroad. 

M 99 Norlina, NC First Baptist 

Church, 

300 Washington St. 

Existing access from the west side of the railroad via 

Jerman Lane will remain unaltered. However, access 

from the east will be rerouted to the realigned Warren 

Plains Road and new bridge. 

100 Norlina, NC Norlina United 

Methodist Church, 

401 US 1 N. 

Access from the east of the rail line will be slightly 

modified. 

101 East of Ridgeway 

Community in 

Warren County, NC 

Chapel of the Good 

Shepherd, 

NC Rt.1107/ 

Ridgway Warrenton 

Road 

The impacts described here represent a change from the 

DEIS due to new designs for roadwork developed 

subsequent to the DEIS. 

Access to the church from across the rail line will be 

changed from the existing Ridgway Warrenton Road atgrade crossing near the church to a new bridge over the 

railroad approximately 2,000 feet south via a realigned 

Ridgeway Drewry Road connecting to a realigned Ed 

Petar Road/Ridgeway Warrenton Road. 

102 Ridgeway 

Community in 

Warren County, NC 

Ridgeway Baptist 

Church, 

156 Wycoff Rd. 

The impacts described here represent a change from the 

DEIS due to new designs for roadwork developed 

subsequent to the DEIS. 

Access from across the rail line will be less direct, 

utilizing a new bridge over the railroad for realigned 

Ridgway Drewry Road, located approximately halfway 

between two existing at-grade crossings at Ridgeway 

Warrenton Road and Axtell Ridgeway Road, which are 

approximately one mile apart. 

N 106 Manson Community 

in Warren County, 

NC 

Manson Baptist 

Church, 

Kimball Rd. 

The railroad is proposed to be on new alignment south of 

the church. The Kimball Road design has been revised 

since the DEIS. The new alignment bridges the railroad 

southwest of the NC1 alignment shown in DEIS (away 

from the church), and unlike the DEIS alignment, does 

not require ROW from church. 

O 108 Middleburg, NC Middleburg Baptist 

Church, 

80 N. Plummer 

Ave. 

The following is a correction to the DEIS: there would 

be no change in access to the church. The preferred 

alternative is on new alignment to the east of existing 

railroad ROW. Access across the railroad from the east 

will be provided via Carol Street, which crosses the 

railroad on a bridge. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-103 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

110 Between 

Middleburg and 

Henderson in Vance 

County, NC 

Young’s Memorial 

Holy Church, 

1379 Brookston Rd.

The following is a correction to the DEIS: a small 

amount of ROW may be required from the front of 

church property for the realignment of Brookston Road 

and the new bridge over the railroad. The railroad is 

proposed to be on new alignment east of the existing rail 

ROW. Access from north and south will be unimpeded. 

111 Between 

Middleburg and 

Henderson in Vance 

County, NC 

Brookston Baptist 

Church and 

Cemetery, 

242 Baptist Church 

Rd. 

Access from the west of the rail line will be improved 

and unimpeded with the realignment of Brookstone Road 

and a new bridge over the rail line. The DEIS failed to 

note that the church property abuts the existing rail ROW 

and rail improvements may require ROW from rear of 

the church property. However, this will not change 

access to the church front driveway. Driveway access to 

the rear of the church will be addressed during the ROW 

acquisition phase of the project. 

P 112 North of Henderson 

in Vance County, 

NC 

North Henderson 

Church of God, 

305 John Deere Rd. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

114 Henderson, NC Calvary Temple 

Holy Church, 

215 Kitchen Ave. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

114 Henderson, NC North Henderson 

Baptist Church, 

1211 North Garnett 

Street 

ROW may be required from the front of the church 

property for the realignment of North Garnett Street. 

There is no substantive change in access. 

114 Henderson, NC St. John’s Episcopal 

Church, 

100 Main Street 

A small amount of ROW may be required from the rear 

of the church property for realignment of N. Garnett 

Street. In addition, ROW may be required from the 

church parking across Main Street for the realignment of 

Main Street. Access across the railroad will be 

improved with new Main Street underpass. 

114 Henderson, NC Cotton Memorial 

Presbyterian 

Church, 511 

Chestnut Street 

A small amount of ROW may be required for the vertical 

realignment of Chestnut Street. There is no substantive 

change in access. 

114 Henderson, NC Mt Zion Christian 

Church of 

Henderson 

995 Burr St. 

The project would have no direct impact to the church. 

Access in the surrounding area will change from four atgrade rail crossings to two grade separated rail crossings. 

However, access from the west will be improved with a 

new round-about intersection at N. Garnett Street, N. 

Beckford Drive, N. Chestnut Street and Main Street, 

including a road underpass on Main Street at the 

railroad. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-104 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

114 Henderson, NC * City Road United 

Methodist Church, 

N. Garnett St. 

(New listing) 

There is no direct impact. The surrounding area will 

change from four at-grade rail crossings to two grade 

separated rail crossings. However, access from the east 

will be improved with new round-about intersection at 

N. Garnett Street, N. Beckford Drive, N. Chestnut Street 

and Main Street, including a road underpass on Main 

Street at the railroad. 

114 Henderson, NC Davis Chapel 

742 N. Chestnut St.

There is no direct impact. The surrounding area will 

change from four at-grade rail crossings to two grade 

separated rail crossings. However, access from the east 

will be improved with new round-about intersection at 

N. Garnett Street, N. Beckford Drive, N. Chestnut Street 

and Main Street, including a road underpass on Main 

Street at the railroad. 

114 Henderson, NC First 

Congregational 

Christian Church, 

427 Rowland St. 

There is no direct impact. Realignment of Andrews 

Avenue and new road over rail bridge improves safety 

and provides unimpeded access from the west. 

115 Henderson, NC First Presbyterian 

Church, 

222 Young St. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

115 Henderson, NC First United 

Methodist Church, 

114 Church Street 

There will be no substantive change in access because 

the existing Charles Street underpass, which is located 

directly across the street from the church, will be 

maintained. 

115 Henderson, NC First Baptist 

Church, 

205 W. Winder St. 

Several nearby existing at-grade crossings will be closed, 

but vehicular access across the railroad will be 

maintained through the nearby existing underpass at 

Charles Street and the new bridge on E. Andrews 

Avenue. Additional access will be provided to the south 

through a new pedestrian only underpass at Burwell 

Avenue/Peachtree Street. 

115 Henderson, NC Shiloh Baptist 

Church, 

 635 S. College St. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

116 Henderson, NC Fisher of Men 

Church of Our Lord 

Jesus Christ, 

163 Elsie St. 

There is no direct impact. Vehicular access will be 

altered in that the nearby at-grade rail crossing of 

Nichols Street, which intersects with St. Matthews 

Street, will be closed. Traffic rerouting will be minimal 

because new bridges over the railroad are proposed less 

than a mile to the north and south. 

116 Henderson, NC United Prayer of 

Faith Church, 

Miriam St. 

There is no direct impact. Vehicular access will be 

altered in that the nearby at-grade rail crossing of 

Nichols Street which intersects with St. Matthews Street 

will be closed. Traffic rerouting will be minimal 

because new bridges over the railroad are proposed less 

than a mile to the north and south. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-105 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

116 Henderson, NC Cooks Chapel Zion 

Church, 

210 Center St. 

There is no direct impact. Vehicular access will be 

altered in that the nearby at-grade rail crossing of 

Nichols Street which intersects with St. Matthews Street 

will be closed. Traffic rerouting will be minimal 

because new bridges over the railroad are proposed less 

than a mile to the north and south. 

116 South of Henderson 

in Vance County, 

NC 

Victory Baptist 

Church, 

475 J P Taylor Rd. 

A small amount of ROW may be required along the 

church parcel frontage for road work associated with J P 

Taylor Road. Vehicular access will be improved through 

a new bridge over the railroad for J P Taylor Road, with 

an extension west of the railroad to Belmont Drive. The 

extension of Nicholas Street to J P Taylor Road will also 

improve connectivity. 

116 South of Henderson 

in Henderson, NC 

Welcome Chapel 

Baptist Church, 

237 Welcome Ave. 

The closure of the Welcome Avenue at-grade crossing 

will create reroute traffic from the west. The reroute will 

divert traffic to realigned JP Taylor Road and its new 

road-over-rail bridge to a new intersection with Belmont 

Drive. 

117 South of Henderson 

in Vance County , 

NC 

Raleigh Road 

Baptist Church, 

3892 Raleigh Rd. 

There is no direct impact. The church property also 

fronts Bear Pond Road, which will be realigned away 

from the church, and will cross the railroad on a bridge. 

Q 120 Vance County, NC Union Chapel 

United Methodist 

Church, 

6479 Raleigh Rd. 

Access to the church will be altered, but traffic rerouting will be minimal in that the crossing at Chavis 

Road will be closed and the road realigned to connect 

with a new underpass at Edwards Road; the new 

underpass will be located within the adjacent parcel 

northeast of the church. No ROW will be required from 

the church for road work. However the church abuts the 

existing railroad, and a sliver of ROW will be required 

along the back of the church property for rail 

improvements. The private dirt crossing located at the 

back of the church parking lot will be closed. 

120 Vance County, NC New Hope Baptist 

Church, 

Raleigh Rd. 

Access to the church will be altered, but traffic rerouting will be minimal in that the crossing at Chavis 

Road will be closed and the road realigned to connect 

with a new underpass at Edwards Road less than a half a 

mile to the north. 

121 Kittrell, NC Taylor’s Chapel 

AME Zion Church, 

106 William St. 

The impact to the church is slightly different than what 

was shown in the DEIS. The bridge over the railroad at 

nearby Church Street shown in the DEIS has been 

replaced with a bridge over the railroad less than a 

quarter mile to the south at McClannahan Street at the 

request of the town. The difference to the church should 

be minimal. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-106 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

121 Kittrell, NC * Confederate 

Cemetery, 

West Chavis Rd. 

(New listing) 

No impact 

121 Kittrell, NC * Kittrell Baptist 

Church, 

100 W. Williams 

St. 

(New listing) 

The bridge over the railroad at Church Street shown in 

the DEIS has been replaced with a bridge over the 

railroad at nearby McClannahan Street at the request of 

the town. The difference to the church should be 

minimal. 

121 Kittrell, NC St. James Episcopal 

Church, 

William St. 

The bridge over the railroad at nearby Church Street 

shown in the DEIS has been replaced with a bridge over 

the railroad less than a quarter mile to the south at 

McClannahan Street at the request of the Town. The 

difference to the church should be minimal. 

121 South of Kittrell in 

Vance County, NC 

* Grace Missionary 

Baptist Church, 

1625 US Hwy 1 

South 

(New listing) 

A small amount of ROW may be required for the 

improvements to US Hwy 1 South as part of the project. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

122 South of Kittrell in 

Vance County, NC 

* Oak Ridge Baptist 

Church and 

Cemetery, Oak 

Ridge Church Rd. 

(New listing) 

There is no direct impact. Access will change with the 

closure of the nearby Beechtree Trail Road at-grade 

crossing and with a new bridge over the railroad 

provided approximately one mile to the south at Egypt 

Mountain Road. 

122 South of Kittrell in 

Vance County, NC 

Kittrell Church of 

God, 

2540 US Hwy 1 

South 

Access will be altered due to the closing of the crossing 

at Beechtree Trail Road. Travelers will utilize a new 

bridge over the railroad at Egypt Mountain Road 

approximately 1 mile south. 

R -- N/A No places of 

worship in this 

section 

N/A 

S 127 Franklinton, NC Franklinton United 

Methodist Church, 

109 N. Main St. 

From the east, the closure of the Mason and Joyner 

Street at-grade rail crossings will redirect vehicular 

traffic to an expanded Green Street underpass. A new 

pedestrian underpass will provide safe pedestrian 

crossing at Mason Street. 

127 Franklinton, NC First United Church 

of Christ, 

20 W. Green St. 

The existing Green Street underpass located two blocks 

to the east will be expanded, providing improved 

vehicular access. The pedestrian underpasses at Mason 

Street, one block north of Green Street, and College 

Street, one block south, will provide safe pedestrian 

access across the railroad. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-107 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

127 Franklinton, NC Franklinton Baptist 

Church, 

102 W. Mason St. 

From the east, the closure of the Mason and Joyner 

Street at-grade rail crossings will redirect vehicular 

traffic to an expanded Green Street underpass. A new 

pedestrian underpass will provide a safe pedestrian 

crossing at Mason Street. 

127 Franklinton, NC Mt. Pleasant 

Presbyterian 

Church, 

S. Main St. 

From the west, the closure of College Street at-grade rail 

crossing will redirect vehicular traffic to an expanded 

Green Street underpass, one block north. A new 

pedestrian underpass will provide safe pedestrian 

crossing at College Street. 

127 Franklinton, NC Holy Trinity 

Church, 

118 S. Hawkins St. 

(New listing) 

New listing for FEIS- from the west, closure of College 

Street at-grade crossing will redirect vehicular traffic to 

an expanded Green Street underpass, one block north. A 

new pedestrian underpass will provide safe pedestrian 

crossing at College Street. 

128 Franklinton, NC First Baptist 

Church, 

S. Main St. 

The existing Green Street underpass located one block to 

the east will be expanded, providing improved vehicular 

access. The pedestrian underpasses at Mason Street, one 

block north of Green Street, and College Street, one 

block south, will provide safe pedestrian access across 

the railroad. 

132 North of 

Youngsville, in 

Franklin County NC 

Union Grove 

Baptist Church, 

552 N. College St. 

ROW may be required from the eastern property 

boundary for improvements to the railroad. From the 

east, access will improve via the new NC 96 realignment 

and bridge over the railroad, as well as new Main Street 

bridge over the railroad. 

T 132 Youngsville, NC ** Youngsville 

Baptist Church, 

315 E. Main St. 

From the west, access will improve due to the new 

bridge over the railroad at Main Street, as well as the 

new NC 96 realignment to the north with a new bridge 

over the railroad. 

13 Wake Forest, NC ** Holy Redeemer 

Catholic Church, 

1841 N. White St. 

No impact 

U 133 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest 

Cemetery, 

N. White Street 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

135 Wake Forest, NC Glen Royal Baptist 

Church, 

731 Elizabeth Ave. 

There is improved pedestrian access via a new 

pedestrian-only bridge over railroad near Cedar Avenue 

and White Street. 

135 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest 

Church of God, 

155 E. Cedar Ave. 

There is improved pedestrian access via a new 

pedestrian-only bridge over railroad near Cedar Avenue 

and White Street. 

135 Wake Forest, NC Olive Branch 

Baptist Church, 

326 E. Juniper Ave. 

There is improved pedestrian access via a new 

pedestrian-only bridge over railroad near Cedar Avenue 

and White Street less than one quarter mile to the north. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-108 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

136 Wake Forest, NC Spring Street 

Christian Church, 

E. Spring St. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Hope Baptist 

Church, 

new temporary 

location at 403 

Brooks St. 

The closure of the Elm Avenue at-grade rail crossing 

will redirect traffic to existing underpass at Roosevelt 

Avenue to the north, and new underpass at realigned 

Holding Avenue to the south. New pedestrian underpass 

will also provide a safe pedestrian crossing at Elm 

Avenue. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Tri-Area Ministry, 

149 E. Holding 

Ave. 

A portion of the church’s front property may be acquired 

for ROW associated with the realignment of E. Holding 

Avenue. Driveway access and parking will be 

determined during the ROW acquisition phase of the 

project. From the west, access across the railroad will be 

altered due the southward realignment of Holding 

Avenue, which will cross under the railroad via an 

underpass. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest 

Baptist Church, 

107 E. South St. 

There will be no substantive change in access. 

136 Wake Forest, NC Wake Forest United 

Methodist Church, 

905 S. Main St. 

Access will be improved via a realignment and new 

underpass (road under railroad) for Holding Avenue. 

(Note that the DEIS incorrectly stated that Holding 

Avenue will cross the railroad on a bridge.) 

136 Wake Forest, NC South Main Baptist 

Chapel Church, 

S. Main St 

Vehicular access from east of the rail line will be altered 

with the closure of the at-grade rail crossing of Elm 

Avenue to the north, but the realignment and new 

underpass (road under rail) at Holding Avenue will 

provide improved access. (Note that the DEIS 

incorrectly stated that Holding Avenue will cross the 

railroad on a bridge.) Pedestrian access across the 

railroad at Elm Avenue will be maintained via a new 

pedestrian bridge with stairs and ramps. 

137 Wake Forest, NC Friendship Chapel 

Baptist Church, 

237 Friendship 

Chapel Rd. 

From the east, access will be improved via a new access 

road connecting Friendship Chapel Road to Franklin 

Street at the NC 98 Bypass. A small amount of ROW 

may be required from the corner of the church property 

for the road improvements. From the southwest, access 

will be altered in that the existing at-grade rail crossing 

of Friendship Chapel Road will be closed with traffic 

redirected to the NC 98 bypass, resulting in 

approximately one additional mile of travel distance to 

the church as a result the closed crossing. 

139 Between Wake 

Forest and Raleigh 

in Wake County, 

NC 

Living Word 

Family Church, 

Capital Boulevard 

No impact 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-109 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-33 

Impacts to Places of Worship and Cemeteries 

Section 

Map 

Sheet 

Location Name Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

V 145 Raleigh, NC ** Millbrook 

United Methodist 

Church, 

1712 E. Millbrook 

Rd. 

Access will be improved via new Millbrook Road bridge 

over the railroad. 

149 Raleigh, NC * EMI New 

Covenant Global 

Ministries, 

911 N. West St. 

Rail ROW requirements will displace church. 

Assistance with relocation is provided as needed as part 

of NCDOT right of way acquisition procedures. 

149 Raleigh, NC Powerhouse Church 

of Jesus Christ, 

1130 N. Blount St. 

No impact 

150 Raleigh, NC St Paul AME 

Church, 

402 W. Edenton St. 

Vehicular access from the east will be altered somewhat 

with the closure of the existing at-grade crossing at Jones 

Street (one block north). However, traffic re-routing will 

be minimal because the existing bridge over the railroad 

at Hillsborough Street (one block south) will retained. 

Pedestrian access across the railroad will be maintained 

via a new pedestrian bridge at Jones Street. 

150 Raleigh, NC Victory Tabernacle 

Church, 

W. South St. 

No impact 

* Listing was mistakenly not included in DEIS 

** Project section listed in DEIS was incorrect; correct section shown here 

POLICE, FIRE, AND EMS 

Closing existing at-grade railroad crossings and consolidating access across the Project corridor 

will have some effect on police, fire, and EMS response in the communities along the Project. 

Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS provided a discussion about seven facilities that were studied 

to determine the impact that changes in access would have on EMS service coverage. The seven 

facilities are close to the corridor and would experience changes in access across the railroad. They 

are representative of the worst-case changes that may occur; changes at other locations should be 

less substantial. In locations near existing rail operations where freight trains may block existing 

at-grade rail crossings, all alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, provide better 

conditions for emergency service response than existing conditions. Throughout the corridor, 

police, fire, and emergency response times may be temporarily affected during construction. 

Coordination with public response agencies serving the Study Area will continue during 

construction to avoid and minimize disruptions to emergency response. 

To determine the effect that changes in access would have on EMS services, a service area analysis 

was completed in ArcGIS using the Network Analyst extension. A road network was developed 

corresponding to the expected changes that would be made for each alternative and a No Build 

scenario (i.e., if the Project were not constructed). These road networks were used to develop an 

approximate service area that could be reached within about five minutes. The difference between 

the service areas for the alternatives were compared to the service area of a No Build scenario to 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-110 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

provide insight into what effects the access changes associated with each alternative would have on 

response times. 

For five of the seven facilities studied in the Tier II DEIS, the service area analysis showed little 

difference between the overall EMS service area for a No Build scenario compared to the Project 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Results of the analysis for these facilities was 

detailed in Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS, and is summarized below. 

For two facilities, the Tier II DEIS analysis revealed a substantial difference between the overall 

service area for a No Build scenario compared to the Project alternatives: the Bensley-Bermuda 

Volunteer Rescue Squad South Station in Chesterfield, VA; and the Ridgeway Volunteer Fire 

Department in Warren County, NC. Subsequent to publication of the Tier II DEIS, road work 

design revisions for the Preferred Alternative were made near these two facilities, which has 

resulted in a change to the service area analysis that was presented in the Tier II DEIS. These 

changes are discussed below; new discussion is also provided below for Henderson, NC, and 

Raleigh, NC. 

BENSLEY-BERMUDA VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD SOUTH STATION 

This facility provides emergency medical response for the southern section of the BensleyBermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad coverage area in Chesterfield County, VA. It is located very 

near and to the east of the existing Woods Edge Road at-grade crossing of the Project corridor. 

The designs presented in the Tier II DEIS showed that the Woods Edge Road crossing would be 

closed under all Project alternatives, which are on common alignment in this section. Results of 

the service area analysis shown in Section 4.11.3.3.1 of the Tier II DEIS revealed a substantial 

difference between the overall EMS service area for the Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Rescue 

Squad South Station under the Project alternatives compared to a No Build scenario. There were 

some sizeable shifts in the five-minute response area with most being attributable to the closure 

of the Woods Edge Road crossing. 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS, the Preferred Alternative (VA1) was revised to 

include a grade-separated crossing at Woods Edge Road. The new bridge over the railroad will 

provide improved access for emergency responders compared to existing conditions. 

ALBERTA, VA, VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 

The Town of Alberta, VA, in Brunswick County, VA, straddles the inactive CSX S-Line. The 

Project will affect several crossings that are proposed for consolidation. The Alberta, VA, 

Volunteer Fire Department facility is very near and to the east of the existing rail ROW. Results 

of the service area analysis shown in Section 4.11.3.3.12 of the Tier II DEIS revealed very little 

change in the five-minute response window between a No Build scenario and the Project 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (VA1). For all Project alternatives, the total area 

covered is essentially identical to a No Build coverage area and there is no indication that areas to 

the west of the corridor would be subjected to reduced coverage. Thus, there is almost no 

difference between the overall EMS service area for the Alberta, VA, Volunteer Fire Department 

under the Preferred Alternative compared to a No Build scenario. 

RIDGEWAY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 

This facility provides fire response for the Ridgeway area, southeast of Norlina, NC, in Warren 

County, NC. It is located along US-1, just north of the Project corridor. The designs presented in 

the Tier II DEIS showed that nearby crossings at Joe Jones Road and Axtell Ridgeway Road 

would be consolidated, and the nearby Ridgeway Warrenton Road crossing would be realigned 

under all Project alternatives. As discussed in Section 4.11.3.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS, there is a 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-111 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

notable difference between the overall EMS service area for the Ridgeway Volunteer Fire 

Department under the Project alternatives presented in the Tier II DEIS compared to a No Build 

scenario. 

Subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, revisions were made to road work designs in the Ridgeway area 

for the Preferred Alternative (NC1). The revisions were made in response to comments on the 

Tier II DEIS and input from local officials, and are outlined in Section 2.2. A service area 

analysis was conducted for the revised designs and the results are shown below in Figure 4-1. 

The results indicate some difference between the overall EMS service area for the Ridgeway 

Volunteer Fire Department under the Preferred Alternative compared to a No Build scenario. 

However, the difference is less substantial than the difference for the designs in the Tier II DEIS. 

It should be noted that the new road work was developed in coordination with Warren County, 

NC, Kerr-Tar Council of Governments (the Rural Planning Organization) and the NCDOT 

Transportation Planning Branch to serve the needs of the local community and Warren County, 

NC, as a whole. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-112 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 4-1 EMS 5- Minute Response Coverage Area Comparison Ridgeway, NC 

VANCE COUNTY, NC, AMBULANCE AND FIRE SERVICE 

Located in Henderson, NC, this facility provides fire response for Vance County, NC. It is 

located near US-158, just north of the Project corridor. All Project alternatives, including the 

Preferred Alternative (NC1) are on common alignment in this location. The Project will affect 

several crossings that are proposed for consolidation, and several roads that will be realigned. 

Results of the service area analysis shown in Section 4.11.3.3.4 of the Tier II DEIS reveal that the 

overall service area of all alternatives including the Preferred Alternative is largely the same 

compared to a No Build scenario. Although revisions to road work have been made in 

Henderson, NC, for the Preferred Alternative (as described in Section 2.2), the revisions do not 

affect which crossings are to be consolidated and will not substantially alter the response time 

service area of the Preferred Alternative. 

CITY OF HENDERSON, NC, FIRE STATION 1 AND CITY OF HENDERSON, 

NC, FIRE STATION 2 

Subsequent to the publication of the Tier II DEIS, a service area analysis was conducted for the 

combined service area of City of Henderson, NC, Fire Station 1 and City of Henderson, NC, Fire 

Station 2. The analysis was conducted in response to concerns expressed by the City of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-113 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Henderson, NC, regarding impacts to response time for City fire stations from the proposed 

closure of the Chavasse Avenue at-grade rail crossing. The analysis took into account design 

revisions that include a connection between Alexander Avenue (south of Chavasse Avenue), 

which will cross over the railroad on a bridge, and Nicholas Street which runs parallel to the 

railroad on the east side (refer to Section 2.2 for more information on the design changes). A 

comparison of potential coverage areas is shown in Figure 4-2. The analysis shows that the 

existing Charles Street underpass north of Chavasse Avenue and the new Alexander Avenue 

bridge adequately compensate for the nearby crossing consolidations with regard to response 

time. There is very little change in the five-minute response area of the Preferred Alternative 

(NC1) compared to a No Build scenario. 

Figure 4-2 EMS 5- Minute Response Coverage Area Henderson, NC 

FRANKLINTON, NC, FIRE DEPARTMENT 

The Town of Franklinton, NC, in Franklin County, NC, straddles the active CSX S-Line about 30 

miles northeast of Raleigh, NC. The Franklinton, NC, Fire Department facility is very near and 

to the west of the existing rail ROW. All Project alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative 

(NC1) are on common alignment in this location. The Project will affect several crossings that are 

proposed for consolidation. Results of the service area analysis shown in Section 4.11.3.3.5 of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-114 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the Tier II DEIS reveal that there is very little difference between the EMS service area for the 

Franklinton, NC, Fire Department under a No Build scenario or the Preferred Alternative (NC1). 

Although revisions to road work have been made in Franklinton, NC, for the Preferred 

Alternative (as described in Section 2.2), the revisions do not affect which crossings are to be 

consolidated and will not substantially alter the response time service area of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

YOUNGSVILLE, NC, EMS RESCUE STATION 

The Town of Youngsville in Franklin County, NC, straddles the active CSX S-Line northeast of 

Raleigh, NC. The Project will affect several crossings that are proposed for consolidation. The 

Youngsville, NC, EMS Rescue Station is very near and to the west of the existing rail ROW. The 

designs for the three alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (NC1), are on common 

alignment near the EMS station. Under the Preferred Alternative, the rail ROW and new Main 

Street ROW will affect the existing entrances for the station; however, new access will be 

provided for and determined through negotiations during final design. 

Results of the service area analysis shown in Section 4.11.3.3.6 of the Tier II DEIS reveal that the 

five-minute response area is slightly larger under the Preferred Alternative compared to a No 

Build scenario. Thus, there is no negative impact to the EMS service response area for the 

Youngsville, NC, EMS Rescue Station in Franklin County, NC, under the Preferred Alternative 

and there are improvements in response coverage area. 

Although revisions to road work have been made in Youngsville, NC, for the Preferred 

Alternative (refer to Section 2.2) the revisions do not affect which crossings are to be 

consolidated and will not substantially alter the response time service area of the Preferred 

Alternative NC1. 

WAKE FOREST, NC, FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #1 

The Town of Wake Forest, NC, in Wake County, NC, straddles the active CSX S-Line just 

northeast of Raleigh, NC,. The Wake Forest, NC, Fire Department facility is very near and to the 

east of the existing rail ROW. The designs for the three alternatives, including the Preferred 

Alternative (NC1), are on common alignment near the fire station. The Project will affect several 

crossings that are proposed for consolidation. 

Results of the service area analysis shown in Section 4.11.3.3.7 of the Tier II DEIS reveal that 

there is very little change in the five-minute response area between a No Build scenario and the 

Preferred Alternative; the total area covered is 99.6 percent of the coverage area of a No Build 

scenario. Thus, there is essentially no difference between the EMS service coverage areas for the 

Wake Forest, NC, Fire Department under the Preferred Alternative compared to a No Build 

scenario. 

Although revisions to road work have been made in Wake Forest, NC, for the Preferred 

Alternative (refer to Section 2.2) the revisions do not affect which crossings are to be 

consolidated and will not substantially alter the response time service area of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

RALEIGH, NC, FIRE STATION NO. 22 

In north Raleigh, NC, Raleigh Fire Station No. 22 is located near the active CSX railroad, on 

Durant Road. All alternatives are on common alignment in the Durant Road area, including the 

Preferred Alternative (NC1). The designs shown in the Tier II DEIS had ROW impacts along the 

front of Fire Station No. 22 property, but they included a new access road to provide driveway 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-115 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

access for the station, which will allow the station to continue operating. Subsequent to the 

publication of the Tier II DEIS, a revised bridge and road alignment was designed for this 

location for the Preferred Alternative, in response to comments from the City of Raleigh, NC,. 

The northward shift of the new alignment will take the road through the City of Raleigh, NC, Fire 

Station No. 22, requiring the fire station to be relocated. The new designs were developed in 

coordination with the City of Raleigh, NC, and will result in the City having a relocated station 

that can better serve this rapidly growing area (refer to Section 2.2). 

LAND USE PLANNING 

This section has been revised from the Tier II DEIS to address comments and updated to include the 

most recent adopted plans and studies from each agency (as relevant to the Project, which were 

presented in Section 3.11), as well as an expanded discussion of relevant planning activities by state, 

regional and local agencies. In this section, specific focus has been placed on evaluating these 

current plans for consistency with the Project as a whole, as well as on whether specific projects 

proposed by these entities are consistent with Project’s designs for the Preferred Alternative. 

LAND USE PLANS 

Land use plans are important to the overall development of a community. This is achieved through 

comprehensive/master plans, neighborhood/special area plans and other land use and transportation 

studies that examine existing development trends, desired community growth and the infrastructure 

demands of planned development. Section 3.11.3 identifies those communities affected by the 

Project and discusses how their respective land use, transportation, and comprehensive plans 

address the SEHSR Corridor. The following section summarizes the most recent plans and studies 

in the Study Area and notes their consistency with the Project. 

At the time the Tier II DEIS was published, several communities in the Study Area had not 

acknowledged the Project, and although some had acknowledged the Project, many organizations 

had not yet developed plans to address its effects. This appears to be the result of the age of those 

plans, which preceded the Tier II DEIS. All of the most recent plans and studies adopted by the 

communities and planning agencies in the Study Area now acknowledge and address the Project, as 

noted below. 

CHANGES IN LAND USE 

The potential for direct impacts on land use and development resulting from the Project is generally 

a function of: 

 Existing land uses and current zoning; 

 Availability of undeveloped land for new development; 

 Regional and local markets; 

 Proposed station locations; 

 Local effect of crossing closures and redirected traffic patterns; 

 Potential for existing uses to be redeveloped; and 

 Local land use plans, economic development programs and land use controls such as zoning 

and land development ordinances. 

To the greatest extent practicable, the Preferred Alternative utilizes existing rail lines and existing 

railroad right of way (ROW) that extend through established cities and towns. To some degree, this 

helps minimize impacts to current and future land uses, although some individual existing land uses 

may be directly impacted (as discussed in Section 4.11.6). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-116 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

As noted in the Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC, 

and as demonstrated in the local planning efforts undertaken since the Tier II DEIS was published 

(summarized below), the long range planning effects of the implementation of the Project will 

increase transportation opportunities, as communities increase transit services at planned stations, 

and some communities consider adding conventional passenger and commuter service in addition 

to SEHSR service. This has already prompted communities within the Study Area to use land use 

planning to spur new development and increase redevelopment efforts nearest planned rail stations. 

The presence of these opportunities will create a favorable environment for new economic activity 

and investment possibilities. In a few communities without proposed stations, the increase in train 

activities and improvement of freight service from the Project has already prompted the adoption of 

plans to decrease the amount of residential uses and increase the amount of industrial uses nearest 

the rail lines. Other communities have adopted specific area plans to better address the land use 

opportunities and transportation changes in areas where crossings will be closed. 

In communities with stations that will serve SEHSR trains, some major direct land use impacts may 

occur, as those properties nearest the stations gain value and are either developed (if vacant) or 

redeveloped to more dense uses to facilitate transit oriented uses. Such planning efforts are 

underway for Raleigh, NC, and recommended for other smaller communities with planned stations, 

as described further below. Especially in the larger center cities of Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC, redevelopment pressures around the stations could displace existing residents and small 

businesses in favor of higher density (and more costly) residential uses and higher cost lease space 

for businesses. However, positive land use changes also should be expected, as business 

development and investment is triggered to serve passenger needs. These changes should be 

evaluated in the future environmental documentation developed for the stations. 

COMPATIBILITY WITH FUTURE LAND USE PLANS 

This section examines the future land use plans throughout the Study Area. As noted below, the 

proposed Project and the Preferred Alternative are consistent and compatible with future land use 

plans (Tables 4-34 and 4-35). 

Table 4-34

Virginia – SEHSR Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans

City or 

County Future Land Use Plan Reference SEHSR? 

Compatible 

with 

Preferred 

Alternative? 

Notes 

City of 

Richmond 

2020 Richmond Master 

Plan (2000) 

Yes* Yes *Plan does not specifically mention 

SEHSR, but does support “establishing 

high speed rail through downtown 

Richmond as part of Amtrak’s northeast 

corridor service.” 

Richmond Connects 

(Strategic Multimodal 

Transportation Plan, 

2013) 

Yes Yes The Plan’s Transit and Rail 

Recommendations include MSS as the 

city’s “Multimodal Hub’, with the 

SEHSR’s Preferred Alternative 

connecting to MSS along the “High 

Speed Rail Corridor”. 

Downtown Master Plan, 

2009 

Yes Yes Main Street Station is recommended as a 

multi-modal transportation hub for 

Downtown Richmond. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-117 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-34

Virginia – SEHSR Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans

City or 

County Future Land Use Plan Reference SEHSR? 

Compatible 

with 

Preferred 

Alternative? 

Notes 

Richmond Riverfront 

Plan, 2012 

No Yes The CSX S-line and bridge over the 

James River is shown in the plan. The 

preferred alternative is within the existing 

rail ROW in this location. 

GRTC Broad Street Bus 

Rapid Transit Study 

No+ Yes +This is a study, not a locally adopted 

plan. The SEHSR project is referenced in 

relation to MSS in the station evaluation 

memo on the project website 

http://study.ridegrtc.com/ 

Chesterfield 

County

Chesterfield County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2012) 

Yes Yes SEHSR station is identified as Ettrick 

Station. 

Ettrick Village Plan 

(2004) 

Yes Yes SEHSR crossing of Appomattox River 

should not be impacted by proposed 

riverfront park. 

City of 

Colonial 

Heights 

Comprehensive 

Community 

Development Plan (1996) 

No^ Yes^ ^Plan currently being updated; no drafts 

available for review. No policies in old 

plan would preclude SEHSR and several 

policies support concepts behind SEHSR. 

City of 

Petersburg 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2011) 

Yes Yes Includes policies for the city to become 

“transit ready” and adopt transit oriented 

development zoning overlay district at 

proposed SEHSR station to make high 

speed rail feasible. 

Dinwiddie 

County 

Comprehensive Land 

Use Plan (2007) 

Yes Yes Includes several policies and 

implementation items specifically to 

accommodate SEHSR. 

Brunswick 

County 

Vision 2015 Brunswick 

County Comprehensive 

Land Use Plan Update 

(2006) 

Yes Yes Contains policies that support 

development of rail facilities, including 

SEHSR, to promote balanced 

transportation systems that support 

growth. 

Mecklenburg 

County 

Economic Development 

Plan (2011) 

Yes Yes Recommends coordination with Federal 

and state agencies for adequate funding to 

build SEHSR. Recommends a SEHSR 

station in La Crosse. 

2035 Comprehensive 

Plan (2012) 

Yes Yes Recommends careful land use planning 

along SEHSR. Recommends dedicated 

SEHSR station in La Crosse. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-118 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-35

North Carolina – SEHSR Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans

City or County Future Land Use Plan Reference 

SEHSR? 

Compatible 

with 

Preferred 

Alternative? 

Notes 

Warren 

County 

2022 Comprehensive 

Development Plan (2002) 

Yes Yes Recommends several actions to plan for 

SEHSR. 

Vance County Vance County Land Use 

Plan (2010) 

Yes Yes Recommends several actions to plan for 

SEHSR. Acknowledges SEHSR stop in 

Henderson. 

City of 

Henderson 

2030 Comprehensive Plan 

(2010) 

Yes Yes Recommends several actions to plan for 

SEHSR, including station in Henderson. 

@ Notes challenge related to SEHSR – 

maintaining access across RR tracks. 

Franklin 

County 

Comprehensive Land Use 

Plan (2000) 

No Yes No specific SEHSR reference (due to 

plan age) but contains no policies that 

would preclude SEHSR. 

Town of 

Franklinton 

Franklinton Comprehensive 

Plan (2006) 

No Yes No specific SEHSR reference (due to 

plan age) but contains no policies that 

would preclude SEHSR. 

US 1 Corridor Phase II 

Study (2012) 

Yes Yes Includes Preferred SEHSR alignment and 

proposed crossing closures and road 

realignments into detailed land use plan 

at major development node around rail 

corridor. 

Town of 

Youngsville 

2000-2010 Land Use Plan 

(2000) 

Yes Yes Recommends several actions to plan for 

SEHSR. 

Town of Wake 

Forest 

Community Plan (2009) Yes Yes Recommends several actions to plan for 

SEHSR. 

NC 98 Bypass Corridor 

Master Plan (2003) 

No Yes No specific SEHSR reference (due to 

plan age). Recommends several 

pedestrian and vehicular grade-separated 

crossings over/under RR that are 

consistent with SEHSR Preferred. 

City of Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan 

(2009) 

Yes Yes Future growth framework map and 

policies follow sustainable city model 

whereby 60% of future growth would be 

redirected to infill centers based on 

location of SEHSR and TT stations and 

other transit nodes. Contains policy to 

grade-separate all rail crossings. 

COMPATIBILITY WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANS 

This section examines the transportation plans throughout the Study Area to ensure that the 

proposed Project, and specifically the Preferred Alternative, is consistent and compatible with 

current plans (Tables 4-36 and 4-37). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-36

Virginia – SEHSR Compatibility with Transportation Plans

Planning 

Organization Transportation Plan 

Does Plan 

Acknowledge 

SEHSR? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Compatible w/ 

Plan’s Policies? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Consistent w/ 

Plan’s Listed 

Project(s)? 

State of Virginia 2035 Surface Transportation Plan 

(2013) Yes Yes Yes No projects r

coordination 

Statewide Rail Plan (2013) Yes Yes Yes Plan acknow

in Virginia. 

Richmond Regional PDC/RAMPO 

Plan 2035: RRPDC Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (2012) 

Yes Yes Yes 

Coordination for one listed Commerce R

FY 12-15 Transportation Improvement Program Yes Yes Yes RAMPO is w

that benefit S

Regional Transportation Priority Projects (2011) Yes Yes Yes Funding is in

Station Impro

Richmond Rail Transit Feasibility Study (2003) and Executive Summary (2008) 

Yes Yes Yes 

Commuter rawere evaluatSEHSR 

2035 Rural Long Range Transportation Plan (2011) Yes Yes Yes No projects r

coordination 

Crater PDC / TriCounties MPO Tri-Cities Area Year 2035 Transportation Plan (2012) Yes Yes Yes No projects r

coordination 

Tri-Cities Multi-Modal Station Study Yes Yes Yes See Section 1Crater PDC 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (2011) Yes Yes Yes 

Covers rural Crater plannirequired deta

Southside PDC 2035 Regional Long Range 

Transportation Plan (2011) Yes Yes Yes 

Preferred locAlberta and Lrequired SEH
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-37

North Carolina - Compatibility with Transportation Plans

Planning 

Organization Transportation Plan 

Does Plan 

Acknowledge 

SEHSR? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Compatible w/ 

Plan’s Policies? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Consistent w/ 

Plan’s 

Recommended 

Project(s)? 

State of North Carolina 

State Transportation Improvement Program: 2013-2023 (STIP) 

Yes Yes Yes No projects re

coordination w

Strategic Highway Corridors Yes Yes Yes 

SEHSR will ncritical corrid(US 1, I-440 o

Kerr-Tar Regional COG (Region K) / Kerr-Tar RPO 

Warren County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) 2008 

Yes Yes Yes 

Recommends Norlina. No pcoordination w

Vance County CTP (2012) Yes Yes Yes 

Plan shows restation in Henrequired detaiSEHSR. 

Franklin County CTP (2011) Yes Yes Yes 

Includes futurFranklinton aprojects requiwith SEHSR. 

Kerr-Tar Project Priority Listing (2014-2020) Yes Yes Yes No projects re

coordination w

Triangle J COG / CAMPO 

2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (Joint Plan with DurhamChapel Hill-Carrboro MPO) (amended 2011) Yes Yes Yes 

Plan specificaand other paswith a clear gfacilities and and rail, to crbalanced and A few projectcoordination w
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-37

North Carolina - Compatibility with Transportation Plans

Planning 

Organization Transportation Plan 

Does Plan 

Acknowledge 

SEHSR? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Compatible w/ 

Plan’s Policies? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Consistent w/ 

Plan’s 

Recommended 

Project(s)? 

US 1 Corridor Study - Phase I (2006) and Phase II (2012) Yes Yes Yes 

Included long improvementnear SEHSR enhanced frei

2012-2018 CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (2011) 

Yes Yes Yes 

No projects recoordination w

Capital Area Bus Transit Development Plan (2011) 

Yes Yes Yes 

No projects recoordination w

Town of Wake Forest, NC 

Wake Forest Transportation Plan (2010) Yes Yes Yes 

In reference tstop, the plan Raleigh to incRaleigh SEHS

Triangle Transit (TT) Regional Light Regional 

Rail Project 

Yes Yes Yes 

This project acommuter raishare same Rhas closely coprojects wher

TT/CAMPO/DurhamChapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 

Station Area Development Guidelines Yes Yes Yes 

Land use and for rail stationregional rail. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-37

North Carolina - Compatibility with Transportation Plans

Planning 

Organization Transportation Plan 

Does Plan 

Acknowledge 

SEHSR? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Compatible w/ 

Plan’s Policies? 

Is Preferred 

Alternative 

Consistent w/ 

Plan’s 

Recommended 

Project(s)? 

City of Raleigh, NC Raleigh Union Station 

Project 

Yes Yes Yes 

Funded projecAmtrak StatioNC, with this train station thSEHSR, TT rbicycles and otransportationimprove downtracks. 

Bicycle Transportation Plan (2009) 

No* Yes Yes 

* No specific to plan age). with the City Alternative thbike/pedestriagrade separateno closure of these changesAlternative is plan. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-123 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

ELDERLY & DISABLED POPULATIONS 

As presented in Section 3.11.1.3, the age dependency ratio is defined as the ratio of the dependentage population (young or old) to the working-age population. Between 2000 and 2010, the ratios in 

NC and VA were less than the US averages (Table 1-7). Consistent with the nationwide trend, both 

NC and VA have been gaining a greater percentage of old-age dependents as the baby boomers 

continue to age and retire. The ratio of dependent youth has decreased slightly between 2000 and 

2010, but is expected to increase above current levels in the coming decades. By the year 2050, the 

youth and old-age dependency ratios nationally are projected to stabilize at 48:100 and 37:100, 

respectively, but not before reaching a total dependency ratio of 85:100, a 37% increase in overall 

dependency from 2000 (Figure 1-5). Following this national trend, North Carolina and Virginia are 

projected to experience significant increases in the under 20 and over-65 populations between now 

and 2050. This means that fewer and fewer working age people will be taking care of even more 

dependents in the coming decades, and a greater percentage of the population may be dependent on 

others for their transportation needs. The increase in the over-65 population is important because of 

the reduced mobility within this age group and the resulting increase in demand this will place on 

public transportation alternatives to meet their transportation needs. 

Current studies indicate changes in transportation systems and local roadway connectivity may 

have a greater impact on older populations who rely more heavily on pedestrian infrastructure 

and/or transit (Balfour and Kaplan, 2002). There are numerous communities in the area where the 

percentage of elderly (age 65 and older) in their demographic Study Area are greater than the 

percentage of elderly reflected in their respective city, county, and/or state (Table 4-30 Rail and 

Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community, above). In Virginia, 

communities with higher than average elderly populations within the Study Area are in the cities of 

Colonial Heights, VA, and Petersburg, VA, and the counties of Dinwiddie, VA, Brunswick, VA, 

and Mecklenburg, VA. In North Carolina, higher than average elderly populations in the Study 

Area are found in Warren and Vance counties, NC. In addition to the elderly, persons with some 

form of disability or impairment constitute another sensitive category with important transportation 

needs. 

Additional transportation opportunities afforded by the Project will be equally available to the 

elderly and disabled and will provide additional transportation options. To accommodate the needs 

of these special populations, future designs should take into consideration the alteration of existing 

facilities, locomotives, stations, and rail cars in order to make them accessible for the elderly and 

persons with disabilities, such as modifying doorways, adding or modifying lifts, constructing 

access ramps and railings, modifying restrooms, and constructing accessible platforms. 

The Project will not create barriers specific to elderly or disabled populations. As described in 

Section 4.11.2, all new bridges and underpasses are designed to have sufficient width so as not to 

create a hazard for pedestrian movement. In locations where existing pedestrian accommodations 

(e.g., sidewalks) currently exist, these accommodations will be provided on the 

bridges/underpasses. At other locations, pedestrian accommodations on the bridges/underpasses 

will be evaluated during final design based on the current NCDOT and VDOT pedestrian policies. 

Both NCDOT and VDOT have established “Complete Streets” policies that provide for 

consideration of all modes of transportation, including pedestrians and cyclists, when building new 

projects or making improvements to existing infrastructure. Therefore, the Project is not 

anticipated to introduce any barriers to the elderly or disabled or have adverse impacts to either of 

these special populations. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-124 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

An updated Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis was prepared for this Tier II FEIS as a result of the 

availability of 2010 Census data and USDOT EJ Guidance (USDOT, 2012). The EJ analysis in the 

2010 Tier II DEIS was based on 1990 and 2000 US Census because the 2010 Census had yet to be 

completed. Since the release of the 2010 Tier II DEIS, the 2010 Census data is available and is the 

basis of the updated EJ analysis for this Tier II FEIS. In addition to the change in time period, there 

are also differences in the data collection. From 1970 to 2000, the decennial Census “Long Form” 

was used, providing a 1-in-6 population sample of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics 

such as income and poverty. This form is no longer collected as part of the Decennial Census. It has 

been replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide, continuous 

survey designed to provide demographic, housing, social, and economic data every year; however, 

it is subject to larger margins of error and is only provided for larger geographies such as counties 

and large cities and, therefore, is not available at the Census Block Group (CBG) level. For the 

ACS, the margin of error is the difference between an estimate and its lower or upper confidence 

bound. All ACS published margins of error are based on a 90 percent confidence level calculated 

using a standard error formula. This margin of error is included in the EJ tables presented in this 

section. 

Since the release of the 2010 Tier II DEIS, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued 

an update to its guidance on carrying out Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations (USDOT, 2012). This order requires Federal agencies to 

achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects, including the interrelated social and economic effects of 

their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 

United States. Effective August 15, 2012, FTA issued its first EJ guidance, “Environmental Justice 

Policy Guidance for FTA Recipients.” In 2011, FHWA issued “Guidance on Environmental 

Justice in NEPA” and in 2012 issued “FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The new guidance expands minority 

definitions to match those of the Census. Hispanic populations (an ethnicity), were added to the 

category of minority populations (a race of people). In addition, clarifications were provided 

regarding identifying disproportionately high and adverse effects. FRA has elected to apply these 

guidance documents for this Tier II FEIS. 

A summary of the USDOT guidance on the application of Executive Order 12898 to transportation 

projects includes the following points: 

 Low-Income: A person whose median household income is at or below the Department of 

Health and Human Services (DHHS) poverty guidelines. The 2012 DHHS poverty guideline 

for an individual is $11,170 and a family/ household of four persons is $23,050. 

 Low-Income Population: Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient 

persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a 

proposed USDOT program, policy, or activity. 

 Minority: A person who is 

o Black: a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; 

o Hispanic or Latino: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race; 

o Asian American: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far 

East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; 

o American Indian and Alaskan Native: a person having origins in any of the original 

people of North America, South America (including Central America), and who 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-125 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition; 

or 

o Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: a person having origins in any of the 

original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 

 Minority Population: Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient 

persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a 

proposed USDOT program, policy, or activity. 

 Adverse Effects: The totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or 

environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, 

but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water 

pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of human-made or natural 

resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of 

community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the 

availability of public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment 

effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased 

traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals 

within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or 

significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of USDOT programs, policies, or activities. 

 Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects on Minority and Low-Income Populations are 

adverse effects that: 

o Are predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; 

or 

o Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be 

suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population. 

This EJ analysis was carried out in accordance with the guidance and requirements set forth in the 

USDOT Order 5610.2(a) and Executive Order 12898. The locations of minority and/or low-income 

populations are identified and referred to as EJ communities. A minority and/or low-income 

population is defined as an EJ community if it meets one or both of the following criteria: 

 The Census block group contains 50 percent or more minority persons and/or the Census 

block group contains 25 percent or more low-income persons. 

 The percentage of minority and/or low-income persons in any Census block group is more 

than 10 percent greater than the county average. 

The presence of these two types of EJ populations was determined based on 2010 Census data and 

the most recent data available from the ACS. The EJ Study Area included all Census blocks, block 

groups, and tracts within or adjacent to the Project corridor. Extensive public outreach efforts were 

undertaken equally along the entire Study Area and throughout the life of the Project. These efforts 

are documented in Chapter 7. 

In addition to the changes in Census and ACS data and the new Federal EJ guidance, this Tier II 

FEIS EJ analysis differs from the 2010 Tier II DEIS analysis for several reasons: 

 For this Tier II FEIS, minority communities now include white and non-white Hispanic 

populations, whereas the 2010 Tier II DEIS addressed Hispanic populations as a separate, 

disadvantaged population in the EJ analysis. 

 For this Tier II FEIS, low-income communities are determined based on the updated 2012 

Health and Human Services (HSS) poverty threshold, whereas the Tier II DEIS used the HSS 

2010 poverty threshold. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-126 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 This Tier II FEIS uses a Project-level EJ threshold value (58%, as explained below in 

4.11.5.2.1) to determine if impacts are disproportionately high, whereas the Tier II DEIS did 

not use a threshold value (see Section 4.11.5.2.1 for an explanation of the derivation of this 

threshold value.) 

 The EJ analysis in the 2010 Tier II DEIS was more generic in its approach than this Tier II 

FEIS EJ analysis. In other words, the Tier II DEIS did not make comparisons of 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts by multiple EIS topics, whereas this Tier II FEIS 

addresses EJ impacts by specific topics such as traffic changes & road closures, 

displacements, neighborhood disruptions, air, noise, and vibration. 

Beneficial and adverse impacts to EJ communities are addressed by topic in the text that follows. 

Overall, this analysis shows that EJ communities would experience disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts in the areas of residential relocations, rail operation noise impacts to Category 2 

receptors (residences and buildings where people normally sleep), rail noise vibration impacts to 

sensitive receptors, and the need for housing of last resort. Use of the housing of last resort 

provision is required where an owner, occupant, or tenant cannot otherwise be appropriately housed 

within the monetary limits. This is a common situation in high-cost housing areas or with very low 

income tenants who do not live in subsidized housing at the time of displacement. A discussion of 

avoidance, minimization, and potential mitigation measures for noise impacts is also included, 

where appropriate. 

EJ COMMUNITIES IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA 

Table 4-38 presents the percentage of minority and low-income populations by state, locality, and 

community. Community-level data reflect the Census block groups within or adjacent to the 

Study Area. On Table 4-38, EJ communities are identified with bold text. Table 4-39 lists the EJ 

communities and indicates if the communities are minority and/or low-income. Of the 26 

sections of the Study Area (AA through V), more than half qualify as having EJ communities. 

Overall, the percentage of minority and/or low-income populations in the Census block groups 

within or adjacent to the Study Area is equal to or greater than it is for the entire locality within 

which the block groups are located. In other words, there are more EJ communities adjacent to 

the existing railroad tracks than there are away from the tracks. The exception to this is Wake 

County, NC, where the percentage of minority populations is much less adjacent to the railroad 

than it is for the county as a whole. 

The percentage of the Project located within EJ communities (as defined above) was evaluated to 

determine if the Project is disproportionately located within them. Table 4-40 identifies each 

Project section as either having or not having EJ communities, as well as the number of miles of 

rail and road improvements proposed within each section of the Preferred Alternative. Based on 

the data provided in Table 4-40, there are 234.43 combined miles of road and rail mainline track 

to be improved within the Study Area, of which 57 percent of these improvements would be 

located within EJ communities. While the Project is disproportionately located within EJ 

communities based on this criteria, it is important to note that the Study Area, which uses existing 

railroad rights of way to the extent practical, was selected in the Tier I EIS because it would 

minimize impacts to the human and natural environment. Additionally, the presence of the 

Project improvements does not necessarily result in impacts, particularly in locations where the 

designs are located entirely within the existing railroad corridor. The Tier II EIS efforts to further 

minimize impacts involved extensive community outreach to all communities along the Project, 

including EJ communities (see Chapter 7 for details on community involvement). Minimization 

and mitigation to EJ communities are summarized in Section 4.11.5.2.11, Community 

Involvement Process and Resulting Mitigation. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-127 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Representing 57 percent of the Study Area, EJ communities have the potential to receive a 

disproportionately high level of adverse impacts in comparison to non-EJ communities. On the 

other hand, EJ communities also have the potential to be the recipients of a disproportionately 

high level of Project benefits compared to non-EJ communities. To determine if EJ impacts are 

disproportionately high, a threshold of 58 percent or greater percent was used to evaluate impacts. 

Table 4-30 (Rail and Road Impacts and Benefits of Preferred Alternative by Community) 

presents summaries of the road and rail impacts and benefits to EJ communities. Table 4-41 

presents a summary of the community-level impacts to EJ communities. 

Table 4-38 

Environmental Justice: Minority and Low-Income Data* 

State and Locality Study Area and Community 

Locality 

% 

Minorit

y 

Persons Whose Income 

is Below Poverty Level 

(2010) 

Section Study Area / 

Community 

% 

Minorit

y 

Persons Whose 

Income is Below 

Poverty Level (2010) 

% Standard 

Error (SE) % 

Standard 

Error 

(SE) 

Virginia 31.4% 10.3% 0.12 Census Block Groups Within or Adjacent to Project Corridor 

City of 

Richmond, VA 59.2% 25.3% 0.67 AA City of Richmond, 

VA 70.1% 25.3% 0.7 

Chesterfield 

County, VA 31.7% 5.9% 0.36 

AA - CC Chesterfield 

County, VA 39.3% 5.9% 0.4 

CC Ettrick, VA 75.8% 7.5% 3.3 

City of Colonial 

Heights, VA 17.7% 7.5% 1.2 CC City of Colonial Heights, VA 23.3% 7.5% 1.2 

City of 

Petersburg, VA 83.9% 20.2% 1.7 CC - DD City of Petersburg, VA 85.1% 20.2% 1.7 

Dinwiddie 

County, VA 36.1% 11.8% 1.3 

DD - C Dinwiddie County, 

VA 36.6% 11.8% 1.3 

C McKenney, VA 36.5% 14.5% 5.4 

Brunswick 

County, VA 59.6% 21.0% 3.1 

D - G Brunswick 

County, VA 63.8% 21.0% 3.1 

E Alberta, VA 62.7% 35.5% 13.1 

Mecklenburg 

County, VA 40.0% 18.8% 1.6 

H - L Mecklenburg 

County, VA 29.5% 18.8% 1.6 

I La Crosse, VA 43.9% 27.0% 8.7 

North Carolina 31.5% 15.5% 0.1 Census Block Groups Within or Adjacent to Project Corridor 

Warren 

County, NC 60.6% 27.0% 2.6 

L - N Warren County, 

NC 64.9% 27.0% 2.6 

M Norlina, NC 55.9% 34.0% 7.9 

Vance County, 

NC 61.8% 27.5% 1.7 

O - Q Vance County, 

NC 57.2% 27.5% 1.7 

O Middleburg, NC 61.7% 8.4% 6.4 

P Henderson, NC 71.6% 12.7% 0.9 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-128 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-38 

Environmental Justice: Minority and Low-Income Data* 

State and Locality Study Area and Community 

Locality 

% 

Minorit

y 

Persons Whose Income 

is Below Poverty Level 

(2010) 

Section Study Area / 

Community 

% 

Minorit

y 

Persons Whose 

Income is Below 

Poverty Level (2010) 

% Standard 

Error (SE) % 

Standard 

Error 

(SE) 

Q Kittrell, NC 42.1% 78.6% 7.9 

Franklin County, 

NC 30.8% 15.0% 1.2 

R Franklin County, 

NC 35.4% 15.0% 1.2 

S Franklinton, NC 44.3% 28.0% 6.4 

S - T Youngsville, NC 22.8% 5.2% 2.6 

Wake County, 

NC 36.7% 9.7% 0.2 

T - V Wake County, NC 15.0% 9.7% 0.2 

U Wake Forest, NC 23.9% 7.5% 1.3 

U - V City of Raleigh, 

NC 45.7% 14.6% 0.5 

Source: State and county data from 2010 Census, QTP4 for Minority and DP03 (All Persons) for Poverty. Community 

data at the Census block group and tract level from 2010 American Community Survey S1701 by Place. 

Note: Bolded text indicates an EJ community. 

Table 4-39 

Environmental Justice Communities within Study Area Block Groups 

State Section Study Area / 

Community Minority Key Minority Demographic Low-Income 

Virginia 

AA City of Richmond, 

VA 

 Black 

CC Ettrick, VA  Black - 

CC, DD City of Petersburg, 

VA 

 Black - 

D, E, F, G Brunswick County, 

VA 

 Black - 

E Alberta, VA  Black 

I La Crosse, VA - - 

North 

Carolina 

L, M, N Warren County, NC  Black 

M Norlina, NC  Black 

O, P, Q Vance County, NC  Black 

O Middleburg, NC  Black - 

P Henderson, NC  Black - 

Q Kittrell, NC - - 

S Franklinton, NC  Black 

Source: State and county data from 2010 Census, QTP4 for Minority and DP03 (All Persons) for Poverty. Community data 

at the Census block group and tract level from 2010 American Community Survey S1701 by Place. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-129 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-40 

Project Area of Preferred Alternative within Environmental Justice Communities 

Section Area Minority LowIncome 

Rail 

Mainline 

Track 

Roadwork Combined 

Rail/Road 

Miles Miles Miles 

AA City of Richmond, VA   11.31 4.88 16.19 

BB Chesterfield County VA   6.91 3.18 10.09 

CC Ettrick, Petersburg VA   8.91 3.25 12.16 

DD Petersburg VA   5.66 1.80 7.46 

A Dinwiddie County VA   4.95 1.97 6.92 

B Dinwiddie County VA   5.71 1.44 7.15 

C Dinwiddie County VA   10.74 3.99 14.73 

D Brunswick County VA   6.17 1.96 8.13 

E Brunswick County, Alberta VA   4.21 1.66 5.87 

F Brunswick County VA   4.28 1.55 5.83 

G Brunswick County VA   3.55 0.58 4.13 

H Mecklenburg County VA   5.53 4.60 10.13 

I La Crosse VA   3.78 3.77 7.55

J Mecklenburg County VA   4.10 2.67 6.77 

K Mecklenburg County VA   4.96 0.13 5.09 

L Warren County, NC   5.69 4.84 10.53 

M Warren County, Norlina, NC   6.14 5.37 11.51 

N Warren County, NC   3.71 2.61 6.32 

O Vance County, Middleburg, NC   4.70 3.94 8.64 

P Vance County, Henderson, NC   7.99 8.50 16.49 

Q Vance County, Kittrell, NC   7.70 3.32 11.02 

R Franklin County, NC   3.21 0.23 3.44 

S Franklinton, NC   6.88 2.80 9.68 

T Franklin County, NC   2.83 0.55 3.38 

U Wake County, NC   8.88 3.67 12.55 

V Wake County, NC   9.88 2.79 12.67 

Project Totals - - 158.38 76.05 234.43 

Project Totals - EJ Communities Only - - 86.90 47.06 133.96 

% Impacts to EJ Communities Only - - 55% 62% 57%

 

Note: Bolded text indicates an EJ community. 

58% = Threshold value used to determine if impacts are disproportionate within Section having EJ 

communities 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-130 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-41 

Community Impacts of Preferred Alternative within Environmental Justice Communities 

Section Area 

Residential 

Relocations 

Housing of 

Last Resort 

Business 

Relocations 

Public 

Schools 

Impacted 

Hazmat 

Sites 

# Yes or No # # # 

AA City of Richmond, VA 40 No 7 0 59 

BB Chesterfield County, VA 7 No 1 0 10 

CC Ettrick, Petersburg, VA 48 No 1 0 20 

DD Petersburg, VA 2 No 0 0 1 

A Dinwiddie County, VA 0 No 0 0 1 

B Dinwiddie County, VA 3 No 1 0 3 

C Dinwiddie County, VA 4 No 8 0 3 

D Brunswick County, VA 3 No 2 0 1 

E Brunswick County, Alberta, VA 2 No 7 0 0 

F Brunswick County, VA 0 No 0 0 0 

G Brunswick County, VA 2 No 0 0 0 

H Brunswick County, VA 1 No 0 0 0 

I La Crosse, VA 14 No 0 0 2 

J Mecklenburg County, VA 5 No 0 0 1 

K Mecklenburg County, VA 0 No 5 0 0 

L Warren County, NC 8 Yes 1 0 1 

M Warren County, Norlina, NC 18 Yes 4 0 0 

N Warren County, NC 2 Yes 0 0 1 

O Vance County, Middleburg, NC 3 No 0 0 1 

P Vance County, Henderson, NC 33 No 8 0 31 

Q Vance County, Kittrell, NC 10 Yes 0 0 4 

R Franklin County, NC 1 No 0 0 0 

S Franklinton, NC 4 No 0 0 7 

T Franklin County, NC 5 No 0 0 4 

U Wake County, NC 8 No 12 0 20 

V Wake County, NC 0 No 59 0 79 

Project Totals 223 None 116 0 249 

Project Totals - EJ Communities Only 189 Yes 30 0 128 

% Impacts to EJ Communities Only 85% Yes 26% 0% 51% 

Note: Bolded text indicates an EJ community. 

 = Disproportionately High Impacts Relative to % Miles within Section having EJ communities 

58% = Threshold value used to determine if impacts are disproportionate within Section having EJ communities 

TRAFFIC CHANGES & PUBLIC ROAD AND PRIVATE DRIVE CLOSURES 

Communities along the corridor have consistently provided supportive comments regarding the 

development of HSR. This community support is in light of the road closures and reroutes to 

accommodate rail crossing safety improvements. Road consolidations and grade separated (i.e., 

bridge and underpass) crossings are generally at a maximum distance of one mile apart, avoiding 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-131 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

lengthy or circuitous rerouting. In addition, the elimination of at-grade crossings will reduce train 

horn noise in communities through which the trains pass, including EJ communities. The 

temporary inconvenience of and disruption caused by construction activities will be shared by all, 

not just minority and/or low-income populations. 

As shown in Table 4-30 above, EJ communities will be subject to a disproportionately high 

number of at-grade road and rail crossing closures. However, these closures are not considered 

significant given the maximum reroute distance of one mile. In addition, closures and reroutes 

were discussed with community representatives to develop the most beneficial and least impactful 

design (see Chapter 7 for details on community involvement). 

As stated in Section 4.11.2.1.5, Traffic Changes & Public Road and Private Drive Closures, 

travelers in areas with active rail lines are accustomed to waiting at at-grade crossings for stopped 

or passing trains. While construction activities and the consolidated or realigned closings may be 

an initial inconvenience for these travelers, the short-term inconvenience will be offset by having 

a grade-separated rail crossing that allows for continuous, unimpeded access to and from both 

sides of the rail line. Owners of parcels with current, legal access to existing roads will have 

access to their parcels maintained (or will be compensated if it is not possible to maintain the 

access); driveway access to these parcels will be determined during final design when detailed 

survey level data is available. 

While EJ communities will experience a disproportionately higher level of temporary community 

disruption from Project improvement activities, these EJ communities will also be the recipients 

of the permanent benefits associated with the improvements. The adverse effects associated with 

road and rail improvements are not anticipated to be appreciably more severe or greater in 

magnitude than those suffered by non-EJ communities. 

RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS 

Table 4-37 above, presents a summary of residential impacts relative to EJ communities. The 

greatest number of residential displacements in EJ communities will occur in Richmond, VA, 

Ettrick, VA, and Henderson, NC. These displacements will result from converting existing, atgrade crossings to grade-separated crossings, rerouting existing roads, and providing new access 

roads. Residences located along the existing rail corridor in a developed, urban area are difficult 

to avoid due to rail engineering standards and constraints that limit flexibility in the proposed 

designs. Last resort housing, as discussed in Section 4.11.6, will likely be necessary in Sections 

L (NC-portion), M, N, and Q in Warren and Vance Counties, NC, including Norlina, NC, and 

Kittrell, NC. The number of residential relocations within EJ communities is disproportionately 

high and adverse relative to non-EJ communities, as is the need for housing of last resort. 

Where displacements are unavoidable, fair and equitable compensatory mitigation will be 

implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). As is the case with any relocation, the 

Uniform Relocation Act ensures that persons displaced as a result of a Federal action or by an 

undertaking involving Federal funds are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably. This helps to 

ensure persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the 

benefit of the public as a whole. Persons who will be displaced will personally work with a 

Relocation Agent from either North Carolina or Virginia, as appropriate. Section 4.11.6 provides 

additional details on the relocation process. 

While residential displacements are disproportionately high and adverse, the surrounding EJ 

communities would be served by and will directly benefit from the safety improvements afforded 

by the proposed improvements. A description of the residential displacements within EJ 

communities is provided in the text that follows. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-132 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Richmond, VA: As currently designed, three single-family residences, half of one multi-family 

residence, and one business would be displaced due to the construction of grade separations of the 

rail line at Ruffin Road and Bells Road. Given that these two roads serve as the primary points of 

access for residential, commercial, and industrial development in the area, and that the areas are 

fully built out, avoidance of these relocations is not practicable. In addition, given the high traffic 

volumes along these two roads, simply closing these at-grade crossings would not be a prudent 

option. Along Ruffin Road, one of the residential units at the Lafayette Gardens apartment 

community and several adjacent homes may be displaced as a result of ROW acquisition for the 

railroad bridge construction at this intersection. The footprint of the overpass was minimized to 

avoid the building that formerly housed the Shekinah Temple Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ on 

the eastern side of the railroad tracks. Project designs also include a Bells Road bridge over the 

existing rail line, andROW acquisition on the southern side of Bells Road, to the west of the rail 

line, may result in the displacement of up to three single-family residences. The Preferred 

Alternative maximizes the use of existing rail ROW in this area, minimizing displacements of any 

kind. Because these homes are located adjacent to the existing rail corridor, and because of 

design requirements, avoidance of all properties was not possible. 

Ettrick, VA: Several single-family residences would be displaced for the bridging of Branders 

Bridge Road and Dupuy Road over the existing rail line. Both new road alignments would be 

located on the northern side of the roads to minimize property impacts and residential 

displacements. Given the high traffic volumes along these two roads, simply closing these atgrade crossings would not be a prudent option. Residential properties remaining on the south side 

of the original Dupuy Road (south of the proposed, relocated Dupuy Road) will face the new fill 

necessary to elevate relocated Dupuy Road over the railroad tracks. Landscaping of this fill will 

be evaluated during final design as mitigation for these remaining residents. God Mission of 

Faith Church on East River Road would be displaced by the Preferred Alternative railroad ROW 

requirements. Assistance with relocation will be provided as needed as part of Virginia right of 

way acquisition procedures. Public meetings were held in 2010 and 2013 to discuss these issues 

with local residents and develop acceptable solutions (see Section 4.11.1.10 and Chapter 7). 

Based on these meetings, residents and local officials attending the meetings appeared to 

understand the issues and the proposed design solutions. 

Petersburg, VA: To accommodate construction of the new track east of the existing railroad, a 

new rail bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing Dupuy Road/Farmer Street 

underpass, which would be retained. The Preferred Alternative does not impact the nearby 

Shining Light Pentecostal Church located on Dupuy Road. A new pedestrian-only bridge will be 

provided over Lincoln Street to maintain neighborhood access. Both of these improvements 

require the displacement of several single-family residences. Public meetings were held in 2010 

and 2013 to discuss access issues with local residents and develop acceptable solutions (see 

Section 4.11.1.10 and Chapter 7). Road closures and consolidations would have a minimally 

disruptive effect in this area. 

Brunswick County, VA: Rail along the CSX S-Line has not been active in Brunswick County, 

VA, since the 1980s. To accommodate rail and eliminate at-grade crossings, a small number of 

residential relocations will be necessary. Rawlings Road will be relocated to provide a gradeseparated crossing. This new crossing was shifted to the west to avoid the displacement of 

several resources, including a residential displacement, Blick’s Store and Wynnhurst (eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places), and Lovely Zion Baptist Church. A new overpass will 

be constructed at Flat Rock Road, avoiding residential displacements and avoiding displacement 

of the Warfield Baptist Church. Rail will be on new alignment to the north of Alberta, VA, 

requiring an overpass of the new tracks at Chestnut Road. The design minimizes residential 

displacements along Chestnut Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-133 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Alberta, VA: Alberta, VA, is an old railroad village and the community’s structure and identity 

historically relate directly to the existence of the former rail line. There has not been active rail in 

the town since the 1980s and the new, active rail will bisect the community, causing changes in 

travel patterns throughout the town. This effect will likely occur despite the three, relatively 

close new road overpasses for Main Street, 2nd Avenue, and Church Street. In addition, a new 

overpass for pedestrians, bicyclists, and horses will be provided where the Tobacco Heritage Trail 

crosses the railroad tracks, one block north of 2nd Avenue. Littlemont Road will be rerouted with 

the realigned Church Street and will include a new rail overpass for Church Street. While the 

alignment of the new Church Street goes through several residential parcels south of the railroad 

tracks, these parcels and the adjacent subdivision are vacant. The Preferred Alternative avoids 

the United Methodist Church and minimizes residential displacements, but several commercial 

displacements will be necessary. Meetings with residents and local officials have been ongoing 

to develop acceptable design plans (see Section 4.11.1.10 and Chapter 7). 

La Crosse, VA: As with Brunswick County, VA, and the Town of Alberta, VA, there has not 

been active rail in La Crosse, VA, since the 1980s. Accommodating new, active rail and 

eliminating at-grade crossings will require multiple residential displacements. North of town, the 

relocation of Country Club Road and the shift of the existing rail corridor to the northwest will 

result in several displacements of residents at the Hillcrest Mobile Home Park. Based on 

discussions with the park administrator in May and August 2013, it is anticipated that the 

displaced properties can relocate to currently vacant lots within the park. 

In addition to the residential displacements, water to residents of this mobile home park is 

provided via private wells. The relocated rail would require capping at least one well that serves 

remaining residents at the mobile home park. Communication with the Virginia Department of 

Health indicated that the Hillcrest Mobile Home Park was an inactive waterworks system as of 

June 2010. They stated that “[a] modification to their distribution system changed their status at 

that time and they are no longer required to follow Virginia Waterworks Regulations. It is 

unclear whether the Park has drilled additional wells, or if they are now connected to town 

water.” Further coordination by the Project Team with the park administrator determined that the 

Park had, in fact, drilled an additional well. Due to the potential impacts to one of the Park’s 

drinking water wells, the Project Team requested that the Mecklenburg County, VA, Health 

Department conduct a site visit of the Hillcrest Mobile Home Park property to assess the 

adequacy of the overall site to accommodate the relocation of the drinking water well. The 

Health Department determined there is sufficient land available within the Hillcrest 50-acre 

parcel to accommodate the relocation of the drinking water well. During final design, a suitable 

new water source will be identified to ensure a continuous, safe, and sanitary water source for 

these residents. 

Immediately south of Hillcrest Mobile Home Park, there will be a new, grade-separated, rail over 

road access point connecting Country Club Road and Northington Road. An additional 

residential displacement is likely at this location. 

The existing pedestrian rail crossing for the Tobacco Heritage Trail will be relocated to a new 

bicycle/pedestrian-only underpass connecting the trail to Main Street, just north of its current 

intersection with High Street. No displacements are associated with this feature. The rerouting 

of traffic, along with construction of a traffic circle for the intersection of Meredith Street and St. 

Tammany Road, may be confusing and disruptive at first. Changing traffic patterns may add 

traffic volumes to local streets due to reroutes. South of downtown La Crosse, VA, the existing 

Morris Town Circle at-grade crossing of the rail corridor will be closed. This closure may require 

an additional mile of travel for those wanting to get to the La Crosse Cemetery, Mecklenburg 

United Methodist Church, and Morning Star Apostolic Church, depending on which side of the 

railroad tracks they live. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-134 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The La Crosse, VA, Town Council requested consideration of an additional pedestrian crossing 

of the railroad tracks near the historic La Crosse Hotel. Following detailed discussions with the 

Mayor and local residents about the constraints to such a crossing, including the presence of 

historic resources (i.e., the La Crosse, VA, Commercial Historic District and the La Crosse 

Hotel), the community was satisfied that it was not prudent. 

Residents remaining at the Hillcrest Mobile Home Park, as well as those within La Crosse, VA, 

will be subjected to the new sights, sounds, and vibrations of the new rail and the rerouted roads. 

Mitigation of noise and vibration impacts are addressed in detail in Section 4.11.1.8 and Section 

4.7. 

The community has been very involved in the development of and in support of the Project. 

Based on input received from residents and local officials via multiple meetings, the possibility of 

having a HSR station in their community is seen as a positive development and offers the 

community the possibility of multimodal transportation alternatives. The return of rail is seen as 

an opportunity for future tourism growth, particularly when coupled with the existing Tobacco 

Heritage Trail. 

Warren County, NC, and Norlina, NC: From the Mecklenburg County, VA, line southward to 

the northern half of Norlina, NC, there is no active rail service. From the southern half of Norlina, 

NC, southward, freight rail is active along the CSX S-Line. North of Norlina, NC, Wise Five 

Forks/Carrie Dunn Road will be realigned to provide a new grade-separated crossing; this 

improvement may require a small amount of ROW from the front of the Wise Baptist Church 

property. There will be multiple displacements in Norlina, NC, as a result of roadway 

realignments, closures, and grade-separated crossings. Several mobile homes at Town and 

Country Mobile Home Park, between Kearney and Washington Streets, will be displaced due to 

the westward shift of Warren Plains Road adjacent to the rail line. The displacement of these 

mobile homes eliminates the need for circuitous routing of the entire mobile home park. New 

access will also be provided to the mobile home park from the north, through a new connection of 

Town and Country Road to Washington Street. It appears there is land available at the mobile 

home park to accommodate the relocation of these displaced mobile homes. Residential 

displacements are likely at the Main Street and US-158/401 intersection improvements associated 

with the replacement of the existing grade-separated crossing of US-158/401 and connection to 

US-1. 

Just south of Norlina, NC, Ridgeway Drewry Road will be relocated to provide a new, gradeseparated crossing of the railroad tracks. This change to the design presented in the Tier II DEIS 

was undertaken in response to comments on the Tier II DEIS and developed in coordination with 

Warren County, NC, and Kerr-Tar Cog (the Rural Planning Organization) to serve the needs of 

the local community and the County as a whole. The proposed grade separation will connect to a 

new frontage road connecting Ridgeway Warrenton Road with Axtell Ridgway Road. ROW 

acquisition for the new frontage road will displace one or two homes. However, final design will 

include efforts to minimize residential relocations in this area where possible. 

Soul City Boulevard, located south of Ridgeway Drewry Road is also proposed to be grade 

separated.The designs have not changed from what was presented in the Tier II DEIS, and no 

residential relocations are anticipated. The designs shown in the Tier II DEIS for a bridge over 

the railroad at Kimball Road, the southernmost crossing in Warren County, NC, have been 

revised. The new designs minimize impacts and also allow traffic to be maintained during 

construction; no relocations are anticipated as part of the new designs. 

Vance County, NC, and Middleburg, NC: Freight rail is active in Vance County, NC. 

Northeast of Middleburg, NC, residential relocations at a mobile home park may occur as a result 

of new railroad ROW. To the south of Middleburg, NC, the new rail alignment, the new, grade-
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-135 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

separated crossing for Brookston Road, and a new access road will require at least one residential 

displacement. ROW will be required along the front of the Young Memorial Church property, 

and from the rear of the Brookston Baptist Church and Cemetery. Final design will include 

efforts to minimize impacts, and will include coordination on possible mitigation for potential 

impacts to the cemetery. To the north of Henderson, NC, the relocation of Greystone Road, the 

new overpass of the railroad tracks, and the new intersection with Vulcan Lane are not anticipated 

to require residential displacements. However, the realignment of Vulcan Lane may displace one 

or two homes. 

Henderson, NC: Henderson, NC, is one of the cities that the states of Virginia and North 

Carolina have recommended to have a HSR stop, the development of which will be evaluated in 

future environmental documentation. The economic and travel access benefits of a new station 

will be equally available to all residents and businesses within Henderson, NC. Disruption in 

travel patterns, the addition of HSR service through town, and the operation of a new rail station 

in town will likely affect all residents. Several meetings were held with Henderson, NC, officials 

and residents to develop a design that addresses existing traffic congestion problems and 

accommodates rerouted traffic from Project-related at-grade road closures. The end result of 

these discussions is that the Preferred Alternative is supported by both local officials and 

residents. The Henderson, NC, City Council passed Resolution 12-42 and Resolution 11-84 in 

support of a HSR Passenger Station in downtown Henderson, NC. The resolutions also state 

acceptance of both the adverse and beneficial impacts associated with construction of the 

necessary rail and road improvements of the Preferred Alternative (Appendix A). 

There will be multiple displacements in Henderson, NC, as a result of roadway realignments, 

closures, and grade-separated crossings. Existing development, planned future development, and 

multiple historic resources were constraints to providing more grade-separated crossings than are 

proposed; thereby limiting the number of likely displacements. 

At the north end of Henderson, there are several residences along Railroad Street that may 

potentially be impacted by the project in terms of property access. Railroad Street is a gravel 

road that runs parallel to the railroad, to the east (map 114, Appendix R). As it is shown on CSX 

mapping, the road is located within the existing railroad ROW. However, NCDOT identifies 

Railroad Street as SR 1251 within the state road system. In this location, the Project proposes to 

improve the single-track rail in its existing location (i.e., all within the existing rail ROW, with no 

construction impacts to the road or the residences that are accessed by the road). As no 

additional ROW is required by the Project, these residences were not identified as 

relocations. However, there is the possibility that the road bed is owned by CSX. If that is the 

case, at any time, the railroad could enforce its ROW and preclude access to the residences. If the 

Project results in future railroad ROW enforcement that would preclude access to the residences, 

there would be additional displacements associated with the Project. During final design and 

ROW acquisition, as survey data become available, NCDOT will coordinate with the 

neighborhood property owners and occupants, to ensure they are informed of any issues that may 

arise related to ROW and access. 

Several residential displacements are likely at the proposed roundabout for N. Garnett Street, 

Main Street, N. Chestnut Street, and N. Beckford Drive. N. Main Street will be shifted slightly 

southward and a new, grade-separated crossing will be provided, connecting it to the new 

roundabout. ROW will be required from the front of the North Henderson Baptist Church 

property, and from the rear of St. John’s Episcopal Church parking lot. In addition, 

improvements to Chestnut Street further south, may require a small amount of ROW from the 

front of the Cotton Memorial Presbyterian Church Property. A new pedestrian-only underpass 

will be constructed that connects N. Burwell Avenue/S. Garnett Street to Peachtree Street. No 

displacements are anticipated with this improvement. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-136 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The new, grade-separated crossing of Alexander Street will provide a new intersection with 

Raleigh Road and a new connection to Dabney Drive. While this improvement will result in 

several industrial property impacts, the industrial buildings impacted are currently vacant and in 

poor repair. Additionally, the proposed designs were developed at the request of the owner of a 

historic resource protected by Section 106 of the NHPA. Half of this roadway improvement is 

located within the South Henderson, NC, Industrial Historic District and includes Vance Flour 

Mill (Sanford Milling Company), which is still in operation. The current design configuration for 

this grade-separated crossing allows for Nicholas Street to remain open. Any other design 

configuration that avoided this historic district would have required the closure of Nicholas 

Street. Based on input from the owner of Vance Flour Mill, the closure of Nicholas Street will 

result in limited truck access to this mill and ultimately put the mill out of business. Upon 

hearing this, community representatives agreed that impacts associated with the proposed design 

were preferable to the closing of the mill. In addition, traffic flow on Nicholas Street will be 

improved and a new connection to J.P. Taylor Road will be provided. Several residential 

relocations may result from the improvements to Nicholas Street. In addition, a large, vacant 

industrial complex will be displaced as a result of the relocated connection between Nicholas 

Street and J.P. Taylor Road. This relocation accommodates a new, grade-separated crossing of 

J.P. Taylor Road to a new connection to Belmont Drive, which may require a small amount of 

ROW from the front of the Victory Baptist Church property. Local officials and residents 

requested that the vacant industrial complex be taken because it will provide access to this site 

planned for future commercial redevelopment. 

Kittrell, NC: North of Kittrell, NC, Raleigh Road and the railroad tracks will be shifted slightly 

to the west to improve the curve radius of both. In so doing, several residential displacements 

will occur in a mobile home park adjacent to Vansandt Lane. The displacements are unavoidable, 

but it appears there may be suitable replacement land available within the mobile home park. 

Several meetings were held with local officials and residents of Kittrell, NC, to determine 

acceptable road closures and grade-separated closures of the Preferred Alternative. Residential 

displacements have been minimized as a result of this coordination. 

Franklinton, NC: Several meetings were held with local officials and residents of Franklinton, 

NC, to determine acceptable road closures and grade-separated closures of the Preferred 

Alternative. Residential displacements have been minimized as a result of this coordination. The 

replacement of the existing underpass at Green Street/NC 56, the new grade-separated crossing 

for Cedar Creek Road, and the new grade-separated crossing for a new road just north of the 

existing Pearce Street at-grade crossing, as well as the pedestrian-only, grade-separated crossings 

for College Street and E. Hawkins Street, will not require residential displacements. 

NEIGHBORHOOD DISRUPTIONS 

Whether the existing rail corridor is active or inactive, rail crossing consolidations and associated 

improvements to adjacent roadways could have an impact on community cohesion within 

neighborhoods and communities. The railroad corridor predates existing development and the 

railroad already acts as a boundary for many neighborhoods and businesses along the corridor, 

including EJ communities. Where rail service is active in this existing rail corridor, such adverse 

impacts are expected to be minor. 

As stated in Section 4.11.2.1.2, Neighborhood Disruptions, neighborhood disruptions and 

relocations have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable because the Project maximizes 

the use of existing rail corridors. Along active rail lines, overall impacts to EJ neighborhoods and 

communities from the operation of SEHSR trains are expected to be minor because residents are 

used to the sights and sounds of trains through their communities.The introduction of high speed 

passenger rail would not substantially alter their current quality of life. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-137 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

From the Burgess Connector in Dinwiddie County, VA, southward to Norlina in Warren County, 

NC, the rail corridor is inactive and, in some instances, the tracks have been removed and small 

portions of ROW sold for driveway access. EJ communities without active rail lines include the 

Virginia areas of Brunswick County, VA, Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA, and the North 

Carolina areas of Warren County, NC, and the northern half of Norlina, NC. In these 

communities and other areas adjacent to the inactive rail line, residents may view the reactivation 

of rail service as a negative impact on their quality of life. The sights and sounds of the rail 

would require a degree of adjustment for the families and businesses adjacent to it. However, 

given the number of trips planned (eight high speed trains and up to eight additional intermodal 

trains and two to four additional freight trains), and the speed at which the passenger trains will 

be traveling, exposure to rail activity will be of a limited duration and frequency for those EJ 

communities without a rail stop. In La Crosse, VA, and Henderson, NC, the duration of exposure 

to the HSR will be greater given that two stops daily are planned for each town. 

Residents and businesses within EJ communities not currently living with an active rail line could 

also experience a sense of their community being split by the newly active rail line. What has in 

recent years been a situation of unencumbered access to and from either side of the tracks will 

now only be possible at designated bridges and underpasses. Given that the vast majority of 

consolidated crossings were designed to be no more than one mile apart, the change in 

community travel patterns will not be substantially altered. While EJ communities without 

existing rail will experience community disruption to some degree, the experience will not be 

disproportionately high and adverse relative to the experiences of non-EJ communities. 

Communities and neighborhoods along the Study Area are concerned about the impacts of the 

proposed at-grade crossing changes, access consolidations, and road closures. Throughout the 

design process, the Project Team held meetings with local government representatives along the 

corridor to obtain input on local conditions that would affect design considerations. This 

information was used to refine proposed designs to better suit the needs of the local communities, 

including provision of pedestrian crossings in areas of high pedestrian activity. The decision to 

consolidate a crossing in a community considered accessibility and connectivity to the larger 

transportation network. Local and regional land use and transportation plans were taken into 

account and natural resource constraints, such as wetlands and cultural resources, were also 

considered. 

Because of extensive outreach efforts with localities and communities within the Study Area, 

there is a high degree of public awareness of the proposed Project. As with any project where 

there are multiple opinions and stakeholders, support for one particular improvement over another 

is not always unanimous; however, localities and communities have continued to support the 

overall concept of HSR in their respective areas. 

PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES 

Overall, access to public services and facilities will not be substantially reduced. Because road 

consolidations and at-grade crossings are generally at a maximum distance of one mile apart, 

lengthy or circuitous rerouting is avoided. The temporary inconvenience of and disruption caused 

by construction activities will be shared by EJ communities and non-EJ communities. EJ 

communities share equally in the safety benefits afforded by the road closings, consolidations, 

and grade-separated crossings. 

Stations: Two of the three existing rail stations are located within EJ communities: Richmond, 

VA, and Ettrick/Petersburg, VA. The new railroad stations proposed for La Crosse, VA, and 

Henderson, NC, would be located within EJ communities. The two new stations and 

improvements to the existing stations would bring with them local opportunities for economic 

development, employment, and more convenient access to rail services to these EJ communities. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-138 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Therefore, EJ communities currently and in the future will receive a disproportionately high level 

of benefits from rail stations located within their boundaries relative to non-EJ communities. 

Schools and Places of Worship: As stated in Section 4.11, Community Resources, there will be 

an overall net benefit to schools from roadway safety improvements provided by grade-separated 

rail crossings (bridges and underpasses), the elimination of at-grade rail crossings, and the 

addition of pedestrian-only crossings. Inconveniences associated with construction activities will 

be temporary. The negative impacts of potentially longer driving distances to cross the rail line 

will be minimal and offset by the benefits gained in safety and unimpeded access. There will be 

no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to schools within EJ communities. 

Section 4.11.3.2, Places of Worship and Cemeteries, states there are 98 places of worship and 

cemeteries within the Study Area. As with schools, there will be a net benefit to all places of 

worship from roadway safety improvements provided by grade-separated rail crossings, the 

elimination of at-grade rail crossings, and the addition of pedestrian-only crossings. The negative 

impacts of potentially longer driving distances to cross the rail line will be minimal (less than one 

mile) for most places of worship, and offset by the benefits gained in safety and unimpeded 

access. This will be the case for both EJ and non-EJ communities. Of the impacts to places of 

worship, there are 17 churches where the Preferred Alternative will or may require ROW, and 

where driveway access may be changed as part of the final design process. Of these, the 

Preferred Alternative will result in the relocation of two churches: God Mission of Faith Church 

in Ettrick, VA (an EJ community); and EMI New Covenant Global Ministries in Raleigh, NC. 

Based on these impacts, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to places 

of worship or cemeteries within EJ communities. 

Police, Fire, and Emergency Response: Impacts to these facilities and services are addressed in 

detail in Section 4.11.3.3. Seven facilities were identified as being close to the corridor and will 

experience changes in access across the railroad. Of those seven, five are within or serve EJ 

communities. While impacts to these EJ facilities appear disproportionately high, mitigation 

measures have been incorporated for each facility, where warranted, to minimize adverse impacts 

such that they will not be severe. Impacts and details of minimization and mitigation measures 

are addressed in Section 4.11.3.3, but are summarized here. 

 Alberta, VA, Volunteer Fire Department: 

There is almost no difference between the overall EMS service area for the Alberta, VA, 

Volunteer Fire Department under the Preferred Alternative compared to a No Build scenario. 

 Ridgeway Volunteer Fire Department (Warren County, NC): 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS, revisions were made to road work designs in 

the Ridgeway area for the Preferred Alternative. The new road work was developed in 

coordination with Warren County, NC, Kerr-Tar Council of Governments (the Rural 

Planning Organization) and the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch to serve the needs 

of the local community and Warren County, NC, as a whole. 

 Vance County, NC, Ambulance and Fire Service (Henderson, NC): 

This facility provides fire response for Vance County, NC. The overall service area of the 

Preferred Alternative is largely the same compared to a No Build scenario. Although 

revisions to road work have been made in Henderson, NC, for the Preferred Alternative (as 

described in Section 2.2), the revisions do not affect which crossings are to be consolidated 

and will not substantially alter the response time service area of the Preferred Alternative. 

 City of Henderson, NC, Fire Station 1 and City of Henderson, NC, Fire Station 2: 

The existing Charles Street underpass north of Chavasse Avenue, and the new Alexander 

Avenue bridge adequately compensate for the nearby crossing consolidations with regard to 

response time. There is very little change in the five-minute response area of the Preferred 

Alternative compared to a No Build scenario. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-139 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Franklinton, NC, Fire Department: 

There is very little difference between the EMS service area for the Franklinton, NC, Fire 

Department under a No Build scenario or the Preferred Alternative. Although revisions to 

road work have been made in Franklinton, NC, for the Preferred Alternative, the revisions do 

not affect which crossings are to be consolidated and will not substantially alter the response 

time service area of the Preferred Alternative. 

Once construction is complete, Project improvements are anticipated to have a net positive effect 

on access and response times for emergency vehicles serving all communities, including EJ 

communities. By eliminating at-grade crossings and by providing grade separations, the existing 

rail barriers will be eliminated for improved emergency vehicle access and response times. In 

areas with existing rail service, response time for emergency vehicles is expected to improve 

from decreased train delay times and improved roadway access as a result of improved roadway 

system linkage. Police, fire, and emergency response times may be temporarily affected during 

construction. Coordination with public response agencies serving the Study Area will continue 

during construction to avoid and minimize disruptions to emergency response. 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 

As stated in Section 4.11.1.1, Economic Impacts from Construction and Operation, construction 

would create new jobs for individuals to upgrade the railroad road bed, install signal and safety 

devices, build frontage/service roads, improve grade separated crossings, and build bridges to 

replace grade crossings. Additional jobs, possibly within the Study Area, could be created within 

the manufacturing sector to produce the equipment and materials needed to make these 

improvements. The additional jobs would increase income, thus affecting the economy of the 

region. These benefits are likely to be spread along the corridor, benefiting both EJ and non-EJ 

communities. 

During construction, the economic impact would depend on the location of the firms supplying 

the labor and materials needed for the Project. It is estimated that a high percentage of the new 

employment during the construction phase would come from within the Study Area. 

Communities along the route, including EJ communities, will benefit as construction crews spend 

money in local hotels, restaurants, and shops. 

The impact from operation expenditures would likely be more concentrated; the majority of new 

jobs would likely be created in communities served by the proposed service. Ticket agents and 

other railroad personnel would be located in these communities and the secondary impacts of 

their employment would be spread throughout the areas in which the stations are located, four out 

of five of which are EJ communities. 

Freight-rail commerce would benefit by improving speed of service, enhancing safety of rail 

crossings, expanding rail connectivity, and relieving truck congestion on interstates. These 

improvements may provide opportunities for existing users to expand or new users to locate in 

communities with new or improved freight services, possibly equating to more jobs within these 

communities. 

The specific economic impacts to the communities receiving HSR stops (Richmond, VA, 

Petersburg, VA, La Crosse, VA, Henderson, NC, and Raleigh, NC) are outside the scope of this 

document, but are anticipated to be positive. Therefore, the economic impacts from Project 

construction and operation will not be disproportionately high nor will they be adverse to EJ 

communities within the Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-140 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

As presented in Table 4-41, hazardous materials are present within the Study Area of the EJ 

communities. It is not expected that any of these sites would preclude the construction of the 

Project. The presence of these materials and the potential to impact them is not considered 

disproportionately high and adverse. If any potential hazardous waste sites cannot be avoided as 

the Preferred Alternative is designed and avoidance and minimization steps are undertaken, 

further assessments of the properties will be conducted. 

AIR QUALITY 

The results of the air quality analysis presented in Section 4.6 show that projected impacts from 

locomotive and automobile emissions will be below regulated thresholds for all monitored 

pollutants throughout the Study Area. Air quality improvements are anticipated as a result of the 

Project. In addition, while the consolidation of rail crossings throughout the Project corridor will 

necessitate that some automobiles travel an additional distance to reach a grade-separated 

crossing, the anticipated CO emissions associated with the additional distance are likely to be 

offset by the removal of the vehicle idling that currently occurs while trains pass at-grade 

crossings. Therefore, EJ communities will share in the benefits of air quality improvements and 

are not anticipated to experience disproportionately high and adverse air quality effects from the 

Project. No further action or mitigation is necessary relative to air quality impacts. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

As presented in Section 4.7, five categories of noise and vibration impacts were evaluated: Rail 

Operation Noise, Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise, Rail Operation Vibration, Construction Noise, 

and Construction Vibration. The EJ analyses of rail operation noise and rail operation vibration 

impacts are presented in Table 4-42 and Table 4-43, respectively. 

Based on the disproportionate threshold of 58 percent, increased noise from new or additional rail 

operations would have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on Category 2 receptors 

(residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within EJ communities (Table 4-42). 

Forty-two of the 65 severe noise impacts would occur in EJ communities due in large part to the 

presence of properties adjacent to the existing railroad corridor. The towns of Alberta, VA, and 

La Crosse, VA, and Norlina, NC, Henderson, NC, Middleburg, NC, and Kittrell, NC, would 

receive the greatest number of predicted severe noise impacts. In addition, all four of the 

Category 3 receptors (institutional land uses with primary daytime uses) impacted are located 

within EJ communities (Alberta, VA, La Crosse, VA, Middleburg, NC, and Kittrell, NC). During 

the final design phase of the Project, NCDOT and VDOT will prepare a detailed noise assessment 

that identifies specific mitigation measures including the following: wheel treatments, rail 

treatments, vehicle treatments, building insulation, and noise barriers. NCDOT and VDOT will 

ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place where required. 

With one exception, there would be no noise impacts as a result of diverted roadway traffic 

throughout the rail corridor. The exception to this is in the Town of Youngsville, NC, which is 

not an EJ community. Construction noise and vibration will be temporary and would equally 

affect EJ and non-EJ communities. Neither diverted roadway traffic noise, construction noise, 

nor construction vibration would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ 

communities within the Study Area. No further EJ analysis of these three areas is warranted. 

With regard to rail operation vibration impacts, the vibration levels would be 5 to 10 vibration 

decibels (VdB) higher when there are crossovers, turnouts, jointed track, switches, or other 

special track work present. These conditions can cause annoying transients in the vibratory level 

characterized by a repetitive sounding, “thump-thump...thump-thump” that one would experience 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-141 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

during a train passby. Of the sensitive receptors identified along the corridor, single family, 

multi-family, and commercial receptors would experience disproportionately high and adverse 

effects within EJ communities (Table 4-43). NCDOT and VDOT will determine if vibration 

mitigation is required during the final design phase of the Project when more detailed data are 

available. The building damage criteria of 0.50 inch-per-second for rail operation vibrations 

would not be exceeded at any building along the corridor due to train passbys. Therefore, the 

Project is not expected to cause damage due to vibration to any buildings in the Study Area, 

regardless of EJ applicability. 

Table 4-42 

EJ Summary of Rail Operation Noise Impacts of Preferred Alternative 

Section EJ Community within Section 

Preferred Alternative 

Category 1* Category 2* Category 3* 

Impact Severe 

Impact Impact Severe Impact Impact Severe Impact 

AA Richmond, VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 

BB --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CC Ettrick, VA 0 0 11 0 0 0 

DD Petersburg, VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 

A --- 0 0 4 1 0 0 

B --- 0 0 13 0 0 0 

C --- 0 0 9 0 0 0 

D Brunswick County, VA 0 0 4 2 0 0 

E Brunswick County, Alberta, VA 0 0 22 6 1 0 

F Brunswick County, VA 0 0 6 0 0 0 

G Brunswick County, VA 0 0 2 0 0 0 

H --- 0 0 18 2 0 0 

I La Crosse, VA 0 0 49 5 1 0 

J --- 0 0 21 1 0 0 

K --- 0 0 9 0 0 0 

L Warren County, NC 0 0 20 1 0 0 

M Warren County, Norlina, NC 0 0 41 6 0 0 

N Warren County, NC 0 0 4 0 0 0 

O Vance County, Henderson, NC 0 0 10 5 0 0 

P Vance County, Middleburg, NC 0 0 77 11 1 0 

Q Vance County, Kittrell, NC 0 0 12 5 1 0 

R --- 0 0 1 0 0 0 

S Franklinton, NC 0 0 22 1 0 0 

T --- 0 0 25 0 0 0 

U --- 0 0 159 17 0 0 

V --- 0 0 79 2 0 0 

Project Totals 0 0 618 65 4 0 

EJ Communities Only 0 0 280 42 4 0 

% EJ Communities Only 0% 0% 45% 65% 100% 0% 

 

Note: Bolded text indicates an EJ community. 

 = Disproportionately high impacts relative to % miles within Section having EJ community 

58% = Threshold value used to determine if impacts are disproportionate in Section having EJ community 

*Where: 

 Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 

 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-142 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 

**Where: 

Impact = In this range, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need 

for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noisesensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-indoor sound insulation, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigating noise to more 

acceptable levels. 

Severe = Severe noise impacts are considered "significant" as this term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and implementing regulations. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no 

practical method of mitigating the noise. 

Table 4-43 

EJ Summary of Vibration Impacted Areas 

Section EJ Community within Section 

Preferred Alternative 

Single Family Multi Family Commercial 

AA Richmond, VA 0 0 1 

BB --- 1 0 1 

CC Ettrick, VA 7 7 1 

DD Petersburg, VA 0 0 0 

A --- 0 0 0 

B --- 1 0 1 

C --- 5 0 5 

D Brunswick County, VA 2 0 0 

E Brunswick County, Alberta, VA 9 0 0 

F Brunswick County, VA 0 0 0 

G Brunswick County, VA 0 0 0 

H --- 4 0 1 

I La Crosse, VA 15 0 9 

J --- 5 0 0 

K --- 1 0 0 

L Warren County, NC 6 0 1 

M Warren County, Norlina, NC 25 0 5 

N Warren County, NC 5 0 1 

O Vance County, Henderson, NC 3 0 0 

P Vance County, Middleburg, NC 30 0 44 

Q Vance County, Kittrell, NC 16 0 4 

R --- 2 0 1 

S Franklinton, NC 17 0 5 

T --- 2 0 3 

U --- 24 0 21 

V --- 0 0 4 

Project Totals 180 7 108 

EJ Communities Only 135 7 71 

% EJ Communities Only 75% 100% 66% 

 

Note: Bolded text indicates an EJ community. 

 = Disproportionately high impacts relative to % miles within Section having EJ community 

58% = Threshold value used to determine if impacts are disproportionate within Section having EJ community 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-143 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

The results of the visual analysis are provided in Section 4.9. Active passenger and/or freight rail 

service currently exists in the following EJ communities: Richmond, VA, Ettrick, VA, and 

Petersburg, VA, and the southern half of Warren County, NC, (including the southern half of 

Norlina, NC), Vance County, NC (including Middleburg, NC, Henderson, NC, and Kittrell, NC), 

and Franklinton, NC. In these EJ communities the visual and auditory introduction of HSR 

would not be inconsistent with the existing condition. 

Rail service is currently inactive in the following environmental justice communities of concern: 

Brunswick County, VA, Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA and the northern half of Warren 

County, NC, and Norlina, NC. Disruption in travel patterns, the reactivation of rail service 

through town, and the operation of new rail stations in La Crosse, VA, and Henderson, NC, 

would likely affect all residents. Therefore, the reactivation of freight and passenger rail service is 

not anticipated to have a disproportionately high and adverse visual impact to EJ communities 

alone. 

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND RESULTING 

MITIGATION 

The Project involved an extensive community involvement process that resulted in design 

modifications, shifts in roadway and rail alignments, new vehicular and pedestrian crossings, and 

bike lane accommodations. Details of the process, comments received, and responses provided 

are included in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8. The following is a summary of the public outreach 

effort to all communities. Communities identified as EJ populations or communities of concern 

are in italics. 

Public Meetings and Workshops 

At the initiation of the Tier II DEIS for the Project, a series of public meetings was held in 2003 

to review rail alignments and to solicit concerns and feedback on the proposed Project. In 

Virginia, these meetings were held in Petersburg, Alberta, Dinwiddie, and La Crosse. In North 

Carolina, they were held in Norlina, Henderson/Kittrell, Franklinton, Wake Forest, and Raleigh. 

In 2006, informational workshops were held in Petersburg, VA, and in Richmond, VA, to present 

the extension of the Project limits from Petersburg, VA, (S. Collier Yard) to Richmond, VA, 

(Main Street Station). This extension was done at the direction of the Federal Rail 

Administration and motivated by FRA’s policy to connect city-center to city-center for the 

Project. 

A series of public hearings was held in 2010 to present the 2010 Tier II DEIS and associated 

designs for public comment. In Virginia, these meetings were held in Chesterfield, Richmond, 

Petersburg, McKenney, and Alberta. In North Carolina, they were held in Norlina, Henderson, 

Franklinton, and Raleigh. 

A series of public Project Update Meetings was also held in 2012 and 2013. These update 

meetings were held in communities in which design changes occurred in response to comments 

on the Tier II DEIS. These design changes included revisions to proposed bridges and 

underpasses, rail crossing closures and other road work throughout the corridor. In North 

Carolina, Project Update Meetings were held in Raleigh, north Raleigh (for downtown Wake 

Forest and north Raleigh), and Henderson. In Virginia, meetings were held in Chesterfield 

County and Alberta. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-144 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Local Official Coordination 

Beginning in 2002, one-on-one meetings were held with local, county, and city planning staff 

throughout the entire Study Area to review proposed Project designs. Advisory Council meetings 

were held in 2004 and 2006 to update broader groups on the Project and answer questions. 

Advisory Council representatives typically included county commissioners, councils of 

government, and metropolitan planning organization staff. The combined outcome of these local 

meetings was considerable redesign in Virginia in Chesterfield County, McKenny, and La Crosse

and in North Carolina in Henderson, Kittrell, Franklinton, Wake Forest, and Raleigh. 

Resulting Mitigation for EJ Community Impacts 

Extensive community outreach efforts resulted in the following mitigation for community 

impacts, including EJ communities: 

 The decision that all new, grade-separated crossings will include room for sidewalks on at 

least one side of the bridge to accommodate pedestrians. 

 The decision to provide, non-vehicular, grade-separated crossings at heavily used 

pedestrian/cyclist/scooter locations, including: 

o Lincoln Street in Petersburg, VA 

o Burwell Avenue/Peachtree Street in Henderson, NC 

o Mason Street in Franklinton, NC 

o College Street in Franklinton, NC 

o Hawkins Street (Franklinton Elementary School) in Franklinton, NC 

 The two proposed high speed passenger rail stations will be located within the EJ 

communities of La Crosse, VA and Henderson, NC. (While this was recommended by the 

ridership revenue studies completed for the Project, the reason it was initially considered in 

the modeling was at the request of the local communities.) 

 The Preferred Alternative essentially remains on existing alignment through the EJ 

communities, thereby minimizing relocation impacts and impacts to EJ community services 

and facilities as compared to impacts that would result if the Preferred Alternative were 

designed primarily on new location. 

 All persons, business, and non-profit organizations displaced as a result of the Project would 

be compensated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the North 

Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). 

With the exception of Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA, and the northern portion of Norlina, NC, 

rail service is currently in operation through these EJ communities, thus the visual and auditory 

introduction of HSR would not be inconsistent with the existing condition. 

RELOCATIONS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT OF WAY COSTS 

During the final design phase of the Project, which takes place after completion of the Tier II FEIS 

and ROD, the Project Team will begin to coordinate with affected families, businesses, and non-profit 

facilities. The states have established programs for assisting those affected with relocation to 

replacement facilities. Specific VDOT policies will be applied in Virginia and NCDOT policies will 

be applied in North Carolina, as outlined below. 

Wherever possible, NCDOT and VDOT try to find an agreeable price for both the state and the 

property owner. When such a price cannot be reached, the legal system is used to ensure a fair 

market price for the property owner. Property owners are encouraged to obtain their own property 

appraisal for use in negotiating fair market value on their property with ROW agents. In all cases the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-145 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

will be applied as directed by Federal law. It is not the policy of VDOT or NCDOT to provide 

compensation for homes and businesses if no acquisition of property takes place. 

VDOT RELOCATION POLICIES 

A comprehensive program of services and benefits has been established to ensure, to the maximum 

extent possible, the timely and successful relocation of displacees and reestablishment of businesses 

per the Virginia Administrative Code, 24VAC30-41. Property acquisition policies can be found 

under Right-of-Way at: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/property_owners2006.pdf. 

The VDOT Right of Way and Utilities Division's relocation section is staffed with skilled personnel 

that oversee the Relocation Advisory Services Program. The services provided are intended to 

assist displacees in relocating to decent, safe and sanitary housing that meets their needs. 

VDOT will ensure effective acquisition and relocation services, and will provide moving 

reimbursement, replacement housing payments and other cost reimbursements so that individuals 

displaced will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of state and/or Federally assisted 

projects. All housing will be fair housing and available to all persons, regardless of race, color, sex, 

religion, or national origin. The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance 

with the Uniform Act. 

Early in the acquisition and relocation phase, experienced agents perform field inspections of each 

proposed segment and connection and secure tax boundary and sales records from local 

courthouses to determine the various costs of land, buildings, improvements, damages, and 

relocation costs. Realtors are also questioned regarding the availability of decent, safe, and sanitary 

replacement housing throughout the corridor alternatives. Each person will have sufficient time to 

negotiate for and obtain replacement housing or business space. 

A displaced individual or family is entitled to receive a payment for moving personal property. The 

displacee has the option of a payment based upon the actual reasonable moving expenses 

(commercial move or self-move), a fixed payment that is based on VDOT's room count schedule, 

or, in unusual circumstances, any combination of the above. An example of such a circumstance 

would be to have a commercial mover that would move the household items, but would not move 

certain personal property stored in a shed. The displacee can remove the items from the shed as a 

self-move. 

Individuals and families displaced from a dwelling are eligible for purchase or rental supplement 

payments. The purpose of the purchase or rental supplement is to enable the displaced household to 

relocate to decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing that is within financial means. The 

elements included in the replacement housing payment are: additional costs to purchase 

replacement housing (purchase supplement); compensation to the owner for the increased interest 

cost and other debt service costs which are incurred in connection with a mortgage(s) on the 

replacement dwelling; and reimbursement to the owner for expenses related to the purchase of 

replacement housing. A residential tenant who was in occupancy at the displacement dwelling for 

90 days or more before the initiation of negotiations, is eligible to receive a rent supplement for 

relocation to comparable housing. An owner-displacee who was in occupancy from 90 to 179 days 

before the initiation of negotiations is also eligible for the same benefits. 

No displaced persons will be required to move until a comparable replacement dwelling is made 

available within their financial means. Comparable replacement housing may not be available on 

the private market or does not meet specific requirements or special needs of a particular displaced 

family. Also, housing may be available on the market, but the cost exceeds the benefit limits for 

tenants and owners of $5,250 and $22,500, respectively. If housing is not available to a displacee 

and the transportation project would thereby be prevented from proceeding in a timely manner, 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-146 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VDOT is authorized to take a broad range of measures to make housing available. These measures, 

which are outside normal relocation benefit limits, are called collectively, Last Resort Housing. 

NCDOT RELOCATION POLICIES 

It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing is available for relocates 

prior to construction of state and/or Federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the NCDOT has three 

programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving 

payments, and relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplements. Property acquisition 

policies can be found under Right-of-Way at: http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/roadbuilt/. 

With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist 

displacees with information such as: availability and prices of homes, apartments, or commercial 

property for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving 

Payment Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in 

relocation. Where displacement would force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property at 

higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation 

Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program would compensate up to $22,500 to 

owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify. 

The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform 

Act and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). This program 

is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to 

live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each transportation project for this 

purpose. 

The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and farm operations without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national 

origin. NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiation 

and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The 

relocatees are given a 90-day written notice after the NCDOT purchases the property. 

Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to 

public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement housing will be 

within the financial budget of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably 

accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer also will assist owners of displaced 

businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to 

replacement property. 

All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation 

regarding all available options, including: 1) purchases of replacement housing; 2) rental of 

replacement housing, either private or public; and 3) moving existing owner-occupied housing to 

another site (if practicable). The relocation officer also will supply information concerning other 

state or Federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory 

services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new 

location. 

Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or is 

unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the 

Federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods 

of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be 

provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the Study Area, it is 

not likely that the Last Resort Housing Program will be necessary for the proposed Project. 

However, this program will still be considered, as mandated by State law. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-147 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

RELOCATION IMPACTS 

Historically, railroads played a major transportation role in the development of the east coast. 

Many large and small municipalities developed along and around the rail lines. This is true for the 

cities and towns throughout the Study Area. 

To minimize impacts, alternatives were developed that took advantage of existing rail corridors. 

Throughout most of the urban and developed areas, the three alternatives share a common 

alignment. The proposed rail improvements and associated roadwork understandably require 

relocations to residences and business, due to their close proximity to the rail line. 

Table 4-44 presents a summary of the potential residential and business relocation impacts for the 

Preferred Alternative by section. The highest number of residential relocations would occur in 

Section AA in Richmond, VA and Section CC, in Petersburg, VA, and Section P in Henderson, 

NC. The designs presented in this Tier II FEIS provide sufficient information to identify potential 

displacements. During final design, further measures to avoid and minimize displacements will 

occur; this will likely lower the numbers ultimately displaced. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-148 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-44 

Residential/Business Relocations by Section 

Section Preferred 

Alternative 

Residential 

Relocation 

Business 

Relocations 

AA VA1 40 7 

BB VA1 7 1 

CC VA1 48 1 

DD VA3 2 0 

A VA2 0 0 

B VA1 3 1 

C VA1 4 8 

D VA4 3 2 

E VA1 2 7 

F VA1 0 0 

G VA3 2 0 

H VA1 1 0 

I VA1 14 0 

J VA2 5 0 

K VA1 0 5 

L VA1/NC1 

8 

(1 VA, 7 NC) 1 (NC) 

M NC1 18 4 

N NC1 2 0 

O NC3 3 0 

P NC1 33 8 

Q NC1 10 0 

R NC1 1 0 

S NC1 4 0 

T NC1 5 0 

U NC1 8 12 

V NC5 0 59 

VA Total 132 32 

NC Total 91 24 

Source: VDOT, 2006, 2009; NCDOT, 2008, 2011, SEHSR project team 2013. 

RIGHT OF WAY COSTS 

Total ROW costs include land and damages, residential and business relocation costs, and 

acquisition costs. Table 4-45 presents a summary of the estimated ROW costs associated with 

Preferred Alternative by section. The costs for the Preferred Alternative are the same as those 

presented in the Tier II DEIS, except in Sections D and V. As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred 

Alternatives in these two sections were developed subsequent to the Tier II DEIS. For Sections D 

and V, the ROW costs are derived from the 2012 Project Recommendation Report (NCDOT, 

Virginia DRPT, 2012). The ROW costs for all sections will be updated during final design. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-149 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-45 

Right of Way Costs by Section 

Section Preferred 

Alternative 

Cost 

AA VA1 $28,113,343 

BB VA1 $11,035,693 

CC VA1 $26,141,675 

DD VA3 $2,452,856 

A VA2 $505,900 

B VA1 $1,538,500 

C VA1 $4,335,300 

D VA4 $1,850,000 

E VA1 $1,533,800 

F VA1 $268,100 

G VA3 $531,200 

H VA1 $1,142,000 

I VA1 $1,929,100 

J VA2 $1,415,900 

K VA1 $1,573,000 

L (VA) VA1 $388,700 

L (NC) NC1 $5,032,500 

M NC1 $5,767,500 

N NC1 $2,080,188 

O NC3 $3,841,750 

P NC1 $6,976,313 

Q NC1 $7,943,532 

R NC1 $3,178,438 

S NC1 $6,801,188 

T NC1 $2,956,250 

U NC1 $26,245,625 

V NC5 $79,215,000 

VA Total $84,755,067 

NC Total $150,038,284 

Source: DRPT, 2006, 2009; NCDOT, 2008; Recommendation Report, SEHSR Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC Tier II EIS, 

April 2012. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), as amended (16 U.S.C. 

306108), and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) require Federal agencies to consider the 

effects of their actions on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment if the action would result in an adverse effect on the 

property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Eligibility criteria 

for the NRHP are summarized in Section 3.12. 

The potential effect of the Project on archaeological and historic architectural resources was evaluated 

in accordance with Section 106. According to the criteria for Effect and Adverse Effect developed by 

the ACHP (36 CFR Section 800.5), potential effect is determined based upon the following: 

 No Effect - There would be no effect, neither adverse nor beneficial, on potential cultural resources. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-150 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 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. Archeological 

sites may be "adversely affected" when they are threatened with unavoidable physical destruction 

or damage. 

 Adverse Effect - There would be an effect that would compromise the physical and/or historic 

integrity of the resource. 

Where the Project has been determined to have an adverse effect on historic resources, Section 106 

requires that efforts be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. As part of this 

process, consultation has taken place and is ongoing with the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (VDHR), North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), and other 

“consulting parties,” such as the National Park Service, local historical societies, and property owners. 

FRA, the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation 

Officer, DRPT, NCDOT, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have developed a draft 

Programmatic Agreement (Process PA) to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the Historic 

Preservation Act for the Proposed SEHSR project. This provides a consistent process for considering 

the effects of each portion of the SEHSR on historic properties and resolving adverse effects where 

appropriate. The draft agreement is included in Appendix K to allow for public comment. 

As per the Process PA, “When the State Rail Transportation Agency proposes a finding of adverse 

effects to historic properties, it shall notify FRA. FRA shall initiate consultation with the appropriate 

SHPO and other consulting parties, interested Federal and state recognized Indian tribes, ACHP, FRA 

and the State Rail Transportation Agency shall develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to 

identify measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the adverse effects prior to beginning any work on 

that portion of the SEHSR Project. The State Rail Transportation Agency shall submit a draft of each 

MOA to the appropriate SHPO for review and comment. NCDOT and DRPT shall ensure that all 

comments received within thirty (30) days of SHPO’s receipt of the draft MOA are addressed in the 

final MOA. One (1) copy of each final MOA shall be provided to the appropriate SHPO and other 

consulting parties and one (1) copy shall be provided to any consulting party or other group who may 

have a vested interest in a particular property.” 

Required MOAs for the Richmond to Raleigh Project will be included in the project Record of Decision 

(ROD). 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The effects of the Project on archaeological resources were determined after the selection of the 

Preferred Alternative per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2). This regulation permits a phased process to conduct 

identification and evaluation efforts on projects where alternatives under consideration consist of 

corridors or large land areas. Both VDHR and NC-HPO agreed with this approach for the Project. 

Determinations of effect for archaeological resources in Virginia are listed in Table 4-46. Note that 

only the impact of the Preferred Alternative was evaluated as eligibility was only assessed within the 

APE for the Preferred Alternative. The resources are listed in the order they appear in the Study Area 

from north to south. There are no eligible or listed archaeological resources in North Carolina; 

therefore, it was not necessary to evaluate impacts in North Carolina. 

If “No Effect” is listed for a Project alternative in Table 4-46, the Preferred Alternative does not have 

any property impacts on the resource; therefore, no further discussion is provided. For resources 

where the Project has been determined to have no adverse effect or adverse effects, details are 

provided below regarding the impact of the Preferred Alternative on the resource. In addition, 

resources that also have above-ground historic architecture components are discussed in Section 

4.12.2 below. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-151 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-46 

Effect Determinations for Eligible Archaeological Sites for Preferred Alternative – Virginia 

Resource Name Section VDHR Site ID Preferred Alternative Effect 

Williams Bridge Company AA 44CF0724 Adverse Effect 

Falling Creek Ironwork AA 020-0063 No Effect 

Sheffields AA 020-0007 No Adverse Effect 

USDOD Supply Center District AA 020-5336 No Adverse Effect 

Centralia Earthworks BB 44CF0680 No Adverse Effect 

Chester Hotel Site BB 44CF0304 Adverse Effect 

Swanee Site BB 44CF0748 Adverse Effect 

Site 44CF0707 BB, CC 44CF0707 Adverse Effect 

Arrowfield Plantation CC 44CF0708 Adverse Effect 

Site 44CF0710 CC 44CF0710 Adverse Effect 

Battersea CC 123-0059 No Adverse Effect 

Dimmock Line/Earthworks CC 44DW0373 Adverse Effect 

Fort Davis Earthworks DD 44DW0314 No Adverse Effect 

Orgain House G 44BR0280 No Adverse Effect 

Oak Shades House Site G 44BR0179 No Adverse Effect

Davis Site H 44BR0225 Adverse Effect 

La Crosse Hotel I 44MC0888 No Adverse Effect 

Wright Farmstead J 44MC0707 No Effect 

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

SHEFFIELDS 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

USDOD SUPPLY CENTER 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

CENTRALIA EARTHWORKS 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

CHESTER HOTEL SITE 

The Chester Hotel site is located on the west side of the extant railroad tracks and north of Curtis 

Street. It is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with the development of the 

Village of Chester and Criterion D for its archaeological potential. Although the rail alignment will 

not be notably modified in this area, a portion of Curtis Street will be realigned to remove the 

current at-grade crossing in this area. The new road alignment will physically impact the southern 

one-quarter of this site, resulting in disturbances to the subsurface matrix and data-bearing 

archaeological deposits. As a result, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this 

resource. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-152 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SWANEE SITE 

The Swanee site was identified during a Phase I archaeological survey of the road system adjacent 

to the rail corridor and found to be potentially eligible under Criterion D. The property owner did 

not allow access for a Phase II-level site evaluation. As such, this site is assumed to be eligible for 

the NRHP for coordination purposes. Modifications to the road system to the south of the site will 

result in physical impacts to intact soils with the potential to bear data on area history. As such, the 

Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this resource. 

SITE 44CF0707 

Site 44CF0707 is a prehistoric campsite with subsurface integrity. It is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion D for its ability to contain notable information on the area’s Woodland Period cultures. 

The designs for the Preferred Alternative include modifications to the rail corridor through the site. 

In addition, changes to the extant road pattern in this area will also result in subsurface impacts to 

the archaeological deposits. Since both the road and rail changes associated with the Preferred 

Alternative will impact intact data-bearing soils within the site, it will have an adverse effect on this 

resource. 

ARROWFIELD PLANTATION 

The Arrowfield Plantation site contains both intact subsurface deposits and above-ground features 

related to the historic occupation of this area. It is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D. 

The designs for the Preferred Alternative include modifications to both the rail corridor and the 

road system, resulting in impacts to the physical fabric of this site and the extant surface features. 

Since both the road and rail changes associated with the Preferred Alternative will impact intact 

archaeological deposits and above-ground remains, it will have an adverse effect on this historic 

property. 

SITE 44CF0710 

Site 44CF0710 is a prehistoric campsite with subsurface integrity. It is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion D for its ability to contain notable information on the area’s Archaic Period inhabitants. 

The Preferred Alternative includes modifications to the rail corridor through the site. In addition, 

changes to the extant road pattern in this area will also result in subsurface impacts to the intact 

archaeological deposits. As such, the Preferred Alternative will impact intact portions of the site 

with the ability to shed light on area prehistoric culture and will have an adverse effect on this 

historic property. 

BATTERSEA 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

FORT DAVIS EARTHWORKS 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-153 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ORGAIN HOUSE 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

OAK SHADES HOUSE SITE 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

DAVIS SITE 

The Davis Site is located south of the Meherrin River. It was found to be eligible for the NRHP 

under Criteria A and D for its association with post-bellum tenant farming and intact archaeological 

deposits. The road realignments in this area will result in the disturbances of soils throughout the 

site, thus altering intact subsurface deposits. As a result, the Preferred Alternative will have an 

adverse effect on this historic property. 

LA CROSSE HOTEL SITE 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

WRIGHT FARMSTEAD 

This resource is also eligible for the NRHP as a historic architectural property and is discussed in 

Section 4.12.2 below. 

HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

FRA and DRPT made determinations of effect for historic resources in Virginia, which are listed in 

Table 4-47 and Table 4-48. The resources are listed in the order they appear in the Study Area from 

north to south. The VDHR concurred with these determinations in letters dated November 23, 2009 

and July 29, 2014. In addition, coordination with the National Park Service (NPS) regarding impacts 

to historic battlefields is ongoing and will be completed prior to publication of the ROD. 

FRA and NCDOT made determinations of effect for resources in North Carolina, which are listed in 

Table 4-49. The North Carolina State NC-HPO concurred with these determinations of effect in a 

form signed August 14, 2013. Copies of the correspondence related to Section 106 coordination are 

provided in Appendix K. 

If “No Effect” is listed for a Project alternative in Tables 4-47 through 4-39, the alternative does not 

have any property impacts on the resource; therefore, no further discussion is provided. For resources 

where FRA, DRPT, and NCDOT determined that the Project would have no adverse effect or adverse 

effects, details are provided below regarding the impact of each alternative on the resource. 

The Preferred Alternative is identified in bold in Tables 4-37 through 4-39. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-154 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-47 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect 

VA4 

Section 106 

Effect 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

Corridor (resource spans sections) 

AA Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

CC Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

C. & O. & Seaboard Railroad 

Depot 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row 

Historic District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Shockoe Slip Historic District AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

James River and Kanawha Canal 

Historic District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

Corridor (resource spans sections) 

AA Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

CC Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Manchester Warehouse Historic 

District 

AA No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Williams Bridge Company AA Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Lucky Strike/RJ Reynolds 

Tobacco 

AA No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Transmontaigne Product Services, 

Inc. 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Davee Gardens Historic District AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

DuPont Spruance AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Sheffields; Auburn Chase; 

Bellwood; Building 42 - DSCR 

Officer's Club; New Oxford 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

USDOD Supply Center Historic 

District; Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic 

District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Richmond & Petersburg Electric 

Railway (resource spans sections) 

AA Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

CC Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

House at 3619 Thurston Rd AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Centralia Post Office BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Ragland House/4626 Centralia 

Road 

BB No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Circle Oaks/4510 Centralia Road BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Centralia Earthworks BB No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Chester Historic District BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-155 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-47 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect 

VA4 

Section 106 

Effect 

Chester #94 Masonic Lodge BB No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Pretlow House BB No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Eichelberger House BB Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Ellerslie CC No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Appomattox River Railroad 

Bridge 

CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Battersea CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

North Battersea/Pride’s Field 

Historic District 

CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Defense Road CC Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Dimmock Line/Earthworks CC Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Bridge over Defense Road CC Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Fort Davis Earthworks DD No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Evergreen A No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Courtworth C No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Bowen House C No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

W. Boisseau's Store, Warehouse, 

Dwelling 

C No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Bank of McKenney (referred to as 

Bank Building in DEIS) 

C No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Chesapeake and Potomac 

Telephone Company (C & P) 

Building 

C No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Mayton House C No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill 

Farm 

C No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Wynnhurst D Adverse Effect No Effect Adverse Effect N/A (Outside 

APE) 

Blick's Store D No Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

House/458 Second Avenue E No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Orgain House G No Effect No Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse 

Effect 

Tourist Guest House G No Effect No Effect Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect 

Oak Shades G Adverse Effect Adverse Effect No Effect No Effect 

Evans House H No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Smelley House I No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-156 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-47 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect 

VA4 

Section 106 

Effect 

La Crosse Commercial Historic 

District 

I Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

La Crosse Hotel I No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Wright Farmstead J Adverse Effect No Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Sardis Methodist Church J No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Bracey Historic District K No Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Bracey Depot K No Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Bracey & Company Store K No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Granite Hall/Fitts House L No Effect Adverse Effect No Effect N/A 

Table 4-48 

Effect Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect 

VA4 

Section 106 

Effect 

Proctor’s Creek (resource spans 

sections) 

AA No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

BB No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Port Walthall Junction BB No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Petersburg III/The Breakthrough 

(resource spans sections) 

CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

DD No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern 

(resource spans sections) 

CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

DD No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Peebles Farm (resource spans 

sections) 

CC No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

DD No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Boydton Plank Road (resource 

spans sections) 

DD No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-157 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-48 

Effect Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect 

VA4 

Section 106 

Effect 

A No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Hatcher’s Run (resource spans 

sections) 

DD No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

A No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Lewis Farm A No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Dinwiddie Courthouse B No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Table 4-49 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect 

Warren County Training School L No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Wise School L No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

House (East side of US 1, Wise, 

NC) 

M No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Holtzmann Farm M No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Chapel of the Good Shepherd M No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Dr. Thomas B. Williams House 

and Office 

M No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Marshall House/Tavern (House 

No 245) 

M No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

William J. Hawkins House N No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Middleburg Community House 

(Middleburg Steakhouse) 

O No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

House (Allison Cooper Rd, 

Middleburg vicinity) 

O No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Holloway Farm O Adverse Effect Adverse Effect No Effect N/A 

William Haywood Harris Farm O No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Forrest Ellington Farm O No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

R. B. Carter House P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Henderson Historic District and 

Proposed Boundary Expansion 

P Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Vance County Courthouse P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Zollicoffer’s Law Office P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Henderson Fire Station and 

Municipal Building 

P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-158 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-49 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect 

Houses (2 bungalows on E Young 

Ave) 

P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Mistletoe Villa P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

South Henderson Industrial 

Historic District 

P Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Vance Flour Mill (Sanford 

Milling Co.) 

P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Houses (5 worker houses on 1400 

block of Nicholas St) 

P No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Houses (3 side gable houses on 

1500 block of Nicholas St) 

P No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Esso Gasoline Station P No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Confederate Cemetery Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Saint James Episcopal Church Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Hedgepetch and Finch Store Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Kittrell Residential Historic 

District 

Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Josiah Crudup House Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Person-McGhee Farm (resource 

spans sections) 

Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

R No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad 

Bridge Piers (Tar River) (resource 

spans sections) 

Q No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

R No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Franklinton Historic District 

(Includes Sterling Mill Historic 

District) 

S Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse Effect Adverse Effect N/A 

Aldridge H. Vann House S No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Franklinton Depot S No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Church (within proposed 

Franklinton Historic District) 

S No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Sterling Cotton Mill S No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge 

Piers 

S No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Youngsville Historic District T No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

J. B. Perry House T No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Glen Royall Mill Village Historic 

District 

U No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Wake Forest Historic District U No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

N/A 

Downtown Wake Forest Historic 

District 

U No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Purefoy-Chappell House and 

Outbuildings 

U No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-159 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-49 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect 

Oakforest U No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Powell House U No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Neuse Railroad Station U No Effect No Effect No Effect N/A 

Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge 

Pier 

V No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

Gulf Petroleum Products 

Warehouse 

V Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse 

Effect 

Raleigh Bonded Warehouse V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Mordecai Place Historic District V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Pilot Mill V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Roanoke Park Historic District V No Effect No Effect Adverse Effect No Effect 

Noland Plumbing Company 

Building 

V No Effect No Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect 

John A. Edwards and Company 

Building 

V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic 

District 

V No Effect No Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect 

Seaboard Railway Station V No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect No Effect 

Seaboard Railway Warehouses V No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect No Effect 

Raleigh Cotton Mills V No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect No Effect 

Pine State Creamery V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 

Company Office Building 

V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Melrose Knitting Mill V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Raleigh Electric Company Power 

House 

V Adverse Effect Adverse Effect No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

Carolina Power and Light 

Company Car Barn and 

Automobile Garage 

V Adverse Effect Adverse Effect No Effect No Effect 

St. Paul A.M.E. Church V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Depot Historic District V No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

Depot Historic District Proposed 

Expansion Area 

V No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

Montfort Hall V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Boylan Heights Historic District V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Joel Lane House V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Boylan Apartments V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Raleigh Hosiery Company 

Building 

V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-160 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-49 

Effect Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect 

North Carolina School Book 

Depository 

V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Governor Morehead School 

Historic District 

V No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad 

Corridor* 

M-V Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse 

Effect 

Adverse 

Effect 

* Impacts to the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor are common among all project alternatives. 

HISTORICAL RESOURCES – VIRGINIA 

The following discussion provides details on the effect of the Project alternatives on historical 

resources in Virginia where FRA and DRPT concluded that the Project would have no adverse 

effect or adverse effects for at least one Project alternative. For all other resources, the Project has 

been determined to have no effect for all alternatives. 

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The rail improvements will be located within the existing rail corridor in the vicinity of the 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor. Historically, the corridor contained two to three sets of 

parallel tracks. Over the years, the number of tracks has been reduced; therefore, the corridor now 

only contains one or two sets of tracks within the wider ROW. The addition of an additional set 

of tracks will return most of the corridor to its original historic appearance and configuration. In 

addition, the existing tracks have been replaced with in-kind materials numerous times over the 

past 150 years, including new rails, cross ties, spikes, and ballast. As such, the resource is only 

eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A (associated with events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history) and not under Criterion C (embodying the 

distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction) due to compromised 

physical integrity. 

Although most of the rail corridor will remain unchanged, the removal and replacement of the rail 

bridge over US-1 South near Alberta, VA, a contributing element to the historic resource, will 

alter the resource and diminish the resource’s integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association. The location will not change, but a notable visual element will be 

removed from the resource. This element is representative of the modifications that occurred 

along the track in the second quarter of the twentieth century associated with transportation 

improvements and the establishment of a multi-state vehicular corridor. Because of the proposed 

demolition of a contributing element, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on 

theSeaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor . 

(It should be noted that the Tier II DEIS identified the Project alternatives as having no adverse 

effect on the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor. Subsequent to the publication of the Tier II 

DEIS, the US-1 South rail bridge was identified as a contributing element to the resource. This 

resulted in the change in effect.) 

C. & O. & SEABOARD RAILROAD DEPOT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Project begins at the C. & O. & Seaboard Railroad Depot (Main Street Station) and runs 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-161 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

south. The Preferred Alternative will not require any modifications to the existing building or the 

surrounding tracks. Moreover, historically, numerous rail lines ran perpendicular to Main Street 

Station, thus this Project will return rail traffic to this notable historic building. Because the rail is 

elevated, no road changes are required in this area. Because the Project will not alter the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, the Preferred 

Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

SHOCKOE VALLEY & TOBACCO ROW HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

Currently, as trains exit to the south of Main Street Station and through this district, they run 

along a single-track, which is elevated on T-shaped supports built to accommodate two tracks, of 

which the second track has been removed. The Preferred Alternative will retain the existing track 

and reinstall the second track on top of the T-shaped support. All work will be between one and 

three stories above the historic district atop existing supports. Because the rail is elevated, no 

road changes are required in this area. As such, the addition of the second track will not alter the 

physical composition or viewshed of the district in any way. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative 

will have no adverse effect on this district. 

SHOCKOE SLIP HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

As discussed with the Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District above, the existing 

single-track that runs north-south through the Shockoe Slip Historic District is located on top of a 

T-shaped pier. The Preferred Alternative will add a second track to the same pier, thus limiting 

any potential impacts on surrounding historic properties. Because the rail is elevated, no road 

changes are required in this area. The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this 

district. 

JAMES RIVER AND KANAWHA CANAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 

This district is located south of Shockoe Slip Historic District and north of the James River. The 

Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. As 

discussed with the nearby districts above, the existing single-track through the district is located 

on top of a T-shaped pier. The Preferred Alternative will add a second track to the same pier, 

thus limiting any potential impacts on surrounding historic properties. Because the rail is 

elevated, no road changes are required in this area. Modifications will not impact the integrity of 

any aspects of this district, and the addition of the second track on the existing pier will not alter 

the district’s significance or character. The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on 

this district. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR 

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor spans Sections AA, BB, and CC. The Preferred 

Alternative for all three sections is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. The 

rail improvements will be located within the existing rail corridor. Historically, the corridor 

contained two to three sets of parallel tracks. Over the years, the number of tracks has been 

reduced; therefore, the corridor now only contains one or two sets of tracks within the wider 

ROW. The addition of an additional set of tracks will return most of the corridor to its original 

historic appearance and configuration. In addition, the existing tracks have been replaced with inkind materials numerous times over the past 150 years, including new rails, cross ties, spikes, and 

ballast. As such, the resource is only eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A and not under 

Criterion C due to compromised physical integrity. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-162 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Although most of the rail corridor will remain unchanged, the removal of a utility bridge for the 

crossing of the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway and abandoned abutments associated 

with the historic alignment of Highway 10, both of which are contributing elements to the historic 

resource, will alter the resource and diminish the resource’s integrity of design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. The location will not change, but notable visual elements 

will be removed from the resource. These elements are located along the Atlantic Coast Line 

Railroad Corridor and were constructed during its period of significance in response to the 

railroad tracks below. Because of the proposed demolition of contributing elements, the Preferred 

Alternative will have an adverse effect on this resource 

It should be noted that the Tier II DEIS identified the Project alternatives as having no adverse 

effect on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor. Subsequent to the publication of the Tier II 

DEIS, the utility bridge and Highway 10 bridge abutments were identified as contributing 

elements to the resource. This resulted in the change in effect. 

MANCHESTER WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will change relocated Maury Street within the Manchester Industrial 

Historic District to a new road and grade separation over the railway, located just north of the 

existing I-95 ramps and within the Citgo Petroleum above-ground storage tanks property. In 

addition to the new roadway, a roundabout will be constructed at the intersection of the relocated 

Maury Street/I-95 ramps/E. 4th Street, as proposed in the City of Richmond’s Long Range 

Transportation Plan for this area. This new design for Maury Street will avoid property impacts 

to the expanded Manchester Industrial Historic District. 

Although the Project will change the road configuration east of the historic district boundaries, it 

will not modify the historic road pattern or any above-ground contributing elements within the 

district itself. No buildings will be altered during this work. The construction of the new 

roundabout will be at-grade and thus not alter the viewshed of the district's contributing 

resources. The modifications in this area will not diminish the characteristics that make this 

property eligible for the NRHP. As such, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on 

this resource. 

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will reroute the entry and roadways near the Williams Bridge Company 

complex to include changes to the road system. These changes may result in alterations to 

building remains and the subsurface deposits within the boundaries of the eligible archaeological 

component. Due to the Project’s potential to diminish the property’s integrity of location, design, 

setting, feeling, and association, and the impacts to the data-bearing layers within the associated 

archaeological site, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this resource. 

TRANSMONTAIGNE PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

As mentioned above, the proposed rail work in this vicinity of Richmond, VA, is limited to 

adding a second track to the existing corridor. However, Goodes Street will be widened south of 

this resource. Widening on the eastern portion of Goodes Street near the railroad tracks requires 

creating an underpass to bring the roadway under the rail near the southeastern corner of the 

Transmontaigne property. A retaining wall will be constructed on the north side of Goodes Street 

to eliminate any modifications to this historic property. The viewshed will not be modified, and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-163 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

no Transmontaigne-owned property will be used. As such, the Preferred Alternative will have no 

adverse effect on this resource. 

DAVEE GARDENS HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The proposed rail modifications near Davee Gardens are minimal and will include rebuilding a 

second track within the existing rail corridor. Road work in this area will involve widening a 

2,300-foot long stretch of Ruffin Road, which is located along the northern perimeter of the 

district. The road widening in this area is minimal and will result in expanding the existing paved 

shoulder by approximately five feet. Thus, the front yard of one of the 165 homes in the district 

will be shortened by between one and five feet. This modification will not alter any of the 

characteristics that render this district eligible for the NRHP. As such, the Preferred Alternative 

will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

DUPONT SPRUANCE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will reintroduce a second track to this area; there are no road 

modifications in the vicinity of the DuPont Spruce parcel. The rail corridor runs north-south 

along the western boundary of this resource. The complex was created in this particular location 

due to the close proximity of the active rail line and the company historically used the second rail 

track to help transport goods. Although the Project has the potential to slightly alter the setting of 

the resource, it will not diminish the characteristics that make this property eligible for the NRHP. 

As such, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

SHEFFIELDS; AUBURN CHASE; BELLWOOD; BUILDING 42 - DSCR 

OFFICER'S CLUB; NEW OXFORD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Sheffields home and surrounding archaeological site are located over 1,500 feet west of the 

rail alignment. The viewshed from the main house to the rail tracks is obscured by distance, 

topography and vegetation, thus rendering the rail area virtually invisible from the historic house. 

The Preferred Alternative involves reconstructing a second rail within the existing ROW, thus the 

current viewshed will not be modified during the Project. The rail and road work will also not 

physically impact the intact archaeological remains associate with this property. As such, the 

Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this property. (It should be noted that the 

Tier II DEIS identified the Project alternatives as having no effect on the resource. The change 

was made as a result of additional coordination with VDHR.) 

USDOD SUPPLY CENTER HISTORIC DISTRICT; BELLWOODRICHMOND QUARTERMASTER DEPOT HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The massive USDOD historic district is located west of the existing rail line. Only the 

southeastern 500 feet is adjacent to the current railway corridor boundaries, as the eastern 

boundary veers away from the rail track along the northeastern 3,000 feet. This southeastern area 

was once the location of a railroad spur providing rail access to the US Department of Defense 

complex off of the main rail tracks. Thus, the presence of the rail in this area is associated with 

the location and association of this resource. At the time the supply center was in operation, rail 

traffic along this line was higher and trains traveled on dual lines. The Preferred Alternative will 

add a second rail line in the ROW, thus restoring the rail configuration in this area to resemble the 

system in existence during the resource’s Period of Significance. Because the changes will restore 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-164 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the dual tracks in this area, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this property. 

(It should be noted that the Tier II DEIS identified the Project alternatives as having no effect on 

the resource. The change was made as a result of additional coordination with VDHR.) 

RICHMOND & PETERSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY 

The Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway spans Sections AA, BB, and CC. The Preferred 

Alternative for all three sections is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. The 

Preferred Alternative will rebuild a second rail line across the resource, which is located just east 

of Chimney Corner in Chesterfield County. The rail line had been in existence for almost 70 

years when the electric rail line was established in the early-twentieth century. This resource has 

always crossed the rail line in this exact spot and the rail line contained two active tracks when 

the electric rail line was active. However, the Project designs will impact a utility bridge that 

historically carried the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway over the rail corridor 

immediately south of Hundred Road in Chester. This bridge is a contributing resource to the 

railway resource. Because of the removal of a contributing element to the historic property, the 

Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this resource. 

(It should be noted that the Tier II DEIS identified the Project alternatives as having no adverse 

effect on the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway. Subsequent to the publication of the Tier 

II DEIS, the utility bridge was identified as a contributing element to the resource. This resulted 

in the change in effect.) 

HOUSE AT 3619 THURSTON RD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section AA is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The House at 3619 Thurston Road is located west of the proposed railroad. Although the parcel 

is not within the APE of the rail modifications, a new roadway will be created west of the house, 

running from Thurston Road on the northwest, across the railroad tracks, and connecting to 

Chester Road on the southeast. The road will be located about 250 feet west of the dwelling. The 

house will be separated from the road ROW by a modern home and a vegetative buffer, and there 

will be no land takes from this resource. Because the road will not alter the resource’s location, 

design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect 

on this property. 

CENTRALIA POST OFFICE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will construct an overpass on Centralia Road across the rail corridor to 

replace the existing at-grade crossing the railroad tracks. The fill slope from the bridge will be 

approximately 30 feet tall and located less than 30 feet south of the resource. The driveway for 

the property will be moved and the road itself will be shifted south. This will disconnect the 

resource from the local attributes that rendered its construction necessary. The Preferred 

Alternative will have an adverse effect on this resource. 

RAGLAND HOUSE/4626 CENTRALIA RD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will construct an overpass on Centralia Road across the rail corridor to 

replace the existing at-grade crossing the railroad tracks. The fill slope from the bridge will be 

approximately 30 feet tall and located less than 30 feet south of the resource. A portion of 

Centralia Road will be rerouted just east of Ragland House. No roadwork will be completed on 

the Ragland property, and the viewshed from the main house will be only slightly modified as the 

new road meets the old road southeast of the house. Because the road change will not alter any of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-165 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the characteristics that make Ragland House eligible for the NRHP, the Preferred Alternative will 

have no adverse effect on this resource. 

CIRCLE OAKS/4510 CENTRALIA ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

Circle Oaks is located east of Ragland House, listed above. The Preferred Alternative will 

construct an overpass on Centralia Road across the rail corridor to replace the existing at-grade 

crossing the railroad tracks. The approach to the bridge will be visible from Circle Oaks and will 

require reconfiguring a section of driveway. The modifications have the potential to diminish the 

characteristics that make the property eligible for the NRHP. As such, the Preferred Alternative 

will have an adverse effect on this resource. 

CENTRALIA EARTHWORKS 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

Although the rail improvements are not in the vicinity of the earthworks, the designs include 

associated road improvements along Hopkins Road and Centralia Road to accommodate traffic 

rerouted from the closure of nearby at-grade rail crossings. The Centralia Earthworks are located 

east of Hopkins Road and run north-south parallel to the roadway. Although the earthworks were 

once larger, previous changes to the road system in this area in the early- and mid-twentieth 

century have destroyed all physical remnants of the earthworks within and immediately adjacent 

to the road corridor. The proposed changes to the roadway will, therefore, not impact any intact 

above-ground features or below-ground deposits associated with this historic property. As such, 

the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

CHESTER HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

Although the rail modifications in the vicinity of the Chester Historic District will require a slight 

widening to the existing rail corridor, the more notable changes will occur due to road 

improvements. Several original road alignments will be rerouted and rail crossing points will be 

closed. The Preferred Alternative will result in notable modifications to the district’s original 

plan, thus the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this district. 

PRETLOW HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Pretlow House is located at the intersection of Curtis and Winfree Streets in Chester, VA. 

The property is one block away from the rail tracks, but the Project alternatives will lower Curtis 

Street under the rail tracks with an underpass, removing the existing at-grade crossing. This 

change will require modifications to the Curtis Street between the rail tracks and Winfree Street. 

At Pretlow House, the road changes have been minimized through the creation of curb and gutter 

designs, thus avoiding impacts to vegetation currently in existence at the corner of the property 

and avoiding any impacts to the existing store wall. As such, the only adjustments to the property 

may be the addition of a sliver of pavement and a new curb at the eastern corner of the property. 

The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. As a condition of this 

effect determination, the VDHR requested that the all efforts be made during construction to 

avoid impacts to the existing stone wall and adjacent vegetation. 

EICHELBERGER HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Eichelberger House was once part of a large parcel of land that covered the entire block. It 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-166 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

was designed to accommodate both the home life and work pattern of its owner, Harry 

Eichelberger, a railroad executive who caught the train at the station in Chester, VA, every day to 

travel to his office in Richmond, VA. He reached the station by a trail that wound through his 

property, exiting onto Curtis Street from an ornate stone gate. The Preferred Alternative will 

widen Curtis Street as part of the new railroad underpass. This will require the removal of the 

original stone gate and part of the trail. Both of these resources are contributing elements to the 

larger Eichelberger House property. The Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this 

property. 

APPOMATTOX RIVER RAILROAD BRIDGE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will add a new, parallel bridge for high speed passenger trains just east 

of the existing bridge. The historic structural system will not be altered during this process. 

Although a new span will be built between the old structure and the viewshed between the bridge 

and the various downtown Petersburg, VA, historic districts, the distance between the bridge and 

the districts is over 1,500 feet and there is dense vegetation within the extant vista. Because the 

alteration will not diminish the physical characteristics of the historic structure or diminish the 

viewshed from downtown Petersburg, VA, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect 

on this resource. 

BATTERSEA 

The Preferred Alternative in Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

Battersea is located just south of the Appomattox River in Petersburg, VA. There are no road 

changes proposed for this section of the Project. The main house of Battersea is not within the 

APE of the Project; however, the western boundary of the larger property abuts the rail line. 

Thus the larger parcel is within the general APE. The main house and all above-ground resources 

are shielded from the rail corridor by distance (the closest above-ground contributing element is 

over 750 feet from the rail track and the main house is 1,200 feet from the tracks), topography, 

and dense vegetation. The corridor is not at all visible from the primary occupation areas of the 

house, and this will not change with the reinstallation of a second rail within the existing corridor. 

Thus, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this property. 

NORTH BATTERSEA/PRIDE’S FIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The North Battersea district is located east of the rail corridor in Petersburg, VA. Most of the 

district itself is outside of the Project APE; however, Battersea mansion (a contributing element 

to the district) is located between the rail tracks and the remainder of the district. As such, the 

district is tangentially included within the Project APE. With the exception of Battersea itself, the 

closest contributing element to the rail corridor is over 2,000 feet east of the rail line, and no road 

changes are proposed in this area. The Preferred Alternative will not impact the physical or 

historic integrity of the resource. The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this 

district. As a condition of this effect determination, the VDHR requested that the Project Team 

coordinate with the City of Petersburg, VA, to identify measures to minimize impacts to this 

resource. 

DEFENSE ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

Defense Road is perpendicular to the railroad corridor in this area. The Preferred Alternative will 

add a second railroad bridge over Defense Road (directly adjacent to the existing railroad bridge), 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-167 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

which will necessitate the removal of a small section of the original roadway and lowering the 

overall road grade near the bridge to allow for vehicular passage beneath the new span. This 

change will impact the road’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this resource. 

DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS 

The Preferred Alternative in Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will add a second railroad bridge over Defense Road (directly adjacent 

to the existing railroad bridge). Construction of the bridge and associated improvements to 

Defense Road will necessitate large disturbances to the segment of the earthworks within the 

Project APE. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on the resource. 

BRIDGE OVER DEFENSE ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will construct a second bridge directly east of the existing span, thus 

introducing a new element adjacent to the current bridge. Due to the introduction of this large 

new element, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on the bridge. 

FORT DAVIS EARTHWORKS 

The Preferred Alternative in Section DD is VA3. The three Project alternatives vary slightly in 

this area based on their curvature; however, they are all located within the same general vicinity. 

Although the 4,000-foot long earthworks generally run perpendicular through the Study Area, the 

300-foot long segment where the earthworks intersect the Study Area were completely destroyed 

in 1900 when the Seaboard Air Line Railroad cut through the resource to construct the original 

rail line in this area. As such, the portion of this historic property within the project APE does not 

contribute to the overall eligibility of this resource. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well 

as VA1 and VA2, will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

BOWEN HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section C is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will add a set of tracks within the existing rail corridor on the west side 

of US-1. The rail corridor is approximately 75 feet west of the western boundary of this resource 

and over 150 feet from the main house. However, the road system in this area will also be 

modified by rerouting the corridor to the south of the Bowen House and bridging Glebe Road 

over the rail lines. This new bridge will be just southwest of the Bowen House boundaries. It is 

possible that the new structure will be visible from the main house. However, any modifications 

to the viewshed will be tempered by a vegetative screen, distance, and the US-1 corridor. The 

Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

BANK OF MCKENNEY 

The Preferred Alternative in Section C is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The bank building is located on Rives Avenue in the community of McKenney, VA. The building 

is separated from the Project impact area by Rives Avenue itself, located between the bank and 

the rail corridor, a distance of 70 feet. Road modifications are restricted to the area south of the 

bank building, over 160 feet away. The Preferred Alternative will add a new visual element to the 

viewshed of this property, namely the rail itself, but the modification will actually restore the 

historic appearance of this area by putting the rail back where it was originally designed. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this historic property. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-168 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

It should be noted that the Tier II DEIS identified the Project alternatives as having no effect on 

the Bank of McKenney. Subsequent to the publication of the Tier II DEIS, the building was 

reevaluated for eligibility. This resulted in the change in effect. 

CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY (C & P) 

BUILDING 

The Preferred Alternative in Section C is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The C & P Building is located north of a road modification area just outside of the Town of 

McKenney, VA. The Preferred Alternative will result in the widening of the roadway, but no 

alterations to the building or its associated landscape will occur. The Project will therefore not 

diminish any of the characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP, although the 

road footprint along the primary elevation will be slightly modified. Therefore, the Preferred 

Alternative will have no adverse effect on this historic property. 

ZEHMER FARM/HONEYMOON HILL FARM 

The Preferred Alternative in Section C is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. 

The Preferred Alternative will shift the rail corridor slightly west of its existing location in order 

to straighten a curve. The new corridor will cross the Zehmer Farm along its easternmost 

boundary. The Project alternatives will also reroute Jack Zehmer Road, which currently crosses 

the railroad corridor at-grade from the east and provides access southward to the Town of 

McKenney, VA, wastewater treatment plant (which is located with the listed boundary of the 

Zehmer Farm). The existing at-grade crossing of the rail corridor will be closed and the rerouted 

road will tie into Community Street (along the eastern boundary of Sunnyside Elementary 

School), and then parallel the railroad south (on the west side of the tracks) to connect with the 

existing access road. The proposed changes are located more than 600 feet from the main 

buildings on the farm and will be blocked from view of the house by extensive vegetation. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

WYNNHURST 

The Preferred Alternative in Section D is VA4, which is located to the northwest of Wynnhurst, 

running through the small community of Rawlings, VA. Given the distance from the resource, 

VDHR determined the Preferred Alternative is outside of the APE of Wynnhurst. 

Designs for the VA2 Project alternative are located 300 feet west of the main house of 

Wynnhurst, and the rail corridor would be shielded from this resource by several modern 

dwellings and vegetation. Therefore, the VA2 Project alternative would have no effect on this 

resource. 

The VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of Wynnhurst, 

running in a straight line south of the Dinwiddie/Brunswick, VA, county line. This alignment 

runs through the southeastern half of the Wynnhurst property, located north of Route 629. The 

new rail corridor is 100 feet from the main house and entirely within the larger property 

boundaries. Due to alterations to the property’s location, design, setting, feeling, and association, 

the VA1/VA3 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

BLICK'S STORE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section D is VA4, which will rebuild the railroad tracks through this 

area in the existing corridor. Along with the VA2 alternative, the Preferred Alternative will 

reroute Route 629 behind the Blick’s Store property, about 300 feet south of the store building. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-169 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The road movement will not impact the physical characteristics of the resource. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative and the VA2 Project alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

The VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment in this area and include no 

roadwork in the vicinity of the Blick’s Store. Therefore, the VA1/VA3 Project alternative would 

have no effect on this resource. 

HOUSE/428 SECOND AVENUE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section E is VA1, the common alignment of VA1 and VA3. 

However, all three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. 

Although the road general road system in this area will be modified to remove at-grade crossings 

in the downtown area, the roadways adjacent to this resource will not be changed. Since the 

general approach to the home will be altered, but the change will not diminish any of the 

characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP, the Preferred Alternative and the 

VA2 Project alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

ORGAIN HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section G is VA3. The Preferred Alternative will add a bridge on 

Old Indian Road over the relocated rail corridor approximately 500 feet south of the 

recommended boundary of the Orgain House historic resource. Given the distance of the designs 

from the main house, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

The VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives are located across from both Old Indian Road and the 

existing rail corridor from the Orgain House and would have no effect on the resource. 

The VA4 Project alternative was designed to serve as the avoidance alternative for impacts to the 

Oak Shades and Tourist Guest House resources described below. The designs for VA4 pass 

directly through the Orgain House property and, moreover, the main house itself. The main 

house, nearby 1840s foundation, and several outbuildings would be destroyed by this alternative. 

Therefore, the VA4 alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

TOURIST GUEST HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section G is VA3. The Tourist Guest House was recorded during an 

investigation to locate an avoidance alternative to the Oak Shades property described below. The 

Preferred Alternative will locate the railroad tracks directly behind the main house of the Tourist 

Guest House. Construction of this new rail line will be within the viewshed of the home. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this property. 

The VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives are located over 300 feet southeast of the property. 

Therefore, the VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives would have no effect on this resource. 

The VA4 Project alternative would locate the railroad tracks approximately 350 feet from the 

eligible boundary of the Tourist Guest House. The new rail line would be visible from a portion 

of the property, but would not impact the physical characteristics of the resource. Therefore, the 

VA4 Project alternative would have no adverse effect on this resource. 

OAK SHADES 

The Preferred Alternative in Section G is VA3. Oak Shades is located south of the Tourist Guest 

House, to the east of Route 639 in Brunswick County, VA, and west of the abandoned Seaboard 

Coast Line railroad tracks. The VA3 alternative is located over 300 feet from the Oak Shades 

property and blocked from view by several homes and roadways. Therefore, the Preferred 

Alternative will have no effect on this resource. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-170 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The VA1 Project alternative would relocate the railroad corridor on new location just southeast of 

the main house at Oak Shades. The new rail corridor would be less than 50 feet from the home. 

Because of the impacts to the building’s physical and historic integrity, the VA1 Project 

alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The VA2 Project alternative would modify the inactive rail line southeast of the property. The 

rail tracks would be located down a steel escarpment and not visible from the main house. 

However, the rail alignment would be shifted away from the historic location of the railroad and 

would cut into the hill slope by about 30 feet. Because of these changes to its setting, the VA2 

Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. (It should be noted that the Tier 

II DEIS identified the VA2 Project alternative as having no adverse effect on Oak Shades. This 

determination was revised based on additional coordination with VDHR and review of the 

designs within Section G.) 

The VA4 Project alternative is located over 800 feet from the Oak Shades property and blocked 

from view by several homes and roadways. Therefore, the VA4 Project alternative would have 

no effect on this resource. 

EVANS HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section H is VA1, the common alignment of VA1 and VA3. 

However, all three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The 

Preferred Alternative will add a set of tracks just east of the existing rail corridor that is located 

adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the Evans House. In addition, the road system in this 

area will also be modified by rerouting Wilson Road north of the Evans House to provide an 

overpass of the rail corridor. This new bridge will be northwest of the Evans House boundaries. 

It is possible that the new structure will be visible from the house. However, any modifications to 

the viewshed will be tempered by a vegetative screen and distance, and no character-defining 

features of this resource will be diminished by this change. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative 

will have no adverse effect on this resource. (It should be noted that the Tier II DEIS mistakenly 

listed the VA1 Project alternative as having no effect on the Evans House.) 

LA CROSSE, VA, COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section I is VA1, the common alignment of VA1 and VA2. 

However, all three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The 

railroad tracks will run through town at the same grade as the surrounding roadways and aboveground resources. Changes include remodeling the road system through town and the demolition 

of at least two contributing resources. Because of these changes, the Preferred Alternative and 

the VA3 Project alternative will have an adverse effect on this district. 

LA CROSSE HOTEL 

The Preferred Alternative in Section I is VA1, the common alignment of VA1 and VA3. 

However, all three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The 

La Crosse Hotel is located immediately adjacent to the existing railroad ROW. The designs 

shown in the Tier II DEIS required a small amount of ROW from the hotel property (but not 

impacting the hotel itself) in order to accommodate the Town of La Crosse, VA, plans to use the 

property as a future HSR station. Subsequent to the Tier II DEIS, the designs were revised to no 

longer require any ROW from the resource. Moreover, although the Project will install a new set 

of rails within the viewshed of the primary elevation of this historic property, similar rails were in 

place when the hotel was constructed. The rail system was, in fact, the impetus for the 

development of this lot. Thus, the changes will not diminish the resource’s integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association. Based on these changes, the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-171 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Preferred Alternative, along with the VA2 and VA3 Project alternatives, will have no adverse 

effect on this property. 

WRIGHT FARMSTEAD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section J is VA2. In the vicinity of the Wright Farmstead, which is 

south of Belfield Road in Mecklenburg County, VA, the Preferred Alternative is located more 

than 500 feet away. The alternative will not be visible from the above-ground remains due to 

dense vegetation and distance. The Project will also not physically impact any portions of the 

associated archaeological site. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this 

resource. 

The VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment near the Wright Farmstead and 

run directly through the western two-thirds of the resource. Therefore, the VA1/VA3 Project 

alternative would have an adverse effect on this property. 

SARDIS METHODIST CHURCH 

The Preferred Alternative in Section J is VA2; however, all three Project alternatives are on 

common alignment near this resource, which is located east of the old railroad tracks. All 

alternatives will require rerouting of the current driveway for the Sardis Methodist Church. The 

existing access road is an at-grade crossing over the rail bed. Under the Project alternatives, the 

driveway will be rerouted slightly north to utilize an overpass. Visitors will approach the church 

from the north instead of from the west. Although this change alters the property’s setting, it 

does not diminish any of the characteristics that render the resource eligible for the NRHP. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives, will have 

no adverse effect on this resource. 

BRACEY HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section K is VA1, the common alignment of VA1 and VA3. The 

proposed Bracey Historic District is linear, running roughly east-west along Route 619. The town 

was founded due to the intersection of the road and railway to cater to rail traffic. The Preferred 

Alternative will construct the rail corridor west of the original Seaboard Air Line tracks. The 

work will be outside of the district, but will reintroduce an important element of the district’s 

history that has been removed will result in an altered viewshed from contributing resources 

within the historic district. As such, the Preferred Alternatives will have no adverse effect on the 

district. 

The VA2 Project alternative would reestablish rail on the abandoned Seaboard tracks. However, 

the existing rail corridor in this area is too narrow to accommodate the proposed line, thus the 

corridor would be widened to the east. This would result in construction directly adjacent to the 

existing Bracey Railroad Depot, which is a contributing element to the district. Although the 

depot would not be destroyed, the work has the potential to diminish the district’s design, setting, 

feeling, and association by modifying the original rail corridor and risking impacts to contributing 

elements. As such, the VA2 Project alternative will have an adverse effect on this district. 

BRACEY DEPOT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section L is VA1/NC1, the common alignment of VA1/NC1 and 

VA3/NC3. The Bracey Depot is located adjacent to the rail tracks, but this building has been 

moved further away from the rail footprint and reoriented. Changes to the rail corridor in this area 

will result in an altered viewshed from the current orientation of the depot, but the alternative will 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-172 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

not diminish any of the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NHRP. Therefore, 

the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

The VA2 Project alternative would reestablish rail on the abandoned Seaboard tracks. However, 

the existing rail corridor in this area is too narrow to accommodate the proposed line, thus the 

corridor would be widened to the east. This would result in construction directly adjacent to the 

Bracey Depot. As a result of these changes, the VA2 Project alternative would have an adverse 

effect on this resource. 

BRACEY STORE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section L is VA1/NC1, the common alignment of VA1/NC1 and 

VA3/NC3. The Bracey Store is located east of the rail corridor. The viewshed between the store 

and the rail tracks is partially blocked by the presence of the Bracey Store, although the rail 

crossing of Bracey Road is visible from the primary elevation of this resource. The Preferred 

Alternative would reintroduce rail tracks in this area, which will alter this resource’s integrity of 

setting. However, it will not diminish the integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, 

feeling or association. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this 

resource. 

The VA2 Project alternative would reestablish rail on the abandoned Seaboard tracks. However, 

the existing rail corridor in this area is too narrow to accommodate the proposed line, thus the 

corridor would be widened to the east. Changes to the rail corridor in this area would result in an 

altered viewshed from the current orientation of the store, but the alternative would not diminish 

any of the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NHRP. Therefore, the VA2 

Project alternative would have no adverse effect on this resource. 

GRANITE HALL/FITTS HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section L is VA1/NC1, the common alignment of VA1/NC1 and 

VA3/NC3. Granite Hall is located at the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Route 712 

and the North Carolina/Virginia state line. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment is located 700 

feet west of Granite Hall and several dwellings, vegetation, and roadways are between the home 

and the alignments. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on the resource. 

The VA2/NC2 Project alternative runs along the abandoned Seaboard Air Line rail corridor. 

While the rail changes would occur within the existing alignment several hundred feet southwest 

of the main house, the alternative requires construction of a new bridge on Route 712 over the rail 

line. The fill slope for the new bridge would be located in front of the main house. This would 

alter both the driveway and the approach to the home and also introduce a new visual element 

outside of the primary elevation of the home. Because of impacts to the resource’s design, 

setting, feeling, and association, the VA2/NC2 Project alternative will have an adverse effect on 

this resource. 

BATTLEFIELDS – VIRGINIA 

The follow sections describe the effect of the Project alternatives on battlefields in Virginia within 

the project APE. The impacts were determined in conjunction with the VDHR, the NPS Petersburg 

National Battlefield, and NPS Richmond National Battlefield. 

As discussed in Section 3.12.2.2, the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) proposed 

new National Register-eligible boundaries for the 10 Project battlefields in July 2009. The impacts 

described in the sections below are based on the boundaries determined by the state historic 

preservation office (VDHR). Although there are differences between the individual battlefield 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-173 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

boundaries, when considered in total, the VDHR boundaries within the Project APE encompass all 

of the ABPP boundaries with the following exceptions: 

 Just south of Highway 288 in Chester, VA – all Project alternatives are on common 

alignment within existing railroad ROW 

 Vicinity of Walthall Industrial Parkway just north of Colonial Heights, VA – all Project 

alternatives are on common alignment; rail alignments are within existing railroad ROW; 

new access road proposed to connect Walthall Industrial Parkway with Pine Forest Road 

 Vaughn Road near the Burgess Connector – all Project alternatives are on common 

alignment; rail alignments are within existing railroad ROW; new bridge over the railroad on 

Vaughn Road 

 Carson Road near the Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse community – the Preferred Alternative 

(VA1, which is the common alignment of VA1 and VA3) shifts the rail slightly outside of 

existing railroad ROW and provides a new bridge over the railroad on Carson Road; the VA2 

Project alternative is within existing railroad ROW 

 Courthouse Road near the Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse community – the Preferred 

Alternative (VA1, which is the common alignment of VA1 and VA3) and the VA2 Project 

alternative are separated by less than 150 feet in this area and extend just outside of the 

existing railroad ROW; no road improvements are proposed 

 Gatewood Road south of the Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse community – all Project 

alternatives are on common alignment; no rail work proposed in this location; Gatewood 

Road will be slightly realigned to accommodate a new bridge over the railroad 

 Keelers Mill Road south of the Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse community - all Project 

alternatives are on common alignment; rail alignments are within existing railroad ROW; 

Keelers Mill Road will be slightly realigned to connect with a new access road on the west 

side of the railroad (outside battlefield boundaries) 

The seven segments listed above comprise an extremely small area. It is estimated that at least 95 

percent of the area within the two sets of battlefield boundaries overlap. As such, none of the 

improvements proposed by the Project in these areas will result in a change to the recommended 

Section 106 effects described in the sections below. 

PROCTOR’S CREEK 

The Proctors Creek battlefield spans Sections AA and BB. The Preferred Alternative for both 

sections is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. The resource straddles the 

existing rail corridor. Unfortunately, due to expansive commercial and residential development 

much of the battlefield itself has lost its physical integrity. Despite efforts to preserve parts of the 

battlefield, such as Fort Darling, large swaths have diminished setting, feeling, and association. 

As such, while the battlefield is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, it is not eligible under 

Criterion C. The Preferred Alternative will return a second rail line to the existing corridor, a 

condition that was present at the time of the battle. Because of the compromised integrity of the 

region as well as the reintroduction of the second rail line, the Preferred Alternative will have no 

adverse effect on this battlefield. 

PORT WALTHALL JUNCTION 

The Port Walthall Junction battlefield is located in Section BB. The Preferred Alternative for 

Section BB is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. This battlefield 

encompasses 880 acres straddling the I-95 corridor. The Preferred Alternative will require road 

modifications to remove at-grade crossings in the very southwestern corner of the larger 

battlefield. The epicenter of the engagement is located north of the Study Area and remains 

untouched. The portion of the battlefield within the Study Area, however, has been completely 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-174 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

destroyed by development and the creation of an extensive system of roads. While portions of 

the battlefield retain their original setting and feeling, the Study Area does not retain its integrity 

of design, setting, materials, feeling, and association. The Preferred Alternative will have no 

adverse effect on this battlefield. 

SWIFT CREEK/ARROWFIELD CHURCH 

The Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church battlefield is located in Section CC. The Preferred 

Alternative for Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3. Oriented 

roughly east-west, this 3,800 acre resource is south of Port Walthall Battlefield and partially 

within the City of Colonial Heights, VA. Development within Colonial Heights, VA, has 

destroyed the primary engagement area as well as other segments of the larger battlefield, thus the 

resource is not eligible under Criterion C. The Project alternatives will minimally widen one 

existing roadway in the very northern portion of the battlefield. The overall impact area is thus 

very small compared to the size and scope of this large battlefield. Because of the minimal 

impacts to a resource that already has compromised physical integrity, the Preferred Alternative 

will have no adverse effect on this battlefield. 

PETERSBURG III/THE BREAKTHROUGH 

The Petersburg III/The Breakthrough battlefield spans Sections CC and DD, although the Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through the battlefield. The Preferred Alternative for 

Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3; the Preferred Alternative for 

Section DD is VA3. The rail line runs north-south through the center of the battlefield. The 

Preferred Alternative will return a second set of tracks within the existing rail corridor. In 

addition, three road modifications will occur within the battlefield boundaries: 1) the existing 

railroad bridge over I-85 in the very northern portion of the battlefield will be widened to 

accommodate the second set of tracks; 2) the bridge over Defense Road will be widened (see 

discussion of Defense Road above); and 3) a short segment of Halifax Road east of the rail tracks 

will be straightened to remove a curve that runs adjacent to the rail line. In all, the changes 

include a very small percentage of the overall battlefield area. Most of the core areas of 

engagement are protected within Pamplin Historical Park, but areas outside the park boundaries 

have been negatively impacted by development. The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse 

effect on this battlefield. 

WELDON RAILROAD/GLOBE TAVERN 

The Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern battlefield spans Sections CC and DD. The Project 

alternatives are common through Section CC and vary slightly in the vicinity of the battlefield in 

Section DD. The Preferred Alternative for Section CC is VA1, the common alignment of VA1, 

VA2, and VA3; the Preferred Alternative for Section DD is VA3. All of the Project alternatives 

will add a second set of tracks, a bridge over the CSX A-line tracks, and road work along Halifax 

Road. The impacted areas comprise a very small segment of the larger 4,370 acre battlefield. 

The difference in the three alternatives is related to the way they bridge the active CSX A-line 

and a small access road in the vicinity of where Halifax Road crosses the CSX A-line within 

Section DD. Refer to Section 2.2.6.1 for more details. 

The bridge in Section DD proposed for the Preferred Alternative (VA3) is significantly shorter 

than the bridge proposed under both the VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives, but will require the 

greatest amount of fill material through the battlefield. 

The VA2 Project alternative maximizes the use of existing railroad ROW. However, the 

proposed bridge over the CSX A-line is the longest and would be most visible of the three Project 

alternatives. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-175 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The Preferred Alternative and the VA1 Project alternative would require more new ROW than 

VA2. The Preferred Alternative and the VA1 Project alternative primarily follow the same rail 

alignment, but the proposed bridges are different lengths. Both alternatives will have shorter 

bridges over the CSX A-line than the VA2 alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative, as well as the VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives, will have no adverse 

effect on this battlefield. As a condition of this effect determination, the NPS Petersburg National 

Battlefield requested that the fill slopes for the proposed bridge have tree plantings to minimize 

the visual intrusion on the landscape. The VDHR also requested to view the engineering and 

vegetation plans before construction. 

PEEBLES FARM 

The Peebles Farm battlefield spans Sections CC and DD, although the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment through the battlefield. The Preferred Alternative for Section CC is VA1, the 

common alignment of VA1, VA2, and VA3; the Preferred Alternative for Section DD is VA3. 

This 2,800-acre resource includes two bounded areas. The rail corridor runs east-west between 

these two areas, thus the actual rail corridor is not within the boundaries of this resource. 

However, the Preferred Alternative will widen a small segment of Vaughn Road running northsouth near the northeastern section of the southern battlefield section. This road modification 

area only clips the very northeastern corner of the southern battlefield area. The northern 

battlefield section will not be impacted, and the majority of the southern section will remain 

untouched. Due to the very minimal scope of the proposed change, the Preferred Alternative will 

have no adverse effect on this battlefield. 

BOYDTON PLANK ROAD 

The Boydton Plank Road battlefield spans Sections DD and A. The Project alternatives are 

common through Section DD and vary slightly through the battlefield in Section A in the vicinity 

of the Burgess Connector, an inactive railroad corridor between the CSX S-Line (currently 

inactive) and the CSX A-Line (currently active). The Preferred Alternative for Section DD is 

VA3; the Preferred Alternative for Section A is VA2. In Section A, the Preferred Alternative 

extends slightly outside of the existing ROW from Smith Grove Road to Dabney Mill Road, a 

distance of approximately two miles, in order to flatten out a severe curve in the existing rail 

alignment. The VA1/VA3 Project alternative stays within the existing railroad ROW in this area. 

The existing rail corridor runs through the center of the resource from its northeastern corner 

diagonally to its southwestern edge. The Project alternatives will add a new set of rails on an 

abandoned rail track, which was in operation during the period of significance of this resource. In 

addition, a very small segment of Squirrel Level Road will be modified, located on the eastern 

edge of the larger resource. Re-establishing the rail line will restore a notable element of this 

resource that was removed in the twentieth century, and the changes to the road are quite 

minimal. These two alterations will not diminish the characteristics that rendered this property 

eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A. The Preferred Alternative, as well as the VA1 and VA2 

alternatives in Section DD and the VA1 and VA3 alternatives in Section A, will have no adverse 

effect on this battlefield. 

HATCHER’S RUN 

The Hatcher’s Run battlefield spans Sections DD and A and the Project alternatives vary slightly 

through the battlefield in the vicinity of the Burgess Connector in Section A, as described above 

for Boydton Plank Road battlefield. The Preferred Alternative for Section DD is VA3; the 

Preferred Alternative for Section A is VA2. As described above, Project changes in this general 

area will include reintroducing the second set of tracks within the rail corridor and road 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-176 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

modifications. Two small road changes are proposed: widening a small segment of Vaughn Road, 

which runs perpendicular to the tracks, and improving a small section of Squirrel Level Road near 

the east-west oriented rail tracks. Both road improvement areas are located in the very 

northeastern corner of the larger battlefield. The vast majority of the battlefield will not be 

impacted by this small amount of road work, and the Project will not alter the characteristics that 

render this property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the 

VA1 and VA2 alternatives in Section DD and the VA1 and VA3 alternatives in Section A, will 

have no adverse effect on this battlefield. 

LEWIS FARM 

The Lewis Farm battlefield is located in Section A. The Preferred Alternative in Section A is 

VA2; however, all three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through this 

battlefield. The Preferred Alternative will reintroduce a second line within the existing rail 

corridor. A segment of Quaker Road, located in the northwestern corner of the battlefield, will be 

rerouted for a distance of about 100 feet. The minimal changes to the road configuration will not 

alter the property’s association with Civil War events, modify the viewshed within the battlefield 

boundaries, or diminish the property’s integrity in any other way. As such, the Preferred 

Alternative will have no adverse effect on this battlefield. 

DINWIDDIE, VA, COURTHOUSE 

The Dinwiddie, VA, Courthouse battlefield is located in Section B. The Preferred Alternative in 

Section B is VA1, the common alignment of VA1 and VA3; however, all three of the Project 

alternatives are common through the battlefield. This large battlefield encompasses over 3,300 

acres northwest of the community of Dinwiddie, VA. The eastern boundary of the battlefield is 

located adjacent to the western boundary of the rail corridor, thus the battlefield is within the 

visual APE of the rail work in this area. All modifications will be restricted to the existing rail 

corridor. The proposed rail alignments are not physically within the battlefield boundaries, and 

the viewshed of the larger battlefield is shielded from the rail corridor by excessive distance, 

vegetation, the presence of US-1, numerous modern developments within the community of 

Dinwiddie, VA, and topography. As such, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect 

on this battlefield. 

HISTORICAL RESOURCES – NORTH CAROLINA 

The following discussion provides details on the effect of the Project alternatives on historical 

resources in North Carolina where FRA and NCDOT determined that the Project has no adverse 

effect or adverse effects for at least one alternative. For all other resources, the Project has been 

determined to have no effect for all alternatives. This includes the Holtzmann Farm, which was 

presented in the Tier II DEIS as having no adverse effect from all Project alternatives. A 

subsequent change to road designs in the Ridgeway, NC, area resulted in a shift away from this 

resource. 

CHAPEL OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD 

The Preferred Alternative in Section M is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. All 

three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through Ridgeway and in the vicinity 

of the Chapel of the Good Shepherd. The designs presented in the Tier II DEIS will reroute 

Ridgeway Warrenton Road from its current location in front of the church to a new location 

immediately behind the church in order to access a proposed grade separation over the railroad 

corridor. Due to the changes in access and the visual environment, FRA and NCDOT determined 

that the NC1, NC2, and NC3 Project alternatives have an adverse effect on the Chapel of the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-177 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Good Shepherd. In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS and in coordination with Warren 

County, NC, the Kerr-Tar Council of Governments (the Rural Planning Organization) and the 

NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, several modifications were made to the proposed 

roadwork for the Ridgeway area. The revised designs will put the grade separation over the 

railroad corridor on Ridgeway Drewry Road rather than on Ridgeway Warrenton Road. 

Ridgeway Drewry Road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to the northeast to cross over US1 and the railroad on a bridge, and connect to a new alignment for Axtell Ridgway Road on the 

south side of the railroad. Additional traffic will pass in front of Chapel of the Good Shepherd to 

use the new grade separation. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 Project 

alternative, will have no adverse effect on the resource. 

DR. THOMAS B. WILLIAMS HOUSE AND OFFICE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section M is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. As 

discussed above for the Chapel of the Good Shepherd, all three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment through Ridgeway and changes to the designs presented in the Tier II DEIS 

will put the grade separation over the railroad corridor on Ridgeway Drewry Road rather than on 

Ridgeway Warrenton Road. Ridgeway Drewry Road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to 

the northeast to cross over US-1 and the railroad on a bridge, and connect to a new alignment for 

Axtell Ridgway Road on the south side of the railroad. The grade separation will be located 

approximately 500 feet to the west of the Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office. Therefore, 

the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 Project alternative, will have no adverse effect on 

the resource. 

MARSHALL HOUSE/TAVERN 

The Preferred Alternative in Section M is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. As 

discussed above for the Chapel of the Good Shepherd, all three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment through Ridgeway and changes to the designs presented in the Tier II DEIS 

will put the grade separation over the railroad corridor on Ridgeway Drewry Road rather than on 

Ridgeway Warrenton Road. Ridgeway Drewry Road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to 

the northeast to cross over US-1 and the railroad on a bridge, and connect to a new alignment for 

Axtell Ridgway Road on the south side of the railroad. The grade separation will be located 

approximately 700 feet to the east of the Marshall House/Tavern, and a short section of the old 

Ridgeway Drewry Road in front of the Marshall House/Tavern will be used to provide a 

connection between US-1 and the new road and bridge. The designs will require a minor amount 

of road frontage ROW from the resource for the new connection, but the change will not alter the 

viewshed from the resource’s primary elevation. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as 

the NC2 Project alternative, will have no adverse effect on the resource. 

WILLIAM J. HAWKINS HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section N is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. All 

three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of the William J. 

Hawkins House, and will require a small amount of additional railroad ROW be taken from the 

resource. In addition, the current driveway access for the property will be relocated to a proposed 

service road that will provide access to Axtell Ridgeway Road, north of the property. Because of 

these impacts to the resource, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 Project alternative, 

will have no adverse effect on this resource. NC-HPO’s concurrence with this determination is 

conditional; the Project Team must coordinate with the property owner about the access issue, 

i.e., a temporary construction easement will be required to maintain access. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-178 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HOLLOWAY FARM 

The Preferred Alternative in Section O is NC3. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Holloway Farm. No property impacts to the historic resource are anticipated from the Preferred 

Alternative; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this resource. 

The proposed NC1 and NC2 rail alignments alternatives would bisect this resource; therefore, the 

NC1 and NC2 alternatives would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

FORREST ELLINGTON FARM 

The Preferred Alternative in Section O is NC3. All three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment in the vicinity of the Forrest Ellington Farm and will require a minor amount 

of road frontage ROW from the northwest corner of the property at the intersection of Brookston 

Road and Carver School Road. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC1 and NC2 

Project alternatives, will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

HENDERSON, NC, HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY 

EXPANSION 

The Preferred Alternative in Section P is NC1, the common alignment of NC1, NC2, and NC3. 

All three of the proposed Project alternatives are on common alignment through Henderson, NC, 

and will grade-separate Andrews Avenue (NC Hwy 39) within the Henderson, NC, Historic 

District. A retaining wall is included in the design to minimize impacts to the district from the 

grade separation. However, the retaining wall will require a small amount of ROW be taken from 

a house along Andrews Avenue and necessitate re-grading a driveway. It will also impact 

landscaping along Andrews Avenue, potentially removing several trees. Due to these impacts, 

the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on the district. 

SOUTH HENDERSON, NC, INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section P is NC1, the common alignment of NC1, NC2, and NC3. 

All three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through Henderson, NC, and will 

grade-separate Alexander Avenue on new alignment through the South Henderson, NC, Industrial 

Historic District. Currently, Alexander Avenue tees into Nicholas Street; the proposed 

alternatives will carry it over the railroad tracks to connect to the Dabney Drive Extension. In 

order to accommodate the new bridge on Alexander Avenue, the SEHSR alternatives will require 

the closing of the Nicholas Street intersection with Alexander Avenue. Due to these impacts, the 

Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on the district. 

HOUSES (5 WORKER HOUSES ON 1400 BLOCK OF NICHOLAS ST) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section P is NC1, the common alignment of NC1, NC2, and NC3. 

These houses are located within the South Henderson, NC, Industrial Historic District. All three 

of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through Henderson, NC, and will require 

minor ROW from the resources directly adjacent to the railroad corridor (at the rear end of the 

properties). Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on these resources 

provided that there is no taking of the structures. 

HOUSES (3 SIDE GABLE HOUSES ON 1500 BLOCK OF NICHOLAS ST) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section P is NC1, the common alignment of NC1, NC2, and NC3. 

These houses are located within the South Henderson, NC, Industrial Historic District. All three 

of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through Henderson, NC, and will require 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-179 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

minor ROW from the resources directly adjacent to the railroad corridor (at the rear end of the 

properties). Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on these resources 

provided that there is no taking of the structures. 

FRANKLINTON, NC, HISTORIC DISTRICT (INCLUDES STERLING MILL 

HISTORIC DISTRICT) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section S is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. All 

three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through Franklinton, NC, and will 

eliminate the railroad crossing at Mason Street and also replace the railroad bridge at Green 

Street, which is a contributing element to the historic district. Due to these impacts, the Preferred 

Alternative, as well as the NC2 Project alternative, will have an adverse effect on the district. 

STERLING COTTON MILL 

The Preferred Alternative in Section S is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. Sterling 

Mill is located within the Franklinton, NC, Historic District. All three of the Project alternatives 

are on common alignment through Franklinton, NC, and will require minor ROW for the Green 

Street underpass improvements (including sidewalks). Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as 

well as the NC2 Project alternative, will have no adverse effect on this resource. 

CEDAR CREEK RAILROAD BRIDGE PIERS 

The Preferred Alternative in Section S is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. 

Currently, active railroad traffic in the proposed Project corridor crosses Cedar Creek on a bridge 

that spans the historic Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge Piers. All three of the Project alternatives 

will be on new location in this location. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 Project 

alternative will cross Cedar Creek on a new bridge just to the east of the piers; the NC2 Project 

alternative would cross on a new bridge just to the west of the existing piers. With 

implementation of any of the three Project alternatives, the existing railroad bridge will no longer 

be used for rail traffic. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 Project 

alternative, will have no adverse effect on this resource. NC-HPO’s concurrence with this 

determination is conditional; the Project must commit to ensuring the piers are not taken down 

during the construction or life of the Project. 

YOUNGSVILLE, NC, HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section T is NC1, the common alignment of NC1 and NC3. All 

three of the Project alternatives are on common alignment through Youngsville, NC, and will 

grade-separate Main Street in the vicinity of the Youngsville, NC, Historic District. In order to 

accommodate the new bridge, the alternatives will require the removal of several on-street 

parking spots in front of the Youngsville, NC, Community Center at 115 East Main Street. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 Project alternative, will have no adverse 

effect on this resource. NC-HPO’s concurrence with this determination is conditional; the Project 

must provide tree protection along Cross Street during construction of the Project. 

It should be noted that the eligible historic district boundary shown on the Project mapping varies 

slightly from the district boundary shown on the North Carolina state “Study List.” The Study 

List is a list of properties that appear to be "potentially eligible” for listing in the NRHP. It is 

used as a preliminary step in the review of potential nominations to the NRHP and is codified in 

the state administrative code (Subchapter 4R, Section .0304). The boundary for the Youngsville, 

NC, Historic District shown on the Study List was identified prior to the surveys completed for 

the Project to determine eligibility for the NRHP. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-180 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

GLEN ROYALL MILL VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section U is NC1. All three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment in the vicinity of the Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District. No property 

impacts within the historic district are anticipated from any of the three proposed alternatives; 

however, a pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks is proposed directly adjacent to the district. 

As a result, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 and NC3 Project alternatives, will have 

no adverse effect on this resource. NC-HPO’s concurrence with this determination is conditional; 

the Project Team must design the pedestrian crossing in a manner that minimizes its opaqueness 

and that fits in with the character of its surroundings. 

WAKE FOREST, NC, HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section U is NC1. All three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment through Wake Forest, NC,. The designs presented in the Tier II DEIS would 

have closed the existing at-grade crossing at Elm Avenue and were determined to have no effect 

on the Wake Forest, NC, Historic District. Comments on the Tier II DEIS from the public and 

the Town of Wake Forest, NC, indicated a strong desire to maintain access across the railroad at 

Elm Avenue, if not vehicular, at least pedestrian. This led to the design of a pedestrian 

underpass, developed in coordination with the Town and the NC-HPO. The new design also 

included development of alternative access for properties on the northwest side (contributing 

elements to the district) that will lose the existing illegal access off of Elm Avenue along Railroad 

Street, which lies within the railroad right of way. The new designs were presented at a May 15, 

2012, Public Update Meeting. Strong opposition to the property impacts associated with the 

designs led to their elimination. 

Following the Public Update Meeting, additional coordination with the Town and the NC-HPO 

led to the development of a design for a pedestrian bridge with stairs. As part of the consultation 

with the NC-HPO, it was determined that although the Project will not necessarily prevent access 

with the pedestrian bridge nor require enforcement of the rail right of way, loss of access to 

Railroad Street is a foreseeable consequence of the Project; therefore, the Project will need to 

address access to Railroad Street. The pedestrian bridge and associated new access to the 

properties on Railroad Street are included in the Project designs presented in this Tier II FEIS. 

Based on these changes to the designs, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC2 and NC3 

Project alternatives, will have no adverse effect on the Wake Forest, NC, Historic District. NCHPO’s concurrence with this determination is conditional; the Section 106 Memorandum of 

Agreement for the Project must specifically address coordination with owners of the four 

residences for temporary construction easements. In addition, standardized and aesthetic closures 

of at-grade crossings within the district must be employed (e.g., no guard rails or “T” closures). 

CRABTREE CREEK RAILROAD BRIDGE PIER 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5; however, all four of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment in the vicinity of the Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge Pier. The pier is located 

immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge that spans both Crabtree Creek and Hodges 

Street. The Project alternatives will construct a new bridge adjacent to the existing single-track 

bridge. The new bridge will span the pier and require a small amount of ROW under the span to 

allow for access and maintenance. This ROW includes the land where the pier is situated. The 

pier will not be otherwise impacted. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC1, 

NC2, and NC3 Project alternatives, will have no adverse effect on this resource. NC-HPO’s 

concurrence with this determination is conditional; the Project must ensure that the pier is not 

impacted during construction of the new bridge. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-181 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

GULF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary slightly in the 

vicinity of the Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse. However, all four of the Project alternatives 

add an additional railroad track within the existing active rail corridor adjacent to the resource. 

The Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC1, NC2, and NC3, Project alternatives all require 

ROW from the side of the warehouse closest to the existing CSX railroad corridor. Final designs 

may require the warehouse building to be demolished and also impact the masonry foundation at 

the northeast corner of the parcel, which historically held a series of above-ground tanks and is a 

contributing element to the resource. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC1, 

NC2, and NC3 Project alternatives, will have an adverse effect on the resource. 

ROANOKE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Roanoke Park Historic District. The Preferred Alternative, NC1, and NC2 rail alignments are 

located across Capital Boulevard from the district; therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as 

the NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives, will have no effect on this resource. 

The NC3 Project alternative would require additional ROW directly adjacent to the railroad 

corridor behind four properties on Bickett Boulevard within the historic district. The ROW is 

necessary to maintain the operation of the nearby Norfolk Southern railroad yard. The necessary 

ROW would impact the backyards of these properties; in particular, one property would lose 

approximately 0.15 acres, including a garage. Due to these impacts, the NC3 Project alternative 

would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

NOLAND PLUMBING COMPANY BUILDING 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Noland Plumbing Company Building. The Preferred alternative, as well as the NC1 and NC2 rail 

alignments, are located across Capital Boulevard from the Noland Plumbing Company Building 

source. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives, 

will have no effect on this resource. 

The NC3 Project alternative would require a minor amount of ROW directly adjacent to the 

railroad corridor along the rear of the Noland Plumbing Company Building property. The ROW 

is necessary to maintain the operation of the nearby Norfolk Southern railroad yard. Two modern 

storage buildings would potentially be impacted by the additional ROW; neither is a contributing 

element to the resource. Due to these impacts, the NC3 Project alternative would have no adverse 

effect on this resource. 

GLENWOOD-BROOKLYN HISTORIC DISTRICT 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District. The NC5 Project alternative is located on the east side of 

the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks adjacent to the Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this resource. 

The proposed NC1 and NC2 rail alignments are located across Capital Boulevard from the 

district; therefore, the NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would have no effect on this resource. 

The NC3 Project alternative would require a minor amount of ROW and easements directly 

adjacent to the railroad corridor along the Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District in order to 

maintain the operation of the nearby Norfolk Southern railroad yard. A minor amount of ROW 

would be required from one residence on Adams Street and one residence on Washington Street 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-182 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

(at the rear end of the properties). In addition, an easement would be required within the parking 

lots for several commercial properties along Dale Street and Jefferson Street. These easements 

are necessary to construct and maintain a retaining wall along the railroad corridor. Due to these 

impacts, the NC3 Project alternative would have no adverse effect on this resource. 

SEABOARD RAILWAY STATION 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Seaboard Railway Station, which is located adjacent to the Mordecai Historic District. The 

Preferred Alternative and the NC3 rail alignments are located across Capital Boulevard from the 

district; therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC3 alternative, will have no effect on 

this resource. 

The NC1 and NC2 rail alignment alternatives may require temporary construction easements 

from this resource, but no additional ROW. Therefore, the NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives 

would have no adverse effect on this resource. 

SEABOARD RAILWAY WAREHOUSES 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Seaboard Railway Warehouses, which are located adjacent to the Mordecai Historic District. The 

Preferred Alternative and the NC3 Project alternative are located across Capital Boulevard from 

the district; therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC3 alternative, will have no effect 

on this resource. 

The NC1 and NC2 rail alignment alternatives may require temporary construction easements 

from this resource, but no additional ROW. Therefore, the NC1 and NC2 alternatives would have 

no adverse effect on this resource. 

RALEIGH COTTON MILLS 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Raleigh Cotton Mills. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 Project alternative are located 

across Capital Boulevard from the resource; therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the 

NC3 alternative, will have no effect on this resource. 

The NC1 and NC2 rail alignment alternatives would require minor ROW from the resource; 

however, no buildings would be taken. Therefore, the NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would 

have no adverse effect on this resource. 

RALEIGH ELECTRIC COMPANY POWER HOUSE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Raleigh Electric Company Power House. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 Project 

alternative will close the existing at-grade railroad crossing at West Jones Street and provide a 

pedestrian crossing across the tracks. The ROW required for the closing will not have a property 

impact on the Raleigh Electric Company Power House; however, the pedestrian bridge will be 

visible directly in front of the building. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC3 

alternative, will have no adverse effect on this resource. The NC-HPO’s concurrence with this 

determination is conditional; the Project must provide aesthetic treatments for the bridge be 

outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Project in coordination with the 

consulting parties and property owners in this location. 

The NC1 Project alternative would grade-separate West Jones Street. The bridge would be 

visible directly in front of the Raleigh Electric Company Power House and a minor amount of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-183 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ROW would be required from the property (with no impacts to the building itself). Therefore, the 

NC1 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The NC2 Project alternative would be almost identical to the NC1 Project alternative in the 

vicinity of the Raleigh Electric Company Power House, with a minor shift in rail alignment. The 

NC2 Project alternative would also grade-separate West Jones Street and will have the same 

visual and property impacts as the NC1 Project alternative. Therefore, the NC2 Project 

alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY CAR BARN AND 

AUTOMOBILE GARAGE 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary in the vicinity of the 

Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage. The Preferred Alternative 

and the NC3 Project alternative will close the existing at-grade railroad crossing at West Jones 

Street. The ROW required for the closing will not impact the Carolina Power and Light 

Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the 

NC3 alternative, will have no effect on this resource. 

The NC1 Project alternative would grade-separate West Jones Street. The bridge would be 

visible directly in front of the Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile 

Garage and a minor amount of ROW would be required from the property (with no impacts to the 

building itself). Therefore, the NC1 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this 

resource. 

The NC2 Project alternative would be almost identical to the NC1 Project alternative in the 

vicinity of the Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage, with a 

minor shift in rail alignment. The NC2 Project alternative would also grade-separate West Jones 

Street and will have the same visual and property impacts as the NC1 Project alternative. 

Therefore, the NC2 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

DEPOT HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V is NC5. The Project alternatives vary slightly in the 

vicinity of the Depot Historic District and Proposed Expansion Area. All four of the Project 

alternatives add an additional railroad track within the existing active rail corridor adjacent to the 

district, but do not require ROW from resource. However, they all close the existing at-grade 

railroad crossing on W. Hargett Street within the proposed expansion area for the district. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, as well as the NC1, NC2, and NC3 Project alternatives, will 

have no adverse effect on these resources. 

On March 12, 2014, FRA, in partnership with NCDOT, completed an Environmental Assessment 

for Phase I of the proposed Raleigh Union Station to be constructed at the Boylan Wye to support 

the expansion of intercity passenger rail service in Raleigh, NC; for which FRA subsequently 

issued a Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) on June 24, 2014. In support of the FONSI, 

FRA, NCDOT and the NC-HPO executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Phase I of 

the proposed Raleigh Union Station on May 22, 2014. 

The MOA determined that Phase I of the Raleigh Union Station project will have an Adverse 

Effect upon the Depot Historic District and the Proposed Boundary Amendment to the Depot 

Historic District. Specific areas of effect include the Capital Feed and Grocery and Southern 

Railway Passenger Station, which may be subject to demolition for Phase I of the Raleigh Union 

Station project. Although Phase I of the Raleigh Union Station project will provide the primary 

station building and access facility, it is considered independent from the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II EIS. A future phase of the Raleigh Union Station will include the expansion of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-184 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

facilities to construct a platform and passenger access to the CSX S-Line on the SEHSR corridor. 

This future phase will require a separate environmental determination from the Phase I activity as 

well as this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II FEIS. 

RALEIGH, NC, AND GASTON, NC, RAILROAD CORRIDOR 

The Preferred Alternative in Sections M through V is a combination of the various Project 

alternatives (NC1 in Sections M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, and U; NC3 in Section O; and NC 5 in Section 

V). All of the Project alternatives are located within the Raleigh, NC, and Gaston, NC, Railroad 

Corridor for the majority of their lengths (approximately 74% for NC1, 72% for NC3, and 67% 

for NC3). The NC5 alternative in Raleigh, NC, is also almost entirely within the corridor. The 

Project alternatives do not impact the vast majority of contributing elements to the corridor. 

However, all Project alternatives will replace at least one of the reinforced concrete bridges and 

potentially impact at least one of the stone-lined culverts. In addition, the NC2 Project alternative 

would require the relocation of the repeater tower in Norlina, NC. Due to these impacts, all 

alternatives will have an adverse effect on the Raleigh, NC, and Gaston, NC, Railroad Corridor. 

SUMMARY AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES 

In summary, there are 149 unique historic resources within the Project corridor that are protected 

under Section 106 of the NHPA. (Several properties are considered both historic architecture and 

archaeology resources.) Of these, 36 resources would be adversely affected by one or more of the 

Project alternatives. The Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on 26 resources. 

Efforts were made to identify Project alternatives that avoid adverse effects to Section 106 resources. 

Where avoidance was not possible, measures will be undertaken to minimize and mitigate for 

impacts. Section 5.11 outlines measures to minimize harm to historic resources. Section 5.12 

describes the coordination that has taken place between the Project Team and state historic 

preservation offices, resource owners, historic societies, and other consulting parties. 

PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND REFUGES 

The following section describes the Federal parklands, city/county parks, and local greenways that have 

potential impacts from the Project alternatives, and the extent of the potential impacts. There are no 

state parks, natural area preserves, forests or recreation areas located within the Study Area. 

FEDERAL PARKLANDS 

The National Park Service (NPS) manages the Fort Wadsworth Unit of Petersburg National 

Battlefield, which is located directly adjacent to the rail corridor near Collier rail yard. The Preferred 

Alternative in Section DD is VA3; however, the three Project alternatives were on common alignment 

in the vicinity of the Fort Wadsworth Unit and would require obtaining between 30 feet and 50 feet of 

ROW along the western portion of the Fort Wadsworth Unit. This ROW is needed for the additional 

track necessary to accommodate the high speed trains associated with the Project. 

The Project Team met with the NPS regarding this issue on February 26, 2009. In a letter dated 

March 4, 2009, the Petersburg National Battlefield superintendent stated that the Project could 

mitigate potential adverse effects to the Fort Wadsworth Unit under Section 106 with a land exchange 

(see Tier II DEIS, Appendix M). This land exchange would be worked out as the Project is 

implemented. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-185 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

COUNTY/CITY PARKLANDS 

VIRGINIA 

CANAL WALK (RICHMOND, VA) 

The City of Richmond, VA, Canal Walk is located between 5th and 17th Streets along the James 

River and the Kanawha and Haxall Canals. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in 

Section AA. All three of the proposed Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) are on 

common alignment in this area and would not require any ROW from the Canal Walk. The 

existing rail line has daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the 

walkway. Therefore, the addition of SEHSR will not negatively impact the Canal Walk. 

JAMES RIVER PARK SYSTEM – SLAVE TRAIL (RICHMOND, VA) 

The Slave Trail is located within the City of Richmond, VA, James River Park System. 

Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through Richmond, VA, and would require the 

construction of a new rail bridge over the James River, immediately adjacent to the existing rail 

bridge located between the South 14th Street and I-95 roadway bridges. A small amount of ROW 

under the span of the bridge is required to allow for access and maintenance. Included in this 

ROW is approximately 0.03 acre of the Slave Trail within the James River Park System. The 

existing rail bridge has daily freight rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the trail; therefore, 

the new, parallel bridge will not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. The Project would 

not negatively impact this resource. 

GREAT SHIPLOCK PARK (RICHMOND, VA) 

This park is located outside the Study Area on the north bank of the James River, east of the 

Project alternatives and I-95 crossing of the James River. There are no impacts to this resource 

from the Project. 

JEFFERSON PARK (RICHMOND, VA) 

This park is east of the Study Area. There are no impacts to this resource from the Project. 

THOMAS B. SMITH COMMUNITY CENTER (RICHMOND, VA) 

The City of Richmond, VA - Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Facilities 

operates the Thomas B. Smith Community Center at 2015 Ruffin Road. Alternative VA1 is the 

Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project alternatives are on 

common alignment, and would provide a railroad bridge over Ruffin Road just west of the 

community center and park. This bridge would ensure the safety of automobiles crossing the 

Project corridor. Due to the need to lower Ruffin Road to accommodate the bridge, a small 

amount of ROW is needed in the southwest corner of the Thomas B. Smith Community Center 

and Park. The ROW is approximately 0.07 acres along Ruffin Road adjacent to the community 

center. Automobile access to the community center would be maintained. In addition, the gradeseparated rail-over-road crossing would greatly improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists 

accessing the community center from west of the rail line. The Project will not have a negative 

impact on this resource. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-186 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

FALLING CREEK PARK EXPANSION (PLANNED) (CHESTERFIELD 

COUNTY, VA) 

Chesterfield County is planning to acquire property just north of Falling Creek and east of 

Jefferson Davis Highway to use for a public park, expanding on the Falling Creek Ironworks Park 

directly south of the creek. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three 

of the proposed Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) are on common alignment in the 

vicinity of the planned Falling Creek Park Expansion. Although the Project rail designs are 

located within the existing CSX railroad corridor and would not impact the park, the proposed 

grade separation of Station Road would relocate Station Road onto the parcel where the park is 

planned. Although ROW is needed from the parcel, the designs do not impact the proposed 

“Resource Protection Area” for the park as shown on the rendered site plan provided by 

Chesterfield County to the Project Team in June 2012. The existing rail lines in this area have 

daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the proposed location of 

the trail. In addition, there is vehicular traffic along Jefferson Davis Highway immediately 

adjacent to the proposed park. Therefore, the Project would not negatively impact this resource. 

FALLING CREEK IRONWORKS PARK (UNDER DEVELOPMENT) 

(CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA) 

Chesterfield County is developing a park at the site of the Falling Creek Ironworks, the first 

ironworks in English North America. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section 

AA. All three of the proposed Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) are located within the 

existing CSX railroad corridor where it crosses through Falling Creek Ironworks Park. The 

Project alternatives would cross Falling Creek on the existing structure and would not require any 

new ROW. The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can 

be heard and seen from the Falling Creek Ironworks Park. Therefore, the addition of the Project 

should not negatively impact the park. 

CHESTER LINEAR PARK EXPANSION (PLANNED) (CHESTERFIELD 

COUNTY, VA) 

Chesterfield County operates Chester Linear Park, a strip of land situated in the Chester Village 

area. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) would add an additional railroad track within the 

existing CSX railroad corridor in the location where the planned expansion of Chester Linear 

Park would cross. Chesterfield County does not currently have an agreement from CSX to cross 

the active railroad corridor in this area. Therefore, the proposed changes associated with the 

Project would not create a barrier to the expansion of Chester Linear Park (because that barrier 

already exists). The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that 

can be heard and seen from the proposed location of the expanded Chester Linear Park. 

Therefore, the addition of the SEHSR track should not negatively impact the trail. 

CHESTER KIWANIS HISTORICAL PARK (PLANNED) (CHESTER, VA) 

In 2008, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors accepted the Kiwanis Club of Chester’s 

donation of their 5.3 acre property at 4001 Gill Street in Chester, VA, for development as the 

Chester Kiwanis Historical Park. The property is planned to be used as a public park for passive 

recreation and historical interpretation. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section 

BB. All The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment through this 

area and would require ROW from the parcel along Curtis Street and Richmond Street planned 

for the Chester Kiwanis Historical Park. However, Chesterfield County made the acceptance of 

the donated land conditional upon reserving the necessary ROW for the Project (100 feet from the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-187 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

centerlines of both Curtis Street and Richmond Street) for non-park uses. In addition, a gradeseparated rail-over-road crossing would improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing 

the park from east of the rail line. The Project would not negatively impact this planned resource. 

ETTRICK RIVERSIDE PARK (CHESTERFIELD, VA) 

This park is east of the Study Area. The Project would not physically impact the park nor the 

visual or recreational value of the park. 

ETTRICK PARK & MAYES-COLBERT ETTRICK COMMUNITY 

BUILDING (ETTRICK, VA) 

This park and community building are located in the Chesterfield County community of Ettrick, 

VA. The existing and active rail line bounds the southeastern portion of the park with the Ettrick 

Rail Station (Petersburg, VA, Amtrak Station) adjacent to the southern limits of the park. 

Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project 

alternatives are on common alignment along the park boundary and would not require any ROW 

from the park. The existing rail line has daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard 

and seen from the park and community center. Therefore, the addition of SEHSR should not 

negatively impact the park. The construction of a Dupuy Road bridge over the rail line would 

improve the safety of those accessing the park from east of the rail line. 

WEST END PARK FAIRGROUNDS (PETERSBURG, VA) 

This park is located approximately one quarter mile east of the Study Area. There are no direct 

impacts from the Project. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The VA1, 

VA2, and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment through Petersburg, VA, and would 

pass near the West End Park Fairgrounds. In this area, the existing rail bridge is being widened. 

This would result in temporary delays accessing the property from east of the rail line during 

construction, but these delays would end once construction is completed. There may be some 

increase in noise associated with the Project; however, it is not anticipated that any increase 

would limit use of this resource. 

PAMPLIN HISTORICAL PARK (DINWIDDIE COUNTY, VA) 

This park is located more than two miles from the Study Area. There are no impacts to this 

resource from the Project alternatives. 

CENTENNIAL PARK (LA CROSSE, VA) 

This park is located in downtown La Crosse, VA, at the intersection of Main Street and the 

abandoned Norfolk Southern railroad line (which is intended for use by the planned Tobacco 

Heritage Trail, discussed in Section 4.13.2). The primary focus of the park is a train caboose, 

which recognizes the town as a place where railroads once crossed. Alternative VA1 is the 

Preferred Alternative in Section I. The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project alternatives are on common 

alignment through this area and would close the existing pedestrian crossing just east of 

Centennial Park and require a small amount of ROW (approximately 0.06 acres) to accommodate 

the railroad improvements. Although the new rail traffic would be heard from the park, it is in 

character with its rail theme; therefore, the required ROW should not negatively impact the park. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-188 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NORTH CAROLINA 

VULCAN GREYSTONE MINING OPERATIONS PARK (HENDERSON, NC) 

There are no impacts to this private park from the Project alternatives. 

FRANKLINTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANKLINTON, NC) 

The Franklinton Elementary School, located at 431 South Hillsborough Street in Franklinton, NC, 

has playgrounds, a practice field, a baseball field, a football field, and a soccer field that are 

available for public use. Alternative NC1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section S. The NC1, 

NC2, and NC3 Project alternatives are on common alignment through this area and would require 

ROW in the vicinity of the Franklinton Elementary School to provide pedestrian access from 

Hawkins Street, under the railroad tracks, to South Main Street. However, no land would be 

required from the school. The existing rail line has daily freight rail traffic that can be heard and 

seen from the school’s playground. Therefore, the addition of SEHSR should not negatively 

impact the playground. The new, pedestrian-only rail overpass would improve the safety of those 

accessing the school facilities and playground from east of the rail line. 

J.B. FLAHERTY PARK (WAKE FOREST, NC) 

This park is located just outside the Study Area. There are no impacts to this resource from the 

Project alternatives. 

GREENWAYS 

JAMES RIVER GREENWAY (KINGSLAND CREEK) (CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA) 

Chesterfield County plans to develop a greenway on the north side of Kingsland Creek in the 

vicinity of the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) in Bellwood. Alternative VA1 is the 

Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and 

VA3) would add an additional railroad track within the existing CSX railroad corridor in the 

location where the greenway would cross. Chesterfield County has not yet obtained a legal 

crossing of the active railroad corridor in this area. Therefore, the proposed changes associated 

with the Project would not create a barrier to the development of the trail (because that barrier 

already exists). The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that 

can be heard and seen from the proposed location of the trail. The addition of the SEHSR track is 

not expected to negatively impact the trail. 

APPOMATTOX RIVERFRONT TRAIL (ETTRICK, VA) 

Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through this area and would construct a new rail bridge over 

the Appomattox River, immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge near Virginia State 

University. The bridge would be located just to the east of the existing bridge and would require a 

small amount of ROW under the span of the bridge to allow for access and maintenance. Included 

in the ROW needed for the Project is approximately 0.8 acres of the easement for the planned 

Appomattox Riverfront Trail. The existing rail bridge has daily freight and passenger rail traffic 

that can be heard from the surrounding area; therefore, the new bridge should not negatively impact 

the planned trail. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-189 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

UPPER APPOMATTOX CANAL TRAIL (PETERSBURG, VA) 

The Upper Appomattox Canal Trail in the City of Petersburg, VA, is a 3.6 mile trail following the 

towpath of the Upper Appomattox canal. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section 

CC. The VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment through this area and 

would require a new rail bridge over the Appomattox River, immediately adjacent to the existing 

rail bridge near Virginia State University. A small amount of ROW under the span of the bridge is 

required to allow for access and maintenance. Included in this ROW is approximately 0.1 acre of 

the Upper Appomattox Canal Trail. The existing rail bridge has daily freight and passenger rail 

traffic that can be heard and seen from the trail; therefore, the new bridge and SEHSR activity 

should not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. The Project would not negatively impact 

this resource. 

TOBACCO HERITAGE TRAIL (VA) 

The Tobacco Heritage Trail is a partially constructed rails-to-trails corridor that will connect 

Southern Virginia counties via over 160 miles of abandoned railroad ROW, 110 miles of on-road 

trail, new trail, and active rail ROW. Within the Study Area, the Tobacco Heritage Trail intersects 

the Study Area in Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA (Appendix R, map sheets 66 and 83). In La 

Crosse, VA, the Tobacco Heritage Trail makes use of the old Norfolk Southern rail line that 

intersects the Project corridor in the downtown area; a location intended to provide a central access 

point for residents and tourists. The East Coast Greenway (discussed below) plans to use 55 miles 

of the Tobacco Heritage Trail, including the section that connects Alberta, VA, to La Crosse, VA,. 

Completed sections of the Tobacco Heritage Trail include an unimproved, 4-mile section of trail 

along the abandoned rail line from Brodnax, VA, to La Crosse, VA. The Master Plan for the 

Tobacco Heritage Trail states that: 

“The Southeast High Speed Rail line is slated to run through La Crosse, VA, on the former northsouth rail alignment at some point in the future. Trail crossings and pedestrian links to a potential 

rail station should be anticipated. In addition, the East Coast Greenway plans to use this portion 

of the Tobacco Heritage Trail to complete their Maine-to-Florida trail. The greatest cost factors 

for trail improvements within Region 1 are the replacement cost for the missing bridges and 

constructing an I-85 crossing. Additional costs may include improving trail crossings over the high 

speed rail line and constructing extra trail footage to link the trail with potential high speed rail 

stations.” (p. 34) 

Within Alberta, VA, the Tobacco Heritage Trail follows the abandoned Norfolk Southern line and 

crosses the Project corridor and the inactive CSX S-Line in the vicinity of Second Avenue. The 

VA1, VA2, and VA3 Project alternatives are on common alignment through this area. To maintain 

continuity of the existing trail and to provide a safe crossing by Tobacco Heritage Trail users, the 

Project will provide a pedestrian/non-motorized overpass of the proposed rail alignment. In 

addition, the realignment of Second Avenue, which is necessary to provide a vehicle bridge over 

the proposed rail alignment, will require a small amount of ROW from the trail. 

Within La Crosse, VA, the trail follows the abandoned Norfolk Southern line and crosses the Study 

Area in the vicinity of Central Avenue. Alternative VA1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section E 

and Section I. VA1, VA2, and VA3 are on common alignment through this area. The proposed 

Project will re-route the Tobacco Heritage Trail north along Main Street approximately 300 feet, 

where it will then cross under the proposed rail alignment and rejoin the existing rails-to-trails 

corridor. 

The Project Team worked with representatives from Alberta, VA, La Crosse, VA, and the Roanoke 

River Rails-to-Trails, Inc. (RRRT) in the development of Project designs to ensure that the Project 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-190 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

will not impede the development or planned use of the trail. The Project will not negatively impact 

this recreation resource. 

NEUSE RIVER GREENWAY (NC) (RALEIGH, NC) 

Alternative NC1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section U. All three of the Project alternatives 

(NC1, NC2, and NC3) would cross over the Neuse River Greenway. No ROW from the greenway 

would be required. The existing rail line in this area has daily freight traffic that can be heard and 

seen from the greenway. The addition of SEHSR should not alter the character, setting, or use of 

the greenway. In addition, the SEHSR bridge at this location would have a covered deck, which 

would meet the requirements from the City requesting a protected cover to protect patrons from 

falling debris. Therefore, the Project would not negatively impact the resource. 

SIMMS BRANCH GREENWAY (PROPOSED) (RALEIGH, NC) 

Alternative NC1 is the Preferred Alternative in Section U. All three of the proposed Project 

alternatives (NC1, NC2, and NC3) would cross the proposed location of the Simms Branch 

Greenway within the existing, active railroad corridor. The City of Raleigh, NC, does not currently 

have an agreement with CSX to cross the active railroad corridor in this area. Therefore, the 

proposed changes associated with the Project would not create a barrier to the development of the 

Simms Branch Greenway (because that barrier already exists). The City could route the greenway 

south to Gresham Lake Road or north to Durant Road to cross the rail corridor. Gresham Lake 

Road and Durant Road would both be grade-separated (road over rail) with the Project, and the 

bridges would accommodate bikes and pedestrians. The existing rail lines in this area have daily 

freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the proposed location of the 

proposed location of the greenway. The addition of the SEHSR track should not alter the character, 

setting, or use of the trail. Therefore, the Project would not negatively impact the resource. 

MARSH CREEK GREENWAY (PROPOSED) (RALEIGH, NC) 

Alternative NC5 is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. All four of the proposed Project 

alternatives (NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5) would cross the proposed location of the Marsh Creek 

Greenway within the existing, active railroad corridor. The City of Raleigh, NC, has not yet 

obtained a legal crossing of the corridor at this location. Therefore, the proposed changes 

associated with the Project would not create a barrier to the development of the Marsh Creek 

Greenway (because that barrier already exists). The City could route the greenway south to 

Millbrook Road to cross the rail corridor. Millbrook Road would be grade-separated (road under 

rail) with the Project, and the underpass would accommodate bikes and pedestrians. The existing 

rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the 

proposed location of the proposed location of the greenway. The addition of the SEHSR track 

should not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. Therefore, the Project would not 

negatively impact on the resource. 

MIDDLE CRABTREE CREEK GREENWAY (RALEIGH, NC) 

Alternative NC5 is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway is part 

of the City of Raleigh, NC, Capital Area Greenway system. Near Hodges Street, the greenway 

parallels the north bank of Crabtree Creek, and passes under the existing single-track railroad 

bridge. All four of the proposed Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5) are on common 

alignment in this location, and would construct a new bridge adjacent to the existing single-track 

bridge. The new bridge would cross both the greenway and the creek. The existing rail bridge has 

daily freight rail traffic that can be heard from the trail; therefore, the new bridge will not 

negatively impact the trail. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-191 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

EAST COAST GREENWAY (VA & NC) 

The East Coast Greenway (ECG) has identified possible trail routes for the corridor between 

Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC (East Coast Greenway website, 2013). The Project is 

coordinating with ECG so that the proposed rail and roadway improvements do not impede the 

development of the ECG. At locations where the SEHSR and/or the associated roadway 

improvements and grade-separations impact the interim ECG on-road routing, it will be necessary 

to update the routes to ensure the safety of ECG users. Possible impacts to ECG users include 

temporary delays and reroutes due to construction activities. 

MULTIUSE GREENWAY CONCEPT (VA & NC) 

The concept of a greenway located parallel to the Project corridor from Dinwiddie, VA, to the 

Neuse River (just north of Raleigh, NC) was introduced in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS. The rationale for its inclusion was to allow the necessary environmental documentation for 

the greenway to be prepared so that local municipalities could more quickly pursue the construction 

of the greenway in their jurisdictions. The construction of the greenway was never intended to be 

funded as part of the Project because FRA (the source of Federal funding for HSR projects) does 

not have a mechanism to provide funding for greenways. Although the parallel greenway is still 

being studied along with the Project, the process of developing the environmental documentation 

for the greenway has changed since publication of the Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHWA, and the states of 

Virginia and North Carolina have jointly determined that the greenway project is more suitable for 

a pre-NEPA Greenway Corridor Plan, rather than being included in the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II FEIS, as previously considered. This is primarily to give the local jurisdictions who 

will ultimately construct the greenway greater flexibility to pursue various funding types over time, 

rather than limiting them to a particular funding agency's NEPA requirements. The details for the 

greenway will, therefore, not be contained within this Tier II FEIS, but rather in a separate 

Greenway Corridor Plan. This Corridor Plan is currently under development, with completion 

anticipated at the time of the ROD for Project. The SEHSR Corridor website www.sehsr.org will 

provide additional details on this separate plan and opportunities for its public review and 

comment. 

The location recommended by DRPT and NCDOT for the greenway will be based on the Preferred 

Alternative for the Project. Therefore, the Project will not have a negative impact on the greenway. 

TRANSPORTATION 

When built, the Project will become part of the larger transportation network that includes roads, transit, 

aviation, and other rail. This section provides an assessment of potential impacts from the Project to 

that transportation network. The Richmond to Raleigh Project is designed to be completely grade 

separated by bridges or underpasses, yet maintain connectivity across the railroad. Impacts to 

connectivity across the railroad are evaluated below in Section 4.14.2, while impacts to traffic 

conditions in the communities throughout the corridor are evaluated in Section 4.14.3. (Note that the 

impacts from proposed changes to roadwork on the human environment were discussed previously in 

Section 4.11.) The impacts to existing freight and passenger rail operations are also evaluated, followed 

by a general discussion about impacts related to potential station locations, local public transit, and 

aviation facilities. 

ROADS 

The existing road network within the Study Area was described in Section 3.14. Major roads 

crossing the existing rail ROW with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts greater than 1,000 

vehicles per day were highlighted. Because the SEHSR is designed to be completely grade separated 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-192 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

through bridges or underpasses, it is important to assess the impact from the Preferred Alternative on 

connectivity, i.e., the ability to move across the corridor. Potential impacts to the major east-west 

travel corridors throughout the Study Area are discussed below. In addition to the discussion 

regarding these major corridors, designs for all crossings and associated roadwork are included in 

Appendix F. Maps displaying the proposed roadwork are included in Appendix R. 

CITY OF RICHMOND, VA 

Section AA of the Project is located within the City of Richmond, VA; the Preferred Alternative for 

Section AA is Alternative VA1. 

The most heavily traveled roads carrying east-west traffic across the railroad in Richmond, VA, 

have existing bridges or underpasses over or under the rail corridor. The Preferred Alternative 

utilizes these existing structures. In addition, the Preferred Alternative provides grade separated 

crossings at: 

 Maury Street 

 East Commerce Road 

 West Bells Road 

 Ruffin Road. 

All the major public road facilities in the City of Richmond, VA, identified in Section 3.14 will be 

grade separated; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact east-west 

connectivity within the City of Richmond, VA. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA 

A portion of Project Section AA, as well as Section BB, and a portion of Section CC are located 

within Chesterfield County, VA; the Preferred Alternative in each of these sections is Alternative 

VA1. 

Within Chesterfield County the major east/west corridors are Chippenham Parkway, Highway 288, 

and West Hundred Road; all three roads cross the railroad on existing bridges. The Preferred 

Alternative utilizes the existing bridges and also provides grade separated crossings at: 

 Station Road 

 Kingsland Road 

 Centralia Road 

 Woods Edge Road 

 Pine Forest Drive 

 Branders Bridge Road 

 Dupuy Road 

 Curtis Street 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact east-west connectivity in 

Chesterfield County. 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VA 

A small portion of Project Section CC is located within the City of Colonial Heights, VA; the 

Preferred Alternative in Section CC is Alternative VA1. 

The Preferred Alternative maintains grade-separated crossings at the two roads that cross the 

railroad in Colonial Heights, VA; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not impact east-west 

connectivity. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-193 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CITY OF PETERSBURG, VA 

A portion of Section CC is located within the City of Petersburg, VA; the Preferred Alternative in 

Section CC is Alternative VA1. 

The greatest east/west traffic volume in Petersburg, VA, is carried by Boydton Plank Road, which 

feeds into Washington Street. I-85 provides some east/west connectivity across the railroad in 

addition to serving as a north/south traffic corridor. The Preferred Alternative maintains the gradeseparated crossings at each of the major public road facilities that cross the Preferred Alternative: 

 Washington Street 

 Farmer Street 

 Halifax Street 

 I-85 

 Defense Road 

 Halifax Road. 

All the major public road facilities in the City of Petersburg, VA, that cross the Preferred 

Alternative will be grade separated; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly 

impact east-west connectivity in this area. 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY, VA 

The Preferred Alternative within Dinwiddie County, VA, varies by Project section. In Section DD, 

the Preferred Alternative is Alternative VA3; in Section A, the Preferred Alternative is Alternative 

VA2; and in Sections B and C, the Preferred Alternative is Alternative VA1. 

The largest volume of north/south traffic in Dinwiddie County, VA, is carried by I-85 and US1/Boydton Plank Road; both roads cross the CSX S-Line ROW on existing bridges. The Preferred 

Alternative maintains grade separated crossings at these locations and retains the existing bridge at 

Courthouse Road in the community of Dinwiddie, VA. VA 703/Carson Road carries the greatest 

east/west traffic volume across the Study Area in the northern part of the county, while VA 

40/Doyle Boulevard, which passes through the Town of McKenney, VA, serves as the major 

east/west corridor in southern Dinwiddie County, VA. The Preferred Alternative provides new 

grade separated crossings for these two roads. 

All the major public road facilities in Dinwiddie County, VA, that cross the Preferred Alternative 

will be grade separated; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact east-west 

connectivity within Dinwiddie County, VA. 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY, VA 

The Preferred Alternative within Brunswick County, VA, varies by Project section. In Section D, 

the Preferred Alternative is Alternative VA4; in Sections E, F, and H, the Preferred Alternative is 

Alternative VA1; and in Section G, the preferred Alternative is Alternative VA3. 

Within Brunswick County, VA, the largest volume of north/south traffic is carried by I-85 and US1/Boydton Plank Road; both roads closely parallel as well as cross the CSX S-Line ROW and the 

Study Area. In the Town of Alberta, VA, Main Street runs north/south and carries the largest 

volume of traffic through the town; however, Second Avenue provides the east-west connectivity. 

The Preferred Alternative provides a realignment of Second Avenue and a new bridge over the 

railroad, thereby maintaining the cross-town connection. Throughout the remainder of Brunswick 

County, VA, grade separated crossings for all major public road facilities that cross the Preferred 

Alternative are maintained; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact 

connectivity. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-194 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, VA 

The Preferred Alternative within Mecklenburg County, VA, varies by Project section. In Sections 

H, I, K and L, the Preferred Alternative is Alternative VA1; in Section, J the Preferred Alternative 

is Alternative VA2. 

US 58 carries the largest east/west traffic load through the county, crossing the Study Area in La 

Crosse, VA, on a bridge that is retained by the Preferred Alternative. Main Street in La Crosse, 

VA, carries the bulk of local traffic across the railroad on an existing at-grade crossing. The 

Preferred Alternative closes the existing Main Street crossing, but provides a new grade separated 

crossing approximately 600 feet south to replace the function currently served by Main Street and 

provide the same level of connectivity across the railroad. The Preferred Alternative provides a 

grade separated crossing of the railroad for the major east-west travel corridors in Mecklenburg 

County, therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact connectivity. 

WARREN COUNTY, NC 

A portion of Project Section L, as well as Sections M and N, are located within Warren County, 

NC. The Preferred Alternative in each of these sections is Alternative NC1. 

US-158 serves as the primary east/west connector in Warren County, NC, and crosses the CSX SLine by way of an underpass in Norlina, NC, where the CSX S-Line becomes an active freight 

railroad. The Preferred Alternative maintains a grade-separated crossing at US-158 through an 

expansion of the existing underpass. In addition, five new bridged crossings are proposed 

throughout the rest of the county; therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact 

connectivity. 

VANCE COUNTY, NC 

The Preferred Alternative within Vance County, NC, varies by Project section. In Section O, the 

Preferred Alternative is Alternative NC3; in Sections P and Q, the Preferred Alternative is 

Alternative NC1. 

US1 Bypass crosses the active CSX S-Line on a bridge north of Henderson, NC. US-158 provides 

east/west access through the Henderson, NC, area, but does not cross the railroad, while Andrews 

Avenue/NC 39 provides a connection from US-1 to the east. There are many public roads that cross 

the active CSX S-Line at grade as it moves through the central areas of Middleburg, NC, 

Henderson, NC, and Kittrell, NC. 

In Middleburg, NC, at the north end of the county, there is no major road that provides continuous 

connectivity across the proposed rail corridor. However, Carol Street/Allison Cooper Road (SR 

1151) provides a connection from US-1 to the east. Because the Preferred Alternative provides a 

grade separated crossing at Carol Street, connectivity in this area will not be significantly impacted. 

In the Henderson, NC, area the Preferred Alternative includes several revisions to the DEIS road 

designs. The revisions were made in response to comments from the City of Henderson, and 

several of the changes were made to improve both east-west and north-south connectivity; refer to 

Section 2.2.22.4 for more information. The Preferred Alternative retains the existing US-1 Bypass 

bridge over the railroad north of the city. In addition, Andrews Avenue/NC 39, which provides a 

connection from US-1 to the east, and currently crosses the railroad at-grade, is designed to be 

grade separated under the Preferred Alternative. A new roundabout west of the railroad provides 

east-west connectivity via Main Street and N. Beckford Drive, and north-south connectivity via N. 

Chestnut Street and N. Garnett Street. The Preferred Alternative maintains the existing underpass 

at Charles Street. The designs for a new bridge over the railroad at Alexander Avenue were revised 

for the FEIS to allow Nicholas Street to connect on the east side of the railroad, thereby retaining 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-195 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

existing north-south connectivity. Just south of town, the Preferred Alternative provides bridges 

over the railroad for JP Taylor Road and Bear Pond Road, and retains the US-1 Bypass bridges over 

the railroad. Because the Preferred Alternative provides grade separated crossings for the major 

east-west travel corridors in Henderson, NC, the Project is not expected to significantly impact 

connectivity in this area. 

There is no continuous roadway that provides for east-west travel through the town of Kittrell, NC. 

Main Street, however, does provide a connection to the east, with Kittrell College Road (SR 1105) 

connecting to the west. Main Street will be closed under the Preferred Alternative, with traffic 

relocated to a new bridged crossing approximately 650 feet south. While this would have some 

effect on traffic flow, it accommodates the traffic volume and provides approximately the same 

level of connectivity as currently exists. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY, NC 

Sections R, S and T of the Project are located within Franklin County, NC; the Preferred 

Alternative in these sections is Alternative NC1. 

Highway NC 56 provides the main east/west connection through the county, crossing the railroad in 

Franklinton, NC, by way of an underpass. The Preferred Alternative maintains a grade-separated 

crossing at NC 56 (Green Street) through an expansion of the existing underpass. 

Bert Winston Road crosses the railroad at grade in a location midway between Franklinton, NC, 

and Youngsville, NC. Under the Preferred Alternative, the road would be grade-separated through 

construction of a bridge, maintaining connectivity across the railroad in this part of the county. 

Highway NC 96 also provides east/west connectivity through the county, and currently crosses the 

railroad with an at-grade crossing in Youngsville, NC. The Preferred Alternative provides an 

extension/realignment of NC 96; crossing the railroad on a bridge north of town, then connecting 

with an extension of Cross Street on the east side of town. This design will enhance the 

connectivity for east/west through traffic. The east/west connectivity for local traffic will be 

maintained by the provision of a bridge over the railroad at Main Street. 

WAKE COUNTY, NC 

The Preferred Alternative within Wake County, NC, varies by Project section. In Section U, the 

Preferred Alternative is Alternative NC1; in Section V, the Preferred Alternative is Alternative 

NC5. 

A network of roads provides east/west access across the railroad in Wake County. As listed in 

Section 3.14, there are 30 major public road facilities in Wake County that cross the Preferred 

Alternative. Some of these major road facilities cross the railroad on existing bridges or 

underpasses, some cross at grade. The Preferred Alternative maintains connectivity by utilizing 

existing or constructing new bridges or underpasses for all but two of the major public road 

facilities in Wake County. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact 

connectivity. 

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 

Detailed traffic analyses were performed at locations throughout the Project corridor to determine the 

effects of rail crossing closures and consolidations on local traffic conditions. Section 3.14 identified 

these locations and outlined the existing traffic conditions for each location. For select intersections 

anticipated to experience an increase in traffic volume due to changes associated with the Project, 

Synchro (for signalized and unsignalized intersections) and HCS (for unsignalized intersections) were 

used to determine the change in level of service (LOS) and delay. Also, several intersections were 

analyzed to determine the expected queue for a particular movement (e.g., turning, through) to 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-196 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

determine if “spillback” (queuing from one intersection affecting traffic flow through an adjacent 

intersection) would affect nearby intersections. 

It should be noted that the purpose of these analyses was to help ensure that traffic operations with the 

Project were comparable to operations without the Project. While additional enhancements would be 

preferable in certain locations, improvements presented here are to provide similar or improved level 

of service and delay (as constraints allow) with the Project, not to mitigate all traffic operational 

issues in the Study Area. The removal of all at-grade rail crossings within the Study Area would 

improve traffic safely along the corridor considerably. The analysis is described in greater detail in 

the SEHSR Traffic Review (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014), which is available on CD from NCDOT 

by request. 

Appendix P includes figures displaying future traffic configurations (e.g., crossing closures, new 

bridges/underpasses, new/extended turn lanes) and predicted 2030 traffic volumes with and without 

the Project. 

OVERVIEW 

The following sections describe the effects on traffic from the proposed Project at each of the 

evaluated locations. The anticipated LOS for the Project alternatives in the year 2030 is compared 

to the LOS in the same location were the Project not constructed (i.e., a No Build scenario) for both 

the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak traffic conditions. The LOS system stratifies travelers' 

perceptions of the quality of service provided by the transportation facilities on a scale from A to F 

with A representing the best level of service. Level of service is not reported where a movement 

does not experience delay, such as a through movement with no stop condition or a free flowing 

right turn. In addition, LOS is not reported for future No Build conditions at intersections that 

would not exist without the Project (e.g., completely new roadway alignments). 

It should be noted that the Build and No Build conditions might have movements or approaches 

that have the same LOS rating at a given intersection, but still result in varying travel delay times 

per vehicle. In other words, even if an intersection, approach, or movement has the same level of 

service in the No Build or Build conditions, more than likely one will experience more travel time 

delay than the other will. For details on the estimated delay at evaluated intersections, refer to the 

SEHSR Traffic Review (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014). 

Of the intersections evaluated for potential traffic impacts, the following have the greatest predicted 

change in 2030 LOS with and without the Project, or are notable for other traffic-related changes 

due to the Project: 

Virginia 

Improvements 

o Chester Road and Perrymont Road (unsignalized), Chesterfield County – In 

the No Build conditions the eastbound approach is anticipated to operate at LOS 

F in the AM and PM peak periods. In the Build conditions the delay improves by 

78.5 seconds per vehicle and 72 seconds per vehicle in the AM and PM peaks 

respectively and the LOS improves to LOS E in the PM peak period (see Section 

4.14.2.2.1). 

o Chester Road and Park Road (unsignalized No Build / signalized Build), 

Chesterfield County – As a signalized intersection, the level of service 

experiences noticeable improvement on the side streets (southeast bound and 

northwest bound approaches), improving from LOS F to LOS E (see Section 

4.14.2.2.1) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-197 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

o Centralia Road and Chester Road (signalized), Chesterfield County – With the 

conversion of this intersection to two three-leg intersections, the approach 

movement levels of service improve from three operating at LOS F and two at 

LOS E (AM and PM combined) in the No Build conditions to one operating at 

LOS E in the Build conditions (see Section 4.14.2.3.1). 

Degradation 

o Old Lane and Chester Road (signalized No Build / unsignalized Build), 

Chesterfield County – While the level of service and or/delay does degrade 

considerably for Old Lane in the Build conditions, it should be noted that the 

volumes are noticeably lighter than in the No Build conditions and based on 

modelling the maximum queue length would be approximately 50 feet (see 

Section 4.14.2.3.1). 

North Carolina 

Improvements 

o Chestnut Street and Andrews Avenue (signalized), Henderson, NC – With the 

Project, multiple movements improve from LOS E and F between the No Build 

and Build conditions (see Section 4.14.2.7.2). 

o Garnett Street and Andrews Avenue (signalized), Henderson, NC – In the No 

Build conditions, this intersection has one approach operating at LOS E in AM 

Peak and two approaches operating at LOS F in the PM Peak. The Project will 

remove this intersection. Modelling results indicate that the analyzed 

intersections will operate similarly between the No Build and Build conditions 

(see Section 4.14.2.7.2). 

o Williams Street and Andrews Avenue (unsignalized), Henderson, NC – In the 

No Build conditions, this intersection has one approach operating at LOS F in 

AM Peak and one approach operating at LOS E and one at LOS F in the PM 

Peak. The Project will remove this intersection. Modelling results indicate that 

the analyzed intersections will operate similarly between the No Build and Build 

conditions (see Section 4.14.2.7.2). 

o US-1 Business and Welcome Avenue/Belmont Avenue (signalized), 

Henderson, NC – In the No Build conditions, all intersection approaches except 

for the northbound approach operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peaks. 

The westbound leg is removed as part of the Project which results in no 

movement operating below LOS C. Modelling results indicate that the 

intersections in the surrounding network impacted by the work at this intersection 

will operate al LOS C or better (see Section 4.14.2.7.4). 

o US-1 Business and JP Taylor Road (signalized), Henderson, NC – In the No 

Build conditions, this intersection has an approach operating at LOS F in the AM 

Peak and LOS E in the PM peak. This intersection is removed as part of the 

Project. Modelling results indicate that the replacement intersection of JP Taylor 

Road Extension and Belmont Drive will not have any movements operating 

worse than LOS C (see Section 4.14.2.7.4). 

o US-1 Business and Bear Pond Road (signalized), Henderson, NC – In the No 

Build conditions, this intersection has several approaches operating at LOS E or 

LOS F. This intersection is removed as part of the Project. Based on modelling 

results, the replacement intersections of US-1 Business and New Connector south 

of Bear Pond Road and Bear Pond Road and New Connector west of US-1 

Business would not have any movements operating worse than LOS C (see 

Section 4.14.2.7.5). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-198 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

o US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road (signalized No Build / unsignalized Build), 

Henderson, NC – In the No Build conditions, this intersection has several 

approaches operating at LOS E or LOS F. This eastern leg of this intersection is 

removed as part of the Project. The remaining movements are expected to 

operate at LOS C or better in the Build conditions. Also, the proposed 

intersection of US-1 Business and Wildlife Lane, which would serve traffic from 

both the intersections of Peter Gill Road and Eastern Minerals Road with US-1 

Business, is expected to operate at LOS D or better with no approach operating 

below LOS D (see Section 4.14.2.7.5). 

o Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue (signalized), 

Raleigh, NC – this intersection has several approaches operate at LOS F in the 

No Build conditions. In the PM peak, the overall operations are anticipated to 

operate at LOS F in the No Build conditions. With the provision of a grade 

separation in the Build conditions, no approach is expected to operate worse than 

LOS C. However, the replacement intersection of Wolfpack Lane and Beechleaf 

Court is expected to have an approach operate at LOS E in the PM peak, and 

rerouted traffic will result in one approach of the Highwoods Boulevard and 

Beechleaf Court intersection to degrade to LOS F (see Section 4.14.2.10.1). 

Degradation 

o Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street (unsignalized), Henderson, NC – With 

the Project, three movements degrade to LOS E or LOS F. If the City of 

Henderson determines that a signal is warranted and it is installed by the design 

year, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. A simulation 

of the intersection did not indicate considerable queuing under two-way stop 

control with a maximum queue of 221 feet eastbound and 75 feet westbound. 

The appropriate intersection control will be investigated near the time of 

construction and be based on volume, geometric conditions, and constraints 

among other factors (see Section 4.14.2.7.3). 

o Montgomery Street and Garnett Street (signalized No Build / unsignalized 

Build), Henderson, NC – With the Project, this intersection is essentially 

converted to a “T” intersection and was analyzed under stop control. In this 

instance, the eastbound approaches drop in level of service from LOS B to LOS 

E in the PM peak. It should be noted that operating unsignalized allows Garnett 

Street to operate with considerably less delay than in the No Build conditions. 

Also, the anticipated queue is only expected to be approximately 100 feet and, if 

it warrants signalization by 2030, the intersection is anticipated to operate as well 

as if not better than No Build conditions (see Section 4.14.2.7.2). 

o Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court (signalized), Raleigh, NC – With 

the rerouted traffic associated with the Project, the southwest bound approach is 

expected to degrade from LOS D to LOS F with 146.8 seconds per vehicle 

increase in delay in PM peak period. Given the southwest bound leg serves a 

parking lot with alternative access, no improvements were provided to this leg as 

part of the Project (see Section 4.14.2.10.1). 

As evidenced by the bullets above, only a few of the numerous locations analyzed vary 

considerably between the No Build and Build conditions with most resulting in improvements in 

the Build conditions. This is because effort was taken to provide a concept that would allow traffic 

to operate at similarly or at better levels of service than it would without the Project. When traffic 

operations degraded in comparison to conditions under the No Build, it generally was the result of 

either the fact that low traffic volumes were affected or there were human or environmental 

constraints in the intersection area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-199 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

It should be noted that the above bullets are based on level of service and when operations reach 

capacity, other measures such as delay or simulations can provide a better comparison of 

operations. However, a majority of the intersections along the Project corridor that are affected by 

the Project are not expected to operate at or above capacity. 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA 

KINGSLAND ROAD/NORCLIFF ROAD AND PERRYMONT ROAD - 

BELLWOOD AREA 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the VA1, VA2, and VA3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 8 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. To facilitate east-west traffic movements in this area, which are affected by the 

proposed closure of the Kingsland Road at-grade rail crossing near Chester Road, a realignment 

of Kingsland Road, including a new grade separated crossing over the proposed Project railroad 

alignment and Chester Road, is proposed. This facility will connect Kingsland Road from its 

intersection with Dorsey Road to Perrymont Road, replacing the church driveway as the western 

leg of the intersection of Perrymont Road and Norcliff Road. Traffic utilizing the existing atgrade rail crossing of Kingsland Road located just west of Chester Road would utilize the new 

alignment and associated grade separated crossing in the proposed design. Some of that traffic is 

anticipated to use the intersection of Norcliff Road and US-1 to perform their desired maneuvers. 

The anticipated operations for Chester Road and Perrymont Road, Norcliff Road and Perrymont 

Road, Norcliff Road and US-1, and Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road intersections are provided 

below. 

Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US-1: The traffic volumes for this intersection are similar 

between the No Build and Proposed conditions; therefore, no modifications are proposed as part 

of the Project. Appendix P Figures 3 and 4 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

traffic volumes for the Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US-1 intersection. Table 4-50 provides 

the intersection approach level of service for the Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US1intersection in the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-50, each 

approach maintains the same or improves the level of service in the proposed conditions. The 

overall intersection level of service improves one letter grade for both the AM and PM peak 

periods with the proposed conditions. 

Table 4-50 

Chester Road/Bellwood Road and US-1 – Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) F F F D 

No Build (PM) E E C C 

Proposed (AM) F F E D 

Proposed (PM) E E C C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Perrymont Road and Chester Road/Driveway: At this intersection, aside from increasing the 

radius of the southbound right-turn, the proposed laneage is identical to the existing laneage. 

Appendix P Figures 3 and 4 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour traffic volumes for 

the Chester Road and Perrymont Road intersection, respectively. Table 4-51 provides the 

intersection approach level of service for the Chester Road and Perrymont Road intersection in 

the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. With the provision of the Kingsland Road 

extension, the volumes at this intersection decrease. As expected, and shown in Table 4-51, the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-200 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

operations are very similar for most movements in the proposed and No Build conditions; 

however, the eastbound movement is noticeably improved in the 2030 proposed conditions. 

Table 4-51 

Chester Road and Perrymont Road/Driveway – Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) F B A A 

No Build (PM) F B A A 

Proposed (AM) F B A A 

Proposed (PM) E B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Kingsland Road and Chester Road: The Chester Road and Kingsland Road intersection is 

removed as part of the Project; therefore, no analysis was performed for the 2030 proposed 

conditions. Traffic from this intersection will be rerouted to the extension of Kingsland Road to 

Norcliff Road. 

Norcliff Road and Perrymont Road/Church Parking Lot: With the proposed Kingsland Road 

realignment, the existing church parking lot on the west side of the Perrymont Road and Norcliff 

Road intersection is replaced by the realigned Kingsland Road. The only proposed change in 

laneage is to restripe the westbound approach to provide a westbound left-turn lane. Appendix P 

Figures 3 and 4 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour traffic volumes for the Norcliff 

Road and Perrymont Road intersection, respectively. Table 4-52 provides the level of service for 

the 2030 No-Build and proposed scenarios. As shown in Table 4-52, even with the additional 

traffic associated with the Kingsland Road extension, the No Build and proposed scenarios 

operate similarly. Also, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in the design 

year with the proposed design. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-201 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-52 

Norcliff Road and Perrymont Road/Church Parking Lot – Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A A A 

No Build (PM) B B A A 

Proposed (AM) B B A A 

Proposed (PM) C B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Norcliff Road and US-1: With the connection of the realignment of Kingsland Road to the 

existing driveway on the west side of the Perrymont Road and Norcliff Road intersection, turning 

movements from/to the western leg of the Norcliff Road and US-1 intersection are anticipated to 

increase. The only proposed laneage modification for the Norcliff Road and US-1 intersection is 

to restripe the eastbound approach to provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane. Appendix P 

Figures 3 and 4 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour traffic volumes for the Norcliff 

Road and US-1 intersection, respectively. This intersection was analyzed as a four-leg 

intersection operating under stop control with Norcliff Road experiencing the stop condition. 

Table 4-53 provides the level of service for the Norcliff Road and US-1 intersection in the future 

No- Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-53, even with the eastbound left-turn 

lane, operation of the eastbound approach degrades in the 2030 proposed scenario, while the 

remaining approaches operate similarly in the proposed scenario as compared to the No Build. It 

should be noted that providing an exclusive left-turn lane removes the effect the through and 

right-turn movements have on the operations, which would improve the overall reported 

operations, but worsen the through and right-turn movement reported operations. Based on a 

request from Chesterfield County, this intersection was analyzed under signal control. While the 

need for a signal will be determined at/near the time of construction, under signal control, this 

intersection is expected to operate at LOS C or better in the design year. 

Table 4-53 

Norcliff Road and US-1 – Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) E F A A 

No Build (PM) F F A A 

Proposed (AM) F F A A 

Proposed (PM) F F A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road: The Project proposes to extend Kingsland Road from Dorsey 

Road to Norcliff Road and remove the at-grade rail crossing of Kingsland Road. These 

modifications will considerably alter traffic flow at the Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road 

intersection. The Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road intersection will be converted from a threeleg intersection to a four-leg intersection and the predominant traffic flow is anticipated to be 

east-west instead of north-south. During final design, the Project Team will coordinate with 

VDOT and Chesterfield County to consider making the intersection northbound and southbound 

approaches stop controlled, and the eastbound and westbound approaches free flowing 

movements. The intersection was analyzed with that configuration for the 2030 proposed 

conditions. 

Appendix P Figures 3 and 4 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour traffic volumes for 

the Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road intersection, respectively. Table 4-54 provides the level of 

service for the Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road intersection in the 2030 No Build and proposed 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-202 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

conditions. As shown in Table 4-54, this intersection is anticipated to have all movements 

operate at LOS B or better in both the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. 

Table 4-54 

Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road – Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A -- A -- 

No Build (PM) B -- A -- 

Proposed (AM) A A B A 

Proposed (PM) A A B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

CHESTER ROAD AND BRINKLEY ROAD - BELLWOOD AREA 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the VA1, VA2, and VA3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 9 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. Under the proposed design conditions, the existing at-grade rail crossing of 

Brinkley Road located just west of Chester Road will be closed. To service the Brinkley Road 

traffic and other local area traffic currently using that at-grade rail crossing, a new grade 

separated crossing including a new connection from Thurston Road to Park Road is proposed as 

part of the Project. The traffic currently using the Brinkley Road crossing will be able to utilize 

the new grade separated crossing and access Chester Road as the west leg of the intersection of 

Chester Road and Park Road. Traffic can also use the connection to bypass part of Hopkins Road 

or Chester Road depending on their origin and destination. The intersections in this area were 

analyzed to determine the impacts of this option. 

Chester Road and Brinkley Road: With the proposed Project, the existing at-grade rail crossing 

adjacent to the Brinkley Road and Chester Road intersection will be closed. This will remove the 

current access of Brinkley Road to Chester Road. This traffic will reroute to other surrounding 

intersections. 

Hopkins Road and Thurston Road: With the proposed Project, which includes the at-grade 

crossing closure at Old Lane Road, additional traffic will be rerouted to the intersection of 

Hopkins Road and Thurston Road. Traffic will be rerouted to use the new connector to access 

Chester Road. Some traffic currently using the Brinkley Road at-grade rail crossing may also 

reroute to this intersection. No laneage modifications were proposed to the Hopkins Road and 

Thurston Road intersection. Appendix P Figures 7 and 8 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and 

traffic volumes for the Hopkins Road and Thurston Road intersection, respectively. Table 4-55 

below provides the level of service for the Hopkins Road and Thurston Road intersection 2030 

No Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-55, all movements for the Hopkins 

Road and Thurston Road intersection are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in 2030 with 

and without the proposed Project. 

Table 4-55 

Hopkins Road and Thurston Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Southbound Northwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) A C 

No Build (PM) A B 

Proposed (AM) A C 

Proposed (PM) A C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-203 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Kingsdale Road and Chester Road: With the proposed new connection between Thurston Road 

and Park Road and associated grade separation, the overall traffic at the Kingsdale Road and 

Chester Road intersection is anticipated to decrease slightly. Even though traffic volumes 

decreased slightly, an improvement is proposed to the northbound approach to extend the rightturn lane south to the upstream intersection of Chester Road and Park Road/Thurston Road 

Connection. While this improvement is more closely tied to the Chester Road and Park 

Road/Thurston Road Connector intersection, it will improve northbound operations on Chester 

Road. The 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Kingsdale Road and Chester 

Road intersection are shown by Appendix P Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Table 4-56 provides 

the level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-56, the 

proposed design provides overall better level of service for the Kingsdale Road and Chester Road 

intersection in the PM peak period of the 2030 design year and the same level of service and 

reduced delay in the AM peak period. One approach, westbound, degrades from LOS D to LOS E 

in the AM peak period but the overall delay improves slightly in the proposed conditions and that 

same movement improves from LOS F to LOS E in the PM peak period with the proposed 

design. As previously mentioned, it should be noted that the overall volumes with the proposed 

design are anticipated to be less at this intersection as compared to the No Build conditions. 

Table 4-56 

Kingsdale Road and Chester Road – Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) D B A 

No Build (PM) F B D 

Proposed (AM) E A B 

Proposed (PM) E A D 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Thurston Road and Thurston Connector: This intersection is created with the proposed Project 

design, which includes the new connection from Thurston Road to Chester Road. This new 

connection, which provides a grade separation over the proposed Project railroad alignment, will 

provide access to/from Chester Road to help mitigate the closure of the Brinkley Road and Old 

Lane Road at-grade crossings. This intersection was analyzed under stop control. Appendix P 

Figures 7 and 8 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes, while Table 4-57 

provides the level of service for the 2030 proposed conditions. Based on the level of service 

analysis, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in the 2030 proposed 

conditions 

Table 4-57 

Thurston Road and Thurston Connector - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A B 

Proposed (PM) A B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Park Road/Thurston Connector and Chester Road: The function of this intersection changes with 

the proposed design, which includes the new connection from Thurston Road to Chester Road. 

This new connection, which provides a grade separation over the proposed P alignment, will add 

considerably more traffic to the west leg of this intersection and to the turning movements from 

Chester Road to the new connector. To help mitigate the effect of the increased volume, turn lane 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-204 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

improvements were provided for this intersection. Also, a proposed improvement to the 

Kingsdale Road and Chester Road intersection is expected to considerably improve operations of 

this intersection. Appendix P Figures 7 and 8 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes, while Table 4-58 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed 

conditions. Based on the level of service analysis, the side street approaches for the intersection 

of Chester Road and Park Road will experience LOS F conditions by 2030 without the proposed 

Project and LOS E with the Project. The Chester Road approaches are anticipated to operate at 

LOS D or better with or without the Project. 

Table 4-58 

Chester Road and Park Road/Thurston Connector- Level of Service in 2030 

Northbound Southbound Southeast 

bound 

Northwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) A B D F 

No Build (PM) B A F F 

Proposed (AM) B B D E 

Proposed (PM) C D E E 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

It should be noted that the No Build conditions were analyzed as an unsignalized two-way stop 

controlled intersection with the driveway and Park Road movements operating under stop control 

while the proposed conditions were analyzed under signal control based on the proposed laneage 

and estimated 2030 volumes. It should also be noted that while not included in this analysis, 

there is a northbound lane addition from the VA 288 interchange with Chester Road that results in 

weaving operations between the interchange and the Park Road and Chester Road intersection. 

The provision of a signal at this location will extend the northbound queues, and therefore 

considerably reduce the allowable weaving distance for these maneuvers. Therefore, it is 

recommended to tie in the existing northwest bound right-turn lane from VA 288 and remove the 

weave that exists today if the intersection of Chester Road and Park Road/Thurston Connector is 

signalized. This enhancement may be needed by the design year with or without the Project. 

CHESTER, VA 

OLD LANE, CENTRALIA ROAD AND CHESTER ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the VA1, VA2, and VA3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 10 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. As a result of the crossing consolidation, Virginia DRPT assumed that traffic 

currently utilizing the Old Lane and Centralia Road at-grade rail crossings would use the 

proposed grade separations on the revised Centralia Road connection or the proposed Thurston 

Road Connector to Park Road. Traffic volumes were estimated for these intersections and 

analyses performed to determine the effect the proposed Project would have on traffic. 

Old Lane and Hopkins Road: Current designs for the Project include removal of the Old Lane atgrade rail crossing , which will decrease the amount of traffic on the eastern leg of the Old Lane 

and Hopkins Road intersection, but will increase traffic on the western leg and alter the traffic 

patterns. It is anticipated that this traffic will reroute either to the new grade separated crossing at 

Centralia Road or at the Thurston Road Connector. Based on anticipated traffic volumes, this 

intersection was analyzed as a stop condition for the southbound leg only in the 2030 proposed 

conditions. Appendix P Figures 11 and 12 provide the proposed laneage and associated 2030 

peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 4-59 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build 

and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-59, the intersection of Old Lane and Hopkins 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-205 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Road is expected to operate similarly in the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions with no 

movement operating worse than LOS D. 

Table 4-59 

Old Lane and Hopkins Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A B 

No Build (PM) A D 

Proposed (AM) A B 

Proposed (PM) A B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Old Lane and Chester Road: The Old Lane at-grade rail crossing is proposed to be closed as part 

of the Project, considerably reducing the traffic volume at the intersection of Old Lane and 

Chester Road. It is anticipated that this traffic will reroute either to the new grade separated 

crossing at Centralia Road or at the Thurston Road Connector. Based on anticipated traffic 

volumes, this intersection was analyzed under signal control for the 2030 No Build conditions, 

but a signal must be deemed to be warranted before it is provided. The intersection was analyzed 

under stop control for the No Build conditions due to the minor volume on that section of Old 

Lane. Appendix P Figures 11 and 12 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes, 

respectively. Table 4-60 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed 

conditions for the Old Lane and Chester Road intersection. As shown in Table 4-60, while both 

the eastbound left-turn and right-turn movements are expected to operate at LOS F in the 2030 

proposed conditions, it should be noted that these volumes are light (considerably less than the 

No Build condition) and the maximum queue is anticipated to be approximately 50 feet. 

Table 4-60 

Old Lane and Chester Road – Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) D A C 

No Build (PM) F C C 

Proposed (AM) F A -- 

Proposed (PM) F C -- 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Centralia Road and Chester Road: As previously mentioned, the existing at-grade rail crossing of 

Centralia Road at Chester Road is proposed to be removed as part of the Project. The traffic using 

this crossing is anticipated to relocate to the new grade separated crossing of Centralia Road and 

the proposed Project railroad alignment. With the proposed design, the existing Centralia Road 

and Chester Road intersection will remain, but convert to a “T” intersection as the western leg is 

removed. The grade separation will relocate the western leg to the eastern side of Chester Road 

approximately 950 feet south of the existing intersection. Based upon the proposed laneage and 

anticipated volumes, this intersection was analyzed under signal control for each condition and 

location. Appendix P Figures 11 and 12 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for both intersections of Centralia Road and Chester Road, respectively. Table 4-61 and 

Table 4-62 provide the level of service for both Centralia Road and Chester Road intersections 

for the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-206 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-61 

Centralia Road and Chester Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) E F E C 

No Build (PM) F F F D 

Proposed (AM) -- E B B 

Proposed (PM) -- D B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

As shown by Table 4-61, while the westbound movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E in 

the AM peak period, the overall intersection operations are improved over the No Build 

Conditions due to the removal of the eastbound leg of the intersection and its associated traffic. 

Table 4-62 

New Connection of Centralia Road and Chester Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- -- 

Proposed (AM) B D D 

Proposed (PM) C C C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Based on the level of service analysis results shown in Table 4-62, the intersection of the new 

connection of Centralia Road and Chester Road will operate at an improved level of service over 

the 2030 No Build operations of the Chester Road and Centralia Road intersection. It is important 

to note that based on the anticipated design year volumes, Chester Road will warrant multi-lanes 

by the design year. With only one northbound through lane, the available “green” time for the 

competing movements is limited and considerable queuing is anticipated in the northbound 

direction. Chester Road will need to be widened to provide additional lanes in this area by the 

2030 design year with or without the Project as indicated in the No Build analysis. 

Centralia Road and Hopkins Road: With the closure of the existing Old Lane at-grade crossing 

and the provision of the Thurston Road Connector proposed as part of the Project, traffic at the 

intersection of Centralia Road and Hopkins Road will change from the No Build conditions. Turn 

lane enhancements were provided at this intersection to help mitigate the additional traffic flow 

due to the Project. Based on the projected volumes in 2030, this intersection was analyzed under 

signal control for each condition; however, this assumes that a signal study would take place prior 

to the design year to determine if a signal was warranted. Appendix P Figures 11 and 12 provide 

the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the intersection of Centralia Road and 

Hopkins Road, respectively. Table 4-63 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and 

proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-63, with the SEHSR and proposed intersection 

improvements and traffic pattern modifications associated with the modifications, the Centralia 

Road and Hopkins Road intersection is anticipated to improve the level of service in the PM peak 

period as compared to the No Build conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-207 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-63 

Centralia Road and Hopkins Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) D C D D 

No Build (PM) E F F F 

Proposed (AM) C C D D 

Proposed (PM) D F F F 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

LA CROSSE, VA 

PINE STREET AND MAIN STREET 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the VA1, VA2, and VA3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 83 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed design in 

this location. The proposed design will disallow east-west travel along Pine Street at the old rail 

corridor between Main Street and Montgomery Street. The analysis for this section assumed all 

rerouted traffic would utilize US 58 as the east-west facility. As part of that analysis, traffic was 

rerouted to the intersections of US 58 and Main Street, Pine Street and Main Street, and Carter 

Street and Pine Street to evaluate the traffic operations related to the effects of this scenario. Also 

of note, the current design calls for Carter Street to be extended to the north. This extension is to 

provide access to a small number of parcels and connect to Northington Road to the north. This 

extension was assumed to not generate significant traffic volumes at the intersection of Carter 

Street and US 58. 

A roundabout is proposed at the relocated intersection of Main Street, Jones Street, and Meredith 

Street. This intersection, along with the proposed grade separation over the proposed Project 

railroad alignment, will serve to replace the connection that is currently provided by Main Street 

and would be severed under the Project. 

US 58 and Main Street/Country Club Road: With the proposed closure of the Pine Street at-grade 

crossing, east-west traffic on Pine Street is rerouted to US 58 with some of that traffic using Main 

Street to access US 58. Appendix P Figures 15 and 16 provide the Proposed 2030 laneage and 

peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 4-64 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build 

and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-64, in the No Build and proposed conditions, all 

approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better in the design year with the Project in 

place. Based on these operations, no modifications were proposed to the intersection geometry as 

part of the Project. 

Table 4-64 

US 58 and Main Street/Country Club Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B C C B 

No Build (PM) B B C C 

Proposed (AM) C C C B 

Proposed (PM) C B D C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Pine Street and Main Street: The proposed Project will sever Pine Street between Main Street and 

Montgomery Street. East-west traffic along Pine Street will have to reroute to perform their 

desired maneuver. Some traffic is anticipated to use Main Street to access US 58 and perform an 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-208 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

east-west maneuver. Appendix P Figures 15 and 16 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak 

hour volumes, respectively. Table 4-65 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and 

proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-65, with the rerouted traffic all movements are 

anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in the 2030 design year No Build and proposed 

conditions. Based on these operations, no modifications were proposed to the intersection as part 

of the Project. 

Table 4-65 

Pine Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B A A 

No Build (PM) B B A A 

Proposed (AM) B A A A 

Proposed (PM) B B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Carter Street and Pine Street: As with Main Street, with the closure of the Pine Street crossing at 

the proposed Project railroad alignment, some traffic will reroute to use Carter Street to access 

US 58 or travel south to reach the provided grade separation at Main Street to travel east-west. 

Appendix P Figures 15 and 16 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes, 

respectively. Table 4-66 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed 

conditions. As shown by Table 4-66, with the rerouted traffic all movements are anticipated to 

operate at LOS A in the 2030 design year proposed conditions. Based on this information, no 

modifications were proposed as part of the Project. 

Table 4-66 

Carter Street and Pine Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A A A 

No Build (PM) A A A A 

Proposed (AM) A A A A 

Proposed (PM) A A A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US 58 and Pine Street: With the closure of Pine Street to through traffic at the proposed Project 

railroad alignment, traffic may also take Pine Street to Main Street or Carter Street to access US 

58 to perform an east-west maneuver. Appendix P Figures 15 and 16 provide the 2030 proposed 

laneage and peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 4-67 provides the level of service for the 

2030 No Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-67, with the rerouted traffic, all 

movements are anticipated to operate as well as or better in the proposed conditions than in the 

No Build conditions. Also, all movements operate at LOS B or better in the 2030 proposed 

conditions. Based on this information, no modifications were proposed as part of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-209 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-67 

US 58 and Pine Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound 

No Build (AM) A A B 

No Build (PM) B A C 

Proposed (AM) A A B 

Proposed (PM) A A B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

NORLINA, NC 

WARREN PLAINS ROAD AND YANCEY ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in Norlina, NC, (Section M) is Alternative NC1. Refer to map sheets 

98 and 99 in Appendix R for maps of the proposed designs in Norlina, NC. The proposed Project 

railroad alignment will split Warren Plains Road just west of its intersection with Yancey Road. 

To the east of the split, Warren Plains Road is proposed to be extended northwest to intersect US1/US 401. This relocation will provide a grade separated crossing of the proposed Project railroad 

alignment. The SEHSR design also proposes to provide a connection to the existing section of 

Warren Plains Road between the Project railroad alignment and the relocated Warren Plains 

Road. This connection is accomplished by relocating existing Warren Plains Road to access the 

new section of Warren Plains Road. This access provides a connection from Yancey Road to the 

extended Warren Plains Road and would be facilitated by a new alignment and "T" connection 

between the existing and the relocated Warren Plains Road. This connection will provide access 

to/from Yancey Road to/from Warren Plains and US-1/US 401. Also, the connection of existing 

Warren Plains Road from Yancey Road to Hyco Street (west of the Yancey Road intersection) 

would be removed. To access downtown Norlina, NC, from existing Yancey Road, drivers would 

use US-158/US 401 on the south end of Yancey Road, or use the new connector to access US1/US 401 north of Norlina, NC. The Project will also sever the connection of Weldon Road with 

US-1/US 401. This traffic will now need to use the new connection of Warren Plains Road and 

US-1/US 401. 

US-1/US 401 and New Warren Plains-Norlina Road Connection/Norlina Pines Drive: The 

proposed Project railroad alignment would split Warren Plains-Norlina Road west of Yancey 

Road; therefore, the projected volumes at the intersection of Yancey Road and Warren PlainsNorlina Road wishing to access US-1 or downtown Norlina, NC, would be relocated to the new 

connection of US-1 and Warren Pines Road. This new connection will form the fourth leg of the 

existing intersection of Norlina Pines Drive and US-1. It is important to note this intersection is 

approximately 450 feet from the intersection of US-1 and Elementary Avenue, which provides 

access to an elementary school. The intersection is proposed as an unsignalized intersection with 

the new Warren Plains-Norlina Road connection and Norlina Pines Drive experiencing the stop 

condition. The 2030 proposed laneage and volumes are shown by Appendix P Figures 19 and 20, 

respectively. Table 4-68 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and the proposed 

conditions. As shown in Table 4-68, with the rerouted traffic associated with the proposed 

Project and proposed laneage, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in the 

2030 proposed conditions, except for the southeast approach, which is anticipated to operate at 

LOS C in the AM peak period. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-210 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-68 

Warren Plains–Norlina Road Extension/Norlina Pines Drive and US-1/US 401 - Level of 

Service in 2030 

Southeast 

bound 

Northeast 

bound 

Southwest 

bound 

Northwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) B A -- -- 

No Build (PM) B A -- -- 

Proposed (AM) C B A A 

Proposed (PM) B B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Yancey Road: The existing intersection of Warren PlainsNorlina Road and Yancey Road will be removed as part of the Project. 

Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Warren Plains-Norlina Road Connector: The Warren PlainsNorlina Road and Warren Plains Road-Norlina Connector intersection is a new intersection 

proposed as part of the Project. The Project railroad alignment as proposed will split Warren 

Plains-Norlina Road west of Yancey Road. At this point east of the alignment, Warren PlainsNorlina Road will begin at its intersection with Yancey Road. The projected volumes at the 

intersection of Yancey Road and Warren Plains-Norlina Road wishing to access US-1 or 

downtown Norlina, NC, would be relocated to the new connection of US-1 and Warren PlainsNorlina Road via the Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Warren Plains Road Connector. This 

intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection with the Warren Plains Connector 

approach experiencing the stop condition. Appendix P Figures 19 and 20 provide the 2030 

proposed laneage and peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 4-69 provides level of service for 

the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-69, in the 2030 proposed conditions, all 

approaches are expected to operate at LOS A. 

Table 4-69 

Warren Plains–Norlina Road and Warren Plains–Norlina Road Connector - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Weldon Road and Warren Plains-Norlina Road: The Project railroad alignment will sever the 

Weldon Road connection to US-1/US 401; therefore, this traffic will be rerouted to the new 

Warren Plains-Norlina Road and US-1/US 401 intersection. The Warren Plains-Norlina Road and 

Weldon Road intersection was analyzed under the same traffic control conditions as existing, an 

unsignalized “T” intersection with Weldon Road experiencing the stop condition. Appendix P 

Figures 19 and 20 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 

4-70 provides the delay and level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As 

shown by Table 4-70, all approaches are expected to operate at LOS A in both the 2030 design 

year No Build and proposed conditions. Based on this analysis, no modifications were proposed 

to the Warren Plains-Norlina Road and Weldon Road intersection as part of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-211 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-70 

Weldon Road and Warren Plains–Norlina Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A 

No Build (PM) A A 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

WARREN PLAINS ROAD AND HYCO STREET 

The Preferred Alternative in Norlina, NC, (Section M) is Alternative NC1. Refer to map sheet 

100 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs. With the proposed Project, the connection 

between Division Street and Warren Plains Road will be removed, Warren Plains Road will be 

severed between Yancey Road and Washington Street, and the intersections of Liberty Street and 

Hyco Street with US-158/US 401 will be removed. Traffic from these closures would be rerouted 

to US 401/US-158 via other surrounding roadways such as Main Street and US-1/US 401. 

Warren Plains Road and Hyco Street: With the removal of the Division Street and Warren Plains 

Road intersection, the removal of the Hyco Street and US-1/US-158 intersection, and the splitting 

of Warren Plains Road east of Hyco Street due to the Project, most traffic at the Hyco Road and 

Warren Plains Road intersection would have to reroute. This traffic is anticipated to use US-1/US 

401, Main Street, and US-1/US-158. Appendix P Figures 19 and 20 provide the 2030 proposed 

laneage and peak hour volumes for the Warren Plains Road and Hyco Street intersection. Table 4-

71 provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. As shown by 

Table 4-71, with the new traffic patterns associated with the Project, which reduces traffic at this 

intersection, and the proposed design, all approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS A or better 

in the 2030 design year for both the No Build and proposed conditions. Therefore, no 

modifications are proposed for this intersection as part of the Project 

Table 4-71 

Warren Plains Road and Hyco Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A 

No Build (PM) A A 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1/US 401 and Hyco Street/North Street: No modifications are proposed to the US-1/US 401 

and Hyco Street/North Street intersection as part of the Project. While the rerouting of traffic due 

to the Project reduces turning movements at this intersection, it increases the through traffic on 

US-1/US 401 as traffic diverts to US-1/US-158 or Warren Plains Road to reach their destination. 

Appendix P Figures 19 and 20 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the 

US-1/US 401 and Hyco Street/North Street intersection. Table 4-72 provides a comparison of the 

2030 No Build and Proposed operations for the US-1/US 401 and Hyco Street/North Street 

intersection. As shown by Table 4-72, with the rerouted traffic and the proposed design, all 

approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in the 2030 design year proposed 

conditions, which is comparable to the No Build conditions. Therefore, no modifications are 

proposed to this intersection as part of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-212 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-72 

US-1/US 401 and Hyco Street/North Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A B B 

No Build (PM) A A B B 

Proposed (AM) A A C B 

Proposed (PM) A A B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Warren Plains Road and Division Street: The Warren Plains Road and Division Street 

intersection is proposed to be removed as part of the Project and the traffic will be rerouted. 

Liberty Street and US 401/US-158: The existing intersection of Liberty Street and US-158/US 

401 will be removed as part of the Project. It is less than 100 feet from the existing grade 

separation of the rail line and US-1/US-158; the proposed new grade separation constructed for 

this Project will be at the same location as the existing grade separation. This new structure has 

the potential to cause sight distance issues for drivers wishing to turn from Liberty Street to US158/US 401, but this concern is removed with the elimination of the intersection. 

Liberty Street and Division Street: The existing intersection of Liberty Street and Division Street 

is less than 100 feet from the proposed Project railroad alignment and will be removed as part of 

the Project. 

Main Street and US 401/US-158: With the proposed closure of Division Street between Liberty 

Street and Hyco Street, the traffic using the existing at-grade crossing was rerouted to Main 

Street. Traffic currently using this section of Division Street has multiple facilities in the grid 

network to access US 401/US-158 and reach their intended destination. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the majority of this traffic was rerouted to the intersection of Main Street and US 

401/158. The closure of the east leg of the intersection of Liberty Street and US 401/158 will 

route traffic to Elm Street or Division Street and back to Main Street. The closure of the east and 

west legs of the intersection of Hyco Street and US 401/US-158 is anticipated to route traffic 

back to US-1/US 401 and US-1/US-158 to reach their desired destination. 

With the closure of the crossing at Division Street and the additional changes to the above 

intersections, the intersection of Main Street and US 401/US-158 was analyzed to estimate 

operations with the proposed SEHSR in place in the 2030 design year. The Project proposes to 

provide a northbound and southbound left-turn lane along US-1/US-158 at the Main Street 

intersection. Appendix P Figures 19 and 20 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Main Street and US-158/US 401 intersection. Table 4-73 provides a comparison 

of the 2030 No Build and proposed operations for the Main Street and US-158/US 401 

intersection. As shown by Table 4-73, with the anticipated volumes and proposed laneage, all 

approaches are anticipated to operate at the same level of service between the 2030 No build and 

Proposed conditions. 

Table 4-73 

Main Street and US 401/US-158 - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) C C A A 

No Build (PM) C C A A 

Proposed (AM) C C A A 

Proposed (PM) C C A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-213 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US-1 AND AXTELL-RIDGEWAY ROAD AND RIDGEWAY-DREWRY ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. It should be noted that the road designs for this area were revised from what 

was presented in the Tier II DEIS based on comments from local officials and the public. (See 

Section 2.2.19 for more information on this change.) Refer to map sheets 101 and 102 in 

Appendix R for maps of the proposed designs. With the proposed closures of the at-grade rail 

crossings at Axtell Ridgeway Road and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road, traffic from these locations 

will be rerouted across the proposed Ridgeway-Drewry Road grade separated crossing of the 

Project railroad alignment. The grade separated crossing on the proposed extension of RidgewayDrewry Road will allow vehicles to travel to/from US-1/US-158. 

US-1/US-158 and Axtell Ridgeway Road/Driveway: The Axtell Ridgway Road leg of the US1/US-158 and Axtell Ridgeway Road intersection will be removed under the Project; the 

driveway which serves as the northern leg of the intersection will remain. Appendix P Figures 23 

and 24 provide the 2030 laneage and Proposed peak hour volumes for the US-1/US-158 and 

Driveway intersection (Axtell Ridgeway Road is removed from the intersection) while Table 4-74 

provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 

4-74, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS C better in the 2030 No Build and 

Proposed conditions. Therefore, no additional enhancements are proposed as part of the Project. 

Table 4-74 

US-1/US-158 and Axtell Ridgeway Road/Driveway - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A B C 

No Build (PM) A A C C 

Proposed (AM) A -- -- C 

Proposed (PM) A -- -- B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road: The Project will provide an extension of RidgewayDrewry Road, which includes a grade separated crossing of the proposed Project railroad 

alignment. This new connection will extend northward from US-1 for approximately one half 

mile to connect back to existing Ridgeway-Drewry Road. This extension and associated grade 

separation will provide access for vehicles on Axtell Ridgeway Road and Ridgeway-Warrenton 

Road to access US-1/US-158 and vice versa, replacing the removed at-grade rail crossings on 

each of these facilities. Appendix P Figures 23 and 24 provide the 2030 laneage and proposed 

peak hour volumes for the US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road intersection, while Table 

4-75 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by 

Table 4-75, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS C better in the 2030 No Build and 

Proposed conditions; therefore, no additional enhancements are proposed as part of the Project. 

Table 4-75 

US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A C 

No Build (PM) A C 

Proposed (AM) A C 

Proposed (PM) A C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-214 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Lane: The Ridgeway-Warrenton Road leg of 

the US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Lane intersection is removed in the 

proposed SEHSR designs. Appendix P Figures 23 and 24 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and 

peak hour volumes for the US-1/US-158 and Grant Lane intersection (Ridgeway-Warrenton Road 

is removed), while Table 4-76 provides the level of service the 2030 No-Build and proposed 

conditions. As shown by Table 4-76, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better 

in the 2030 No Build conditions and LOS B or better in the 2030 proposed conditions; therefore, 

no additional enhancements are proposed by the Project. 

Table 4-76 

US-1 and Ridgeway-Warrenton Road/Grant Lane - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A C C 

No Build (PM) A A C C 

Proposed (AM) A -- -- B 

Proposed (PM) A -- -- B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1/US-158 and Saint Tammany Road: In the design presented in the Tier II DEIS, the 

intersection configuration and volumes of the US-1/US-158 and Saint Tammany intersection 

changed due to the Project. With the current design, the existing configuration of the US-1/US158 and St. Tammany Road intersection will not change with the Project. Also, the volumes are 

not anticipated to change between the Build and proposed conditions. Therefore, a traffic analysis 

was not performed. 

Ridgeway-Warrenton Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector: The Ridgeway-Warrenton 

Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector intersection is a new intersection that would be 

created as part of the Project. This intersection provides access from Ridgeway-Warrenton Road 

and Axtell Ridgeway Road to US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road and vice versa. The 

traffic volumes at this intersection were estimated using the counts at US-1/US-158 with Axtell 

Ridgeway Road, Ridgeway-Warrenton Road, and Ridgeway-Drewry Road. Appendix P Figures 

23 and 24 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the RidgewayWarrenton Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector intersection, while Table 4-77 provides 

the level of service for the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-77 all movements are 

anticipated to operate at LOS B better in the 2030 proposed conditions. 

Table 4-77 

Ridgeway-Warrenton Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Ridgeway-Drewry Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector: The Ridgeway-Drewry Road 

and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector intersection is a new intersection that would be created as 

part of the Project. This intersection provides access from Ridgeway-Warrenton Road and Axtell 

Ridgeway Road to US-1/US-158 and Ridgeway-Drewry Road and vice versa. The traffic 

volumes at this intersection were estimated using the counts at US-1/US-158 with Axtell 

Ridgeway Road, Ridgeway-Warrenton Road, and Ridgeway-Drewry Road. Appendix P Figures 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-215 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

23 and 24 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Ridgeway-Drewry 

Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector intersection, while Table 4-78 provides the level of 

service for the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-78 all movements are anticipated 

to operate at LOS B better in the 2030 proposed conditions. 

Table 4-78 

Ridgeway-Warrenton Road and Ridgeway-Drewry Road Connector - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

COLLINS ROAD AND SOUL CITY BOULEVARD – SOUL CITY AREA 

The Preferred Alternative in this area (Section N) is Alternative NC1. Refer to map sheet 104 in 

Appendix P for a map of the proposed designs. The designs would relocate the intersection of 

Collins Road and Soul City Boulevard and realign Soul City Boulevard to allow a grade 

separated crossing over the proposed Project railroad alignment north of the intersection. Soul 

City Boulevard will maintain the same intersection location with US-1; however, the intersection 

of Soul City Boulevard and Collins Road will be shifted slightly. The proposed Project railroad 

alignment crossing of Collins Road west of Manson-Axtell Road will result in a continuous 

movement from Manson-Axtell Road to Collins Road and remove access from Manson-Axtell 

Road and Collins Road east of Manson-Axtell Road, to US-1/US-158 (as the existing crossing 

will be closed). Traffic using the intersection of Collins Road and US-1/US-158 to access Collins 

Road US-1 or US-1 was rerouted to the intersection of Soul City Boulevard and US-1. 

Soul City Boulevard and US-1/US-158: The analysis for the intersection of Soul City Boulevard 

and US-1/US-158 is based on a diversion of traffic from Manson-Axtell Road currently traveling 

westbound on Collins Road to US-1/US-158. This traffic is diverted to the intersection of Soul 

City Boulevard and US-1/US-158, via the proposed grade separation. Appendix P Figures 27 and 

28 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for intersection of Soul City 

Boulevard and US-1/US-158, respectively. Table 4-79 provides the level of service for the 2030 

No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-79, no movement is anticipated to 

operate below LOS B in the No Build conditions or LOS C in the proposed conditions. While the 

at-grade rail crossing closures at Collins Road, Kimball Road, and Soul City Boulevard will result 

in rerouting of traffic, it is not expected to have considerable effects on the operations of the Soul 

City Boulevard and US-1/US-158 intersection. Therefore, no geometric modifications were 

proposed as part of the Project. 

Table 4-79 

Soul City Boulevard and US-1/US-158 - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound 

No Build (AM) A B 

No Build (PM) A B 

Proposed (AM) A C 

Proposed (PM) A C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-216 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Collins Road and Manson-Axtell Road: This intersection is converted to a free-flow movement 

with the SEHSR designs. Therefore, an analysis was not performed for the proposed conditions. 

Collins Road and Soul City Boulevard: Given the low volumes in the design year along Soul City 

Boulevard at US-1/US-158 (north of this intersection) and on Collins Road at Manson-Axtell 

Road (west of this intersection), the Project Team anticipates that the impacts on traffic 

operations at this intersection will be minimal. Based on this information, the intersection of 

Collins Road and Soul City Boulevard was not analyzed. 

MIDDLEBURG, NC 

SOUTH CAROL STREET AND US-1/US-158 

The Preferred Alternative in this area (Section O) is Alternative NC3. Refer to map sheet 108 

and 109 in Appendix R for maps of the proposed designs. The Tier II DEIS included alternatives 

that would affect traffic movements in the Middleburg, NC, area. However, the Preferred 

Alternative includes a grade separated crossing for South Carol Street, and the Project Team does 

not expect changes to existing traffic patterns. Therefore, as a result of the Project railroad 

alignment, no additional traffic will operate through the intersection and traffic volumes will not 

increase. 

HENDERSON, NC 

In the City of Henderson, NC, the Preferred Alternative is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, 

and NC3 Project alternatives, which is located along existing rail ROW with active freight service. 

The Project designs were developed in an attempt to balance the need for an adequate number of 

safe grade-separated crossings, with the desire to minimize impacts to surrounding development. 

Within city limits, the Project alternatives call for eight existing public crossings to be closed, with 

traffic re-routed to three new and one existing bridged crossings. Of note, there is also a 

pedestrian-only underpass proposed. 

MAIN STREET/BECKFORD DRIVE AND OLD NORLINA ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 Project 

alternatives in this area. Refer to map sheet 114 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs 

in this location. Based on coordination with the Henderson, NC, City Council and City staff, 

Main Street will be extended from its current terminus at David Street east to provide better eastwest connectivity. To further improve this connectivity, several alternatives were studied under 

the Project to enhance the connection to US-1 Business/US-158. Options included removing the 

US-1 Business/US-158 (North Garnett Street) leg of the intersection of US-1 Business/US-158 

(North Garnett Street) with North Beckford Drive and North Chestnut Street, and removing the 

Chestnut Street leg of the same intersection. The Tier II FEIS designs would provide a 

roundabout at this location in order to accommodate the existing intersection movements and 

provide the direct connection to Main Street as a fifth leg of the intersection. 

As a result of constructing a grade separated crossing of Main Street and the Project railroad 

alignment, the intersection of Old Norlina Road and Main Street will be removed. Traffic from 

Old Norlina Road will not be able to travel past Main Street. The existing at-grade rail crossing 

of Harris Street will also be removed. Traffic on the east side of the existing crossing will likely 

use David Street to reach the Beckford Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street, and Garnett Street 

intersection while traffic on the west side of the crossing will use one of the several available 

roadways to access Garnet Street to reach the Beckford Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street, and 

Garnett Street intersection. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-217 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Beckford Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street, and US-1 Business/US-158 (Garnett Street): By 

creating a revised five-leg intersection, the traffic on Main Street will have a direct connection to 

Garnett Street, Chestnut Street, and Beckford Drive. Traffic from the proposed at-grade rail 

closures at Harris Street and Old Norlina Road will be rerouted to the Beckford Drive/Main Street 

and Garnett Street intersection. 

The intersection is proposed as a dual-lane roundabout. One benefit to a roundabout configuration 

is to simplify traffic operations when Main Street is connected to the intersection. To help 

introduce roundabout operations to the area, a single lane roundabout may adequately service the 

traffic volumes in intermediate years; however, a dual-lane roundabout is needed by the design 

year. Therefore, while this intersection may initially operate as a single lane roundabout, it was 

analyzed as a dual lane roundabout in order to determine 2030 design year operations. 

Appendix P Figures 31 and 32a, 32b provide the 2030 proposed laneage and AM and PM peak 

hour volumes for the Beckford Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street, and Main Street intersection, 

respectively. Table 4-80 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed 

conditions. As shown in Table 4-80, the proposed conditions are expected to operate at the same 

or better LOS than the No Build conditions. It should also be noted that this configuration is in 

keeping with the long range plan to extend Main Street and provides more direct movements 

from Main Street to major facilities in downtown Henderson, NC. 

Table 4-80 

Beckford Drive/Main Street, Chestnut Street and US-1 Business/US 

158 (Garnett Street) - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Northbound Southbound Northeast 

bound 

Westbound

No Build (AM) B C A B -- 

No Build (PM) C C B C -- 

Proposed (AM) A A A A A 

Proposed (PM) B A A B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Main Street and Old Norlina Road: With the Project, the existing at-grade crossing on Main 

Street east of this intersection is proposed to be grade separated. Due to the structure that would 

be constructed, Main Street would not intersect with Old Norlina Road, and vehicles on Old 

Norlina Road would not be able to cross Main Street. As such, this intersection will no longer 

exist. Therefore, a 2030 design year proposed analysis was not performed 

US-1 BUSINESS (GARNETT STREET) AND NC 39 (ANDREWS AVENUE) 

The Preferred Alternative is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 Project 

alternatives in this area. Refer to map sheets 114 and 115 in in Appendix R for a map of the 

proposed designs in this location. The Project designs would close the existing at-grade rail 

crossings on Rock Spring Street, Montgomery Street, and other more minor at-grade rail 

crossings in the vicinity, and construct a grade separated crossing on NC 39 (Andrews Avenue) 

over Williams Street, the proposed Project railroad alignment, and US-1 Business (Garnett 

Street). The proposed closures and grade separated crossings will alter traffic along Williams 

Street, Chestnut Street, Andrews Avenue, and Garnett Street among others in this area. 

Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street: With the Project, traffic patterns at the Rock Spring 

Street and Chestnut Street intersection will change due to the closure of the at-grade rail crossing 

of Rock Spring Street between Garnett Street and Williams Street. Some of the traffic currently 

using the at-grade crossing on Rock Spring Street is expected to reroute at this intersection in 

order to access either the proposed grade separation on Andrews Avenue or the exiting grade 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-218 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

separation on Charles Street. Also, vehicles currently using Andrews Avenue from the east to 

access Garnett Street will no longer be able to do so due to the proposed grade separation. 

Therefore, some of those vehicles will also use this intersection to access Garnett Street. With the 

change in traffic patterns and increase in traffic volume, this intersection was analyzed under 

signal control in the proposed conditions; however, a signal must be warranted before being 

installed. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street intersection. Table 4-81 provides the 

level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-81, all 

movements are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in the 2030 No Build conditions. Under 

signal control, each approach is anticipated to operate at LOS D or better in the 2030 proposed 

conditions. 

Table 4-81 

Rock Spring Street and Chestnut Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B A A 

No Build (PM) B C A A 

Proposed (AM)* A B C B 

Proposed (PM)* B C D B 

* Signalized 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street: With the Project, traffic patterns at the Rock Spring Street 

and Garnett Street intersection will change due to the closure of the at-grade rail crossing of Rock 

Spring Street between Garnett Street and Williams Street. The removal of the at-grade rail 

crossing would convert this intersection to a “T” configuration with Rock Spring Street still 

experiencing the stop condition. As vehicles on the east side of the proposed SEHSR alignment 

wish to access the west side and vice-versa, some will use this intersection as they travel to/from 

the intersection of Chestnut Street and Andrews Avenue, which provides access to the proposed 

grade separated crossing on Andrews Avenue. While the removal of the east leg of the Rock 

Spring Street and Garnett Street intersection will reduce some volumes, the rerouting associated 

with the Project is expected to result in an increase of some turning movements (southbound 

right-turns and eastbound left-turns) at this intersection. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide 

the 2030 proposed laneage peak hour volumes for the Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street 

intersection. Table 4-82 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed Build 

scenarios. As shown by Table 4-82, the eastbound and westbound movements are anticipated to 

operate under failing conditions in the PM peak period of the 2030 No Build conditions. Under 

the proposed conditions, the westbound approach is removed, but the eastbound approach still 

operates at LOS F in the PM peak period. There is also an increase in delay over the No Build 

conditions, which is attributed to the change in traffic patterns in the proposed conditions. Traffic 

from the proposed grade separation on Andrews Avenue destined for Garnett Street and Garnett 

Street traffic destined for the grade separation on Andrews Avenue would use this intersection. 

Even though the eastbound approach operates at LOS F with an increase in delay in the PM peak 

period, no improvements were recommended due to the ROW constraints at this location. This 

intersection was also evaluated under signal control to determine operations if a signal were 

warranted in the design year. Under signal control, the intersection is expected to operate better 

than LOS D in the proposed conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-219 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-82 

Rock Spring Street and Garnett Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B A A 

No Build (PM) F F A A 

Proposed (AM) C -- A -- 

Proposed (PM) F -- A -- 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Rock Spring Street and Williams Street: With the Project, traffic patterns at the Rock Spring 

Street and Williams Street intersection will change due to the removal of the at-grade rail 

crossing of Rock Spring Street between Garnett Street and Williams Street and the fact that traffic 

currently turning onto Andrews Avenue from Williams Street and vice-versa may relocate to this 

intersection. The removal of the at-grade rail crossing would convert this intersection to a “T” 

configuration with Williams Street still experiencing the stop condition. The modifications 

associated with the Project result in some volumes increasing and some decreasing in the 

proposed conditions. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage peak 

hour volumes for the Rock Spring Street and Williams Street intersection. Table 4-83 provides 

the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and Proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-83, all 

approaches are expected to operate at LOS B or better in the No Build and proposed conditions. 

Table 4-83 

Rock Spring Street and Williams Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A B B 

No Build (PM) A A B B 

Proposed (AM) -- A A B 

Proposed (PM) -- A A B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Chestnut Street and Andrews Avenue (NC 39): The intersection of Chestnut Street and Andrews 

Avenue remains a four-leg signalized intersection under the proposed conditions. However, with 

the grade separation of Andrews Street with Garnett Street and Williams Street, considerably 

more turning traffic would move through this intersection. Vehicles currently using the at-grade 

rail crossings in the area that are proposed for removal will likley either use this intersection to 

access the proposed grade separation on Andrews Avenue or use Charles Street to make their 

desired maneuver. Additional turn lanes were provided at this intersection to help facilitate the 

additional traffic volume anticipated to use this intersection with the Project. Appendix P Figures 

33 and 34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Chestnut Street and 

Andrews Avenue intersection. Table 4-84 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and 

proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-84, the south and east approaches both operate at 

LOS F in the 2030 No Build PM peak period. NCDOT projects that Chestnut Street willcarry 

considerably more traffic during the PM peak period than the AM peak period, resuting in more 

delay and congestion in the PM peak period. While two approaches, north and south, operate at 

LOS E during the PM peak period in the 2030 proposed conditions, both approaches experience 

less delay than in the No Build conditions. It should also be noted that in the 2030 PM peak 

period the overall intersection level of service improves from LOS E in the No Build conditions 

to LOS D in the proposed conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-220 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-84 

Rock Spring Street and Williams Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) C B C C 

No Build (PM) F C E E 

Proposed (AM) C C D C 

Proposed (PM) D C E D 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Garnett Street and Andrews Avenue (NC 39): This intersection would be removed by the Project 

and traffic would be rerouted along the surrounding network. 

Williams Street and Andrews Avenue (NC 39): The intersection of Williams Street and Andrews 

Avenue would be removed by the Project and traffic currently using this intersection would be 

rerouted into the surrounding network with most vehicles likely using either the new grade 

separated crossing on Andrews Avenue or the existing grade separated crossing at Charles Street. 

Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street: The intersection of Montgomery Street and Chestnut 

Street remains a four-leg signalized intersection in the proposed conditions; however, traffic 

patterns change and traffic would be rerouted to this intersection as a result to the Project. The 

proposed removal of the at-grade rail crossing on Montgomery Street and the grade separation of 

Andrews Avenue with Garnett Street and Williams Street would affect the traffic patterns and 

volumes at this intersection. Therefore, turn lane enhancements are provided as part of the 

Project to help mitigate the traffic pattern changes. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide the 

2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Chestnut Street and Montgomery Street 

intersection. Table 4-85 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed 

conditions. As shown by Table 4-85, the intersection of Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street 

is expected to operate similarly in the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. 

Table 4-85 

Montgomery Street and Chestnut Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B C C 

No Build (PM) B B B B 

Proposed (AM) B B B B 

Proposed (PM) B C C C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Montgomery Street and Garnett Street: With the closure of the at-grade rail crossing on 

Montgomery Street southwest of this intersection, it essentially becomes a “T” intersection with 

the southwest leg currently serving a business parking lot. Since there would be little to no traffic 

on the southwest leg, this intersection was analyzed under stop control for the proposed 

conditions, but remained under signal control for the No Build conditions. The Montgomery 

Street traffic that currently uses the at-grade crossing will be forced to reroute, and the most likely 

route will be either to Charles Street or the proposed grade separated crossing on Andrews 

Avenue. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Montgomery Street and Garnett Street intersection. Table 4-86 provides the level 

of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-86, the 

intersection of Montgomery Street and Garnett Street is expected to operate at LOS D or better in 

the 2030 No Build conditions. With the Project and under stop control, the eastbound movements 

are anticipated to operate at LOS E in the 2030 proposed conditions in the PM peak period with 

an anticipated queue of 100 feet. While this is not unusual for an unsignalized movement, if the 

City of Henderson determines that it is appropriate to maintain the signal after the Project is 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-221 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

constructed, the overall level of service is expected to be as good as or better than the No Build 

conditions. 

Table 4-86 

Montgomery Street and Garnett Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B A D D 

No Build (PM) B C D C 

Proposed (AM) E -- A -- 

Proposed (PM) E -- A -- 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Montgomery Street and Williams Street: With the Project and the associated removal of the atgrade rail crossing on Montgomery Street northwest of this intersection, the Montgomery Street 

and Williams Street intersection would essentially function as a “T” intersection. Traffic currently 

using this intersection to travel across the at-grade intersection would have to reroute, with the 

most likely options being the existing grade separation at Charles Street or the proposed grade 

separation of Andrews Avenue over the Project railroad alignment, Garnett Street, and Williams 

Street. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes 

for the Williams Street and Montgomery Street intersection. Table 4-87 provides the level of 

service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-87, all movements 

for the intersection of Montgomery Street and Williams Street are expected to operate at LOS D 

or better in the 2030 No Build conditions and LOS B or better in the 2030 proposed conditions. 

Table 4-87 

Williams Street and Montgomery Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound 

Northbound Southbound 

Left ThruRight Left ThruRight 

No Build (AM) A A B B C B 

No Build (PM) A A D C C C 

Proposed (AM) -- B -- A 

Proposed (PM) -- B -- A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Charles Street/Church Street and Garnett Street (Southwest): The western intersection of Charles 

Street/Church Street and Garnett Street would not change configuration with the Project. Even 

though the geometry is not affected by the Project, the traffic flow through the intersection is 

affected. More vehicles are anticipated to use Charles Street to take advantage of the existing 

grade separation on Charles Street and fewer vehicles are anticipated to use Garnett Street at this 

location with the closure of the at-grade rail crossings in the area. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 

provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Charles Street/Church Street 

and Garnett Street intersection (southwest). Table 4-88 provides the level of service for the 2030 

No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-88, even though traffic patterns change, 

the intersection of Charles Street/Church Street and Garnett Street (southwest) is expected to 

operate well in the 2030 Proposed conditions. While the traffic on Charles Street increases as 

more vehicles take advantage of the existing grade separation, the through traffic volumes on 

Garnett Street decrease due to the removal of nearby at-grade rail crossings. As shown in Table 4-

88, all approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better with the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-222 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-88 

Charles Street/Church Street and Garnett Street (Southwest) - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) D D A A 

No Build (PM) D E A A 

Proposed (AM) A B B B 

Proposed (PM) B B B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Charles Street and Garnett Street (Northeast): The configuration of the northeastern intersection 

of Charles Street and Garnett Street would not change with the Project. As with the southwest 

intersection, even though the geometry is not affected by the Project, the traffic flow through the 

intersection is affected. More vehicles are anticipated to use Charles Street to take advantage of 

the existing grade separation on Charles Street and fewer vehicles are anticipated to use Garnett 

Street in the area due to the closure of nearby at-grade rail crossings. Appendix P Figures 33 and 

34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Charles Street and Garnett 

Street intersection (northeast). Table 4-89 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and 

proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-89, even though traffic patterns change, the 

intersection of Charles Street and Garnett Street (northeast) is expected to operate very similarly 

in the No Build and the proposed conditions. This is due, in part, to the fact that while traffic on 

Charles Street increases as more vehicles use the existing grade separation on Charles Street, less 

traffic is anticipated on Garnett Street in this area due to the removal of nearby at-grade rail 

crossings. 

Table 4-89 

Charles Street and Garnett Street (Northeast) - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B A 

No Build (PM) B A 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Williams Street and Charles Street: While the configuration of the intersection of Williams Street 

and Charles Street does not change with the Project, the traffic volumes and patterns would 

change. More traffic is anticipated to use Charles Street to take advantage of the existing grade 

separation, while flow on Williams Street varies with some volumes increasing and some 

decreasing due to the closing of nearby at-grade crossings and the provision of a grade separation 

at Andrews Avenue. Appendix P Figures 33 and 34 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak 

hour volumes for the Williams Street and Charles Street intersection. Table 4-90 provides the 

level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-90, even 

though traffic patterns change, the intersection of Charles Street and Williams Street is expected 

to operate similarly in the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-223 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-90 

Williams Street and Charles Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B C A A 

No Build (PM) A A A A 

Proposed (AM) A B B A 

Proposed (PM) B A B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

CHAVASSE AVENUE/DABNEY DRIVE/ALEXANDER AVENUE 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 115 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. As part of the proposed Project, Dabney Drive would be relocated approximately 

550 feet south of its current intersection with US-1 Business (Raleigh Road). Alexander Avenue 

would be extended to tie into the relocated intersection of Dabney Drive and US-1 Business with 

a grade separated crossing over the proposed Project railroad alignment. The proposed closure of 

the existing at-grade rail crossing on Chavasse Avenue, approximately 50 feet west of Williams 

Street, would result in traffic being rerouted to the new intersection of Dabney Drive and US-1 

Business. 

Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street: The proposed at-grade rail crossing closure on Chavasse 

Avenue near Williams Street would result in traffic rerouting to the new intersection of Dabney 

Drive and US-1 Business. With the closing of the rail crossing, the intersection of Chavasse 

Avenue and Williams Street would convert to a “T” intersection and traffic on Chavasse Avenue 

would reduce due to the removal of the western leg. As such, the intersection was analyzed under 

stop control in the 2030 proposed conditions with Chavasse Avenue experiencing the stop 

condition. Appendix P Figures 37 and 38 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street intersection. Table 4-91 provides the level 

of service for the 2030 No-Build and Proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-91, with the 

rerouted traffic and the proposed design, all approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS B or 

better in the design year, which is an improvement over the No Build conditions. 

Table 4-91 

Chavasse Avenue and Williams Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B C D C 

No Build (PM) B C D B 

Proposed (AM) -- Left: B Right: A -- A 

Proposed (PM) -- Left: B Right: A -- A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Street and Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business: With the proposed rail 

crossing closure on Chavasse Avenue near Williams Street, traffic patterns at the Chavasse 

Avenue/Oxford Street and Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business intersection are anticipated to 

change. Less traffic is expected to approach from and leave to the east, while other turning 

movements may increase as vehicles are rerouted. Appendix P Figures 37 and 38 provide the 

2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Street and 

Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business intersection. Table 4-92 provides the level of service for the 

2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 4-92, with the change in traffic 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-224 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

patterns associated with the closure of the at-grade crossing of Chavasse Avenue at Williams 

Street, both the AM and PM peak periods operate at LOS C in the 2030 No Build conditions, 

while the AM and PM peak periods operate at LOS B in the 2030 proposed conditions. One 

movement, the stop-controlled southwest bound right-turn improves to LOS D from LOS E in the 

proposed conditions as compared to the No Build conditions. Overall, operations are improved 

for the intersection in the 2030 proposed conditions as compared to the No Build conditions. 

Based on this information, no improvements are proposed for this intersection as part of the 

Project. 

Table 4-92 

Chavasse Avenue/Oxford Street and Dorsey Avenue and US-1 Business - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Southwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) D D B B D 

No Build (PM) D D B C E 

Proposed (AM) D C A A D 

Proposed (PM) D C A B D 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Dabney Drive and Oxford Road: The extension of Alexander Avenue, the realignment of Dabney 

Drive, and the closure of the Chavasse Avenue at-grade crossing would all have an effect on the 

traffic patterns at the Dabney Drive and Oxford Road intersection. Vehicles currently using the 

at-grade rail crossing on Chavasse Avenue would reroute to use the proposed grade separation on 

Alexander Avenue. This is expected to increase the intersection volumes to/from the south and 

reduce the volumes to/from the east. The intersection would remain a four-leg signalized 

intersection; however, an additional northbound left-turn lane is proposed to help mitigate the 

anticipated change in traffic patterns associated with the Project. There are already dual 

westbound through lanes to receive the dual northbound left-turn lanes. Appendix P Figures 37 

and 38 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Dabney Drive and 

Oxford Road intersection. Table 4-93 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and 

proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-93, with the rerouted traffic and the proposed design, 

conditions are expected to be similar with the Project as compared to the No Build conditions. 

Table 4-93 

Dabney Drive and Oxford Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) D C B D 

No Build (PM) E F D E 

Proposed (AM) D E C C 

Proposed (PM) E E E E 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Dabney Drive and Garnett Street/Deer Court: Neither the traffic volumes nor the configuration of 

the intersection of Dabney Drive and Garnett Street/Deer Court will alter due to the Project; 

however, operations are expected to change due to the different traffic patterns at the closely 

spaced signalized intersection of Dabney Drive and Oxford Road. Appendix P Figures 37 and 38 

provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Dabney Drive and Garnett 

Street/Deer Court intersection. Tables 4-94 and 4-95 provide the level of service for the future 

No-Build and proposed scenarios for both the southeast and northwest intersections. As shown 

by Table 4-94, with the rerouted traffic and the proposed design, the southeast intersection level 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-225 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

of service is anticipated to be very similar in the AM and PM peak periods. It should be noted that 

in the 2030 proposed conditions, one approach (northeast bound) improves to LOS E from LOS F 

in the PM peak period and one (southwest bound) improves from LOS E to LOS D in the AM 

peak period. Based on this information, no mitigation is proposed as part of the Project. 

Table 4-94 

Dabney Drive and Garnett Street/Deer Court (Southeast Intersection) - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Southeast 

bound 

Northwest 

bound 

Northeast 

bound 

Southwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) E B E E 

No Build (PM) D E F E 

Proposed (AM) E B E D 

Proposed (PM) D E E E 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

The Project does not affect the projected volumes or the existing configuration for the northwest 

intersection in the design year. As shown by Table 4-95, the rerouted traffic associated with the 

design is expected to have minimal effect on the operations of the Dabney Drive and Garnett 

Street/Deer Court northwest intersection; therefore, no modifications are proposed as part of the 

Project. 

Table 4-95 

Charles Street and Garnett Street (Northeast) - Level of Service in 2030 

Southeast bound Northwest bound 

No Build (AM) B A 

No Build (PM) B A 

Proposed (AM) B A 

Proposed (PM) B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business: This intersection would be converted to two 

separate intersections as part of the Project. Dabney Drive would be relocated approximately 500 

feet south of its existing intersection with US-1 Business and will then continue east, travel over 

the proposed Project railroad alignment via a grade separation and form the fourth leg of the 

Alexander Avenue and Nicolas Street intersection. The existing intersection of Dabney 

Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business would remain; however, the existing western leg 

(Dabney Drive) would be converted to a short “No Outlet” access facility. 

The Dabney Drive Extension is proposed as a three-lane facility. Appendix P Figures 37 and 38 

provide the proposed laneage and 2030 Build peak hour volumes for both the new Dabney Drive 

Extension and US-1 Business intersection and the modified Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and 

US-1 Business intersection. Tables 4-96 and 4-97 provide the level of service for the 2030 NoBuild and proposed conditions for the Dabney Drive Extension and US-1 Business and Dabney 

Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business intersections, respectively. In order to help mitigate 

the traffic at the new (southern) intersection, turn lane enhancements were recommended by the 

Project Team. As shown by Table 4-96, with the proposed extension and relocation of Dabney 

Drive, the rerouted traffic due to the proposed Project railroad alignment, and the proposed 

design, all approaches to the southern intersection are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better in 

the AM and PM peak periods. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-226 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-96 

Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business (Southern) - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- -- -- 

Proposed (AM) C D C B 

Proposed (PM) C D C C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

As shown by Table 4-97, with the proposed relocation of Dabney Drive and associated 

improvements, the Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business intersection (northern 

intersection) level of service is anticipated to improve. While the westbound approach (the 

shopping center access) is anticipated to operate at LOS E in the PM peak period of the No Build 

condition, it improves to LOS D in the proposed conditions. 

Table 4-97 

Dabney Drive/Shopping Center and US-1 Business (Northern) - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) C D C B 

No Build (PM) B E C B 

Proposed (AM) C D A A 

Proposed (PM) C D A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street: With the Project, the western leg of this intersection 

would be extended with a grade separation of the proposed SEHSR alignment to intersect with 

the relocated Dabney Drive/US-1 Business intersection. The extension is proposed as a three-lane 

section. Appendix P Figures 37 and 38 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street intersection. Table 4-98 provides the level 

of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions for the Alexander Avenue and Nicolas 

Street intersection. As shown by Table 4-98, with the proposed extension and relocation of 

Dabney Drive, delay will increase at the Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street intersection due 

to the increase in volume. In the AM peak period, all approaches are anticipated to operate at 

LOS D or better; however, in the PM peak, two movements are anticipated to operate at LOS F 

and one at LOS E. 

Table 4-98 

Alexander Avenue and Nicholas Street- Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B A A 

No Build (PM) C B A A 

Proposed (AM) Left: 

D 

Thru/ 

Right: 

B 

C A A 

Proposed (PM) Left: 

F 

Thru/ 

Right: 

E 

F A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-227 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

During final design, the Project Team will coordinate with NCDOT Highway Division 5 and the 

City of Henderson, NC, regarding consideration of converting Nicolas Street to the stopped 

condition and Alexander Avenue to the free-flow movement. This is expected to improve the 

eastbound and westbound approaches to LOS A, but the northbound approach is expected to 

degrade to LOS F with this configuration. If a signal is warranted and installed by the design 

year, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. 

BELMONT DRIVE AND WELCOME AVENUE 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 116 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. Under the Project designs, the Welcome Avenue at-grade rail crossing would be 

closed and JP Taylor Road would be grade separated and extended to connect with Belmont 

Drive, resulting in the rerouting of traffic in this area of Henderson, NC. Traffic currently using 

the at-grade crossing on Welcome Avenue will likely divert to the new connection of JP Taylor 

Road and Belmont Drive. Nicolas Street is proposed to extend to Warehouse Road at its 

intersection with JP Taylor Road creating a four-leg intersection and providing access from 

Welcome Avenue to the proposed grade separated crossing on JP Taylor Road. Based on the low 

anticipated volumes at the new JP Taylor Road and Nicolas Street/Warehouse Road intersection, 

an analysis was not performed for that intersection. However, traffic was estimated for the new 

connection of Nicolas Street and JP Taylor Road and an analysis was performed for that 

intersection. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive: The closure of the 

Welcome Avenue at-grade rail crossing would result in this intersection functioning as a “T” 

intersection. The crossing closure, along with the extension of JP Taylor Road to connect with 

Belmont Drive and the associated grade separated crossing of the Project railroad alignment and 

US-1 Business, would result in rerouting of traffic at this intersection. Traffic using the at-grade 

crossing is anticipated to reroute to the proposed grade separation at JP Taylor Road. Turn lane 

enhancements are proposed as part of the Project to help mitigate the changes in traffic patterns 

anticipated with the Project. Appendix P Figures 41 and 42 provide the 2030 proposed laneage 

and peak hour volumes for the US-1 Business and Welcome Road/Belmont Drive intersection, 

while Table 4-99 provides the level of service for the future No-Build and proposed conditions. 

As shown by Table 4-99, with the proposed laneage and anticipated volumes in 2030, the 

intersection of US-1 Business and Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive operates considerably better 

than in the No Build conditions. This is due in large part to the removal of the eastern leg 

(Welcome Avenue) and its traffic volume, as well as the intersection enhancements proposed as 

part of the Project. 

Table 4-99 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Welcome Avenue/Belmont Drive - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) F F C F 

No Build (PM) F F E F 

Proposed (AM) B -- C C 

Proposed (PM) C -- C C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Welcome Avenue and Nicolas Street: With the closure of the at-grade rail crossing on Welcome 

Avenue just west of this intersection, the intersection will function as a “T” intersection with the 

Project. This conversion, along with the proposed extension of Nicholas Street to JP Taylor Road 

and Warehouse Road, is expected to result in revised traffic patterns. The extension will allow 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-228 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

traffic on the east side of the Project railroad alignment to access the proposed grade separated 

crossing on the JP Taylor Road extension. This extension is expected to increase traffic volume 

on the southern leg of Nicholas Street. Appendix P Figures 41 and 42 provide the 2030 proposed 

laneage and peak hour volumes for the Welcome Avenue and Nicholas Street intersection, while 

Table 4-100 provides the level of service for the future No-Build and proposed conditions. As 

shown by Table 4-100, the intersection of Welcome Avenue and Nicolas Street is expected to 

operate with minimal congestion in both the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. Based on 

this information, no additional mitigation is proposed as part of the Project. 

Table 4-100 

Welcome Avenue and Nicolas Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) A A A A 

No Build (PM) A A A A 

Proposed (AM) -- A -- A 

Proposed (PM) -- A -- A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and JP Taylor Road: The intersection of US-1 Business and JP 

Taylor Road would be removed under the Project. The Project proposes to shift JP Taylor Road 

and provide a grade separation over the Project railroad alignment and US-1 Business. The 

Project would then extend JP Taylor Road to tie into Belmont Road west of its intersection with 

US-1 Business. The intersection of US-1 Business and JP Taylor Road would be replaced by the 

new intersection of JP Taylor Road and Belmont Drive along with the existing Belmont Drive 

and US-1 Business intersection. 

JP Taylor Road Extension and Belmont Drive: The intersection of JP Taylor Road Extension and 

Belmont Drive is a new intersection created as part of the Project. This intersection, along with 

the grade separation of JP Taylor over the proposed Project railroad alignment and US-1 Business 

and the intersection of US-1 Business and Belmont Drive, will replace the intersection of JP 

Taylor Road and US-1 Business, which is proposed to be removed as part of the Project. This 

intersection was analyzed under signal control for the 2030 design year traffic. Appendix P 

Figures 41 and 42 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the JP Taylor 

Road Extension and Belmont Drive intersection, while Table 4-101 provides the level of service 

for the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-101, each approach to the intersection of 

JP Taylor Road Extension and Belmont Drive is expected to operate at LOS C or better in 2030 

with the proposed laneage and projected traffic volumes. 

Table 4-101 

JP Taylor Road Extension and Belmont Drive - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- -- 

Proposed (AM) C B A 

Proposed (PM) C C B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-229 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US-1 BUSINESS (RALEIGH ROAD) AND BEAR POND ROAD AND PETER 

GILL ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 117 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. Under the Project designs, the existing Bear Pond Road at-grade rail crossing 

would be closed and a new grade separated crossing would be constructed over the proposed 

Project railroad alignment and US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) approximately 200 feet south of the 

existing intersection. Traffic using the existing intersection would be rerouted to the new jughandle type connection that provides connectivity between US-1 Business and Lynnbank 

Road/Bear Pond Road. Also in this area, the existing at-grade crossing of Peter Gill Road is also 

proposed for closure as part of the Project. Traffic wishing to use this intersection is expected to 

reroute to either Bear Pond Road or the proposed grade separation of Wildlife Lane, which will 

be extended to intersect with US-1 Business. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Bear Pond/Lynnbank Road: The intersection of US-1 

Business (Raleigh Road) and Bear Pond Road/Lynnbank Road is proposed for removal as part of 

the Project. Bear Pond Road would be relocated and have a grade separation over US-1 Business 

and the proposed Project railroad alignment. This would require the construction of two “T” 

intersections. A new connector would be constructed between US-1 Business and the relocated 

Bear Pond Road as an extension of JP Taylor Road. Both the new intersection with Bear Pond 

Road and with US-1 Business were analyzed under signal control for the 2030 proposed 

conditions to determine operations if a signal was warranted by the design year. Appendix P 

Figures 45 and 46 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the US-1 

Business and Bear Pond Road/Lynnbank Road, Bear Pond Road and New Connector, and US-1 

Business and New Connector intersections, while Tables 4-102, 4-103, and 4-104 provide the 

level of service for the future No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Tables 4-102, 4-

103, and 4-104, while the existing intersection of US-1 Business and Bear Pond Road has 

approaches that operate at LOS E in the PM peak period of the 2030 No Build conditions, both 

new intersections have no approach operate below LOS D. 

Table 4-102 

US-1 Business and Bear Pond Road/Lynnbank Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) E F E D 

No Build (PM) E E D C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Table 4-103 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and New Connector South of Bear Pond 

Road - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Northbound Southbound 

Proposed (AM) C B C 

Proposed (PM) D B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-230 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-104 

Bear Pond Road and New Connector West of US-1 Business - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound 

Proposed (AM) A B C 

Proposed (PM) A B C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and US-1 NB Ramp/Eastern Minerals Road: The at-grade rail 

crossing on the eastern leg of this intersection (Eastern Minerals Road) is proposed for removal 

under the Project. Traffic currently using this crossing would need to reroute. Vehicles could use 

Commerce Drive to access Bear Pond Road and US-1 Business via Bear Pond Road to the north 

or use Commerce Drive to access Peter Gill Road, than access Bobbitt Road to access the 

proposed grade separated crossing at Wildlife Lane. As part of the proposed grade separation of 

Wildlife Lane, Wildlife Lane would be extended to intersect US-1 Business by traversing under 

the proposed Project railroad alignment. The reverse movements can be made to travel from US-1 

Business to the eastern side of the proposed Project railroad alignment. Given the anticipated 

traffic volumes, both the US-1 Business and US-1 NB Ramps/Eastern Minerals Road and the 

Wildlife Lane and US-1 Business intersections were analyzed under signal control in 2030 to 

determine operations if a signal were to be warranted by the design year. It should be noted that a 

signal should be warranted before one is installed. 

Appendix P Figures 45 and 46 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the 

US-1 Business and US-1 NB Ramps/Eastern Minerals Road and US-1 Business and Wildlife 

Lane intersections. Table 4-105 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed 

conditions for the US-1 Business and US-1 NB Ramp/Eastern Minerals Road intersection. Table 

4-106 provides the level of service for the 2030 proposed conditions for the US-1 Business and 

Wildlife Lane intersection. 

Table 4-105 

US-1 Business and US-1 NB Ramps/Eastern Minerals Road - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) D C A B 

No Build (PM) E D A A 

Proposed (AM) D -- A A 

Proposed (PM) D -- A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Table 4-106 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Wildlife Lane - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound Southbound 

Proposed (AM) D D C 

Proposed (PM) D D C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

As shown in Table 4-105, the eastbound approach of US-1 Business and US-1 NB 

Ramps/Eastern Minerals Road intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak 

period, but no other approach is expected to operate below LOS D in the 2030 No Build 

conditions. With the proposed Project railroad alignment, the eastern leg would be removed and 

the intersection would function as a “T” intersection. In the 2030 proposed conditions, no 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-231 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

approach to the US-1 Business and US-1 NB Ramps intersection is anticipated to operate below 

LOS D. As shown in Table 4-106, no approach to the new US-1 Business and Wildlife Lane 

intersection in the 2030 proposed conditions will operate below LOS D. 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Peter Gill Road: The at-grade rail crossing on Peter Gill Road 

just east of its intersection with US-1 Business is proposed for removal under the Project. Traffic 

currently using this crossing would need to reroute their trips. Vehicles could use Commerce 

Drive to access Bear Pond Road and US-1 Business via Bear Pond Road to the north or use 

Commerce Drive to access Bobbitt Road via Peter Gill Road to access the proposed grade 

separated crossing at Wildlife Lane. As part of the proposed grade separation of Wildlife Lane, 

Wildlife Lane would be extended to intersect US-1 Business by traversing under the proposed 

Project railroad alignment. The reverse movements could be made to travel from US-1 Business 

to the eastern side of the proposed Project railroad alignment. Due to the projected traffic 

volumes at the US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road intersection, it was analyzed under signal 

control in the 2030 No Build conditions to determine operations if a signal were to be warranted 

by the design year. It is worth noting that a signal should be warranted before one is installed. 

Appendix P Figures 45 and 46 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the 

US-1 Business and Wildlife Lane intersection and the US-1 Business and Peter Gill 

Road/Driveway intersection, while Table 4-107 and Table 4-106 (above) provide the level of 

service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions for the US-1 Business and Peter Gill 

Road/Driveway intersection and the 2030 proposed conditions for the US-1 Business and 

Wildlife Lane intersection, respectively. As shown in Table 4-107, the, eastbound, westbound, 

and northbound approaches to the intersection of US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road/Driveway 

are expected to operate at LOS E or LOS F in the AM peak period, while the eastbound and 

westbound approaches operate at LOS E in the PM peak period. This intersection was analyzed 

under stop control in the 2030 proposed conditions due to the removal of the eastern leg with the 

Project railroad alignment. Under this configuration, all movements are anticipated to operate at 

LOS C or better in the 2030 proposed conditions. Also as shown by Table 4-106 (above), the 

proposed intersection of US-1 Business and Wildlife Lane, which would serve traffic from both 

the intersections of Peter Gill Road and Eastern Minerals Road with US-1 Business, is expected 

to operate with no approach below LOS D in the 2030 proposed conditions, which is an 

improvement over the 2030 No Build conditions of the US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road 

intersection. 

Table 4-107 

US-1 Business and Peter Gill Road/Driveway - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) F F E D 

No Build (PM) E E D C 

Proposed (AM)* C -- A -- 

Proposed (PM)* B -- A -- 

* Unsignalized 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1 BUSINESS (RALEIGH ROAD) AND CHAVIS ROAD 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheets 119 and 120 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed 

designs in this location. Under the Project designs, an extension of Edwards Road over the 

proposed Project railroad alignment to Chavis Road would provide a new connection to US-1 

Business (Raleigh Road). This extension would tie into the westbound leg of the intersection of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-232 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US-1 Business and Edwards Road. This new connector would serve to replace multiple low 

volume at-grade rail crossings in this area that are proposed to be closed under the Project. 

US-1 Business and Chavis Road: As mentioned previously, this intersection will be removed with 

the Project and the traffic using this intersection is expected to use the new connection at the 

intersection of US-1 Business and Edwards Road. The new connection is proposed to have a 

grade separated crossing with the proposed Project railroad alignment. 

US-1 Business and Edwards Road: Based on the closure of the Chavis Road intersection with 

US-1 Business, all traffic was rerouted from that intersection to the new connector planned at 

Edwards Road and US-1 Business for the purposes of this analysis. This new connector is 

proposed to have a grade separated crossing with the Project railroad alignment. Traffic on other 

minor at-grade rail crossings in the area is expected to use this intersection as well; however, the 

volumes on these crossings are anticipated to be minor and not have a considerable effect on the 

intersection operations. Appendix P Figures 49 and 50 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and 

peak hour volumes for the US-1 Business and Edwards Road intersection, while Table 4-108 

provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown in Table 

4-108, based on the two-way stop controlled analysis, the intersection is expected to have no 

movement operate below LOS B in the proposed or No Build conditions. This is expected due to 

the low existing volumes at this intersection and the low volumes on the surrounding roadways in 

the immediate area. While traffic from all the surrounding crossings was not included in this 

analysis, the intersection is still anticipated to operate within the desired LOS D criteria due to the 

fact these crossings appear to be minor and are not expected to add considerable volume to the 

intersection. 

Table 4-108 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Edwards Road/New Connector - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B -- A -- 

No Build (PM) A -- A -- 

Proposed (AM) B B A A 

Proposed (PM) B B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

KITTRELL, NC 

US-1 (CAPITAL BOULEVARD) AND KITTRELL COLLEGE ROAD/NEW 

CONNECTOR 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 121 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. Under the Project designs, the existing at-grade rail crossings of Main Street and 

McClanahan Street are proposed to be removed. These crossings will be replaced by a proposed 

grade separated crossing on McClanahan Street, which will tie into the existing intersection of 

US-1 Business and Kittrell Vance Avenue forming the fourth (eastern leg) of the intersection. 

US-1 and Kittrell College Road/College Street: The existing at-grade rail crossings of Main Street 

and McClanahan Street are proposed to be closed as part of the Project. McClanahan Street would 

be realigned with a grade separation over the Project railroad alignment. It would also be 

extended to the north and south to connect Main Street to the north and Kittrell Vance Avenue to 

the south. The extension to Kittrell Vance Avenue would form the fourth leg of the US-1 and 

Kittrell Vance Road intersection. Traffic east of the existing rail line that currently uses Main 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-233 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Street or McClanahan Street to access US-1, along with US-1 traffic that currently uses Main 

Street to cross the rail line eastbound, would be routed along the new facility. With the new 

configuration, this traffic would use the intersection of Kittrell Vance Avenue and US-1. 

Appendix P Figures 53 and 54 provide the proposed laneage and 2030 peak hour volumes for the 

US-1 and Kittrell College Road/College Street intersection while Table 4-109 provides the level 

of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-109, all 

approaches of this intersection are anticipated to operate very similarly and at LOS D or better in 

both the No Build and proposed conditions. 

Table 4-109 

US-1 Business (Raleigh Road) and Kittrell College Road/College Street - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound 

Westbound Northbound Southbound Left ThruRight 

No Build (AM) C B C A B 

No Build (PM) D C D B B 

Proposed (AM) C B D A B 

Proposed (PM) D B C B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

US-1 and Kittrell Vance Road/New Connector: The intersection traffic patterns and configuration 

of US-1 and Kittrell Vance Road would be modified as part of the Project. Traffic from the 

closure of the Main Street and McClanahan Street at-grade rail crossings was rerouted to the 

grade separation proposed on the realigned McClanahan Street for this analysis. This realignment 

ties into the US-1 and Kittrell Vance Road intersection. This intersection was analyzed under stop 

control for both the No Build and proposed conditions. Turn lane enhancements are provided at 

this intersection by the Project to help mitigate the rerouted traffic. Appendix P Figures 53 and 

54 provide the proposed laneage and 2030 Build peak hour volumes for the US-1 and Kittrell 

Vance Road intersection, while Table 4-110 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build 

and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-110, all approaches to this intersection are 

anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in the No Build conditions. Also, as shown in Table 4-

110, with the addition of the fourth (eastern) leg, the rerouted traffic volumes associated with the 

Project and the laneage proposed as part of the Project design, no approach is expected operate 

worse than LOS C. 

Table 4-110 

US-1 and Kittrell Vance Road/New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B -- A -- 

No Build (PM) C -- B 

Proposed (AM) C C A B 

Proposed (PM) C C B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Main Street and Railroad Street: With the closure of the Main Street at-grade crossing just east of 

this intersection, movements at this intersection would become free flowing with the Project. 

Due to design constraints, they will be low speed movements and, if needed, one or both could 

become stop controlled, but there should be no conflicting movements. Based on this 

information, no analysis was performed for the proposed conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-234 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

FRANKLINTON, NC 

MAIN STREET AND NC 56 (GREEN STREET) 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 127 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. Under the Project designs, the at-grade rail crossings on Mason Street and College 

Street would be closed. The existing grade separation of the rail line and NC 56 would be 

maintained with the Project; however, the intersection of Elm Street and NC 56 would be 

removed due to the close spacing of the proposed rail structure over NC 56. Tanyard Street and a 

new connection proposed to link College Street and NC 56 would allow traffic on Mason Street 

and College Street to access NC 56 and its grade separated crossing of the Project railroad 

alignment. 

Mason Street and Main Street: As mentioned above, the at-grade rail crossing on Mason Street 

east of Main Street would close under the Project. This will affect the amount of traffic using this 

intersection, essentially turning it into a three-leg intersection. Traffic using the Mason Street 

crossing was routed to the NC 56 and Main Street intersection, using the grade separated crossing 

on NC 56. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Mason Street and Main Street intersection, while Table 4-111 provides the level 

of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-111, all 

approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in both the No Build conditions and with 

the proposed Project. 

Table 4-111 

Mason Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B C A A 

No Build (PM) C C A A 

Proposed (AM) C C A A 

Proposed (PM) C B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

NC 56 (Green Street) and Main Street: As mentioned above, with the proposed closure of the atgrade rail crossings on Mason Street and College Street as part of the Project, traffic from those 

crossings would have the option to divert to the NC 56 grade separated crossing of the Project 

railroad alignment. This rerouting would affect traffic patterns and volumes at the NC 56 and 

Main Street intersection. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the proposed laneage and 2030 

peak hour volumes for the NC 56 and Main Street intersection, while Table 4-112 provides the 

level of service for the 2030 No-Build and Proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-112, all 

approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in both the 2030 No Build conditions 

and with the proposed Project. 

Table 4-112 

NC 56 (Green Street) and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B B A 

No Build (PM) B C B B 

Proposed (AM) B C B B 

Proposed (PM) B B B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-235 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

College Street and Main Street: As mentioned above, the existing at-grade rail crossing on 

College Street is proposed for closure under the Project. Traffic from this crossing would have the 

option to use a proposed connector linking College Street and NC 56 to access the grade 

separation on NC 56 or use the proposed extension of Hawkins Street to access the proposed 

grade separation at Cedar Creek Road. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the proposed 2030 

laneage and peak hour volumes for the College Street and Main Street intersection, while Table 

4-113 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by 

Table 4-113, all approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in both the 2030 No 

Build conditions and with the proposed Project. 

Table 4-113 

College Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B B A A 

No Build (PM) B B A A 

Proposed (AM) B B A A 

Proposed (PM) B B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

College Street and Hawkins Street: With the proposed closure of the existing at-grade rail 

crossing on College Street west of this intersection, traffic currently using the at-grade rail 

crossing would have to reroute with the Project. Traffic from this crossing would have the option 

to use a proposed connector linking College Street and NC 56 to access the grade separation on 

NC 56 or use the proposed extension of Hawkins Street to access the proposed grade separation at 

Cedar Creek Road. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak 

hour volumes for the College Street and Hawkins Street intersection, while Table 4-114 provides 

the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-114, 

with the low anticipated volumes in this area, the College Street and Hawkins Street intersection 

is anticipated to operate well with or without the Project in 2030. All approaches are anticipated 

to operate at LOS A both in the No Build condition and with the proposed Project. 

Table 4-114 

College Street and Hawkins Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound 

No Build (AM) A A 

No Build (PM) A A 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

NC 56 (Green Street) and New Connector: A new connection is proposed between College Street 

and NC 56 to allow traffic currently using the at-grade rail crossing on College Street to access 

the proposed grade separated crossing of the Project railroad alignment on NC 56. Volumes at 

this intersection were estimated using counts at the intersections of College Street and Hawkins 

Street, NC 56 and Main Street, and Hawkins Street/Hillsborough Street and Main Street. 

Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the 

NC 56 and New Connector intersection, while Table 4-115 provides the level of service for the 

2030 No-Build and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-115, the proposed New Connector 

intersection with NC 56 is anticipated to have all movements operate at LOS D or better in the 

design year with the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-236 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-115 

NC 56 (Green Street) and New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Northbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A D 

Proposed (PM) A D 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

College Street and New Connector: A new connection is proposed between College Street and 

NC 56 to allow traffic currently using the at-grade rail crossing on College Street to access the 

proposed grade separated crossing on NC 56. This new connection will create a new intersection 

with College Street. Volumes at this intersection were estimated using counts at the intersections 

of College Street and Hawkins Street, NC 56 and Main Street, and Hawkins Street/Hillsborough 

Street and Main Street. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and 

peak hour volumes for the College Street and New Connector intersection while Table 4-116 

provides the level of service for the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-116 the 

proposed New Connector intersection with College Street is anticipated to have all movements 

operate at LOS A in the design year with the Project. 

Table 4-116 

College Street and New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

CEDAR CREEK ROAD AND MAIN STREET 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheet 128 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed designs in 

this location. Under the Project designs, the Cedar Creek Road intersection of Main Street is 

relocated approximately 500 feet south of the existing location. Additionally, Hawkins Street is 

proposed to be extended to intersect with Cedar Creek Road as a “T” intersection approximately 

1,000 feet east of the Main Street and Cedar Creek Road intersection. Due to the proposed atgrade rail crossing closures, additional traffic from College Street and Hawkins Street will be 

rerouted to Main Street and Cedar Creek Road and the proposed grade separation on Cedar Creek 

Road. Some traffic from the College Street at-grade rail crossing is expected to also use proposed 

new connector to NC 56 to access the grade separated crossing on NC 56. The traffic patterns and 

volumes at the intersection of Person Street and Main Street, which services school traffic, also 

have the potential to change due to the Project. 

Person Street and Main Street: The configuration of the Person Street and Main Street 

intersection will not change due to the Project; however, traffic patterns and volumes may 

change. Given its proximity to the Project and school, an analysis was performed for this 

intersection to determine the effects of the Project on its operations. Appendix P Figures 57 and 

58 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the College Street and Main 

Street intersection, while Table 4-117 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and 

proposed conditions. After performing traffic rerouting in the area, it was estimated that the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-237 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

volumes at this intersection would not change with the Project. As shown by Table 4-117, even 

with volumes altering at adjacent intersections, the operations of the Person Street and Main 

Street intersection are anticipated to be the same with and without the proposed Project with no 

movement operating below LOS B. 

Table 4-117 

Person Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound 

Left Right 

No Build (AM) B B 

No Build (PM) B A 

Proposed (AM) B B 

Proposed (PM) B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Hillsborough Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street: As mentioned above, the existing at-grade 

rail crossing on Hawkins Street would be closed under the Project. Traffic from this crossing 

would have the option to use a proposed connector linking College Street and NC 56 to access the 

proposed grade separation on NC 56 or use the proposed extension of Hawkins Street to access 

the proposed grade separation at Cedar Creek Road. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the 

2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Hillsborough Street/Hawkins Street and 

Main Street intersection, while Table 4-118 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build 

and proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-118, the operations of the Hillsborough 

Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street intersection will improve with the Project. This 

improvement is due to the anticipated traffic reductions to and from the west, which are based on 

the removal of the existing at-grade rail crossing associated with the Project. 

Table 4-118 

Hillsborough Street/Hawkins Street and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) C C A A 

No Build (PM) B B A A 

Proposed (AM) B B A A 

Proposed (PM) A B A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Cedar Creek Road and Main Street: As part of the Project, Cedar Creek Road is proposed to be 

relocated approximately 500 feet south of its current intersection with Main Street and have a 

grade separated crossing over the Project railroad alignment. Traffic from existing at-grade rail 

crossings on College Street and Hawkins Street that are proposed for removal would have the 

option to use the proposed grade separation on Cedar Creek Road. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 

provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Cedar Creek Road and Main 

Street intersection, while Table 4-119 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and 

Proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-119, with the proposed design, the Cedar Creek Road 

and Main Street intersection operates very similarly in the design year with and without the 

Project. All movements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in both the No Build and 

proposed conditions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-238 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-119 

Cedar Creek Road and Main Street - Level of Service in 2030 

Westbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) B A 

No Build (PM) A A 

Proposed (AM) B A 

Proposed (PM) B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Cedar Creek Road and New Connector: An extension of Hawkins Street is proposed to provide a 

new connection to Cedar Creek Road east of the proposed grade separated crossing. This new 

connection would create a new intersection on Cedar Creek Road and allow traffic currently 

using the at-grade rail crossings on College Street and Hawkins Street to access the proposed 

grade separated crossing on Cedar Creek Road. Volumes at this intersection were estimated using 

counts at the intersections of College Street and Hawkins Street, Hawkins Street/Hillsborough 

Street and Main Street, Cedar Creek Road and Main Street, and projected school trip 

assignments. Appendix P Figures 57 and 58 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour 

volumes for the Cedar Creek Road and New Connector intersection, while Table 4-120 provides 

the level of service for the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-120, the proposed 

New Connector intersection with Cedar Creek Road is anticipated to have all movements operate 

at LOS A in 2030 with the Project. 

Table 4-120 

Cedar Creek Road and New Connector - Level of Service in 2030 

Southbound Southwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) -- -- 

No Build (PM) -- -- 

Proposed (AM) A A 

Proposed (PM) A A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

RALEIGH, NC 

ATLANTIC AVENUE AND WOLFPACK LANE/HIGHWOODS 

BOULEVARD 

The Preferred Alternative in this area is the common alignment of the NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5 

Project alternatives. Refer to map sheets 146 and 147 in Appendix R for a map of the proposed 

designs in this location. Under the Project designs, a bridge would be provided at Wolfpack Lane 

and the proposed Project railroad alignment, located just west of the intersection of Wolfpack 

Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue in Raleigh, NC. In order to maintain all 

movements across Atlantic Avenue, Tarheel Drive, and Wolfpack Lane and provide the grade 

separated crossing, Tarheel Drive will be realigned and three closely spaced intersections created. 

The analysis discussed in this section was performed to determine the effects of the proposed 

grade separation over the Project railroad alignment to the surrounding intersections and how 

operations will compare to future operations if the Project was not implemented. The three 

closely spaced intersections that would be created by the Project: Highwoods Boulevard and 

Atlantic Avenue, Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court, and Wolfpack Lane and Beechleaf 

Court were all analyzed under signal control. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-239 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

While the concept of maintaining all movements at these intersections may not be ideal, both the 

public and the City of Raleigh, NC, supported them, and they result in adequate intersection level 

of service, minimize overall impacts, and, based on the analysis, result in relatively efficient 

traffic flow. 

Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive: Neither the existing configuration nor the design year traffic 

volumes for the Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive intersection are expected to change with the 

Project. The only considerable effect on operations could be the proposed signal at the 

intersection of Wolfpack Lane and Beechleaf Court. Appendix P Figures 61 and 62 provide the 

2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive 

intersection, while Table 4-121 provides the level of service for the future No-Build and proposed 

conditions. As shown by Table 4-121, the intersection of Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive is 

expected to operate very similarly in the design year with and without the proposed Project, and 

no movements are anticipated to operate below LOS B. 

Table 4-121 

Wolfpack Lane and Tarheel Drive - Level of Service in 2030 

Southbound Southeast 

bound 

No Build (AM) B A 

No Build (PM) B A 

Proposed (AM) B A 

Proposed (PM) B A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue: With the proposed removal of the 

at-grade rail crossing on Wolfpack Lane, this intersection would become a “T” type intersection. 

The removal of the fourth leg is anticipated to improve operations; however, with the new 

proposed closely spaced signalized intersections, coordination will be a key factor in future 

operations. It should be noted that in the analysis, this intersection was coordinated with these 

three intersections and not intersections along Atlantic Avenue which could affect operations of 

Atlantic Avenue in the future. Appendix P Figures 61 and 62 provide the 2030 proposed laneage 

and peak hour volumes for the Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue 

intersection, while Table 4-122 provides the level of service for the 2030 No-Build and proposed 

conditions. As shown by Table 4-122, the intersection of Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard 

and Atlantic Avenue operates with less congestion in the design year with the proposed Project 

and its associated design. No approaches are anticipated to operate below LOS C in the proposed 

conditions, while several movements are expected to operate at LOS F in the No Build PM peak 

period. 

Table 4-122 

Wolfpack Lane/Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue - 

Level of Service in 2030 

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 

No Build (AM) F D D D 

No Build (PM) F F F D 

Proposed (AM) -- C C B 

Proposed (PM) -- C C C 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Beechleaf Court and Wolfpack Lane: In order to help facilitate all movements, Wolfpack Lane is 

proposed to extend to Beechleaf Court, which will create a new “T” intersection. This new 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-240 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

connection will allow traffic from Wolfpack Lane to access Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic 

Avenue. Conversely, it will also allow traffic from Highwoods Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue to 

access Wolfpack Lane. Based on laneage and for coordination purposes, this intersection was 

analyzed under signal control. Appendix P Figures 61 and 62 provide the 2030 proposed laneage 

and peak hour volumes for the Wolfpack Lane and Beechleaf Court intersection, while Table 4-

123 provides the level of service for the 2030 proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-123, 

while one approach (northeast bound) in the PM peak is expected to operate at LOS E in the 2030 

design year, the remaining movements are expected to operate at an overall LOS D or better in 

the proposed conditions.

Table 4-123 

Wolfpack Lane and Beechleaf Court - Level of Service in 2030 

Southbound Northeast 

bound 

Southwest 

bound 

Proposed (AM) D D B 

Proposed (PM) D E A 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court: With the proposed Project design, traffic patterns 

and geometrics at this intersection will change considerably. Due to projected volumes, proposed 

laneage, and for coordination purposes, this intersection was analyzed under signal control in the 

design year for both the proposed and No Build conditions. Appendix P Figures 61 and 62 

provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Highwoods Boulevard and 

Beechleaf Court intersection, while Table 4-124 provides the level of service for the 2030 

proposed conditions. As shown by Table 4-124, while one approach (southwest bound) in the PM 

peak is expected to operate at LOS F in the 2030 design year, the remaining movements are 

expected to operate LOS D or better in the proposed conditions. 

Table 4-124 

Highwoods Boulevard and Beechleaf Court - Level of Service in 2030 

Southeast 

bound 

Northwest 

bound 

Northeast 

bound 

Southwest 

bound 

No Build (AM) A A D D 

No Build (PM) A B D C 

Proposed (AM) C C A C 

Proposed (PM) D D A F 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

Highwoods Boulevard and Smoketree Court: The Highwoods Boulevard and Smoketree Court 

intersection traffic volumes, traffic patterns, and intersection geometry are not expected to alter 

with the Project; therefore, no analysis was performed for this intersection. Appendix P Figures 

61 and 62 provide the 2030 proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the Highwoods 

Boulevard and Smoketree Court intersection. 

DOWNTOWN RALEIGH, NC, AREA 

In downtown Raleigh, NC, the Preferred Alternative is NC5. Refer to map sheets 148-150 in 

Appendix R for maps of the proposed designs in this area. The Project designs in downtown 

Raleigh, NC, locate proposed grade separated crossings adjacent to existing grade separated 

crossings; however, two existing at-grade crossings, Jones Street and Hargett Street, will be closed 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-241 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

to vehicular traffic. Given the expansive grid system in downtown Raleigh, NC, the system is 

expected to be able to adequately service the rerouted traffic. The analysis discussed in this section 

was performed to determine the effects of the proposed at-grade crossing closures on multiple 

nearby downtown intersections. Aside from Jones Street and Hargett Street, no intersection 

geometry is anticipated to alter due to the Project. Appendix P Figures 65 and 66 provide the 2030 

proposed laneage and peak hour volumes for the downtown intersections while Table 4-125 

provides the level of service for the 2030 No Build and proposed conditions. 

Table 4-125 

Downtown Raleigh, NC - Level of Service in 2030 

Intersection Movement Period 2030 

No Build 

2030 

Proposed 

Glenwood Avenue/North Street 

(signalized) all 

AM A B 

PM B B 

North Street/West Street (unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Westbound 

AM B B 

PM B C 

Northbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Southbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

North Street/Harrington Street 

(unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Northbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Harrington Street/Lane Street 

(unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Westbound 

Left 

AM A A 

PM B B 

Westbound 

Thru/Right 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Northbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Glenwood Avenue/Jones Street 

(signalized) all 

AM A A 

PM B A 

West Street/Jones Street (unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Westbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Northbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Southbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Harrington Street/Jones Street 

(unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-242 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-125 

Downtown Raleigh, NC - Level of Service in 2030 

Intersection Movement Period 2030 

No Build 

2030 

Proposed 

Northbound 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Southbound 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Glenwood Avenue/Hillsborough 

Street (signalized) all AM B C 

PM B C 

Edenton Street/West Street 

(signalized) all AM C B 

PM B B 

Boylan Street/Morgan Street 

(signalized) all 

AM C C 

PM B B 

Glenwood Avenue/Morgan 

Street (signalized) all 

AM B A 

PM C B 

Boylan Street/Hargett Street 

(signalized) all 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Hargett Street/West Street 

(unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM A -- 

PM A -- 

Westbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Northbound 

AM B A 

PM B B 

Southbound 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Hargett Street/Harrington Street 

(unsignalized) Eastbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Westbound 

AM A A 

PM A A 

Northbound 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Southbound 

AM B B 

PM B B 

Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. 

As shown by Table 4-125, all analyzed signalized intersections in the Raleigh, NC, downtown area 

are expected to operate LOS C or better in the 2030 design year No Build and proposed conditions. 

Each unsignalized movement is also expected to operate LOS C or better in the 2030 design year 

No Build and proposed conditions. Based on this information, the downtown grid network, which 

provides the ability for trips to divert in numerous ways, is expected to have adequate capacity to 

service the rerouted traffic associated with the proposed Project. 

The downtown grid network is anticipated to be able to service the design year traffic with the 

proposed Project railroad alignment. However, during final design the Project Team will 

coordinate with the City of Raleigh, NC, regarding the following: 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-243 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Accommodations for cyclists (such as identification of an alternate route) for the proposed 

closure of Hargett Street at-grade crossing. Hargett Street currently services the signed 

bicycle route Cross Town Route 8. 

 Accommodations for cyclists (such as identification of an alternate route) for Jones Street, 

which currently serves as a signed bicycle route, Cross Town Route 9. The Preferred 

Alternative includes closing the existing at-grade crossing to vehicular traffic, and building a 

pedestrian bridge with towers. 

 The City of Raleigh, NC, is currently in the process of upgrading their City Signal System. 

The Project Team will continue to coordinate with the City related to the signals in the areas 

of the rail crossing closures and grade separations to service the final reconfigured traffic as 

well as traffic shifts during construction. Updates may include signal timings as well as signal 

and signal system equipment including interconnections. 

 The Project Team will coordinate with the school system on potential school bus rerouting 

due to the crossing closures, grade separations, and associated. While it should be noted the 

Underwood Gifted and Talented Magnet, Project Enlightenment, and Wiley Elementary 

schools are in the vicinity of this alignment, a concern with school bus routing is not 

anticipated. This is based on the fact that the current US DOT Crossing Inventory Sheets as 

of March 26, 2009 for the crossings of Jones Street (Crossing Number 630-629N), West 

Street (Crossing Number 630-628G), Harrington Street (Crossing Number 630-627A), and 

Hargett Street (Crossing Numbers 735-364G and 630-632W), indicate the average number of 

school busses per day over those crossings is zero. 

RAIL 

As described in Section 3.14, the two main Class I railroads operating in Virginia and North Carolina 

are CSX and NS. A large portion of the existing rail network is single-track, which creates 

bottlenecks in high traffic areas. The Preferred Alternative provides improvements to the rail network 

through provision of additional tracks, which increases capacity; through designs for straighter track, 

which allows increased speeds; and through use of grade-separated crossings, which improve safety. 

In addition, this Project could provide relief to the congested CSX A-line over much of the corridor 

and also provide a detour route should the A-line be closed due to damage or derailments. Refer to 

Section 1.4 for a full description of rail improvements throughout the corridor. For a description of 

the designs for river and major creek bridges, and description of the track configuration by Project 

section, refer to Chapter 2. The track charts provided in the Tier II DEIS have been updated and can 

be found in Appendix E. 

STATIONS 

Section 4.14.4 of the Tier II DEIS contained a discussion regarding station locations. However, as 

noted in Chapter 3 of this Tier II FEIS, this study does not evaluate environmental impacts related to 

specific station locations, but rather provides a general discussion of potential station locations in 

relationship to the larger transportation network. Therefore, the discussion regarding stations was 

determined to be more appropriately placed within the Project description in Section 1.4. 

TRANSIT 

The Project is being planned to allow connectivity with other rail transit in the major metropolitan 

areas along the Project corridor as well as to other forms of transit. In addition, Virginia and North 

Carolina have both evaluated the feasibility of adding conventional passenger train service to eastern 

and western portions of the states. The Project, as part of the SEHSR Corridor, would serve as the 

spine to these added routes, allowing conventional rail service passengers to connect to the proposed 

SEHSR service and other points in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. The Project enhances the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-244 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

connectivity through greatly enhanced speed, reliability, and reductions in travel time, as discussed in 

Section 1.5. 

Section 3.11.3 discussed the associated local and regional transit services planned to connect to the 

Project, as well as which agencies are responsible for planning the transportation needs in the twostate Study Area. For example, rail transit plans for the Richmond, VA, region include several 

commuter rail and light rail lines providing service to Main Street Station. In addition, TT’s regional 

rail plans for the Raleigh, NC, region involve a light rail line that could potentially share the same 

general corridor as the Project railroad alignment from north Raleigh, NC, to downtown Raleigh, NC, 

and then continue west along existing rail lines to Orange and Durham Counties. As noted in Chapter 

3, planning between the TT Regional Transit project and the Project (especially in those areas where 

the proposed ROW’s for the two systems are immediately adjacent to each other) is on-going and has 

included extensive coordination with the NCDOT Rail Division and the Project Team. 

As discussed in Section 3.11.3.1, there is currently at least one public transit service agency that 

provides bus or van services for SEHSR riders at each of the planned SEHSR station locations within 

the Study Area. This includes the following bus transit agencies/systems listed by proposed SEHSR 

station location: 

 Richmond, VA - Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) 

 Petersburg, VA - Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) 

 La Crosse, VA - Lake Area Bus (LAB) 

 Henderson, NC - Kerr Area Rural Transportation System (KARTS) 

 Raleigh, NC - Capital Area Transit (CAT) & Triangle Transit (TT) 

These existing systems are likely to be expanded and/or supplemented with additional systems once 

the Project is constructed and anticipated ridership on the SEHSR Corridor becomes a reality. As 

noted in Section 3.11.3.1, each of the regional transportation agencies in the Study Area is committed 

to provide enhanced transit opportunities surrounding the proposed SEHSR Corridor stops. 

AVIATION 

This section is new to the Tier II FEIS and was added to address agency comments on the Tier II 

DEIS. 

As noted in Section 3.14.6, according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 

150/5300, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) is required for 

projects that exceed specific standards listed in 14 CFR 77.9. The three airports located near the 

Preferred Alternative do not meet the need for this Notice, as detailed in Table 4-126. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-245 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-126 

Airports Located Near Preferred Alternative

Name Location 

Runway 

Length 

(ft) 

Distance 

Between 

Runway 

and 

SEHSR 

(ft) 

SEHSR 

Largest 

Height 

Above 

Ground 

(ft) 

Is FAA Notice Required? If 

Not, Why? (see Notes 

Below) 

Chesterfield 

County 

Richmond, 

VA 

5,500 18,900 ~40 No – Exempt (§ 77.9 (e)(1)); 

also SEHR height will not 

exceed 189 ft (§ 77.9(b)(1)) 

Dinwiddie 

County 

Petersburg, 

VA 

5,000 10,000 ~40 No – Exempt (§ 77.9 (e)(1)); 

also SEHR height will not 

exceed 100 ft (§ 77.9(b)(1)) 

MecklenburgBrunswick 

Regional 

Airport 

South Hill, 

VA 

5,000 10,300 ~40 No – SEHR height will not 

exceed 103 ft (§ 77.9(b)(1)) 

NOTES: 

§ 77.9 Construction or alteration requiring notice. If requested by the FAA, or if you propose any of the following types of 

construction or alteration, you must file notice with the FAA of: 

(a) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 ft. Above Ground Level (AGL) at its site. 

(b) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at any of the following 

slopes: 

(1) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in 

paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway more than 3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports. 

(2) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport described in 

paragraph (d) of this section with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft. in actual length, excluding heliports. 

(c) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an 

Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed 

for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile 

object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a 

waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object 

that would normally traverse it, would exceed a standard of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. 

(d) Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports and heliports: (1) A public use airport listed in the 

Airport/Facility Directory, Alaska Supplement, or Pacific Chart Supplement of the U.S. Government Flight Information 

Publications; 

(e) You do not need to file notice for construction or alteration of: 

(1) Any object that will be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or 

topographic features of equal or greater height, and will be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where

the shielded structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. 

UTILITIES 

Utility impacts for the Preferred Alternative vary widely throughout the length of the Project. Table 4-

147 displays a summary of the projected costs associated with impacts to utility infrastructure, by 

section for the Preferred Alternative. 

Utility cost estimated were developed initially for the Tier II DEIS. Appendix N of the Tier II DEIS 

provided a breakdown of utility impacts by type (power, telephone, cable television, water, gas, and 

sewer) for each alternative, by section. These costs were evaluated during selection of the Preferred 

Alternative, as described in Chapter 2. The costs for the Preferred Alternative shown in Table 4-127 

are from the Tier II DEIS, with the exception of Section V where a new alternative (NC5) was 

developed based on stakeholder input. NCDOT developed utility costs for the new portion of this 

alignment in 2011. Based on this information and the existing utility costs north of Whitaker Mill Road 

for Section V, the utility impacts for NC5 were estimated. For the other sections, the minor adjustments 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-246 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

made to the designs were not deemed to be sufficient to substantially change the costs estimated in the 

Tier II DEIS. 

Table 4-127 

Utility Cost Impacts by Section (in dollars) 

Section Preferred 

Alternative Utility Costs 

AA VA1 $20,469,250 

BB VA1 $3,874,350 

CC VA1 $4,486,800 

DD VA3 $2,421,500 

A VA2 $415,675 

B VA1 $264,000 

C VA1 $1,874,650 

D VA4 $1,283,500 

E VA1 $765,900 

F VA1 $409,925 

G VA3 $191,700 

H VA1 $727,900 

I VA1 $990,950 

J VA2 $996,550 

K VA1 $397,900 

L (VA) VA1 $459,200 

L (NC) NC1 $543,597 

M NC1 $1,343,111 

N NC1 $505,185 

O NC3 $189,972 

P NC1 $2,683,653 

Q NC1 $681,550 

R NC1 $21,882 

S NC1 $1,054,977 

T NC1 $906,535 

U NC1 $2,114,507 

V NC5 $2,279,020 

Source: NCDOT, 2008, 2009. 2011; DRPT, 2006, 2009. 

GROUNDWATER WELLS AND SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INTAKES 

SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INTAKES 

The Preferred Alternative will not directly impact any surface water supply intakes. 

The Project will employ best management practices in both Virginia and North Carolina to control 

erosion and sedimentation, and to prevent spills. Section 4.1 lists all mitigation and minimization 

techniques that will be followed to minimize water quality impacts from the Project. 

Potential impacts to public water distribution systems will be verified during final design and local 

utilities will be contacted during the right of way phase of the Project, if necessary. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-247 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

GROUNDWATER WELLS 

Subsequent to the publication of the Tier II DEIS, it was determined that the Project would impact 

two private wells. The Preferred Alternative will impact a private well serving Hillcrest Mobile 

Home Park, located north of La Crosse, VA in Section I. The Mecklenburg County, VA, Health 

Department has indicated that there is sufficient land available within the Hillcrest property to 

accommodate relocation of the drinking water well. During final design, a suitable new water 

source will be identified to ensure a continuous, safe, and sanitary water source for the residents. 

The Preferred Alternative will also impact the Aqua North Carolina well on Ligon Mill Road in 

Wake Forest, NC, in Section U. It is anticipated that the impact to the Agua North Carolina well 

can be mitigated with a connection to a public water supply or the well can be relocated. This issue 

will be addressed during the final design stage of the Project, at which time coordination with the 

owner of the well will take place. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

This section has been revised in response to public comments on the Tier II DEIS. 

As discussed in Section 1.8.6, passenger rail has consistently been one of the safest ways to travel 

nationally. Since 1970, over 94% of all transportation fatalities have been motor vehicle related, while 

less than 4% have been related to rail operations (and the majority of those are due to highway-rail 

collisions or trespassers, as opposed to train accidents). Following this national trend, passenger rail 

has consistently been one of the safest ways to travel in Virginia and North Carolina, with railroad 

related fatalities representing only 0.1% of total transportation related fatalities for both states in 2010. 

The safety improvements discussed in Section 1.8.6, along with the full grade separations proposed 

with this Project, will result in improved overall rail passenger safety within the Project corridor when 

compared to existing rail service and will create an even safer mode of transportation than currently 

available in the Study Area. Increasing the safety of the transportation system within the travel 

corridor is one of the primary purposes for the Project. 

HIGH SPEED RAIL (HSR) SAFETY 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 (Transportation) requires high speed trains and track 

to be designed and maintained at a very high standard for safety and ride quality. The proposed 

Project improvements will be designed to meet American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-ofway Association (AREMA) standards for high speed track and will exceed the requirements of CFR 

Title 49. The design will include such items as modern track components and geometry and 

advanced signal systems that separate trains. In addition, risk of derailment is significantly reduced 

by the elimination of at-grade crossings, where the potential of a collision is highest. Maintenance 

requirements of CFR Title 49 include frequent inspection of vehicles and track, and independent 

testing by FRA. 

In addition, FRA currently administers a comprehensive set of safety standards and program guidance 

for conventional and high-speed operations. These standards include requirements for track, 

equipment, operating rules and practices, signals and train control, communications, emergency 

preparedness, and certification of locomotive engineers, among others. In 2009, FRA began 

amending those existing safety standards through a High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy that 

will support a very high level of safety for new passenger rail services, including final design and 

operations of the SEHSR Corridor (USDOT FRA, 2009). This Strategy will update and augment 

existing FRA design and operation standards based on lessons learned from high speed systems 

around the world. New factors being evaluated include: volume and nature of freight operations 

sharing the system, construction of shared equipment on the system, ability to respond to 

emergencies, and degree of isolation of the system from hazards (vehicles, unauthorized access, 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-248 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

vandalism, and natural hazards). Under this FRA Strategy, operators of HSR along the SEHSR 

Corridor will be required to prepare and follow the following safety elements: Right-of-Way Safety 

Plan, Maintenance-of-Way Safety Management Plan, On-Board Emergency Systems and System 

Safety Programs. 

GRADE SEPARATION 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the existing rail corridors contain 200-plus rail-road crossings, many of 

which are at-grade, which pose inherent hazards to existing train operations, motor vehicles, nonmotorized vehicles, and pedestrians. Since 1994, USDOT policy has supported consolidation or 

elimination of at-grade roadway crossings on all active rail lines (freight and/or passenger) because 

roadway-rail crossings are the most difficult to control and therefore present the areas with the highest 

risk, given the involvement of two independent modes of transportation (USDOT, 1994). 

According to recent FRA guidelines for highway-rail crossings for high-speed passenger rail special 

care must be observed where rail lines carry high-speed passenger trains to ensure that road traffic 

does not present an obstruction that could result in a collision and subsequent derailment (USDOT 

FRA, 2009). The presence of both high-speed passenger trains and slower-moving freight trains (as 

proposed within the Project corridor) creates another dimension of risk, warranting additional 

attention to governance of all traffic over the roadway-rail intersection. Under these circumstances, 

exclusive reliance on sight distance or audible warnings to judge the arrival of trains is not practical. 

Particularly where there are two or more tracks (as proposed with some portions the Project), the 

potential for an event involving more than the single train initially impacting a road user adds to the 

potential for even greater additional risk. 

For these reasons, as well as the other safety and operability purposes detailed in Section 2.2.1.2, the 

Project is proposing the safest design possible by consolidating and grade separating all railroadroadway crossings. Included in the Project are over 80 new bridges/overpasses/underpasses that, 

when combined with existing bridges/overpasses and proposed roadway realignments and closures, 

will create a fully grade-separated system to ensure absolute automobile/truck – train collision 

avoidance (which is the primary cause for derailments), thereby assuring the highest level of safety to 

both passengers and the surrounding communities. Detailed information about proposed treatments 

for existing at-grade crossings (both public and private), can be found in Appendix F and are shown 

on the designs in Appendix R. 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

The ability of pedestrians to move safely across the HSR corridor is another important safety 

consideration. In Virginia, one existing public pedestrian-only underpass will be retained with the 

Preferred Alternative (there are no existing public pedestrian-only bridges or underpasses in North 

Carolina). The Preferred Alternative also proposes twelve new pedestrian-only bridges/underpasses to 

provide increased pedestrian access in certain downtown areas. All of the proposed new bridge and 

underpass designs will have sufficient width so as not to create a hazard for pedestrian movement. In 

locations where existing pedestrian accommodations (e.g., sidewalks) currently exist, these 

accommodations will be provided on the bridges/underpasses. At other locations, pedestrian 

accommodations on the bridges/underpasses will be evaluated during final design based on the 

current NCDOT and VDOT pedestrian policies. In general, these policies consider the provision of 

pedestrian accommodations in more populous locations where pedestrian activity currently exists. 

FENCING 

Fencing that would direct pedestrians to bridges/underpasses may be proposed for some locations in 

urbanized areas. The location and type of fencing will be determined during final design, based on 

coordination between the owner of the rail corridor, the operator of the railroad, and adjacent 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-249 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

communities. Such fencing, along with the proposed crossing closures may prevent unauthorized 

access onto the rail corridor in some areas, as well as help direct pedestrians to safe crossings 

(bridges/underpasses), thereby improving safety along the corridor. 

OTHER SECURITY CONCERNS 

Section 3.19 provided a discussion about railroad security in the current security climate. Just as it 

exists currently, the future developed Project corridor will remain accessible from many miles of 

arterial and secondary roadways where no security measures are practicable. It should be noted that 

any crossing of the railroad (either existing or proposed with the Project) where no legal crossings 

currently exist is not only unsafe, it is considered trespassing. 

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This section is completely revised from the Tier II DEIS to address public and agency comments on the 

Tier II DEIS. 

The purpose of this section is to examine the indirect and cumulative effects (ICEs) of the Project. 

NEPA, as amended, requires the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts as part of the 

Project decision-making process. The CEQ guidelines define direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

as follows: 

 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 

 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and 

other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or 

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems. 

 Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment that result from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time. 

Descriptions of the Study Area’s history and how past actions shaped the present are provided in the 

Phase I and Phase II architectural and archaeological reports prepared for this Project and are 

summarized in Chapter 3.12 of the 2010 Tier II DEIS and this Tier II FEIS. Present conditions of the 

Study Area, including land use, transportation planning, communities, protected species and habitats, 

and other human and natural resources, are documented in Chapter 3 of this Tier II FEIS. The direct 

effects of the Project on human and natural resources are documented throughout Chapters 4 and 5 of 

this Tier II FEIS. Potential indirect and cumulative effects are based on the information provided in 

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this Tier II FEIS. 

The implementation of the Project would have varying degrees of indirect and cumulative effects at 

national, regional, and local levels. Contributing factors to indirect and cumulative effects are other 

major planned actions and the Project’s compatibility with future land use and transportation plans. 

Mitigating factors that could offset any impacts would include locally adopted ordinances and land use 

controls. Summaries of concerns relative to the potential for indirect and cumulative effects, as further 

discussed in this section, are provided in Table 4-128 and Table 4-129, respectively. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-250 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-128 

Issues/Concerns and Potential Indirect Effects (Dependent on Location) 

Area of Concern Potential Indirect Effects Potential Mitigation Actions 

Water Resources: Streams, 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, 

Floodplains, Water Quality 

 Potential negative impacts to wetlands, 

streams, riparian areas, floodplains, 

water quality from potential secondary 

development surrounding the proposed 

stations in more rural areas. 

 Potential water quality effects associated 

with construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the rail system. 

 Stormwater controls and locally 

administered monitoring 

 Local and use controls limiting 

development and runoff 

 Local low impact development 

guidelines 

 Stormwater facility maintenance 

 Following sediment and erosion 

control guidance during 

construction 

Farmlands  Potential loss of prime farmland soils as 

a result of secondary development 

surrounding the proposed stations in 

more rural areas. 

 Local land use controls that 

concentrate development around 

station 

Air Quality  Localized air quality impacts from 

increased traffic due to potential 

secondary development surrounding the 

proposed stations in more rural areas. 

 Regional air quality improvements from 

switch to auto-related trips to rail-related 

trips. 

 Travel demand management 

strategies that reduce trip making 

as applied locally 

Noise & Vibration  Noise and vibration impacts from 

increased traffic due to potential 

secondary development surrounding the 

proposed stations in more rural areas. 

 Local zoning and land use 

controls that require buffering 

around stations 

Biological Resources: Terrestrial & 

Aquatic Communities 

 Potential terrestrial and aquatic wildlife 

and habitat impacts from secondary 

development surrounding the proposed 

stations in more rural areas. 

 Potential water quality effects associated 

with construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the rail system. 

 Local land use controls that 

concentrate development around 

stations 

 Local monitoring programs of 

habitats 

 Stormwater facility maintenance 

 Following sediment and erosion 

control guidance during 

construction 

Rare & Protected Species  Potential for secondary development to 

put pressures on existing protected 

species and habitats surrounding the 

proposed stations in more rural areas. 

 Potential water quality effects associated 

with construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the rail system. 

 Local land use controls that 

concentrate development around 

stations 

 Local monitoring programs of 

habitats 

 Stormwater facility maintenance 

 Following sediment and erosion 

control guidance during 

construction 

Community Resources:  Potential secondary development could 

place additional demands on community 

resources such as schools, emergency 

response, and infrastructure surrounding 

the proposed stations. 

 Local land use planning (use of 

proffers or development 

requirements to meet new 

demand for services) 

Socioeconomics  Economic development around rail 

stations, with increased employment 

opportunities and induced development. 

 None required, beneficial impact 

potential 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-251 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-128 

Issues/Concerns and Potential Indirect Effects (Dependent on Location) 

Area of Concern Potential Indirect Effects Potential Mitigation Actions 

 Potential for additional employment 

opportunities around secondary 

development areas. 

Neighborhood & Community 

Impacts 

 Effects on communities due to change in 

development patterns, densities and 

property values, and associated traffic 

impacts due to induced development 

surrounding the proposed stations. 

 Local land use controls to limit 

impacts including traffic 

mitigation measures 

Land Use  Change in development, including 

increased redevelopment to higher 

densities and increased property values, 

around stations 

 Local economic effects from change in 

development and property values around 

stations 

 Potential for secondary development 

around station areas is greatest in the La 

Crosse area, given the amount of 

undeveloped land currently available; 

however, all station areas will see 

secondary development pressures. 

 None required – land use would 

be determined by local 

authorities in terms of any 

changes that occur 

Archaeological & Historical 

Resources 

 

 Potential for secondary development 

surrounding the proposed stations to put 

pressures on archaeological resources 

and to alter historic quality of towns and 

communities. 

 Local land use controls – historic 

preservation codes and local 

enforcement 

Transportation: Roads, Traffic, Rail, 

Stations 

 Increased traffic from potential induced 

development surrounding the proposed 

stations. 

 Increased multi-modal system linkage 

 Local land use controls including 

traffic analyses and local 

investments would mitigate any 

impacts 

Table 4-129 

Concerns and Potential Cumulative Effects (Dependent on Location) 

Area of Concern Potential Cumulative Effects Potential Mitigation Actions 

Water Resources  Possible cumulative effects due to increased 

impervious ground surfaces related to road work, 

resulting in stormwater run-off and reduction in 

water quality. 

 Possible cumulative effects of development 

pressures on water resources of wetlands, streams, 

rivers, riparian areas. 

 Stormwater contols and locally 

administered monitoring 

 Local and use controls limiting 

development and runoff 

 Local low impact development 

guidelines 

 Local land use controls that limit 

growth in undeveloped areas 

along corridor and concentrate 

growth and infill development in 

areas best suited to 

accommodate it. 

Air Quality  Regionally, automobile emissions may decrease as 

drivers switch to passenger rail as their mode of 

transportation. 

 None required 

Noise & Vibration  Increased freight rail in addition to passenger rail 

could cumulatively impact those in the vicinity of 

the rail line. 

 Locally administered mitigation 

programs including buffering, 

noise insulation. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-252 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 4-129 

Concerns and Potential Cumulative Effects (Dependent on Location) 

Area of Concern Potential Cumulative Effects Potential Mitigation Actions 

 Impact would be worse in areas where rail service 

is not currently provided. 

Biological Resources  Possible cumulative effects of development 

pressures on biological resources of terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife and habitat. 

 Local land use controls that limit 

growth in undeveloped areas 

along corridor and concentrate 

growth and infill development in 

areas best suited to 

accommodate it. 

Communities and 

Community Resources 

 Potential for increased population and employment 

in areas around rail stations, leading to an increase 

in community resource demands in city centers. 

 Benefit from improved mobility option offered by 

passenger rail. 

 The combination of increased noise and vibration 

and changes to circulation patterns from crossing 

closures and consolidations could reduce the 

feeling of community. However, to some, the 

addition of HSR and a station could improve a 

community’s sense of identity and offer 

employment and development opportunities that 

might not otherwise be possible. 

 Local land use planning and 

provision of services to meet 

demand. 

Land Use  A possible increase in new development and 

redevelopment to higher density uses near 

proposed stations may shift some urban growth 

away from suburban and greenfield areas and into 

city centers, increasing the demand for urban 

services in downtowns but reducing the impact of 

growth on sensitive natural environmental 

resources. 

 None required, land use would 

be controlled locally to define 

what patterns of development 

would occur over time. 

Archaeological & 

Historical Resources 

 The combination of secondary development near 

the proposed stations with the direct effects of the 

project could potentially threaten the integrity of 

archaeological and historical resources. 

 Although the increase in redevelopment pressures 

nearest the proposed HSR stations may threaten 

some historic resources, other areas of downtown 

may see additional interest in the restoration of 

historic structures for homes and small businesses. 

 Locally administered 

preservation programs to reduce 

potential impacts to these 

resources. 

Traffic  The combination of removing at-grade rail 

crossings and replacing with grade-separated 

crossings, along with roadway trips switching to 

passenger rail trips, would have a cumulative 

benefit on the roadway network in terms of 

improving overall safety and reducing traffic 

volumes on the interstate. 

 Localized station area traffic increase due to 

induced demand and provision of stations over 

time. 

 No mitigation required for 

beneficial impacts 

 Traffic mitigation measures 

implemented by local land use 

controls as development occurs 

near stations and as stations are 

developed by localities involved. 

Freight Rail 

Operations 

 The potential for increased freight rail shipping 

from separate but ongoing road and rail projects 

could result in overall truck traffic reduction on 

interstate facilities and an economic benefit to the 

freight rail industry and supporting services 

 No mitigation required. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-253 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NATIONAL EFFECTS 

The Project, as part of the SEHSR Corridor (one of the ten Federally-designated HSR corridors), will 

play an important role in modernizing America’s transportation system. A national HSR network will 

help fulfill the strategic transportation goals identified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 and the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. Cumulatively, the 

Project, when combined with other HSR projects, would help achieve the following national 

transportation goals: 

Safe and Efficient Transportation Choices 

Provide safe and efficient transportation choices by promoting the safest possible movement of 

goods and people and optimizing the use of existing and new transportation infrastructure. 

Foundation for Economic Competitiveness 

Build a foundation for economic competitiveness by laying the groundwork for near-term and 

ongoing economic growth by facilitating efficient movement of people and goods, while 

renewing critical domestic manufacturing and supply industries. America’s transportation system 

is the lifeblood of the economy. Providing a robust rail network can help serve the needs of 

national and regional commerce in a cost-effective, resource-efficient manner, by offering 

travelers and freight convenient access to economic centers. 

Energy Efficiency and Environmental Quality 

Promote energy efficiency and environmental quality by reinforcing efforts to foster energy 

independence and renewable energy, and reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Rail is 

already among the cleanest and most energy-efficient of the passenger transportation modes. 

Findings from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 

indicate that the expansion of intercity passenger rail would improve the nation’s transportation 

system by reducing congestion on other modes and offering mobility options to travelers. As 

noted above, it would also address important national goals related to climate change and energy 

use. The following summarizes the benefits associated with an expanded intercity passenger rail 

service. 

 Relieve highway and airway congestion; 

 Improve public safety and air quality; 

 Reduce fuel consumption per passenger mile, potentially reducing the nation’s dependence 

on imported oil; 

 Help mitigate the negative impacts of short or prolonged energy supply disruptions and 

energy price increases; 

 Provide land use and travel pattern changes that could improve air and water quality, as well 

as aesthetic appeal; 

 Provide mobility and economic development opportunities to smaller communities with little 

or no other access to public transport; 

 Assure a redundant transportation mode for use in emergency situations; and 

 Provide a mobility option for individuals who do not drive or fly. 

REGIONAL EFFECTS 

As stated in the Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and Raleigh, NC, 

implementation of HSR in the SEHSR Corridor would enhance the existing transportation network 

along the SEHSR Corridor, providing many indirect benefits. It would link cities and major 

metropolitan areas where highway and airline travel volumes are the greatest, thereby providing a 

travel alternative that will help ease congestion on the existing highway and airway systems. The 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-254 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

proposed Project would offer an alternative mode of transportation between Virginia and North 

Carolina. 

The increased speeds and frequencies proposed for the Project will allow people to make trips that 

they otherwise would not make, increasing capacity to the overall transportation network and the 

ability for people to travel. The auto trip diversions to the new HSR service would aid in improving 

air quality throughout the Study Area. The extension of HSR service into states to the south would 

allow both Virginia and North Carolina to be more accessible by rail to residents, tourists, and 

business travelers arriving from the north and south. 

Implementation of HSR in the SEHSR Corridor, including the Project corridor would provide access 

to rural areas and communities through links with additional intercity passenger rail service. 

Virginia and North Carolina have both evaluated the feasibility of adding passenger train service and 

routes to eastern and western portions of their respective states. The proposed SEHSR program 

would serve as the spine to these added routes, allowing passengers to link conventional service to 

HSR service and connect to points in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. These new passenger 

train services and routes in Virginia and North Carolina would provide linkages to the SEHSR service 

from parts of Virginia and North Carolina not currently served by rail. Passenger rail linkages would 

be provided to existing and planned commuter rail services at multimodal stations, allowing for 

connections to suburbs and airports in Washington, DC, Richmond, VA, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel 

Hill (the Triangle), NC, and Charlotte, NC. 

LOCAL EFFECTS 

As reported in the Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC, 

and the Project Tier II DEIS (see Chapter 4.11.4), implementation of HSR within the SEHSR 

Corridor is not expected to alter development patterns in the Study Area except in the vicinity of the 

rail stations in Richmond, VA, (Main Street Station), Raleigh, NC, (the new Union Station to be 

completed by 2017), and the yet-to-be-determined station locations in Petersburg, VA, and La Crosse, 

VA, and Henderson, NC. The Tier I ROD for the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and 

Charlotte, NC, states that future development will occur primarily around these stations, with 

commensurate levels of noise and traffic associated with the increased use of the stations, as well as 

with secondary commercial and residential development that may be drawn to the station areas. The 

chief potential negative impact would be noise and vibration caused by the reintroduction of service 

along the CSX S-Line in Virginia where there is presently no rail service. 

The implementation of SEHSR service could result in undeveloped land in the vicinity of these 

stations developing at a faster pace than would happen without the Project. This would most likely be 

the case at the more rural rail station in La Crosse, VA where there is an abundance of undeveloped 

land. The remaining station locations are in moderately urbanized areas to highly urbanized areas 

with limited available vacant land. In these urban areas, nearest the stations, the potential for 

additional, large-scale new development and redevelopment of previously developed lands would be 

the greatest. New or retrofitted passenger stations in Richmond, VA; Petersburg, VA; Henderson, 

NC; and Raleigh, NC, could assist in urban redevelopment efforts of these localities and several of 

the localities have been doing local land use planning in anticipation of new services at these 

stations.2

 This local land use planning and control over the local land development process could 

help focus development around the existing infrastructure and minimize the use of undeveloped 

lands, and thus could help to limit suburban sprawl and therefore the impact on natural resources. In 

areas where no current rail service exists (e.g., the CSX S-Line from Petersburg, VA, to Norlina, NC), 

 

2

 As discussed previously in this document, NCDOT has secured funding to construct a new Raleigh Union Station, 

the City of Richmond is rehabilitating Main Street Station, and the Tri-Cities Municipal Planning Organization has 

recently initiated an Environmental Assessment for a new multimodal passenger station in the Tri-Cities area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-255 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

there may be secondary industrial development because of the new availability of freight access. This 

could also include the need for local governments to expand infrastructure and supporting services 

required by industrial development (e.g., roads, water/sewer, food service, residential development). 

Again, any such growth would be controlled locally through the local land development process. 

The secondary impacts of increased traffic from the new and retrofitted stations and the traffic 

diverted as a result of grade-crossing consolidations are expected to be minimal because traffic 

volumes on surrounding streets are low and can absorb added traffic without reducing the existing 

level of service. 

As previously noted, construction-related employment from the Project would be relatively shortterm. Long-term development, economic activity, and job creation would likely occur within a three 

to five mile radius of the potential station areas with the highest ridership and the greatest market 

conditions. This would likely occur in Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, given their 

existing urban development, multimodal transportation network, and diversified economies. This 

potential is contingent upon many factors such as current financial and real estate market conditions, 

and local land use and zoning regulations. Section 4.11.1 identifies potential changes in economic 

activity that might precipitate secondary development. Additional detail on the potential for 

secondary development will be more specifically assessed when as yet determined station locations 

are identified and subjected to their own NEPA process (if Federally funded) and as directed by the 

information provided by the localities that would determine the form and pattern of any secondary 

development. This activity could take place during each state and locality’s evaluation of the 

individual stations, a step that will come after the Record of Decision for this Tier II EIS. 

Secondary development could adversely impact natural resources such as streams, wetlands, riparian 

areas, floodplains, protected species, wildlife, habitats, watersheds, and water quality if not mitigated 

or controlled locally. As discussed in Section 4.1, Water Resources, and Section 4.10, Biological 

Resources, activities associated with secondary development can include conversion of farmland to 

impermeable development, clearing and grubbing of forests and stream banks, riparian canopy 

removal, loss of wildlife and aquatic habitats, increased sedimentation and nutrient loading, and 

increased demands on water resources. As previously noted, the most likely secondary development 

pressures would be within a three to five mile radius of the stations and controlled locally. Because 

developable land in the La Crosse, VA, area is more plentiful than at other station areas, the potential 

for secondary impacts to natural resources will likely be the greatest in this community. While the 

La Crosse, VA, area is rich in undeveloped land, sensitive resources such as wetlands, streams, 

floodplains, protected species or habitat are not in abundance, so prudent local land use planning 

should consider how to balance development patterns with sensitive resources. The other stations are 

proposed in highly urbanized areas where secondary development would not likely adversely impact 

most natural resources. 

From a watershed perspective, in Virginia, both the Richmond, VA, and Petersburg, VA, station areas 

are within the James River Basin, the La Crosse, VA, station would be within the Roanoke River 

Basin. In North Carolina, the Henderson, NC, station would be within the Roanoke and the TarPamlico River Basins, and the Raleigh, NC, station is in the Neuse River Basin. Any secondary 

development within these watersheds would be subject to local, state, and Federal water quality 

regulations, erosion and sediment controls, and permit requirements. Being subject to these 

regulations and requirements is a line of defense protecting sensitive natural resources. 

FRA has developed a “Station Area Planning” guide that can assist localities in managing the 

consequences and leveraging the opportunities offered by potential HSR stations USDOT FRA, 

2011). The document provides concepts, topics, and ideas to assist local jurisdictions and others to 

accomplish successful station area planning and achieve an optimal integration of the station in its 

context – to ensure ridership growth and capture livability, sustainability and economic benefits. In 

addition, many other guides are available to localities to draw upon transit-oriented development 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-256 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

(TOD) and low impact development concepts, such as encouraging compact development and 

enhancing transit, pedestrian, and bike transportation options. In addition, the recent results of a study 

on the California HSR can assist localities with better assessing how the proposed Project could bring 

positive urban transformations by considering complementarities with other station cities and how to 

integrate their station into the regional context (Mineta Transportation Institute, 2011). 

The overall air quality effect is beneficial based on the number of trips diverted from automobiles 

(see Section 4.6). This benefit would increase proportionally if the cumulative effect of 

improvements results in the railroad mode capturing more of the corridor trips than currently 

modeled. The net energy use per passenger mile is substantially less for rail than either air or auto, 

giving a net positive energy benefit. There is a net positive safety benefit because of the safety 

advantages of train versus auto travel in the corridor, along with the net positive effect of increased 

mobility choices for all populations, including minority and low income. These net positive impacts 

would grow if the cumulative effect of the improvements results in higher use of the rail 

transportation system. 

LOCAL INDIRECT EFFECTS TO NATURAL RESOURCES 

Waters, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial communities, and threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats have some potential to be indirectly affected by the project. Indirect effects 

associated with habitat fragmentation (See Section 4.10.1.1 for discussion of direct impacts) may 

result in creation of more edge habitat, barriers to wildlife movement, reduction in patch size, loss 

of interior or area-sensitive species, disruption of wildlife foraging patterns, increased opportunity 

for invasive species establishment, and generally reduced biological diversity. Indirect effects to 

major riparian corridors may be realized through restriction of movements by wildlife into and out 

of them as a result of fragmentation of the wildlife corridors, as well as more localized movements 

of wildlife into and out of these areas. 

The primary indirect effect associated with the introduction of pollutants from railroad 

construction, use, and maintenance is the degradation of nearby terrestrial and aquatic habitats. That 

degradation can take place in the form of increased deposition of sediments or contamination from 

chemical pollutants in the form of heavy metals and petroleum products and their byproducts. 

When this runoff enters waters that are already impaired, the impacts can accumulate and result in 

accelerated changes in the macrobenthic community structure and composition, which in turn can 

affect the fish and amphibian populations that rely on them as a food source, as well as the birds 

and aquatic mammals that prey on the fish and amphibians. The effects can result in changes in 

community structure at a local level, but may also extend further to include changes in ecosystem 

structure and function in the absence of proper mitigation. 

The disruption or alteration of natural processes leads to the indirect effect of changing the flow of 

energy through the local natural communities and sometimes altering the energy flow at the 

ecosystem level such that it changes the ability of the system to maintain itself. A major pathway 

for energy flows in the study area may be through the riparian corridors. Some of the potential 

effects that may occur as a result of the disruption of hydrology in these systems and wetlands of 

the study area include changes to floodwater storage capacity and retention times, vegetative 

community composition and structure, nutrient cycling, and aquatic life movement. However, 

these riparian corridors are dynamic systems both hydrologically and vegetatively; with changes in 

stream channel morphology, flow characteristics, floodwater storage capacity and retention time, 

vegetative community composition, and nutrient cycling occurring regularly throughout the 

systems due to natural causes. Hydrologic modifications due to beaver activity are commonplace, 

and these low gradient stream systems are adapted to these constantly changing hydrologic 

modifications. The changes that occur to the parameters identified above tend to be localized 

around the disturbance sites, and because the systems are adapted to regular changes in hydrologic 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-257 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

flow, the changes have little to no effect on the system’s ability to maintain itself. These systems 

are already highly segmented due to current and historic utility, roadway, (and beaver) activity. 

While railroad crossings represent a more permanent impact to the system than natural beaver 

modifications, measures can be implemented to minimize and mitigate impacts to the systems. 

OTHER PLANNED ACTIONS 

The Project takes into account other planned actions by local, state, and Federal authorities within the 

Study Area, as discussed in Sections 3.11 and 4.11. Long-range planning data was incorporated into 

the Project. The effects of other planned roadway improvements were evaluated and documented in 

the SEHSR Draft Traffic Review (Hatch Mott MacDonald, June 2013). The Richmond to Raleigh 

Project would not adversely impact the ability of these other planned projects to be constructed. 

Overall, the Project would have a beneficial impact on these planned roadway improvements by way 

of redirecting a portion of roadway users to SEHSR trains, thereby reducing roadway congestion and 

improving air quality. Other planned actions in the Study Area are identified below, as well as in 

Sections 3.11.3 and 3.11.4 and Section 4.11.3. As with planned roadway improvements, these 

separate, planned projects would have a positive, synergistic effect with the Project. 

SEHSR: I-95 CORRIDOR 

The Commonwealth of Virginia Statewide Rail Plan established the I-95 Corridor as a part of the 

SEHSR Corridor. The I-95 Corridor runs from Washington, DC, to Richmond, VA, and includes 

an extension to Hampton Roads, VA. The I-95 corridor was identified as a top priority corridor for 

passenger rail improvements in Virginia, in the state’s request for $1.57 billion in Federal funding 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Key projects within the 

corridor include: 

 Washington, DC/Richmond, VA, Rail Improvement - Virginia DRPT has recommended a 

ten-year $370 million rail improvement program along this corridor that includes a proposal 

for a parallel, third main line track over most of the corridor and identifies other track and 

signal improvements to increase railroad capacity and maximum speeds for both freight and 

passenger rail operations. 

 Richmond, VA, to Hampton Roads, VA, SEHSR Corridor – Virginia DRPT is investigating 

improved passenger rail service between Richmond, VA, and Hampton Roads, VA, to 

ultimately connect to the Southeast, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic regions as an extension of 

the SEHSR Corridor between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC. The Study Area includes 

two routes, the existing Amtrak route from Richmond, VA, to Williamsburg, VA, to Newport 

News, VA, via the CSX route and another route south of the James River along the Norfolk 

Southern route between Petersburg, VA, and Norfolk, VA. Additional information on this 

project is provided in Section 3.14.3. 

 Virginia Railway Express Cherry Hill, VA, Station and Third Track – Virginia Railway 

Express (VRE) provides commuter rail service from the Northern Virginia suburbs to 

Alexandria, VA, Crystal City, VA, and downtown Washington, DC. Virginia DRPT is 

partnering with VRE to fund the evaluation of potential enhancements to improve VRE 

service. Studies are currently underway to evaluate potential improvements to the 

Fredericksburg VRE line, including construction of a third track in the CSX ROW, design 

and construction of a new VRE station and slope stabilization at Cherry Hill, VA, a public 

commuter parking structure to serve the new Cherry Hill, VA, station, and a new highway 

grade separation over the CSX line. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-258 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEHSR: RALEIGH, NC TO CHARLOTTE, NC 

The NCDOT’s Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan identifies the Raleigh, NC, to Charlotte, 

NC, corridor as one of its top passenger rail priorities. NCDOT has completed extensive planning 

and financial analyses for the incremental development of this important section of the SEHSR 

Corridor, including expanding existing capacity through additional trackage, straightening curves to 

improve travel times, and grade-separations to improve safety. NCDOT has applied for more than 

$5 billion in Federal funding through the ARRA program to complete many of these planned 

projects. To date, approximately $550 million has been awarded. 

FORT LEE MILITARY RESERVATION: BRAC EXPANSION 

As a part of the US Department of Defense’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities, 

Fort Lee is on the receiving end of many base consolidations and expansion. Fort Lee serves as the 

focal point for Army Logistics and is approximately four to six miles east of Petersburg, VA. The 

expansion included establishing a Sustainment Center of Excellence, a Joint Center for 

Consolidated Transportation Management Training, and a Joint Center of Excellence for Culinary 

Training, as well as relocating all Defense Commissary Agency and relocating Mobilization 

Processing Functions to Fort Lee. At the conclusion of the BRAC process, more than seven million 

square feet of buildings were constructed on Fort Lee. It is estimated that approximately 64 percent 

of the population growth in the areas surrounding Fort Lee are or will be the result of the Fort Lee 

expansion. Fort Lee is the Crater District’s economic engine. BRAC expansion resulted in growth 

of its average daily student population from 6,000 to 10,000. Over 8,000 new military, civilian, and 

contract employees, along with their families, have moved or will be moving to the Fort Lee area. 

Out of town travelers would benefit from the ease of access to Fort Lee via HSR, regardless of 

which Petersburg, VA, area station is selected. 

HEARTLAND CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT & NATIONAL GATEWAY PROJECT 

Two major freight rail improvement projects are underway in the Crater Planning District region. 

Norfolk Southern’s Heartland Corridor Rail Project was completed in 2010. It extends from 

Columbus, OH, through Petersburg, VA, and terminates in Norfolk, VA. It substantially enhances 

the Crater Planning District area’s transportation and distribution capabilities by shortening rail 

shipments from Norfolk, VA, to the Midwest. 

The CSX’s National Gateway Project is a multi-state project extending from North Carolina to 

Ohio and includes a spur that connects to the Ports of Hampton Roads. The Heartland Corridor and 

the National Gateway Projects intersect at Collier Yard in the City of Petersburg, VA, making the 

Crater Planning District region well suited to serve as an East Coast hub for freight distribution. 

CITY OF RICHMOND, VA: MAIN STREET STATION IMPROVEMENTS 

The restoration and construction of Richmond, VA, Main Street Station into a multimodal 

transportation center is one of the Richmond, VA, Area MPO’s Priority Projects. As a multimodal 

center, Main Street Station will serve not only SEHSR trains, but Amtrak trains, GRTC local buses, 

airport shuttles, taxis, and tour buses, along with bicycle and pedestrian access, at one centralized 

location in downtown Richmond, VA. Additional information on this project is provided in Section 

3.11.3 of this document. 

CITY OF HENDERSON, NC: DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION 

One of the primary goals of the City of Henderson, NC, is to promote downtown revitalization 

projects, the major three of which include the restoration of the Historic downtown District, the 

Embassy Center and Embassy Cultural Center, and the Recreation, Economic Development, 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-259 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Education, and Family (REEF) Project. As noted in the City of Henderson, NC, website, 

revitalizing the “Historic downtown” is an ongoing process with many storefront shops restoring 

their original construction. The Henderson-Vance, NC, downtown Development Commission 

provided grants for improving facades. The city, local property owners, and the Henderson-Vance, 

NC, downtown Development Commission received two $1,000,000 grants from the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to add 30 apartments above store front buildings 

on Garnett Street, the main street in downtown. 

The Embassy Center is a ten-acre, two city block site in historic downtown Henderson, NC. Within 

it are the Embassy Center, a 25,000 square foot Police Headquarters, and a large garden area and 

green spaces available for community festivals and outdoor events. The Embassy Cultural Center 

will host a 35,000 square foot Performing Arts Theater. A 40,000 square foot Public Library was 

completed in 2006. Adjoining the two is a 5,000 square foot open gallery space used for a variety 

of public functions. 

The REEF project is a combined effort by the Gateway Corporate Development Commission, the 

Henderson-Vance, NC, downtown Development Commission, and the North Carolina Community 

Development Initiative. The project involves renovating an 86,000 square foot tobacco warehouse. 

The new facility will house a new Community & Business Center, including a Boys & Girls Club 

center, an off-campus facility for Vance-Granville Community College, 5 Star child care, an urgent 

care/medical clinic, various retail spaces, cultural arts and farmer’s market spaces, and other spaces 

to be decided on in the future. 

TRIANGLE COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE 

Triangle Transit (TT), the Capital Area MPO, and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO adopted 

the Regional Rail Plan in the mid-1990s. The plan includes regional rail service, expanded bus 

service, shuttles, park-and-ride facilities, and enhanced transit access for pedestrians and bicycles. 

As discussed in Section 3.11, plans for this project have continued to evolve since a 2003 Federal 

Transit Administration ROD on the Phase I Regional Rail System FEIS. TT’s current focus for 

regional light rail is on Orange and Durham Counties, which are outside corridor for this Project. 

However, planning for the TT corridor in Wake County is on-going, and includes five stations and 

ROW adjacent and parallel to the proposed Project railroad ROW. 

CITY OF RALEIGH, NC, NEW RALEIGH UNION STATION 

The City of Raleigh, NC, TT, and NCDOT are currently moving forward with plans to construct 

the Raleigh Union Station, a new passenger train station, at 510 West Martin Street in downtown 

Raleigh, NC (see Figure 4-3). It will accommodate current and future demand for intercity 

passenger rail, including SEHSR service, TT’s planned commuter rail, light rail, city bus, regional 

bus, taxis, bicycles, and other modes of transportation. The new station is among the improvements 

to North Carolina’s railroads between Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, intended to increase railroad 

capacity, efficiency, and safety. The new station will replace the existing Amtrak Station on 

Cabarrus Street. The new station is almost fully funded, and FRA has completed the NEPA review. 

Construction is expected to begin in 2015 and operations are expected to begin in 2017. 

Subsequent phases of the station are currently under way as well, including plans to build a new 

parking deck near the station and move the existing Moore Square Bus Transit Facility to be closer 

to the new station. Refer to Section 1.4 for additional information. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-260 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Figure 4-3 

Raleigh Union Station Plan 

CITY OF RALEIGH, NC, LONG-RANGE PLAN 

The City of Raleigh, NC, 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted October 2009) was last amended 

October 2013. The amendments included the city’s vision to be a “sustainable city”, including 

implementation of SEHSR Corridor service and related “growth framework elements”. The 

Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Growth Framework Map designates several “future rail stations” 

along the TT light rail system proposed between Chapel Hill, NC, and Raleigh, NC, as well as 

along the proposed Wake Forest, NC, commuter rail line. These stations are located in downtown 

Raleigh, NC, (Raleigh Union Station discussed above), west Raleigh, NC, as well as north and 

south of downtown. The land around these stations is planned for a normal amount of Transit 

Oriented Development, except for the proposed new Raleigh Union Station, which has a much 

larger growth center called “downtown Regional Center”. The downtown Regional Center is 

planned as the City’s urban core with the area’s most intense growth and highest levels of transit, 

bicycle, and pedestrian access” and “a true hub for a rapidly growing region, served by highways, 

rail transit, high-speed intercity rail, and local and express bus.” The proposed new Raleigh Union 

Station is identified as the heart of this Center. The city’s future land use was developed based on a 

vision to redirect a full 60 percent of anticipated future growth (120,000 new households and 

170,000 additional jobs projected by 2030) into “downtown, a series of seven city growth centers, 

12 transit-oriented centers, and over 40 mixed-use community centers, connected via a network of 

parkways, multimodal corridors, and urban streets”, based on the availability of SEHSR service, as 

well as TT’s regional rail, other transit services, and major thoroughfares and interstate highways. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONGTERM BENEFITS 

This section addresses in general terms the proposed Project’s relationship between local short-term 

impacts/use of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The 

Preferred Alternative was selected based upon sound planning for local, regional, and statewide 

transportation needs within the context of present and possible future traffic requirements and land use 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-261 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

patterns. Coupled with the environmentally sensitive design of the proposed Project and BMPs, this 

helps to ensure that the short-term use of resources related to construction will be out-weighed by the 

long-term impacts of implementing the proposed Project. 

The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur 

during land acquisition and Project construction. The short-term use of the environment and of human, 

socioeconomic, cultural, and natural resources contributes to the long-term productivity of the Study 

Area. Most short-term, construction-related impacts would occur within or in close proximity to the 

proposed ROW. 

Existing homes, farms, and businesses within the selected alternative’s ROW would be displaced. 

However, adequate replacement housing, land, and space are available for homeowners, tenants, and 

business owners within the Study Area. Improved access within the Study Area would contribute to 

long-term residential and business growth. 

Construction activities would create short-term air quality impacts, such as dust due to earthwork, road 

and rail improvements, and exhaust from construction vehicles. Short-term noise impacts would be 

unavoidable due to use of heavy equipment. Air and noise abatement measures, discussed in Section 

4.6 and Section 4.7, would be used to minimize these short-term impacts during construction. 

Short-term visual impacts would occur in the vicinity of the construction corridor. Mitigation 

measures, such as reducing slope cuts outside necessary road widths, reducing vegetation removal, 

leaving native vegetation screens in place, and minimizing the alteration of scenic viewsheds, would be 

used to reduce long-term visual resource impacts. 

Implementation of the BMPs for the protection of surface waters would minimize potential water 

quality impacts. 

A short-term impact from construction would be the removal of biotic communities and wildlife within 

the proposed ROW and construction staging areas. However, recovery rates of local wildlife 

populations are expected to be relatively fast, and no effect on long-term productivity is expected. 

Overall, the Preferred Alternative would have minimal short-term impacts relative to the long-term 

benefits of HSR between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, and the ultimate extension of the SEHSR 

Corridor along the East Coast. In addition, the elimination of at-grade rail crossings and construction of 

grade-separated crossings would greatly improve the safety of rail crossings throughout the Project 

corridor. Construction-related activities would be localized and temporary. Short-term gains to the 

local economy should be recognized as a result of hiring local firms and labor, as well as purchasing 

local services and supplies to construct the proposed Project. Once completed, the benefits of longterm productivity in terms of improved mobility and safety would be realized. The implementation of 

the Project would enhance the existing transportation network between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, 

NC, and provide a viable travel alternative for residents and users. This is consistent with the purpose 

of the proposed Project. Based upon the significant contribution to the long-term objectives of regional 

and local plans for development, the proposed Project is consistent with the maintenance and 

enhancement of the long-term productivity at the local, regional, state, and national levels. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require certain irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of natural resources, manpower, materials, and fiscal resources. Because most of the 

Project will be constructed within existing railroad ROW, land acquisition for construction of the 

proposed Project will be minimized. However, there will be an irreversible conversion of land to a 

transportation use in areas of new alignment and in areas where the existing road network will be 

modified to accommodate rail crossing closures and consolidations, and to avoid historic resources. If a 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 4-262 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

greater need for the use of the land was to arise or if the transportation facility were no longer needed, it 

could be converted to another use. At present there is no reason to believe such a conversion would be 

necessary or desirable. 

The acquisition of new ROW and new construction within the existing ROW may result in both shortterm and long-term losses and alterations to the natural resources in the area. Upland and aquatic biotic 

communities, as well as agricultural land may be committed to rail service where new ROW is required. 

The most apparent impact may be the loss of aquatic or terrestrial habitat productivity and connectivity; 

therefore, wildlife abundance may decline in the area as a result of habitat destruction. Increased noise 

associated with the Project may be intolerable to some wildlife species. Forested areas may be cleared 

in some locations, and wetlands and other surface waters may be filled to accommodate new bridges 

and underpasses. Riprap may be placed along stream banks at bridge crossings, reducing habitat within 

riparian zone. After construction, some habitat types may be restored within the construction limits, 

although their value to wildlife is unlikely to equate to that which was lost. If wetlands are filled for 

new construction, mitigation of impacts will likely involve restoration of degraded wetlands within the 

same watershed. In the long-term, this will offset the loss of wetland habitats within the Project 

construction limits. The commitment of natural resources within existing and new ROW is a permanent 

loss of productive wildlife habitat. 

In addition, the construction of the Project would increase habitat fragmentation within the Project 

corridor. As described in Section 4.10.1.1, habitat fragmentation can increase the risk of predation or 

displacement of native species by invasive, exotic species. Loss of habitat, mortality due to collisions, 

barrier effect, and reduction in habitat quality are the main impacts of habitat fragmentation by 

railroads. On a local scale, trains may affect wildlife habitats through the introduction of exotic plant 

species (e.g. seeds), emission of toxic contaminants like heavy metals, or ROW management (e.g. 

herbicide application). Section-specific habitat fragmentation effects are discussed in Section 4.10.1.1, 

Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials would be expended in the fabrication and preparation of 

construction materials, as well as during the construction of the Preferred Alternative. While these 

materials are generally not retrievable, they are not in short supply and their use would not have an 

adverse effect on the continued availability of these resources. It should be noted that the steel rails 

required for the Project could be recycled should an alternate use of the property be selected in the 

future. Any construction would also require a substantial, one-time expenditure of both state and 

Federal funds, which are not retrievable and could be used instead on other projects within the local 

community or in other parts of the country. 

Specific natural resource impacts for the Preferred Alternative have been previously detailed in this 

chapter. When reviewed in the overall context of the Project and taken in total, they are proportionately 

small compared to the benefits of the Project. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-1 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

A condensed format was used for this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as explained in the 

Introduction to this report. However, because the Section 4(f) Evaluation is intended to be a stand-alone 

document, it is included in its entirety. Changes from the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS are 

spelled out and address new resources identified subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS and changes to impacts as a result of design modifications. 

In this chapter, the term “Project” refers to the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS project. The 

study area for the natural and physical environment, cultural resources, and infrastructure varies from 

300 to 1,000 feet in width depending on the resource, and is centered about the existing rail line or right 

of way (ROW). In areas where the existing railroad curves do not meet the design standards for high 

speed rail, the study area expands to approximately 500 feet outside of the proposed rail realignments. 

The study areas for the human environment, noise, and air quality are generally larger than the project 

area boundaries. The larger study areas are defined by regions of influence in which a resource may 

potentially have noticeable project-related impacts. Regions of influence for human resources account 

for factors such as community sizes, geographical and political boundaries, and census boundaries. 

These human resources include social and economic issues, community resources, and land use planning. 

The air quality study area is influenced by local and regional atmospheric conditions. The noise study 

area is determined by the limit of noise intrusions associated with the project. 

All references to “study area” and “Project” below pertain to the Richmond to Raleigh Project, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)), as set forth in Title 49 United 

States Code (USC) Section 303, protects publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl 

refuges, as well as historic sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), and archaeological sites that are listed or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and warrant 

preservation in place. These lands can only be used for a Federally-funded transportation project if there 

is no other feasible and prudent alternative, and the project incorporates all possible planning to minimize 

harm. 

This document was prepared in accordance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999). In addition, this document also 

follows the procedures for implementing Section 4(f) outlined in 23 CFR 774 (March 12, 2008), which 

apply to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

Although FRA is not directly subject to this rule, FRA has determined these procedures are appropriate 

for use for the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS. 

Section 4(f) use, as defined in 23 CFR 774.17, occurs in the following cases: 

 Land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility through partial or full acquisition 

(i.e., “use”) 

 There is temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the preservationist purpose of 

Section 4(f) (i.e., “temporary use”) 

 There is no permanent incorporation of land, but the proximity of a transportation facility results 

in impacts so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for 

protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired (i.e., “constructive use”). Examples of 

constructive use include substantial increases in noise levels at an outdoor amphitheater, 

impairment to aesthetics, and restrictions on access to a resource 

If the use of a Section 4(f) resource will occur due to a proposed action, a Section 4(f) evaluation must be 

prepared. The Section 4(f) evaluation determines whether there is no feasible and prudent alternative to 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-2 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the use of land from a Section 4(f) resource and whether the proposed action includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting from its use. 

According to 23 CFR 774.17, an alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound 

engineering judgment. Likewise, an alternative is not prudent if: 

i. It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light 

of its stated purpose and need; 

ii. It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; 

iii. After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: 

a. Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; 

b. Severe disruption to established communities; 

c. Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; or 

d. Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes; 

iv. It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary 

magnitude; 

v. It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or 

vi. It involves multiple factors in paragraphs (3)(i) through (3)(v) of this definition, that while 

individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 

Where analysis concludes there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, the alternative that 

causes the least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources must be selected. This determination is made by 

balancing the factors listed in 23 CFR 774.3(c): 

i. The ability to mitigate adverse impacts of each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that 

result in benefits to the property); 

ii. The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, 

or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

iii. The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

iv. The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

v. The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

vi. After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by 

Section 4(f); and 

vii. Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) of 2005 (23 USC 101), amended existing Section 4(f) legislation to simplify the processing and 

approval of projects that have only de minimis impacts on resources protected by Section 4(f). For 

historic resources, a de minimis impact means that the Federal transportation agency has determined that, 

in accordance with 36 CFR 800, no historic property is affected by the project or the project will have no 

adverse effect on the property in question. If after consideration of any impact avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation or enhancement measures, a transportation project results in a de minimis impact on a 

Section 4(f) property, an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the Section 4(f) evaluation 

process is complete. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer (THPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (if participating in the 

consultation process), must concur in writing with this determination. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-3 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

PURPOSE FOR THE PROJECT 

The Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, portion of the SEHSR is an integral part of the overall 

Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, SEHSR Corridor. It constitutes 162 miles of the 

approximately 450-mile SEHSR Corridor that was evaluated in the 2002 Tier I Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) (NCDOT and VA DRPT, 2002). The purpose for the segment from 

Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC is tied to implementation of the larger SEHSR Corridor. 

Therefore, the purpose of the Richmond to Raleigh Project proposed action is to facilitate the 

previously approved purpose for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, which includes the following 

and is applicable to the Richmond to Raleigh Project section: 

 Divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, thus reducing the growth rate of 

congestion (the I-95 portion of the corridor is included in this Richmond to Raleigh Project 

section and it carries a significant portion of the automobile traffic) 

 Provide a more balanced use of the corridor’s transportation infrastructure 

 Increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system within the travel corridor 

 Serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and 

North Carolina, including Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, which extends from Washington, 

DC, to Boston, MA (with extensions planned beyond Boston), as well as points south (this 

specific project section serves as the key link for these travelers to the busy Northeast). 

More information about the purpose of the SEHSR Corridor can be found in the 2002 SEHSR 

Corridor Tier I EIS and on the program’s website at www.sehsr.org. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND APPROACH 

The SEHSR Corridor project involves the incremental development, implementation, and 

operation of high speed rail (HSR) service in the approximately 450-mile travel corridor from 

Washington, DC, through Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, to Charlotte, NC. A “tiered” 

approach was adopted for the required environmental studies because of the length of the 

corridor. The Tier I EIS covered the entire Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, corridor at a 

program level, establishing the overall purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II study includes detailed environmental documents 

appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the preferred corridor between Richmond, 

VA, and Raleigh, NC. Other environmental documentation will be prepared separately for 

implementation of the remainder of the corridor, as necessary. 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division (NCDOT) and the Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), with their Federal partners, the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), determined 

that the SEHSR Corridor should be analyzed using an “incremental” HSR approach with fossil 

fuel train sets (versus electrified). The incremental approach minimizes impacts to both the 

human and natural environments by using existing rail infrastructure and rail right of way (ROW) 

over the majority of the corridor. Use of existing infrastructure also reduces the initial capital 

investment required by the system. In addition, the approach does not preclude future 

electrification of the corridor. 

The Tier I EIS examined nine Study Area alternatives (centered around existing rail ROW). In 

addition to these Study Area alternatives, a No Build alternative was also considered. It was 

determined the No Build alternative did not meet the purpose and need of the SEHSR Corridor 

because it would not improve air quality or reduce net energy per passenger mile traveled in the 

corridor, nor would it offer additional transportation choices, ease congestion, or improve overall 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-4 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

transportation system safety and effectiveness. Thus, the No Build Alternative was dropped from 

consideration and is not included in this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II analysis, except as 

needed to provide a baseline for quantitative analyses such as noise and vibration. 

The preferred SEHSR Corridor that was selected in the Tier I EIS runs from Washington, DC, 

through Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, Henderson, NC, Raleigh, NC, and Greensboro, NC, to 

Charlotte, NC, with a connection to Winston-Salem, NC (NCDOT and VA DRPT, 2002). There 

is existing freight and conventional passenger rail service operating within the SEHSR Corridor 

north of Petersburg, VA, and west of Raleigh, NC. The portion of the SEHSR Corridor from 

Petersburg to Raleigh is inactive in Virginia and northern North Carolina (from the Virginia state 

line to Norlina, NC), with only freight service from Norlina, NC, to Raleigh, NC. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS is focused on the portion of the SEHSR Corridor 

between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, which includes the section without existing rail 

service. Figure 1-2 shows the Study Area for the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS. 

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II EIS applies the incremental approach to the 

development of alternative alignments that was adopted in the Tier I study. This incremental 

approach utilizes existing rail lines or segments of existing rail lines in conjunction with areas of 

new track, taking advantage of existing rail ROW and infrastructure through improvements such 

as track upgrades, double tracking, additional sidings, curve straightening, train signal 

improvements, crossing consolidations, and grade separated crossings. 

Alternatives were developed based on a variety of design parameters and environmental 

considerations. Initially, alignment options were narrowed to two optimum alignments for further 

study. As more detailed information became available throughout the design process, a third 

alignment was added. In most cases, the third alignment provides an avoidance alternative in 

areas with potential impacts to historic properties. 

For the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the Project Study Area was divided into 26 

sections labeled AA to V, from Richmond, VA, south to Raleigh, NC (Figure 2-1). Throughout 

much of the Study Area, the alignments are on common location within existing rail ROW in 

order to minimize impacts. The endpoints of each of the 26 sections are in locations where the 

alternative alignments are in a common location. The alternative alignments are called VA1, 

VA2, VA3 in Virginia, and NC1, NC2, NC3 in North Carolina. Except where otherwise 

specified, the VA3 and NC3 alignments are concurrent with VA1 and NC1, respectively. 

In response to comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, an additional rail 

alternative was developed for evaluation in three Project sections: the VA4 Project alternative 

was developed for Section D in Brunswick County, VA; the VA4 Project alternative was 

developed for Section G in Brunswick County, VA; and the NC5 Project alternative was 

developed for Section V in Raleigh, NC. A discussion of the development of these alternatives, 

overviews of the alignments in each of the 26 sections, and identification of the Preferred 

Alternative are provided in Chapter 2 of this FEIS. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(F) RESOURCES – PARKS, RECREATION 

AREAS, WILDLIFE REFUGES 

The Project will not use land from any recreation area or wildlife refuge; however, it will cross 11 

publicly-owned trails in 12 locations, require a small amount of ROW from three public parks (two 

local and one national park), and come in close proximity to four planned or existing public parks and 

two playgrounds (Table 5-1). The resources are listed in the order they appear in the Project study 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-5 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

area from north to south. An asterisk denotes resources identified subsequent to publication of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 

Table 5-1 

Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges in the Project Corridor 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County State 

Richmond Canal Walk AA/1 Richmond VA 

James River Park System – Slave Trail AA/1 Richmond VA 

Thomas B. Smith Community Center AA/4 Richmond VA 

Falling Creek Park Expansion* AA/6 Chesterfield VA 

Falling Creek Ironworks Park * AA/6 Chesterfield VA 

James River Greenway (Kingsland Creek) 

(Planned) * 

AA/8 Chesterfield VA 

Chester Linear Park Expansion (Planned) * BB/11 Chesterfield VA 

Chester Kiwanis Historical Park (Planned) BB/12 Chesterfield VA 

Ettrick Park & Mayes-Colbert Ettrick 

Community Building 

CC/20 Chesterfield VA 

Appomattox Riverfront Trail (Planned) CC/24 Chesterfield VA 

Upper Appomattox Canal Trail CC/24 Petersburg VA 

Petersburg National Battlefield (Fort 

Wadsworth Unit) 

DD/28 Petersburg VA 

Tobacco Heritage Trail E/66 and I/83 Brunswick and 

Mecklenburg 

VA 

Centennial Park I/83 Mecklenburg VA 

Town of La Crosse Playground* I/83 Mecklenburg VA 

Franklinton Elementary School S/128 Franklin NC 

Neuse River Greenway* U/141 Wake NC 

Simms Branch Greenway Expansion 

(Proposed) * 

U/142-143 Wake NC 

Marsh Creek Greenway Expansion 

(Proposed)* 

V/145 Wake NC 

Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway V/148 Wake NC 

* Identified subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. 

RICHMOND CANAL WALK (VA) 

The City of Richmond’s Canal Walk on the north side of the James River stretches 1.25 miles 

along the James River and the Kanawha and Haxall Canals, with access points at nearly every 

block between 5th and 17th Streets. The Canal Walk presents four centuries of Richmond’s 

history interpreted through medallions, monuments, and exhibits along the Canal Walk and 

Brown’s Island. 

JAMES RIVER PARK SYSTEM – SLAVE TRAIL (VA) 

The City of Richmond, VA, James River Park System includes nearly 550 acres lining both banks 

of the James River from Huguenot Flatwater to Ancarrow’s Landing. The Project will cross the 

Slave Trail portion of the park. The Slave Trail starts at Ancarrow’s Landing/Manchester Slave 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-6 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Dock, a boat landing and fishing spot where slave ships docked in the 1700s and 1800s. The 

Slave Trail departs the landing and follows a 1.3 mile path that chronicles the history of the slave 

trade of Africans brought to Richmond until 1865. It follows a route through former slave 

markets, beside the Reconciliation Statue, past Lumpkin's Slave Jail and the Negro Burial Ground 

to First African Baptist Church, a center of African-American life in pre-Civil War Richmond. 

The Richmond City Council established the Richmond Slave Trail Commission in the late 1990s 

to raise the level of awareness and informational accuracy about Richmond’s role in the slave 

trade. 

THOMAS B. SMITH COMMUNITY CENTER (VA) 

The City of Richmond, VA, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Facilities operates 

the Thomas B. Smith Community Center at 2015 Ruffin Road. This facility contains an athletic 

field, baseball diamond, basketball courts, community center, lighted areas, playground shelters, 

restrooms, tennis courts, and a “tot lot.” 

FALLING CREEK PARK EXPANSION (VA) 

Chesterfield County has acquired property just north of Falling Creek and east of Jefferson Davis 

Highway to use for a public park, expanding on the Falling Creek Ironworks Park directly south 

of the creek. The park expansion (known as Falling Creek Park – Adjacent Property Acquisition) 

will be constructed by the end of 2015 to include walking trails, observation areas, interpretive 

signage, work to preserve mill ruins, and enhancement of streamside habitat. Connections 

between north end trails, south bank park facilities and pedestrian access to the existing parking 

lot and visitor’s center area south of the request property will be constructed by the end of 2015. 

FALLING CREEK IRONWORKS PARK (VA) 

Chesterfield County is constructing a park at the site of the Falling Creek Ironworks, the first 

ironworks in English North America. The target date for completion is the end of 2015. The 

Project will include a half-mile trail, interpretative signage, a parking lot, and an engineering 

study to preserve an old stone bridge on Route 1. The Project will provide public access to the 

ironworks site and the remnants of an old grist mill across the creek. The Virginia Company of 

London built an iron-making furnace on the site in 1619, creating the first heavy industry in the 

New World. The ironworks were destroyed in 1622 during a Native American uprising. 

JAMES RIVER GREENWAY (KINGSLAND CREEK) (PLANNED) (VA) 

Chesterfield County plans to develop a greenway on the north side of Kingsland Creek in the 

vicinity of the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) in Bellwood. The planned greenway 

will accommodate the planned development of the James River Greenway trail system. 

CHESTER LINEAR PARK EXPANSION (PLANNED) (VA) 

Chesterfield County currently operates Chester Linear Park, a strip of land situated in the Chester 

Village area. This land was formerly a railroad right-of-way that has been adapted for trail use. 

The park currently includes 0.68 miles of walking trail. The County plans to extend the park 

across the existing CSX railroad right of way as part of the planned development of the County’s 

Linear Park and Trails Master Plan. 

CHESTER KIWANIS HISTORICAL PARK (PLANNED) (VA) 

In 2008, the Kiwanis Club of Chester donated the property at 4001 Gill Street in Chester, VA, to 

Chesterfield County for development known as the Chester Kiwanis Historical Park. The land 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-7 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

was formerly owned by the Chester Hotel Company and was the business, social, and church 

center of the original Chester Village. The property is planned to be used as a public park for 

passive recreation and historical interpretation. Planned improvements include walking trails, 

landscaping, and interpretive signage. 

ETTRICK PARK & MAYES-COLBERT ETTRICK COMMUNITY BUILDING 

(VA) 

Chesterfield County, VA, Parks and Recreation Department operates the Ettrick Park and MayesColbert Ettrick Community Building at 20400 Laurel Road in Ettrick. In addition to a 

community center that is open to the public and available for rent, the park offers multiple athletic 

fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts. 

APPOMATTOX RIVERFRONT TRAIL (PLANNED) (VA) 

A portion of the planned Appomattox / Chester Linear Park is being developed by the 

Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation and will be located on the north side of 

the Appomattox River near Ettrick, VA. The trail will extend for 1.8 miles along the riverfront 

behind Randolph Farm, a part of Virginia State University (VSU). The project is currently in the 

design phase. 

UPPER APPOMATTOX CANAL TRAIL (VA) 

The Upper Appomattox Canal Trail in the City of Petersburg, VA, is a 3.6 mile trail following the 

towpath of the Upper Appomattox canal. It is included in the Appomattox River Corridor Plan, 

an initiative to explore creation of a greenway and blueway corridor along the Lower Appomattox 

River undertaken jointly by the Crater Planning District Commission, Friends of the Lower 

Appomattox River (FOLAR), and the six jurisdictions along the twenty-two mile stretch of 

Appomattox River. The Upper Appomattox Canal Trail begins at Appomattox Riverside Park 

(historic Ferndale Park) and ends at Campbell’s Bridge on Fleet Street (State Highway 36) near 

Virginia State University and downtown Petersburg. The trail provides access to many historic 

spots along the river, including the Abutment Dam. 

PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD (FORT WADSWORTH UNIT) 

(VA) 

The Fort Wadsworth Unit of Petersburg National Battlefield is operated by the National Park 

Service. It is approximately 10.54 acres in size and is located adjacent to Collier rail yard in 

Petersburg, VA. Built following the Battle of the Weldon Railroad in August 1864, Fort 

Wadsworth anchored the extreme left of the Union siege lines for more than a month. It secured 

the Union grip on the Petersburg and Weldon Railroad. Interpretive markers within the fort 

discuss its significance. 

TOBACCO HERITAGE TRAIL (VA) 

The Tobacco Heritage Trail, a rails-to-trails corridor being developed along an abandoned 

Norfolk Southern rail corridor, intersects the Study Area in Alberta and La Crosse, VA. The 

Tobacco Heritage Trail will connect existing trail segments and create a new trail within five 

Virginia counties: Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Halifax, Charlotte, and Lunenburg, with a potential 

spur trail connection to Dinwiddie County. The trail is managed by the Roanoke River Rails-toTrails (RRRT), a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt Virginia corporation. RRRT is a consortium of Southern 

Virginia localities, organized to facilitate acquisition and development of the abandoned railroad 

ROW required for the trail. Within Alberta, VA, the Tobacco Heritage Trail follows the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-8 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

abandoned Norfolk Southern line and crosses the Project corridor in the vicinity of Second 

Avenue. Within La Crosse, VA, the trail follows the abandoned Norfolk Southern line and 

crosses the Project corridor in the vicinity of Central Avenue. 

CENTENNIAL PARK (VA) 

The Town of La Crosse, VA, operates Centennial Park at the intersection of Main Street and the 

abandoned Norfolk Southern railroad line. The primary focus of the park is a train caboose, 

which recognizes the town as a place where railroads once crossed. 

TOWN OF LA CROSSE PLAYGROUND (VA) 

The Town of La Crosse, VA, operates a playground on a vacant parcel at the intersection of 

College Street and Central Avenue, just south of the historic La Crosse Hotel. The playground is 

in a fenced-in area and is open to the public during daylight hours. Although the entire parcel 

was donated to the Town, FRA considers only the enclosed playground to be a Section 4(f) 

resource. 

FRANKLINTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (NC) 

The Franklinton Elementary School located at 431 South Hillsborough Street in Franklinton, NC, 

has playgrounds, a practice field, a baseball field, a football field, and a soccer field that are 

available for public use. Members of the public and organizations can apply to use these 

facilities. The principal reviews the facility use applications. The school system has first priority 

for use, then the Franklin County Parks and Recreation Department, and then the general public. 

NEUSE RIVER GREENWAY (NC) 

The portion of the Neuse River Greenway in Raleigh, NC, that crosses the rail corridor was 

constructed in 2011. This segment, the Upper Neuse Greenway, provides connections from the 

Falls Canoe Launch and Falls Lake Recreation Area at Falls of Neuse Road to the soccer complex 

on Perry Creek Road. The greenway is a component of the Neuse River Regional Park Master 

Plan, adopted by the City of Raleigh in 1996. The greenway crosses the corridor just west of 

where it crosses Capital Boulevard (north of Durant Road). 

SIMMS BRANCH GREENWAY EXPANSION (PROPOSED) (NC) 

The proposed Simms Branch Greenway corridor crosses the rail corridor between Gresham’s 

Lake Road and Durant Road in Raleigh, NC. The City of Raleigh has existing greenway property 

on either side of the rail corridor and constructed trail near each side of the corridor. 

MARSH CREEK GREENWAY EXPANSION (PROPOSED) (NC) 

The proposed Marsh Creek Greenway corridor crosses the proposed rail line just north of 

Millbrook Road in Raleigh, NC. The City of Raleigh currently has greenway easement on either 

side of the existing rail corridor. 

MIDDLE CRABTREE CREEK GREENWAY (NC) 

The Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway is located in Northern Raleigh and extends approximately 

11 miles, from Milburnie Road to just short of Duraleigh Road. The trail is owned by the City of 

Raleigh and provides (via connections) access to the Raleigh downtown area, North Carolina 

Museum of Art, and area shopping malls. A connection is proposed to Umstead State Park, 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-9 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

located west of Raleigh and to the Neuse River east of Raleigh. The trail crosses the rail corridor 

in Raleigh, just south of the I-440 Belt Line and Yonkers Road and north of Hodges Street. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(F) RESOURCES – HISTORIC 

ARCHITECTURE SITES 

Section 3.12 of the FEIS describes the historic architecture resources within the Area of Potential 

Effects (APE) of the Project that were determined to be eligible for listing or are listed in the NRHP. 

Listed and eligible resources must meet at least one of the four NRHP key criteria: 

 Criterion A - associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history 

 Criterion B - associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

 Criterion C - embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 

or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction 

 Criterion D - have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history 

The historic architecture resources (excluding battlefields) eligible for protection under Section 4(f) 

are described in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. The resources are listed in the order they appear in the Project 

Study Area from north to south. An asterisk denotes resources identified subsequent to publication of 

the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. More detailed information can be found in Section 

3.12 of this FEIS. Correspondence with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) is included in Appendix K. 

It should be noted that one historic resource described in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II 

DEIS was subsequently determined by NC-HPO to no longer be eligible for the NRHP. The 

Commercial Block at 524-530 Hillsborough Street in Raleigh, NC (referred to as “National Art 

Interiors” in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS), lacks sufficient integrity to be eligible 

for the NRHP due to alterations to the first-floor storefronts and the interior of the property. 

Therefore, it is no longer included in the Section 4(f) Evaluation.
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor 

AA-L/ all VA Chesterfield, 

Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Richmond 

Eligible/A Historic railroad corridor th

origins and growth of the rathe Richmond to Petersburg the post-Civil War trend of operations to provide better more economical 

C. & O. & Seaboard Railroad Depot 

AA/1 Richmond Listed/A, C Built 1901, the monumental 

symbolizes the importance as an entrance gateway to Rof the influence of the FrencArts on American building 

Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District 

AA/1 Richmond Listed/A, C Circa 1740, Encompasses th

Richmond's earliest residenmanufacturing activity; archranging from Federal througindustrial vernacular 

Shockoe Slip Historic District AA/1 Richmond Listed/A, C Circa late 19th and early 20

as wholesale food or tobaccsome serving light industryare modified Italianate in st

James River and Kanawha Canal Historic District 

AA/1 Richmond Listed/A, C Circa 1785, canal improved 

James River from RichmonCounty a distance of approxDistrict comprises of the catowpath 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor 

AA, BB, CC/ 

10-24 

Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Richmond 

Eligible/A Historic railroad corridor th

origins and growth of the rathe Richmond to Petersburg the post-Civil War trend of operations to provide better more economical 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Manchester Industrial Warehouse Historic District 

AA/1-2 Richmond Listed/A, C Post 1880, 42 block industr

post-war community of Ma

Williams Bridge Company AA/2 Richmond Eligible/A, C, D Built in 1919 to assist with 

efforts; also used by the US World War II; eligible bounfactory and apartment strucworkers during both world 

Lucky Strike/RJ Reynolds Tobacco 

AA/2 Richmond Eligible/A,C Circa 1955 industrial comp

buildings and metal storage 

Transmontaigne Product Services, Inc. 

AA/2 Richmond Eligible/A Used to refine, store, ship, a

extracts for almost 80 yearsGulf Refinery Company; ashistory of oil production anRichmond 

Davee Gardens Historic District AA/4 Richmond Eligible/A, C Planned, symmetrical subur

established in 1947 

DuPont Spruance AA/5-6 Chesterfield, 

Richmond 

Eligible/A 1,500 acre processing plant

constructed in 1929; factory role in the development of tin the US 

Sheffields; Auburn Chase; Bellwood; Building 42 - DSCR Officer's Club; New Oxford (LD) 

AA/8 Chesterfield Listed/B, C Circa 1797, representative o

Richmond area economy, frtenant farm to military depodwelling is a Federal style sRevival modifications; 

USDOD Supply Center Historic District; Bellwood-Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District 

AA/7-8 Chesterfield Eligible/A, B, C, 

D 

Resource encompasses Shefdescribed above; Circa 1940established as the central dearea activities associated wi
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 

AA, BB, CC/ 

4-12, 18, 22-

23 

Chesterfield, Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Richmond 

Eligible/A Circa 1902, creation of this 

impetus for large-scale modsettlement patterns in centra

House at 3619 Thurston Rd AA/9 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1900, 1.5-story Colon

with a gambrel roof and flar

Centralia Post Office BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/A Served as one of the pivotal 

economic centers of the Cen

Ragland House/4626 Centralia Rd (LD) 

BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1890, 2.5-story frame 

dwelling with brick foundatbasement 

Circle Oaks/4510 Centralia Road (LD) 

BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1840, two-story singl

with slave quarters and a ki

Centralia Earthworks* BB/10 Chesterfield Eligible/A, C; 

Potentially Eligible/D 

Earthworks built in 1862 as Confederate outer defensive associated with the battle at and the Bermuda Hundred Cof Civil War military engin

Chester Historic District BB/11-13 Chesterfield Eligible/A, C About 10 blocks within Vil

demonstrates a successful pin the mid-nineteenth centuextant architectural resourceof significance (1830 to 195

Chester #94 Masonic Lodge BB/12 Chesterfield Eligible/A Circa 1905, simple two-stor

meeting hall; important at thhistoric Masonic lodge that in 1878 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Pretlow House BB/12 Chesterfield Eligible/B Circa 1850 home to two not

residents, Joseph Snead and Thomas Pretlow 

Eichelberger House BB/12-13 Chesterfield Eligible/C Circa 1890, 1.5-story verna

Anne-Eastlake style single dCentral Passage plan; eligiba stone gate near of the inteformer Richmond & Petersb

Ellerslie CC/17-18 Colonial 

Heights 

Listed/A, C Circa 1857, associated with 

Colonial Heights; an excelleItalianate architecture 

Appomattox River Railroad Bridge* 

CC/24 Petersburg Eligible/A, C Built 1915, open steel, deck

with 11 steel latticework berailroad bridges that crossed River into Petersburg during twentieth century, it is the o

Battersea CC/24 Petersburg Listed/A, B, C, D Built 1768 for Colonel John 

mayor of Petersburg and a sof Confederation; a substanhouse that still retains its hi

North Battersea/Pride’s Field Historic District 

CC/23-24 Petersburg Listed/C Circa mid-to-late 19th and e

Italianate, Gothic Revival astyles residences 

Defense Road CC/25-27 Petersburg Eligible/A, C Colonial Revival-era public 

by the National Park Servicbuilt by the Civilian Consermeans of aiding tourists visPetersburg area Civil War emaintains its original white/the surrounding park-like se
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Dimmock Line/Earthworks CC/26-27 Petersburg Eligible/A, B, C Series of Confederate defen

Petersburg; construction beprimarily built with slave laguidance of Captain Charleexample of a trench line useCivil War 

Bridge over Defense Road CC/26-27 Petersburg Eligible/A, C Single-span, three-lane, seg

constructed in 1936 as part Road parkway Project 

Fort Davis Earthworks* DD/34 Dinwiddie Eligible/A, C; 

Potentially Eligible/D 

Civil War era earthworks cotroops in 1864 during the Sigood physical integrity 

Evergreen A/37 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1790, example of a FeCourtworth C/44 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1878, example of a la

century vernacular dwelling Victorian motifs 

Bowen House C/45 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1878, example of late 

vernacular architecture 

W. Boisseau's Store, Warehouse, Dwelling 

C/45 Dinwiddie Eligible/A, C Circa 1900, examples of rur

commercial/domestic comptwentieth century in souther

Bank of McKenney (referred to as Bank Building in Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS) 

C/50 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Circa 1906 commercial buil

surviving early banks assocof small communities openiearliest banks in all of Dinw

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company (C & P) Building* 

C/50 Dinwiddie Eligible/A, C Circa mid-1920s industrial 

a time when the telephone fcommunication; excellent elocal telephone company bupercentage of original elem
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Mayton House C/51 Dinwiddie Eligible/C Circa 1905, example of earl

vernacular Colonial Revivaarchitecture 

Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill Farm 

C/51 Dinwiddie Listed/C Circa late 19th century; goo

vernacular dwelling 

Wynnhurst D/54-55 Brunswick Eligible/C Built 1925, example of an e

century Dutch Colonial dwe

Blick's Store D/54-55 Brunswick Potentially 

Eligible/C 

Circa 1909, example of an ecrossroads store 

House/458 Second Avenue* E/66 Brunswick Eligible/C Circa 1924 Craftsman style 

of an unmodified kit dwellin

Orgain House* G/73 Brunswick Eligible/A, C, D Circa 1840 Tudor Revival d

with regional landscape chamemory of a single family smaintain their familial land changing economic environabove-ground remnants of onineteenth century plantatio

Tourist Guest House G/74 Brunswick Eligible/C Circa 1926, Craftsman-style Oak Shades G/74 Brunswick Eligible/C Built 1812, rural interpretat

style 

Evans House H/78-79 Meckenburg Eligible/C Built 1930, ornate example 

Foursquare dwelling 

Smelley House I/82 Mecklenburg Eligible/C Built 1880, Victorian-era ho

rural interpretation of the hiAnne style 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

La Crosse Commercial Historic District 

I/83 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C Collection of early twentiet

commercial buildings; signicommunity created by the crailroad that brought economregion 

La Crosse Hotel* I/83 Mecklenburg Listed/A, C Early 20th century small tow

with excellent integrity; occposition across the tracks frlocation of the Seaboard Aimain commercial strip in La 

Wright Farmstead J/84-85 Mecklenburg Potentially 

Eligible/A, C, D 

Associated with the history area, particularly the late-nitwentieth century change in industry; farmstead includeoutbuildings, and an archae

Sardis Methodist Church J/86 Mecklenburg Eligible/C Built 1911, example of a ve

twentieth century ecclesiast

Bracey Historic District K/89 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C Circa late 19th century, exa

community created by the crailroad that brought economregion; architectural exampcommunity 

Bracey Depot* K/89 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C, 

Consideration B (as a moved property) 

Rare surviving example of acentury depot with much of architectural elements; assocounty-wide, state-wide, anof development of railroad landscape in the second halcentury and early-twentieth 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-2 

Historic Architecture Resources in the Project Corridor - Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Bracey & Company Store* K/89 Mecklenburg Eligible/A, C Circa 1917 commercial buil

example of an important eartype of commerce that was areas though the US; rare invernacular commercial form 

Granite Hall/Fitts House L/92-93 Mecklenburg Eligible/C Circa early 20th century, ex

Revival architecture 

* Identified subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. Source: Berger, 2005; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of Dovetail reports). 

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Warren County Training School L/94-95 Warren Eligible/A, C Built 1922, first and only hi

African Americans in the coarchitecturally sophisticated rural schools built for black 

Wise School L/95 Warren Eligible/A, C Built 1904, reflects the era o

consolidation in NC; impossurviving example of the ru

House (East side of US 1, Wise, NC) 

M/96 Warren Eligible/C Circa 1890, especially stylis

common regional design 

Holtzmann Farm M/101 Warren Eligible/A Circa 1880, illustrates the a

and self-sufficiency of a mifarmer 

Chapel of the Good Shepherd M/101-102 Warren Listed/A, C Built 1871, Gothic Revival 

Ridgeway community 

Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office 

M/102 Warren Eligible/C Circa 1890 residence, size a

embellishments reflected thof the Williams family 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Marshall House/Tavern (House No 245) * 

M/102 Warren Eligible/C Early timber-framed structu

expanded over time to becodwellings in the vicinity of example of Colonial, vernacVictorian architecture in Wassociated with the planning of the town of Ridgeway anCompany 

William J. Hawkins House N/103 Warren Listed/A, B, C Circa 1850, Greek Revival 

residence; illustration of thplantation society; home of Hawkins; 

Middleburg Community House (Middleburg Steakhouse) 

O/108 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1930, financed by the 

Administration; rustic style residence 

House (Allison Cooper Rd, Middleburg vicinity) 

O/108 Vance Eligible/C Circa 1880, Greek Revival 

Holloway Farm O/109-110 Vance Eligible/A, C Late 19th century farm, illu

tobacco cultivation; traditioagricultural buildings 

William Haywood Harris Farm O/109-110 Vance Eligible/A, C Built 1860 for tobacco culti

Revival residence 

Forrest Ellington Farm O/110 Vance Eligible/A Circa 1920-1950 farmstead R. B. Carter House P/114 Vance Eligible/C Built 1892, adaptation of up

architecture to traditional fo

Henderson Historic District and Proposed Boundary Expansion 

P/114-115 Vance Listed/A, C Circa 1890-1930, tobacco m

industrial center; represents and style trends of the perio

Vance County Courthouse* P/115 Vance Listed/A, C 1884 and 1908 Neoclassica
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Zollicoffer’s Law Office* P/115 Vance Listed/A, B, C 1887 small brick Victorian 

building; landmark of downone of the best preserved retown’s post-Civil War prospwith the A. C. Zollicoffer, win local and regional legal, pbusiness circles 

Henderson Fire Station and Municipal Building* 

P/115 Vance Listed/A, C 1908 brick firehouse with to

early 20th century improvemservice and safety, and imprefforts 

Houses (2 bungalows on E Young Ave) 

P/115 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1900, gabled bungalo

Mistletoe Villa P/115 Vance Listed/C Built in 1885, Queen Anne South Henderson Industrial Historic District 

P/115-116 Vance Eligible/A, C Early 20th century small-sc

buildings, workers dwellingindustrial complexes; illustrindustrial development 

Vance Flour Mill (Sanford Milling Co.) 

P/115-116 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1920 factory; contribu

South Henderson Industrial represents innovation in ind

Houses (5 worker houses on 1400 block of Nicholas St) 

P/116 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1910-1920 worker dw

elements to South HendersoDistrict 

Houses (3 side gable houses on 1500 block of Nicholas St) 

P/116 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1910-1920 worker dw

elements to South HendersoDistrict 

Esso Gasoline Station P/117 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1930, pre-World War 

Spanish Colonial Revival 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Confederate Cemetery Q/121 Vance Eligible/A Circa 1864-1865, one of the 

cemeteries in North Carolin

Saint James Episcopal Church Q/121 Vance Listed/C Circa 1850, Carpenter GothHedgepetch and Finch Store Q/121 Vance Eligible/A, C Late 19th century general m

marshalling point for agricu

Kittrell Residential Historic District* 

Q/121 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1865-1960, district of 

embodying diversity in stylthat illustrate the Town of Kpopulation and relatively slothis area was developed; refseveral local merchants and their proximity to the RaleigRailroad and other area roadeconomic benefit; associateevents at the local level, sucestablishment of the Raleigh Railroad and the broad impKittrell’s economic and socdevelopment by extension 

Josiah Crudup House* Q/123 Vance Listed/C 1830s Federal 2-story tripar

circa 1900 expansion 

Person-McGhee Farm Q, R/124-125 Franklin, 

Vance 

Listed/A, C Circa 1830, well-preserved 

Anne dwelling surrounded boutbuildings 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Bridge Piers (Tar River) 

Q, R/124 Vance Eligible/A, C Circa 1840 railroad piers; o

structures in the state; illustmaterial, and method of conin building before the Civil 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Franklinton Historic District (Includes Sterling Mill Historic District) 

S/127-128 Franklin Eligible/A, C Epitomizes the developmen

railroad town circa 1890-19the most intact, small railroPiedmont 

Aldridge H. Vann House* S/127 Franklin Listed/C Built 1918, Classical Reviv

house 

Franklinton Depot* S/127 Franklin Listed/A, C Built 1886, Raleigh & Gast

depot, associated with one ofirst and most important raildevelopment of the Town o

Church S/127-128 Franklin Eligible/A, C Circa 1891, Gothic Revival Sterling Cotton Mill S/127-128 Franklin Listed/A, C Circa 1895, two-story, simp

largest textile operation in F

Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge Piers 

S/129 Franklin Eligible/A, C Circa 1840 railroad piers, il

material, and method of conin building before the Civil 

Youngsville Historic District T/132 Franklin Eligible/A, C Circa 1890, tobacco marke

commercial and residential period; stone veneered and Anne residences 

J. B. Perry House T/132 Franklin Eligible/C Circa 1900, Queen Anne reGlen Royall Mill Village Historic District (LD) 

U/135 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1900, village that pro

workers at the Royall Cottoincludes a company commistores, churches, and school

Wake Forest Historic District (LD) 

U/135-136 Wake Listed/A, C Original campus of Wake F

1820-1890; oldest denominNC; Colonial Revival buildItalianate, Queen Anne, and residences 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Downtown Wake Forest Historic District 

U/136 Wake Listed/A Epitomizes the small, rail-o

districts circa 1820-1890; CModerne, and Art Deco elem

Purefoy-Chappell House and Outbuildings* 

U/137 Wake Listed/C Built 1838 and 1895 2-story 

outbuildings 

Oakforest (LD)* U/138 Wake Listed/C Circa 1807, Federal style ha

various additions during the converted it into a Greek Re

Powell House U/139-140 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1790, centerpiece of a 

one of the most imposing anremaining in Wake County 

Neuse Railroad Station U/142 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1900 station, typical o

stations 

Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge Pier 

V/148 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1840 railroad pier; illu

material, and method of conin building before the Civil 

Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse* 

V/148 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1926 warehouse with 

scale, industrial architecturecommerce and industry in Wthe period between the Worlarger historic trend for oil aestablish distribution centerother petroleum products adrailroads following the expoautomobiles across the counWorld War I 

Raleigh Bonded Warehouse V/148-149 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1923, cotton warehou

cubic feet of storage space sbetween the cotton growers and the textile mills in the P
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Mordecai Place Historic District V/148-149 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1916, subdivision of t

once encircled Raleigh; vardwellings, bungalows, and mdomestic designs 

Pilot Mill (LD) V/149 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1892, illustrates the em

Piedmont textile industry; esimple, brick buildings with plans and limited ornamenta

Roanoke Park Historic District V/149 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1913-1926, residentia

Colonial Revival, American Colonial, Tudor Revival, MPeriod Cottage, and ranch r

Noland Plumbing Company Building 

V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Built 1960, represents whol

companies during the postwsuppliers built facilities neanew subdivisions; illustratemodernist movement 

John A. Edwards and Company Building 

V/149 Wake Eligible/C Built 1960, example of post

modernism 

Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District 

V/149 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1905, first of a series 

neighborhoods; Queen AnnRevival, and Colonial Reviv

Seaboard Railway Station V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Built 1942, Colonial Reviva

represents the important roltransportation 

Seaboard Railway Warehouses V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1940, represents the i

transportation; representativwarehousing 

Raleigh Cotton Mills (LD) V/149 Wake Eligible/A, C Circa 1890, illustrates the ri

industry; typifies the small-the period 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Pine State Creamery (LD) V/150 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1928, dairy farmers’ c

Moderne building 

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Office Building (LD)* 

V/150 Wake Listed/C Built 1861, brick commerci

restrained Italianate design 

Melrose Knitting Mill V/150 Wake Eligible/A, C Built 1902, illustrates the ri

manufacturing; typifies the mills of the period 

Raleigh Electric Company Power House (LD) 

V/150 Wake Listed/A Built 1910 primarily to pow

streetcar system 

Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage (LD) 

V/150 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1925, housed and repa

streetcars and service vehicgarage 

St. Paul A.M.E. Church (LD)* V/150 Wake Listed/A, B, C Built 1909, Gothic Revival 

constructed by the first indeAmerican congregation of Rwere influential leaders of A

community during Reconstr

Depot Historic District V/150 Wake Listed/A, C Circa 1880-1952, illustrates 

of a downtown neighborhooindustrial zone and transporcomprises Raleigh's only imrail-related, industrial, and w

Depot Historic District Expansion Area* 

V/150 Wake Eligible/A, C Ten additional warehouses 

buildings and their associateabuts the northwest side of district; they form a cohesivresources that contribute to commercial significance of during its period of signific
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Montfort Hall (LD)* V/150-151 Wake Listed/C 1858 Italianate-style plantat

the northern entrance to the Historic District ; one of the Raleigh that survived during War era 

Boylan Heights Historic District (LD) 

V/150-151 Wake Listed/A, B, C Circa 1907, Colonial Reviv

Revival, and picturesque dwearly twentieth century subuassociations with developerFrank Ellington and J. Stanh

Joel Lane House (LD)* V/150-151 Wake Listed/A, B, C Built in late 1760s; manor p

overlooking the future site oassociated with Joel Lane wthe colonial General AssemWake County, and was diredecision to locate the permastate in Wake County; durinWar, house was the site of igovernment meetings, both National Society of Coloniain the State of North Carolinoperate this Raleigh Historihouse museum 

Boylan Apartments (LD)* V/150-151 Wake Listed/A, C Built 1935, three-story brick 

apartments 

Raleigh Hosiery Company Building 

V/151 Wake Eligible/A Circa 1900,illustrates the sm

and warehousing properties lines 

North Carolina School Book Depository 

V/151 Wake Eligible/A Circa 1940, exemplifies the 

erected to serve the expandischool system 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-3 

Historic Architectures Resources in the Project Corridor – North Carolina 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descripti

Governor Morehead School Historic District* 

V/151 Wake Eligible/A, C The North Carolina Instituti

Dumb and Blind (now the GSchool) opened in 1845 and location in 1923; significanrole in the training of blind, North Carolina; well-preserColonial Revival scholastic 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor 

M-V/all NC Franklin, 

Warren, Vance, Wake 

Eligible/A Circa 1836-1840, one of the 

railroads and grew to becomrail lines in the southeastern 

Source: Mattson, Alexander, and Associates, 2005, 2007, 2009; Dovetail (see Appendix K for list of Dovetail reports). 

* Identified subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. LD - Also a locally-designated historic site. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-27 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(F) RESOURCES – BATTLEFIELDS 

Section 3.12.2.2 of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS describes the battlefields within the 

APE of the Project that were determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The 10 battlefields 

eligible for protection under Section 4(f) are described in Table 5-4. The battlefields are listed in the 

order they appear in the Project Study Area from north to south. 

As discussed in Section 3.12.2.2, the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) proposed new 

National Register-eligible boundaries to VDHR for the 10 battlefields within the Project APE in July 

2009. VHDR disagreed with these boundaries. Although there are differences between the 

individual VDHR and ABPP battlefield boundaries, when considered in total, the two sets of 

boundaries almost completely overlap within the Project APE. 

 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-4 

Battlefields in the Project Corridor – Virginia 

Resource Name Section(s)/ 

Mapsheet(s) 

County Status/Criteria Descript

Proctor’s Creek AA, BB/7-10 Chesterfield Eligible/A The battlefield consists of 

interpretive markers, a cembed, buildings and trenche

Port Walthall Junction BB/14-16 Chesterfield Eligible/A Area associated with the B

Junction; consists of a histtrenches, and an old railroa

Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church CC/16-18 Chesterfield, 

Colonial Heights 

Eligible/A Area associated with the B

Petersburg III/The Breakthrough CC, DD/25-

28 

Dinwiddie, Petersburg 

Eligible/A Area associated with the B

Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern CC, DD/26-

30 

Dinwiddie, Petersburg 

Eligible/A Area associated with the C

fought near the Weldon Ra

Peebles Farm CC, DD/27, 

31-33 

Dinwiddie, Petersburg 

Eligible/A Location of the Battle of P

Boydton Plank Road DD, A/32-37 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Location of the Battle of BHatcher’s Run DD, A/31-36 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Area associated with the B

Run 

Lewis Farm A/36-38 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Location of an episode in t

Grant’s final drive to outflforce 

Dinwiddie Courthouse B/40-41 Dinwiddie Eligible/A Location of the Battle at D

Source: Berger, 2005; Dovetail, 2008, 2009b. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-29 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(F) RESOURCES – ARCHAEOLOGY SITES 

Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites that are listed or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and 

warrant preservation in place. As stated in 23 CFR 774.13(b), Section 4(f) does not apply to 

archeological sites where the Federal agency, after consultation with the SHPO and ACHP, 

“determines that the archeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by 

data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place.” Archaeological sites that meet the 

aforementioned criteria are considered Section 4(f) resources regardless of whether or not the historic 

resource is publicly owned or open to the public. 

This section identifies the NRHP eligibility determinations for archaeological sites within the APE for 

the Preferred Alternative, and describes the evaluations of whether the eligible sites warrant 

preservation in place. As discussed in the draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Tier II DEIS, the Project used a phased approach to determine the eligibility of archaeological 

sites within the APE per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2). For the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, 

archaeologists completed Phase I investigations to determine previously recorded archaeological sites 

and identify additional archaeological resources within the APE. After the selection of the Preferred 

Alternative, archaeologists completed Phase II investigations to determine the eligibility of 

archaeological resources along the Preferred Alternative for the NRHP. These studies identified 17 

archaeological resources listed in or eligible for the NRHP, all of which are located in Virginia (Table 

5-5). Several of these resources are associated with historic architecture resources, and the potential 

Section 4(f) impacts to those resources are included in the associated historic architecture discussions. 

Table 5-5 

Archaeological Sites in the Preferred Alternative APE Listed in or Eligible for the NHRP 

Resource Name Section Associated with 

Historic 

Architecture 

Resource 

NHRP Eligibility 

Criteria 

Section 4(f) 

Applies (Merits 

Preservation in 

Place) 

Williams Bridge Company AA Yes A, C, D Yes 

Falling Creek Ironwork AA No D No 

USDOD Supply Center 

District 

AA Yes A, B, C, D Yes 

Centralia Earthworks BB Yes A, C, D (potential) Yes 

Chester Hotel Site BB No A, D No 

Swanee Site BB No D No 

Site 44CF0707 BB, CC No D No 

Arrowfield Plantation CC No A, D No 

Site 44CF0710 CC No D No 

Battersea CC Yes A, B, C, D Yes

Dimmock Line/Earthworks CC Yes A, B, C, D 

(potential) 

Yes 

Fort Davis Earthworks DD Yes A, C, D (potential) Yes 

Orgain House G Yes A, C, D Yes 

Oak Shades House Site G No D No 

Davis Site H No A, D No 

La Crosse Hotel I Yes A, C, D Yes 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-30 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-5 

Archaeological Sites in the Preferred Alternative APE Listed in or Eligible for the NHRP 

Resource Name Section Associated with 

Historic 

Architecture 

Resource 

NHRP Eligibility 

Criteria 

Section 4(f) 

Applies (Merits 

Preservation in 

Place) 

Wright Farmstead J Yes Potentially 

A, C, D 

Potentially 

Table 5-5 indicates whether FRA has determined, in consultation with ACHP and VDHR, that the 

archeological sites are chiefly important for what can be learned from data recovery investigations 

and whether they have any have value for preservation in place. The nine sites associated with 

above-ground historic architecture resources listed in or eligible for the NRHP are assumed to warrant 

preservation in place. Of the remaining archaeological resources, those determined eligible for the 

NRHP under only Criterion D (eligible solely because of their potential to yield information 

important in prehistory or history) were determined not to merit preservation in place. The remaining 

three archaeological sites were then evaluated to determine whether the archeological sites are chiefly 

important for what can be learned from data recovery investigations and whether they merit 

preservation in place. This evaluation yielded the following: 

CHESTER HOTEL SITE 

The Chester Hotel Site is a mid-nineteenth through early-twentieth century site representing many 

occupations ranging from the Chester Hotel to its transformation to a domestic residence and 

doctor’s office in the 1930s. The site has the potential to reveal information on the early years of 

Chester. As an archaeological resource, the Chester Hotel Site is chiefly important because of 

what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place. On the 

basis of this qualification, Section 4(f) does not apply to the Chester Hotel Site. 

ARROWFIELD PLANTATION 

This site contains the archaeological remains of Arrowfield, an early-nineteenth through midtwentieth century farmstead with a prehistoric component dating to the Middle Woodland and 

Late Archaic Periods. The site has the potential to yield a plethora of data on Antebellum 

Chesterfield County, VA. As an archaeological resource, the Arrowfield Plantation is chiefly 

important because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for 

preservation in place. On the basis of this qualification, Section 4(f) does not apply to Arrowfield 

Plantation. 

DAVIS SITE 

The Davis Site is a mid-nineteenth through early-twentieth century domestic site, likely occupied 

around 1914 by Charlie Davis, an African American resident. The site has the potential to reveal 

information on rural domestic sites and/or settlement patterns in the Piedmont during the 

Reconstruction and Growth Period (1865–1917) and the World War I and World War II Period 

(1917–1945). This also has the potential to reveal significant data on nineteenth century domestic 

life in Brunswick County, VA. As an archaeological resource, the Davis Site is chiefly important 

because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place. 

On the basis of this qualification, Section 4(f) does not apply to the Davis Site. 

Based on the above evaluation, there are no archaeological resources in the Project APE (other 

than those associated with a historic architecture resource) that are protected by Section 4(f). 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-31 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Impacts to archaeological resources that are associated with historic architecture resources are 

described in Section 5.7. 

SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY IMPACTS – PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, 

WILDLIFE REFUGES 

The Project alternatives will require a de minimis Section 4(f) use of eight public parks or trails as 

listed in Table 5-6 and described below, with the Tobacco Heritage trail used in two locations. De 

minimis concurrence letters are included in Appendix L. The Preferred Alternative is identified in 

bold.

Table 5-6 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1/NC1 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2/NC2 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3/NC3 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4/NC5 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Richmond Canal Walk AA No Use No Use No Use N/A 

James River Park System – Slave 

Trail 

AA Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Thomas B. Smith Community 

Center 

AA Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Falling Creek Park Expansion AA No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Falling Creek Ironworks Park AA No Use No Use No Use N/A 

James River Greenway 

(Kingsland Creek) (Planned) 

AA No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Chester Linear Park Expansion 

(Planned) 

BB No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Chester Kiwanis Historical Park 

(Planned) 

BB No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Ettrick Park & Mayes-Colbert 

Ettrick Community Building 

CC No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Appomattox Riverfront Trail 

(Planned) 

CC Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Upper Appomattox Canal Trail CC Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Petersburg National Battlefield 

(Fort Wadsworth Unit) 

DD Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Tobacco Heritage Trail (resource 

spans sections) 

E Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

I Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Centennial Park I Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

N/A 

Town of La Crosse Playground I No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Franklinton Elementary School S No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Neuse River Greenway U No Use No Use No Use N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-32 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-6 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1/NC1 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2/NC2 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3/NC3 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4/NC5 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Simms Branch Greenway 

Expansion (Proposed) 

U No Use No Use No Use N/A 

Marsh Creek Greenway 

Expansion (Proposed) 

V No Use No Use No Use No Use 

Middle Crabtree Creek 

Greenway 

V Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis 

Use, De 

Minimis

RICHMOND CANAL WALK (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will construct a new rail bridge over the James River, 

immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge located between the South 14th Street and I-95 

roadway bridges (Appendix R, mapsheet 1). No ROW from the Canal Walk will be required. 

The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard 

and seen from the walkway. The addition of the Richmond to Raleigh Project should not alter the 

character, setting, or use of the Canal Walk. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and 

VA3) will have no effect on this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource. 

JAMES RIVER PARK SYSTEM – SLAVE TRAIL (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will construct a new rail bridge over the James River, 

immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge located between the South 14th Street and I-95 

roadway bridges (Appendix R, mapsheet 1). A small amount of ROW under the span of the 

bridge is required to allow for access and maintenance. Included in this ROW is approximately 

0.03 acres of the Slave Trail within the James River Park System. The existing rail bridge has 

daily freight rail traffic that can be heard from the trail; therefore, the new bridge should not alter 

the character, setting, or use of the trail. 

The City of Richmond Department of Parks, Recreation, & Community Facilities, as the official 

with jurisdiction over the Slave Trail, concurred in a letter dated May 7, 2009, that the Project 

will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for 

protection under Section 4(f). Therefore, FRA has made a de minimis determination for this 

resource for all Project alternatives. 

THOMAS B. SMITH COMMUNITY CENTER (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will provide a railroad bridge over Ruffin Road just 

west of the Thomas B. Smith Community Center and Park (Appendix R, mapsheet 4). This 

bridge will ensure the safety of automobiles crossing the rail corridor. Due to the need to lower 

Ruffin Road to accommodate the bridge, a small amount of ROW is needed in southwest corner 

of the Thomas B. Smith Community Center and Park. The ROW is approximately 0.07 acres 

along Ruffin Road adjacent to the community center. Automobile access to the community 

center will be maintained. The existing rail crossing has daily freight rail traffic that can be heard 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-33 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

from the community center and park; therefore, the new bridge should not alter its character or 

setting. 

The City of Richmond Department of Parks, Recreation, & Community Facilities, as the official 

with jurisdiction over the Thomas B. Smith Community Center, concurred in a letter dated 

January 8, 2010, that the Project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes 

that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Therefore, FRA has made a de 

minimis determination for this resource for all Project alternatives. 

FALLING CREEK PARK EXPANSION (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) are on common alignment in the vicinity of the 

Falling Creek Park Expansion (Appendix R, mapsheet 6). Although the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project rail designs are located within the existing CSX railroad corridor and will not impact the 

park, the proposed grade separation of Station Road will relocate Station Road onto the parcel 

where the park is planned. The designs for the grade separation of Station Road have been 

altered from what was presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS to no longer 

require ROW from within the proposed “Resource Protection Area” for the park as shown on the 

rendered site plan provided by Chesterfield County to the Project Team in June 2012. 

The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard 

and seen from the proposed location of the trail. In addition, there is vehicular traffic along 

Jefferson Davis Highway immediately adjacent to the proposed park. The addition of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project rail and road improvements should not alter the character, setting, or 

use of the trail. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no effect on 

this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

FALLING CREEK IRONWORKS PARK (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) are located within the existing CSX railroad corridor 

where it crosses through Falling Creek Ironworks Park (Appendix R, mapsheet 6). The 

Richmond to Raleigh Project alternatives will cross Falling Creek on the existing structure and 

will not require any new ROW. The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and 

passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the Falling Creek Ironworks Park. The 

addition of the Project should not alter the character, setting, or use of the park. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no effect on this resource and will not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

JAMES RIVER GREENWAY (KINGSLAND CREEK) (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will add an additional railroad track within the 

existing CSX railroad corridor in the location where the planned greenway on the north side of 

Kingsland Creek will cross (Appendix R, mapsheet 8). Chesterfield County has not yet obtained 

a legal crossing of the active railroad corridor in this area. Therefore, the proposed changes 

associated with the Project will not create a barrier to the development of the trail (because that 

barrier already exists). The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail 

traffic that can be heard and seen from the proposed location of the trail. The addition of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project track should not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no effect on this resource and 

will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-34 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CHESTER LINEAR PARK EXPANSION (PLANNED) (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will add an additional railroad track within the 

existing CSX railroad corridor in the location where the planned expansion of Chester Linear 

Park will cross (Appendix R, mapsheet 11). Chesterfield County has not yet obtained a legal 

crossing of the active railroad corridor in this area. Therefore, the proposed changes associated 

with the Project will not create a barrier to the expansion of Chester Linear Park (because that 

barrier already exists). The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail 

traffic that can be heard and seen from the proposed location of the expanded Chester Linear 

Park. The addition of the Richmond to Raleigh Project track should not alter the character, 

setting, or use of the trail. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no 

effect on this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

CHESTER KIWANIS HISTORICAL PARK (PLANNED) (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will require ROW from the parcel along Curtis Street 

and Richmond Street planned for the Chester Kiwanis Historical Park (Appendix R, mapsheet 

12). However, Chesterfield County made the acceptance of the donated land conditional upon 

reserving the necessary ROW for the Project (100 feet from the centerlines of both Curtis Street 

and Richmond Street) for non-park uses. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and 

VA3) will have no effect on this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource. 

ETTRICK PARK & MAYES-COLBERT ETTRICK COMMUNITY BUILDING 

(VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) are on common alignment along the park boundary, 

which is immediately adjacent to the existing railroad ROW (Appendix R, mapsheet 20). None 

of the proposed Project alternatives will require any ROW from the park. The existing rail line 

has daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the park and 

community center. The addition of the Richmond to Raleigh Project should not alter the 

character, setting, or use of the park. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) 

will have no effect on this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

APPOMATTOX RIVERFRONT TRAIL (PLANNED) (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will construct a new rail bridge over the Appomattox 

River, immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge near Virginia State University (Appendix 

R, mapsheet 24). The bridge will be located just to the east of the existing bridge and will require 

a small amount of ROW under the span of the bridge to allow for access and maintenance. In 

addition, it may be necessary to provide Virginia State University with an access drive under the 

bridge. Included in the ROW needed for the Project is approximately 0.8 acres of the planned 

Appomattox Riverfront Trail. The existing rail bridge has daily freight and passenger rail traffic 

that can be heard from the surrounding area; therefore, the new bridge should not alter the 

character, setting, or use of the planned trail. 

The Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation, as the official with jurisdiction 

over the planned Appomattox Riverfront Trail, in a correspondence dated January 5, 2010, 

concurred that the Project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-35 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f), with the stipulation that the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project not impede access for pedestrians and bicyclists to traverse the full length of the 

trail without interruption at the railroad bridge. Therefore, FRA has made a de minimis

determination for this resource for all Project alternatives. 

UPPER APPOMATTOX CANAL TRAIL (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will construct a new rail bridge over the Appomattox 

River, immediately adjacent to the existing rail bridge near Virginia State University (Appendix 

R, mapsheet 24). A small amount of ROW under the span of the bridge is required to allow for 

access and maintenance. Included in this ROW is approximately 0.1 acres of the Upper 

Appomattox Canal Trail associated with Appomattox Riverside Park. The existing rail bridge has 

daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard from the trail; therefore, the new bridge 

should not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. 

The Project Team sent a letter to the City of Petersburg Department of Parks and Leisure 

Services, as the official with jurisdiction over the Upper Appomattox Canal Trail, on April 22, 

2009, outlining the proposed Project alternatives in the vicinity of the Upper Appomattox Canal 

Trail and stating that the Project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes 

that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). No response has been received at the 

time of publication of this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS. Therefore, FRA has made 

a de minimis determination for this resource for all Project alternatives. 

PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD (FORT WADSWORTH UNIT) 

(VA) 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will require obtaining approximately 30 feet of ROW 

(subject to final design) along the western portion of the Fort Wadsworth Unit of Petersburg 

National Battlefield (Appendix R, mapsheet 28). This ROW is immediately adjacent to the 

existing railroad ROW at Collier rail yard. The ROW is needed for the additional track necessary 

to accommodate the high speed trains associated with the Project. 

The National Park Service Petersburg National Battlefield superintendent, as the official with 

jurisdiction over the Fort Wadsworth Unit, stated in a letter dated March 4, 2009, that the Project 

could mitigate potential adverse effects to the Fort Wadsworth Unit with a land exchange. Based 

on the land exchange, the ROW required by the Project will not adversely affect the activities, 

features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Therefore, 

FRA has made a de minimis determination for this resource for all Project alternatives. 

TOBACCO HERITAGE TRAIL (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section E and Section I. All three of 

the proposed Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will cross the Tobacco Heritage Trail in 

the Towns of Alberta and La Crosse, VA (Appendix R, mapsheets 66 and 83, respectively). In 

Alberta, VA, the Project will provide a pedestrian/non-motorized overpass of the proposed rail 

alignment. In addition, the realignment of Second Avenue, which is necessary to provide a 

vehicle bridge over the proposed rail alignment, will require ROW from the trail. In La Crosse, 

VA, the Project will re-route the Tobacco Heritage Trail north along Main Street approximately 

300 feet, where it will then cross under the proposed rail alignment, and rejoin the existing railsto-trails corridor. The Project Team worked with representatives from both towns and the RRRT 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-36 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

in the development of the designs to ensure that the Project will not impede the development or 

planned use of the trail. 

The RRRT and the Towns of Alberta and La Crosse, VA, as the officials with jurisdiction over 

the Tobacco Heritage Trail, concurred in letters dated May 20, 2009 (RRRT), September 22, 

2009 (Alberta, VA), and April 27, 2009 (La Crosse, VA), that the Project will not adversely 

affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 

4(f). Therefore, FRA has made a de minimis determination for this resource for all Project 

alternatives. 

The RRRT included in their concurrence the following stipulations: 

 The pedestrian/non-motorized overpass of the proposed rail alignment in Alberta, VA, must 

accommodate all forms of non-motorized traffic, including equestrian use 

 The overpass in Alberta, VA, must be of sufficient width and construction to accommodate 

maintenance vehicles 

 A pedestrian/non-motorized route must be provided adjacent to the Second Avenue 

realignment in Alberta, VA 

 The re-routed trail in La Crosse, VA, should re-connect to the Tobacco Heritage Trail in a 

location that provides the safest and best accommodation 

 The underpass in La Crosse, VA, must accommodate all forms of non-motorized traffic, 

including equestrian use 

 The underpass in La Crosse, VA, must be of sufficient width and construction to 

accommodate maintenance vehicles 

CENTENNIAL PARK (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section I. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will close the existing pedestrian crossing just east of 

Centennial Park and require a small amount of ROW (approximately 0.06 acres) to accommodate 

the railroad improvements (Appendix R, mapsheet 83). The Project will provide a new 

pedestrian underpass along the Tobacco Heritage Trail, approximately 300 feet to the north along 

Main Street, which will allow trail users to cross under the proposed rail alignment and rejoin the 

existing rails-to-trails corridor. Although the new rail traffic will be heard from the park, it is in 

character with its rail theme; therefore, the required ROW should not alter the character, setting, 

or use of the park. 

The Town of La Crosse, as the official with jurisdiction over Centennial Park, concurred in a 

letter dated September 30, 2009, that the Project will not adversely affect the activities, features, 

and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Therefore, FRA has 

made a de minimis determination for this resource for all Project alternatives. 

TOWN OF LA CROSSE PLAYGROUND (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section I. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (VA1, VA2, and VA3) will rebuild rail through the Town of La Crosse within 

the existing rail corridor, close the existing at-grade crossing at Main Street, and provide a new 

grade-separated crossing of the existing CSX rail corridor approximately 500 feet south of the 

existing crossing (Appendix R, mapsheet 83). The Project will make improvements to Central 

Avenue and College Street in the vicinity of the playground in order to provide a connection to 

the new grade separation. Although a construction easement may be required that will 

temporarily require removal of a small portion of the playground fencing, no ROW will be 

permanently required from the playground. Although the new rail traffic will be heard from the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-37 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

park, it is in character with its rail theme; therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) 

will have no effect on this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

FRANKLINTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section S. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, and NC3) will require ROW in the vicinity of the Franklinton 

Elementary School to provide pedestrian access from Hawkins Street, under the railroad tracks, to 

South Main Street (Appendix R, mapsheet 128). However, no land will be required from the 

school and the pedestrian access will have no effect on the use of its facilities. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no effect on this resource and will not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

NEUSE RIVER GREENWAY (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section U. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, and NC3) will cross over the Neuse River Greenway. No ROW 

from the greenway will be required. The existing rail line in this area has daily freight traffic that 

can be heard and seen from the greenway. The addition of the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

should not alter the character, setting, or use of the greenway. In addition, the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project bridge at this location will have a covered deck, which will meet the requirements 

from the City requesting a protected cover to protect patrons from falling debris. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no effect on this resource and will not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

SIMMS BRANCH GREENWAY EXPANSION (PROPOSED) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section U. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, and NC3) will cross the proposed location of the Simms Branch 

Greenway within the existing, active railroad corridor. The City of Raleigh has not yet obtained a 

legal crossing of the corridor at this location. Therefore, the proposed changes associated with 

the Project will not create a barrier to the development of the Simms Branch Greenway (because 

that barrier already exists). The City could route the greenway south to Gresham Lake Road or 

north to Durant Road to cross the existing CSX rail corridor. Gresham Lake Road and Durant 

Road will both be grade-separated (road over rail) with the Project, and the bridges will 

accommodate bikes and pedestrians. The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and 

passenger rail traffic that can be heard and seen from the proposed location of the proposed 

location of the greenway. The addition of the Richmond to Raleigh Project track should not alter 

the character, setting, or use of the trail. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) 

will have no effect on this resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

MARSH CREEK GREENWAY EXPANSION (PROPOSED) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. All four of the proposed 

Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5) will cross the proposed location of the Marsh 

Creek Greenway within the existing, active railroad corridor. The City of Raleigh has not yet 

obtained a legal crossing of the corridor at this location. Therefore, the proposed changes 

associated with the Project will not create a barrier to the development of the Marsh Creek 

Greenway (because that barrier already exists). The City could route the greenway south to 

Millbrook Road to cross the existing CSX rail corridor. Millbrook Road will be grade-separated 

(road under rail) with the Project, and the underpass will accommodate bikes and pedestrians. 

The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard 

and seen from the proposed location of the proposed location of the greenway. The addition of 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-38 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the Richmond to Raleigh Project track should not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and NC1, NC2, and NC3) will have no effect on this 

resource and will not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

MIDDLE CRABTREE CREEK GREENWAY (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. All four of the proposed 

Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5) will construct a new single track bridge adjacent 

to the existing rail bridge that spans Crabtree Creek and Hodges Street in Raleigh, NC (Appendix 

R, mapsheet 148). The new rail bridge will provide an additional track that is necessary to 

accommodate the high speed trains associated with the Project. A small amount of ROW under 

the span of the bridge is required to allow for access and maintenance. Included in this ROW is 

approximately 0.15 acres of the City of Raleigh’s Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway. The 

existing rail bridge has daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be heard from the trail; 

therefore, the new bridge should not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. 

The City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department, as the official agency with jurisdiction 

over the Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway, concurred on September 11, 2009, that the Project 

will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for 

protection under Section 4(f), with the stipulation that continuous operation of the greenway trail 

during construction will need to be addressed. Therefore, FRA has made a de minimis

determination for this resource for all Project alternatives. 

SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY IMPACTS – HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE 

SITES 

Of the 131 historic architecture resources (excluding the 10 battlefields) determined to be eligible for 

listing or listed in the NRHP within the Project corridor, 76 will have property impacts or proximity 

impacts from one or more of the Project alternatives (Tables 5-7 and 5-8). None of the Project 

alternatives will have an effect on the remaining 55 resources under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR Part 800) nor will they require the acquisition of any 

ROW from any of these properties. There is no Section 4(f) use of these properties; therefore, no 

further action is required for these resources. 

Where one or more of the Project alternatives has been determined to affect a Section 4(f) resource 

(either no adverse effect or adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA or ROW required), details 

are provided below regarding each alternative’s impact on the resource. Tables 5-7 and 5-8, as well 

as the discussion below, identify where FRA has determined that impacts are de minimis or do not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use. Resources in Tables 5-7 through 5-8 are ordered from north to south as 

they appear in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Study Area. The Preferred Alternative is identified in 

bold. For resources that span more than one section of the project, all portions of the Preferred 

Alternative crossed by the resource are identified in bold.

The VDHR concurred with the determinations in a letter dated July 29, 2014. The VDHR concurred 

with de minimis findings in a separate letter dated July 10, 2014. 

The NC-HPO concurred with the determinations of effect for resources in North Carolina in a 

meeting held June 17, 2013, and signed a form confirming these effects on August 14, 2013. This 

form included concurrence with de minimis findings. 

Impacts to the 10 historic battlefields are discussed separately in Section 5.8. 

 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-39 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-7 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

Corridor (resource spans 

sections) 

AAL 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use

Adverse 

Effect/ Use

Adverse 

Effect/ Use

C. & O. & Seaboard Railroad 

Depot 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Shockoe Valley & Tobacco 

Row Historic District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Shockoe Slip Historic District AA No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

James River and Kanawha 

Canal Historic District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

Corridor (resource spans 

sections) 

AA Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

BB Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

CC Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Manchester Industrial 

Warehouse Historic District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Williams Bridge Company AA Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Lucky Strike/RJ Reynolds 

Tobacco 

AA No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Transmontaigne Product 

Services, Inc. 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Davee Gardens Historic District AA No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

DuPont Spruance AA No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Sheffields; Auburn Chase; 

Bellwood; Building 42 - DSCR 

Officer's Club; New Oxford 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-40 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-7 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

USDOD Supply Center Historic 

District; Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic 

District 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Richmond & Petersburg 

Electric Railway (resource 

spans sections) 

AA Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

BB Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

CC Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

House at 3619 Thurston Rd AA No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Centralia Post Office BB Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Ragland House/4626 Centralia 

Road 

BB No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Circle Oaks/4510 Centralia 

Road 

BB Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Centralia Earthworks BB No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Chester Historic District BB Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Chester #94 Masonic Lodge BB No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Pretlow House BB No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Eichelberger House BB Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Ellerslie CC No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Appomattox River Railroad 

Bridge 

CC No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-41 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-7 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Battersea CC No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

North Battersea/Pride’s Field 

Historic District 

CC No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Defense Road CC Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Dimmock Line/Earthworks CC Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Bridge over Defense Road CC Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Fort Davis Earthworks DD No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Evergreen A No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Courtworth C No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Bowen House C No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

W. Boisseau's Store, 

Warehouse, Dwelling 

C No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Bank of McKenney (referred to 

as Bank Building in Richmond 

to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS) 

C No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Chesapeake and Potomac 

Telephone Company (C & P) 

Building 

C No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Mayton House C No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill 

Farm 

C No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Wynnhurst D Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Outside 

APE/ No Use

Blick's Store D No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-42 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-7 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

House/458 Second Avenue E No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Orgain House G No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Adverse 

Effect / No 

Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use

Tourist Guest House G No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Oak Shades G Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Evans House H No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Smelley House I No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

La Crosse Commercial Historic 

District 

I Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

La Crosse Hotel I No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Wright Farmstead J Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Sardis Methodist Church J No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Bracey Historic District K No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Bracey Depot K No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use

Adverse 

Effect / Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Bracey & Company Store K No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use

No Adverse 

Effect / Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Granite Hall/Fitts House L No Effect/ 

No Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-43 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-8 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Warren County Training School L No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Wise School L No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

House (East side of US 1, Wise, 

NC) 

M No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Holtzmann Farm M No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Chapel of the Good Shepherd M No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Dr. Thomas B. Williams House 

and Office 

M No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Marshall House/Tavern (House 

No 245) 

M No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

William J. Hawkins House N No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Middleburg Community House 

(Middleburg Steakhouse) 

O No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

House (Allison Cooper Rd, 

Middleburg vicinity) 

O No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Holloway Farm O Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

William Haywood Harris Farm O No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Forrest Ellington Farm O No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

R. B. Carter House P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Henderson Historic District and 

Proposed Boundary Expansion 

P Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Vance County Courthouse P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Zollicoffer’s Law Office P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-44 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-8 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Henderson Fire Station and 

Municipal Building 

P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Houses (2 bungalows on E 

Young Ave) 

P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Mistletoe Villa P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

South Henderson Industrial 

Historic District 

P Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 

Vance Flour Mill (Sanford 

Milling Co.) 

P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Houses (5 worker houses on 

1400 block of Nicholas St) 

P No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Houses (3 side gable houses on 

1500 block of Nicholas St) 

P No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Esso Gasoline Station P No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Confederate Cemetery Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Saint James Episcopal Church Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Hedgepetch and Finch Store Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Kittrell Residential Historic 

District 

Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Josiah Crudup House Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Person-McGhee Farm (resource 

spans sections) 

Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

R No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad 

Bridge Piers (Tar River) 

(resource spans sections) 

Q No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

R No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Franklinton Historic District 

(Includes Sterling Mill Historic 

District) 

S Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-45 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-8 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Aldridge H. Vann House S No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Franklinton Depot S No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Church (within proposed 

Franklinton Historic District) 

S No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Sterling Cotton Mill S No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge 

Piers 

S No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Youngsville Historic District T No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

J. B. Perry House T No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Glen Royall Mill Village 

Historic District 

U No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

Wake Forest Historic District U No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Downtown Wake Forest 

Historic District 

U No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Purefoy-Chappell House and 

Outbuildings 

U No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Oakforest U No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Powell House U No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Neuse Railroad Station U No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

N/A 

Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge 

Pier 

V No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

Gulf Petroleum Products 

Warehouse 

V Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Raleigh Bonded Warehouse V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-46 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-8 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Mordecai Place Historic District V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Pilot Mill V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Roanoke Park Historic District V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Noland Plumbing Company 

Building 

V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Effect/ 

No Use 

John A. Edwards and Company 

Building 

V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic 

District 

V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Seaboard Railway Station V No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Seaboard Railway Warehouses V No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Raleigh Cotton Mills V No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Pine State Creamery V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 

Company Office Building 

V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Melrose Knitting Mill V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Raleigh Electric Company 

Power House 

V Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Carolina Power and Light 

Company Car Barn and 

Automobile Garage 

V Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

St. Paul A.M.E. Church V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Depot Historic District V No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-47 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-8 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Historic Architecture Resources – North Carolina 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section NC1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

NC5 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Depot Historic District 

Proposed Boundary 

Amendment 

V No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

Montfort Hall V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Boylan Heights Historic District V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Joel Lane House V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Boylan Apartments V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Raleigh Hosiery Co. Building V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

North Carolina School Book 

Depository 

V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Governor Morehead School 

Historic District 

V No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

No Effect/ 

No Use 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad 

Corridor* 

M-V Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

Adverse 

Effect/ Use 

* Impacts to the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor are common among all Project alternatives. 

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (VA) 

The Preferred Alternative in Sections AA through L is a combination of the various Project 

alternatives (VA1 in Sections AA, BB, CC, B, C, E, F, H, and I; VA2 in Sections A and J; VA3 

in Sections DD and G; and VA4 in Section D). All of the proposed Project alternatives (VA1, 

VA2, VA3, and VA4) are located within the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor for the majority 

of their lengths. The alternatives will require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of 

tracks. Although most of the rail corridor will remain unchanged, the removal of the rail bridge 

over US 1 South near Alberta, VA (in Section F), a contributing element to the historic resource, 

will alter the resource and diminish the resource’s integrity of design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. The location will not change, but a notable visual element 

will be removed from the resource. This element is representative of the modifications that 

occurred along the track in the second quarter of the twentieth century associated with 

transportation improvements and the establishment of a multi-state vehicular corridor. Therefore, 

the Preferred Alternative (and all other alternatives in Virginia) will have an adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

C. & O. & SEABOARD RAILROAD DEPOT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of the C. & O. & Seaboard Railroad 

Depot and will add a second set of tracks. However, they will not require any modifications to 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-48 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the existing building or the surrounding tracks and will not alter the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and 

VA3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project 

will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the depot; therefore, the impacts do not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

SHOCKOE VALLEY & TOBACCO ROW HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of the Shockoe Valley & Tobacco 

Row Historic District and will add a second set of tracks. However, all work will be between one 

and three stories above the historic district atop existing support and the addition of the second 

track will not alter the physical composition or viewshed of the district in any way. The Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this district under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined 

that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the district; therefore, the 

impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

SHOCKOE SLIP HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. All three of the proposed 

Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of the Shockoe Slip Historic District 

and will add a second set of tracks. However, all work will be between one and three stories 

above the historic district atop existing support and the addition of the second track will not alter 

the physical composition or viewshed of the district in any way. The Preferred Alternative (and 

VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this district under Section 106 of the NHPA. The 

Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the district; therefore, the impacts do not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

JAMES RIVER AND KANAWHA CANAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of this district. The Project alternatives will 

add a second set of tracks. However, the modifications will not impact the integrity of any 

aspects of this district, and the addition of the second track on the existing pier will not alter the 

district’s significance or character. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no 

adverse effect on this district under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any 

ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a 

substantial impairment to the district; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of 

the resource. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA, Section BB, and Section 

CC. The three Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of the Atlantic Coast 

Line Railroad corridor. The Project alternatives will require a use of the resource in order to add 

a second set of tracks. Although most of the rail corridor will remain unchanged, the removal of 

a utility bridge for the crossing of the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway and abandoned 

abutments associated with the historic alignment of US Highway 10, both of which are 

contributing elements to the historic resource, will alter the resource and diminish the resource’s 

integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The location will 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-49 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

not change, but notable visual elements will be removed from the resource. These elements are 

located along the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor and were constructed during its period of 

significance in response to the railroad tracks below. Because of the proposed demolition of 

contributing elements, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse effect 

on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

MANCHESTER INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of this district. The Project alternatives will 

require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. However, alterations to the 

rail corridor itself will be minimal and road work in this area will primarily comprise 

modifications to change the intersection of Maury Street and the CSX rail tracks from an at-grade 

crossing to a bridged crossing. In addition, the Preferred Alternative will change relocated Maury 

Street within the Manchester Industrial Historic District to a new road and grade separation over 

the railway, located just north of the existing I-95 ramps and within the Citgo Petroleum aboveground storage tanks property. In addition to the new roadway, a roundabout will be constructed 

at the intersection of the relocated Maury Street/I-95 ramps/E. 4th Street, as proposed in the City 

of Richmond’s Long Range Transportation Plan for this area. This new design for Maury Street 

will avoid property impacts to the expanded Manchester Industrial Historic District. 

Although the Project will change the road configuration east of the historic district boundaries, it 

will not modify the historic road pattern or any above-ground contributing elements within the 

district itself. No buildings will be altered during this work. The construction of the new 

roundabout will be at-grade and thus not alter the viewshed of the district's contributing 

resources. The modifications in this area will not diminish the characteristics that make this 

property eligible for the NRHP. As such, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have 

no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the 

impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource to add a second set of tracks and to reroute the entry and roadways near this 

complex. This has the potential to diminish the property’s integrity of location, design, setting, 

feeling, and association. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse 

effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

TRANSMONTAIGNE PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and provide an underpass of Goodes 

Street. However, a retaining wall will be constructed on the north side of Goodes Street to 

eliminate any modifications to this historic property and the viewshed will not be modified. The 

Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project 

alternatives are de minimis. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-50 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DAVEE GARDENS HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and widen a 2,300-foot long stretch of 

Ruffin Road, which is located along the northern perimeter of the district. The modifications will 

not alter any of the characteristics that render this district eligible for the NRHP. The Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de 

minimis. 

DUPONT SPRUANCE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. Although the Project has the potential 

to slightly alter the setting of the resource, it will not diminish the characteristics that make this 

property eligible for the NRHP. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the 

impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

SHEFFIELDS; AUBURN CHASE; BELLWOOD; BUILDING 42 - DSCR 

OFFICER'S CLUB; NEW OXFORD (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Sheffields home and surrounding 

archaeological site are located over 1,500 feet west of the rail alignment. The viewshed from the 

main house to the rail tracks is obscured by distance, topography and vegetation, thus rendering 

the rail area virtually invisible from the historic house. The Preferred Alternative involves 

reconstructing a second rail within the existing right-of-way, thus the current viewshed will not 

be modified during the Project. The rail and road work will also not physically impact the intact 

archaeological remains associate with this property. As such, the Preferred Alternative will have 

no adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require 

any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a 

substantial impairment to Sheffields; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of 

the resource. 

USDOD SUPPLY CENTER HISTORIC DISTRICT; BELLWOOD-RICHMOND 

QUARTERMASTER DEPOT HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The massive USDOD historic district 

is located west of the existing rail line. Only the southeastern 500 feet is adjacent to the current 

railway corridor boundaries, as the eastern boundary veers away from the rail track along the 

northeastern 3,000 feet. This southeastern area was once the location of a railroad spur providing 

rail access to the US Department of Defense complex off of the main rail tracks. Thus, the 

presence of the rail in this area is associated with the location and association of this resource. At 

the time the supply center was in operation, rail traffic along this line was higher and trains 

traveled on dual lines. The Preferred Alternative will add a second rail line in the right-of-way, 

thus restoring the rail configuration in this area to resemble the system in existence during the 

resource’s Period of Significance. Because the changes will restore the dual tracks in this area, 

the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-51 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that 

the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the USDOD Supply Center 

Historic District; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

RICHMOND & PETERSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA, Section BB, and Section 

CC. The three Project alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project 

alternatives will require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. Although 

most of the rail corridor will remain unchanged, the removal of a utility bridge for the crossing of 

the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway and abandoned abutments associated with the 

historic alignment of US Highway 10, both of which are contributing elements to the historic 

resource, will alter the resource and diminish the resource’s integrity of design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. The location will not change, but notable visual elements 

will be removed from the resource. These elements are located along the Atlantic Coast Line 

Railroad corridor and were constructed during its period of significance in response to the 

railroad tracks below. Because of the proposed demolition of contributing elements, the Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

HOUSE AT 3619 THURSTON RD (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to provide a new roadway about 250 feet west of the dwelling. The 

house will be separated from the road ROW by a modern home and a vegetative buffer and will 

not alter the resource’s location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de 

minimis. 

CENTRALIA POST OFFICE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will construct 

an overpass on Centralia Road. The fill slope from the bridge will be approximately 30 feet tall 

and located less than 30 feet south of the resource and its driveway will be moved. The Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. 

Although the Project will have an adverse effect on the Centralia Post Office under Section 106, 

the Project will not require any ROW from the resource. A visualization (i.e., computergenerated “before and after” images) of the view from the Centralia Post Office was prepared to 

convey the visual impact of the Project alternatives (Appendix L). These images were shared 

with VDHR. Based on the visual change anticipated, the FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Centralia Post Office. Therefore, the 

impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource and the resource is not included in the 

remainder of the Section 4(f) evaluation. 

RAGLAND HOUSE/4626 CENTRALIA RD (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near the Ragland House. The Project alternatives will 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-52 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

construct an overpass on Centralia Road and a portion of Centralia Road will be rerouted just east 

of Ragland House. However, no roadwork will be completed on the Ragland property, and the 

viewshed from the main house will be only slightly modified as the new road meets the old road 

southeast of the house. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect 

on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the 

resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial 

impairment to the Ragland House; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of 

the resource. 

CIRCLE OAKS/4510 CENTRALIA ROAD (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will construct 

an overpass on Centralia Road. The approach to the bridge will be visible from Circle Oaks and 

will require reconfiguring a section of driveway. The modifications have the potential to diminish 

the characteristics that make the property eligible for the NRHP. The Preferred Alternative (and 

VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Although the Project will have an adverse effect on Circle Oaks under Section 106, the Project 

will not require any ROW from the resource. A visualization (i.e., computer-generated “before 

and after” images) of the view from the front porch of Circle Oaks was prepared to convey the 

visual impact of the Project alternatives (Appendix L). These images were shared with VDHR. 

Based on the visual change anticipated, the FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do 

not cause a substantial impairment to Circle Oaks. Therefore, the impacts do not constitute a 

Section 4(f) use of the resource and the resource is not included in the remainder of the Section 

4(f) evaluation. 

CENTRALIA EARTHWORKS (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project designs include associated 

road improvements along Hopkins Road and Centralia Road to accommodate traffic rerouted 

from the closure of nearby at-grade rail crossings. The Centralia Earthworks are located east of 

Hopkins Road and run north-south parallel to the roadway. The Preferred Alternative will require 

a small amount of ROW from the resource. Although the earthworks were once larger, previous 

changes to the road system in this area in the early- and mid-twentieth century have destroyed all 

physical remnants of the earthworks within and immediately adjacent to the road corridor. The 

Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

CHESTER HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through the Chester Historic District. The Project 

alternatives will require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks, reroute 

several original road alignments, and close at-grade rail crossings. The Project alternatives will 

result in notable modifications to the district’s original plan. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 

and VA3) will have an adverse effect on this district under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in 

a Section 4(f) use. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-53 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

PRETLOW HOUSE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to accommodate modifications to Curtis Street between the rail tracks 

and Winfree Street. At Pretlow House, the road changes have been minimized through the 

creation of curb and gutter designs, thus avoiding impacts to vegetation currently in existence at 

the corner of the property and avoiding any impacts to the existing stone wall. The Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. As a condition of this effect recommendation, the VDHR requested that all efforts be 

made during construction to avoid impacts to the existing stone wall and adjacent vegetation. 

FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

EICHELBERGER HOUSE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and widen Curtis Street as part of the 

new railroad underpass. This will require the removal of the original stone gate and part of the 

trail to the Eichelberger House. Both of these resources are contributing elements to the larger 

Eichelberger House property. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse 

effect on this property under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

APPOMATTOX RIVER RAILROAD BRIDGE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near the Appomattox River Railroad Bridge and will all 

add a new, parallel single track bridge for high speed passenger trains just east of the existing 

bridge. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Based on the visual change anticipated, the FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do 

not cause a substantial impairment to the Appomattox River Railroad Bridge. Therefore, the 

impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource and the resource is not included in the 

remainder of the Section 4(f) evaluation. 

BATTERSEA (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. However, the main house and all 

above-ground resources are shielded from the rail corridor by distance (the closest above-ground 

contributing element is over 750 feet from the rail track and the main house is 1,200 feet from the 

tracks), topography, and dense vegetation. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will 

have no adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined 

that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

NORTH BATTERSEA/PRIDE’S FIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this district. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks in the vicinity of Battersea mansion (a 

contributing element to the district). With the exception of Battersea, the closest contributing 

element to the rail corridor is over 2,000 feet east of the rail line and the Project alternatives will 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-54 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

not impact the physical or historic integrity of the resource. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 

and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this district under Section 106 of the NHPA. As a 

condition of this effect recommendation, the VDHR requested that the Project Team coordinate 

with the City of Petersburg to identify measures to minimize impacts to this resource. FRA has 

determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

DEFENSE ROAD (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second railroad bridge over Defense Road (directly adjacent 

to the existing railroad bridge), which will necessitate the removal of a small section of the 

original roadway and lowering the overall road grade near the bridge to allow for vehicular 

passage beneath the new span. This change will impact the road’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, and feeling. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second railroad bridge over Defense Road (directly adjacent 

to the existing railroad bridge). Construction of the bridge and associated improvements to 

Defense Road will necessitate large disturbances to the segment of the earthworks within the 

Project APE. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an adverse effect on the 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

BRIDGE OVER DEFENSE ROAD (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second bridge directly east of the existing span, thus 

introducing a new element adjacent to the current bridge. Due to the introduction of this large 

new element, it is recommended that the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have an 

adverse effect on the resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

FORT DAVIS EARTHWORKS (VA) 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD is VA3. The three Project 

alternatives vary slightly in this area based on their curvature; however, they are all located within 

the same general vicinity. Although the 4,000-foot long earthworks generally run perpendicular 

through the Project corridor, the 300-foot long segment where the earthworks intersect the Project 

area were completely destroyed in 1900 when the Seaboard Air Line Railroad cut through the 

resource to construct the original rail line in this area. As such, the portion of this historic 

property within the Project APE does not contribute to the overall eligibility of this resource. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three 

Project alternatives are de minimis. 

BOWEN HOUSE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section C. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource, which is on the east side of US 1. The 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-55 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Project alternatives will add a set of tracks within the existing rail corridor on the west side of US 

1. The rail corridor is approximately 75 feet west of the western boundary of this resource and 

over 150 feet from the main house. However, the road system in this area will also be modified 

by rerouting the corridor to the south of the Bowen House and bridging Glebe Road over the rail 

lines. This new bridge will be just southwest of the Bowen House boundaries. It is possible that 

the new structure will be visible from the main house. However, any modifications to the 

viewshed will be tempered by a vegetative screen, distance, and the US 1 corridor. The Preferred 

Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined 

that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Bowen House; therefore, 

the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

BANK OF MCKENNEY (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section C. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. Road modifications are restricted to the 

area south of the bank building, over 160 feet away. The Preferred Alternative will add a new 

visual element to the viewshed of this property, namely the rail itself, but the modification will 

actually restore the historic appearance of this area by putting the rail back where it was originally 

designed. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on 

this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the 

resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial 

impairment to the Bank of McKenney; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use 

of the resource. 

CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY (C & P) 

BUILDING (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section C. The C & P Building is 

located north of a road modification area just outside of the Town of McKenney. The Preferred 

Alternative will result in the widening of the roadway, but no alterations to the building or its 

associated landscape will occur. The Project will therefore not diminish any of the characteristics 

that render this property eligible for the NRHP, although the road footprint along the primary 

elevation will be slightly modified. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse 

effect on this historic property. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any 

ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a 

substantial impairment to the C & P Building; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 

4(f) use of the resource. 

ZEHMER FARM/HONEYMOON HILL FARM (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section C. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The alternatives will shift the rail 

corridor slightly west of its existing location in order to straighten a curve. The new corridor will 

cross the Zehmer Farm along its easternmost boundary. The Project alternatives will also reroute 

Jack Zehmer Road, which currently crosses the railroad corridor at-grade from the east and 

provides access southward to the Town of McKenney’s wastewater treatment plant (which is 

located with the listed boundary of the Zehmer Farm). The existing at-grade crossing of the rail 

corridor will be closed and the rerouted road will tie into Community Street (along the eastern 

boundary of Sunnyside Elementary School), and then parallel the railroad south (on the west side 

of the tracks) to connect with the existing access road. The proposed changes are located more 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-56 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

than 600 feet from the main buildings on the farm and will be blocked from view of the house by 

extensive vegetation. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have no 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the 

impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

WYNNHURST (VA) 

The VA4 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section D. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative veers off to the northwest of 

Wynnhurst and runs through the small community of Rawlings, VA. Wynnhurst is outside of the 

APE of the Preferred Alternative; the Preferred Alternative will not require a Section 4(f) use of 

the resource. 

The VA1 and VA3 alternatives are on common alignment and require a use of the resource in 

order to add a second set of tracks. This alternative runs through the southeastern half of the 

Wynnhurst property; the new rail corridor is 100 feet from the main house and entirely within the 

larger property boundaries. Due to alterations to the property’s location, design, setting, feeling, 

and association, the VA1/VA3 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource 

under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA2 alternative follows a similar alignment to the Preferred Alternative in the vicinity of this 

resource, veering off to the northwest of Wynnhurst, and running through the small community of 

Rawlings, VA. The VA2 Project alternative would have no effect on this resource under Section 

106 of the NHPA; the alternative would not require a Section 4(f) use. 

BLICK'S STORE (VA) 

The VA4 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section D. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. All Project alternatives will rebuild the railroad tracks 

through this area in the existing corridor. 

The Preferred Alternative and the VA2 Project alternative will require a use of the resource in 

order to reroute Route 629 behind the property, about 300 feet south of the store building. The 

road movement will not impact the physical characteristics of the resource. The Preferred 

Alternative and the VA2 Project alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impact from these alternatives is de 

minimis. 

The VA1 and VA3 alternatives are on common alignment. This alternative includes no roadwork 

in the vicinity of the Blick’s Store. The VA1/VA3 Project alternative would have no effect on 

this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA; the alternative would not require a Section 4(f) use. 

HOUSE/458 SECOND AVENUE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section E. This alternative is the 

common alignment of VA1 and VA3. However, all three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment near this resource. Although the general road system in this area will be 

modified to remove at-grade crossings in the downtown area, the roadways adjacent to this 

resource will not be changed. Since the general approach to the home will be altered, but the 

change will not diminish any of the characteristics that render this property eligible for the 

NRHP, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2) will have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA 

has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the House at 

458 Second Avenue; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-57 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ORGAIN HOUSE (VA) 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section G. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative will add a bridge on Old Indian 

Road over the relocated rail corridor approximately 500 feet south of the recommended boundary 

of the Orgain House historic resource. Given the distance of the designs from the main house, the 

Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. The Preferred Alternative will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has 

determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Orgain House; 

therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

The VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives are located more than 500 feet east of the property. 

These alternatives would have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and 

would not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA4 Project alternative would directly impact the resource, which sits within its construction 

limits. The VA4 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 

106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

TOURIST GUEST HOUSE (VA) 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section G. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative will require a use of the resource 

in order to locate the railroad tracks directly behind the main house of the Tourist Guest House. 

Construction of this new rail line will be within the viewshed of the home. The Preferred 

Alternative will have an adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of the NHPA and result 

in a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA1 and VA2 Project alternatives are located over 300 feet southeast of the property. These 

alternatives would have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and would not 

require a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA4 Project alternative would locate the railroad tracks approximately 350 feet from the 

eligible boundary of the Tourist Guest House. The new rail line would be visible from a portion 

of the property, but would not impact the physical characteristics of the resource. Therefore, the 

VA4 Project alternative would have no adverse effect on the Tourist Guest House. The 

alternative would not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the 

proximity impacts from the VA4 Project alternative do not cause a substantial impairment to the 

Tourist Guest House; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

OAK SHADES (VA) 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section G. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative is located over 300 feet from the 

Oak Shades property. This alternative will have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. The Preferred Alternative will not require any ROW from the resource; the 

alternative will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA1 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to relocate the railroad 

corridor on new location just southeast of the main house at Oak Shades. The new rail corridor 

would be less than 50 feet from the home. Because of the impacts to the building’s physical and 

historic integrity, the VA1 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-58 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The VA2 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of 

tracks and smooth a curve in the existing inactive railroad corridor. The rail tracks would be 

located down a steel escarpment and not visible from the main house. However, the rail 

alignment would be shifted away from the historic location of the railroad and would cut into the 

hill slope by about 30 feet. The VA2 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this 

property under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. (It should be noted that 

the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS identified VA2 as having a de minimis impact on 

Oak Shades. This determination was revised based on additional coordination with VDHR and 

review of the designs within Section G.) 

The VA4 Project alternative is located over 800 feet from the Oak Shades property. This 

alternative would have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and would not 

require a Section 4(f) use. 

EVANS HOUSE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section E. This alternative is the 

common alignment of VA1 and VA3. However, all three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment near this resource. The Preferred Alternative will add a set of tracks just east 

of the existing rail corridor that is located adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the Evans 

House. In addition, the road system in this area will also be modified by rerouting Wilson Road 

north of the Evans House to provide an overpass of the rail corridor. This new bridge will be 

northwest of the Evans House boundaries. It is possible that the new structure will be visible 

from the house. However, any modifications to the viewshed will be tempered by a vegetative 

screen and distance, and no character-defining features of this resource will be diminished by this 

change. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and VA2) will have no adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the 

resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial 

impairment to the Evans House; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use. 

LA CROSSE COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section I. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to reestablish rail through town and remodel the road system to 

remove at-grade railroad crossings. The alternatives will require the demolition of at least two 

contributing resources. The Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on this district 

under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

LA CROSSE HOTEL (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section I. This alternative is the 

common alignment of VA1 and VA3. However, all three of the Project alternatives are on 

common alignment near this resource. The La Crosse Hotel is located immediately adjacent to 

the existing railroad ROW. The designs shown in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS 

required a small amount of ROW from the hotel property (but not impacting the hotel itself) in 

order to accommodate the Town of La Crosse’s plans to use the property as a future high speed 

rail station. Subsequent to publication of the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the 

designs for the Preferred Alternative were revised to no longer require any ROW from the 

resource. Moreover, although the Preferred Alternative will install a new set of rails within the 

viewshed of the primary elevation of this historic property, similar rails were in place when the 

hotel was constructed. The rail system was, in fact, the impetus for the development of this lot. 

Thus, the changes will not diminish the resource’s integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-59 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

workmanship, feeling or association. Based on these changes, the Preferred Alternative (and 

VA2) will have no adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project 

will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Evans House; therefore, the impacts do not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use. 

WRIGHT FARMSTEAD (VA) 

The VA2 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section J. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative is located more than 500 feet from 

the Wright Farmstead. The Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA and will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives would require a use of the resource in order to relocate the 

railroad corridor directly through the western two-thirds of the resource. The VA1/VA3 Project 

alternative would have an adverse effect on this property under Section 106 of the NHPA and 

result in a Section 4(f) use. 

SARDIS METHODIST CHURCH (VA) 

The VA2 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section J. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will reroute the 

current driveway for the church in order to close an at-grade railroad crossing. Although this 

change alters the property’s setting, it does not diminish any of the characteristics that render the 

resource eligible for the NRHP. The Preferred Alternative (and VA1 and VA3) will have no 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any 

ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a 

substantial impairment to the Sardis Methodist Church; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a 

Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

BRACEY HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section K. This alternative is the 

common alignment of VA1 and VA3. The proposed Project alternatives vary near this resource. 

The Preferred Alternative will construct the rail corridor west of the original Seaboard Air Line 

tracks. The alternative will have no effect on this district under Section 106 of the NHPA and 

will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA2 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to reestablish rail on the 

abandoned Seaboard tracks. This would result in construction directly adjacent to the existing 

Bracey Railroad Depot, which is a contributing element to the district. Although the depot would 

not be destroyed, the work has the potential to diminish the district’s design, setting, feeling, and 

association by modifying the original rail corridor and risking impacts to contributing elements. 

The VA2 Project alternative would have an adverse effect on this district under Section 106 of the 

NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

BRACEY DEPOT (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section K. This alternative is the 

common alignment of VA1 and VA3. The proposed Project alternatives vary near this resource. 

The Bracey Depot is located adjacent to the rail tracks, but this building has been moved further 

away from the rail footprint and reoriented. Changes to the rail corridor in this area from the 

Preferred Alternative will result in an altered viewshed from the current orientation of the depot, 

but the alternative will not diminish any of the characteristics that render this resource eligible for 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-60 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the NHRP. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource 

under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The 

FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the 

Bracey Depot; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

The VA2 Project alternative would reestablish rail on the abandoned Seaboard tracks. However, 

the existing rail corridor in this area is too narrow to accommodate the proposed line, thus the 

corridor would be widened to the east. This would result in construction directly adjacent to the 

Bracey Depot. As a result of these changes, the VA2 Project alternative would have an adverse 

effect on this district under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

BRACEY & COMPANY STORE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section K. This alternative is the 

common alignment of VA1 and VA3. The proposed Project alternatives vary near this resource. 

The Bracey Store is located east of the rail corridor. The viewshed between the store and the rail 

tracks is partially blocked by the presence of the Bracey Store, although the rail crossing of 

Bracey Road is visible from the primary elevation of this resource. The Preferred Alternative 

would reintroduce rail tracks in this area, which will alter this resource’s integrity of setting. 

However, it will not diminish the integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling or 

association. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource 

under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The 

FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the 

Bracey Depot; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

The VA2 Project alternative would reestablish rail on the abandoned Seaboard tracks. However, 

the existing rail corridor in this area is too narrow to accommodate the proposed line, thus the 

corridor would be widened to the east. Changes to the rail corridor in this area would result in an 

altered viewshed from the current orientation of the store, but the alternative would not diminish 

any of the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NHRP. Therefore, the VA2 

Project alternative would have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

FRA has determined that the impact from this alternative is de minimis. 

GRANITE HALL/FITTS HOUSE (VA) 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section L in Virginia. The proposed 

Project alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the VA3 Project 

alternative share a common alignment near Granite Hall. The rail alignments are located 700 feet 

west of Granite Hall and several dwellings, vegetation, and roadways are between the home and 

the alignments. The Preferred Alternative (and VA3) will have no effect on the resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA and will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The VA2 Project alternative runs along the abandoned Seaboard Air Line rail corridor. The 

alternative would require a use of the resource in order to construct a new bridge on Route 712 

over the rail line. The fill slope for the new bridge would be located in front of the main house. 

This would alter both the driveway and the approach to the home and also introduce a new visual 

element outside of the primary elevation of the home. Because of impacts to the resource’s 

design, setting, feeling, and association, the VA2 Project alternative would have an adverse effect 

on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

CHAPEL OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section M. This alternative is the 

common alignment of NC1 and NC3, and all three Project alternatives are on common alignment 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-61 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

near this resource. The designs presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS would 

have rerouted Ridgeway Warrenton Road from its current location in front of the church to a new 

location immediately behind the church in order to access a proposed grade separation over the 

railroad corridor. Due to the changes in access and the visual environment, all three Project 

alternatives were determined to have an adverse effect on the Chapel of the Good Shepherd under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. 

In response to comments on the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS and in coordination 

with Warren County, the Kerr-Tar Council of Governments (Rural Planning Organization), and 

the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, several modifications were made to the proposed 

roadwork for the Ridgeway area. The revised designs will put the grade separation over the 

railroad corridor on Ridgeway Drewry Road rather than on Ridgeway Warrenton Road. 

Ridgeway Drewry Road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to the northeast to cross over US 1 

and the railroad on a bridge, and connect to a new alignment for Axtell Ridgway Road on the 

south side of the railroad. Additional traffic will pass in front of Chapel of the Good Shepherd to 

use the new grade separation. Based on the revised designs, the Preferred Alternative (and NC2 

and NC3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The 

Project would not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the 

proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Chapel of the Good Shepherd; 

therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

DR. THOMAS B. WILLIAMS HOUSE AND OFFICE (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section M. This alternative is the 

common alignment of NC1 and NC3, and all three Project alternatives are on common alignment 

near this resource. As discussed above for the Chapel of the Good Shepherd, changes to the 

designs presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS will put the bridge over the 

railroad corridor in Ridgeway, NC, on Ridgeway Drewry Road rather than on Ridgeway 

Warrenton Road. Ridgeway Drewry Road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to the northeast 

to cross over US 1 and the railroad on a bridge, and connect to a new alignment for Axtell 

Ridgway Road on the south side of the railroad. The bridge will be located approximately 500 

feet to the west of the Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office. The Preferred Alternative (and 

NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The 

Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office; 

therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

MARSHALL HOUSE/TAVERN (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section M. This alternative is the 

common alignment of NC1 and NC3, and all three Project alternatives are on common alignment 

near this resource. As discussed above for the Chapel of the Good Shepherd, changes to the 

designs presented in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS will put the bridge over the 

railroad corridor in Ridgeway, NC, on Ridgeway Drewry Road rather than on Ridgeway 

Warrenton Road. Ridgeway Drewry Road will be shifted approximately 650 feet to the northeast 

to cross over US 1 and the railroad on a bridge, and connect to a new alignment for Axtell 

Ridgway Road on the south side of the railroad. The bridge will be located approximately 700 

feet to the east of the Marshall House/Tavern, and a short section of the old Ridgeway Drewry 

Road in front of the Marshall House/Tavern will be used to provide a connection between US 1 

and the new road and bridge. The designs will require a minor amount of road frontage ROW 

from the resource for the new connection. The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-62 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined 

that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

WILLIAM J. HAWKINS HOUSE (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section N. This alternative is the 

common alignment of NC1 and NC3, and all three Project alternatives are on common alignment 

near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a use of the resource in order to add a 

second set of tracks. In addition, the current driveway access for the property will be relocated. 

The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. NC-HPO’s concurrence with this determination is conditional; the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project must coordinate with the property owner about the access issue (i.e., 

a temporary construction easement will be required to maintain access). FRA has determined that 

the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

HOLLOWAY FARM (NC) 

The NC3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section O. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative is located more than 500 feet east 

of the resource. This alternative will have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the 

NHPA and will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The proposed NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would both require a use of the resource to 

relocate the railroad corridor and would bisect Holloway Farm. The NC1 and NC2 alternatives 

would have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a 

Section 4(f) use. 

FORREST ELLINGTON FARM (NC) 

The NC3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section O. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to provide a new bridge over the railroad. A minor amount of road 

frontage ROW from the northwest corner of the property will be required at the intersection of 

Brookston Road and Carver School Road. The Preferred Alternative (and NC1 and NC2) will 

have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined 

that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

HENDERSON HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY 

EXPANSION (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section P. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to bridge Andrews Avenue (NC Hwy 39) within the Henderson 

Historic District. A retaining wall is included in the design to minimize impacts to the district 

from the bridge. However, the retaining wall will require a small amount of ROW be taken from 

a house along Andrews Avenue and necessitate re-grading a driveway. It will also impact 

landscaping along Andrews Avenue, potentially removing several trees. The Preferred 

Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

SOUTH HENDERSON INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section P. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-63 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

use of the resource in order to bridge Alexander Avenue on new alignment through the South 

Henderson Industrial Historic District. These changes will require a small amount of ROW from 

contributing resources. The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have an adverse effect 

on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

HOUSES (5 WORKER HOUSES ON 1400 BLOCK OF NICHOLAS ST) (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section P. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. The alternatives will require minor 

ROW from the resources directly adjacent to the railroad corridor (i.e., from their backyards). 

The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on these resources 

under Section 106 of the NHPA, provided that there is no taking of the structures. FRA has 

determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis.

HOUSES (3 SIDE GABLE HOUSES ON 1500 BLOCK OF NICHOLAS ST) (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section P. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. The alternatives will require minor 

ROW from the resources directly adjacent to the railroad corridor (i.e., from their backyards). 

The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on these resources 

under Section 106 of the NHPA, provided that there is no taking of the structures (which is not 

anticipated). FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de 

minimis.

FRANKLINTON HISTORIC DISTRICT (INCLUDES STERLING MILL 

HISTORIC DISTRICT) (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section S. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to eliminate the railroad crossing at Mason Street and replace the 

railroad bridge at Green Street, which is a contributing element to the historic district. The 

Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have an adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

STERLING COTTON MILL (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section S. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to provide an underpass of the railroad at Green Street, including 

sidewalks. A minor amount of ROW will be needed for these improvements. The Preferred 

Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de 

minimis. 

CEDAR CREEK RAILROAD BRIDGE PIERS (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section S. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary in the vicinity of this resource. The Preferred Alternative alignment and the 

NC3 alignment will cross Cedar Creek on a new bridge just to the east of the piers; the NC 2 

alignment will cross on a new bridge just to the west of the existing piers. With implementation 

of any of the three Project alternatives, the existing railroad bridge will no longer be used for rail 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-64 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

traffic. The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The NC-HPO’s concurrence with this determination is 

conditional; NCDOT must commit to ensuring the piers are not taken down during the 

construction of the Project. 

The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the 

proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge 

Piers; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

YOUNGSVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section T. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives bridge Main 

Street over the railroad in the vicinity of the Youngsville Historic District. In order to 

accommodate the new bridge, the alternatives will require the removal of several on-street 

parking spots in front of the Youngsville Community Center within the district. The NC1, NC2, 

and NC3 alternatives will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. 

The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the 

proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the proposed Youngsville Historic 

District; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

GLEN ROYALL MILL VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section U. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives include a 

pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks directly adjacent to the district. The Preferred 

Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of 

the NHPA. This determination is conditional; the Richmond to Raleigh Project must design the 

pedestrian crossing in a manner that minimizes its opaqueness and fits in with the character of its 

surroundings (based on coordination with NC-HPO). 

The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the 

proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Glen Royall Mill Village Historic 

District; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

WAKE FOREST HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The NC1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section U. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through Wake Forest and will provide a pedestrian-only 

grade separation of Elm Avenue within the Wake Forest Historic District. The designs also 

provide a new access road to allow four residences, which are contributing elements to the 

district, to access their properties. The Preferred Alternative (and NC2 and NC3) will have no 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. This determination is 

conditional; the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Project must specifically 

address coordination with owners of the four residences for temporary construction easements. 

FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

CRABTREE CREEK RAILROAD BRIDGE PIER (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The four Project 

alternatives are on common alignment near this resource. The Project alternatives will require a 

use of the resource in order to provide a new rail bridge that will accommodate an additional 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-65 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

track. The new bridge will span the historic pier and require a small amount of ROW under the 

span to allow for access and maintenance. This ROW includes the land where the pier is situated; 

the pier will not be otherwise impacted. The Preferred Alternative (and NC1, NC2, and NC3) 

alternatives will have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. This 

determination is conditional; the Richmond to Raleigh Project must ensure that the pier is not 

impacted during construction of the new bridge. FRA has determined that the impacts from all 

three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

GULF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary to a slight degree in the vicinity of this resource. However, all four of the 

Project alternatives will add an additional railroad track within the existing active rail corridor 

adjacent to the resource. The four Project alternatives all require ROW from the side of the 

warehouse closest to the existing CSX railroad corridor. The designs potentially require the 

warehouse building to be demolished and also impact the masonry foundation at the northeast 

corner of the parcel, which historically held a series of above-ground tanks and is a contributing 

element to the resource. The Preferred Alternative (and NC1, NC2, and NC3) will have an 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

ROANOKE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary in the vicinity of this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC1 and NC2 

rail alignments are located across Capital Boulevard from the district. The Preferred Alternative 

(and NC1 and NC2) will have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and do 

not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The NC3 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to maintain the operation 

of the nearby Norfolk Southern railroad yard. The additional ROW would be located directly 

adjacent to the railroad corridor behind four properties on Bickett Boulevard within the historic 

district. The necessary ROW would impact the backyards of these properties; in particular, one 

property would lose approximately 0.15 acres, including a garage. The NC3 alternative would 

have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 

4(f) use. 

NOLAND PLUMBING COMPANY BUILDING (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary in the vicinity of this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC1 and NC2 

rail alignments are located across Capital Boulevard from the resource. The Preferred Alternative 

(and NC1 and NC2) will have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and do 

not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The NC3 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to maintain the operation 

of the nearby Norfolk Southern railroad yard. A small amount of ROW would be required 

directly adjacent to the railroad corridor along the rear of the Noland Plumbing Company 

Building property. Two modern storage buildings may be impacted by the additional ROW; 

neither is a contributing element to the resource. The NC3 Project alternative would have no 

adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the 

impact from the NC3 alternative is de minimis. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-66 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

GLENWOOD-BROOKLYN HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary in the vicinity of this resource. The Preferred Alternative is located on the east 

side of the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks adjacent to the Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District. 

The Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA 

and will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The proposed NC1 and NC2 rail alignments are located across Capital Boulevard from the 

district. The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would have no effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA; the alternatives would not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The NC3 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to maintain the operation 

of the nearby Norfolk Southern railroad yard. A small amount of ROW would be required from 

one residence on Adams Street and one residence on Washington Street (from the backyards of 

the properties). In addition, an easement would be required within the parking lots for several 

commercial properties along Dale Street and Jefferson Street. These easements are necessary to 

construct and maintain a retaining wall along the railroad corridor. The NC3 Project alternative 

would have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has 

determined that the impact from the NC3 alternative is de minimis. 

SEABOARD RAILWAY STATION (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 rail alignments are 

located across Capital Boulevard from the resource. The Preferred Alternative (and NC3) will 

have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and would not require a Section 

4(f) use. 

The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives may require temporary construction easements from this 

resource. The NC1 and NC2 alternatives would have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would not require any ROW 

from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial 

impairment to the Seaboard Railway Station; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 

4(f) use of the resource. 

SEABOARD RAILWAY WAREHOUSES (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 rail alignments are 

located across Capital Boulevard from the resource. The Preferred Alternative (and NC3) will 

have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and would not require a Section 

4(f) use. 

The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives may require temporary construction easements from this 

resource. The NC1 and NC2 alternatives would have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would not require any ROW 

from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial 

impairment to the Seaboard Railway Station; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 

4(f) use of the resource. 

RALEIGH COTTON MILLS (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 rail alignments are 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-67 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

located across Capital Boulevard from the resource. The Preferred Alternative (and NC3) will 

have no effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and would not require a Section 

4(f) use. 

The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would require a use of the resource in order to add a 

second set of tracks. A small amount of ROW would be required from the resource; however, no 

buildings would be taken. The NC1 and NC2 alternatives would have no adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from the NC1 

and NC2 alternatives are de minimis. 

RALEIGH ELECTRIC COMPANY POWER HOUSE (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 rail alignments will 

close the existing at-grade railroad crossing at West Jones Street and provide a pedestrian 

crossing across the tracks. No ROW will be required from the resource. The Preferred 

Alternative and the NC3 Project alternative will have no adverse effect on this resource under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project will not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA 

has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Raleigh 

Electric Company Power House; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource. 

The NC1 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to bridge West Jones 

Street. The bridge would be visible directly in front of the Raleigh Electric Company Power 

House and a minor amount of ROW would be required from the property (with no impacts to the 

building itself). The NC1 alternative would have an adverse effect on this resource under Section 

106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

The NC2 Project alternative would be almost identical to the NC1 alternative in the vicinity of the 

resource, with a minor shift in rail alignment. The NC2 alternative would also require a use of 

the resource in order to bridge West Jones Street and would have the same visual and property 

impacts as the NC1 alternative. The NC2 alternative would have an adverse effect on this 

resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY CAR BARN AND 

AUTOMOBILE GARAGE (NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The proposed Project 

alternatives vary near this resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 rail alignments will 

close the existing at-grade railroad crossing at West Jones Street. No ROW will be required from 

the resource. The Preferred Alternative and the NC3 Project alternative will have no effect on 

this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and will not require a Section 4(f) use. 

The NC1 Project alternative would require a use of the resource in order to bridge West Jones 

Street. The bridge would be visible directly in front of the Carolina Power and Light Company 

Car Barn and Automobile Garage and a minor amount of ROW would be required from the 

property (with no impacts to the building itself). The NC1 alternative would have an adverse 

effect on this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

The NC2 Project alternative would be almost identical to the NC1 alternative in the vicinity of the 

resource, with a minor shift in rail alignment. The NC2 alternative would also require a use of 

the resource in order to bridge West Jones Street and would have the same visual and property 

impacts as the NC1 alternative. Therefore, the NC2 alternative would have an adverse effect on 

this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-68 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

DEPOT HISTORIC DISTRICT & PROPOSED BOUNDARY AMENDMENT 

(NC) 

The NC5 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section V. The Project alternatives 

vary slightly in the vicinity of the Depot Historic District Proposed Boundary Amendment. All 

four of the Project alternatives would add an additional railroad track within the existing active 

rail corridor adjacent to the district. The Preferred Alternative and the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

Project alternatives will not require ROW from resource. However, they all close the existing atgrade railroad crossing on W. Hargett Street within the proposed expansion area for the district. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and NC1, NC2, and NC3) will have no adverse effect on 

this resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. The FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the Depot Historic District & Proposed 

Boundary Amendment; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

RALEIGH AND GASTON RAILROAD CORRIDOR (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative in Sections M through V is a combination of the various Project 

alternatives (NC1 in Sections M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, and U; NC3 in Section O; and NC 5 in Section 

V). All of the proposed Project alternatives (NC1, NC2, NC3, and NC5) are located within the 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor for the majority of their lengths. The alternatives will 

require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. Although the alternatives will 

not impact the vast majority of contributing elements to the corridor, they all replace at least one 

of the historic concrete bridges and potentially impact at least one of the historic stone-lined 

culverts. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative (and all other alternatives in North Carolina) will 

have an adverse effect on the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor under Section 106 of the 

NHPA and result in a Section 4(f) use. 

SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY IMPACTS – BATTLEFIELDS 

Impacts to the 10 battlefields eligible for the NRHP within the APE for the Project are described in 

Table 5-9 and the sections below. All battlefields are impacted similarly by the Project. The 

battlefields in Table 5-9 are ordered from north to south as they appear in the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project Study Area. 

As discussed in Section 4.12.2.2, there are minor differences between the National Register-eligible 

battlefield boundaries proposed by ABPP in July 2009 within the Project APE and those currently 

adopted by VHDR. There are seven areas where the VDHR boundaries within the Project APE do 

not encompass all of the ABPP boundaries. None of the improvements proposed by the Project in 

these areas would result in a change to the Section 4(f) uses described below. 

Table 5-9 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Proctor’s Creek (resource spans 

sections) 

AA No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-69 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-9 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

BB No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Port Walthall Junction BB No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church CC No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Petersburg III/The 

Breakthrough (resource spans 

sections) 

CC No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

DD No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern 

(resource spans sections) 

CC No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

DD No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Peebles Farm (resource spans 

sections) 

CC No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

DD No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Boydton Plank Road (resource 

spans sections) 

DD No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

A No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Hatcher’s Run (resource spans 

sections) 

DD No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

A No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-70 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-9 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Battlefields – Virginia 

(Preferred Alternative Identified in Bold) 

Resource Name Section VA1 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4 Section 

106 Effect/ 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

Lewis Farm A No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

No Adverse 

Effect/ Use, 

De Minimis

N/A 

Dinwiddie Courthouse B No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

No Adverse 

Effect/ No 

Use 

N/A 

PROCTOR’S CREEK 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section AA and Section BB. The 

three Project alternatives are on common alignment through this battlefield. The alternatives will 

require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks. The Preferred Alternative (and 

VA2 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

PORT WALTHALL JUNCTION 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section BB. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through this battlefield. The alternatives will require a use 

of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and to remove at-grade crossings in the very 

southwestern corner of the larger battlefield. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will 

have no adverse effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined 

that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

SWIFT CREEK/ARROWFIELD CHURCH 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through this battlefield. The alternatives will require a use 

of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and to minimally widen one existing 

roadway in the very northern portion of the battlefield. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and 

VA3) will have no adverse effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has 

determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

PETERSBURG III/THE BREAKTHROUGH 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC and the VA3 Project 

alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD. The three Project alternatives are on 

common alignment through this battlefield. The alternatives will require a use of the resource in 

order to add a second set of tracks and to modify three roads within the battlefield boundaries: the 

existing railroad bridge over I-85 in the very northern portion of the battlefield will be widened to 

accommodate the second set of tracks, the bridge over Defense Road will be widened (see 

discussion of Defense Road above), and a short segment of Halifax Road east of the rail tracks 

will be straightened to remove a curve that runs adjacent to the rail line. In all, the changes 

include a very small percentage of the overall battlefield area. The Preferred Alternative (and 

VA2 and VA3 in Section CC, as well as VA1 and VA2 in Section DD) will have no adverse 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-71 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts 

from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

WELDON RAILROAD/GLOBE TAVERN 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC and the VA3 Project 

alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD. The proposed Project alternatives vary 

slightly through this battlefield. All of the Project alternatives will require a use of the resource in 

order to add a second set of tracks, provide a bridge over the CSX A-line tracks, and modify 

Halifax Road. The impacted areas comprise a very small segment of the larger 4,370 acre 

battlefield. The difference in the three alternatives is related to the way they bridge the active 

CSX A-line and a small access road in the vicinity of where Halifax Road crosses the CSX A-line 

(see Section 2.2.6 for more details). The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3 in Section CC, 

as well as VA1 and VA2 in Section DD) will have no adverse effect on this battlefield under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. As a condition of this effect recommendation, the National Park 

Service (NPS) Petersburg National Battlefield requested that the fill slopes for the proposed 

bridge over the CSX A-line have tree plantings to minimize the visual intrusion on the landscape. 

The VDHR also requested to view the engineering and vegetation plans before construction. 

FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

PEEBLES FARM 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section CC and the VA3 Project 

alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD. The three Project alternatives are on 

common alignment through this battlefield. The alternatives will require a use of the resource in 

order to add a second set of tracks and to widen a small segment of Vaughn Road running northsouth near the northeastern section of the southern battlefield section. The Preferred Alternative 

(and VA2 and VA3 in Section CC, as well as VA1 and VA2 in Section DD) will have no adverse 

effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts 

from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

BOYDTON PLANK ROAD 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD and the VA2 Project 

alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section A. The proposed Project alternatives vary 

slightly through this battlefield in the vicinity of the Burgess Connector, an inactive railroad 

corridor between the CSX S-Line (currently inactive) and the CSX A-Line (currently active) in 

Section A. The VA1/VA3 Project alternative stays within the existing railroad ROW in this area. 

The Preferred Alternative (VA2) extends slightly outside of the existing ROW from Duncan 

Road to Dabney Mill Road, a distance of approximately two miles, in order to flatten out a severe 

curve in the existing rail corridor alignment. All of the Project alternatives will require a use of 

the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and modify a segment of Squirrel Level Road 

(in Section DD). The Preferred Alternative (and VA1 and VA2 in Section DD, as well as VA1 

and VA3 in Section A) will have no adverse effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

HATCHER’S RUN 

The VA3 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section DD and the VA2 Project 

alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section A. The proposed Project alternatives vary 

slightly through this battlefield in the vicinity of the Burgess Connector, as described above for 

Boydton Plank Road battlefield. All of the Project alternatives will require a use of the resource 

in order to add a second set of tracks and modify two roads. A small section of Vaughn Road 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-72 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

will be widened and a small section of Squirrel Level Road will be improved. Both road 

improvement areas are located in the very northeastern corner of the larger battlefield. The 

Preferred Alternative (and VA1 and VA2 in Section DD, as well as VA1 and VA3 in Section A) 

will have no adverse effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has 

determined that the impacts from all three Project alternatives are de minimis. 

LEWIS FARM 

The VA2 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section A. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through this battlefield. All of the Project alternatives will 

require a use of the resource in order to add a second set of tracks and to reroute a segment of 

Quaker Road. The Preferred Alternative (and VA1 and VA3) will have no adverse effect on this 

battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. FRA has determined that the impacts from all three 

Project alternatives are de minimis. 

DINWIDDIE COURTHOUSE 

The VA1 Project alternative is the Preferred Alternative in Section B. The three Project 

alternatives are on common alignment through this battlefield. All of the Project alternatives will 

add a second set of tracks in this area. The Preferred Alternative (and VA2 and VA3) will have 

no adverse effect on this battlefield under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Project alternatives will 

not require any ROW from the resource. The FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do 

not cause a substantial impairment to the battlefield; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a 

Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY IMPACTS – ARCHAEOLOGY SITES 

As described in Section 5.5, Section 4(f) applies to archeological sites that are on or eligible for 

the NRHP and that warrant preservation in place. Based on these criteria, Section 4(f) applies to 

nine archeological resources in the Project Study Area. All of these resources are associated with 

historic architecture resources whose impacts are described in Section 5.7. The impacts are also 

summarized in Table 5-10 below. 

 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-73 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-10 

Section 4(f) Determinations for Archaeological Resources 

Resource Name Section Preferred Alternative Section 106 

Effect/ Section 4(f) Use 

Williams Bridge Company* AA Adverse Effect/Use 

USDOD Supply Center District* AA No Adverse Effect/No Use 

Centralia Earthworks* BB No Adverse Effect/De Minimis Use 

Battersea* CC No Adverse Effect/De Minimis Use 

Dimmock Line/Earthworks* CC Adverse Effect/Use 

Fort Davis Earthworks* DD No Adverse Effect/De Minimis Use 

Orgain House* G No Adverse Effect/No Use 

La Crosse Hotel* I No Adverse Effect/De Minimis Use 

Wright Farmstead* J No Effect/No Use 

* Archaeology site is associated with a historic architecture resource. 

AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES 

The Section 4(f) statute requires the selection of an alternative that avoids the use of Section 4(f) 

property if that alternative is deemed feasible and prudent. For all resources that would require a 

Section 4(f) use (not de minimis) by one or more of the proposed Project alternatives (listed in Table 

5-11), avoidance alternatives were investigated as described below. The Preferred Alternative is 

highlighted in bold. 

Table 5-11 

Resources Where at Least One Alternative Would Require a Section 4(f) Use 

(Not De Minimis) 

Resource Name Section/ 

State 

VA1/NC1 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2/NC2 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3/NC3 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4/NC5 

Section 

4(f) Use 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

Corridor 

AA – L / 

VA 

Use Use Use Use 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

Corridor 

AA, BB, 

CC / VA 

Use Use Use N/A 

Williams Bridge Company AA / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Richmond & Petersburg 

Electric Railway 

AA, BB, 

CC / VA 

Use Use Use N/A 

Chester Historic District BB / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Eichelberger House BB / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Defense Road CC / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Dimmock Line/Earthworks CC / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Bridge over Defense Road CC / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Wynnhurst D / VA Use No Use Use No Use 

Orgain House G / VA No Use No Use No Use Use 

Tourist Guest House G / VA No Use No Use Use No Use 

Oak Shades G / VA Use Use No Use No Use 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-74 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-11 

Resources Where at Least One Alternative Would Require a Section 4(f) Use 

(Not De Minimis) 

Resource Name Section/ 

State 

VA1/NC1 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA2/NC2 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA3/NC3 

Section 4(f) 

Use 

VA4/NC5 

Section 

4(f) Use 

La Crosse Commercial Historic 

District 

I / VA Use Use Use N/A 

Wright Farmstead J / VA Use No Use Use N/A 

Bracey Historic District K / VA No Use Use No Use N/A 

Bracey Depot K / VA No Use Use No Use N/A 

Granite Hall/Fitts House L / VA No Use Use No Use N/A 

Holloway Farm O / NC Use Use No Use N/A 

Henderson Historic District and 

Proposed Boundary Expansion 

P / NC Use Use Use N/A 

South Henderson Industrial 

Historic District 

P / NC Use Use Use N/A 

Franklinton Historic District 

(Includes Sterling Mill Historic 

District) 

S / NC Use Use Use N/A 

Gulf Petroleum Products 

Warehouse 

V / NC Use Use Use Use 

Roanoke Park Historic District V / NC No Use No Use Use No Use 

Raleigh Electric Company 

Power House 

V / NC Use Use No Use No Use 

Carolina Power and Light 

Company Car Barn and 

Automobile Garage 

V / NC Use Use No Use No Use 

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad 

Corridor 

M – V / 

NC 

Use Use Use Use 

In several locations, historic resources that would require a Section 4(f) use by one or more Project 

alternatives are located in close proximity to one another. In addition, the potential adverse effects to 

historic districts are very similar in nature. Therefore, the discussion of potential avoidance 

alternatives for resources in close proximity and historic districts are consolidated in the discussion 

below to avoid redundancy. 

ALTERNATIVES THAT AVOID ALL SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES 

A total avoidance alternative is a feasible and prudent alternative that would avoid use of all 

Section 4(f) resources. Alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need for the Project are not 

considered feasible and prudent. Avoidance alternatives for individual Section 4(f) resources 

were developed and evaluated as field work and research revealed these resources during the 

Project development process. 

A fundamental goal of the “incremental” high speed rail approach established in the Tier I ROD 

is the utilization of existing rail ROW, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to best 

minimize the overall impacts to both the human and natural environments. To avoid impacts to 

all Section 4(f) resources would necessitate relocating the rail corridor along lengthy sections of 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-75 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the Project. The ability of the Richmond to Raleigh Project to effectively divert trips to rail from 

the current and future air and highway travel in the corridor (thus helping reduce the growth rate 

of congestion in the corridor and resulting in a more balanced use of the corridor’s transportation 

infrastructure) is greatly affected by the ability to serve the city/town centers along the Project 

corridor. These cities and towns grew up historically along the railroad ROW for the 

transportation benefits provided in the movement of both people and goods. The presence of rail 

serving the city/town centers promoted, and continues to promote, sustainable transportation and 

sustainable development patterns. The implementation of the Project would provide not only 

high speed passenger service, but also the opportunity for conventional passenger service and, in 

some areas, commuter service, both of which could allow stops in many of the small cities and 

towns along the corridor. This improved service would provide the traveling public and special 

populations, such as the elderly and the disabled, with improved transportation choices. 

Avoidance alternatives for individual Section 4(f) resources were designed in less developed 

areas where it was possible to shift the rail alignment onto new ROW while continuing to meet 

the overall purpose and need of the Project. These avoidance alternatives were successful at 

avoiding Section 4(f) uses of 11 of the 27 resources that would be impacted by one or more of the 

Project alternatives. 

The unavoidable Section 4(f) impacts addressed in this document are located either along existing 

rail ROW (primarily within the developed areas of cities and towns) or within the rail corridor 

itself (such as the historic Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor). Avoidance of these areas by 

means of bypasses fails to meet the Project purpose and need as just described. In addition, the 

design goals of one degree of curvature (both horizontally and vertically) result in substantially 

increased corridor lengths for bypasses, which increases travel times, while resulting in 

additional, and likely significant, impacts to natural resources (e.g., streams and wetlands), along 

with residential and/or business relocations. In addition, the required ROW would result in 

significantly more expensive Project costs. Cumulatively, these alternatives are not prudent per 

23 CFR 774.17. 

AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE USE (NOT DE MINIMIS) OF 

INDIVIDUAL SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES 

The following sections discuss the evaluation of avoidance alternatives for individual Section 4(f) 

resources used by the Project. Resources are presented as they appear in the Project corridor 

from north to south. Avoidance alternatives are not required when a finding of de minimis use is 

made for Section 4(f) historic resources because Section 4(f) is satisfied once de minimis applies. 

An avoidance alternative for an individual Section 4(f) resource used by the Project must be 

evaluated within the section of the Project where the resource is located. As explained in Section 

2 of this FEIS, the endpoints of each of the 26 sections of the Project are in locations where the 

alternative alignments are in a common location. A Preferred Alternative has been selected for 

each section and joined together across the length of the Project. Avoidance alternatives may not 

use another resource protected under Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. 

CHESTER, LA CROSSE COMMERCIAL, HENDERSON, FRANKLINTON, 

AND SOUTH HENDERSON INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS 

Several concepts to avoid adverse impacts to the Chester, La Crosse Commercial, Henderson, 

South Henderson Industrial, and Franklinton historic districts were assessed during the Project 

planning process. In each of these historic districts, all Project alternatives are on common 

alignment due to the significant constraints, and the Preferred Alternative is this common 

alignment (referred to as VA1 in Virginia and NC1 in North Carolina). The following discussion 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-76 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

describes the concepts that were objectively evaluated to avoid the use of the Section 4(f) 

resources and explains the rationale for the dismissal of each concept. The following avoidance 

concepts were examined: 

 At-grade crossing instead of grade separation 

 Relocation of grade separation 

 Bypass of historic district. 

AVOIDANCE CONCEPT 1: AT-GRADE CROSSING 

In each of the historic districts, the adverse effect/Section 4(f) use is directly tied to the 

proposed grade separation within the district as described in Section 5.3. The use of at-grade 

crossings instead of grade separations was considered as a means of avoiding the impacts. 

At-grade crossings would avoid or minimize uses of the Section 4(f) resources; however, they 

are not prudent per the definition of “feasible and prudent alternative” in 23 CFR 774.17 

because they would result in the continuation of unacceptably unsafe conditions and would 

neither address nor correct the transportation purpose and need for the proposed Project. 

The overarching philosophy of the design of the Richmond to Raleigh Project from 

Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, is to consolidate and grade separate all railroad-roadway 

crossings for the primary purpose of ensuring both rail and roadway safety. At-grade 

crossings inherently have risk of train-automobile collisions. A collision at a crossing on a 

higher speed track is a significant event often causing a death in the vehicle and in the case of 

larger, heavier trucks, the possible derailment of the train and associated injuries. 

Section 1.4.1.7 of this FEIS outlines additional reasons for grade separations: 

 Elimination of railroad/roadway traffic issues 

 Elimination of possible system failure and associated delays 

 Elimination of easy trespasser access 

 Elimination of train horn noise 

 Comparable capital cost to grade-separated structure 

 Improved long term cost of maintenance 

 Allows for future speed increases. 

For these reasons, at-grade crossings fail to meet one of the purposes of the Project, which is 

to increase the safety and operability of the transportation system within the travel corridor. 

Therefore, FRA has determined that retaining at-grade crossings is not prudent per 23 CFR 

774.17. 

AVOIDANCE CONCEPT 2: RELOCATE GRADE SEPARATION 

As described above, the adverse effect from the Project on each of the historic districts is a 

direct result of the proposed grade separation. To avoid these impacts, relocations of the 

proposed grade separations to areas outside of or elsewhere within the historic districts were 

considered. In all cases, the potential relocations were not prudent because the changes to the 

road network would result in significant traffic problems, there were constructability issues, 

or there were other problems as explained in Table 5-12. Based on the unacceptable 

operational problems this concept would cause, FRA has determined that relocating grade 

separations to outside of historic districts is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-77 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-12 

Grade Separation Locations Considered 

Historic District Location Reasons Selected or Excluded 

Chester Curtis St Selected – Curtis St was selected for the grade separation 

because it carries the majority of traffic going north-south 

through Chester, VA. It continues beyond W Petersburg St to 

join VA Route 10 (W Hundred Rd) north of town. 

West St Excluded – West St was excluded as a potential grade 

separation location because it lacks the connectivity of Curtis 

St. Additionally, locating the grade separation on West St 

would require routing traffic across West St and back up to 

Curtis St via Winfree St or W Petersburg St; the improvements 

necessary for this would potentially result in severe residential 

relocations along these streets. 

Snead St Excluded – Snead Street was excluded as a potential grade 

separation location because it was too far south of the center of 

Chester, VA, to carry the flow of traffic north-south across the 

railroad. It would also have the same potential residential 

impacts as West St. 

La Crosse 

Commercial 

Meredith St/ 

Hillcrest Rd 

Selected – Meredith St/Hillcrest Rd was selected for the grade 

separation because it provides the east-west connectivity 

required by the community of La Crosse for its downtown. A 

grade separation outside of town would have resulted in 

negative community impacts, notably the removal of traffic and 

associated commerce for downtown businesses. 

W Pine St Excluded – W Pine St was excluded as a potential grade 

separation because it is too close to the existing grade 

separation at US 58. It would not provide the east-west 

connectivity needed within the town of La Crosse. 

Seaboard Ave/ 

College St 

Excluded – Seaboard Ave/ College St was excluded as a 

potential grade separation because it would likely result in 

substantial commercial relocations in downtown La Crosse. 

Marengo Rd/ St 

Tammany Rd 

Excluded – A grade separation that would connect Marengo Rd 

to St Tammany Rd with a bridge over the railroad was explored 

at the request of the community of La Crosse. This concept 

would have resulted in a long bridge approximately 30 feet 

over the proposed rail alignment. Visualizations of the design 

were shown to members of the community who then expressed 

concerns about accessibility and connectivity within 

downtown. In addition, this grade separation would have 

resulted in a similar or larger impact to the historic district. 

Henderson W Andrews Ave Selected – W Andrews St (NC39) was chosen for the grade 

separation in Henderson because it is the primary east-west 

route through the town; closing this rail crossing would result 

in inoperable traffic operations. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-78 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 5-12 

Grade Separation Locations Considered 

Historic District Location Reasons Selected or Excluded 

Chavasse Ave Excluded – Chavasse Ave was excluded from consideration for 

a grade separation because of constructability issues. It was not 

possible to provide the required vertical clearance under the rail 

line and still maintain the existing side street intersections. 

Cutting off these side streets would alter the road network in 

the town to such a degree as to render the option imprudent. 

South Henderson 

Industrial 

Alexander Ave Selected – Alexander Ave was chosen for the grade separation 

through the South Henderson Industrial District at the request 

of the Town of Henderson; any crossing to the north of 

Alexander Ave would have an impact on the Henderson 

historic district. 

Miriam Ave/ 

Wilkins Ln 

Excluded – A crossing at Miriam Ave/Wilkins Ln (or any other 

crossing south of the historic district) would not provide the 

necessary east-west connectivity required to maintain traffic 

operations within Henderson. 

Franklinton Green St Selected – Green St was selected for the grade separation 

through downtown Franklinton because it is the location of an 

existing grade separation (the Project would replace and widen 

the existing bridge); therefore, it would have the fewest 

residential and commercial relocations and maintain continuity 

in traffic operations. 

Mason St Excluded – Mason St was excluded as a location for a grade 

separation because it would have substantial impacts to the 

commercial district as well as the historic district. It was not 

possible to evaluate placement of grade separations entirely 

outside the historic district because of the need to maintain 

connectivity within the downtown area. 

AVOIDANCE CONCEPT 3: BYPASS OF HISTORIC DISTRICT 

Impacts to the historic districts could be avoided if the Project were to bypass the districts on 

new rail alignments. Such bypasses could be located in the general vicinity of an individual 

historic district (less than a mile from the district boundary) or bypass multiple districts (at a 

distance further away). 

Either type of bypass would require leaving existing rail ROW and locating the alternatives 

on land that is either currently used for other purposes or undeveloped. This would likely 

result in significant residential and/or business relocations and impacts to natural resources 

(e.g., streams and wetlands). Such unacceptable and severe adverse social and environmental 

impacts are not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

In addition, bypasses would increase travel time by adding length to the alternatives and, 

potentially, by requiring slower speeds through sharper turns. Increases to travel time would 

have a negative impact on ridership. As discussed above, bypasses fail to meet one of the 

purposes of the Project, which is to divert trips from air and highway within the travel 

corridor. Therefore, FRA has determined that this concept is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-79 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (VA) 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alternatives are on common alignment and located within 

the existing rail corridor when they are in the vicinity of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor, 

which spans the entire Project corridor in Virginia (Sections AA through L). Although the 

majority of this resource will remain unchanged with the implementation of the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project, the Project will impact one contributing element to the resource. The Project 

will remove the rail bridge over US 1 South near Alberta in Section F (where all alternatives are 

common). 

The Section 4(f) use of the rail bridge over US 1 South is due to the relocation of US 1 South to a 

location adjacent to US 1 North in this area, as well as a slight realignment of the existing rail 

corridor. The existing rail bridge does not meet current design standards for vertical or horizontal 

clearance of US 1 South and there is anecdotal evidence of drainage issues on US 1 South under 

the bridge. Therefore, the designs propose to remove (i.e., fill in) the bridge and provide a new 

bridge for US 1 South approximately 500 feet to the south of the current location. To avoid this 

Section 4(f) use of the bridge would require keeping both the rail corridor and US 1 South in their 

current location and the bridge in its current condition. Any relocation of the rail corridor or US 

1 South necessitates the bridge being removed for safety reasons (i.e., the lack of sufficient 

vertical and horizontal clearance). One of the purposes of the Project is to increase the safety and 

operability of the transportation system within the travel corridor and maintaining the rail bridge 

in place would result in unacceptable safety problems. Therefore, FRA has determined that an 

avoidance alternative for the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor is not prudent per 23 CFR 

774.17. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR AND RICHMOND & 

PETERSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY (VA) 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alternatives are on common alignment and are located 

within the existing, active rail corridor in the vicinity of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor 

and Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway historic resources, which span Sections AA, BB, 

and CC. Although the majority of these resources will remain unchanged with the 

implementation of the Richmond to Raleigh Project, the Project will impact contributing elements 

to the historic resources. Within the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor, the Project will 

remove a utility bridge for the crossing of the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway and 

abandoned abutments associated with the historic alignment of US Highway 10 (W. Hundred 

Road). Within the corridor of the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway, the Project will 

remove a utility bridge that historically carried the electric railway over the rail corridor 

immediately south of Hundred Road in Chester. (Note that the utility bridge impact is common 

to both the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor and Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 

resources.) 

An avoidance alternative for impacts to the utility bridge and abandoned abutments would require 

relocating the rail alignments out of the existing rail corridor in the vicinity of the Town of 

Chester. To avoid these Section 4(f) uses of the resources would result in replacing the existing 

grade separated crossing of US Highway 10 and relocating the alternatives on developed land in 

this predominantly urban area. This would cause unacceptable and severe adverse social and 

environmental impacts such as significant residential and/or business relocations and impacts to 

natural resources. In addition, the required ROW and new grade separation of US Highway 10 

would result in significantly greater Project costs. Cumulatively, these impacts are not prudent 

per 23 CFR 774.17. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-80 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY (VA) 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alternatives are on common alignment and require a small 

amount of ROW along the western boundary of the Williams Bridge Company. Rail alignment 

options in the vicinity of the Williams Bridge Company are severely constrained due to the need 

to utilize the existing James River railroad bridge (located just north of the Williams Bridge 

Company) and the Richmond flood wall gate (located just south of the Williams Bridge 

Company). The Richmond flood wall serves as a protective concrete wall against a sizeable 

flood. The gate is a large opening to provide passage except during periods of flooding, when it 

is closed. These constraints make it imprudent to relocate the rail alternatives off of the Williams 

Bridge Company property. 

In addition to the ROW impacts from the railroad alternatives, the Section 4(f) use of the 

Williams Bridge Company is due to the additional driveway that was added to the Richmond to 

Raleigh Project designs at the request of the company. This driveway will provide tandem tractor 

trailers leaving the Williams Bridge Company with a means to access the proposed grade 

separation at Goodes Street. These trucks are too large to utilize the existing tunnel under the 

railroad located at the entrance to the property. According to representatives of Williams Bridge 

Company, the failure of the Project to provide access for tandem tractor trailers would result in 

closure of the company’s Richmond location. This would be an unacceptable and severe adverse 

social and economic impact. As a result of these potential impacts, FRA has determined that an 

avoidance alternative for the Williams Bridge Company is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

EICHELBERGER HOUSE (VA) 

The Project alternatives are on common alignment in the vicinity of the Eichelberger House. 

Avoidance of the gated entrance to the Eichelberger House would require a realignment of the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alternatives through the Chester Historic District, with a shift to 

the south. This shift would impact a planned public park on the opposite corner of Curtis Street, 

which is also protected by Section 4(f). In addition, the realignment would likely result in 

significant residential impacts due to the terrain in the vicinity of the Eichelberger House. As a 

result of these potential impacts, FRA has determined that an avoidance alternative for the 

Eichelberger House is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

DEFENSE ROAD, DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS, AND BRIDGE OVER 

DEFENSE ROAD (VA) 

These three resources are all located directly adjacent to one another along Defense Road in 

Petersburg, VA. The Project alternatives are on common alignment in this area. Defense Road 

runs east-west through Petersburg and crosses the existing CSX rail line approximately 250 feet 

south of I-85. Rail alignment options for the Project are severely constrained in this area due to 

the need to utilize the existing rail underpass at I-85 and provide rail access to Collier rail yard, 

which is located approximately one mile south of Defense Road. Use of the existing rail 

underpass at I-85 is necessitated by the extraordinary costs and operational issues (e.g., 

maintaining highway and rail traffic) associated with constructing a new rail underpass. Access 

to Collier rail yard is also essential to maintenance of railroad operations. The yard serves as an 

interchange between the CSX and Norfolk Southern rail lines, and provides storage areas, staging 

areas, bulk transfer, and industrial switching facilities. Due to these constraints, it is not possible 

to realign the Project alternatives in such a way as to avoid crossing Defense Road in the vicinity 

of the existing railroad bridge over Defense Road. Therefore, FRA has determined that an 

avoidance alternative for Defense Road, Dimmock Line/Earthworks, and the Bridge over Defense 

Road is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-81 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

WYNNHURST (VA) 

Although the Preferred Alternative in Section D (VA4) veers to the northwest of Wynnhurst 

through the small community of Rawlings, VA, and does not require a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource, it is not an avoidance alternative because it will use another resource protected under 

Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. Within Section D, all Project alternatives will 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. As described above, it is 

not possible for the Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad corridor. Therefore, FRA 

has determined that an avoidance alternative for Wynnhurst is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

Although the VA2 alternative also would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Wynnhurst, it would 

result in a severe amount of wetland impacts within Section D of the Project. This alternative 

would also result in a Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. 

The VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Wynnhurst 

property. These alternatives would also result in a Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. 

ORGAIN HOUSE, TOURIST GUEST HOUSE, AND OAK SHADES (VA) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section G is VA3. The four Project alternatives within Section G 

were designed at various stages of the Project development process. Initially, the VA1 and VA2 

alternatives were developed to straighten the “S” curves through Section G while generally 

following the existing inactive railroad corridor (with the VA2 alternative more closely following 

the corridor than VA1). Subsequent cultural resource investigations determined that both 

alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Oak Shades historic resource. Alternative 

VA3 was then developed in an attempt to avoid impacts to Oak Shades. However, the Tourist 

Guest House was identified along the VA3 alignment, and the VA3 alternative would require a 

Section 4(f) use of this resource. Based on this information and public comments, the VA4 

alternative was developed in an effort to avoid impacts to both Oak Shades and the Tourist Guest 

House. However, the Orgain House was identified along the VA4 alignment, and the VA4 

alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. 

Given the constraints above, it was not possible to develop a prudent and feasible Project 

alternative that would avoid a use of all Section 4(f) resources within Section G. An avoidance 

alternative of the Orgain House, Tourist Guest House, and Oak Shades would require relocating 

the rail alignment significantly east of the existing inactive railroad corridor or west of US 1 

(Boydton Plank Road). Such relocation would require a new bridge across the Meherrin River, 

which would represent a substantial Project cost. Crossing US 1 would also require an additional 

road bridge. In addition, relocating the alternatives would impact land that is either currently 

used for other purposes or undeveloped. This would cause unacceptable and severe adverse 

social and environmental impacts such as property impacts and impacts to natural resources. 

Cumulatively, FRA has determined that these impacts are not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

WRIGHT FARMSTEAD (VA) 

Although the Preferred Alternative in Section J (VA2) is located more than 500 feet from the 

boundary of the Wright Farmstead and will not require a Section 4(f) use of the resource, it is not 

an avoidance alternative because it will use another resource protected under Section 4(f) within 

the same section of the Project. Within Section J, all Project alternatives will result in a Section 

4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. As described above, it is not possible for the 

Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad corridor. Therefore, FRA has determined that an 

avoidance alternative for Wright Farmstead is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-82 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

The VA1 and VA3 Project alternatives, which are on common alignment, would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of the Wright Farmstead within Section J of the Project. Their alignment runs 

directly through the western two-thirds of the resource. These alternatives would also result in a 

Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. 

BRACEY HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

Although the Preferred Alternative in Section K (the common alignment of VA1 and VA3) will 

construct a new rail alignment west of the original Seaboard Air Line tracks, outside of the 

Bracey Historic District, and will not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource, it is not an 

avoidance alternative because it will use another resource protected under Section 4(f) within the 

same section of the Project. Within Section K, all Project alternatives will result in a Section 4(f) 

use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. As described above, it is not possible for the 

Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad corridor. Therefore, an avoidance alternative for 

Bracey Historic District is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

The VA2 Project alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Bracey Historic District 

within Section K of the Project. It would result in construction directly adjacent to the Bracey 

Railroad Depot, which is a contributing element to the historic district. This alternative would 

also result in a Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. 

GRANITE HALL/FITTS HOUSE (VA) 

Although the Preferred Alternative in Section L (the common alignment of VA1 and VA3) is 

located approximately 700 feet west of the Granite Hall/Fitts House, and will not result in a 

Section 4(f) use of the resource, it is not an avoidance alternative because it will use another 

resource protected under Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. Within Section L, 

all Project alternatives will result in a Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. 

As described above, it is not possible for the Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad 

corridor. Therefore, FRA has determined that an avoidance alternative for the Granite Hall/Fitts 

House is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

The VA2 Project alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of Granite Hall/Fitts House within 

Section L of the Project. The fill slope for the new bridge on Route 712 would be located in front 

of the main house. This alternative would also result in a Section 4(f) use of the Seaboard Air 

Line Railroad corridor. 

HOLLOWAY FARM (NC) 

Although the Preferred Alternative in Section O (NC3) is located more than 500 feet from 

Holloway Farm and will not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource, it is not an avoidance 

alternative because it will use another resource protected under Section 4(f) within the same 

section of the Project. Within Section O, all Project alternatives will result in a Section 4(f) use 

of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. As described below, it is not possible for the Project 

alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad corridor. Therefore, FRA has determined that an 

avoidance alternative for Holloway Farm is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

The NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would bisect the Holloway Farm and result in a Section 

4(f) use of the resource. This alternative would also result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and 

Gaston Railroad corridor. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-83 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

GULF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V (NC5), as well as the NC1, NC2, and NC3 Project 

alternatives, will all require a Section 4(f) use of the Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse. An 

avoidance alternative is not prudent for several reasons. First, an avoidance alternative in the 

same general location as the existing alternatives would require the use of retaining walls in a 

“cut” area. Without a structural analysis of the existing structures and geotechnical properties of 

the existing ground, it is not possible to determine if a retaining wall would undermine the 

integrity of the structures. Such an analysis will take place during the final design stage of the 

Project. 

Second, an avoidance alternative that shifts the Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alignment to the 

east to avoid the Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse property entirely would conflict with the 

existing, active rail (CSX) that is located immediately east of the resource (i.e., the Gulf 

Petroleum Products Warehouse property abuts the railroad ROW). This would result in a “chain 

reaction” of impacts. A shift of the Richmond to Raleigh Project tracks would require a shift in 

the CSX tracks to maintain a safe distance between the CSX tracks and the Richmond to Raleigh 

Project tracks. This shift of the CSX tracks would encroach into the right of way Triangle Transit 

purchased from CSX for the planned future light rail corridor. It would also require a shift of the 

at-grade crossing between CSX and Norfolk Southern. As a result, Triangle Transit would need 

to shift their alignment east, which would result in a conflict with the Atlantic Avenue bridge 

south of Whitaker Mill Ave and Triangle Transit’s proposed station platform. All of the 

components of this “chain reaction” would have substantial costs and would be complicated by 

the existing active railroad traffic in the area. 

These unique problems cumulatively cause impacts of extraordinary magnitude; therefore, FRA 

has determined that an avoidance alternative for the Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse is not 

prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

ROANOKE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V (NC5) is located across Capital Boulevard from the 

Roanoke Park Historic District and will not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource. However, 

it is not an avoidance alternative because it will use another resource protected under Section 4(f) 

within the same section of the Project. Within Section V, all Project alternatives will result in a 

Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. As described below, it is not 

possible for the Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad corridor. Therefore, an 

avoidance alternative for the Roanoke Park Historic District is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

Although the NC1 and NC2 Project alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the 

Roanoke Park Historic District, they are also not avoidance alternatives because they would use 

other resources protected under Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. Within 

Section V, NC1 and NC2 would result in Section 4(f) uses of the Raleigh Electric Company 

Power House and the Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage. In 

addition, they would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. 

The NC3 alternative would take ROW from the eastern boundary of the Roanoke Park Historic 

District and result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource. In addition, it would result in a Section 

4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. 

RALEIGH ELECTRIC COMPANY POWER HOUSE (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V (NC5) will not require ROW from the Raleigh Electric 

Company Power House and FRA has determined that the proximity impacts do not cause a 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-84 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

substantial impairment to the resource; therefore, the impacts do not constitute a Section 4(f) use 

of the Raleigh Electric Company Power House. However, the Preferred Alternative is not an 

avoidance alternative because it will use another resource protected under Section 4(f) within the 

same section of the Project. Within Section V, all Project alternatives will result in a Section 4(f) 

use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. As described below, it is not possible for the 

Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad corridor. Therefore, an avoidance alternative for 

the Roanoke Park Historic District is not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

Although the NC3 Project alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh Electric 

Company Power House, it is not an avoidance alternative because it would use another resource 

protected under Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. Within Section V, NC3 

would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Roanoke Park Historic District. In addition, it would 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. 

The NC1 and NC2 alternatives would require minor amount of ROW from the Raleigh Electric 

Company Power House in order to bridge West Jones Street and would result in a Section 4(f) 

use of the resource. In addition, they would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad corridor. 

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY CAR BARN AND 

AUTOMOBILE GARAGE (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative in Section V (NC5) will not require ROW from the Carolina Power and 

Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage and FRA has determined that the proximity 

impacts do not cause a substantial impairment to the resource; therefore, the impacts do not 

constitute a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh Electric Company Power House. However, the 

Preferred Alternative is not an avoidance alternative because it will use another resource 

protected under Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. Within Section V, all Project 

alternatives will result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. As 

described below, it is not possible for the Project alternatives to avoid a use of the railroad 

corridor. Therefore, an avoidance alternative for the Roanoke Park Historic District is not 

prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

Although the NC3 Project alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Carolina Power 

and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage, it is not an avoidance alternative because 

it would use another resource protected under Section 4(f) within the same section of the Project. 

Within Section V, NC3 would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Roanoke Park Historic District. 

In addition, it would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. 

The NC1 and NC2 alternatives would require minor amount of ROW from the Carolina Power 

and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage in order to bridge West Jones Street and 

would result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource. In addition, they would result in a Section 4(f) 

use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. 

RALEIGH AND GASTON RAILROAD CORRIDOR (NC) 

The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor spans Sections M through V of the Project. An 

avoidance alternative for the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor would require relocating the 

rail alignments to avoid all reinforced concrete bridges and stone-lined culverts within the 

existing railroad ROW between Norlina, NC, and Raleigh, NC. To avoid these Section 4(f) uses 

of the resources would result in relocating the alternatives on land that is either currently used for 

other purposes or undeveloped. This would cause unacceptable and severe adverse social and 

environmental impacts such as significant residential and/or business relocations and impacts to 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-85 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

natural resources. In addition, acquiring the required ROW would result in significantly greater 

Project costs. Cumulatively, these impacts are not prudent per 23 CFR 774.17. 

SUMMARY 

In summary, there are 27 historic resources where one or more of the Project alternatives would 

result in a Section 4(f) use (not de minimis). Due to the unavoidable Section 4(f) use of the 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor in Virginia and Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor in 

North Carolina, there are no instances where there is a reasonable and prudent avoidance 

alternative that would not result in a Section 4(f) use within the section of the Project where the 

resource is located. 

LEAST OVERALL HARM ANALYSIS 

According to Section 4(f), where the above analysis determined that there is no feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternative, the alternative that causes the least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources must 

be selected. The following discussion identifies the least overall harm alternative by Project section 

using the factors identified in 23 CFR 774.3(c): 

(1) The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that 

result in benefits to the property); 

(2) The relative severity of remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or; 

features that qualifies each property for Section 4(f) protection; 

(3) The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

(4) The views of the officials with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

(5) The degree to which each alternative meets the Project purpose and need; 

(6) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by 

Section 4(f); 

(7) Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

SECTION AA (VA) 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section AA and would require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor, Williams Bridge 

Company, and the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway. Because all alternatives are 

identical, a least harm analysis is not appropriate in this section of the Project. 

SECTION BB (VA) 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section BB and would require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Chester Historic District, Eichelberger House, Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railroad, 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor, and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. Because all 

alternatives would result in the same harm to the resources, a least harm analysis is not 

appropriate in this section of the Project. 

SECTION CC (VA) 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section CC and would require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Defense Road, Dimmock Line/Earthworks, Bridge over Defense Road, Richmond & 

Petersburg Electric Railroad, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor, and the Seaboard Air Line 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-86 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Railroad corridor. Because all alternatives are identical, a least harm analysis is not appropriate 

in this section of the Project. 

SECTION DD (VA) 

The Project alternatives within Section DD would all require a use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section DD is the VA3 

alternative. The Preferred Alternative (which has the shortest bridge length) is the least visually 

intrusive to the Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern battlefield. Alternatives VA1 and VA2 would 

require less ROW from the battlefield, but would have a greater visual impact to the surrounding 

area. In addition, the ROW required for the Preferred Alternative can be landscaped to blend into 

the surrounding viewshed. This determination was validated in coordination with historians from 

the National Park Service (Petersburg National Battlefield) at a meeting on February 26, 2009. 

SECTION A (VA) 

The Project alternatives within Section A would all require a use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section A is the VA2 

alternative. The Preferred Alternative has the fewest wetland and stream impacts; similar 

impacts to historic resources compared to the VA1/VA3 alternative; a better operability rating; 

and accommodates higher speeds. 

SECTION B (VA) 

The Project alternatives within Section B would all require a use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section B is the 

common alignment of the VA1 and VA3 alternatives. The Preferred Alternative has greater 

impacts to forested uplands and prime and other important farmland, two more residential 

relocations, and a larger total cost compared to the VA2 Alternative. However, VA2 has had a 

much lower limiting speed and a negative rating for operability and constructability. In addition, 

VA2 has five more potential noise and vibration impacts (compared to the Preferred Alternative) 

and one business relocation (whereas the Preferred Alternative has none). 

SECTION C (VA) 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section C and would require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. Because all alternatives are identical, a least harm 

analysis is not appropriate in this section of the Project. 

SECTION D (VA) 

The Preferred Alternative (VA4) is the alternative within Section D that causes the least overall 

harm to Section 4(f) resources. It would require a use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor 

(as would the VA1, VA2, and VA3 alternatives), but would not require a use of Wynnhurst. 

Compared to the VA1, VA2, and VA3 alternatives, the Preferred Alternative also avoids an 

impact to a species protected under the Endangered Species Act, while the VA1 and VA3 

alternatives would result in an impact. In addition, the Preferred Alternative has fewer stream 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-87 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

and wetland impacts than the VA2 alternative. All efforts will be made during final design to 

further avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands. 

SECTION E (VA) 

The Project alternatives within Section E would all require a use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section E is the common 

alignment of the VA1 and VA3 alternatives. The Preferred Alternative has fewer wetland and 

stream impacts, residential relocations, and vibration impacts when compared to the VA2 

alternative, as well as a lower cost. The Preferred Alternative also has a better operability and 

constructability rating. 

SECTION F (VA) 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section F and would require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor. Because all alternatives are identical, a least harm 

analysis is not applicable in this section of the Project. 

SECTION G (VA) 

The four Project alternatives within Section G vary and would all require a use of at least one 

historic resource. The following factors were included in the least overall harm analysis: 

 Preferred Alternative (VA3) – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Tourist 

Guest House; 500 feet of stream impacts; positive rating for operability and constructability; 

total cost of $36.92 million 

 VA1 Alternative – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Oak Shades; 654 feet of 

stream impacts; neutral rating for operability and constructability (which is related to the 

ability of the alternative to meet the purpose and need for the Project); total cost of $36.46 

million 

 VA2 Alternative – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Oak Shades; 914 feet of 

stream impacts; negative rating for operability and constructability; total cost of $29.47 

million 

 VA4 Alternative – Section 106 adverse effect and Section 4(f) use of Orgain House; 1,095 

feet of stream impacts; positive rating for operability and constructability; total cost of $40.73 

million. 

Input from the cultural and natural resource agencies was also used to evaluate the alternatives. 

In a discussion with VDHR on October 11, 2011, it was determined that: 

 VA4 alternative would have the most substantial impact to historic resources (because the 

main house on the Orgain property is within its construction limits) 

 VA1 alternative would have the second most substantial impact (because it would bring the 

rail alignment within 50 feet of the main house on the Oak Shades property) 

 The impacts of the VA2 alternative (to Oak Shades) and Preferred Alternative (to the Tourist 

Guest House) can be mitigated. Such mitigation could include landscaping to shield visual 

impacts and documentation of the history of these resources. 

From a water resources perspective, the resource agencies endorsed the Preferred Alternative. In 

a correspondence dated May 25, 2011, VDEQ noted that while they “recognize the problems 

associated with impacting the Tourist Guest House and/or Oak Shades,” they identified the VA3 

alternative as “the least environmentally damaging option that preserves the operational purpose 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-88 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

of the Project, followed by VA1.” Subsequently, in a letter dated June 29, 2011, USACE stated 

that they believe the VA3 alternative is the “least environmentally damaging practicable 

alternative” in Section G and noted that if another alternative was selected, “further avoidance 

and minimization will have to be incorporated into the Project to reduce the impacts to aquatic 

resources of the selected alternative to a level comparable to or less than those of VA3 in order 

for [them] to consider authorizing it.” 

Based on the above, the Preferred Alternative is the least overall harm alternative in Section G 

because it is possible to mitigate the impacts to the Tourist Guest House, the impacts to historic 

resources are not as severe (compared to the VA2 and VA4 alternatives), it minimizes impacts to 

streams (of all alternatives), and it meets the purpose and need for the Project to the greatest 

degree (compared to the VA1 and VA2 alternatives, which do not have positive operability and 

constructability). 

SECTION H (VA) 

The Project alternatives within Section H would all require a use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section H is the 

common alignment of the VA1 and VA3 alternatives. The Preferred Alternative has fewer 

impacts to streams, prime and important farmland, and forested uplands; along with fewer noise 

and vibration impacts. Although the Preferred Alternative has a somewhat higher total cost, the 

long-term maintenance cost will be lower compared to the VA2 alternative. 

SECTION I (VA) 

The Project alternatives within Section I would all require a use of the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and the VA2 alternative have identical impacts to water 

resources with nominal stream impacts and no wetlands impacts. However, the Preferred 

Alternative has fewer impacts to prime and important farmland and forested uplands and a lower 

cost. 

SECTION J (VA) 

The Preferred Alternative (VA2) is the alternative within Section J that causes the least overall 

harm to Section 4(f) resources. It would require a use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor 

(as would the VA1 and VA3 alternatives), but would not require a use of the Wright Farmstead. 

Compared to the VA1 and VA3 alternatives, the Preferred Alternative has fewer impacts to 

streams and similar impacts to other resources. The Preferred Alternative also has similar costs to 

the VA1 and VA3 alternatives. However, the Preferred Alternative has a greater number of 

impacted noise receptors than the VA1 and VA3 alternatives. Noise abatement measures will be 

analyzed during the final design process. 

SECTION K (VA) 

The Preferred Alternative (the common alignment of VA1 and VA3) is the alternative within 

Section K that causes the least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources. It would require a use of 

the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor (as would the VA2 alternative), but would not require a 

use of the Bracey Historic District. Compared to the VA2 alternative, the Preferred Alternative 

minimizes impacts to streams, wetlands, and prime and important farmlands. It also has a better 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-89 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

operability and constructability rating, which would result in lower long-term maintenance for the 

rails and train equipment. 

SECTION L (VA/NC) 

The Preferred Alternative (the common alignment of VA1/NC1 and VA3/NC3) is the alternative 

within Section L that causes the least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources. It would require a 

use of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor (as would the VA2/NC2 alternative), but would 

not require a use of Granite Hall/Fitts House. Compared to the VA2 alternative, the Preferred 

Alternative has greater stream and wetland impacts compared to VA2/NC2, but fewer impacts to 

prime and important farmlands, less residential relocation, fewer noise and vibration impacts, and 

a lower total cost. It also has a neutral constructability and operability rating (compared to a 

negative rating for the VA2/NC2 alternative) and has better support from the public. 

SECTION M (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative (NC1) is the alternative within Section M that causes the least overall 

harm to Section 4(f) resources. Within Section M, the Project alternatives would all require a use 

of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. The Preferred Alternative in Section M is the 

common alignment of the NC1 and NC3 alternatives. While throughout the remainder of North 

Carolina, the alternatives generally have the same impacts to the resource, the impacts vary to a 

greater degree in Section M. In this section, the Preferred Alternative would not impact a 

repeater tower that is a contributing element to the resource, whereas Alternative NC2 would 

require its relocation. In addition, the Preferred Alternative minimizes stream impacts and has 

fewer impacts to forested uplands compared to the NC2 alternative. Neither alternative would 

impact wetlands. Based on these impacts, Preferred Alternative would result in the least overall 

harm to Section 4(f) resources in Section M. 

SECTION N (NC) 

The Project alternatives within Section N would all require a use of the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section N is the 

common alignment of the NC1 and NC3 alternatives. The Preferred Alternative minimizes 

impacts to streams, prime and important farmlands, and forested uplands compared to the NC2 

alternative. It also has less residential relocations and potentially impacted noise receptors. 

SECTION O (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative (NC3) alternative is the alternative within Section O that causes the 

least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources. It would require a use of the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad corridor (as would the NC1 and NC2 alternatives), but would not require a use of 

Holloway Farm. Compared to the NC1 and NC2 alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would 

result in fewer impacts to wetlands, greater impacts to streams, fewer noise and vibration impacts, 

and fewer relocations. Although the difference in stream impacts is significant (3,102 feet for 

NC3 compared to 693 feet for NC1 and 915 feet for NC2), those impacts would be fully 

mitigated. 

SECTION P (NC) 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section P and would require a Section 4(f) use of 

the Henderson Historic District, South Henderson Industrial Historic District, and Raleigh and 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-90 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Gaston Railroad corridor. Because all alternatives are identical, a least harm analysis is not 

appropriate in this section of the Project. 

SECTION Q (NC) 

The Preferred Alternative (NC1) is the alternative within Section M that causes the least overall 

harm to Section 4(f) resources. The Project alternatives within Section Q would all require a use 

of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of 

impacts to the resource; therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors 

described in 23 CFR 774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative in Section Q is the common alignment 

of the NC1 and NC3 alternatives. This alternative meets the purpose and need of the Project to a 

greater degree than the NC2 alternative because the NC2 alternative has a lower limiting speed 

and negative rating for operability and constructability. The Preferred Alternative has slightly 

greater impacts to prime and important farmland and forested uplands, and three more residential 

relocations compared to the NC2 alternative, but otherwise the impacts are comparable between 

alternatives. 

SECTION R (NC) 

The Project alternatives within Section R would all require a use of the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section R is the 

common alignment of the NC1 and NC3 alternatives. This alternative meets the purpose and 

need of the Project to a greater degree than the NC2 alternative (based on the more favorable 

operability and constructability rating). Otherwise, it has a similar degree of impacts to the 

human and natural environment compared to the NC2 alternative. 

SECTION S (NC) 

Within Section S, all alternatives are on common alignment through the Franklinton Historic 

District and would require a Section 4(f) use of the resource. In addition, all alternatives would 

require a use of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor and would have a similar degree of 

impacts to the resource. Therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors 

described in 23 CFR 774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative in Section S is the common alignment 

of the NC1 and NC3 alternatives. This alternative has strong public support and a smaller impact 

to streams. Other impacts to the human and natural environment are similar across the Project 

alternatives. 

SECTION T (NC) 

The Project alternatives within Section T would all require a use of the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section T is the common 

alignment of the NC1 and NC3 alternatives. This alternative meets the purpose and need of the 

Project to a greater degree than the NC2 alternative (based on the more favorable operability and 

constructability rating). The Preferred Alternative has slightly greater impacts to streams, 

wetlands, farmland and forested uplands than the NC2 alternative. However, the greater stream 

and wetland impacts for the Preferred Alternative (approximately 300 feet of stream and less than 

0.1 acre of wetlands) are not significant in light of the entire Project and would be fully mitigated. 

Further, there would likely be 100 feet more stream impacts associated with the NC2 alternative 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-91 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

as a result of a railroad detour route required during construction, so the effective difference in 

stream impacts is closer to 200 feet. 

SECTION U (NC) 

The Project alternatives within Section U would all require a use of the Raleigh and Gaston 

Railroad corridor. All alternatives would have a similar degree of impacts to the resource; 

therefore, the least overall harm alternative is based on the other factors described in 23 CFR 

774.3(c). The Preferred Alternative and overall least harm alternative in Section U is the NC1 

alternative. While all three alternatives have some degree of impact on the baseball complex, the 

NC1 alternative would be least harmful to its operation. Although The Factory is a private 

facility, its construction costs were defrayed by a grant from Wake County, NC, in recognition of 

the financial contributions of visitors attending annual tournaments. The facility is required to 

host baseball and softball tournaments throughout each year as a condition of the grant. 

Additionally, the NC1 alternative would avoid impacts to a large planned apartment complex 

located along Rogers Road. 

SECTION V (NC) 

The NC5 alternative is the alternative within Section V that causes the least overall harm to 

Section 4(f) resources and is the Preferred Alternative in this section of the Project. It would 

require a use of the Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse, Depot Historic District Proposed 

Boundary Amendment, and Raleigh and Gaston Railroad corridor (as would the NC1, NC2, and 

NC3 alternatives), but would not require a use of the Roanoke Park Historic District, Raleigh 

Electric Company Power House, or Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn, which are 

impacted by one or more of the other alternatives. Compared to the NC1, NC2, and NC3 

alternatives, the NC5 alternative would result in the fewest impacts to streams, no residential 

relocations, fewer business relocations compared to NC3 (but greater than NC1 and NC2), and 

only one severely impacted noise receptor (compared to 40 for the other alternatives). 

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

The discussion of measures to minimize harm focuses on the 16 resources where the Preferred 

Alternative in a section of the Project would result in a Section 4(f) use. Resources are ordered from 

north to south as they appear in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Study Area. Minimization measures 

are not required when a finding of de minimis use is made for Section 4(f) resources because Section 

4(f) is satisfied once de minimis applies. 

The minimization measures presented here do not represent the full suite of measures that will 

ultimately be undertaken by the Project. The specific minimization measures for the Project are being 

developed though coordination under Section 106 of the NHPA with the FRA, ACHP, VDHR, NCHPO, and consulting parties. The process being used for compliance with Section 106 is outlined in a 

draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the SEHSR Corridor that is provided for public comment in 

Appendix K of this FEIS. After the PA is executed by the signatories, an MOA will be developed for 

both the Virginia and North Carolina portions of the Richmond to Raleigh Project that specifies the 

mitigation measures for impacts to historic resources, including the 16 resources where the Project 

would result in a Section 4(f) use. The MOAs will be included in the ROD for the Project. 

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (VA) 

The Project alternatives do not impact the vast majority of contributing elements to the Seaboard 

Air Line Railroad corridor. The rail improvements will be located within the existing rail 

corridor. Historically, the corridor contained two to three sets of parallel tracks. Over the years, 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-92 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

the number of tracks have been reduced, thus now the corridor only contains one or two sets of 

tracks within the wider right-of-way. The addition of an additional set of tracks will return most 

of the corridor to its original historic appearance and configuration. In addition, the existing 

tracks have been replaced with in-kind materials numerous times over the past 150 years 

including new rails, cross ties, spikes, and ballast. 

The impacts to the rail bridge over US 1 South in Alberta cannot be minimized because the 

Project requires this structure to be replaced. The bridge is a contributing element to the resource 

as a whole. It is emblematic of early-twentieth century bridge construction associated with the 

development of the Route 1 corridor in this area. Mitigation has not been determined, but initial 

dialogues with the Virginia DRPT and VDHR suggest that thorough Historic American 

Engineering Record (HAER)-level documentation (including drawings and large-format 

photography) prior to removal followed by a study of rail-related bridges along the Route 1 

corridor in this area may be warranted, as it could develop a context for similar structures in the 

area for future evaluations of other transportation projects. The specific mitigation measures for 

the Project will be determined during development of the Section 106 MOA for the Project based 

on coordination with FRA, VDHR, and CSX. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (VA) 

The Project alternatives do not impact the vast majority of contributing elements to the Atlantic 

Coast Line Railroad, as it has many of the same design considerations and historical 

modifications noted above regarding the Seaboard Airline Railroad. The impacts to the utility 

bridge for the crossing of the Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway and the abandoned 

abutments associated with the historic alignment of Highway 10 cannot be minimized because the 

Project requires these structures to be replaced. Dialogues on mitigation are ongoing. Initial 

concepts include HAER-level documentation (including drawings and large-scale photography) 

of the abutments prior to demolition and the creation of a narrative on the historic of the 

Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway for public dissemination. The specific mitigation 

measures for the Project will be determined during development of the Section 106 MOA for the 

Project based on coordination with the FRA, VDHR, and CSX. 

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY (VA) 

Members of the Project Team met with a representative of the Williams Bridge Company on May 

12, 2009, to discuss ways to minimize the impacts of the Project on the resource. The Williams 

Bridge Company expressed concerns about whether the changes in access to the property would 

accommodate the tandem tractor trailers (as much as 150 feet long) they use to deliver large steel 

structures. They explained that the highest priority for the company is to maintain access to the 

adjacent road and rail network; this access is vital to being able to operate their business. In 

response, designs for a driveway access to the proposed railroad bridge on Goodes Street were 

added to the Project, which will serve this need. 

In addition, the Project Team asked the Williams Bridge Company if there was any additional 

mitigation the Project could provide. They responded that they might be interested in allowing 

historians to interview members of their staff who have been working for the company dating 

back to the WWII period. This information would then be shared with their staff and the general 

public. 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, VDHR, and the resource 

owner. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-93 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

RICHMOND & PETERSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY (VA) 

The Project alternatives do not impact the vast majority of contributing elements to the Richmond 

& Petersburg Electric Railway such as the general corridor’s setting and feeling and other 

contributing structures along the rail corridor. The impacts to the utility bridge south of Highway 

10 in Chester cannot be minimized because the Project requires these structures to be replaced. 

Mitigation activities suggested to date include HAER-level documentation of the structure prior 

to removal (including measured drawings and large-scale photography). The historic context 

developed for the electric railway mentioned above under the Atlantic Coast Line Railway (see 

Section 5.12.2) could also function to mitigate the adverse effects to the electric railway itself. 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, VDHR, and CSX. 

CHESTER HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

Members of the Project Team met with the Chesterfield Historical Society on April 8, 2009, to 

discuss ways to minimize the impacts of the Project on historic resources in Chesterfield County, 

VA. Representatives of the society stated they would consider minimization measures and follow 

up with the Project Team at a later date. Possible mitigation measures suggested by the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project team included NRHP nomination assistance and interpretive signs 

within the district. 

A meeting was held at the Chesterfield County Public Library Enon Branch in Chester, VA, on 

May 12, 2009, with property owners of historic resources within the Chester Historic District. 

Several property owners expressed concerns that the proposed railroad overpass on Curtis Street 

would increase the volume and speed of vehicles on Curtis Street and were also concerned about 

the wide cross-section (i.e., footprint) shown on the Richmond to Raleigh Project designs at that 

time. In response, the designs were altered to provide a more context-sensitive cross-section with 

curb and cutter. This minimizes the ROW necessary for the Project along Curtis Street and is 

more in keeping with the existing setting. 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, VDHR, and resource 

owner in the district. 

EICHELBERGER HOUSE (VA) 

Members of the Project Team met with owners of the properties comprising the Eichelberger 

House on April 8, 2009, and May 12, 2009, to discuss ways to minimize the impacts of the 

Project on the resource. Possible mitigation measures include relocating the stone gate and 

walking path outside of the required ROW. In addition, the owner of the main house of the 

Eichelberger House asked for information about possible assistance in nominating the property 

for inclusion on the NRHP. The Project Team will follow up with him about this opportunity 

during the development of the Section 106 MOA for the Project. 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, VDHR, and the resource 

owner. 

DEFENSE ROAD, DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS, AND BRIDGE OVER 

DEFENSE ROAD (VA) 

Members of the Project Team met with the NPS Petersburg National Battlefield and City of 

Petersburg Preservation Planning office on May 12, 2009, to discuss ways to minimize the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-94 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

impacts of the Project on the resources in the vicinity of Defense Road. The NPS and City of 

Petersburg requested that the design for the new bridge and associated retaining wall be 

comparable, but not identical, to the existing structures in order to minimize impacts to the 

historic resources. In addition, the City of Petersburg requested that an interpretive Civil War 

Trails sign about the history of Defense Road be placed in Lee Memorial Park, which is located 

on Defense Road just south of the railroad overpass. The NPS also asked that all efforts be made 

to minimize disturbance to the Dimmock Line/Earthworks. This will be reflected in the Section 

106 MOA that is developed for the Project. 

TOURIST GUEST HOUSE (VA) 

The Project Team sent a certified letter to the owner of the Tourist Guest House on July 29, 2013, 

explaining the impact of the Preferred Alternative on his property and inviting him to participate 

in the development in the Section 106 MOA. Subsequently, the owner has communicated with 

the Project Team by phone (due to the fact that he resides in California). Discussions on the 

mitigation are also underway with the VDHR and Virginia DRPT. Mitigation activities 

recommended to date include a NRHP nomination for the Tourist Guest House, the development 

of a historic context for travel-related architecture in Southside Virginia, and vegetative screening 

to block the view of the new rail corridor from the main house. The specific mitigation measures 

for the Project will be determined during development of the Section 106 MOA for the Project 

based on coordination with the FRA, VDHR, and the property owner. 

 LA CROSSE COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The proposed Project alternatives through the La Crosse Commercial Historic District represent 

the result of extensive coordination with the La Crosse town manager, town council, and local 

citizens. The Project Team met with representatives of the town and members of the public to 

discuss the Project on July 22, 2003; December 10, 2004; January 30, 2006; May 10, 2006; and 

September 18, 2006. Visualizations (i.e., computer-generated “before and after” images) of some 

of the early Project designs were prepared in 2005 to assist the public in understanding the design 

constraints and options. 

The design that is presented in this Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS has addressed the 

concerns and desires expressed by the local community, which included maintaining the historic 

feeling of the town. In a letter dated September 15, 2006, the La Crosse town manager 

acknowledged that representatives of the Project had “made every effort to accommodate the 

Town’s requests” through the design process and “included the Town’s input on many key issues, 

which the Town feels is important for its future growth and success.” 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, VHDR, and resource 

owners in the district. 

HENDERSON HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY 

EXTENSION (NC) 

Members of the Project Team met with representatives of the Town of Henderson, NC, and 

members of the public to discuss the Project on June 24, 2003; February 14, 2006; and September 

20, 2007. At these meetings, proposed designs were reviewed and suggestions were solicited 

from the town. Cultural resource impacts were included in the discussion. As a result of this 

coordination, a pedestrian underpass within the Henderson Historic District was added to the 

Project design in order to accommodate the non-motorized traffic through the historic downtown 

area. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-95 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Members of the Project Team met with the NC-HPO on September 8, 2008, to discuss the 

impacts of the proposed Project on cultural resources. The following were identified as potential 

measures to minimize impacts to the Henderson Historic District: 

 Minimize the taking of trees in the vicinity of the bridge over Andrews Avenue 

 Minimize impacts to contributing elements to the historic district 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, NC-HPO, and resource 

owners in the district. 

 SOUTH HENDERSON INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

Members of the Project Team met with representatives of the Town of Henderson, NC, and 

members of the public to discuss the Project on June 24, 2003; February 14, 2006; and September 

20, 2007. At these meetings, proposed designs were reviewed and suggestions were solicited 

from the town. Cultural resource impacts were included in the discussion. The designs presented 

in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS were based on input provided at the meetings. 

In order to minimize property impacts within the South Henderson Industrial District, the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS showed that the connection of Nicholas Street to 

Alexander Avenue would be closed under the Project alternatives. Without this closure, it would 

be necessary to raise Nicholas Street to meet the new elevation of Alexander Avenue, which 

would be higher due to the proposed bridge over the railroad tracks. Raising the elevation of 

Nicholas Street would require greater ROW along Nicholas Street through the historic district. 

Letters from the Project Team were sent to all property owners located within the South 

Henderson Industrial Historic District in August 2009 inviting them to provide input on impacts 

to historic resources. Several comments received expressed concern about the impact that the 

closure of Nicholas Street would have on travel patterns with the district, particularly for truck 

traffic. The Project Team reevaluated the closure of Nicholas Street in coordination with NCHPO, the Town of Henderson, and the resource owners, and adjusted the FEIS designs to allow 

Nicholas Street to remain open at Alexander Avenue, despite the fact that additional ROW was 

needed within the historic district. 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, NC-HPO, and resource 

owners in the district. 

FRANKLINTON HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The Project Team met with representatives of the Town of Franklinton, NC, and members of the 

public to discuss the Project on June 26, 2003, and May 9, 2008. At these meetings, proposed 

designs were reviewed and suggestions were solicited from the town. As a result of this input, 

the Preferred Alternative includes two pedestrian-only grade-separated crossings of the railroad to 

accommodate the non-motorized traffic through the historic downtown area (at Mason Street and 

College Street). In addition, the vehicular underpass at Greene Street was designed to include 

pedestrian sidewalks. The Preferred Alternative also includes north-south connector streets just 

outside the historic district, which serve to address concerns raised by the town about the loss of 

connectivity due to the closure of at-grade railroad crossings. The Project Team also investigated 

several railroad bridge locations proposed by town; however, these bridges were ruled out due to 

impacts to contributing elements to the historic district and streams. 

Based on input from representatives of the Town of Franklinton, Capital Area Metropolitan 

Planning Organization, and NC-HPO obtained during meetings subsequent to publication of the 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-96 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS, the pedestrian crossing proposed as an overpass of 

Mason Street in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Tier II DEIS was redesigned as an underpass 

for the FEIS. This redesign will be less visually intrusive to the historic district than an overpass. 

The final designs for the underpass will be developed in coordination with representatives from 

the Town so that they may provide input regarding the appearance of the structure and associated 

landscaping. 

The specific mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the 

Section 106 MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, NC-HPO, and resource 

owners in the district. 

GULF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE (NC) 

The Project Team sent a certified letter to the owner of the Gulf Petroleum Products on July 29, 

2013, explaining the impact of the Preferred Alternative on his property and inviting him to 

participate in the development of the Section 106 MOA for the Project. To date, no response has 

been received. Based on input from NC-HPO, if the Project requires demolition of the warehouse 

and main building, the Project will provide photo documentation of the warehouse and main 

building prior to construction. As noted above, efforts will be during the final design stage of the 

project to use retaining walls, if possible, to avoid demolition of the structures. The specific 

mitigation measures for the Project will be determined during development of the Section 106 

MOA for the Project based on coordination with the FRA, NC-HPO, and CSX. 

RALEIGH AND GASTON RAILROAD CORRIDOR (NC) 

The Project alternatives do not impact the vast majority of contributing elements to the Raleigh 

and Gaston Railroad corridor (e.g., several historic stations, a section house, a defect and 

dragging detection equipment shed, and the railroad turntable in Raleigh). The impacts to the 

reinforced concrete bridges and stone-lined culverts cannot be minimized because the Project 

requires these structures to be replaced. Based on input from NC-HPO, the Project will fund a 

contextual study of the impacts of railroads in North Carolina, which can be used to evaluate the 

effects of future Projects on historic railroad structures and corridors. The specific mitigation 

measures for the Project will be determined during development of the Section 106 MOA for the 

Project based on coordination with the FRA, NC-HPO, and CSX. 

COORDINATION 

The Project Team met with VDHR and NC-HPO several times during the development of Project 

alternatives to discuss impacts to historic resources. Measures to minimize and mitigate for impacts, 

as well as potential avoidance measures, were also discussed. Determination of effects meetings were 

held with VDHR on April 15, 2009, August 7, 2009, November 20, 2009, September 27, 2010, 

October 4, 2013, November 6, 2013, January 10, 2014, and March 20, 2014. Similar determination 

of effects meetings with NC-HPO were held on August 20, 2008, September 2, 2009, September 29, 

2009, July 12, 2011, and June 17, 2013. 

The following discussion describes the coordination between the Project Team and individual 

property owners or officials with jurisdiction over resources protected under Section 4(f). Although 

coordination has taken place with numerous individuals and organizations, the discussion below 

focuses on the resources where all Project alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use. Resources 

are ordered from north to south as they appear in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Study Area. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-97 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR (VA) 

The Project Team met with representatives of CSX Transportation on January 31, 2013, to 

discuss the impact of the Project on the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor and Raleigh and 

Gaston Railroad corridor, which are currently owned by CSX. In addition, the Project Team 

invited CSX to participate in the Section 106 process as a consulting party. On March 8, 2013, 

CSX confirmed their status as a consulting party. 

WILLIAMS BRIDGE COMPANY (VA) 

A Richmond to Raleigh Project meeting was held at the Williams Bridge Company in Richmond, 

VA, on May 12, 2009. The meeting focused on measures to minimize impacts to the resource. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CORRIDOR AND RICHMOND & 

PETERSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY (VA) 

The contributing elements to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad corridor and Richmond & 

Petersburg Electric Railway are within active railroad ROW owned by CSX. CSX is a consulting 

party in the Section 106 process and will be invited to comment on methods to mitigate for the 

impacts to these resources as part of the development of the Section 106 MOA. 

RESOURCES LOCATED IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY (VA) 

The Project Team held two meetings in Chesterfield County, VA, to solicit input on measures to 

minimize impacts to historic resources within the county. The first meeting was held at the 

Chesterfield Historical Society in Chesterfield County, VA, on April 8, 2009. In attendance were 

representatives of the historic society and two property owners for the Eichelberger House. A 

second meeting was held at the Chesterfield County Public Library Enon Branch in Chester, VA, 

on May 12, 2009. In attendance were property owners representing the Chester Historic District, 

Eichelberger House, Centralia Post Office, Circle Oaks, and Ragland House. 

DEFENSE ROAD, DIMMOCK LINE/EARTHWORKS, AND BRIDGE OVER 

DEFENSE ROAD (VA) 

A meeting was held at the NPS Petersburg National Battlefield office in Petersburg, VA, on May 

12, 2009, with representatives from the NPS and the City of Petersburg Preservation Planning 

office. The Project alternatives were presented and input was solicited on measures to minimize 

impacts to Defense Road, Dimmock Line/Earthworks, and the Bridge over Defense Road. 

TOURIST GUEST HOUSE (VA) 

The Project Team sent a certified letter to the owner of the Tourist Guest House on July 29, 2013, 

explaining the impact of the Preferred Alternative on his property and inviting him to participate 

in the development in the Section 106 MOA. Subsequently, the owner has communicated with 

the Project Team by phone (due to the fact that he resides in California). He has provided 

suggestions for potential mitigation for the impacts to his property and has agreed to participate in 

the development of the MOA. 

LA CROSSE COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (VA) 

The Project Team met with representatives of the Town of La Crosse, VA, and members of the 

public to discuss the Project on July 22, 2003; December 10, 2004; January 30, 2006; May 10, 

2006; and September 18, 2006. At these meetings, the proposed Project designs were presented 

for comment. Impacts to the historic district were considered in the evaluation of the designs. 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-98 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HENDERSON HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROPOSED EXTENSION AND 

SOUTH HENDERSON INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

Members of the Project Team met with representatives of the Town of Henderson, NC, and 

members of the public to discuss the Project on June 24, 2003; February 14, 2006; and September 

20, 2007. At these meetings, the proposed Project designs were presented for comment. Impacts 

to the historic district were considered in the evaluation of the designs. 

Letters were sent to all property owners located within the Henderson Historic District and South 

Henderson Industrial Historic District in August 2009 inviting them to participate in the 

Richmond to Raleigh Project Section 106 process. A meeting to discuss the impact of the Project 

on the districts and potential minimization and mitigation measures was held on March 10, 2010, 

with representation from eight property owners within the districts. 

FRANKLINTON HISTORIC DISTRICT (NC) 

The Project Team met with representatives of the Town of Franklinton, NC, and members of the 

public to discuss the Project on June 26, 2003, and May 9, 2008. At these meetings, the proposed 

Project designs were presented for comment. Impacts to the historic district were considered in 

the evaluation of the designs. 

Letters were sent to all property owners located within the Franklinton Historic District in August 

2009 inviting them to participate in the Richmond to Raleigh Project Section 106 process. A 

meeting to discuss the impact of the Project on the district and potential minimization and 

mitigation measures was held on December 19, 2011, with representation from the Town of 

Franklinton, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and NC-HPO. 

GULF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE (NC) 

The Project Team sent a certified letter to the owner of the Gulf Petroleum Products on July 29, 

2013, explaining the impact of the Preferred Alternative on his property and inviting him to 

participate in the development in the Section 106 MOA. To date, no response has been received. 

RALEIGH AND GASTON RAILROAD CORRIDOR (NC) 

The Project Team met with representatives of CSX Transportation on January 31, 2013, to 

discuss the impact of the Project on the Seaboard Air Line Railroad corridor and Raleigh and 

Gaston Railroad corridor, which are currently owned by CSX. In addition, the Project Team 

invited CSX to participate in the Section 106 process as a consulting party. On March 8, 2013, 

CSX confirmed their status as a consulting party. 

CONSULTING PARTIES 

Section 106 of the NHPA encourages early coordination with groups or individuals who have a 

demonstrated interested in historic properties that may be affected by a proposed Project. These 

groups or individuals, known as Section 106 consulting parties, have the opportunity to comment 

on the identification and evaluation of historic resources, as well as provide their views on effects 

and proposed strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. The following entities 

were invited to participate as consulting parties under the Section 106 process for the Project (* 

indicates acceptance of invitation): 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* 

 Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods 

 American Battlefield Protection Program 

 Atlantic Coast Line & Seaboard Air Line Railroad Historical Society 
Richmond to Raleigh Project 

SEHSR Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 5-99 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

 Battersea, Inc.* 

 Brunswick County Historical Society (VA) 

 Catawba Indian Tribe 

 Central Virginia Battlefields Trust 

 Chesterfield Historical Society (VA)* 

 Civil War Preservation Trust 

 CSX Transportation* 

 Dinwiddie County Historical Society (VA) 

 Historic Richmond Foundation (VA)* 

 Historic Petersburg Foundation (VA) 

 Mecklenburg Historical Society (VA) 

 National Park Service – Petersburg National Battlefield* 

 National Park Service – Richmond National Battlefield* 

 Preservation North Carolina* 

 Raleigh Historic Districts Commission (NC)* 

 Southside Virginia Genealogical Society 

 Virginia Council on Indians* (invitation accepted, but organization no longer active). 

In addition to these organizations, letters were sent to all property owners located within the 

Henderson Historic District (NC), Franklinton Historic District (NC), and South Henderson 

Industrial Historic District (NC) inviting them to participate in the Richmond to Raleigh Project 

Section 106 process. There are no historic societies within the counties where these districts are 

located. 

US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

The US Department of Interior (DOI) was provided with this revised Section 4(f) Evaluation for 

review during the fall of 2014. 

FINAL SECTION 4(F) DETERMINATION 

The FRA will make its Section 4(f) approval as part of the ROD for this Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

6 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM 

COPIES OF THIS STATEMENT ARE SENT 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement is being distributed to the following federal, state, regional, 

and local agencies and other interested parties for their review and comment. 

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

 US Army Corps of Engineers – Norfolk District 

 US Army Corp of Engineers – Wilmington District 

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

 US Fish and Wildlife Service 

o Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 

o Raleigh (NC) Ecological Services Field Office 

 National Park Service 

o Petersburg National Battlefield 

o Richmond National Battlefield 

o American Battlefield Protection Program 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 Region 4 NEPA Program Office 

 Region 3 NEPA Program Office 

US NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

 National Marine Fisheries Service- Gloucester, MA 

 National Marine Fisheries Service- Beaufort, NC 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Federal Rail Administration 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 Federal Transit Administration 

US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

 US Coast Guard 

 Federal Emergency Management Agency 

o Region 4 

o Region 3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

 Ecology and Environmental Conservation Office 

US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 Region 4 

 Region 3 

US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

STATE AGENCIES 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, OFFICE OF 

IMPACT REVIEW 

Coordinates review with state agencies through one central location. Distribution list includes: 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

 Office of Environmental Impact Review 

 Piedmont Regional Office 

 Air Division 

 Waste Division 

 Division of Water Quality, Office of Wetlands and Stream Protection 

 Erosion and Sediment Control 

 Virginia Stormwater Management Program 

 Chesapeake Bay Program 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 

 Division of Planning and Recreation Resources 

 Division of Natural Heritage Resources 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

VIRGINIA MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION 

VIRGINIA OUTDOORS FOUNDATION 

Virginia Outdoors Foundation is a public organization, created by the Virginia General Assembly 

in 1966 to promote preservation of open-space lands. 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 

Coordinates review with state agencies through one central location. Distribution list includes: 

NC DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

NC DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

 Division of Emergency Management – Floodplains Management Program 

NC DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES 

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

 NC Wildlife Resources Commission 

 Natural Heritage 

 Public Water Supply 

 Parks and Recreation 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-4 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

VIRGINIA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS 

CITY OF PETERSBURG 

TOWN OF MCKENNEY 

TOWN OF ALBERTA 

TOWN OF SOUTH HILL 

TOWN OF LA CROSSE 

RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

RICHMOND REGIONAL METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

TRI-CITIES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

SOUTHSIDE PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

WARREN COUNTY 

VANCE COUNTY 

FRANKLIN COUNTY 

WAKE COUNTY 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-5 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

TOWN OF NORLINA 

TOWN OF MIDDLEBURG 

CITY OF HENDERSON 

TOWN OF KITTRELL 

TOWN OF FRANKLINTON 

TOWN OF YOUNGSVILLE 

TOWN OF WAKE FOREST 

CITY OF RALEIGH 

CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

KERR-TAR COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (REGION K) 

TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 

OTHER 

TRIANGLE TRANSIT 

AMTRAK 

CSX TRANSPORTATION 

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD 

NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD 

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION LOCATION LIST 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is being made available to the public and other 

interested parties for their review and comment at 12 locations. Document viewing locations and 

addresses are listed below. 

RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

9211 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 200 

Richmond, VA 23235 

(804) 323-2033 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-6 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

RICHMOND MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY 

101 East Franklin Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 

(804) 646-7223 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CENTRAL LIBRARY 

9501 Lori Road 

Chesterfield, VA 23832-6631 

(804) 748-1774 

COLONIAL HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1000 Yacht Basin Drive 

Colonial Heights, VA 23834 

(804)-520-9384 

CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

1964 Wakefield Street 

Petersburg, VA 23805 

(804) 861-1666 

PETERSBURG CENTRAL PUBLIC LIBRARY 

137 S. Sycamore St. 

Petersburg, VA 23803 

(804) 733-2387 

DINWIDDIE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

14016 Boydton Plank Road 

Dinwiddie, VA 23841 

(804) 469-4500 

SOUTHSIDE PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 

200 South Mecklenburg Avenue 

South Hill, VA 23970 

(434) 447-7101 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 6-7 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

The Regional Building 

723 Woodlake Drive 

Chesapeake, VA 23320 

WARREN COUNTY PLANNING/ZONING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT 

DEPARTMENT 

542 W. Ridgeway Street 

Warrenton, NC 27589 

(252) 257-7027 

NCDOT DIVISION 5, DISTRICT 3 OFFICE (FRANKLIN, VANCE, WARREN 

COUNTIES) 

321 Gillburg Rd. 

Henderson, NC 27537 

(252) 492-0111 

FRANKLINTON BRANCH PUBLIC LIBRARY (FRANKLIN COUNTY) 

9 West Mason Street 

Franklinton, NC 27563 

(919) 494-2736 

NCDOT DIVISION 5, DISTRICT 1 OFFICE (WAKE COUNTY) 

4009 District Drive 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

(919) 733-3213 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

7 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Agency and public involvement are core elements in the NEPA process, and have always been a top 

priority for the SEHSR project team. Because of the length and associated complexity of this project, 

regular coordination with resource agencies, local, state, and federal officials, and the public has proven 

to be vital to the project. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has oversight of passenger and freight rail throughout the 

country and is the lead federal transportation agency for this project. Because of the extensive roadway 

work associated with this project, FRA invited the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to 

participate as a cooperating agency. The US Coast Guard, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US 

Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and US Environmental Protection Agency were also invited to 

participate as formal cooperating agencies. Input on the FEIS was solicited from all cooperating agencies 

in September and October 2014, prior to publication of the FEIS. 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation (DRPT) serve as the lead state transportation agencies. 

Tier II Agency Coordination 

As stated in Section 7.1 of the DEIS, FRA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) for filing a Tier II DEIS on 

May 22, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 99). On February 3, 2006, FRA issued a NOI for extending the 

northern terminus of the project from Collier Rail Yard in Petersburg, VA to Main Street Station in 

Richmond, VA (Volume 71, Number 23). 

On June 7, 2010, FRA issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Tier II DEIS and public hearings 

for the Southeast High Speed Rail, Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Project (Volume 75, Number 108; 

Appendix A). In this notice, FRA established a comment period from May 28, 2010, through August 

30, 2010, and invited all interested agencies and the public to comment on the DEIS. The NOA 

provided information on the dates and locations for the public hearings, information on availability of 

the DEIS for review, who to contact with questions, and how to provide comments. 

In response to a high degree of interest in the project, as exhibited by robust attendance at the public 

hearings and a large number of comments submitted early in the comment period, FRA, NCDOT, and 

DRPT decided to extend the DEIS comment period. On August 19, 2010, FRA issued a notice of 

extension of comment period for the Tier II DEIS for the Southeast High Speed Rail, Richmond, VA 

to Raleigh, NC Project (Volume 75, Number 160; Appendix A). This notice extended the comment 

period to September 10, 2010. 

AGENCY SCOPING MEETINGS 

Section 7.1.1 of the DEIS described the scoping meetings that were held in 2003 at the beginning 

of the Tier II study. The following agencies were in attendance or participated in the scoping 

process by correspondence: 

 Alberta Planning Commission 

 City of Henderson 

 The Chamber of Commerce of Warren County 

 County of Dinwiddie 

 Crater Planning District Commission 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 Henderson-Vance Chamber of Commerce 

 Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

 Kerr-Tar Rural Planning Organization 

 NC Department of Transportation 

 NC Railroad Company 

 NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

 NC Wildlife Resources Commission 

 Norlina Community Development Association 

 Southside Planning District Commission 

 Town of La Crosse 

 Town of McKinney 

 Town of Wake Forest 

 Triangle Transit Authority 

 US Army Corps of Engineers 

 US Coast Guard 

 US Environmental Protection Agency 

 US Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Vance County Economic Development Commission 

 VA Department of Conservation and Recreation 

 VA Department of Environmental Quality 

 VA Department of Historic Resources 

 VA Department of Mines, Minerals, & Energy 

 VA Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

 VA Department of Transportation 

 Warren County Planning Department. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS 

Section 7.1.2 of the DEIS provided information on the Advisory Committee, which was 

established to help guide the project through the regulatory approval and planning processes. In 

addition to the agencies listed above, the following organizations and agencies have participated 

in the work of the Advisory Committee: 

 Amtrak 

 Brunswick County Board of Supervisors 

 Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors 

 CSX Transportation 

 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 

 Chesterfield County 

 City of Colonial Heights 

 City of Petersburg 

 City of Raleigh 

 City of Richmond 

 Commonwealth Transportation Board 

 Dinwiddie County Board of Supervisors 

 Federal Transit Administration 

 Franklin County Commissioners 

 Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments (COG) (Region K) 

 NC Department of Cultural Resources 

 NC Board of Transportation 

 Norfolk Southern 

 Northern VA Transportation Commission 

 Sprint – LTD 

 Town of Kittrell 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

 Town of Franklinton 

 Town of Youngsville 

 Town of Middleburg 

 Town of Norlina 

 Triangle J COG 

 VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services 

 VA Department of Forestry 

 VA Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water 

 VA Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 

 VA Outdoors Foundation 

 Wake County Commissioners 

 Warren County Commissioners. 

In May 2010, the local, state, and federal government entities listed above were provided a copy 

of the DEIS, and invited to attend the public hearings and provide comments. Many of these 

agencies did provide comments. Following the public hearings, coordination with these entities 

shifted in focus to responding to the comments submitted. Refer to Chapter 8 for a summary of 

agency comments and responses. 

AGENCY-SPECIFIC COORDINATION 

The SEHSR team is dedicated to a proactive approach in dealing with regulatory agencies. As 

potential areas of concern were identified, the SEHSR team conducted prompt coordination with 

the appropriate agencies. These coordination activities are summarized below. 

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) 

In 2003, a population of the federally protected Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) was 

found in the project study area in Brunswick County, VA. As detailed in Section 4.10, the 

SESHR project team entered into informal consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) with USFWS to minimize and/or mitigate for potential impacts to this 

endangered species. A meeting was held with USFWS on August 12, 2004 as part of the 

informal consultation, and a biological assessment (BA) was prepared. The BA was 

submitted to USFWS on September 29, 2004. On November 8, 2004, USFWS has issued a 

“not likely to adversely effect” determination for this population and therefore formal 

consultation was not required. A subsequent field meeting with representatives from USFWS 

and the project team was held on May 19th, 2010 to assess the condition of the previously 

identified sumac population. The population was re-delineated and the project team 

determined that the population had migrated further into the inactive railroad corridor. This 

updated delineation information was used in the selection of the preferred alternative for 

Section D (see Chapter 2 for detailed discussion). Correspondence and meeting minutes for 

coordination with USFWS are included in Appendix A. 

After the project was extended to Richmond, additional protected species surveys were 

conducted to evaluate resources north of Collier Yard. In September 14, 2005, a pair of bald 

eagles was observed along the Appomattox River, just west of the City of Petersburg. On 

November 21, 2005, the SEHSR rail team began coordination with the VA Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries to obtain additional information about bald eagle activity in the 

project study area. In February 2006, after leaf out, additional surveys were conducted to 

determine the location of bald eagle nests in the project area. On March 30, 2006 the 

USFWS was informed of the issue. Coordination with USFWS on April 17, 2006, resulted in 

an informal effects determination of “not likely to adversely effect” with the condition that 

the project is located more than 1,250 feet away from the nest. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-4 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Scheduling of a detailed re-survey for the Roanoke Logperch will be conducted prior to 

project construction. The Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) decision support 

system will be completed prior to Section 404 permitting. Both of these activities will be 

coordinated in the future with USFWS. 

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) 

Several comments on the DEIS asked why the SEHSR project has not followed the Merger 

Process in North Carolina. Merger is a process to streamline the project development and 

permitting processes, agreed to by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), North Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR), FHWA, and NCDOT, which provides a forum 

for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate 

meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA 

decision-making phase of transportation projects. At the outset of the SEHSR project, 

NCDOT and DRPT decided that a single, consistent process in both states should be used to 

obtain environmental regulatory agency input on the SEHSR project, given that Virginia does 

not have a Merger counterpart, and that FRA is the lead federal agency for the project. The 

project team therefore coordinated with USACE and both state water quality agencies in 

selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for each 

section of the project. 

Refer to Section 7.1.2.2 of the DEIS for a description of the field delineations of waters of the 

United States, including streams and wetlands along the study corridor, that were conducted 

during development of alternatives presented in the DEIS. Section 7.1.2.2 of the DEIS 

section also provides a description of the verification and written concurrence that was 

provided by USACE. 

In Virginia, the project team met on April 12, 2011, with USACE – Norfolk District, USFS, 

the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and the Virginia Department of 

Historic Resources to discuss new alternatives in Section D and Section G in Brunswick 

County, VA, and confirm the preferred alternatives in those sections; discuss 

recommendations for preferred alternatives in Sections B and L and confirm the preferred 

alternatives; and confirm the LEDPA for the remaining sections in Virginia. The proposed 

schedule for USACE field verifications was also discussed. A summary of this meeting is 

provided in Appendix A. 

Field assessments for streams and wetlands in areas of non-common alignment for the 

preferred alternative in Virginia were completed in October 2012. Field assessments of the 

Keelers Mill Road area (DeWitt, VA, area), where revised designs fell outside the original 

study corridor, also took place in October 2012. 

In April 2013, the project team conducted field visits with USACE- Norfolk District 

representatives to verify jurisdictional stream and wetland delineation in Virginia for areas of 

non-common alignment and the Keelers Mill Road area referenced above. During final 

design the project team will prepare and submit the appropriate permit application based on 

the field work from 2013, and conduct updated field review if required. 

In July 2011, the project team completed a map and field review with the USACEWilmington District representative for jurisdictional wetland locations in North Carolina 

delineated outside the original study area and locations with significant changes since the 

2004 determination. During final design the project team will prepare and submit the 

appropriate permit application based on the field work from 2013, and conduct updated field 

review if required. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-5 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

On March 26, 2012, the project team contacted USACE- Wilmington District (and the NC 

Division of Water Quality) to provide information on a change to the recommended preferred 

alternative in Section U, in Wake Forest, NC, which resulted in selection of an alternative 

with greater stream and wetland impacts. Refer to Chapter 2 for discussion related to 

selection of the Preferred Alternative, and Section 4.1 for a discussion on the stream and 

wetland impacts. 

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICES 

The SEHSR project team coordinated with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

(VDHR) and the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic 

Preservation office (HPO) to determine impacts to resources determined eligible for inclusion 

in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Section 3.12 describes the cultural resource investigations and 

eligibility determinations by VDHR and HPO. Section 4.12 describes the effects of the 

project on resources protected under Section 106. Historic resource correspondence is 

included in Appendix L. 

The project team met with VDHR and HPO several times during the development of project 

alternatives for the DEIS to discuss impacts to historic resources. Measures to minimize and 

mitigate for impacts, as well as potential avoidance measures, were also discussed. 

Determination of effects meetings were held with VDHR on April 15, 2009, August 7, 2009, 

and November 20, 2009. Similar determination of effects meetings with HPO were held on 

August 20, 2008, September 2, 2009, and September 29, 2009. 

Subsequent to publication of the DEIS in 2010, the SEHSR project team held additional 

meetings with VHDR and HPO to obtain updated determinations of effect as a result of 

design changes and to coordinate the determination of effect for resources not previously 

identified by the project. 

In Virginia, the SEHSR project team corresponded with the HPO in a letter dated June 30, 

2014, recommending effects for the Preferred Alternative for the Project. The HPO 

concurred in a written response dated July 29, 2014. 

In North Carolina, the SEHSR project team held the following meetings with HPO after the 

publication of the DEIS: 

 December 22, 2010 – to discuss comments received from municipalities and local 

businesses regarding the designs shown in the DEIS for three historic districts (Wake 

Forest Historic District, South Henderson Industrial Historic District, and Youngsville 

Historic District); to present possible design alternatives to address these issues; and to 

discuss possible changes in determinations of effect on the historic districts based on the 

possible design changes 

 March 8, 2011 – to obtain effects determinations for the Wake Forest Historic District 

(based on updated designs) and Oakforest (resource in Wake Forest area previously 

omitted from evaluation), and to discuss comments from Capital Area Preservation on 

the Hartsfield House in Wake Forest 

 July 25, 2011 – to obtain effects determinations for the NC5 alternative in downtown 

Raleigh and to obtain updated effects determinations for the Raleigh Electric Company 

Power House and the Joel Lane House based on design changes 

 January 20, 2012 – to present new design concepts for a grade separation of Mason 

Street in the Franklinton Historic District; to obtain effects determinations for the new 

concepts; and to determine which concept to move forward with in the FEIS 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-6 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

 June 17, 2013 – to obtain effects for properties not previously identified in the DEIS and 

updated effects for resources where design changes have been made. 

LOCAL OFFICIAL COORDINATION 

Section 7.1.4 of the DEIS provided information about meetings that were held to solicit input at 

the regional and community level and used to develop the project designs. Representatives from 

local governments within the SESHR study area were included in the SEHSR Advisory 

Committee and their cooperation was vital in the successful completion of the SEHSR DEIS. To 

maintain safety and speed requirements for effective high speed transport, many roads within the 

project study area were realigned, closed, or grade separated (bridged). Input from local mayors, 

planners, MPOs, water and sewer officials, EMS managers, and other officials was vital to ensure 

that the SEHSR project did not compromise community development plans, cut off local 

neighborhoods, or add an undue burden on users of transportation facilities in the project study 

area. 

Coordination with local officials subsequent to the DEIS was primarily focused on responding to 

comments on the DEIS. In many cases, these comments led to design revisions as described in 

Chapter 2. In some instances, the comments resulted in a number of re-designs, and additional 

studies, requiring a greater level of coordination. Refer to Table 7-1 for a list of coordination 

meetings with local governments that were held as part of the development of designs presented 

in this FEIS. 

Table 7-1 

Meetings with Local Governments 

Entity Date Attendees Purpose 

Chesterfield County, VA 8/9/2011 County staff, Virginia 

Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) 

staff, project team 

Update County staff on 

the status of the overall 

project, present 

additional traffic analysis 

conducted for the 

Centralia Road area, 

discuss designs for 

Centralia Road 

Chesterfield County, VA 1/31/2012 County Staff, Board of 

Supervisors, project team 

Update County staff and 

Board of Supervisors on 

the project, discuss traffic 

analysis for Centralia 

Road area and review 

road designs 

Chesterfield County, VA 3/21/2012 County staff, project team Discussion of traffic and 

road designs in 

Chesterfield County 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-7 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Table 7-1 

Meetings with Local Governments 

Entity Date Attendees Purpose 

Chesterfield County, VA 02/25/2013 DRPT staff, County staff Discussion of traffic and 

road designs in 

Chesterfield County to be 

shown at 5/26/2013 

Project Update Meeting 

Chesterfield County, VA 02/27/2013 DRPT staff, County 

Board of Supervisors 

Discussion of traffic and 

road designs in 

Chesterfield County 

shown at 5/26/2013 

Project Update Meeting 

City of Henderson, NC 11/17/2010 Mayor, City staff, project 

team 

Discuss concerns 

expressed by Resolution 

10-74 & comments on 

DEIS 

City of Henderson, NC 4/25/2011 City Council, City staff, 

project team 

Update City Council on 

design revisions made in 

response to comments on 

DEIS 

City of Henderson, NC 3/15/2012 City staff, project team Provide review of new 

designs for Andrews Ave 

area 

City of Henderson, NC 5/14/2012 City Council, Mayor, City 

staff, project team 

Update City Council on 

additional design 

revisions made in 

response to comments on 

DEIS that will be shown 

at the September 2012 

Project Update Meeting 

City of Raleigh, NC 2/22/2011 City staff, project team Discuss City comments 

on DEIS and discuss 

design changes 

Town of Franklinton, NC 9/7/2010 Board of Commissioners, 

Mayor, Town staff, 

NCDOT Rail Director, 

project team 

Presentation to Board of 

Commissioners and 

respond to questions 

about the project 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-8 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Table 7-1 

Meetings with Local Governments 

Entity Date Attendees Purpose 

Franklin County & Town of 

Franklinton, NC 

1/20/2011 Franklin County 

Comprehensive 

Transportation Plan 

(CTP) Advisory 

Subcommittee, NCDOT, 

project team 

Discuss local concerns 

related to proposed 

closure of Mason Street 

at-grade crossing, other 

connectivity issues, and 

coordination between the 

CTP and the SEHSR 

project 

Town of Franklinton, NC 12/19/2011 Mayor, Town staff, 

NCDOT Division 5 staff, 

CAMPO staff, North 

Carolina State Historic 

Preservation Office (NCHPO) staff, project team 

Discuss design changes 

developed in response to 

comments on DEIS. Also 

provide additional 

background on Section 

106 protections, in terms 

of how they affect design 

considerations, and a 

Question/Answer period 

provided by NC-HPO 

staff 

Town of La Crosse, VA 5/14/2012 Town Council, Mayor, 

Town staff, Citizen, 

VDOT staff, project team 

Review of history of 

coordination with Town 

which led to DEIS 

designs, review 

comments on DEIS, 

discuss recent comments 

from Council Member 

Town of Wake Forest, NC 6/18/2012 Town staff, NC-HPO, 

NCDOT, project team 

Discuss comments 

received on Elm Ave 

grade separation 

presented at Public 

Update Meeting, Revisit 

design & recommend 

concept to carry forward 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-9 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Table 7-1 

Meetings with Local Governments 

Entity Date Attendees Purpose 

Warren County, NC 

Ridgway Volunteer Fire 

Department (VFD) 

4/18/2012 County Fire Marshall, 

County EMS, Ridgeway 

VFD Fire Chief, project 

team 

Provide update on 

project, discuss potential 

impacts to fire 

department operations 

from SEHSR project and 

obtain additional 

information related to 

County Fire and EMS 

services 

Warren County, NC 12/18/2012 County staff, County 

Manager, County Fire 

Marshall, Kerr-Tar 

COG/RPO, project team 

Discuss potential 

alternative design for 

grade separation in 

Ridgeway, NC, 

determine which design 

(DEIS design or new) is 

preferred by the County 

City of Richmond, VA 11/10/2014 

& 12/1/2014 

(by phone) 

City staff, Virginia 

Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) 

staff, project team 

Discuss proposed 

revisions to Maury Street 

grade separation 

Tier II Public Involvement 

Section 7.2 of the DEIS contained a description of the public involvement outreach that occurred 

prior to the June 2010 publication of the DEIS. What follows in this section is a description of the 

actions and efforts that took place since then, including the period of time when the DEIS public 

hearings were held. 

MAILING LIST 

A database containing contact information for state and federal environmental regulatory and 

resource agencies, elected officials, civic and business groups, local government agencies, and 

interested persons was developed at the beginning of the Tier I environmental study and updated 

throughout the study process. Following publication of the DEIS, the database has been 

maintained and updated primarily for email addresses, and used for electronic distribution of 

project updates and notification of public meetings. Interested individuals sign up through the 

project website and at public meetings. At the time of the FEIS preparation, the list contained 

approximately 5,000 active email addresses. 

EMAIL UPDATES 

An announcement regarding the release of the DEIS was distributed via email on June 3, 2010. 

The announcement included information about the public hearings, how to obtain additional 

information, and how to provide comments. Between August 2010 and the 2013 preparation of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-10 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

the FEIS, five project updates/public meeting announcements have been provided via email using 

the database described above. Copies of the email updates are included in Appendix B. 

SOCIAL MEDIA 

In advance of the 2010 public hearings, the project began using Twitter as an additional means 

for reaching out to the public. Under the handle @SEHSR, Tweets have announced the 

availability of the DEIS, provided reminders for public hearings and other meetings, provided 

updates on the project status, and relayed interesting high speed rail related news and facts. At 

the time of the FEIS preparation there were more than 500 followers. 

PROJECT WEBSITE 

The project website www.sehsr.org provides current information on the project including links to 

provide comments via email, as well as to sign up for the project mailing list. The site organizes 

other information on these tabs: Project History; Reports & Publications; News Releases; FAQs; 

Contacts/Links. The DRPT website http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/ and the NCDOT Rail Division 

website http://bytrain.org also provide information on the project and a link to the project website. 

The DEIS was made available on the SEHSR website on June 3, 2010, in conjunction with a 

press release announcing publication of the document. Information about the eight public 

hearings was posted, including downloadable files for the hearing handout materials. A link to a 

download page was provided for the hearing maps for each alternative for the 26 project sections. 

The comment form was available for individuals to download and return by mail, and a link to an 

internet version of the comment form was also provided. 

A link to information about the public hearings in Spanish language was also posted on the 

website (Section 7.2.7 provides additional discussion regarding Limited English Proficiency). 

Following publication of the DEIS and completion of the public hearings, the website has 

continued to be used for project updates, press releases and information about the five Project 

Update Meetings that were held between July 2011 and February 2013 (refer to Section 7.2.9 

below, for more information about the Project Update Meetings). 

A Draft Recommendation Report was made available on the website February 2012 along with 

information on how to provide comments. The final report submitted to FRA was made available 

on the website May 16, 2012. The report identified the recommended preferred rail alternative 

for each of the 26 sections of the project. 

PRESS RELEASES 

Press releases have continued to be used as a public outreach tool. NCDOT and DRPT issued a 

press release on June 3, 2010, announcing the completion of the DEIS and ways to view and 

comment on the document, along with information about the eight public hearings scheduled 

throughout the corridor. 

Press releases were issued for each of the five public update meetings that were held between July 

2011 and February 2013 (refer to Section 7.2.9 for more information about the Project Update 

Meetings). 

A press release was issued February 9, 2012, announcing completion of the Draft 

Recommendation Report identifying recommended preferred rail alternatives for each of the 26 

project sections. A press release was also issued on May 16, 2012, announcing that the final 

report had been submitted to FRA and was available on the project website. 

All project press releases are also located on the project website. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-11 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

PROJECT HOTLINE 

The toll-free line (1-877-749-7245 or 1-877-749-RAIL) has been in place for more than 12 years. 

In the period of time between publication of the DEIS and the publication of the FEIS, more than 

150 people called the hotline with questions about the project. Topics ranged from questions 

about the projected project timeline, the location of public hearings and other meetings, to 

questions about potential impacts to specific properties. All phone calls were returned and all 

questions from residents were answered satisfactorily. Maps and/or other printed materials were 

also mailed to individuals who requested them. 

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 

Wake County was the only county in the project area to meet the Limited English Proficiency 

threshold triggering the need for Spanish translation assistance with the project's public 

involvement. Thus, all public meetings and hearings in Wake County (including Raleigh and 

Wake Forest), had translators available. In addition, Spanish translations of all the handouts and 

display boards were available at the Wake County hearings and meetings, and all property owner 

notification letters for the county were mailed with both English and Spanish versions. Also, 

there was a link on the project website that takes the reader to info in Spanish about the project 

DEIS PUBLIC HEARINGS 

Following publication of the DEIS, FRA, DRPT, and NCDOT hosted eight public hearings (four 

in Virginia and four in North Carolina). Public hearing dates, locations, and approximate 

attendance at each of the meetings are shown in Table 7-2. The hearings allowed members of the 

public to view the proposed project designs, ask questions, and provide comments (either orally 

or via a comment form). Each hearing consisted of a 2-hour open-house meeting, followed by a 

presentation and time for citizens to provide formal comments. 

In addition to the hearing maps showing the alternative designs, display boards provided 

information on: how to review the hearing maps and provide comments; information on how 

noise and vibration are evaluated; next steps in the study process; and reasons for bridging 

highway/railroad intersections. Printed handouts provided at the meeting consisted of: 

 Schematic maps with tables that compared impacts and operational and physical 

characteristics for each alternative by project section; 

 Hearing packet containing a project summary, history of the SEHSR corridor, study corridor 

map, frequently asked questions, information on right-of-way procedures and relocation 

assistance for each of the two states, information on how to provide comments, and a 

comment sheet. 

 Map request forms that meeting attendees could complete at the hearing and submit to a 

“Print Station” to receive a section of the hearing maps, printed to scale, on 8.5” x 11” paper, 

displaying the alternative alignments in the location they requested. 

Downloadable PDF versions of all the materials distributed during the public hearings were made 

available on the project website. 

Over 2,000 people attended the hearings, which were publicized in the Federal Register, local 

newspapers, on the project website, through Tweets, email updates, and with a direct mailing to 

owners of property located within the project study area. More than 1,850 individuals and 50 

agencies and organizations submitted comments to the project team. Many of the comments were 

several pages in length, and most covered multiple topics (refer to Chapter 8, Responses to 

Comments). As discussed earlier in this chapter, the high level of interest shown at the public 

hearings, and the large number of comments submitted, led FRA, NCDOT, and DRPT to extend 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-12 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

the comment period from August 30, 2010 to September 10, 2010. The extension of the 

comment period was publicized in the Federal Register, on the project website, and through a 

press release. 

Table 7-2 

DEIS Public Hearings 

Location Date Area Served Attendance 

Northside Elementary School, 

Norlina, NC 

July 13, 2010 Warren County, NC 250 

Southside VA Community 

College, Alberta, VA 

July 15, 2010 Brunswick and Mecklenburg 

Counties, VA 

183 

Virginia DMV Cafeteria, 

Richmond, VA 

July 20, 2010 City of Richmond, VA 193 

Union Station, 

Petersburg, VA 

July 21, 2010 City of Petersburg, VA 255 

Sunnyside Elementary School, 

McKenney, VA 

July 22, 2010 Dinwiddie County, VA 198 

Raleigh Convention Center, 

Raleigh, NC 

July 26, 2010 Wake County, NC 470 

Aycock Elementary School, 

Henderson, NC 

July 27, 2010 Vance County, NC 302 

Franklinton High School, 

Franklinton, NC 

July 29, 2010 Franklin County, NC 373 

PROJECT UPDATE MEETINGS 

As described in Chapter 2, comments on the DEIS led the project team to develop new rail 

alternatives in three project sections: Section D and Section G, both in Brunswick County, VA, 

and Section V in downtown Raleigh, NC. Project Update Meetings were held in mid-2011 to 

present the new rail alternatives to the public and obtain comments prior to selection of the 

preferred rail alternatives. 

The project team also made numerous revisions to road work throughout the corridor based on 

comments on the DEIS, particularly in the areas of Chesterfield County, VA, and Henderson, 

Wake Forest and north Raleigh, NC. Project Update Meetings were held for these areas after the 

alternative designs had been developed to present the new designs and obtain comments. 

The meetings followed an open-house format, which provided opportunity for citizens to view 

public hearing-style maps and ask questions one-on-one with members of the project team. In 

addition to project staff, VDOT or NCDOT Right of Way staff was on hand to answer questions 

about Right of Way and Relocation procedures. Similar to what was made available at the DEIS 

public hearings, maps were printed by request, showing the project designs in relation to 

individual properties. Project Update Meetings were announced using a variety of media: press 

releases, advertisements in local papers, announcements on the project website, through Twitter, 

email, and through letters to property owners. Interested citizens were encouraged to provide 

comments at the meetings or by mail, or on the project website. The meeting dates, locations, 

and approximate attendance at each of the Project Update Meetings are shown in Table 7-3. 

Summaries of the meetings and comments are found in Appendix B. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-13 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Throughout the history of the project, the use of direct mailings to property owners has been one 

of the most useful and reliable methods for communicating with citizens potentially impacted by 

the project. Announcements of Public Hearings and Project Update Meetings were sent via First 

Class Mail through the United States Postal Service. Mailing addresses were compiled using 

county tax parcel data. 

On January 22, 2013, letters were mailed to 1,588 owners of property located in the study 

corridor in Chesterfield County, VA, to invite them to attend the Project Update Meeting on 

February 26, 2013. Twenty one days after the meeting, calls made to the project hotline suggested 

that there had been a problem with delivery of some of these direct-mail letters. Between March 

18, 2013, and March 21, 2013, 17 people called the project hotline to complain that they had just 

received the letters. DRPT staff called back to speak with each individual, to offer an apology 

and provide information on the project. Additional follow-up phone calls were made as needed, 

in an attempt to ensure that direct contact was made with the individual who placed the hotline 

call. Meeting materials and maps were mailed or emailed to those who requested them. 

It was impossible to determine the number of letters that were delayed in delivery; however many 

of the people who attended the meeting mentioned having received the property owner letter; 

indeed many had the letters in hand at the meeting. The project team contacted the US Postal 

Service for help in determining the extent of letters delayed in delivery, and an explanation. In 

addition, the project team lodged a complaint with the Postal Service, which promised an 

investigation. At the time of preparation of the FEIS, the US Postal Service had not been able to 

provide any additional information or explanation for the delay. 

Table 7-3 

Post DEIS Project Update Meetings 

Location Date Area Served Attendance 

Southside VA Community 

College, Alberta, VA 

July 14, 2011 Mecklenburg County, VA 60 

Raleigh Convention Center, 

Raleigh, NC 

Sept 27, 2011 Downtown Raleigh, NC 212 

North Raleigh Hilton, 

Raleigh, NC 

May 15, 2012 Wake Forest and north 

Raleigh, NC 

166 

Aycock Recreation Center, 

Henderson, NC 

Sept 11, 2012 Henderson, NC 110 

Public Safety Training Facility, 

Chesterfield County, VA 

Feb 26, 2013 Chesterfield County, VA 146 

SMALL GROUP INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS 

One small group informational meeting was held subsequent to the DEIS, to address comments 

regarding impacts to a family cemetery from the proposed realignment of Keelers Mill Road in 

Dewitt, VA. The project team studied alternatives and developed a conceptual design that would 

avoid impacting the cemetery, yet still serve the local transportation needs. The project team 

scheduled a meeting with family members and others living near the cemetery to discuss the new 

conceptual design. On August 15, 2012, at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

District Office in Colonial Heights, VA, the project team and VDOT representatives met with 12 

members of the nearby community to discuss the new concept. Based on the meeting and 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-14 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

additional design and environmental work, a revised design was completed that was favorably 

received and has been incorporated into the project designs (see Chapter 2). 

On May 13, 2013 DRPT staff attended a Chesterfield County, VA, Matoaca District citizen’s 

meeting to answer questions about the project. 

The project team also met with individual property owners and businesses in instances when the 

team determined that additional coordination was needed to help address comments that had been 

provided. 

Section 106 Coordination with Resource Owners 

The project team coordinated with numerous individual property owners or officials with jurisdiction 

over resources protected under Section 106 of the NHPA, with particular focus on resources where 

the project alternatives would result in an adverse effect. The meetings and correspondence presented 

below is organized by resource location, north to south through the project corridor. 

MEETINGS 

Prior to publication of the DEIS, the SEHSR project team met with the following resource 

owners: 

 Williams Bridge Company - May 12, 2009 

 Chesterfield County, VA (historic districts and individual resource owners) - April 8, 2009; 

May 12, 2009 

 Petersburg National Battlefield office - May 12, 2009 

 Town of La Crosse, VA - July 22, 2003; December 10, 2004; January 30, 2006; May 10, 

2006; and September 18, 2006 

 Town of Henderson, NC - June 24, 2003; February 14, 2006; and September 20, 2007 

 Town of Franklinton, NC - June 26, 2003, and May 9, 2008 

 City of Raleigh, NC - July 15, 2003; January 13, 2005; September 21, 2005; April 7, 2008; 

and April 17, 2008; October 20, 2009. 

Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, the SEHSR project team met with the following resource 

owners: 

 City of Henderson, NC – On March 10, 2010, the project team met with representatives of the 

City of Henderson, Kerr Tar Regional Council of Governments, and HPO to provide an 

introduction to the project and background information on Section 106, describe potential 

impacts to historic resources in Henderson, and discuss potential mitigation for these impacts. 

Note that this meeting occurred prior to publication of the DEIS, but was inadvertently not 

discussed in the DEIS. 

 Chapel of the Good Shepherd in Warren County, NC – On July 16, 2010, the project team 

met with representatives of the Chapel of the Good Shepherd (listed on the NRHP) to 

describe the project, potential impacts to the church, and possible mitigation for impacts. It 

should be note that subsequent to this meeting, an alternative was developed that would avoid 

the adverse effect on the resource. 

 Raleigh Electric Company Power House and the Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) 

Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage in Raleigh, NC – On March 18, 2011, the project 

team met with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), HPO, the City of 

Raleigh, and resource owners to discuss possibilities for a pedestrian crossing on West Jones 

Street over the railroad in the vicinity of the Raleigh Electric Company Power House and the 

Carolina Power and Light Company Car Barn and Automobile Garage resources (both of 

which are listed on the NRHP). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-15 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

 Town of Franklinton, NC – On January 13, 2011, the project team met with representatives of 

the Town of Franklinton and HPO to provide clarification and background information on 

Section 106, the background on the eligibility of the Franklinton Historic District (eligible for 

the NRHP), and conceptual designs for a grade separation at Mason Street. 

 Town of La Crosse, VA – On May 14, 2012, the project team met with Town of La Crosse 

representatives to review the proposed preliminary designs for the downtown area and 

discuss design constraints related to La Crosse Hotel (listed on NRHP). Subsequent 

correspondence led to Town representatives withdrawing request for pedestrian crossing near 

hotel due to the impacts to the resource. 

 CSX Transportation – On January 31, 2013, the SEHSR project team met with 

representatives from CSX to explain the Section 106 coordination process, review the 

impacts of the project on the historic S-line corridor, and reiterate the invitation to CSX to 

participate as a consulting party. Subsequent to the meeting, CSX accepted consulting party 

status, which is granted to individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in a 

project due to their relationship to the project's effect on historic resources. Consulting 

parties share their views, offer ideas, and provide input on possible mitigation for adverse 

effects to historic resources. 

 CSX Transportation – On October 17, 2014, the SEHSR project team held a web conference 

call with representatives from CSX to review the Section 106 coordination process and the 

impacts of the project on the historic S-line corridor. Subsequently, the project team 

provided CSX with information on potential mitigation concepts for their review and 

comment. 

 City of Henderson, NC – On December 19, 2014, the project team met with property owners 

in the Henderson Historic District and South Henderson Industrial Historic District to obtain 

their input on potential mitigation for impacts to these historic districts.. 

CORRESPONDENCE 

Letters were sent to all property owners located within the following historic districts inviting 

them to participate in the SEHSR Section 106 process: 

 Henderson Historic District and South Henderson Industrial Historic District (NC) 

 Franklinton Historic District (NC) 

 Roanoke Park Historic District (Raleigh, NC). 

CONSULTING PARTIES 

The following entities were invited to participate as consulting parties under the Section 106 

process for the SEHSR project (* indicates acceptance of invitation): 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* 

 Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods 

 American Battlefield Protection Program* 

 Atlantic Coast Line & Seaboard Air Line Railroad Historical Society 

 Battersea, Inc.* 

 Brunswick County Historical Society (VA)* (as part of the Southside Virginia Genealogical 

Society) 

 Catawba Indian Tribe 

 Central Virginia Battlefields Trust 

 Chesterfield Historical Society (VA)* 

 Civil War Preservation Trust* 

 CSX Transportation* 

 Dinwiddie County Historical Society (VA) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 7-16 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

 Historic Richmond Foundation (VA)* 

 Historic Petersburg Foundation (VA) 

 Mecklenburg Historical Society (VA) 

 National Park Service – Petersburg National Battlefield* 

 National Park Service – Richmond National Battlefield* 

 Preservation North Carolina* 

 Raleigh Historic Development Commission (NC)* 

 Southside Virginia Genealogical Society 

 Virginia Council on Indians* (invitation accepted, but organization no longer active). 

In addition to these organizations, letters were sent to all property owners located within the 

Henderson Historic District (NC), Franklinton Historic District (NC), and South Henderson 

Industrial Historic District (NC) inviting them to participate in the SEHSR Section 106 process. 

No historic societies were identified within the counties where these districts are located. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 8-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

8 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

The public comment period for the Tier II DEIS extended from the date of publication in May 2010 

through September 10, 2010. Agencies, organizations, and members of the public supplied comments on 

the DEIS through letters or emails to NCDOT or DRPT, a project telephone hotline, an internet survey 

form, or at public hearings (either orally or using a comment form). More than 1,850 individuals and 50 

agencies and organizations submitted comments to the project team. Many of the comments were several 

pages in length, and most covered multiple topics. 

Responses are provided for individual agency and local government comments (Section 8.1). Due to the 

large number of public comments, many of which addressed similar issues or presented similar 

preferences, the comments have been summarized and responses are provided for these summary 

comments (Section 8.2). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

8.1 AGENCY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

This section presents the comments on the DEIS submitted by state and Federal environmental and resource agencies acommissions. Responses are provided to individual statements from within the correspondence for ease of reading. Federal Agencies 

AG44 

United States Dept. of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance - Willie R. Taylo

Comment Response 

The Department concurs that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed use of Section 4(f) land, which includes parks, recreational areas, historic architectural sites, battlefields, and archeological sites. We note that the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

includes additional mitigation measures to be agreed upon with the Virginia and North 

Carolina State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and Section 106 Consulting parties, 

including the National Park Service: specifically, preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a potential land exchange with Petersburg National Battlefield, as stated in a letter dated March 4, 2009, from the park's Superintendent. We encourage continued consultation with the SHPOs, the National Park Service, and additional Section 106 consulting parties to ensure that all of these mitigation measures be satisfactorily implemented. We also recommend that a signed copy of the MOA be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Where the Project has been determined to have an adverse 

106 requires that efforts be undertaken to avoid, minimize, 

part of this process, consultation has taken place and is ong

Historic Resources (VDHR), North Carolina State Historic other “consulting parties,” such as the National Park Servicproperty owners. FRA, the Virginia State Historic PreservHistoric Preservation Officer, DRPT, NCDOT, and the AdPreservation have developed a draft Programmatic Agreemcompliance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation A(It is included in this FEIS for public review.) This providthe effects of each portion of the SEHSR on historic propewhere appropriate. As per the Process PA, “When the State Rail Transportatioadverse effects to historic properties, it shall notify FRA. Fappropriate SHPO and other consulting parties, interested tribes, ACHP, FRA and the State Rail Transportation AgenAgreement (MOA) to identify measures to avoid, minimizprior to beginning any work on that portion of the SEHSR Agency shall submit a draft of each MOA to the appropriaNCDOT and DRPT shall ensure that all comments receivereceipt of the draft MOA are addressed in the final MOA. be provided to the appropriate SHPO and other consulting provided to any consulting party or other group who may hproperty.” The Project Team is continuing dialogue with consulting pwill have signed agreements prior to a Record of Decision 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions 4 and 3 have reviewed the subject document and are commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are providing cooperating agency input for your consideration. In addition, EPA also included technical review comments from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under a 2010 Partnership Agreement with EPA and on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) are proposing to make rail improvements for an approximate distance of 162 miles between Richmond, Virginia and Raleigh, North Carolina. EPA Regions 3 and 4 provided comments on the Final Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 2002. EPA Region 4 also provided review comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS for Tier I1 on December 18, 2009. EPA and CDC's technical review comments on the Tier II DEIS are attached to this letter (See Attachment A). Specific advisory comments on the Environmental Justice analysis contained in Chapter 4 are also attached to this letter (See Attachment B). EPA rated the Tier I1 DEIS as 'Environmental Concerns' (EC-2) indicating that the review identified some environmental concerns requiring potentially minor changes to the preferred alternative or the application of mitigation measures that can reduce environmental impacts. The review disclosed the opportunity for possible avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures related to wetland and stream impacts, water quality, and environmental justice and community health issues. The '2' rating indicates that DEIS information and environmental analysis requires some additional information and clarification, including wetland and stream impacts, Section 303(d) listed 

impaired waters, socio-economic and community health issues, and a reassessment of 

potential minority and low-income population impacts. Overall, EPA supports the development of additional mass transit options for the populations in Virginia and North Carolina because it provides an alternative to the sole reliance on highways for transportation demand. We also support the proposed project's purpose and need and detailed study alternatives. With appropriate disclosure and proper 

mitigation, this project should result in fewer adverse impacts. EPA recommends that all of the technical comments in the attachments be addressed in a Final EIS (FEIS). Furthermore, all relevant environment impacts that have not been disclosed in this document or covered in the FEIS should be addressed in additional NEPA documentation prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). 

Comment noted. The Project Team appreciates EPA’s par
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

1) Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project – 

EPA and CDC generally support the purpose and need for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project from Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC. Section 1.2 of the DEIS identifies other current and planned projects for the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, N.C. corridor. 

Comment noted. 

2) Detailed Study Alternatives – 

a. The DEIS identifies 3 rail alignments (Detailed Study Alternatives) each for the 

portions in Virginia (i.e., VA1, VA2 and VA3) and for North Carolina (i.e., 

NC1, NC2 and NC3). The DEIS does not evaluate the impacts with the specific 

rail stations. Section 2.2.4 indicates that specific station locations will be determined in the future by the municipalities and appropriate levels of environmental documentation will be undertaken at that time. The DEIS does address where general station locations might be, including Richmond, VA, 

Petersburg, VA (Ettrick and 3 alternative station locations), La Crosse, VA, Henderson, NC and Raleigh, NC. Servicing the SEHSR long-term and meeting 

future ridership demands appears to depend on these stations. These stations 

may have an impact on air quality, community resources, land use, stormwater management, etc. Low-impact development practices, as well as 'Green building' initiatives, should be considered during planning and design. EPA 

requests that all of the potential human and natural resource impacts from these stations are addressed in future NEPA documentation. 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environme

specific station locations or design needs because the deveundertaking at an individual location. As noted, generalize

level to ensure that a station placed along the Project corridprovide sufficient accessibility to the larger transportation 

comments received regarding specific station locations havtransportation planning organizations in each station locatiindividual station locations will perform separate environm

decision on the station location and design at a later date. 

Tier II FEIS, locating the HSR stations in developing urbapopulation centers, rather than undeveloped, sparsely popu

minimize many potential direct and indirect environmental 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

b. Section 2.4 of the DEIS discusses the Multiuse Greenway Concept and that the 

exact location of it will not be determined until the preferred alternative for the SEHSR project is selected. A separate decision document (e.g., Finding of No Significant Impact) is expected to be prepared for the Greenway Concept. The associated impacts for the Greenway Concept are proposed to be documented in the FEIS. EPA requests that the environmental analysis and impact disclosure be addressed in the FEIS and that consideration should be given to incorporate this 

information into the SEHSR project. As a result, additional NEPA documentation will not be required. 

The concept of a greenway located parallel to the RichmonVA, to the Neuse River (just north of Raleigh, NC) was intProject DEIS. The rationale for its inclusion was to allow documentation for the greenway to be prepared so that locpursue the construction of the greenway in their jurisdictiowas never intended to be funded as part of the Richmond tsource of Federal funding for HSR projects) does not have greenways. Although the parallel greenway is still being sRaleigh Project (with the understanding that existing rail RAlternative may potentially be available for segments of a developing the environmental documentation for the greenthe Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHWA, and the states of Virginia determined that the greenway project is more suitable for a rather than being included in the Tier II FEIS for the Richmconsidered. This is primarily to give the local jurisdictions greenway greater flexibility to pursue various funding typeto a particular funding agency's NEPA requirements. The dnot be contained within the Richmond to Raleigh Project FCorridor Plan. This document is currently under developmtime of the ROD for Richmond to Raleigh Project. The Prdetails on this separate plan and opportunities for its public 

c. Page 2-56 of the DEIS included a discussion of impact evaluation for the 30-

foot trail greenway on 60-foot of right of way. The width of the trail itself is 

proposed at 10 feet. Each section of trail is independently managed and representative of the needs of its respective region. The Multiuse Greenway Concept may be incorporated into the East Coast Greenway. EPA and CDC request that several environmental enhancements be considered in the development of the SEHSR's Multiuse Greenway Concept trail, including the use of renewable materials for rural sections (e.g., wood-chip based), an invasive plant species management plan that avoids the excessive use of 

herbicides, and appropriate 'solar' lighting in more urbanized settings. Safety 

features that minimize conflicts between the bicycle and pedestrian use and the adjacent high-speed rail should be considered during FRA, USDOT and municipalities final planning and design. 

These requested enhancements have been forwarded to the Corridor Plan (discussed in response “b,” above). Please 

segments will be developed by local governments, and thaconsidered during the final design phase (i.e., when greenw
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

3) Community Resources: Demographics and Public Educational Facilities 

a. According to Table 3-23 (pg. 3-67), over 18% of the population in the Colonial 

Heights study area in Virginia is 65 years or older compared to 11.2% statewide. The population of resident's age 65 or older in the study area in Mecklenburg, Virginia is 17.8% compared to 11.2% statewide. Population projections in the US show a rapidly growing population of those ages 65 and older with many living below or near the poverty line, especially in minority populations 

(DHHSIAOA, 201 0; DHHS/AOA(b), 2010). Health and social impacts due to 

changes in transportation systems and local roadway connectivity may be more 

severe in older populations who rely more heavily on pedestrian infrastructure and/or transit (Balfour and Kaplan, 2002). The Community Resources Section 3.1 1.1.3 describes the age of the population, but the DEIS does not assess potential impacts to this population in the Environmental Consequences section related to Community Resources (i.e., Section 4.1 1). The assessment of how 

vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, may or may not be impacted by the 

proposed high-speed rail project should be addressed in the FEIS. 

Section 4.11.5.1 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to aelderly (and disabled) populations. 

b. On Page 3-93 of the DEIS, Forest Pines Drive Elementary is identified as being 

in the project study area. The school is located on East Perry Avenue in Wake Forest, but the closest access road crossing the existing corridor near the school 

appears to be either at Brick Street or East Cedar Avenue (see Map #135 of 151 

from Appendix Q). The map and the narrative on page 3-93 needs to be consistent in FEIS. 

Page 3-93 of the Tier II DEIS incorrectly stated that Perry crosses the rail corridor for Forest Pines Drive Elementarythe railroad. However, Forest Pines Drive Elementary wacampus of the former DuBois school at 530 E. Perry Avenhas since relocated outside the study corridor, to Forest Pintown core. Section 3.11.5.1.2.4 and associated mapping ha
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

4) Socio-economic Issues 

a. Section 4.1 1.1 provides a general assessment of the potential socio-economic 

benefits of the proposed project to the impacted communities but does not provide as much detail of the potential socio-economic consequences. Socioeconomic impacts can affect the health of communities and individuals. The 

effect of increased rail-related activity on residential property values appears to be impacted either positively or negatively by a number of factors including proximity to tracks and changes in volume of activity such as the number of 

trains per day (Simons, 2004) as well as accessibility and/or proximity to rail stations (Diaz, nd). Communities without a rail station are likely to be disproportionately impacted by this project. This concern is mentioned in Sections 4.11.2.1.1 and 4.11.2.1.2 (Page 4-67), but a more robust assessment of any potential economic consequences is not included. For communities without 

rail station/stops, where rail activity will be re-introduced after having been absent, and where rail activity increases, potential socio-economic consequences 

should to be considered and more fully assessed in the FEIS. 

Section 4.11 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to betteto communities from a socio-economic standpoint from the the referenced study “The Effect of Freight Railroad TrackProperty Values” (Simons, 2004) was reviewed by the Prohas been shown to affect property values, the Project propo

which will remove horn noise in the Project corridor. 

b. Section 4.11.2.1.2 of the DEIS discusses 'Neighborhood Disruptions'. On Page 

4-68, the DEIS notes that residents and businesses [within the communities not currently living with an active rail line] could experience a sense that their community is being bisected by the new active rail line and that previously 

unencumbered access would now only be possible at designated bridges and underpasses. The DEIS also notes that community travel patterns will not be substantially altered because consolidated crossings are designed to be no more than one mile apart from each other. 

However, changes to the pedestrian environment can affect health outcomes and health determinants in a variety of ways, including but not limited to injury rates, physical 

activity levels, and accessibility. Rural residents are more likely than urban or suburban individuals to report barriers to physical activity, including barriers in the pedestrian or built environment (Parks, 2003). For example, long distances to schools are a primary barrier to walking (Dellinger, 2002). Impacts to the pedestrian environment occur at intervals less than 1 mile. Impacts to the pedestrian environment should be considered in 

1⁄4 of mile increments, which is the more commonly used measure. Such impacts to the human environment ought to be considered separately from impacts to driving patterns 

and traffic in the assessment of impacts to the transportation network. 

Section 4.11.5.1 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to aenvironment (as well as overall benefits/impacts) within afalternative. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

c. Section 4.1 1.2.2 includes information on the impacts from changes to the 

transportation network. The DEIS assesses potential impacts from changes to the transportation network by tabulating rail crossing consolidations by type and 

section (Pages 4-70 to 4-74) and then describes impacts to specific communities. According to the DEIS between 56 and 64 public crossings will be relocated due to crossing consolidations, two pedestrian-only crossings will be maintained, and eight to nine new pedestrian-only crossings will be built. It is not clear which of the existing bridges/underpasses [that will be maintained] or which of the new bridges/ underpasses [that will be built] have pedestrian or bicycle facilities (e.g., sidewalks, ramps, stairs, bike lanes, etc.). Including this information is important in the assessment of impacts to the transportation network and ought to be considered in the FEIS. We recommend that all new 

crossings [not specifically identified as pedestrian-only crossings] follow a 'Complete Streets' model aligned with both Virginia and North Carolina Complete Streets Policies, so as to safely accommodate both pedestrians and 

bicycles. 

Sections 4.11.5.1 and 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS state that all will have sufficient width so as not to create a hazard for pwhere existing pedestrian accommodations (e.g., sidewalkaccommodations will be provided on the bridges/underpasaccommodations on the bridges/underpasses will be evaluacurrent NCDOT and VDOT pedestrian policies (i.e. Compconsider the provision of pedestrian accommodations in mpedestrian activity currently exists. The Project designs alcrossings of the rail corridor within municipalities to provilocations of these pedestrian crossings were determined in representatives and in response to comments from the publ* Section 4.16 of the Tier II DEIS mistakenly stated that al

sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian access. While pedestrianthe inclusion of sidewalks will depend on the current NCDtime the Richmond to Raleigh Project is constructed. 

d. The DEIS includes general information that two ball parks will be displaced due 

to the proposed project alignment (Page 4-83). It is unclear how the loss of these 

community ball fields will potentially impact the amount of accessible 

greenspace and/or recreation facilities in this community. Loss of community access to greenspace and recreation facilities can impact community health and community cohesion (Sullivan, 2004; TPL, 2004). Furthermore, rural residents are more likely than urban or suburban individuals to report barriers to physical 

activity, including limited access to exercise facilities (Parks, 2003). It is recommended that the FEIS include a contextual description of these ball fields in relation to other community recreation facilities and greenspace/parks in the Wake Forest, N.C. area. The community's use of these fields should be described and, if appropriate, possible mitigation measures to ensure adequate 

community recreation and greenspace access. 

Sections 3.11.3.2 and 4.13.2 of the Tier II FEIS explain thaSection U does not displace the private ball fields and that 

owner of the ball fields. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

e. Section 4.11.3 of the DEIS addresses Community Facilities and Services. Under 

'Schools', the section assesses the alternatives in light of changes in accessibility and safety improvements due to crossing consolidations and elimination of atgrade crossings. On page 4-85 the DEIS states that: "The negative impacts of potentially longer driving distances to cross the rail line would be minimal and offset by the benefits gained in safety and unimpeded access." This statement 

does not take into consideration students and/or teachers who might walk (or 

bicycle) to school. Changes to the pedestrian environment can affect health outcomes and health determinants in a variety of ways, including but not limited 

to injury rates, physical activity levels, and accessibility. Rural residents are more likely than urban or suburban individuals to report barriers to physical 

activity, including barriers in the pedestrian or built environment (Parks, 2003). For example, long distances to schools are a primary barrier to walking (Dellinger, 2002). The importance of pedestrian access to schools may differ amongst the various locations/study areas, but should be considered separately 

from auto access or driving distances. 

Section 1.4 (Project Description) and Section 4.11 (Commhave been amended to clarify that grade separations will prand will have sidewalks if the current route does. Sections 4.11.5.1 and 4.16 have been amended to indicate underpasses will have sufficient width so as not to create a 

locations where existing pedestrian accommodations (e.g., accommodations will be provided on the bridges/underpasaccommodations on the bridges/underpasses will be evaluacurrent NCDOT and VDOT pedestrian policies (i.e. Compconsider the provision of pedestrian accommodations in mpedestrian activity currently exists. The Project designs alcrossings of the rail corridor within municipalities to provilocations of these pedestrian crossings were determined in representatives and in response to comments from the publ* Section 4.16 of the Tier II DEIS mistakenly stated that al

sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian access. While pedestrianthe inclusion of sidewalks will depend on the current NCDtime the Richmond to Raleigh Project is constructed. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

f. Forest Pines Drive Elementary is noted to exist in Wake Forest, N.C. at 530 E. 

Perry Avenue. This school, and any related impacts due to rail crossing consolidation, is not included in the Environmental Consequences chapter, Section 4.1 1.3.1, Table 4-28, along with the other schools. In Table 4-28 on Page 4-88, impacts to Wake Forest Elementary include the closing of the atgrade crossing on East Elm Street. This crossing at Elm Street provides the most 

direct access from the school to the business district on the east side of the tracks. With the current consolidation plan, crossings would be realigned at 

Roosevelt Avenue and Holding Avenue, each of which is approximately 1,750 feet from the current crossing at Elm St. While this distance might seem insignificant to most drivers this adds almost 2/3 of a mile for a pedestrian-trip 

to access either the school or the business district just across the tracks. Because 

this area appears to be fairly congested (population and development) and the opportunity for children to walk to school is evident, we recommend that FRA and other transportation agencies consider a pedestrian crossing be considered for the Elm Street crossing. Similarly, the FEIS should also consider pedestrian access to places of worship and how the proposed project might alter current 

patterns and use. 

Section 3.11.5.1.2.4 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended Elementary was only temporarily located on the campus of Perry Avenue in Wake Forest, NC. The school has since corridor, to Forest Pines Drive, which is southwest of the tnoted in Chapter 3 of the Tier II FEIS. With regard to accessibility for Wake Forest Elementary Sthese comments on the Tier II DEIS as well as comments fnew rail underpass was designed for this location. There alocation including the terrain, the Wake Forest Historic Di

driveway encroachment on the rail ROW. Coordination wCarolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) too

developed. (See Section 2.2, Preferred Alternative by Sectinformation.) Section 2.2 also includes expanded public involvement act

was provided an opportunity to view and comment on the 

(PUM) on May 15, 2012. Strong opposition to the underpparticularly from the businesses and residences impacted bTown and with a representative from the NC-HPO was heldiscuss the responses, and the Town stated that the impacts were too severe. It was decided that a minimal footprint pramps) over the railroad would be a better fit at this locatiominimize impacts to adjacent businesses, yet it would still Elementary School to cross the tracks. The maintenance of pedestrian access across the railroad aof the Tier II FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

g. On Page 4-107 of the DEIS, it is unclear which crossings would be closed due to 

consolidation under alternatives NC113 or NC2. For the Ridgeway Volunteer Fire Department the notable difference in 5-minute response coverage areas 

between the No Build versus Build scenarios is of potential concern. Until the 

budgeted satellite facilities in Warren County (Cited on Page 4- 1 08) are built, further impeding emergency response times in this area is not recommended. It 

is recommended that different locations for crossing consolidations be assessed to increase the 5-minute response coverage area in the Build scenarios for this community and that the results from such an assessment be included in the FEIS. 

The DEIS designs included a grade separation at Ridgeway three quarters of a mile to the north of the Ridgeway Volunkeeping with the County thoroughfare plan. Following the Warren County Fire and EMS representatives led to develoover the railroad located closer to the Ridgway VFD, to rep

Road. The Warren County thoroughfare plan was modifiegrade separation in the new location. Chapter 4 of the Tier GIS analysis of the 5-minute response time coverage under some difference between the overall EMS service area for Department under the Preferred Alternative compared to a difference is less substantial than the difference for the des
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

h. Section 4.11.6 addresses Relocations and Associated Right of Way Costs and 

provides a summary of the state DOT relocation policies within the project areas 

as well as the number of residential and business relocations by SEHSR project section and alternative (pages 4-130 and 4-131). The number of potential residential relocations proposed for this project is not negligible. Potential impacts to the human environment from inadequate housing can include crowding and increased disease transmission, a loss of protective social connections, and general declines in health (Bashir, 2002; Fullilove, 2004). This 

section of the DEIS does not assess the availability of comparable replacement properties in the project areas. It is recommended that the FEIS impact analysis include a general survey of available comparable replacement properties (e.g. average local rental unit vacancy rates and average number of active residential and commercial real estate listings) to provide a description of typical availability by project section. Table 4-35 is not totaled for each of the alternatives (VA1, VA2 and VA3 and NC1, NC2 and NC3). EPA and CDC note that number of expected relocations for each alternative appears to be the same or of similar magnitude. However, it would be helpful to discern numerically if there are any differences between the alternatives. Alternative VA1, VA2 and VA3 have 124/30,119/1 9, and 124/30, residential and business relocations, respectively. Alternative NC1, NC2 and NC3 have 97/51, 105/48, and 91/81 residential and business relocations, respectively. It is important to note that VA2 has fewer residential and business relocations overall than either VA1 or 

VA3. Alternative NC3 has the least residential relocations (91) but the greatest number of business relocations (81). Furthermore, 54 of the 8 1 business relocations for NC3 all occur in Segment V in the City of Raleigh. There is no further description of the magnitude or intensity of this potential impact. The FEIS should include an analysis of the potential Regional economic impact associated with the different alternatives and their business impacts (e.g., Number of employees, opportunities for relocation, etc.). 

Section 4.11 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to incluAlternative. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

5) Farmland Impacts 

a. Section 4.3 addresses Prime and Other Important Farmlands. In the analysis of 

environmental consequences to prime and other important farmlands the narrative notes that the NRCS did not provide the Land Evaluation Criterion Values for project sections AA through C requested by September of 2009. The 

DEIS further notes that the 45-day review period had passed and, therefore, 

these sections were assumed to require no mitigation for farmland losses. The 

statement on Page 4-17 concerning 'no compensation' for farmland loss is also 

not believed to be accurate. As with any business, active farmlands would still potentially qualify for compensation. These should be verified by the NRCS in the FEIS. 

Attempts were made to obtain NRCS input on Sections A prime and important farmland impacts caused by alignmenII DEIS and FEIS. This information is presented in Sectio

b. Page 3-76 of the DEIS states that Agriculture is an important element of the 

economies of both Virginia and North Carolina. Specifically noted are 

Dinwiddie County, VA and Warren County, NC, where agriculture sales amount to 23% of total sales within these counties. Additionally, it states that 

'agri-tourism' is the most common tourism activity in Franklin County, NC. Table 4-9 includes the impacts of the three alternatives by State and the prime 

and State important farmland for each section of the project. Total impacts (rounded to a tenth of an acre) for each alternative and each State is not included 

and should be addressed in the FEIS. EPA recognizes that prime farmland and other impacts for each section are included in the executive summary tables (e.g., ES-9). However, it is difficult to make a comparison between the alternatives (i.e., VA1, VA2, VA3, NCI, NC2, and NC3) without providing the appropriate totals. The FEIS should include this information. 

As stated in Section 2.2 of the Tier II DEIS, the Project Stusegments. A preferred alternative will be selected for each of the selection made in any other segment. For this reasocollectively, would not influence the selection within an inselection of Alternative VA1 for Section D would not genein Section E. The FEIS provides total prime and importanSection 4.3. 

c. Impacts to prime and State important farmland should be avoided and 

minimized to the extent practicable. The transportation agencies should also consult with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and 

the North Carolina Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services for other 

applicable requirements concerning farmlands (e.g., In North Carolina, the Voluntary Agricultural District program) and appropriate compensation proposed for impacted prime and State important farmlands. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

6) Noise and Vibration Impacts 

a. Section 4.7 of the DEIS explains in depth the criteria used for determining noise 

and vibration impacts within the project area that will result from the proposed project. The DEIS includes an analysis of projected Noise Impacts in Table 4-16 and projected Vibration Impacts in Table 4-18. These tables summarize potential impacts for each section alternative. Noise and vibration impacts not only impact the socioeconomic wellbeing of neighborhoods, they also impact human health outcomes (Evans, 2004). Some populations are particularly sensitive to noise and/or vibration impacts. There appears to be severe noise impacts anticipated in many section alternatives (in Tables 4-16), but it is unclear what particular populations will be impacted by this noise. It is not possible to determine if specific or vulnerable populations will bear more or less of the potential environmental consequences from noise impacts. It is recommended that the FEIS include in the analysis of noise impacts a clear characterization of the populations impacted within each project segment and/or alternative. Any mitigation measures developed should consider the specific population for which they are being developed so as to more effectively protect public health and well-being and promote environmental justice. Likewise, for vibration impact mitigation development, specific population characterization should to be considered by FRA, where applicable. 

FRA’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibr

2005) procedures have been followed for this Project. It is 

used to abate for noise and vibration impacts, particularly s

during final design. It should be noted that prior to determprocedures provide for more detailed impact analysis durinthat some of the potential severe impacts identified in the Tdetermined to be moderate or no impact when more detaile

available. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

7) Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) 

a. Sections 3.6.1.6,4.6.2 (Locomotive Operations) and 4.6.5 (Highway Vehicle 

Operations) and Appendix P generally address potential MSAT issues. One obvious deficiency in these sections is the discussion and identification of 

potential near-roadway/near-railway sensitive receptors, such as day care facilities, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. If there are no existing or future 

near-roadway/near-railway sensitive receptors, there would not be a need to 

perform any type of qualitative or quantitative analysis regardless of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance criteria. 

b. While EPA does not anticipate that MSAT impacts to be significant from the 

standpoint of the current scope of the proposed high speed rail improvements as 

well as from roadway access changes, the FEIS might include an analysis of sensitive receptors that are near the proposed improvements and what changes in traffic patterns might occur at these locations. The FEIS might also indicate the relative significance of these changes in relation to the estimated existing 

MSAT emissions conditions. 

The FEIS MSAT discussion has been updated to more fullPlease note that sensitive receptors along the corridor were this task is no longer recommended by FHWA for qualitatiintensive task of identifying sensitive sites from Raleigh, N

anticipated traffic volume change for each of these sites woinformation, especially given the low volumes of the roads MSATs are anticipated to decrease throughout the United 

vehicle standards. 

8) Mitigation During Construction and Operation 

a. Under Sections 4.7.3.1 and 4.7.3.2 of the DEIS, EPA and CDC recommend that 

the concept of a community liaison program should be developed and 

implemented during construction and that reducing noise and vibration impacts for long-term operations should be given full consideration by the transportation agencies. The use of building insulation and noise barriers should continue to be evaluated under current FRA other transportation agency criteria. FRA, NCDOT and DRPT should continue to coordinate with impacted receptors, local community officials and other interested parties to protect public health and wealth. This coordination should be documented in the FEIS. Any environmental commitments identified during additional NEPA planning and final design efforts for the preferred alternative should be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed project. 

As stated above, FRA’s High-Speed Ground TransportatioAssessment (September 2012) procedures have been followAnalysis will be conducted during final design, which will predictions and mitigation evaluations for full consideratioidentified through the initial assessment. While the initial generalized, overall noise source levels and simplified noisAnalysis considers the noise from each subsource compon

terms of a noise generating mechanism (e.g., propulsion, wnoise level, location along the train, and speed dependencyuses more precise methods to estimate adjustments for hor

absorption, and shielding. The analysis is completed after have been completed because more detailed information is Analysis, including the type of vehicle equipment to be useand profiles of guideways, locations of access roads, and laadjacent terrain and building features. Recommendation for a community liaison program is note
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

9) Natural Resources Impacts - Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands a. Sections 3.1, 4.1.1 and Appendix H provide information on jurisdictional 

streams and surface waters, drainage basins and related information. The FEIS should identify if the streams are perennial, intermittent or ephemeral. 

Section 3.1 has been revised to note that identification of thnature of affected streams will take place during Section 40and Section 404 permitting required by of the Clean Wate

b. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 provide information of the potential information to 

jurisdictional streams for the different alternatives in Virginia and North Carolina. Of the totals provided in the tables, the linear feet of impact should be identified in the FEIS to include the quantification of impact to 303(d) listed impaired waters (from Appendix H) and the cause(s) of the water impairment. 

Potential impacts to jurisdictional stream channels with Seadded to Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the Tier II FEIS for the Preregarding the source of the impairment was added to Sectio

c. Section 4.1.1.2 includes impacts to riparian buffers and other jurisdictional 

waters (e.g., Lakes, ponds and reservoirs). Water supply reservoirs should be 

further identified and potential impacts detailed in the FEIS. 

Potential impacts to water supply reservoirs were included for the Preferred Alternative. 

d. The Virginia minimum/maximum of stream impact ranges between 27,304 and 

31,163 linear feet. The North Carolina minimum/maximum of stream impact 

ranges between 11,774 and 18,292 linear feet. The DEIS sections should have clearly described how impacts are being calculated (e.g., Proposed right of way, construction limits plus 25 feet, etc.). 

Section 4.1.1.1 of the Tier II FEIS was amended to clarify calculated. 

e. For the Tar-Pamlico alternatives NC1, NC2 and NC3, the stream impact 

numbers do not appear to be accurate for the minimum/maximum (i.e., 5,330; 

7,025; and 7,739 linear feet, respectively). Similarly, the stream impact numbers 

for the Neuse watershed in Table 4-2 also appear to be inaccurate (i.e., 5,238; 

4,211; and 5,082 linear feet). All of the impact numbers presented in the tables should be re-calculated and confirmed in the FEIS. The FEIS should provide this information as well as the relevant avoidance and minimization efforts. Referring to Appendix H, the transportation agencies should explain the VA 

classification and special standard designation. 

The river basin minimum and maximum impact figures shII DEIS are correct. The minimum was defined as the comleast impact for the respective sections in the basin (e.g., foCarolina, that would be NC2 in Section L (922 lf); NC1/NNC1/NC2/NC3 in Section N (41 lf), Section O (53 lf), and 

totals 2,235). The impact numbers for the Preferred Alternative presentethe Tier II FEIS have been confirmed. Section 4.1.6 of the additional avoidance and minimization efforts. Appendix H Virginia classification and special standard designation. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

f. According to EPA's estimate, 303(d) listed impacts for Virginia and North 

Carolina streams from Appendix H are approximately 14,960, 15,520, and 

15,001 linear feet for VA1, VA2 and VA3, respectively, and 849,849, and 664 linear feet for NC1, NC2 and NC3, respectively. For Virginia, the potential impacts to 303(d) listed streams is relatively substantial (i.e., 2.83, 2.94 and 2.84 

miles, respectively) and EPA requests that FRA consider very pro-active avoidance and minimization efforts in these impaired watersheds as well as the most stringent Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management. The DEIS identifies two primary avoidance and minimization measures for reducing jurisdictional impacts, including reducing fill slopes and the conservative use of culverts. 

As noted in response 9b above, potential impacts to jurisdiwaters (and the source of the impairment) were added to Tfor the Preferred Alternative. Proposed avoidance and minSection 4.1.6 of the Tier II FEIS. 

g. Once the preferred alternative is selected, EPA recommends that FRA begin the 

evaluation of bridging versus culverts during the final design process. FRA 

should seriously consider the use of bridges over culverts for major drainage 

structures (e.g., Greater than or equal to 3-barrel reinforced concrete box 

culverts - RCBCs) and/or where there are potential floodplain/floodway issues associated with crossing. The discussion of avoidance and minimization measures used to reduce impacts to streams, wetlands and other jurisdictional waters from Section 4.1.6 should be more robust and site specific once the 

preferred alternative is selected. Please include other appropriate measures such as sequencing, time-of-year restrictions for sensitive ecosystems, engineering 

controls, monitoring, and adaptive management techniques. The FEIS should further discuss how the proposed project and associated activities will not contribute to additional impairment of the 303(d) listed streams. 

Avoidance and minimization efforts, including a review of during final design. The FEIS includes a list of avoidance 

Section 4.1.6). Bridges have been included in the designs where practicabbe noted regarding the design of bridges for passenger HSR 

projects due to restrictions on grade (generally 1%). To rabridge can result in impacts along the rail line for a long difrom the bridge. Due to these impacts and associated costoption. For new culverts constructed in streams, the inverts will be of the stream for culverts greater than 48 inches in diameteor smaller, the inverts will be buried below the bed of the sthan 20 percent of the diameter of the culvert. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

h. Jurisdictional wetland impacts are specifically identified in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. 

For Virginia, Alternative VA2 has substantially more wetland impact than either 

VAI or VA3. The minimum/maximum numbers for the Chowan watershed in Table 4-6 do not appear to be accurate. For VA1, the impact is 9.46 acres. For VA2, the impact is 17.74 acres. For VA3 the impact is 9.5 acres. The difference in the minimum/maximum for the impacted wetlands in North Carolina is also potentially substantial (i.e., 1.65 acres versus 5.31 acres). The minimum impact number for the Neuse watershed is not 0.25 acres but 0.27 acres. All of the totals and calculations presented in the DEIS should be reaffirmed for the FEIS. The 

DEIS does not provide a specific identification of the function or quality of the 

wetlands being impacted. For North Carolina jurisdictional wetlands, the FRA should identify and provide the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

(NCDWQ) score or the North Carolina Wetlands Assessment Methodology 

(NCWAM) scoring in the FEIS. 

As stated in Section 2.2 of the Tier II DEIS, the Project Stusegments. A preferred alternative will be selected for each of the selection made in any other segment. For this reasocollectively, would not influence the selection within an in

selection of Alternative VA1 for Section D would not genein Section E. The need for specific identification of wetland functions or during the jurisdictional determination process) will be detpermitting process. If USACE determines the need for impanalysis in order to evaluate mitigation options, then an ap

i. In general, FRA should identify any special wetland type system or high quality 

wetland system that might be potentially impacted such as a headwater system or Cypress-gum forest. Temporary and permanent impacts should also be 

identified and disclosed during the final NEPA process and during the Section 404 permitting process. The issue of remnant wetland systems that are not directly impacted 'from proposed dredge and fill activities should also be discussed during future Section 404 coordination with resource and permitting 

agencies. Regarding the maps in Appendix Q, the Transportation agencies should confirm that all proposed impacts to jurisdictional resources are identified and included in the appropriate tables in the FEIS. 

The need for specific identification of wetland functions or during the jurisdictional determination process) will be detpermitting process. Temporary and permanent impacts will be specified during appropriate “wetland function/quality” determination if reqThe issue of remnant wetland systems that are not directly 

fill activities will be addressed with the Corps during 404 p

j. All jurisdictional delineations should be updated and confirmed with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and included in the FEIS for the preferred 

alternative. EPA understands that National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping 

can be potentially inaccurate. The transportation agencies need to confirm these differences between the NWI mapping and the delineated jurisdictional mapping 

efforts in the FEIS. 

NWI mapping was only used as one of many mapping aids process. All wetlands listed in the Tier II DEIS were field USACE. The Project Team is working with USACE to refor all potentially impacted wetlands on the Preferred AlterSection 4.1.2 of the Tier II FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

k. Compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional impacts to waters of the U.S. is 

discussed on Page 4.1.6.3 of the DEIS. FRA should immediately begin consultation with the respective regulatory agencies once a preferred alternative 

is identified and more accurate impact numbers are verified with additional final design efforts. Estimated compensatory mitigation needs should be provided to the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program as soon as possible following the identification of the preferred alternative. Because there are no mitigation banks 

currently available in the Roanoke Rapids (03010106) hydrologic unit (HU), the transportation agencies should also begin immediate coordination with the regulatory agencies for compensatory mitigation of the impacts in that watershed. To be consistent with the watershed approach that also includes permittee-responsible mitigation, EPA recommends identifying and prioritizing the immediate and long-term aquatic resource needs within the impacted watersheds. This information will be useful in determining the approach to compensatory mitigation and may require a combination of on-site and off-site 

mitigation. The transportation project team should work with EPA and other state and federal agencies to develop an acceptable compensatory mitigation plan, including the identification of potential on-site mitigation opportunities. FRA should also consider evaluating the use of the 12-digit HUC for compensatory mitigation needs. 

Mitigation for stream impacts is discussed in Sections 4.1.II FEIS. Mitigation for stream and wetland impacts will be While 12-digit HUCs will be examined, mitigation will be regulations in place during the permitting process. 

l. Regarding other general aquatic resources issues, please provide more detailed 

information in the FEIS concerning the potential impacts to other jurisdictional waters (such as lakes, ponds and reservoirs). EPA requests that FRA consider 

the need for compensatory mitigation for these resources as well, and provide the rationale supporting the determination. For the FEIS, please elaborate on the construction practices that will be implemented to protect stream bottom habitat 

and the integrity of riparian buffers. Confirm that sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed in wetlands or streams and that outfalls will be designed to prevent adverse impacts to the receiving stream or wetland. For 

additional water quality issues, activities resulting in impacts include fertilizer and pesticide application during re-vegetation. In the FEIS or Record of 

Decision (ROD), please provide detailed application program information that 

fully explains the need to use these agents, the agents to be used, frequency, timing, qualification of applicators, etc. The FRA should also comply with the 

requirements under Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species. On-site mitigation, landscaping for future station locations, and other associated activities should prevent the establishment and/or spread of invasive plant species and native plants should be utilized. 

More detailed information concerning the potential impactbe developed during the final design and permitting phases Section 4.1.6.2 of the Tier II FEIS was updated to include: 

 Sediment and erosion control measures will not b

that outfalls will be designed to prevent adverse wetland. Impacts to riparian buffers and stream 

the extent practicable. 

 All relevant directives with regards to invasive s

construction. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

10) Natural Resources Impacts - Terrestrial Forests a. Terrestrial forest community impacts are detailed in Section 4.10.1.1 of the 

DEIS. Table 4-24 provides the potential project impacts to natural communities in acres for each section of the project under each alternative. However, the total 

impacts to terrestrial communities for each alternative are not summarized in the table. Furthermore, the table lists maintained/disturbed areas that are not necessarily 'natural communities'. The table does not define how the impacts were calculated (e.g., Right of way versus construction limits). Efforts to 

minimize clearing should be made to minimize impacts to terrestrial forest 

communities. (Note: Removed Page Break during PDF Redo) 

As stated in Section 2.2 of the Tier II DEIS, the Project Stu

segments. A preferred alternative will be selected for each of the selection made in any other segment. For this reasocollectively, would not influence the selection within an inselection of Alternative VA1 for Section D would not genein Section E. EPA is correct that Maintained/Disturbed is NCDENR requires that all relevant ecosystem impacts be qMaintained/Disturbed communities. Impacts were calculaslope stakes buffered by 25 feet. 

11) Natural Resources Impacts - Threatened and Endangered Species a. Section 4.10.2.1 addresses issues associated with the Endangered Species Act. 

There appear to be several protected species that are undergoing informal Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), including the Roanoke logperch, Dwarf wedgemussel and the James River 

spinymussel. EPA defers to the USFWS and State wildlife agencies on these issues but recommends that these unresolved issues be addressed by FRA prior to the issuance of the FEIS. 

The Project Team has continued to coordinate with USFW

in Section 4.10.2 of the Tier II FEIS. 

12) Minority and Low-Income Populations: Environmental Justice (Appendix A) 

a. The discussion in Section 4.11.5 on Executive Order 12898, Environmental 

Justice (EJ) should be revised to the actual language in the order that can be found at http://ejnet.org/ej/execorder.html. 

Section 4.11.5 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to add

b. The following statement on Page 4-118 needs to be reconsidered or fully 

explained in the FEIS: As shown in Tables 3-20 and 3-21 in Chapter 3, there are no concentrations of Hispanic populations in the study area; thus, the analysis of racial and ethnic minorities focuses on race only. 

The Executive Order references minority populations and low-income populations. Hispanic populations are minority populations. The DEIS EJ analysis should be performed with regard to all minority and low-income populations. 

Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the Tier II FEIS have been correupdated to year 2010. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

c. The tables found in the FEIS do not appear to be consistent. The application of 

the EJ criteria using the 50% affected area or the greater than 10% threshold for the appropriate unit of geographic analysis does not appear to be consistent with CEQ's EJ Guidance under NEPA. The CEQ guidance states that minority populations should be identified where "either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic 

analysis." It appears that in some cases both procedures are used for a single analysis. However, Brunswick County (VA) which is 54% minority and therefore exceeds the first criteria is not included as an area of potential EJ concern. EPA recommends that it be considered an area of EJ concern in the FEIS. In some cases, it appears that minority communities in the study area are not flagged as being areas of EJ concern because they do not exceed the county average by more than 10%. Because these communities are more than 50%, FRA should identify them as communities with potential EJ concerns. The DEIS 

identifies the State of Virginia as being 28% minority. Areas within the project study area that meet the 50% affected area criteria should be identified as areas 

of EJ concern. 

Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the Tier II FEIS and the data in eproperly used, along with new FHWA EJ guidance. Also, 

d. The tables on Pages 4- 121 to 4- 123 need to be clarified in the FEIS. The EJ 

analyses in these tables are presented as either minority or low-income communities. If they meet either criterion, they are considered to be areas of potential EJ concern. All EJ communities should be evaluated for potential impacts. For additional advisory comments on EJ that should be addressed in the FEIS, please see Attachment B. 

Tables 4-38 and 4-39 of the Tier II FEIS have been updateAlternative. Also, Section 4.11.5 of the Tier II FEIS has bguidance. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

13) Advisory Comments on Environmental Justice (Appendix B) 

In addition to those Environmental Justice (EJ) issues identified in Attachment A, the FEIS should also consider the following assessment and evaluation: 

a. Chapter 4 of the DEIS uses the following criteria to define and identify low 

income populations, "Low-Income - Defined by the US Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Order on Environmental Justice, low-income refers to a person whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. The data available for populations on a detailed geographic basis is the poverty threshold, which is related to the poverty guideline as explained in the Tier I EIS for this project; consistent with the Tier I EIS, the poverty threshold is used for this analysis." 

This seems to indicate that the threshold values in fact are the poverty threshold. The DEIS did not specifically identify this value. It is not listed in Table 4-34 in Chapter 4. The table lists the percentage below poverty for each county and 

community in the study area. If those values are being used as the thresholds: Chesterfield, VA, Colonial Heights, VA, Dinwiddie, VA, and Brunswick, VA should be identified as areas of concern, because these areas all have lowincome population percentages that exceed the county thresholds. For example, 

Brunswick, VA includes a low-income population of 18% and was not identified as an area of concern. Alberta, VA, with a low-income population percentage of 16% was identified as such, even though they are both in Brunswick County with a low-income population percentage of 17%. From the analysis provided in the DEIS, the application of the criteria does not appear to be consistent. 

Tables 4-38 and 4-39 of the Tier II FEIS have been updateAlternative. Also, Section 4.11.5 of the Tier II FEIS has b

guidance. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

b. Questions arise related to the appropriate use of threshold values. An 

examination of the results of the evaluation process leaves a number of questions and concerns that need to be addressed in the FEIS. First, the 

assessment process seems to be highly subjective. Even though guidelines are 

provided for how assessment and identification of low-income and minority populations is to be conducted, the results do not seem to follow those guidelines. Clearly, populations that are more than 50% minority are not identified as communities of concern. In looking at the make up of the population of this country, and in looking at the populations of the states, it seems unreasonable to fail to identify any community that is more than 50% minority as not being a community of Environmental Justice concern. The CEQ guidance suggests that if the first benchmark is not met, then the second benchmarking technique should be employed. EPA recommends that conservative approaches to identifying 'at risk populations' should be employed in the E.J. analysis. The approach taken in the DEIS does not appear to be 

conservative, and could potentially put additional persons 'at risk' from the negative environmental impacts from the proposed project. 

Section 4.11.5 of the Tier II FEIS has been corrected and u

c. The assessment criteria chosen to identify the low-income populations in the 

study are vague and not equally applied. The assessment does not identify what 

the relevance the state percentages of minority and low-income populations play in the overall analysis. Many of the communities in the study have minority and/or low-income populations that exceed the state averages. It is not clear if this information was used in the assessment and if not, why was the information included in the DEIS. The FEIS should clearly identify the relevance of the state percentage, the county percentage, the project study area percentage and the potential impacted minority and low-income residents. All comparative and relevant data should be used in the FEIS re-assessment. 

Section 4.11.5 of the Tier II FEIS has been corrected and u
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG33 

US Environmental Protection Agency Regions 3 & 4, Heinz J. Mueller, NEPA Program Office (Agency Contact 

Project FRA-D40344-00 

Comment Response 

d. The potential impacts on the minority and low-income populations in the study 

area should be fully disclosed. It appears that determinations were made based 

upon the use of alignments associated with previous construction and existing infrastructure. Any potential additional construction activities associated with the proposed project, including station locations should be included in the FEIS re-assessment. Based upon the reassessment, the actual negative or adverse impacts to the community should be reasonably identified. 

Section 4.11.5 of the Tier II FEIS has been corrected and u

Also, Section 4.11.2.1 has been amended to include a new impacts and benefits from the project. The FEIS does not evaluate the environmental impacts of slocations or design needs, because the development of stat

individual location. As noted, generalized sites were evaluthat a station placed along the Project corridor in this generaccessibility to the larger transportation network. Applicabstation locations will perform separate environmental evaluthe station location and design at a later date. It should be FEIS contains an expanded discussion of station design staand detailed studies that those future NEPA evaluations wonoted in revised Section 4.17 in the Tier II FEIS, locating Hgreenfield or suburban areas is likely to avoid and minimiz

and indirect environmental impacts. 

e. It is assumed that the project will be beneficial to all parties in the project study 

area. A detailed socio-economic evaluation should be discussed in the FEIS to fully describe the claimed benefits. The FEIS re-assessment should fully address 

the issue of adverse and disproportional impacts to EJ communities in relation to documented benefits from the proposed project. 

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS provides additional informatiterms of Purpose and Need. Section 4.11.1 has been ameneconomic changes and impacts. Also, Section 4.11.2.1 of include a new table and discussion of community impacts 

f. The re-assessment should describe how the community is meaningfully being 

involved in the decision-making process. 

Chapter 7 of the Tier II FEIS has been expanded to better dundertaken throughout the Project Study Area. As evidencthe project has received good participation from all affecte

g. The re-assessment should also utilize more current U.S. Census data and other 

more recent socio-economic data sources. 

Various sections of Chapters 3 and 4 of the Tier II FEIS hadata as well as 2006-2010 American Community Survey d

h. From the table provided below, EPA suggests that practically all of the study 

areas listed below could indeed be identified as areas of concern, Table 3-25. 

Chapters 3 and 4 of the Tier II FEIS have been updated usi2010 Census data and 2006-2010 American Community S
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

The Norfolk District Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR 1501.6). The Norfolk District is providing comments on the project from Richmond to Norlina, NC; the Wilmington 

District is reviewing the remaining portion of the project from Norlina to Raleigh. We have provided page-specific comments about the document on the attachment. 

1) Based on the information in the document, the project will involve a discharge 

of fill into waters of the United States and will require authorization from the Corps of Engineers. The Norfolk District Engineer will ultimately make a 

permit decision after conducting a full public interest review, following review of the Final EIS and the responses to a public notice we will release upon receipt of a complete application. 

Comment noted. The Project Team will coordinate with U

and final design/permitting phase of the project. 

2) In comments we provided during scoping for the Tier II EIS, by a letter dated 

June 27, 2003, we noted that existing rail corridors should be used as much as possible for the project, and that avoidance of impacts to aquatic resources 

should be an important consideration in the development of alternatives. 

The Project designs attempt to maximize use of the existinneed to straighten curves (which relates to the Purpose and impacts to other resources (such as historic properties), thefor the designs to extend outside the existing corridor. 

3) We also indicated that conceptual options for compensating for unavoidable 

impacts to aquatic resources should be presented in the Tier II Draft EIS, and that potential compensation sites should be identified as part of the development 

of alternatives. While it is clear that minimizing impacts to aquatic resources was an important consideration in the development of the alternatives, the proposed impacts in Virginia are substantial. Wetland impacts are estimated to 

range from approximately 22 to 32 acres, and stream impacts are estimated to range from approximately 27 to 31 thousand linear feet. 

Section 4.1.6 of the Tier II FEIS was amended to clarify pr

4) We have evaluated and compared the alternatives in each of the sections of the 

project in Virginia and the sections south to and including Norlina in NC. As 

discussed with your consultants, some sections are of concern, because they differ in impacts to aquatic resources, but other resources will be impacted if the 

aquatic resources are avoided. These segments were reviewed and discussed during an interagency field visit on May 19, 2010. 

Comment noted. The Project Team will coordinate with Uand final design/permitting phase of the project 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

5) In accordance with the 404(b) (1) Guidelines, the Corps can authorize only the 

least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). Below is a summary of our consideration of the various alternatives in each section, with a preliminary determination of the LEDPA for each section. We are providing these preliminary determinations of LEDPA in order to assist you in identifying the selected alternative. For each, we have provided an explanation of our preliminary determination, and we have identified factors we are willing to consider further for those sections where the LEDPA is not clear. We have 

considered operability/constructability, cost, and impacts to the social/economic factors as well as the natural environment in making these preliminary determinations. 

Comment noted. The Project Team will coordinate with Uand final design/permitting phase of the project 

a. For the following sections, the impacts to aquatic resources were the same 

regardless of the alternative, and there were no impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species or more than minimal differences in impacts to other resources: AA, BB, CC, C, F, and I. 

Comment noted. 

b. For the following sections, there were relatively minimal differences between 

the alignments with regard to aquatic resource impacts: 

i. DD: While VA2 has somewhat more stream impact, it has somewhat less 

wetland impact. More importantly, you have determined that this alternative has a negative rating for operability/constructability, whereas VA1 is neutral and 

VA3 is positive. Either VA1 or VA3 appears to be the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA3 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

ii. A: VA2 has less impact to aquatic resources than VA1 or VA3, and the same 

effect on historic resources. It costs somewhat more, but has a neutral rating for 

operability/constructability while VA1/VA3 has a negative rating. VA2 appears to be the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA2 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

iii. E: VA2 has more stream and wetland impacts than VA1/VA3. Costs are similar 

and historic resource impacts are the same. VA1/VA3 appears to be the LEDPA. Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

iv. H. VA1/VA3 has less stream and wetland impacts and is rated as positive for 

operability/constructability, although VA2 costs somewhat less. VA2 is rated 

neutral. VA1/VA3 appears to be the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

v. M. This section is located in NC. NC2 has more stream impact than NC1/NC3. 

Although it costs somewhat less, it is rated as negative for 

operability/constructability whereas NC1/NC3 is rated as neutral. NC1/NC3 appears to be the LEDPA. 

Alternative NC1 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

c. For the following sections, there were relatively substantial differences between 

the alternatives with regard to aquatic resource impacts: 

i. B. VA2 has substantially less stream impacts and somewhat less wetland 

impacts and the same historic resource effects as VA1/VA3. However, VA2 is rated negative for operability/constructability, whereas VA1/VA3 is rated as neutral. VA2 is less costly than the other alternatives. Given that VA2 is projected to impact 450 linear feet less of stream than VA1/VA3, we would like 

to discuss further the factors that led to a negative rating for this alternative before making a preliminary determination of the LEDPA. We need further 

justification that this alternative is not practicable since it appears to be less environmentally damaging. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II Fduring an interagency meeting on April 12, 2011, the diffe

between the alternatives will be significantly reduced from DEIS. In the Tier II DEIS, Alternative VA1 had approximaimpacts and 0.35 acres of wetland impacts compared to Al300 feet of stream impacts and 0.3 acres of wetland impactattributed to the proposed new access road that intersects Cdesigned in such a way as to minimize or negate the stream stream and wetland impacts will be fully mitigated, and the coordination with the USACE. The revised stream and wetappear in the Tier II FEIS. With these reductions, the streaVA1 are more in line with Alternative VA2. At the April if the stream and wetland impacts from the access road can this alternative is acceptable as the preferred alternative in 

ii. D. This section of the project is of greatest concern to the Norfolk District. VA2 

impacts more than seven acres of wetlands, while VA1/VA3 are on common 

location and impact about one acre. VA2 not only impacts more wetlands, it will 

cross through an expansive and complex wetland system. While there is an existing abandoned fill corridor through that system, locating the proposed railway through the wetland complex will greatly increase the fragmentation of the system by the additional noise and activity associated with the trains and construction, in addition to the direct loss of wetlands from the footprint of the fill. VA2 also has about 500 linear feet more of stream impact than VA1/VA3. 

However, the U. S. Fish and wildlife has determined that VA1/VA3 may affect/is likely to adversely affect the Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii), a plant that is federally listed as endangered. In addition, VA1/VA3 will have an adverse effect on an historic property, and VA2 will not. All alternatives are rated as neutral, but VA2 is less costly. At this time, we cannot identify the LEDPA, given the complexity of the issues involved and the uncertainty about factors related to the sumac and the historic property. A site visit and meeting 

have been scheduled so that we can pursue these matters further. Our strong 

preference is that the wetland impacts associated with VA2 are avoided, but we will consider this section again after the scheduled meetings. 

Alternative VA4 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II Fwas developed after the completion of the public comment coordination and consultation with the USACE, VDHR, U

and the Virginia Division of Environmental Quality (VDEa Section 4(f) use of the Wynnhurst historic property, avoiof the Michaux’s Sumac, and minimizes wetland impacts (alternative was determined to be an acceptable preferred alUSFWS, and VDEQ at an interagency meeting held on Ap
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

iii. G. VA2 has no effect to historic properties and costs less. However, it impacts 

more streams and wetlands than VA1 VA3 and has a negative rating for 

operability/constructability. VA1 and VA3 both have effects to historic properties. VA1 impacts more streams than VA3 and has a neutral rating, while 

VA3 has the least wetland and stream impacts and a positive rating for operability/constructability. Considering all factors, VA3 appears to be the LEDPA. We recognize that the impacts to the historic property may result in a Section 4(f) use. However, based on the information discussed at previous meetings regarding the site, the impacts to the historic property do not preclude VA3 from identification as the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA3 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

iv. J. VA2 has substantially less stream impact than VA1/VA3, 698 linear feet vs. 

2,061 linear feet. VA1/VA3 has an adverse effect to an historic property. VA1/VA3 is rated positive for operability/constructability, while VA2 is rated neutral. VA2 costs somewhat less. Although VA2 is not rated as highly as VA1/VA3 for operability/constructability, it appears that VA2 is the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA2 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

v. K. VA2 has substantially more stream impacts than VA1/VA3, as well as an 

adverse effect to an historic resource, which VA1/VA3 does not have. VA2 is rated negative for operability/constructability, whereas VA1/VA3 is rated as neutral. VA2 is less costly than the other alternatives. VA1/VA3 appears to be the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in the Tier II F

vi. L. This section includes portions in VA and in NC. VA2/NC2 impacts 

considerably less stream length than VA/NC1/VA/NC3, almost 1400 linear feet 

less. It also has somewhat less wetland impact. However, it has an adverse effect 

to an historic property, whereas VA/NC1/VA/NC3 do not, costs more, and has a negative rating for operability/constructability, whereas VA/NC1/VA/NC3 is rated as neutral. Given that VA/NC2 is projected to have substantially less 

stream impacts than VA/NC1/VA/NC3, we would like to discuss further the 

factors that led to a negative rating for this alternative before making a preliminary determination of the LEDPA. 

Alternative VA1/NC1 is the preferred alternative in the Tie

associated with the VA2/NC2 alternative in this section weon April 12, 2011. Alternative VA2/NC2 stays within exisHall/Fitts House historic resource; however, the proposed r

construction along Paschall Road would result in an advers

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and require a operability and constructability rating is negative and the lrating stems from a sharper curvature in the rail alignment

maintenance for the rails and train equipment, and a lower means an increase in schedule time and fuel use (due to the the curves). At the April 12, 2011, meeting, USACE statewould be acceptable as the preferred alternative in Section 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

6) The document indicates compensation for these impacts will be provided 

through the use of mitigation banks and/or the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (VARTF). In the discussion of compensatory mitigation on page 4-15, it is noted that not all of the watersheds in Virginia where aquatic resource impacts occur are served by existing banks. It is likely that insufficient credits exist, particularly for stream impacts, in some of the watersheds that are currently served by banks. It is likely that a determination will be made that the impacts are too extensive for compensation to be provided by the VARTF. As we recommended in our 2003 comments, investigation should be conducted now for potential compensation sites for anticipated impacts, rather than delaying a full effort to identify compensation closer to construction. It does not appear that any potential compensation sites have been identified, and sufficient bank credits may or may not be available when you begin the permitting process. 

Section 4.1.6 of the Tier II FEIS provides updated informabanks in the Project Study Area. 

7) It appears that any of the alternatives under consideration have the potential to 

affect cultural and historic resources. According to 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2): " ... If more than one Federal agency is involved in an undertaking, some or all 

[of] the agencies may designate a lead Federal agency, which shall identify the 

appropriate official to serve as the agency official who shall act on their behalf, 

fulfilling their collective responsibilities under section 106. Those Federal 

agencies that do not designate a lead Federal agency remain individually responsible for their compliance with this part." 

Since FRA is the lead Federal agency for compliance with NEPA and would have a greater amount of Federal control and responsibility over the entire 

project than the Corps, we designate FRA as the lead Federal agency to fulfill 

the collective Federal responsibilities under Section 106 for the proposed undertaking. The Norfolk District authorizes FRA to conduct Section 106 coordination on its behalf. Any Memorandum of Agreement prepared by FRA 

under 36 CFR 800.6 for concerning historic resources located between and including Richmond and Norlina should include the following clause in the introductory text: "WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10 and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a Department of the Army permit will likely be required from the Corps of 

Engineers for this project, and the Norfolk District has designated FRA as the 

lead Federal agency to fulfill Federal responsibilities under Section 106; and"

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

8) Norfolk District Specific comments regarding the details of the Tier II DEIS 

a. Permits: 

i. In the section on permits, beginning on page 4-11, you note that any action that 

proposes to dredge into waters or wetlands is subject to Corps of Engineers 

regulations. It should be noted that some excavation/dredging in waters of the U.S. is not a jurisdictional activity for the Norfolk District, depending on how the activity is conducted. We concur with the assessment in the DEIS that an 

individual permit will be required from the Norfolk District for this project, given the extent of expected impacts. 

Comment noted. 

ii. Under the discussion of stormwater permits on page 4-13, you list several 

measures that would be taken as part of a stormwater management plan. 

Included in the list is the elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams. Such areas should also not be located in wetlands. 

Section 4.1.5.2 of the Tier II FEIS was updated to state tha

areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams, wetlands, and t

for petroleum contamination or discharges of other hazardo

iii. Regarding permit requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG; page 4-13), we 

recommend that you coordinate with the USCG soon regarding their permit 

requirements. The document states that permits would not be required for the 

crossings of the Appomattox, Nottoway, or Meherrin Rivers in Virginia. However, our coordination with USCG indicates that a USCG permit may be required for these waterways. You should coordinate with them directly about the specific locations of your proposed bridges to ascertain permit requirements. 

You should also coordinate with them about any existing bridges that will be upgraded (such as the one at Lake Gaston), because if the characteristics of use 

of bridge change, a permit or permit amendment may be required from the 

USCG. 

As stated in Section 3.1.5 of the Tier II DEIS and 4.1.5.3 oNovember 5, 2009, the USCG verified that the Richmond James River in Richmond, VA, is the only waterway in the jurisdiction. The Richmond to Raleigh Project crossings of VA), Nottoway River (near McKenney, VA), Meherrin Ri

VA), Tar River (vicinity of US-1 at the border of Vance Cand Neuse River (near Capital Boulevard just north of Ralejurisdiction because they are not subject to tidal influence for interstate commerce. These rivers have active recreatiocannot support commercial watercraft at the location whercrosses. In addition, a permit is not required for the crossinwill use the existing bridge piers; work will involve upgradProject design standards. 

iv. This section also discusses vertical and horizontal clearance for the proposed 

James River bridge. The crossing of this waterway should be coordinated with the Operations Branch of the Norfolk District to verify proposed clearances are acceptable in relation to the federal project channel. We recognize that the bridge is being planned with the same clearance as the existing bridge, but 

future plans for the channel may necessitate a change in that clearance, and the new bridge may be required to meet any such future plans even if the existing bridge does not. 

This issue will be addressed during final design to ensure tmet. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

b. Compensatory Mitigation: 

i. On page 4-15, the document lists typical mitigation ratios. Generally what is 

presented represents what is typically required by the Norfolk District, but some ratios given do not represent the full range applied in Virginia. Generally the Norfolk District requires 2:1 for forested wetland restoration and 3:1 for creation, as indicated in the document. However, for enhancement activities to compensate for all types of wetlands, we require in the range of 3:1 to 9:1, depending on the particular situation. For preservation, the document indicates 10:1; we typically require from 10:1 to 20:1, depending on the type and quality of the wetland being preserved and the extent of uplands included in the 

preserved area. Our typical ratio for wetland restoration for scrub shrub wetlands is 1.5:1 and 2:1 for creation. Our typical ratio for wetland restoration 

for emergent wetlands is 1:1 and 1.5:1 for creation. Please refer to these ratios when developing your compensation plan for wetlands. 

Section 4.1.6 of the Tier II FEIS was amended to clarify mcomment. 

ii. The document also gives typical ratios for stream mitigation. In Virginia, the 

Unified Stream Methodology (USM), developed jointly by the Norfolk District and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, provides a guide for determining appropriate stream compensation requirements. The USM, including instructions, can be found at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical%20services/Regulatory%20branch/USM.asp. The USM should be used for the development of the stream compensation plan for impacts in Virginia, whether compensation is provided by the applicant or through the purchase of bank credits. 

Section 4.1.6 of the Tier II FEIS was amended to clarify stindicated in this comment. 

c. Other issues: 

i. Page ES-6: The document notes that specific locations for the railway stations 

within La Crosse will be determined by the town as appropriate. Railway station locations should be anticipated, so that railway alternatives are located 

such that any station to be constructed as a result of this project can be 

positioned where impacts to aquatic resources are avoided. 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environme

specific station locations or design needs, because the deveundertaking at an individual location. As noted, generalize

level to ensure that a station placed along the Project corridprovide sufficient accessibility to the larger transportation 

comments received regarding specific station locations havtransportation planning organizations in each station locatiindividual station locations will perform separate environm

decision on the station location and design at a later date. 

Tier II FEIS, locating HSR stations in center cities rather th

likely to avoid and minimize many potential direct and ind

project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG21 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District - Keith B. Lockwood 

Comment Response 

ii. Page 4-8 notes that culverts will be countersunk. We concur, because 

countersinking of pipes/culverts in streams is a requirement in the Norfolk District. You may find additional information regarding our countersinking 

requirements at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical%20services/Regulatory%20branch/NWP2007/2007%20Nationwide%20Permits%20Regional%20Conditions.pdf. 

Comment noted. 

iii. Page 4-14 includes information regarding avoidance and minimization. Please 

note that bridges are preferred over culverts for road crossings, to minimize impacts to streams. 

Comment noted 

iv. Page 4-59: The discussion of impacts to terrestrial habitats and wildlife seems 

inadequate, because no information is given regarding fragmentation of habitat and wildlife corridors. Considering the length of the project through largely undeveloped areas, it appears that fragmentation could be a substantial impact. 

Fragmentation of riparian corridors should also be evaluated. There may also be impacts to forest interior-dependent species, and this issue is not addressed in the document. Similarly, the discussion of the commitment of irreversible and 

irretrievable resources in section 4.19 on page 4-207 does not address these issues in its discussion of wildlife resources. 

A discussion of habitat fragmentation was added to SectionFEIS. 

v. Page 4-200: Section 4.17 on Indirect and Cumulative Effects appears 

inadequate. The definition of cumulative impacts in this section includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Yet, there is very little if any 

description of past actions or the history of land use and development in the area of the project. It is difficult for the reader to assess cumulative effects when present conditions and how the region has changed over time are not provided. The document does note that certain areas are urban and others rural, but very little else is provided concerning past and present actions. There is a discussion of future actions, but with the exception of development planned as part of the expansion of Ft. Lee, all of the future actions presented are railway-related. This section should address not only how this project may link with other 

transportation projects, but how the human environment has and will be affected, cumulatively. With regard to aquatic resources, cumulative effects should be addressed in relation to river watersheds. 

Sections 4.11 and 4.17 of the Tier II FEIS have been amensecondary/cumulative impacts of the project. 

State Agencies 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

1) Multiple agencies, localities and planning district commissions participated in 

the review of the DEIS for this proposal. Based on the information provided in 

the DEIS and comments from reviewers, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no 

objection to the proposal as presented, provided the proponent agencies comply 

with all applicable laws and regulations. Reviewers identified potential adverse impacts to resources and submitted recommendations to mitigate them. Future coordination with these agencies is required as follows: Water quality and wetland impacts will require authorization by the appropriate DEQ regional office (Piedmont Regional Office or Blue Ridge Regional Office) under the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program. Erosion and sediment control, stormwater management and impacts to Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas will require review and approval by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Impacts to state subaqueous lands fall under the authority of the 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Air quality and waste impacts are administered by DEQ. Development of the rail line should be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural 

Heritage and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to ensure the protection of federally- and state-listed wildlife species. Project impacts on the Commonwealth's forest resources are administered by the Virginia Division of Forestry. Proponent agencies must continue to work with 

the Virginia Department of Historic Resources regarding the proposed Memorandum of Agreement guiding the treatment of impacted historic and 

archaeological resources. 

Coordination with all required agencies to ensure complianregulations will continue as the project moves forward to p

2) Water Quality and Wetlands. a. According to the DEIS (page ES-7), total potential stream impacts for the 

project corridor in Virginia may range from 27,304 linear feet up to 31,163 linear feet of jurisdictional channel, depending on the combination of alternatives selected. The greatest difference between alternatives occurs in the Roanoke River Basin, in Section J. In this section, VA1 and VA3 are on common alignment and would have 2,061 linear feet of impacts, compared to 

VA2 which has only 698. Total potential impacts to lakes, ponds and reservoirs for the project corridor in Virginia may range from 1.64 to 3.67 acres. 

The document (pages ES-9-ES-10) shows that potential project impacts to wetlands in Virginia would be from 22.03 to 31.48 acres. Selection of the VA2 project alternative would result in the least wetland impacts in the Chowan River Basin for Sections DO, A, and B. Alternatives VA1 or VA2 would best minimize impacts for Sections 0, E, and G. 

For Section J, VA2 is the preferred alternative, due in part For Section DD, Alternative VA3 was selected to minimizRailroad/Globe Tavern Battlefield, which is eligible for the (NRHP). VA2 was selected for Section A in part to minimVA1/VA3 was selected for Section B in part to minimize n

to maintain desired operating speed. A new alternative (V

an historic property, avoid impacts to a Michaux’s sumac p

compared with alternative VA2. Alternative VA1/VA3 waminimize stream and wetland impacts. Alternative VA3 wbecause stream impacts for this alternative had been reducimpacts calculated for the other alternatives in this section
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. According to the DEIS (ES-11), in Virginia, mitigation would be provided 

through the use of mitigation banks and/or the Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust 

Fund (VAQRTF). However, no banks are currently listed serving the Roanoke Rapids hydrologic unit (HU 03010106). The VAQRTF pursues stream and wetland mitigation projects throughout Virginia as an in-lieu fee program. It is administered in partnership with the Corps Norfolk District and The Nature Conservancy in Virginia. The use of the VAQRTF as a mitigation option is at 

the discretion of the appropriate regulatory agencies. 

Mitigation for stream impacts has been updated in SectionII FEIS, which provide updated information on established stream and wetland impacts will be secured prior to projec

c. Agency Jurisdiction. The State Water Control Board (SWCB) promulgates 

Virginia's water regulations, covering a variety of permits to include Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit, Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit, Surface and Groundwater Withdrawal Permit, and the Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWPP). The VWPP is a state permit which governs wetlands, surface water, and surface water withdrawals/impoundments. 

It also serves as § 401 certification of the federal Clean Water Act§ 404 permits 

for dredge and fill activities in waters of the U.S. The VWPP Program is under 

the Office of Wetlands and Water Protection/Compliance, within the DEQ Division of Water Quality Programs. In addition to central office staff that review and issue VWP permits for transportation and water withdrawal projects, 

the six DEQ regional offices perform permit application reviews and issue permits for the covered activities. 

Permits are discussed in Section 4.1.6 of the Tier II DEIS. included in Section 4.1.5 of the Tier II FEIS, which includThe USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a SectTherefore, the Richmond to Raleigh Project must apply to Water Quality Certification as part of the permit process. Bin Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, it is likely that a Section 404 IP for the Richmond to Raleigh Project. Temporary activities bridges, or temporary causeways that are often used during 

should also be included in the permit application. The USAwill be required to authorize project construction. In Virginia, the Richmond to Raleigh Project would compl

for a Section 404 permit, Section 401 certification (Virgini

subaqueous permit from the Virginia Marine Resources CoWater Protection Permit (VWPP) is a state permit which gsurface water withdrawals/impoundments. It also serves as 

Clean Water Act § 404 permits for dredge and fill activitiesubaqueous permit is needed to encroach upon or over bottwhich include submerged lands (beds of lakes, rivers, and 

tributaries draining five square miles or greater. To issue tthat the Project is necessary, that there are no reasonable aldisruption, and that adverse effects do not unreasonably in

rights to the use of waterways and bottomlands. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

d. Agency Comments. DEQ's Piedmont Regional Office (PRO) notes that there is 

the potential for adverse impacts to many natural resources in the study area (sections AA-H) due to the size, scope, and the number of alternatives 

considered for this project. The DEQ Blue Ridge Regional Office (BRRO) generally finds that significant long-term environmental impacts are not expected from this project (sections I-L). Principal impacts will be related to short-term construction activities. Requirements. According to DEQ-PRO and DEQ-BRRO, construction activities that adversely impact wetlands or streams 

will require review and approval under the VWPP program. 

Comment noted. See VWPP discussion above. 

e. Recommendations. DEQ-PRO recommends all efforts should be taken to ensure 

that the adjacent wetlands and waterways are not adversely affected by the proposed activities. DEQ-BRRO recommends the implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) and the utilization of existing structures as recommended in the DEIS to minimize environmental impacts. In 

general, DEQ recommends that stream and wetland impacts be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. To minimize unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waterways, DEQ recommends the following practices: 

i. Stockpile material excavated for stream crossings for replacement, to the extent 

practicable. 

ii. Consider using a work bridge rather than a causeway to reduce temporary 

impacts. 

iii. Operate machinery and construction vehicles outside of stream-beds and 

wetlands; use synthetic mats when in-stream work is unavoidable; 

iv. Construct trenches in a manner that does not drain the wetlands. 

v. Preserve the top 12 inches of material removed from wetlands for use as 

wetland seed and root-stock in the excavated area. 

vi. Erosion and sedimentation controls (ESCs) should be designed in accordance 

with the most current edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (1992, 3rd Edition). These controls should be in place prior to clearing and grading, and maintained in good working order to minimize 

impacts to state waters. ESCs and BMPs should be inspected and repaired 

before and after rain events. The controls should remain in place until the area is stabilized. Monitor construction activities to ensure that erosion and stormwater management practices are adequately preventing sediment and pollutant migration into surface waters, including wetlands. 

vii. Place heavy equipment, located in temporarily impacted wetland areas, on mats, 

geotextile fabric, or use other suitable measures to minimize soil disturbance, to the maximum extent practicable. 

viii. Restore a" temporarily disturbed wetland areas to pre-construction conditions 

Construction of the proposed Richmond to Raleigh Project described in Section 4.1.4 of the Tier II DEIS and Section 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

and plant or seed with appropriate wetlands vegetation in accordance with the cover type (emergent, scrub-shrub, or forested). The applicant should take all appropriate measures to promote re-vegetation of these areas. Stabilization and restoration efforts should occur immediately after the temporary disturbance of each wetland area instead of waiting until the entire project has been completed.

ix. Any temporary impact should be restored to their original contours and 

revegetated with the same or similar species. 

x. Place all materials which are temporarily stockpiled in wetlands, designated for 

use for the immediate stabilization of wetlands, on mats, geotextile fabric in order to prevent entry in state waters. These materials should be managed in a manner that prevents leachates from entering state waters and must be entirely removed within thirty days following completion of that construction activity. The disturbed areas should be returned to their original contours, stabilized within thirty days following removal of the stockpile, and restored to the original vegetated state. 

xi. All non-impacted surface waters within the project or right-of-way limits that 

are within 50 feet of any clearing, grading, or filling activities should be clearly flagged or marked for the life of the construction activity within that area. The project proponent should notify all contractors that these marked areas are surface waters where no activities are to occur. 

xii. Measures should be employed to prevent spills of fuels or lubricants into state 

waters. 

f. Regulatory and Coordination Needs. 

Water quality and wetland impacts associated with this proposal will require a Virginia Water Protection Permit issued by the DEQ Piedmont Regional Office (sections AA-H) or Blue Ridge Regional Office (sections I-L) pursuant to 

Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:5. A Joint Permit Application may be obtained from 

and submitted to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission which serves as a 

clearinghouse for the joint permitting process involving the VMRC, DEQ, 

Corps, and local wetlands boards. For additional information and coordination 

regarding the VWPP, contact Cory Chamberlain (DEQ-PRO) at (804) 527-5081 

or Kip Foster (DEQ-BRRO) at (540) 562-6782. 

Comment noted. See VWPP discussion above. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

3) Subaqueous Lands. a. According to the DEIS (page 4-12), in Virginia, the SEHSR project would 

complete a Joint Permit Application for a subaqueous permit from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The document notes that the subaqueous permit is needed to encroach upon or over bottom lands under VMRC jurisdiction, which include submerged lands (beds of lakes, rivers, and 

streams) including non-tidal, perennial tributaries draining five square miles or greater. 

Comment noted. See VWPP discussion above. 

b. Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission, pursuant to 

Section 28.2-1204 of the Code of Virginia, has jurisdiction over any encroachments in, on, or over any state-owned rivers, streams, or creeks in the Commonwealth. For any development that involves encroachments channelward of ordinary high water along natural rivers and streams, a permit is required from VMRC. The VMRC serves as the clearinghouse for the Joint Permit Application used by the: 

 VMRC for encroachments on or over state-owned subaqueous beds as well as 

tidal wetlands; 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for issuing permits pursuant to Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; 

 DEQ for issuance of a Virginia Water Protection Permit; and local wetlands 

board for impacts to wetlands. 

Comment noted. See VWPP discussion above. 

c. Regulatory and Coordination Needs. According to VMRC, as noted in the 

DEIS, a JPA is required for a Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permit, Section 401 CWA certification (i.e. VWPP) and a subaqueous permit from 

VMRC, pursuant to Section 28.2-1200 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, to 

encroach upon or over bottom lands under VMRC jurisdiction. VMRC must determine that the project is necessary, that there are no reasonable alternatives requiring less environmental disruption, and that adverse effects do not unreasonably interfere with other private and public rights to the use of waterways and bottom lands prior to issuing a subaqueous lands permit. Any 

impacts will be reviewed by VMRC with the submission of the Joint Permit Application. For additional information, contact Ben Stagg, VMRC at (757) 247-2009. 

Comment noted. See VWPP discussion above. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

4) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management. a. According to the DEIS (page 4-2), in order to minimize potential impacts to 

water resources in the project area, the most recent edition of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Erosion Sediment Control Handbook will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. 

The document (page 4-5) states that the SEHSR project is committed to complying with all applicable water quality regulations and permit requirements, as well as to minimizing all impacts to water quality as designs 

are finalized. This includes complying with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act. 

Agency Jurisdiction. DCR's Division of Soil and Water conservation administers the 

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations (VESCL&R) and Virginia Stormwater Management Law and Regulations (VSWML&R). 

Comment noted. As stated in the Tier II DEIS, the Richmo

with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and tAct. 

b. Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Plans. According 

to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the proponent 

agencies and their authorized agents conducting regulated land-disturbing activities on private and public lands in the state must comply with VESCL&R, VSWML&R (including coverage under the general permit for stormwater 

discharge from construction activities) and other applicable federal nonpoint source pollution mandates (e.g. Clean Water Act-Section 313, federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act). Clearing and grading activities, installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads, buildings, utilities, borrow areas, soil stockpiles, and related land-disturbing activities that result in 

the land disturbance of greater than 10,000 square feet (2,500 square feet in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area) would be regulated by VESCL&R and VSWML&R. Accordingly, proponent agencies must prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan and a stormwater management (SWM) plan to ensure compliance with state law and regulations. The ESC and SWM plans are submitted to the DCR Regional Office that serves the area where the construction is located for review for compliance. The project proponent is 

ultimately responsible for achieving project compliance through oversight of on site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt action against non-compliant 

sites, and other mechanisms consistent with agency policy. [Reference: VESCL §10.1-567; Virginia Stormwater Management Act §10.1-603.3; Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations' 4 VAC 50-60-110]. 

Section 4.1.5.2 of the Tier II FEIS was updated with the foSince the Richmond to Raleigh Project would disturb more obtain a Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit through th

Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). A site-specific Sto(SWPPP) will need to be prepared and implemented. The techniques the operator will take to comply with the terms water quality and quantity requirements that are consistent reduce pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the construa description of post development stormwater managemendesign calculations. Prior to construction, an erosion and sstormwater management (SWM) plan to ensure compliancprepared and implemented. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Virginia Stormwater Management Program General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from Construction Activities. OCR is responsible for the issuance, denial, revocation, termination and enforcement of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities related to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and construction activities for the control of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. 

The operator or owner of construction activities involving land-disturbing activities equal to or greater than one acre (2,500 square feet in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas) are required to register for coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities and develop a project specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must be prepared prior to submission of the registration statement for coverage under the general permit and the SWPPP must address 

water quality and quantity in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations. General information and registration forms for the General Permit are available on OCR's website at: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil and 

water/vsmp.shtml. [Reference: Virginia Stormwater Management Act §10.1-603.1 et seq.; 

VSMP Permit Regulations 4 VAC-50 et seq.] Specific questions regarding the Stormwater Management Program requirements should be directed to Holly Sepety, OCR, at (804) 225-2613. Future development must be conducted in compliance with Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code 10.1-567) and Regulations (4 VAC 50-30-30 et seq.) and Stormwater Management Law (Virginia Code 10.1-603.5) and Regulations (4 

VAC 3-20-210 et seq.). Activities that disturb 10,000 square feet or more of land (2,500 square feet or more in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas) would be regulated by VESCL&R and VSWML&R. Proponent agencies are encouraged to contact OCR's Richmond Regional Office (sections AA-C) at (804) 225-3390 or the Clarksville Regional Office (sections D-L) at (434) 374-3648, for assistance with developing or implementing any future ESC plans to ensure project conformance. 

Compliance with stormwater permits is discussed in SectioCompliance with the Chesapeake Bay Act is discussed in S
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

5) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. a. According to the DEIS (page 4-4), within Tidewater Virginia, the Chesapeake 

Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act) regulates Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas that include land areas adjacent to water bodies. Within the project area, the cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, as well as Chesterfield County, are subject to the Bay Act. The document (page 4-4) notes that Chapter 

20 Section 9 VAC 10-20-150 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

Designation and Management Regulations, "Nonconformities, exemptions, and exceptions," excludes public utilities, railroads, public roads, and facilities from 

the requirements of the Bay Act. The document concludes that the SEHSR project is subject to this exemption, provided that the project and related 

construction activities follow local, state, and federal water quality regulations. 

Agency Jurisdiction. OCR's Division of Chesapeake Bay local Assistance (DCBLA) administers the coastal lands management enforceable policy of the VCP which is 

governed by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Virginia Code §10.1-2100- 10.1-2114) and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (Regulations) (9 VAC 10-20 et seq.). 

Compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Act is discussed in S

b. Agency Findings. According to DCR-DCBLA, in the City of Richmond, the 

areas protected by the Bay Act, as locally implemented, require conformance with performance criteria. These areas include Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs) as designated by the local 

government. RPAs include: 

 tidal wetlands; 

 non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands 

or perennial water bodies; 

 tidal shores; and 

 lands within a 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward 

of the aforementioned features and along both sides of any water body with 

perennial flow. 

RMAs, which require less stringent performance criteria, include: 

 floodplains; 

 nontidal wetlands which are not included in the RPA; 

 highly erodible soils including steep slopes which are contiguous to an RPA; 

 highly permeable soils which are contiguous to an RPA; plus 

 a 500-foot wide land area located adjacent to any RPA. 

Comment noted. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is Sections 3.1.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. In Chesterfield County, the areas protected by the Bay Act, as locally 

implemented, require conformance with performance criteria. These areas include RPAs and RMAs. RPAs include: 

 tidal wetlands; 

 non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands 

or water bodies with perennial flow; 

 tidal shores; and 

 a 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of the 

aforementioned features and along both sides of any water body with perennial flow. 

RMAs, which require less stringent performance criteria, include: 

 one hundred year floodplains; 

 highly erodible soils (including steep slopes); 

 highly permeable soils; and 

 nontidal wetlands not included in the RPA 

Comment noted. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is Sections 3.1.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2. 

d. In the City of Petersburg, the areas protected by the Bay Act, as locally 

implemented, require conformance with performance criteria. These areas include RPAs and RMAs as designated by the local government. RPAs include: 

 tidal wetlands; 

 non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands 

or perennial water bodies; 

 tidal shores; and 

 lands within a 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward 

of the aforementioned features and along both sides of any water body with 

perennial flow that are within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 



RMAs, which require less stringent performance criteria, include: 

 floodplains; 

 nontidal wetlands which are not included in the RPA; 

 highly erodible soils including steep slopes which are contiguous to an RPA; 

 highly permeable soils which are contiguous to an RPA; and 

 a 100-foot land area located along any RPA where none of the components 

previously listed are present. 

For additional information and coordination, contact Joan Salvati, DCR-DCBLA, at (804) 225-3440. 

Comment noted. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is Sections 3.1.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

6) Coastal Zone Management Act and Federal Consistency. Pursuant to the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, proponent agencies are required to determine the consistency of its activities affecting Virginia's coastal resources or coastal uses with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program (VCP) (previously called the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program) (see § 307(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 15 CFR Part 930, Sub-part 0, § 930.50 et 

seq.). This involves an analysis of the activities in light of the Enforceable 

Policies of the VCP (see Attachment 1*), and submission of a Federal Consistency Certification (FCC) reflecting that analysis and committing the proponent agencies to comply with the Enforceable Policies. Section 930.58 

gives content requirements for the consistency certification, or you may visit the DEQ Website at, http://www.deg.virginia.gov/eir/federal.html. We encourage the proponent agencies to consider the Advisory Policies of the VCP (see 

Attachment 2*). 

The FCC must be submitted and DEQ's concurrence obtained prior to any land disturbance with the Commonwealth's designated coastal zone. * See end of this table for these attachments. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act and the Virginia Coastare discussed in the Tier II DEIS in Section 4.1.5.1. All refollowed during the permitting stage of the Project, before 

7) Federal Stormwater Management Commitments. a. The 1998 Federal Agencies' Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan requires the 

signatories to fully cooperate with local and state governments in carrying out 

voluntary and mandatory actions to comply with the management of 

stormwater. The agencies also committed to encouraging construction design that: 

i. minimizes natural area loss on new and rehabilitated federal facilities; 

ii. adopts low impact development and best management technologies for 

stormwater, sediment and erosion control and reduces impervious surfaces; and 

iii. considers the Conservation Landscaping and Bay-Scapes Guide for Federal 

Land Managers. 

In addition, the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement committed the government agencies to a number of sound land use and stormwater quality controls. The signatories additionally 

committed the agencies to lead by example with respect to controlling nutrient, sediment and chemical contaminant runoff from government properties. In December 2001, the Executive Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program issued Directive No. 01-1, Managing Storm Water on State, Federal and District-owned Lands and Facilities, which includes specific commitments for agencies to lead by example with respect to stormwater control. 

Comment noted. Compliance with stormwater permits is dII DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Requirements. Construction, installation, operation and maintenance of railroads 

and their appurtenant structures are conditionally exempt from the Regulations provided they are constructed in accordance with: 

i. Regulations promulgated pursuant to the Erosion and Sediment Control Law 

(§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) 

ii. An erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater management plan 

approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, or 

iii. Local water quality protection criteria at least as stringent as the above state 

requirements. 

Conclusion. DCR-DCBLA concurs that the proposed activity would be consistent with the Bay Act and Regulations, provided adherence to the above requirements. 

Comment noted. 

8) Air Quality. a. According to the Tier II DEIS (page ES-15), air quality impacts associated with 

the SEHSR project were assessed for both the proposed railroad engine 

operations and affected (i.e., diverted) motor vehicles. Air quality impacts from the project are not expected to substantially vary by alternative due to the Similarity in operation and design. An air quality analysis was performed for the locomotive operations subject to federal air quality conformity regulations (40 

CFR 51.853). The document states that the calculated annual emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and hydrocarbons (HC) for all alternatives are well below the de minimis levels. 

Agency Jurisdiction. DEQ's Air Quality Division, on behalf of the State Air Pollution Control Board, is responsible to develop regulations that become Virginia's Air Pollution 

Control Law. DEQ is charged to carry out mandates of the state law and related regulations as well as Virginia's federal obligations under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990. The objective is to protect and enhance public health and quality of life through control and mitigation of air pollution. The division ensures the safety and quality of air in Virginia by monitoring and analyzing air quality data, regulating sources of air pollution, and working with local, state and federal agencies to plan and implement strategies to protect Virginia's air quality. The appropriate regional office is directly responsible for the 

issue of necessary permits to construct and operate all stationary sources in the region as well as to monitor emissions from these sources for compliance. As a part of this mandate, the environmental documents of new projects to be undertaken in the state are also reviewed. In the case of certain projects, additional evaluation and demonstration must be made under the general conformity provisions of state and federal law. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Agency Findings. According to the DEQ Air Division, the route for the SEHSR 

is located in ozone (03) attainment areas (Mecklenburg County, Brunswick County, Dinwiddie County) and in the Richmond Ozone Maintenance area (City of Petersburg, City of Colonial Heights, City of Richmond and Chesterfield 

County), an emission control area for the contributors to ozone pollution, which 

are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). DEQ-BRO anticipates that air quality issues will be construction-related (heavy equipment idling and fugitive dust) and that calculated locomotive emissions will be well below de minimis limits. 

Recommendations. All reasonable precautions should be undertaken to limit emissions of 

VOCs and NOx, principally by controlling or limiting the burning of fossil fuels, related to construction of the SEHSR project. DEQ-PRO recommends following all air quality standard and specifications to reduce or avoid the emissions of VOCs, especially during periods of high ozone. 

Comment noted. Reasonable precautions will be undertak
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Requirements - The SEHSR project is subject to the following air regulations 

administered by the Department of Environmental Quality: 

i. Fugitive Dust - During construction, fugitive dust must be kept to a minimum 

by using control methods outlined in 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. These precautions include, but 

are not limited to, the following: 

 Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for dust control; 

 Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent the 

handling of dusty materials; 

 Covering of open equipment for conveying materials; and 

 Prompt removal of spilled or tracked dirt or other materials from paved streets 

and removal of dried sediments resulting from soil erosion. 

ii. Open Burning - If construction activities include the burning of construction or 

demolition material, this activity must meet the requirements under 9 VAC 5-130 et seq. of the Regulations for open burning, and it may require a permit. 

The Regulations for open burning provide for, but do not require, the local 

adoption of a model ordinance concerning open burning. Some applicable 

provisions of the regulation include, but are not limited to: 

 All reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the amount of material burned, 

with the number and size of the debris piles; 

 The material to be burned shall consist of brush, stumps and similar debris waste 

and clean burning demolition material; 

 The burning shall be at least 500 feet from any occupied building unless the 

occupants have given prior permission, other than a building located on the property on which the burning is conducted; 

 The burning shall be conducted at the greatest distance practicable from 

highways and air fields, 

 The burning shall be attended at all times and conducted to ensure the best 

possible combustion with a minimum of smoke being produced; 

 The burning shall not be allowed to smolder beyond the minimum period of 

time necessary for the destruction of the materials; and 

 The burning shall be conducted only when the prevailing winds are away from 

any city, town or built-up area. 

For additional information and coordination, contact James Kyle (DEQ-PRO) at (804) 527-5047 or Jed Brown (DEQ-BRRO) at (434) 582-6210. Also, contact the appropriate locality for any local requirements on open burning. 

Section 4.6 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to specifregulations that the Project will comply with to regulate cofugitive dust and open burning. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

9) Solid and Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials. a. The DEIS (page 3-174) states that municipalities along the SEHSR study area 

either manage their own solid waste collection program or contract with a private enterprise to manage a program for the municipality. The document (page 3-25) notes that Environmental Data Resources (EDR) conducted a review of records in several state and federal databases to gather data on sites 

that are listed in various hazardous waste inventories for the Petersburg to 

Raleigh corridor in 2004 and for the Richmond to Petersburg corridor in 2008. The purpose of this review was to determine if sites listed in these inventories 

were located within the proposed SEHSR corridor. According to the review, 

there were 254 sites in Virginia within 2,000 feet of the project corridor. The 

majority of the sites were located between Richmond and Petersburg (225 sites).

Agency Findings. DEQ-BRRO finds that hazardous waste sites along the proposed alternative alignments (sections I-L) are minimal (2 or 3 sites, depending on the alignment) and principally related to underground storage tanks (USTs). Agency Recommendations. DEQ encourages all construction projects and facilities to implement pollution prevention principles, including the reduction, reuse, and recycling of all solid wastes generated for construction projects and facilities. All generation of hazardous wastes should be minimized and handled appropriately. 

Comment noted. All generation of hazardous wastes will bappropriately. 

b. Requirements. All solid waste, hazardous waste, and hazardous materials must 

be characterized and managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations. Some of the applicable state laws and regulations are: 

 Virginia Waste Management Act (Code of Virginia Section 10.1-1400 et seq.); 

 Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR) (9 VAG 20-

60); 

 Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (VSWMR) (9 VAG 20-80); and

 Virginia Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials (9 VAG 20-

110). 

 Some of the applicable Federal laws and regulations are: 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et 

seq.); 

 Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and 

 U.S. Department of Transportation Rules for Transportation of Hazardous 

materials (49 CFR Part 107). 

The DEIS described the hazardous waste impact assessmenalternatives and listed the number of hazardous waste sites alternative. Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS contains further awaste sites that could not be avoided by the Preferred Alterindicate the applicable federal, state, and local environmenprior to project construction, related to the management anwaste, and hazardous materials. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

i. Database Search - DEQ's Waste Division notes that for each area in Virginia 

where any work is to take place, the proponent agencies must conduct an 

environmental investigation on and near the property to identify any solid or hazardous waste sites or issues before work can commence. This investigation 

should include a search of waste-related databases (attached). However, the Waste Division notes that the Tier II DEIS indicates that such research may already been conducted. 

ii. Contaminated Soil and Generated Waste - Any soil that is suspected of 

contamination or wastes that are generated during construction-related activities must be tested and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. It is the generator's responsibility to determine if a solid waste meets the criteria of a hazardous waste and be properly managed. 

iii. Asbestos-Containing Material - It is the responsibility of the owner or operator 

of a demolition activity, prior to the commencement of the demolition, to thoroughly inspect the affected part of the facility where the operation will 

occur for the presence of asbestos, including Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos containing material (ACM). Upon classification as friable 

or non-friable, all waste ACM shall be disposed of in accordance with the 

Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-80-640), and transported in accordance with the Virginia regulations governing Transportation of Hazardous Materials (9 VAC 20-110-10 et seq.). Contact the DEQ Waste Management Program for additional information, (804) 698-4021, 

and the Department of Labor and Industry, Ronald L. Graham at (804) 371-0444. 

iv. Lead-Based Paint - If applicable, the proposed project must comply with the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, and with the Virginia Lead-Based Paint Activities Rules and Regulations. For additional information regarding these requirements contact the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, David Dick at (804) 367-8588. 

For additional information and coordination, contact Kyle Winter (DEQ-PRO) at (804) 

527-5052 or Aziz Farahmand (DEQ-BRRO) at (540) 562-6872. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

10) Herbicides and Pesticides. DEQ recommends that the use of herbicides or 

pesticides for construction or landscape maintenance should be in accordance 

with the principles of integrated pest management. The least toxic pesticides that are effective in controlling the target species should be used. Contact the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at (804) 786-3501 for more information. 

Comment noted. 

11) Natural Heritage Resources. 

a. Evaluation. According to the Tier II DEIS (page 3-59), individual states may 

provide additional protections for rare plant and animal species, such as federal species of concern (FSC), which are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. FSC species that are listed as endangered, threatened, or special concern (SC) on the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Natural Heritage Program (NHP) list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded protection under state laws (Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of Virginia of 1979, the Virginia Wildlife Diversity and Fisheries Regulations). The document states that currently, these laws do not apply to state transportation projects. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia field office list 8 FSC species for the counties in the Virginia study area. 

Agency Jurisdiction. The mission of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation is to conserve Virginia's natural and recreational resources. OCR supports a 

variety of environmental programs organized within seven divisions including the Division of Natural Heritage. The Natural Heritage Program's (OCR-ON H) mission is conserving Virginia's biodiversity through inventory, protection, and stewardship. The Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act, 10.1-209 through 217 of the Code of Virginia, was passed in 1989 and codified DCR's powers and duties related to statewide biological inventory: maintaining a statewide database for conservation planning and project review, land protection for the conservation of biodiversity, and the protection and ecological management of natural heritage resources (the habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologic sites, and other natural features). 

Comment noted. 

b. Agency Findings. DCR-DNH searched its Biotics Data System for occurrences 

of natural heritage resources in the study area. The following resources were identified. 

i. Stream Conservation Units - According to the information currently in DCRDNH files, the Nottoway River-Sturgeon Creek Stream Conservation Unit 

(SCU), the Stony Creek-Richardson Pond SCU and the Meherrin River-Shining Creek SCU are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. SCUs identify stream reaches that contain aquatic natural heritage resources, including 

See comment 12(b) with regards to field surveys and coord
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

2 miles upstream and 1 mile downstream of documented occurrences, and all tributaries within this reach. SCUs are also given a biodiversity significance ranking based on the rarity, quality, and number of element occurrences they contain. 

a. Nottoway River-Sturgeon Creek SCU 

The Nottoway River-Sturgeon Creek SCU has been given a biodiversity ranking of B1, 

which represents a site of outstanding significance. Natural heritage resources associated with this site are: Elliptio lanceoata Yellow lance G2G3/S2S3/S0C/SC Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel G3G4/S2/NL/SC Lampsilis radiate Eastern lampmussel GS/S2S3/NL/SC Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe G2/S2/SOC/LT The Yellow lance occurs in mid-sized rivers and second and third order streams. To survive, it needs a silt-free, stable streambed and well-oxygenated water that is free of pollutants. This species has been the subject of taxonomic debate in recent years (NatureServe, 2009). Currently in Virginia, the Yellow lance is recognized from populations in the Chowan, James, York, and Rappahannock drainages. Its range also extends into Neuse-Tar river system in North Carolina. In recent years, significant population declines have been noted across its range (NatureServe, 2009). This species is 

currently classified as a species of concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and a special concern species by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF). However, these designations have no official legal status. The Yellow lampmussel ranges from Nova Scotia to Georgia in Atlantic slope drainages (NatureServe, 2009). In Virginia, it is recorded from the Roanoke, Chowan, James, York, 

and Potomac drainages. It is found in larger streams and rivers where good currents exist over sand and gravel substrates and in small creeks and ponds (Johnson, 1970). The Eastern lampmussel is a freshwater mussel which inhabits river systems in areas with substrates composed of silt, sand, cobble, gravel and exposed bedrock (NatureServe,2009). This species has a wide range, from eastern Canada west to Ontario 

and Quebec and south to South Carolina (NatureServe, 2009). In Virginia, there are records from the Chowan and York River drainages. Considered good indicators of the health of aquatic ecosystems, freshwater mussels are dependent on good water quality, good physical habitat conditions, and an environment that will support populations of host fish species (Williams et al., 1993). Because mussels are sedentary organisms, they are 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

sensitive to water quality degradation related to increased sedimentation and pollution. They are also sensitive to habitat destruction through dam construction, channelization, and dredging, and the invasion of exotic mollusk species. The Yellow lance may be particularly sensitive to chemical pollutants and exposure to fine sediments from erosion (NatureServe, 2009). The Atlantic pigtoe is a medium-sized freshwater mussel which ranges from the Ogeeshee drainage in Georgia north to Virginia (NatureServe, 2009). In Virginia, this species is 

known from the James, Chowan and Roanoke River basins (NatureServe, 2009). The Atlantic pigtoe prefers clear, swift waters with gravel or sand and gravel substrates. Many 

populations from the main stem of larger rivers have disappeared and the species is becoming limited to the headwater areas of drainages in which it occurs. This could have implications for populations being able to reestablish after a localized, catastrophic event and for genetic exchange. Threats to the Atlantic pigtoe include pollution, impoundments, clearcutting, and dredging (Gerberich, 1991). This species does not appear to be able to tolerate habitat changes and it appears to be very poor at recolonizing previously disturbed habitats (NatureServe, 2009). A recent study determined that the glochidia of the Atlantic pigtoe are extremely sensitive to pollution (Augspurger et al., 2003). This species is currently listed as threatened by DGIF and is also tracked as a species of concern by the USFWS. However, this designation has no official legal status. 

b. Stony Creek-Richardson Pond SCU 

The Stony Creek-Richardson Pond SCU has been given a biodiversity ranking of B2, 

which represents a site of very high significance. The natural heritage resource associated with this site is: Percina Rex Roanoke logperch G1G2/S1S2/LE/LE The Roanoke logperch is endemic to the Roanoke and Chowan River drainages in Virginia (Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991) and inhabits medium and large, warm and usually 

clear rivers with sandy to boulder spotted bottoms (NatureServe, 2009). The Roanoke logperch is threatened by channelization, siltation, impoundment, pollution, and dewatering activities (Burkhead & Jenkins, 1991). This species is currently classified as 

endangered by the USFWS and OGIF. 

Comment noted. Consultation with USFWS has been unde

the Roanoke logperch. Because logperch surveys are only will be conducted when the Project is approximately two y
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Meherrin River-Shining Creek SCU 

The Meherrin River-Shining Creek SCU has been given a biodiversity ranking of B5, 

which represents a site of general significance. The natural heritage resource associated with this site is: Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel G3G4/S2/NL/SC 

Comment noted. 

ii. Chowanoke Crayfish 

The Chowanoke crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis, G3/S2S3/NL/NL) has been historically documented in the SEHSR study area. Chowanoke crayfish inhabit medium-sized rivers and creeks that flow through woodlands mainly in the Chowan River and Roanoke River systems in Virginia and North Carolina (NatureServe, 2009). They also inhabit rivers with low gradients and a sand or sparse gravel substrate (NatureServe, 2009). Little is known 

about its life history, though species in the genus Orconectes are considered tertiary 

burrows, indicating that they typically do not burrow, but seek out cover from rocks in the river. Threats likely include urban development and water pollution as well as alterations 

to its river habitats, including channelization (NatureServe, 2009). 

Comment noted. 

iii. Michaux's Sumac 

Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii, G2/S1/LE/LT) has been documented in the study area (Section E). Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub that grows up to 0.4 meter in height 

(TNC et. aI., 1999). This plant occurs in sandy or rocky, open, hardwood dominated forests and savannas (Smith and Van Alstine, 1995), sometimes in association with circumneutral soils. It is dependent upon some form of disturbance to maintain its open habitat (TNC et aI., 1999). Periodic, naturally occurring fires provided such disturbance historically. However, today many of this plant's occurrences are in areas artificially disturbed such as highway, powerline and railroad rights-of-way, edges of cultivated fields, and other cleared lands. In Virginia, the only known population is located in the impact area on Fort Pickett where it is maintained by frequent fires. The major threats to Michaux's sumac include fire suppression and habitat degradation (TNC et. al., 1999). This species is currently classified as endangered by the USFWS and listed as threatened by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (see section 8(c)). 

Comment noted. The Richmond to Raleigh Project is contregarding the population of Michaux’s sumac in Section D 

iv. Threatened and Endangered Species Waters 

The Nottoway River, Stony Creek 1 and Sappony Creek in Virginia have all been designated by DGIF as Threatened and Endangered Species Waters. The species associated with these waters are the Atlantic pigtoe, the Roanoke logperch and the Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterdon, G1G2/S1/LE/LE). 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Summary Recommendation - Recommended inventories of the Yellow lance, 

Yellow lampmussel, Eastern mussel, Atlantic pigtoe, Chowanoke crayfish, the Dwarf wedgemussel and Roanoke logperch, Michaux's sumac may be coordinated with J. Christopher Ludwig, DCR-DNH Natural Heritage Inventory Manager, at chris.ludwig@dcr.virginia.gov or 804-371-6206. Coordination, due to the legal status of the Roanoke logperch and Dwarf wedgemussel, may be made with USFWS and Amy Ewing, DGIF at (804) 367-2211. Due to the legal status of Michaux's sumac, proponent agencies should coordinate with the USFWS and Keith Tignor, VDACS at (804) 786-3515. 

See response to comment 12(b) with regards to field surve

12) State-listed Plant and Insect Species. 

a. The Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of 1979, Chapter 39 §3. 1-1 020 

through 1030 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes the Virginia 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) to conserve, protect, and manage endangered and threatened species of plants and insects. The VDACS Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Program personnel cooperates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), DCR-DNH and other agencies and organizations on the recovery, protection or conservation of listed threatened or endangered species and designated plant and insect species that are rare throughout their worldwide ranges. In those instances where recovery plans, developed by USFWS, are available, adherence to the order and tasks outlined in the plans are followed to the extent possible. 

Agency Findings. According to VDACS, the 2001 Tier I review for the Southeast High Speed Rail Project indicates the state-listed threatened New Jersey bulrush (Juncus caesariensis) occurs in close proximity to the proposed project area. Currently there are no known populations of this plant that would be adversely affected by this project. A population of the federal- and state-protected Michaux’s sumac (Rhux michauxii, FE/ST) occurs in close proximity to a proposed railroad alignment alternative in the 

vicinity of Rawlings, Virginia. There are four known populations of this imperiled plant 

species known in the Commonwealth. State Natural Area Preserves. OCR files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves under the agency's jurisdiction in the project vicinity. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Recommendations. DCR-DNH recommends that project proponents perform the 

following: 

 Conduct an inventory of the Yellow lance, Yellow lampmussel, Eastern mussel, 

Atlantic pigtoe, Chowanoke crayfish, the Dwarf wedgemussel and Roanoke 

logperch, due to the potential for the area to support populations of these 

resources. With the survey results DCR-DNH can more accurately evaluate potential impacts to natural heritage resources and offer specific protection recommendations for minimizing impacts to the documented resources. 

 Conduct a survey for Michaux's sumac by a certified surveyor before October 1, 

2010. For any selected alternative, the railway should be kept as far away from 

the plant population as possible. Maintenance activities should be adapted to protect the rare plant population including targeted woody plant management by a qualified contractor/consultant. OCR does not support translocation of plants off-site. However, if plants will be taken by the project, OCR recommends the collection of seeds. 

 Implement and strictly adhere to applicable state and local erosion and sediment 

control/storm water management laws and regulations to minimize adverse 

impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities. 

 Coordinate with the USFWS and DGIF due to the legal status of the Roanoke 

logperch and Dwarf wedgemussel, to ensure compliance with protected species legislation. 

 Coordinate with the USFWS and VDACS due to the legal status of Michaux's 

sumac, to ensure compliance with protected species legislation. 

 Contact Rene Hypes at (804) 371-2708 for an update on natural heritage 

information if a significant amount of time passes before the proposed project is initiated since new and updated information is continually added to Biotics. 

 Conduct a survey of the study area, as recommended by VDACS, to determine 

the size and distribution of the Michaux’s sumac population, and the potential 

effects of construction and rail line maintenance on the individual plants. 

DCR-DNH biologists are qualified and available to conduct inventories for rare, threatened, and endangered species. A list of other individuals who are qualified to conduct inventories may be obtained from the USFWS. 

The Project Team met with Steve Hardwick of VDEQ on Aoptions in the vicinity of the existing Michaux’s sumac popAlternative VA4 was acceptable and this alternative is listeTier II FEIS. Mussel and Roanoke logperch surveys were undertaken on Sappony Creek, Nottoway River, Meherrin River, and the Carolina. All streams surveyed contained mussel fauna (1mussels were not encountered. However, the Appomattox excellent mussel habitat and the Meherrin River had rare sGreen floater). The presence of state listed/federal species River, Nottoway River, and Meherrin River were consideravoid future project delays. The Roanoke Logperch was observed in the Nottoway Riv

was found in the Meherrin River. Consultation with USFWimpacts to this species. Based on the information provided, the Chowanoke crayfis

G3/S2S3/NL/NL) does not have federal protection and genfor federally listed species. A pre-construction survey for protected species will be conspecies were located during these efforts. Additionally, sta

consulted on appropriate measures to protect mussel fauna construction. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

13) Wildlife Resources and Protected Species. 

a. According to the Tier II DEIS (page 4-61), nine federally protected species for 

counties in the study area. The Roanoke logperch is presumed to occur within the study corridor as it crosses over Nottoway River and Stony Creek. The DEIS concludes that construction should not impact Roanoke logperch populations in 

Nottoway River or Stony Creek if instream activities and sedimentation are appropriately minimized. Additional surveys for listed freshwater mussels will be scheduled prior to project construction for Sappony Creek, Nottoway River, Tar River, Neuse River, and Cedar Creek in order to determine potential project 

impacts to the dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, and James River 

spinymussel. 

According to the Tier II DEIS, FRA has determined that the VA2 alternative within Section D of the project would have no effect on the Michaux's sumac, based on Section 7 

consultation with USFWS (page 4-63). A pair of bald eagles was observed on September 14, 2005, along the Appomattox River, 

just west of the City of Petersburg and two potential nests were found. However, because project alternatives will be located more than 1,000 feet from the nests, the Tier II DEIS concludes that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Agency Jurisdiction. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), as 

the Commonwealth's wildlife and freshwater fish management agency, exercises enforcement and regulatory jurisdiction over wildlife and freshwater fish, including state or federally listed endangered or threatened species, but excluding listed insects (Virginia Code Title 29.1). The DGIF is a consulting agency under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. sections 

661 et seq.), and provides environmental analysis of projects or permit 

applications coordinated through DEQ and several other state and federal 

agencies. DGIF determines likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and 

habitat, and recommends appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. 

Agency Findings. DGIF has identified the following species under its jurisdiction that are found within the study corridor. 

 Kerr Reservoir and Gaston Lake support an important recreational fishery, 

including a reproducing population of striped bass. 

 The Meherrin River is a Threatened and Endangered Species Water due to the 

Atlantic pigtoe (federal species of concern/state-listed threatened (FS/ST). The yellow lampmussel (FS/state special concern (SS)) and Roanoke bass (FS/SS) have also been documented there. 

 Two eagle nests have been recorded in the vicinity of the Route 1 crossing of 

the Roanoke River at Gaston Lake. 

 The Nottaway River is a Threatened and Endangered Species Water due to the 

presence of the Roanoke logperch (federally-listed endangered/state-listed endangered (FE/SE), dwarf wedgemussel (FE/SE), and Atlantic pigtoe (FS/ST). The Nottoway River is a Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Area. 

 Sturgeon Creek and Sappony Creek are Threatened and Endangered Species 

Waters due to the presence of the Atlantic pigtoe (FS/ST). 

 Tea Branch is a Threatened and Endangered Species Water due to the presence 

of the whitemouth shiner (ST). 

 Waqua Creek, Butterwood Creek, Stony Creek, and the James River are 

Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Areas. 

 The state-listed threatened loggerhead shrike has been documented in the 

vicinity of Petersburg. 

The Project Team coordinated with Ernie Aschenbach of thInland Fisheries on April 16, 2010, with regards to potentiwith the SEHSR Corridor. Surveys were conducted for all or endangered, as well as for Bald Eagle impacts (Under thAct). Also, see response to comment 12(b). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Recommendations. DGIF requests detailed information regarding the proposed 

route, any new construction (e.g. new right-of-way and stations), and stream crossings. Upon review of the additional information, DGIF will provide comments regarding potential adverse impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and recommendations to mitigate for any impacts. Contact Amy Ewing, DGIF at (804) 367-2733, for additional information regarding these comments. 

The Project Team has coordinated with Ernie Aschenbach regards to Clean Water Act Section 401/404 permitting for Raleigh Project. At that time, information on potential impVirginia Joint Permit Application requirements were discucontinue throughout the Tier II FEIS, ROD, and final desig

14) Forest Resources. 

a. According to the Tier II DEIS (page 4-59) terrestrial communities in the study 

corridor would be impacted permanently by project construction from clearing 

and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area. Destruction of natural 

communities within the study corridor would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. 

Agency Jurisdiction. The mission of the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) is to protect and develop healthy, sustainable forest resources for Virginians. VDOF was established in 1914 to prevent and suppress forest fires and reforest bare lands. Since the Department's inception, it has grown and evolved to encompass other protection and management duties including: protecting Virginia's forests from wildfire, protecting Virginia's waters, managing and conserving Virginia's forests, managing state-owned lands and nurseries, and managing regulated incentive programs for forest landowners. 

b. Agency Findings. VDOF finds that the proposed project will have a significant 

impact on the forest resources of the Commonwealth. The development of a mitigation plan for project impacts to forest resources may be coordinated with Todd Groh, DOF at (434) 220-9044 or todd.groh@dof.virginia.gov. 

Comment noted. Also see response to comment 14 (c) bel
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Recommendations. VDOF recommends that the proposed clearing of nearly 

1,163 acres of timberland in the four-county area for the railroad right-of-way 

corridor be mitigated. Potential opportunities for mitigation include but are not limited to: 

 Planting open company lands within the Commonwealth of Virginia to create a 

forested stand. 

 Working with the VDOF to develop a cost share program to assist private 

landowners within the four-county area or statewide to reforest harvested timberlands or plant open lands with pine or hardwood seedlings. This program 

would be funded by USDOT/Federal Railroad Administration for mitigation. 

 Working with the VDOF or other Virginia conservation agency or group to 

create a forest land conservation fund that would be used for the purchase of conservation easements or property acquisitions of forested lands. These purchases could be within the four-county area or statewide and would ensure that the forested lands are managed and be retained as working forest lands. 

Due to the great value of forests and forestland to the Commonwealth, VDOF recommends a mitigation ratio in excess of 1 to 1; more than one acre of land reforested or protected to every one acre cleared for the right-of-way. This would result in the conservation, reforestation or purchase of at least 1,163+ acres within the four-county area or statewide. VDOF is available to meet representatives from the proponent agencies to discuss potential mitigation strategies for this project. For additional information and coordination, contact Todd Groh, VDOF at (434) 220-9044 or todd.groh@dof.virginia.gov. 

Detailed mitigation methods will be determined during the 

construction documents based on final design and followinDepartment of Forestry and other regulatory and advisory Joint Permit Application process. 

15) Water Supply. 

a. The DEIS (page 3-8) states that surface waters that could be especially sensitive 

to impacts by the proposed SEHSR project include those used for water supplies 

and include Ashton Creek, Timsbury Creek, Swift Creek, Lieutenant Run, Float Creek, Little Genito Creek, Parham Creek, Hewey Creek, Roanoke River, Smith Creek, Reedy Branch and Anderson Swamp Creek. 

Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Office of Drinking Water (ODW) reviews projects for the potential to impact public drinking water sources 

(groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). 

Comment noted. These public water supply streams have Table 3-3 and include any unnamed tributaries flowing intFloat Creek listed in the comment is the “Flat Creek” listed 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Agency Findings. VDH finds that there were no significant differences among 

the three alternatives related to public water sources. The following groundwater 

wells are within a 1,000 foot radius of the study corridor: 

Well Owner Milepost Marker (Approx.) 

Southside Elementary School S-32.5/S-33 Food Lion S-36.25 Dinwiddie Elementary School S-37 Hoagie Bob's S-38.5 Home Place Restaurant S-38.5 Town of McKinney-North Well S-47 Town of McKinney-South Well S-47 Town of McKinney-Well 01 S-48.5 Hillcrest Mobile Home Park S-77/S-78 No surface water intakes are located within a 5 mile radius of the study corridor. The study area does not fall within Zone 1 (up to 5 miles into the watershed» of any public surface water sources. Project falls within Zone 2 (greater than 5 miles into the watershed) of the following surface water intakes: River Basin Surface Water Intake Owner Water Source James Virginia-American Water Co Appomattox 

Chowan Greensville County WSA- Jarratt Nottoway Chowan Town of Lawrenceville Meherrin Chowan Town of Lawrenceville Great Creek Chowan City of Emporia Meherrin Chowan City of Norfolk Nottoway Roanoke City of Norfolk- Left VB Intake Lake Gaston Roanoke City of Norfolk- Right VB Intake Lake Gaston 

Section 3.15.1 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to inc

information provided in these comments. The surface watbeen added to this discussion. A new Section 4.15.1 (Groundwater Wells) has been added potential direct well impacts from the Preferred Alternative impacts to public water supply intakes. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Recommendations. VDH recommends that Best Management Practices should 

be employed along the rail corridor, including erosion and sediment controls and 

Spill Prevention Controls and Countermeasures. Proponent agencies should notify groundwater well and surface water intake owners of the scope of this project and solicit their comments. 

Requirement. Potential impacts to public water distribution systems must be verified with 

the local utility. Proponent agencies must contact the appropriate local utility where 

potential impacts may occur. Conclusion. VDH concludes that there are potential impacts to public drinking water sources due to this project Contact Diedre Forsgren, VDH at (804) 864-7241 for additional information. 

The Project designs are not anticipated to impact any publitherefore, specific coordination with well owners was not iundertaken with the manager of the Hillcrest Mobile Home determined that potential impacts to one of their two wells another well within the property limits.) The Richmond to Raleigh Project will employ best manageNorth Carolina to control erosion and sedimentation, and tTier II FEIS lists all mitigation and minimization techniquwater quality impacts from the Project. Potential impacts to public water distribution systems will local utilities will be contacted during the ROW phase of tAs noted above, a discussion of potential impacts to public 

Tier II FEIS (Section 4.1.1.4). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

16) Historic Structures and Archaeological Resources. 

a. According to the DEIS (page 4-132), the effects of the SEHSR project on 

archaeological resources will be determined after the selection of the preferred alternative per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2). This regulation permits a phased process to 

conduct identification and evaluation efforts on projects where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or large land areas. Both the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) have agreed with this approach for the SEHSR project. 

The document (page 4-133) states that where the SEHSR project has been determined to have an adverse effect on historic resources, Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 requires that efforts be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. As part of this process, consultation has taken place and is ongoing with DHR and other "consulting parties," such as the National Park Service, local historic societies, and property owners. This consultation will result in Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) for both Virginia and North Carolina, which outline the agreed-upon measures that the SEHSR project will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Agency Jurisdiction. The Department of Historic Resources conducts reviews of projects to determine their effect on historic structures or cultural resources under its jurisdiction. DHR, as the designated State's Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), ensures that federal actions comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulation at 36 CFR Part 800. The NHPA 

requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federal projects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 also applies if there are any federal involvements, such as licenses, permits, approvals or funding. 

Comment noted. The Richmond to Raleigh Project continpotential impacts to historic resources. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Agency Comments. According to DHR, the FRA and Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), through the North Carolina Department of Transportation, have been consulting with the DHR on this project since 2001 pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. The agencies are in the early stages of drafting a Memorandum of Agreement on "the undertaking which, when complete, will conclude the Section 106 process. DHR anticipates that such consultation will continue and DHR will make comments under the federal process. According to DHR, the FRA and DRPT are aware of DHR concerns and issues. 

Recommendation. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulation 36 CFR 800, FRA and DRPT must continue to coordinate with DHR on the development of an MOA addressing impacts to historic and archaeological resources. For additional information and coordination, contact Marc Holma, DHR at (804) 367-2323, ext. 114. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will continue to coordinacompletion of the MOA. 

17) Recreational Resources. 

a. According to the DEIS (page 5-4), the project would not use land from any 

recreation area or wildlife refuge. However, it would cross five publicly-owned 

trails in six locations, require a small amount of right-of-way from three public parks (two local and one national park), and come in close proximity to three public parks. 

Agency Jurisdiction. DCR's Division of Planning and Recreational Resources (DPRR) administers the Virginia Scenic Rivers, Virginia Byways, and state trails programs and is responsible for developing the Virginia Outdoors Plan (VOP), the state's comprehensive outdoor recreation and open space plan. The VOP recognizes the importance of scenery to Virginians. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Agency Findings. According to the Department of Conservation and Recreation 

Division of Planning and Recreation Resources (DPRR), none of the recreation facilities listed in the document are protected by the Land & Water Conservation Fund (Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965). Many 

battlefields are listed in the Section 4(f) (U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966) evaluation section of the document and project impacts are denoted as 

de minimis. However, if any of the battlefields were assisted with Land & Water 

Conservation Fund through the Federal American Battlefield Protection 

Program or some other means, there may be Section 6(f) impacts which would 

need to be addressed. 

The project corridor crosses the proposed corridor of the statewide Beaches to Bluegrass trail. The Tobacco Heritage Trail (THT), a subsection of the Beaches to Bluegrass Trail, is 

currently under development in Brunswick and Mecklenburg counties. There are two alignments of the THT that cross the SEHSR corridor at Alberta and La Crosse, both of which should connect into the proposed alignment for the East Coast Greenway parallel to 

the SEHSR. The project corridor also crosses several scenic resources. The scenic resources this project crosses are: Scenic River Crossings - 

 Historic Falls of the James 

 Appomattox River 

 Nottoway River [potential] 

 Meherrin River 

Scenic Byway Crossings - 

 Route 903 

 Route 46-Christianna Highway 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Recommendations. DCR-DPRR offers the following recommendations 

addressing potential project impacts to recreational resources - 

 The proponent agencies should contact the National Park Service to determine if 

any 6(f) impacts may occur as a result of this project. 

 The proponent agencies should coordinate with DCR-DPRR regarding Tobacco 

Heritage Trail crossings at Alberta and La Crosse. 

 Crossings at scenic rivers and byways should take into account the scenic values 

of the areas and enhance the scenic qualities of the crossings. If possible, proponent agencies should provide water access at all crossings of scenic rivers.

The proponent agencies may contact Elizabeth S. Ries, National Park Service at (202) 

354-2215 or Elizabeth Ries@contractor.nps.gov, to determine if any Section 6(f) impacts may occur as a result of this project. Coordination of this project with regard to Tobacco Heritage Trail crossings at Alberta and La Crosse may be accomplished by contacting Jennifer Wampler, DCR-DPRR at Jennifer.Wampler@dcr.virginia.gov. Any questions 

regarding scenic resources may be directed to Lynn Crump, DCR-DPRR at (804) Lynn.Crump@dcr.virginia.gov. 

Section 6(f) properties described in the Tier II DEIS were and Water Conservation Fund website of state grants. In rTeam coordinated with Elizabeth Ries and Jack Howard of verified that there are no NPS Section 6(f) resources within The Project Team is coordinating with both the Town of Aregarding the Richmond to Raleigh Project crossings of the 

in the Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Richmond to Raleigh DPRR is also taking place as it relates to the development parallel to the Richmond to Raleigh Project. As noted in the Tier II DEIS, the Richmond to Raleigh Pronew bridge adjacent to the existing single track bridge. At bridge is proposed for high speed passenger trains, located bridge. The project alternatives propose to utilize the existi

bridges at the Nottaway and Meherrin Rivers. The superst

would be replaced at the Nottoway River, while the existinretained at the Meherrin River. There is no conflict with t1968; however, coordination with the Virginia Scenic Rivewith the Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970 for the new st

Rivers. This coordination will take place during the final dthe request for water access, there are existing public accesAppomattox River. It is not possible to provide additional because the corridor is not accessible to vehicles or pedestr

18) Aviation Impacts. 

a. Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Aviation's Airport Services 

Division provides airport sponsors and managers with technical assistance on a 

wide range of projects and issues, including the planning, design, construction and maintenance of airport facilities. The division manages funding programs 

for capital improvements, facilities and equipment, airport maintenance projects, and airport security; the General Aviation Voluntary Security Certification Program; the licensing program for public-use airports; and the registration program for private-use airports. This division conducts statewide aviation 

system planning and maintains the Virginia Air Transportation System Plan. 

Agency Comments. According to the Department of Aviation (DoAv) the proposed project may be located within 20,000 linear feet of a public use airport or a portion of the route may penetrate an existing or proposed Part 77 surface or approach path as defined in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5300. 

Chapters 3 and 4 of the Tier II FEIS have been updated to to all applicable airport runways within 20,000 linear feet o
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

b. Requirements. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, the 

proponent agencies must submit Form 7460, Notice of Proposed Construction or 

Alteration, to the Federal Aviation Administration Eastern Region for its review for potential hazards to air navigation. Submittal of this form may be made to Chad Carper, FAA Eastern Region at (703) 661-1358. The review will ensure that the proposed rail line will not create a hazard to air navigation. For further information, contact S. Scott Denny, DoAv at (804) 236-3632. 

Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to address submitted prior to project construction. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

19) Pollution Prevention. 

Pollution Prevention. DEQ advocates that principles of pollution prevention be used in all 

construction projects as well as in facility operations. Effective siting, planning, and onsite Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help to ensure that environmental impacts 

are minimized. However, pollution prevention techniques also include decisions related to construction materials, design, and operational procedures that will facilitate the reduction 

of wastes at the source. Recommendations. We have several pollution prevention recommendations that may be helpful in future construction projects and in the operation of rail line: 

 Consider development of an effective Environmental Management System 

(EMS). An effective EMS ensures that operations are committed to minimizing environmental impacts, setting environmental goals, and achieving improvements in its environmental performance. DEQ offers EMS development assistance and it recognizes organizations with effective Environmental 

Management Systems through its Virginia Environmental Excellence Program. 

 Consider environmental attributes when purchasing materials. For example, the 

extent of recycled material content, toxicity level, and amount of packaging 

should be considered and can be specified in purchasing contracts. 

 Consider contractors' commitment to the environment (such as an EMS) when 

choosing contractors. Specifications regarding raw materials and construction 

practices can be included in contract documents and requests for proposals. 

 Choose sustainable materials and practices for infrastructure construction and 

design. These could include asphalt and concrete containing recycled materials, and integrated pest management in landscaping, among other things. 

 Integrate pollution prevention techniques into the facility maintenance and 

operation, to include the following: inventory control (record-keeping and centralized storage for hazardous materials), product substitution (use of nontoxic cleaners), and source reduction (fixing leaks, energy-efficient HVAC and equipment). Maintenance facilities should be designed with sufficient and 

suitable space to allow for effective inventory control and preventative maintenance. 

DEQ's Office of Pollution Prevention provides information and technical assistance relating to pollution prevention techniques and EMS. For more information, contact DEQ's Office of Pollution Prevention, Sharon Baxter at (804) 698-4344. 

Comments noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

20) Local Comments. a. City of Richmond - Comments from the Richmond Department of Planning and 

Development Review, Land Use Administration Division and Department of Economic and Community Development are included below. Additional contact information for departments and divisions that will be involved in construction plan reviews and code enforcement is attached to this response. 

Comment noted. 

1) Department of Planning and Development Review, Land Use Administration 

Division 

According to the Department of Planning and Development Review, Land Use Administration Division, one of the vision statements for the implementation of the City of Richmond's Downtown Master Plan (page 4.61) is that Main Street Station should be 

restored as an inter-modal transportation center. The plan recognizes that, "Main Street Station remains underutilized" and "the City should take advantage of this great asset by 

restoring its role as the center of the community." The plan states that utilizing Main Street Station as an inter-modal transportation center, "would provide a tremendous benefit to Downtown." "Main Street Station", the plan continues, "is an excellent choice for such a transportation center, as the station is a grand entrance to the city, and its location provides direct access to the City Center and Downtown neighborhoods." Lastly, the plan states that, if it were to happen, "increased rail service could serve the station, making Main Street Station a local and regional transportation destination."

Comment noted. 

The DEIS notes that a new bridge would have to be constructed over the James River heading into Main Street Station. The James is one of the seven "Foundations" of the Master Plan. One of the guidance items for this foundation is to "allow residents and visitors to fully enjoy this unique natural feature by creating a series of clear connections to the riverfront. Under this guidance item the plan (page 3.14) notes that "one obstacle to accessibility is the layering of infrastructure that lines the riverfront, including the canals that George Washington surveyed, the railroad lines built on top of the canal tow-paths, and the recently constructed floodwall."

The proposed new bridge over the James River leading intimmediately adjacent to the existing single track CSX S-lincurrent rail bridge, the new one will span the existing canariverfront. This existing railroad line/bridge is perpendiculexpansion through a new bridge will not worsen the existinaccessibility, as access to the riverfront is entirely blocked walls and floodwalls that currently line the river’s edge. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

The Land Use Administration Division supports of the use of Main Street Station as a hub 

in the proposed high-speed rail network. When an alternative is chosen and more information is provided regarding the impact of the alternative on Main Street Station and other affected properties, Land Use Administration will provide detailed comments. 

For questions regarding Land Use Administration Division comments, contact Lory Markham at (804) 646-6309, or Lory. Markham @Richmondgov.com.

Regarding the selection of a Preferred Alternative in the viindicated in the Tier II DEIS, all three alternatives in Sectimaximize the use of existing rail ROW to build double tracexists. To see any rail design changes associated with the along with any associated roadwork, refer to the Map Book Although the Main Street Station site was evaluated in the 

DEIS and Tier II FEIS to the level to ensure that a station pgeneral location would provide sufficient accessibility and transportation network, this study does not evaluate the speimprovements. Decisions regarding improvements planneland around it are under the control of the City of Richmonused for the construction of or improvement to the Main Swill be required for its implementation, including an evaluimpacts. All comments regarding Main Street Station collby staff and will be provided to the City of Richmond, who NEPA environmental evaluations and will be responsible f

Street Station improvements at a later date. 

2) Department of Economic and Community Development 

The Richmond Department of Economic and Community Development applauds the 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration for their dedicated efforts in developing the DEIS. Connecting multi-state urbanized areas with improved passenger rail service and eventual high speed passenger rail infrastructure will provide competitive travel alternatives, enhance the environment, attract jobs, promote tourism and bolster economic vitality. Passenger rail service provides safe and highly reliable transportation service between the downtown areas of multiple cities for all segments of the population. This type of transportation service is extremely desirable and in many cases rail travel is quicker, more convenient, reliable, comfortable and less expensive than air or automobile travel. A city connected by quality passenger rail service coupled with convenient public transportation 

services becomes a more attractive destination and the areas near downtown stations become prime locations for investment. Such stations invite transit oriented development and present the opportunity to improve the livability and sustainability of the communities that they serve. In this way passenger rail service fosters economic development for the city, state and nation. The DEIS details the improvements to the passenger rail corridor between Richmond 

Support for the Project, including its funding, has been notTier II FEIS for additional project Purpose and Need (incluinformation. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

Virginia and Raleigh North Carolina. The document includes Richmond's downtown Main Street Station multimodal transportation center as the terminus and/or origination point for 

all passenger rail services. Main Street Station is also the designated Richmond train station in the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Tier l EIS (2002 Record of Decision and Implementation Plan) and the draft Hampton Roads High Speed Passenger Rail Study, Tier I EIS. Currently the Main Street Station is served by only four trains a day along the Newport News to Boston corridor with Amtrak's northeast regional service. Main Street Station is positioned to serve as the hub for Virginia's passenger rail network with 32 trains per day from the north, south, east and west. The eight Southeast high speed 

trains are a component of the state rail network and vital to the connectivity within the Commonwealth. The City of Richmond strongly supports the planning and implementation of the studied Richmond to Raleigh high speed rail corridor as well as the overall Southeast high speed rail corridor linking Washington DC to urbanized areas and states to the south. The location of the Southeast high speed corridor directly connected to Amtrak's existing successful Northeast high speed rail corridor provides a tremendous opportunity and further enhances the rail infrastructure investment. Federal and state agencies along with high speed rail supporters should continue their efforts to make the implementation of the 

Southeast high speed rail corridor project a priority and a reality. For questions regarding the Department of Economic and Community Development comments, contact Viktoria Badger at 804-646-5871, or Viktoria.badger@ richmondgov.com. 

b. Chesterfield County - Chesterfield County has no comments on the DEIS. Comment noted. 21) Regional Comments - Planning District Commissions. In accordance with the 

Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-4207, planning district commissions encourage 

and facilitate local government cooperation and state-local cooperation in 

addressing, on a regional basis, problems of greater than local significance. The cooperation resulting from this is intended to facilitate the recognition and analysis of regional opportunities and take account of regional influences in planning and implementing public policies and services. Planning district commissions promote the orderly and efficient development of the physical, 

social and economic elements of the districts by planning, and encouraging and assisting localities to plan, for the future. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

a. Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC) - The CPDC is supportive of 

efforts by North Carolina and Virginia to establish high speed passenger rail service within the federally designated Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. Several local governments within the Tri-Cities are on record supporting the VA 1 alternative and opposing pursuing the further development of alternatives VA2 and VA3. The CPDC also supports VA1 and the conclusion reached in the DEIS regarding alternatives through Petersburg. VA 1 offers significant cost and impact advantages over both alternatives VA2 and VA3 in the Petersburg vicinity. 

This statement appears to relate to alternatives that were coconsideration. The VA1 alternative described here is the p

The CPDC and the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) are interested in further exploring the potential development of a new rail station that would offer better roadway access for future passenger service. The DEIS (page 2-49) indicates three potential station sites have been evaluated by study sponsors from an access perspective only. The draft document does not provide much detail or guidance on how this evaluation may be carried forward to the next step. The CPDC and the Tri-Cities MPO are interested in expanding this evaluation to include additional factors. The prospect of a new passenger rail station along the SEHSR corridor offering better service to area population is desired. A new station could be developed to better compliment the proposed Norfolk to Richmond conventional passenger service currently programmed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the potential development of a Richmond to 

Hampton Roads higher speed passenger service utilizing the Norfolk Southern rail corridor paralleling U.S. Route 460. It is most important that these potential future rail service development plans be effectively coordinated, especially with regard to potential future station location. For additional information contact Dennis K. Morris, CPDC at (804) 861-1666. 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environme

specific station locations or design needs, because the deveundertaking at an individual location. As noted, generalizeevaluated, but only to the level to ensure that a station placlocation would provide sufficient accessibility to the larger and agency comments received regarding specific station l

provided to transportation planning organizations in each s

the individual station locations will perform separate envirfinal decision on the station location and design at a later dThe Tri-Cities Area Passenger Rail Station Study evaluated the existing station in Ettrick and a location in north CollieRoads in Petersburg. Both locations were found to be suitimprovement. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is currewell as additional alternative station locations. The study iDistrict Commission (CPDC) and FRA is the Lead FederaRegarding the Hampton Roads HSR connection, it has beegiven its independent utility (as authorized by NEPA). Thstudy was signed by FRA in December 2012. For more inHampton Roads Tier I" study or plans for the next phase (Tinvolvement opportunities for that separate project, please http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/hamptonpassenger.adesigned to ensure compatibility and connectivity in the PeRichmond to Raleigh Project has been updated to include aRichmond to Hampton Roads project, specifically addressistatus of that separate study. 

b. Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) - The RRPDC 

reviewed the DEIS and has no comments on the project as proposed. For additional information contact Jackie Stewart, RRPDC at (804) 323-2033. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

c. Southside Planning District Commission (SPDC) – The SPDC supports the 

project. For additional information contact Carol Corker, SPDC at (434) 447-

7101. 

Comment noted. 

22) Attachment 1 - Enforceable Regulatory Programs comprising Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program (VCP) a. Fisheries Management - The program stresses the conservation and enhancement of finfish and shellfish resources and the promotion of com

maximize food production and recreational opportunities. This program is administered by the Marine Resources Commission (VMRC); Vir

the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF); Virginia Code 29.1-100 to 29.1-570. 

The State Tributyltin (TBT) Regulatory Program has been added to the Fisheries Management program. The General Assembly amended the Virginia 

it related to the possession, sale, or use of marine antifoulant paints containing TBT. The use of TBT in boat paint constitutes a serious threat to impor

program monitors boating activities and boat painting activities to ensure compliance with TBT regulations promulgated pursuant to the amendment. T

Department of Agriculture Consumer Services (VDACS) share enforcement responsibilities; Virginia Code. 3.1-249.59 to 3.1-249.62. 

b. Subaqueous Lands Management - The management program for subaqueous lands establishes conditions for granting or denying permits to 

considerations of potential effects on marine and fisheries resources, tidal wetlands, adjacent or nearby properties, anticipated public and pri

standards established by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The program is administered by the Marine Resources Commissi1213. 

c. Wetlands Management - The purpose of the wetlands management program is to preserve wetlands, prevent their despoliation, and accomm

manner consistent with wetlands preservation. 

1) The tidal wetlands program is administered by the Marine Resources Commission; Virginia Code. 28.2-1301 through 28.2-1320. 

2) The Virginia Water Protection Permit program administered by DEQ includes protection of wetlands --both tidal and non-tidal; Virginia Co

Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Attachment 1 continued 

d. Dunes Management - Dune protection is carried out pursuant to The Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act and is intended to prevent d

dunes. This program is administered by the Marine Resources Commission; Virginia Cod~ 28.2-1400 through 28.2-1420. 

e. Non-point Source Pollution Control – 

1) Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soil-disturbing projects to be designed to reduce soil erosion and to decrease inputs o

the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and other rivers and waters of the Commonwealth. This program is administered by the Department of C

Code .10.1-560 et seg.). 

2) Coastal Lands Management is a state-local cooperative program administered by the OCR's Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance a

Virginia; Virginia Code § 10.1-2100 -10.1-2114 and 9 VAC10-20 et seq. 

f. Point Source Pollution Control - The point source program is administered by the State Water Control Board (DEQ) pursuant to Virginia Co

control is accomplished through the implementation of: 

1) the' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program established pursuant to Section 402 of the federal Clean Wa

the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit program. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

2) The Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWPP) program administered by DEQ; Virginia Code §62.1-44. 15:5 and Water Quality Certificatio

Water Act. 

g. Shoreline Sanitation - The purpose of this program is to regulate the installation of septic tanks, set standards concerning soil types suitable f

distances that tanks must be placed away from streams, rivers, and other waters of the Commonwealth. This program is administered by the 

32.1-164 through 32.1-165). 

h. Air Pollution Control - The program implements the federal Clean Air Act to provide a legally enforceable State Implementation Plan for th

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This program is administered by the State Air Pollution Control Board (Virginia Code. 10-1.1300 

i. Coastal Lands Management is a state-local cooperative program administered by the OCR's Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance a

established pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act; Virginia Code § 10.1-2100 -10.1-2114 and Chesapeake Bay Preservation AreRegulations; Virginia Administrative Code 9 VAC10-20 et seq. 

23) Attachment 2 – 

Advisory Policies for Geographic Areas of Particular Concern 

a. Coastal Natural Resource Areas - These areas are vital to estuarine and marine ecosystems and/or are of great importance to areas immediate

receive special attention from the Commonwealth because of their conservation, recreational, ecological, and aesthetic values. These areas aany planning or resources management process and include the following resources: 

i. Wetlands 

ii. Aquatic Spawning, Nursery, and Feeding Grounds 

iii. Coastal Primary Sand Dunes 

iv. Barrier Islands 

v. Significant Wildlife Habitat Areas 

vi. Public Recreation Areas 

vii. Sand and Gravel Resources 

viii. Underwater Historic Sites. 

b. Coastal Natural Hazard Areas - This policy covers areas vulnerable to continuing and severe erosion and areas susceptible to potential dama

events including flooding. New buildings and other structures should be designed and sited to minimize the potential for property damage du

areas of concern are as follows: 

i. Highly Erodible Areas 

ii. Coastal High Hazard Areas, including flood plains. 

c. Waterfront Development Areas - These areas are vital to the Commonwealth because of the limited number of areas suitable for waterfront 

follows: 

i. Commercial Ports 

ii. Commercial Fishing Piers 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG18 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Multiple State and Local Agencies, Ellie Irons, Office of Envi

Comment Response 

iii. Community Waterfronts 

Although the management of such areas is the responsibility of local government and some regional authorities, designation of these areas as Waterfro

Concern (APC) under the VCRMP is encouraged. Designation will allow the use of federal CZMA funds to be used to assist planning for such areas aThe VCRMP recognizes two broad classes of priority uses for waterfront development APC: 

i. water access dependent activities; 

ii. activities significantly enhanced by the waterfront location and complementary to other existing and/or planned activities in a given waterfro

Advisory Policies for Shorefront Access Planning and Protection 

a. Virginia Public Beaches - Approximately 25 miles of public beaches are located in the cities, counties, and towns of Virginia exclusive of pu

These public shoreline areas will be maintained to allow public access to recreational resources. 

b. Virginia Outdoors Plan - Planning for coastal access is provided by the Department of Conservation and Recreation in cooperation with othe

The Virginia Outdoors Plan (VOP), which is published by the Department, identifies recreational facilities in the Commonwealth that provid

serves to identify future needs of the Commonwealth in relation to the provision of recreational opportunities and shoreline access. Prior to i

should be given to the proximity of the project site to recreational resources identified in the VOP. 

c. Parks. Natural Areas and Wildlife Management Areas - Parks, Wildlife Management Areas, and Natural Areas are provided for the recreatio

Commonwealth and the nation by local, state, and federal agencies. The recreational values of these areas should be protected and maintaine

d. Waterfront Recreational Land Acquisition - It is the policy of the Commonwealth to protect areas, properties, lands, or any estate or interest 

utility, historical interest, or unusual features which may be acquired, preserved, and maintained for the citizens of the Commonwealth. 

e. Waterfront Recreational Facilities - This policy applies to the provision of boat ramps, public landings, and bridges which provide water acc

Commonwealth. These facilities shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide points of water access when and where practicabl

f. Waterfront Historic Properties - The Commonwealth has a long history of settlement and development, and much of that history has involve

The protection and preservation of historic shorefront properties is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Historic Resources. Bui

historical, architectural, and/or archaeological interest are significant resources for the citizens of the Commonwealth. It is the policy of the Cenhance the protection of buildings, structures, and sites of historical, architectural, and archaeological significance from damage or destruct
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG41 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Wetlands and Water Protection, Additional Comm

Comment Response 

DEQ has reviewed early coordination information provided by Michael Baker Engineering Inc., for the above-referenced project. The project as addressed in the Tier II Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entails constructing a high speed rail (HSR) service from Richmond, Virginia to Raleigh. North Carolina. This letter provides water quality comments for the proposed alignments VA1, VA2, and VA3 within Sections AA through L which include approximately 97 miles of mainline track starting in Richmond and terminating at the Virginia/North Carolina state line 

Comment noted. 

1) Sections AA. BB. CC. 

a. C and F have the same proposed alignment between VA1, VA2, and VA3 with 

no difference in wetlands or stream impacts. For these sections the following general comments apply: Improvements should be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to surface waters to the greatest extent practicable. Where the project involves a bridge or culvert installation or replacement, the applicant should determine if natural stream channel design measures can be employed. Address the feasibility of installing: instream structures such as a crossvane or constructing bankfull benches or recreating pre-existing streambanks. The 

design should attempt to eliminate or reduce the amount of riprap to the greatest 

extent possible. 

It will be determined during final design and permitting if measures can be employed during bridge or culvert installa

b. Restore temporary impact areas to their original contours and revegetate with 

the same or similar species. If necessary, consider using a work bridge rather than a causeway to reduce temporary impacts. 

These steps will be taken during final design, permitting, a

c. For any work that is performed instream such as the construction of a box 

culvert or new bridge piers, the applicant should utilize cofferdams to perform all work in the dry. Observe strict adherence to and monitoring of erosion and stormwater management practices to ensure that these practices are adequately preventing sediment and pollutant migration into adjacent surface waters. 

Stream work will be performed in the dry as per standard p

2) Sections DD, A, B, D, E, G, H, I, J, K and L. Sections DD, A, B, D, E, G, H, I, 

J, K and L propose different alignments between options VA1 VA2 and VA3. For these sections the above general comments apply in addition to the following comments: 

a. Section DD - VA3 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. There is 

only a nominal difference between stream and wetland impacts between the 

three alignments, However, VA3 has a Positive Operability/Constructability rating versus neutral for VA1 and negative for VA2, VA3 is also the least expensive of the three alignments. 

Alternative VA3 is the preferred alternative in Section DD
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG41 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Wetlands and Water Protection, Additional Comm

Comment Response 

b. Section A - VA2 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. VA2 has the 

least wetland and stream impacts and also the best Operability/Constructability rating. 

Alternative VA2 is the preferred alternative in Section A. 

c. Section B - VA2 is the least environmentally damaging alignment of the three 

proposed with 496 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.62 acres of wetlands impacts versus 940 linear feet of streams and 0.9 acres of wetlands impacts for Al and A3. However DEQ recognizes that VA2 results in a negative Operability/Constructability rating versus neutral ratings for VA1 and VA3 due to a 20 mile per hour reduction in the top speed allowed using VA2. Alignment VA1and/or VA3 are practicable provided that the appropriate mitigation is 

provided for the increased impacts. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in Section B. water resources, forested uplands, and prime and other imp

relocations; and a larger total cost compared to Alternative a much lower limiting speed and a negative rating for operaddition, Alternative VA2 has five more potential noise anAlternative VA1) and one business relocation (whereas AlIt should be noted that the difference in stream and wetland been significantly reduced from what was presented in the Alternative VA1 had approximately 450 additional feet of wetland impacts compared to Alternative VA2. Of these, mand 0.3 acres of wetland impacts associated with Alternativnew access road that intersects Carson Road. This road has minimize or negate the stream and wetland impacts. Any rwill be fully mitigated, and the design work will include corevised stream and wetland impacts for Alternative VA1 areductions, the stream and wetland impacts for Alternative VA2. 

d. Section D – 

i. VA1/VA3 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. VA1/VA3 results 

in 2,050 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.99 acres of wetland impacts. VA2 

would impact 2,575 linear feet of stream and 7.37 acres of wetlands impacts, an increase of 6.38 acres of wetlands and 525 linear feet of streams over VA1/VA3. In addition to the increased direct impact to wetlands and streams, VA2 would effectively bisect a large contiguous wetland complex and introduce 

rail traffic that would have an unknown negative secondary effect on the wild1ife functions and values of that forested wetland system. V2’s recommending factors are the avoidance of a Section 106 Adverse Effect, the 

avoidance of a potential impact to a population of the federally threatened 

species Michaux’s sumac and lower construction costs. 

ii. The adverse effect determination to the Section 106 resource associated with 

VA1/VA3 results from an anticipated degradation of the overall historic value of the entire property, but does not involve a direct impact to the historic home on the property. Based on the proposed distance of the VA1/VA3 alignment from the historic home, the project proponent should explore viable options that 

Alternative VA4 is the preferred alternative in Section D. of the public comment period for the Tier II DEIS, through the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Virginia Depa(VDHR), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Quality (VDEQ). Alternative VA4 does not require a Sectproperty, avoids impacts to the delineated population of th

wetland impacts (compared to Alternative VA2). This alteacceptable preferred alternative by USACE, VDHR, USFWmeeting held on April 12, 2011. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG41 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Wetlands and Water Protection, Additional Comm

Comment Response 

would mitigate the adverse effect of the proximity of the railway to the historic home, including the establishment of a wooded buffer between the home and the railway. 

iii. The currently proposed alignment for VA1/VA3 has not been shown to result in 

a complete impact to the Michaux's sumac population. However, there is concern that future maintenance of the VAIN A3 alignment, including the application of herbicides within the railway right of way, will impact the population. Consider the feasibility of establishing a no-spray zone through the use of signage, fencing or a combination of methods that would prevent impacts from herbicides. Also, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Fish and Wildlife Service have established that Michaux's sumac thrives in open areas and cannot persist in forested areas. The current Michaux's sumac population is located in the open areas along the original CSX S-line, which is maintained to prevent the establishment of shrubs or trees. The population thins as it moves deeper into the forested area. Should VA2 be chosen in part1 to avoid the sumac population the resulting lack of ongoing vegetation maintenance at the current sumac location would ultimately result in shrubs and eventually trees outcompeting the sumac and the probable loss of the population despite the avoidance of a direct impact. 

iv. The ideal alignment in Section D would be a hybrid alignment that avoids the 

Section 106 resource and the Michaux’s sumac population while skirting the large forested wetland complex that results in 7.37 acres of impacts and unknown negative effects to that systems wildlife function and values. Preliminary discussions in the field seem to indicate that such an alignment may be feasible. 

e. Section E - VA1/VA3 is the least environmentally damaging alignment as it 

results in 2.13 less acres of wetlands impacts than VA2. VA1/VA3 also maintains a positive Operability/Constructability rating versus a neutral rating 

for VA2 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in Section E. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG41 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Wetlands and Water Protection, Additional Comm

Comment Response 

f. Section G - VA3 is the least environmentally damaging alignment VA3 results 

in a reduction of 0.28 acres wetland impacts and 414 linear feet in stream 

impacts over VA2 and 154 linear feet of stream impacts over VA1. VA1 and VA3 both have Section 106 adverse effect determination due to their passage through the property that includes the “Tourist House.” The “Tourist House” is 

located immediately adjacent to a country road with and includes a multi-acre property that extends away from the road frontage in a rectangular wooded lot. The historic relevance of the this resource involves its relationship to the development of the American automobile and its function as a rest stop for early automobile tourists. Due to the fact that VA1/VA3 alignments pass a considerable distance from the “Tourist House” through a wooded lot that 

provides existing screening and considering that the house and its relationship to the roadway provides the primary historic relevance of this resource, VA3 is the recommended alignment. Furthermore, VA2, which is proposed solely to provide a total avoidance of the “Tourist House” results in a negative Operability/Constructability rating versus a positive rating for VA3. 

Alternative VA3 is the preferred alternative in Section G. 

g. Section H - VA1/VA3 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. 

VA1/VA3 results in a slight reduction to stream impacts versus VA2 and also has a positive Operability / Constructability rating versus neutral for VA2. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in Section H. 

h. Section I - VA2 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. The three 

proposed alignments have identical, nominal stream impacts and no wetland 

impacts. However, VA2 results in a reduction of 4.57 acres of forested upland versus VA1/VA3. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in Section I. Thave mistaken Alternative VA1/VA3 with Alternative VAto forested uplands, not fewer. 

i. Section J - VA2 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. VA2 results 

in a 1,363 linear foot reduction in stream impacts over VA1.VA3 and results in only 0.10 acre of wetland impacts. VA2 is also the only alignment that doesn’t result in a Section 106 adverse effect. 

Alternative VA2 is the preferred alternative in Section J. 

j. Section K - VA1/VA3 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. 

VA1/VA3 results in 520 fewer linear feet of stream impacts and 0.56 acre fewer wetland impacts versus VA2. VA2 results in a Section 106 adverse effect and also carries a negative Operability/Constructability rating. 

Alternative VA1 is the preferred alternative in Section K. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG41 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Wetlands and Water Protection, Additional Comm

Comment Response 

k. Section L - VA2/NC2 is the least environmentally damaging alignment. 

VA2/NC2 results in 1,387 fewer linear feet of stream impacts and 0.56 acre 

fewer wetland impacts versus VA1/NC1 and VA3/NC3. However DEQ recognizes that VA2/NC2 results in a negative Operability/Constructability rating versus neutral for VA1/NC1 and VA3/NC3 due to a 10 mile per hour 

reduction in top speed allowed sing VA2. Alignment VA1/NC1 and/or 

VA3/NC3 are practicable provided that the appropriate mitigation is provided for increased impacts. This section has cumulative wetland and stream impacts that are partially located within North Carolina. Please note that the Virginia State Law requires that wetland and stream impacts occurring in Virginia must be mitigated in Virginia. 

Alternative VA1/NC1 is the preferred alternative in SectioSection 4(f) avoidance alternative in Section L. Alternativwetland impacts compared to VA2/NC2, but fewer impactless residential relocations, fewer noise and vibration impa

it has a neutral constructability and operability rating (comAlternative VA2/NC2) and has better support from the pub

a preference for Alternative VA1/NC1 compared to two foDuring project coordination, USACE expressed concerns rwetland impacts on Alternative VA1/NC1 (2,809 feet of stwetland impacts compared to 1,422 feet of stream impacts Alternative VA2/NC2). In a letter to USACE dated Januarthe differences between the alternatives. Based on the infopreviously submitted related information, USACE stated oTeam assessed that Alternative VA2/NC2 is “not practicabcost, and operability, then [USACE] can concur with your submitted.” Due to residential displacements, cost, and openoise and vibration impacts, and impacts to prime and imp

finds that Alternative VA2/NC2 is not practicable. The impfully mitigated, and the design work will include coordinat

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the environmental document meets the provisions of 

the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

1) DENR (NC Dept of Environment and Natural Resources) 

a. Melba McGee (DENR Project Review Coordinator) - There are a number of 

concerns that need to be addressed prior to finalizing project plans. We ask that the Department of Transportation work directly with our commenting agencies during the NEPA Merger Process. This will help avoid delays at the permit phase. 

Given that Virginia does not have a Merger counterpart, FHearly in the process that a single, consistent process in both 

input on the Richmond to Raleigh Project. The Project Testate water quality agencies in selection of the LEDPA for Carolina, the Project Team met with Rob Ridings of NCDWalternatives and seek input on LEDPA. Subsequently, the 

Ridings when instances have occurred where Section 4(f) oan alternative that does not minimize impacts to streams or 

b. Rob Ridings (Division of Water Quality) – This office has reviewed the 

referenced document dated received May 28, 2010. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to numerous jurisdictional wetlands, streams, buffers and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document: 

i. Most of the streams in the project corridor are class Nutrient Sensitive Waters 

(NSW) of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts 

that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to class NSW streams and their tributaries. DWQ requests that 

design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.

Project design plans will specify treatment of stormwater rpractices as detailed in the most recent version of the NCD

Practices. 

ii. Several streams in the project corridor are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters 

of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that 

could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to 303(d) listed waters. DWQ requests that design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as 

detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management 

Practices. 

The Project Team will investigate and implement appropri

most recent version of the NCDWQ Stormwater Best Mana
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

iii. Much of this is within the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins. Riparian buffer 

impacts should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible 

pursuant to ISA NCAC 2B.0233 and 15A NCAC 2B.0259. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 

15A NCAC 2B.0233 and 15C NCAC 28.0259. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with 

mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be provided to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification. 

Riparian buffer impacts have been avoided and minimized pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233 and 15A NCAC 2B.0259protected 50-foot wide riparian areas will be limited to "usaccordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0233 and 15C NCAC 2B.impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable wUses" section of the Buffer Rules or required variance undthrough a buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NortProgram, will be provided to DWQ prior to approval of the 

iv. The environmental documents should provide a detailed and itemized 

presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 

2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation 

plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. 

The FEIS provides information on proposed impacts to wemapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCthrough the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Progrprior to approval of the 401 Water Quality Certification. 

v. Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce 

the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff 

through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, July 2007, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. 

The Project Team will investigate and implement appropridetailed in the most recent version of the NCDWQ Stormwfinal design phase, which may include grassed swale treatm

treatments, and level spreaders to the extent practicable. Tregulatory agencies throughout the design process to ensur

environmental regulations. 

vi. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 

401 Water Quality Certification, the USDOT and NCDOT are respectfully 

reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of 

impacts to wetlands, buffers, and streams to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan 

shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation. 

Comments noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

vii. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A 

NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single jurisdictional stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be 

available for use as stream mitigation. 

In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan appropriate lost functions and values. The North Carolina may be available for use as stream mitigation. 

viii. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification 

Application, shall continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed 

wetland, buffer, and stream impacts with corresponding mapping. 

Proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams focorresponding mapping, are provided in the Tier II FEIS aWater Quality Certification Application. 

ix. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result 

from this project. NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating 

factors that would reduce the impacts. 

Impacts to aquatic communities as a result of the proposed 4.10.1.2 in the Tier II DEIS and in this document. In additDEIS and in this document include measures to optimize sconstruction to protect water quality for aquatic organisms

x. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this 

project is required. The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004. 

Due to the Richmond to Raleigh Project spanning two stateearly in the process that a single, consistent process in both 

environmental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore

applied to the evaluation of secondary/cumulative impactslevel of analysis of these potential impacts, Sections 4.11 aamended to include additional discussion of secondary/cummitigation. 

xi. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, 

bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and 

riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application. 

Impacts, are described in this document and will also be inQuality Certification Application. 

xii. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of 

culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the 

use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow 

unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas 

where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable. 

Bridges have been included in the designs where practicab

be noted regarding the design of bridges for passenger HSR 

projects due to restrictions on grade (generally 1%). To rabridge can result in impacts along the rail line for a long difrom the bridge. Due to these impacts and associated costoption. For new culverts constructed in streams, the inverts will be of the stream for culverts greater than 48 inches in diameteor smaller, the inverts will be buried below the bed of the sthan 20 percent of the diameter of the culvert. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

xiii. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands, 

buffers or streams. 

Sediment and erosion control measures will not be placed 

extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion c

unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade rand fill slopes have been stabilized. 

xiv. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. 

Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation. 

Contract standard specifications prohibit a contractor from 

in wetland areas. However, unanticipated unavoidable imp

will be included in the 401 Water Quality Certification app

xv. The 401 Water Quality Certification Application will need to specifically 

address the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, 

storm water shall not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters. 

The 401 Water Quality Certification Application will specThe Richmond to Raleigh Project will develop a stormwatappropriate stormwater BMPs to control and/or treat storm

xvi. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts 

to wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit (lP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please 

be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection 

of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a final application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. 

It is understood that the magnitude of impacts to wetlands Permit (lP) application to the Corps of Engineers and correCertification. NCDOT has initiated preliminary pre-applicmeeting with Rob Ridings on April 23, 2010. 

xvii. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible. The project will avoid installing bridge bents in streams to 

xviii. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures 

usually do not require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks 

and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath 

the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters. 

Comment noted. 

xix. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall 

be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means 

(grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering 

the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will investigate and imp

treatment measures as detailed in the most recent version oManagement Practices in the final design phase. The proj

drains on bridges, wherever practicable. Stormwater will btreated through site-appropriate means, wherever practicab
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

xx. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to 

prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. 

These recommendations follow the NCDOT’s standard de

xxi. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to 

its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance. 

Where temporary access roads and detours are required, thpreconstruction contours and elevations on a case-by-case 

Disturbed areas will be reseeded following construction. Wrequired, the area will be cleared but not grubbed. 

xxii. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall 

be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with 

a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a 

manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the above structures. The applicant 

is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required. 

Comments noted. Placement of culverts and other structurwill be countersunk as indicated above. The Project Team 

and USACE through the 401 Water Quality Certification p

xxiii. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural 

stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood 

plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of 

structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage. 

The Project Team will review drainage design with NCDW401 Water Quality Certification. 

xxiv. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. 

Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687INationwide Permit No.6 for Survey Activities. 

It is anticipated that foundation test borings will be necessathe Project, the Project will obtain any required permits peprior to beginning the construction phase of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

xxv. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources 

must be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design 

Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. 

Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protecand maintained in accordance with the most recent version Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the mos

xxvi. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. 

Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, 

cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. 

All current approved and appropriate BMPs will be follow

xxvii. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region 

Evaluation of Wetland Significance (Ne-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval. 

Wetlands in the Project Study Area were identified by qua

surveys and delineations. 

xxviii. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream 

channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment shall be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. 

These recommendations follow the NCDOT’s standard de

xxix. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the 

streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed. 

These recommendations follow the NCDOT’s standard de

xxx. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum 

extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season following 

completion of construction. 

The project will include language in the construction controf vegetation that is removed and reestablishing the ripariawithin the Project limits. 

xxxi. Any anticipated bank stabilization associated with culvert installations or 

extensions should be addressed in the permit application. An adequate amount 

of bank stabilization should be applied for in the permit application, to prevent the need of future permit modifications. 

Anticipated bank stabilization associated with culvert instaaddressed in the permit application. An adequate amount o

in the permit application, to prevent the need of future perm
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

c. Harry LeGrand (Natural Heritage Program) – The Natural Heritage Program has 

a scattering of records of significant natural resources and conservation areas close to the very large project area. However, only the crossing of the Tar River appears likely to potentially impact such resources. In this stretch of the river, along the Vance/Franklin county line, are at least nine rare aquatic animal 

species: 

 yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), State Endangered and Federal Species 

of Concern 

 Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), State Endangered and Federal Species of 

Concern 

 yellow lance (Eliptio lanceolata), State Endangered and Federal Species of 

Concern 

 triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulato), State Threatened 

 creeper (Strophitus undulatus), State Threatened 

 Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), State Threatened and Federal Species of 

Concern 

 Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons), State Significantly Rare and Federal 

Species of Concern 

 Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), State Special Concern 

 North Carolina spiny crayfish (Orconectes carolinensis), State Special Concern 

It is extremely important that proper sedimentation controls be in place during construction of the rail in the vicinity of the Tar River. 

Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protecand maintained in accordance with the most recent version Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the mos

d. Raleigh Regional Office – After review of this project it has been determined 

that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in 

order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law - 

i. Permit to construct and operate wastewater treatment facilities, sewer system 

extensions and sewer systems not discharging into state surface waters. 

The project is not anticipated to construct or operate any wsystems. 

ii. Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in compliance with 

15 A NCAC 2D.1900. 

Any open burning associated with the Project will be in corequirements, including 15 A NCAC 2D.1900. 

e. Jim McRight (Division of Environmental Health / Public Water Supply Section) 

– 

i. Water Supply source must be protected from potential contamination. 

Section 4.1.1.4 of the Tier II FEIS discusses potential impa4.1.6 of the Tier II FEIS lists all mitigation and minimizatiminimize water quality impacts from the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

ii. Direct impacts on existing water systems is not mentioned. Are there expected 

impacts? 

Section 4 .15 of the Tier II DEIS discusses the utility impaincluding water systems, and provides projected costs assoAppendix N of the Tier II DEIS provides a breakdown of uSection. Section 4.15 of the Tier II FEIS has been amendecosts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Coordinatplace during final design to adequately mitigate, relocate, awill be no long-term impacts to utilities from the Project. 

f. Travis W. Wilson (Habitat Conservation Program) – Staff biologists with the N. 

C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject DEIS and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources in North Carolina. 

Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661•667d). 

i. The 2002 Tier I EIS identified a preferred corridor from Washington, DC to 

Charlotte, NC, the subject Draft Tier II EIS is intended to represent a detailed analysis of impacts as a result of constructing the section of the SEHSR from Petersburg, VA to Raleigh, NC. Although the preferred corridor minimizes impacts by predominately following existing rail corridors there are cumulative direct impacts ranging from 11,774 to 18,292 linear feet of stream, 22.79 to 

33.54 acres of Tar-Pamlico and Neuse Riparian Buffer, and 1.65 to 5.31 acres of wetlands as well as hundreds of acres of forested uplands. These totals represent substantial impacts to natural resources. Alternatives presented in each designated section should be selected to avoid these impacts to the greatest extent practicable. 

Alternatives presented in each of the 26 sections of the Proimpacts to the greatest extent practicable. Where an alternor wetland impacts, it was due to the need to avoid impacts 

protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportat

impacts was not substantial and another alternative better mProject (e.g., provided faster travel times).
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

ii. Furthermore, linear transportation projects can act as a barrier to certain fish and 

wildlife species, further fragmenting habitat as well as increasing predation of these species. Acknowledgement of this impact is documented in the Draft Tier 

I EIS, as well as a commitment for considering larger hydraulic structures to accommodate wildlife movement. The Tier II EIS however, neglected to address the fragmentation effect of the project. Extensive use of existing rail corridors will greatly reduce the quantity of newly fragmented habitat. However, wider corridors, additional sidings, and increased rail activity will amplify the barrier effects of the existing corridor; therefore wildlife permeability should be addressed in the development and design of this project. Herpetofauna constitute the primary species that should be the focus of these efforts. Impacts to these species can be minimized by constructing longer bridges, larger culverts, and additional culverts at stream and wetland crossings, these structures should be designed to allow for "dry" passages through the riparian 

zone. 

All stream and wetland crossings/culverts will consider higwith NCDWQ requirements. Where practicable, multiple address floodplain flow or high flow (in addition to low floherpetofauna through the riparian zone during normal flow 

iii. We have reviewed the data provided in the DEIS. We look forward to continued 

coordination during the development of this segment and future components of the SEHSR in North Carolina. At this time we concur with the DEIS for this project. 

Comment noted. 

2) NC Department of Public Safety / Division of Emergency Management 

a. John Gerber NC Floodplain Mapping Unit – 

i. Each candidate alternative includes crossing a significant number of regulated 

special hazard flood areas. A floodplain development permit should be obtained 

from the local jurisdiction and include a no-rise/impact certification for each floodway and non-encroachment area crossing or a submittal for a CLOMR per 44 CFR Section 65.12. 

ii. If federal funding is used, E.O. 11988 applies. 

Section 4.1.3 of the Tier II FEIS has been expanded to disc

development permits and the applicability of Executive Or
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

3) North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services/Agricultural Services 

a. Vernon Cox (Environmental Programs Specialist) – 

i. The Environmental Scoping document indicates that this project has the 

potential to result in a significant loss of prime farm and forest land in North 

Carolina. Farm and forest lands are important for both economic and environmental reasons. Appropriately managed agricultural lands can provide groundwater recharge, wastewater filtration, flood prevention, and wildlife habitat protection. Agricultural land enhances the quality of life for citizens within a community by offering scenic landscapes, open space, and a variety of outdoor recreational activities. In addition, loss of productive farmland has the potential for irreversible damage to the agricultural sector of our economy. 

Agricultural production incomes from locally grown products have a considerable multiplier effect. It is estimated that for every 40 acres converted from agricultural production, one agribusiness job and its associated economic activity is lost indefinitely. Overall, farmland consumes fewer services relative to the taxes generated, compared 10 other types of development. Careful review of activities that result in loss of farm and forest land is warranted when consideration is given for the loss of environmental amenities, the loss of local tax revenue, the value of agricultural products no longer produced, and the 

decrease of agribusiness jobs associated with the loss of the land. 

When considering specific alternatives, every effort should be made to utilize the existing rail rights of way so as to prevent adverse impacts to prime farm and forestland. Where this is not possible, proposed alternatives should seek to minimize impacts to farm and forestland by minimizing division of land units and providing convenient travel corridors to allow for adequate mobility for agricultural operations. 

Numerous alternative designs were evaluated for the Prefeall project impacts, including those to prime farm and forewas the substantial use of existing rail ROW. However, thconstrained by the existing curvature in the rail ROW (whistraightened the track for higher speeds) and/or the need to riparian areas, or other resources, such as Section 4(f) usesimpacts from the rail and road work during the final design data is available. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

4) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources / State Historic 

Preservation Office (State Number 10-E-0000- 0417; ER 03-1507) 

a. Peter Sandbeck (for Renee Gledhill-Earley) – 

i. With regard to archaeological resources, the document correctly states that 

consideration of these resources is to be done under a phased approach. Phase I studies have been completed and more intensive studies are underway. 

Appropriate consultation has been undertaken with us and will continue as the 

project progresses. 

Comment noted. 

ii. We look forward to working with you and your consultants on the next phases 

of the project. In terms of historic properties located in North Carolina, we have 

checked our files against the information contained in the DEIS and believe that the document correctly identifies the historic properties that are within the undertaking's Area of Potential Effects as well as the effects of the three project 

alternatives on those resources. Given that some of the findings of No Adverse Effect are "conditional" and, in turn, the Section 4(f) findings dependent on a 

final effects determination, we look forward to further refinement of the project 

plans and issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with its final Section 106 and 4(f) determinations for the undertaking. 

Comment noted. 

iii. In terms of historic properties located in North Carolina, we have checked our 

files against the information contained in the DEIS and believe that the document correctly identifies the historic properties that are within the undertaking's Area of Potential Effects as well as the effects of the three project alternatives on those resources. Given that some of the findings of No Adverse Effect are "conditional" and, in turn the Section 4(f) findings dependent on a 

final effects determination, we look forward to further refinement of the project 

plans and issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with its final Section 106 and 4(f) determinations for the undertaking. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG 17 & AG42 

NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (Combined 8/24/10 and 9/15/10 Letters, Chrys Baggett) and DE

Transportation Permitting Unit) 

Comment Response 

iv. In light of the Adverse Effects resulting from the selection of any of the three 

alternatives in North Carolina, we understand that consultation under Section 

106 is needed to develop a Programmatic Agreement for the undertaking. We will be pleased to enter into formal consultation with the consulting and 

interested parties, as identified in the DEIS or as they self-identify and ask to enter into the consultation, to address the effects of the undertaking and explore ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects upon the historic properties. 

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. 

Comment noted. 

AG23 

NC Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, Peter Sandbeck (Renee Gledhill-Early

Number ER 03-1507 

Comment Response 

1) With regard to archaeological resources, the document correctly states that 

consideration of these resources is to be done under a phased approach. Phase I 

studies have been completed and more intensive studies are underway. 

Appropriate consultation has been undertaken with us and will continue as the 

project progresses. We look forward to working with you and your consultants on the next phases of the project. 

Comment noted. 

2) In terms of historic properties located in North Carolina, we have checked our 

files against the information contained in the DEIS and believe that the document correctly identifies the historic properties that are within the undertaking’s Area of Potential Effects as well as the effects of the three project alternatives on those resources. Given that some of the findings of No Adverse Effect are “conditional” and, in turn, the Section 4(f) findings dependent on a 

final effects determination, we look forward to further refinement of the project 

plans and issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with its final Section 106 and 4(f) determinations for the undertaking. 

Comment noted. 

3) In light of the Adverse Effects resulting from the selection of any of the three 

alternatives in North Carolina, we understand that consultation under Section 106 is needed to develop a Programmatic Agreement for the undertaking. We 

The Project Team appreciates the NC-HPO’s involvement working with them towards completion of a MOA for the A
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG23 

NC Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, Peter Sandbeck (Renee Gledhill-Early

Number ER 03-1507 

Comment Response 

will be pleased to enter into formal consultation with the consulting and interested parties, as identified in the DEIS or as they self-identify and ask to enter into the consultation, to address the effects of the undertaking and explore ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects upon the historic properties.

4) The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG32 

Virginia Department of Transportation Richmond District - Samuel Hayes 

Comment Response 

1) Sheet #5 (VA1, VA2, VA3) I spoke with Chesterfield County (Barb Smith) and 

I agree with her that there are concerns with the proposed Centralia Road grade 

separation. I think we need to look at that further to ensure we have the best possible solution. I have studied it some more, but I admit I am currently at a 

loss for a better solution. However, I am certainly willing to sit down with both you guys and Chesterfield to try and come up with something different. 

Comment noted. The Project Team has continued to work to improve upon the proposed Centralia Road grade separa

2) Sheet #7 (VA1, VA2, VA3) I also spoke with Chesterfield (Barb Smith) about 

the proposed road connecting Pine Forest Drive to Woods Edge Road along the east side of the "A" line. I agree with Chesterfield's recommendation to eliminate this proposed road. I further suggest that the proposed Pine Forest 

Drive grade separation be shifted slightly southward in order to maintain traffic on Pine Forest Drive during construction of the bridge. 

These changes have been accommodated in the Tier II FEI

3) Sheet #12 (VA1, VA2, VA3) Recommend shifting the Squirrel Level Road 

grade separation slightly to the east in order to maintain traffic during construction. This same comment applies to all other locations where we are replacing a grade crossing with a grade separation in the same general vicinity as the existing crossing. 

Detour routes throughout the Project Study Area have been Coordination with VDOT regarding roadway design chang

4) Sheet #13 (VA, VA2, VA3) Recommend converting the service road into the 

Shell property from state maintained to a privately maintained entrance. This is based on input from the Shell family (who owns the land) before and after the 

public hearing. 

This change has been accommodated in the Tier II FEIS de

5) Sheet #15 (VA1, VA3) How do we address MOT during construction for 

Carson Road? Should we show a larger temporary easement in order to maintain traffic during construction? This same comment applies to all other grade 

separation locations where we have a new railroad alignment crossing an existing highway. 

Additional coordination with VDOT was undertaken, and routes, including maintenance of traffic, throughout the Profor the Tier II FEIS and described in Chapter 2. 

6) Sheet #17 (VA1, VA2, VA3) Recommend the use of roundabouts at both 

proposed four way intersections on either side of the proposed Glebe Road grade separation. Roundabouts would be better solutions given the unbalanced flow of traffic at each of these intersections. 

Through additional coordination with VDOT the Project T

would be needed in these locations. 

7) Sheet #21 (VA2) Recommend that Lovely Zion Road tee into Rawlings Road as 

opposed to the "old" Rawlings Road. Have the "old" Rawlings Road tee into Lovely Zion Road. 

The designs for the preferred alternative VA4 in Section D change the existing intersection with the “old” Rawlings Rrequested changes fall outside the scope of the Project. 

8) Sheet #22 (VA1, VA2, VA3) Recommend showing a cul-de-sac on both ends of 

Zero Road. 

As a result of additional coordination, the designs for the pinclude tee-turns for Zero Road on both sides of the railroamovement for service vehicles with a smaller footprint com
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG32 

Virginia Department of Transportation Richmond District - Samuel Hayes 

Comment Response 

9) Sheet #28 (VA2) Recommend a four way intersection for the two roads shown 

connecting to Tanner Town Road. 

In Section H VA1 is the recommended preferred alternativ

10) One other item that I noticed in my review (not sure why I didn't say something 

before) is that the CSX right of way that has been sold off (all in Dinwiddie, I believe) was shown as existing right of way (purple) on the maps. Shouldn't 

these be shown as private property? 

Former railroad property that has been sold to private indivTier II FEIS mapping, 

Local Governments and Planning Organizations 

AG1 

City of Richmond Traffic Engineering, Travis Bridewell 

Comment Response 

These are our comments from a traffic operations standpoint for Roll 1 and 2 of 58. These comments are based on the concept plans only thereby as construction plans are underway we will have more detailed comments. 

1) Provide adequate cul-de-sacs on public roads where closures are planned 

The following changes have been made to the designs and of the Tier II FEIS. Please note that to minimize impacts, been included in the designs. 

1) 1st Street at Maury Street: a T-turn has been adde

2) Commerce Road: a T-turn has been added on the 

be removed from existing alignment on the east access worked out during final design. 

3) Meridian Avenue: a T-turn has not been added to 

property impacts that would result. Note that thi

context of the surrounding neighborhood where cul-de-sacs or T-turns. 

4) Dale Avenue: T-turns have been added on both s

2) Review each entrance in the areas where proposed grade separation roadways 

are planned for adequate tie-ins and grades to existing land usages 

Access will be evaluated during the ROW process, and desduring the final design stage of the Project. 

3) Bells Road – there might be some tie-in issues with the new roadway and 

commercial entrances 

Access will be evaluated during the ROW process, and desduring the final design stage of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG1 

City of Richmond Traffic Engineering, Travis Bridewell 

Comment Response 

4) Ruffin Road – check the circulation in the apartment parking lot on the NW side 

of the RR given a closure on Ruffin Road 

The project will commit to ensure that adequate access is pthe NW side of railroad and Ruffin Road. Current designs of the complex via an extension of Lynhaven Avenue. In asurvey level data is available, it may prove possible that acmaintained. However, it cannot be stated with certainty at 

5) Commerce Road – The current widening project for Commerce Road (UPC 

#15958) includes improving the existing RR crossing 623545B. It does not include a grade separation as planned under the SEHSR. 

The project designs have been coordinated with the City of section and design speed provided by the City for this locaCommerce Road to a three-lane roadway with a flush medCSX tracks, and a raised median to the north, with a design Raleigh Project designs for Commerce Road propose to grrail corridor with a bridge, and will include a slight realignof its current location. In order to minimize impacts to busapproaches meet the road classification standards for local requiring a design speed of 35 mph. This realigned portion bridge and approaches, will be posted with a warning sign compensate for the lower design speed on this portion of C

6) Deepwater Terminal Road – I feel this road will be more utilized in the future 

and a better alignment should be considered for the right angle curve just east of the RR. 

The designs for the road realignment and intersection with improvement to the existing conditions, and will accommocommercial vehicles (i.e., will adequately accommodate tr50). 

7) The planned closure located just south of the I-95 ramps at Maury concerns me 

as to how the traffic will access the site east of the RR 

In response to this comment, the design team evaluated accramps: 

1) Tank farm east of the railroad/south side of Mau

modified for the Tier II FEIS to include a service access to the property. A map of the design chaAppendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

2) Williams Bridge Company – Designs for drivew

developed during the final design stage of the Prcoordination has taken place with the property owcoordination regarding access. Preliminary desigwhere it has been determined that a driveway cocan be developed in final design that will allow itrailers (in excess of WB-50) used by the busine
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG1 

City of Richmond Traffic Engineering, Travis Bridewell 

Comment Response 

8) Maury St – there will be tie-in and grade issues to access some of the land uses 

in this area. Area streets should be considered for improving such as Everett St 

given the future grade issue at 1st St. 

The designs have been modified for the Tier II FEIS to sho

edge of the proposed Maury Street ROW, as well as an ext

tank farm. In addition, the intersection at 4th St and Maury 

to improve mobility through the area. Given the grid work anticipated that traffic will be adequately handled by the suimprovements to Everett Street are not included as they wothe Project. A map of the design changes can be seen in thFEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

1) Location: Between S-6 and S-7, Property Number: 10355(?) 

Chesterfield County's Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is served by several 18 wheel-tractor trailer trucks and chemical tankers a day. Allowances must be made for "18-

wheeler" type trucks to access the Plant, which would involve both road and bridge design as well as access throughout the period of construction. While not sure of the maximum loads these vehicles carry, the plant indicates that some carriers routinely deliver payloads of 80,000 pounds. Our concerns are as follows: 

a. We are unsure of the ultimate width of the road/overpass but assume at least a 

double lane. 

b. Elevation and grade of both approaches need to consider both the size and 

weight of large vehicles. 

c. Turning radius of the trucks - While only upon rare occasions during normal 

plant operations, would two trucks likely be on the overpass at the same time, we suggest this be looked at closely to ensure there is sufficient width with consideration given to ..... 

d. Seasonally we have trucks that are "less than successful" when leaving the plant 

and crossing back over the existing private crossing towards Station Road. Due to sleet, ice, and snow issues, we routinely have drivers that need to get a good 

running start" to make it up our existing exit back onto Station Road even with 

scraping by the plant's bobcat and a good sprinkling of sand. Show that tractortrailers can be accommodated with the reconstruction of Station Road. Also - show access for HKK Brisbane Properties (including grade). 

e. We are assuming that the portion of the road currently considered private along 

the east side of the crossing (including the crossing itself) will ultimately be 

maintained by the state. We also assume that it will be highly unlikely that priority to maintaining this crossing will be afforded us by the state so we will 

be somewhat on our own during bad weather. 

f. We are curious to know whether jersey-walls and/or guard rails will be provided 

in the event of an incident. 

g. In summary, elevation and grade of both approaches need to be considered, with 

particular concerns of the forward momentum of heavily loaded trucks attempting to negotiate a turn in excess of 90 degrees on a potentially icy surface. 

The road and bridge designs at both Station Road (which pwastewater treatment plant) and Pine Forest Drive (which pump station) meet ASHTO and VDOT standards, which cvolume and type of use (including payload of trucks servintaken into account during final design, as well as during deBarrier rail is included as part of standard bridge design, anthe approaches according to VDOT standards during the firoad has been designed as a public road, to be maintained bconstructed and the road has been taken into the VDOT syprocess for prioritizing maintenance of roads during inclemprocess allows for input from the County with regard to loHKK Brisbane Properties, Falling Creek Warehouse Assocretain access via the existing alignment of Station Road. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

2) Allowances must be made for "18-wheeler" type trucks to access the Timsbury 

Creek Wastewater Pump Station. This would involve both road and bridge design as well as access throughout the period of construction. 

3) While we are not in a position to speak for our neighbor, Token Tower, LLC, 

(10360) we do note and are not clear on how they will access their facilities since the toe of the incline appears to go all the way to the creek. In addition, Token Tower, LLC uses guyed towers; it appears that these guy wires may need to be relocated and/or consideration given to the overhead clearance above the new overpass since these guys extend out well from the base of the towers. We are also unsure if the purpose of the third short leg "T" immediately east of the 

overpass. Is this for vehicles to "pull over" or for a barricade in the event a truck exiting from the plant is "unsuccessful" in negotiating the turn onto the overpass in a timely fashion? 

The short “T” was added to the designs to allow public vehToken Tower, LLC property will be handled during the RO

issues related to the guy wires for the towers located on the LLC, will be handled during the final design stage of the P

4) Recordation of a trail/pedestrian easement and ingress/egress easement is 

needed underneath current and proposed tracks at Falling Creek Ironworks Park between GPINS 7926850003 and 793680882. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project rail designs are located wcorridor where it crosses through Falling Creek Ironworks Project alternatives would cross Falling Creek on the existnew ROW. The existing rail lines in this area have daily frcan be heard and seen from the Falling Creek Ironworks Pshould not alter the character, setting, or use of the trail. TProject would have no effect on this resource and would noresource. 

5) The county is currently in negotiations to acquire the eastern portion of GPIN 

7916855178 to be used as a park. The proposed roadway/ROW in this area will impact access and development of this site, please consider alternatives such as using existing Station Rd. 

The design for the grade separation of Station Road has beproposed “Resource Protection Area” for the park as showthe County in June 2012. 

6) Recordation of a trail/pedestrian easement is needed on the north side of 

Kingsland Creek, between GPINs 7916749474 and 7916749730. This will accommodate the planned development of the James River Greenway trail system. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project would add an additional railroad corridor in the location where the proposed trail wnot yet obtained a legal crossing of the active railroad corrproposed changes associated with the Richmond to Raleigh the development of the trail (because that barrier already e

area have daily freight and passenger rail traffic that can be location of the trail. The addition of the Richmond to Ralecharacter, setting, or use of the trail. Therefore, the Richmeffect on this resource and would not constitute a Section 4
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

7) Recordation of a trail/pedestrian easement is needed where Chester Linear Park 

intersects with the existing railroad ROW. This will accommodate the planned development of the James River Greenway trail system. Location: between GPINS 7876560516 and 7886585164. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project would add an additional railroad corridor in the location where the planned expansiChesterfield County has not yet obtained a legal crossing oarea. Therefore, the proposed changes associated with the not create a barrier to the expansion of Chester Linear Park The existing rail lines in this area have daily freight and paand seen from the proposed location of the expanded ChesRichmond to Raleigh Project track should not alter the chaTherefore, the Richmond to Raleigh Project would have no constitute a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

8) Proposed ROW will result in loss of parkland at Kiwanis Park, GPINS 

7916530773 and 7906549007, which will affect the scope and development of the future park facilities. 

This issue was addressed in the Tier II DEIS. As stated in Richmond to Raleigh Project would require ROW from the Richmond Street planned for the Chester Kiwanis Historic

County made the acceptance of the donated land conditionfor the Richmond to Raleigh Project (100 feet from the cen

Richmond Street) for non-park uses. Therefore, the Richmeffect on this resource and would not constitute a Section 4

9) Recordation of a trail/pedestrian easement is needed just north of and parallel to 

the Appomattox River. This will accommodate the planned development of the VSU/Ettrick Riverside Trail. 

This issue was addressed in Chapter 5 of the Tier II DEIS, Raleigh Project would construct a new rail bridge over the adjacent to the existing rail bridge near Virginia State Univjust to the east of the existing bridge and would require a sof the bridge to allow for access and maintenance. In addiVirginia State University with an access drive under the brthe Richmond to Raleigh Project is approximately 0.8 acreRiverfront Trail. The existing rail bridge has daily freight heard from the surrounding area; therefore, the new bridge or use of the planned trail. The Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreatover the planned Appomattox Riverfront Trail, in a correspconcurred that the Project would not adversely affect the aqualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f), with Raleigh Project not impede access for pedestrians and bicytrail without interruption at the railroad bridge. Therefore, determination for this resource. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

10) Please consider adding hardpoints and constructing a pedestrian foot bridge 

suspended from the railroad trestle at the Appomattox River crossing. 

There is no existing pedestrian crossing of the Appomattox standard practice of the Project to provide or replace existiimpacted. The request is, therefore, outside the scope of th

11) Chippenham Parkway Comments – 

a. Staff Comment – There is a crossing that currently exists north of Chippenham 

Parkway that accesses a tank farm owned by Motiva Enterprises. This seems to be the only access to the tank farm from the public road, and appears to be scheduled for elimination. How will that tank farm be accessed if this crossing is closed? Show access for Motiva Enterprises (including grade). 

b. Staff Comment - Show access for Motiva Enterprises, HKK Brisbane 

Properties, Falling Creek Warehouse Associates and Ryder Truck Rental 

(including grade). 

Access to the Motiva Property will be further evaluated duProject. If it is determined at that time that access cannot bpurchased. HKK Brisbane Properties, Falling Creek Ware

Rental will all retain access via the existing alignment of SFalling Creek Warehouse properties will be provided acceproposed bridge for the Station Road realignment. 

12) Do we know the timing of the closure of the existing crossings at Kingsland 

Road, Centralia Road, Woods Edge Road, and Pine Forest Drive? Our Fire Dept Planning unit will need to re-evaluate our fire station districts prior to that work beginning. 

The timing of the construction of the Project has not been e

yet in place. The Project Team will coordinate with the Coservices are aware of any road closures. 

13) Pine Forest Drive Comments – 

a. Staff Comment - We still have no information on how access to the trailer park 

at the end of will be maintained during construction. 

b. Commissioner Comments - The extensions of Pine Forest Drive must be 

eliminated. 

The extension of Walthall Industrial Parkway has been remseparation of Pine Forest Drive remains because of the neeVDOT. During construction, the existing crossing will be park (since proposed Pine Forest Drive will be realigned). 

14) Are there currently any plans for access to the rail line for emergency purposes? 

How will emergency response units be able to access these areas? 

Emergency response procedures are determined by the owChesterfield County, CSX will maintain ownership of the RCSX provides emergency responder training and education (http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/community/community-sa

training-and-education/). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

15) Hampton Roads Comments – 

a. Staff Comments - On a non-critical note, are there any plans to have a branch of 

this rail services that goes to Hampton Roads, and if so, where will it intersect 

this line? 

b. Commissioner Comments - SEHSR must accommodate the proposed Petersburg 

to South Hampton Roads rail service. 

The extension of the SEHSR Corridor to Hampton Roads iRichmond designs. A turn-out for Hampton Roads service 

designs, just south of Petersburg, which was constructed b2012. The segment of the corridor between Richmond Main Stre

Hampton Roads south of Petersburg, VA includes the consto the active CSX tracks to provide additional capacity to s

round-trip (8 total) SEHSR Corridor trains for the Richmosegment of the corridor is also planned to support the six aSEHSR Corridor trains for the Richmond to Hampton Roacapacity required to support that service will be considered Roads Tier II EIS document. 

16) To properly assess the overall economic impact of the project, additional 

information will be needed beyond the proposed right of way alignment. 

The Project Team has continued to coordinate with Chesteinformation, where available. Detailed information about available until the final design stage of the Project. 

17) There are concerns about industrially zoned property that may be negatively 

impacted by the proposal. 

The Project Team will continue to coordinate with Chesterother concerns related to potential development sites. Howand relocations will not be available until the final design s

18) Woods Edge Road Comments – 

a. The closing of the crossing at Woods Edge Road would negatively impact 

access to some industrial property. 

b. No traffic analysis was provided for the proposed Woods Edge Road closure 

c. Do not close Woods Edge Road crossing; provide a grade-separated crossing 

d. Widen Woods Edge between Route 1 and existing four-lane section 

e. Construct turn lanes and signalize Jefferson Davis Highway/Pine Forest Drive 

f. Provide second access for Millside subdivision. 

A Woods Edge Road grade separation has been added to thWidening of Woods Edge Road is outside the scope of the Project designs have been developed to be consistent with and through our on-going, and extensive, coordination with are such that they will not preclude future widening, when sufficient vertical clearance or horizontal clearance for futuThe design concept has been revised and the Project does nTherefore, neither turn lanes nor signalization will be provThe design for the grade separation of Pine Forest Drive prsubdivision to replace the closure at Landsmill Drive. Any additional property impacts and is outside the scope of the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

19) Provide a list of all commercial and residential displacements 

Detailed information about ROW and relocations will not of the Project. The designs included in the Tier II FEIS prpotential displacements. During final design, efforts will breduce the number of displacements. 

20) No such city limits: Bensley, Bellwood, Chester, Ettrick Comment noted. Maps in the Tier II FEIS are corrected. 21) Provide sufficient design details to demonstrate that: 

a. Bridges and underpasses will accommodate future road widening 

b. Bike and pedestrian accommodations are included. 

Specifically, provide pedestrian access at future Chester Linear Park, West Street, Ettrick Station to Ettrick Park. 

c. Landscaping and screening will be provided especially in residential areas 

d. Tractor-trailers will be able to safely access water treatment facilities 

The Project designs have been developed to be consistent wand through on-going, extensive coordination with local mthat they will not preclude future widening when needed (evertical clearance or horizontal clearance for future road wNew bridges will have sufficient width so as not to create a 

movement. Where sidewalks currently exist, they will be paccommodations will be evaluated during final design basecomplete streets policies. A pedestrian accommodation at West Street has been addefuture Chester Linear Park and Ettrick Park have not been because the County has not obtained a legal access across locations. Therefore, the proposed changes associated with would not create a barrier to pedestrian activity (because thAlong the rail alignment, landscaping will be consistent wiroad work, landscaping will be addressed during final desidistricts may be specified under the Section 106 MOA (wihistoric societies). The design for the realignment of Station Road accommodallow tractor-trailers to safely access water treatment facili

22) Show locations of security fencing. Locations of security fencing will be determined during th

coordination with the County and CSX. 

23) Provide adequate traffic analyses to ensure the proposals will accommodate 

anticipated traffic 

Traffic studies for Chesterfield County have been completeaddress future traffic needs. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

24) Conduct noise studies for new road alignments and widening along with specific 

plans for abatement 

The FEIS assesses all proposed new grade separations alonimpacts and evaluates mitigation using standard FHWA an

FHWA, it was determined that noise studies did not need tproposed road work as they did not meet the threshold for 

It should be noted that the entire project is not a FHWA Tyundertaking subject to FRA noise regulations. FHWA rec

improvement description to identify the road components ofor noise impacts and mitigation. The individual sections oas a single project as they have no connection to one anoth

25) Construct turn lanes and signalize major intersections (as noted below). See responses below for location-specific information.26) Provide a financing plan to show how and when necessary road improvements 

will be accomplished by this project. 

It is intended for the roadway and rail aspects of the Projec

27) Provide specific plans showing how access will be provided to and from 

developed and undeveloped properties impacted by grade-separations, new road alignments and crossing closures. 

Access to properties must be considered at this stage in order to establish the right-of-way footprint and determine the impact to properties. Access issues especially critical at grade separations where the road elevation will limit available locations for access and could impact development potential of the property. 

This level of detail will be provided during the final design However, all affected property owners will be “made wholor purchase of “land locked” properties. It should be noted rail corridor will only be mitigated where the current accesIt should be noted that multiple outcomes are possible for tcurrent use and the desires of the property owner. It is not specific plans prior to negotiating ROW. We will continue owners and answer their questions at the upcoming Project 

28) Incorporate county tunnel safety guidelines (attached) at all underpasses. County tunnel safety guidelines will be utilized during the 29) Show siding locations and confirm that impacts at sidings have been addressed. 

Due to noise and property impacts, siding locations need to be determined and accounted for with this document. 

Future potential HSR passing and industrial freight siding final design stage of the Project in coordination with the Cbe served by the siding. All planned passing sidings and ethe plans and impacts were considered along with main lin

30) Kingsland Rd / Chester Rd Comments – 

a. Realign Chester Road at Perrymont Road so Chester Road is a through road to 

Jefferson Davis Highway and Perrymont Avenue is a stop condition. 

b. Construct turn lanes and signalize Norcliff Avenue/Jefferson Davis Highway. 

c. Allow Kingsland Road Extended to be the through street with stop conditions 

for Perrymont Avenue. 

d. Provide a cul-de-sac for Kingsland Road near existing crossing proposed to be 

closed. 

a. The realignment of Chester Road at Perrymont R

requested change was determined to have the folChester Road would cross the planned Kingsland issue); b) The realigned Chester Road would reqCreek and take out the existing bridge on Perrymby VDOT (resulting in greater cost); and c) The greater impact to a tributary to Kingsland Creek. was not accommodated. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

e. Provide turn lanes at Dorsey Road/Kingsland Road intersection. 

f. Provide turn lanes and signalization at Chester Road/Normandale Avenue 

intersection. 

g. Provide turn lanes and signalization at the "Thurston to Chester 

connector"/Chester Road intersection. 

h. Construct the Kingsland Extended and the "Thurston to Chester connector" 

bridges to accommodate four lanes. 

i. Maximize distance between new "Thurston-to-Chester connector" road and 

Route 288 (i.e., don't line up with Park Road if spacing from Route 288 can be improved). 

j. Construct Chester Road as a 4-lane road. 

k. Improve Dorsey Road between Brinkley Road and Thurston Road 

b. The traffic analysis completed for Norcliff Aven

that this intersection would function at an acceptwarranted at the time of construction, a signal withat adding an eastbound left-turn lane appears to therefore, no additional impacts were accounted turn lane can be handled with paint striping. 

c. The Project traffic analysis suggests the Kingslan

intersection works with either stop condition. 

d. A “T”-turnaround has been provided Kingsland 

proposed to be closed. 

e. The traffic modeling does not show that turn lan

intersection are needed; therefore, they have not 

f. The Richmond to Raleigh Project is expected to 

Chester Road/Normandale Avenue intersection; provided. 

g. Turn lanes have been provided on the connector 

connector”/Chester Road intersection. If warrana signal will be evaluated at that time. 

h. The Kingsland Road Extended and the "Thurston 

proposed to be built as two-lane roadways, as thaThe proposed designs do not preclude widening the north and/or south side, or adding a new, sep

Richmond to Raleigh Project bridge in order to a

i. The request to maximize the distance between th

connector” road and Route 288 was considered, resulting impacts to existing, developed propertiCounty staff during meetings subsequent to the T

j. The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not create 

constructed as a four-lane road. 

k. The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not create 

improvement of Dorsey Road between Brinkley 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

31) Old Lane Comments – 

a. Staff Comments - Improve alignment of Old Lane at Hopkins Road between 

Old Lane and Jaymont Drive. Alternate suggestion: Do not close the Old Lane crossing, realign Old Lane with Hamlin Creek Parkway, grade separate with an underpass, construct turn lanes and signalize Old Lane at Chester Road. 

b. County Commissioner Comments - Relocate the Old Lane crossing and provide 

a grade separation to align Hamlin Creek Parkway. If this cannot be accomplished, provide additional road improvements to accommodate the increased traffic using Hopkins Road and Centralia Road. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not create the need 

Lane at Hopkins Road between Old Lane and Jaymont Drisuggestion was considered and determined not feasible due A grade separation in the vicinity of Old Lane could not be constraints, most notably the location of the rail interlockinCSX A-line and S-line. Traffic accommodations have beeCentralia Road intersection. 

32) Centralia Road Comments – 

a. Request details and renderings for the proposed Centralia Road Loop 

b. Construct turn lanes and signalize Centralia Road/Hopkins Road 

c. Construct turn lanes and signalize Centralia Road/Chester Road d. Show how Centralia Station (future subdivision adjacent to the west of the 

tracks) access Centralia Road 

e. Construct the Centralia Road bridge to accommodate four lanes for Centralia 

Road and Chester Road in the future 

f. Show right-of-way limits for Centralia Road loop bridge 

g. Construct loop as four-lane road 

h. Extend four-lane typical for Chester Road, 1000' south of Centralia 

Road/Chester Road intersection, then transition to two lanes 

i. Confirm that the road north of Centralia Road and west of the railroad will be 

state maintained 

j. Include grade separation for future E-W roadway, south of Great Branch Drive. 

This roadway is included on the county thoroughfare plan and construction of 

the road is a condition of zoning for the property commonly referred to as “Branners Station.” 

k. Provide the lane configuration for the new Chester/Centralia intersection and 

under the bridge. 

a. Renderings for a portion of the Centralia Road d

Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) along Centralia Road, and were included in an apProject Team provided Chesterfield County with assist the County in evaluating the proposed Cen

b. The intersection of Centralia Road and Hopkins 

control for the design year. The decision to signduring the final phase of the Project. This intershowever, their provision is limited by impacts to 

c. The new intersection of Centralia and Chester Ro

for the design year and turn lanes are provided. signalization after construction unless one of the out to provide only one southbound left-turn lane before construction. The Richmond to Raleigh Psignal at the existing Centralia/Chester Rd inters

d. Access to Centralia Station will be evaluated dur

conditions at that time. 

e. The proposed bridge design for Centralia Road a

the road (three lanes). However, the vertical cleanot prohibit future bridge widening. The design

Chester Road to five lanes beneath the bridge. 

f. ROW limits for the Centralia Road loop bridge a

hearing maps; however, the property under the bhighlighted. This correction has been made for f

g. The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not create 

widened to four lanes. 

h. The request to extend a four-lane typical section 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

accommodated. While Chester Road currently trof the existing Chester Road and Centralia Road indicate that the new intersection of Centralia Robetter level of service than the No Build Chester condition without the Richmond to Raleigh ProjeProject does not create the need for a four-lane C

i. According to VDOT, the road north of Centralia 

state maintained. 

j. The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not chang

Branch Drive (i.e., there is no existing, legal crosrequest cannot be accommodated. 

k. The Project Team provided the lane configuratio

Road intersection and under the bridge to Cheste

33) Lengthen RR bridge/overpass over Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) The Project designs do not alter the existing structure over 34) Marina Drive crossing must be provided a grade separation and not be closed as 

currently proposed. 

Marina Drive, which currently passes under the existing Faproposed to be altered by the Richmond to Raleigh Projectand will remain open. 

35) Branders Bridge and Dupuy Road comments – 

a. Construct Branders Bridge Road bridge to accommodate four lanes in the future

b. Confirm that the new road west of Weldon Street will be state maintained 

c. Construct the Dupuy Road bridge to accommodate four lanes in the future 

d. Show driveway access and grades to realigned Branders Bridge and Dupuy 

Roads 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not increase traffic therefore, a two-lane bridge is provided in the Project desigpreclude the provision of a future four-lane bridge. According to VDOT, the new road west of Weldon Street The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not increase traffic a two-lane bridge is provided in the Project designs. Howe

provision of a future four-lane bridge. Driveway connections will be provided during final design time of construction. 

36) The extension of Walthall Industrial Parkway must be eliminated. The extension of Walthall Industrial Parkway has been rem
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

37) As Ettrick Station is the default station location in the Tri-Cities area, study and 

implement necessary infrastructure improvements to support its use. Passenger 

rail service at the Ettrick Station must continue regardless of high speed rail service. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project EIS does not recommend Area Passenger Rail Station Study evaluated two potential station in Ettrick and a location in north Collier Yard near Petersburg. Both locations were found to be suitable for Himprovement. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is currwell as additional alternative station locations. The study iDistrict Commission (CPDC) and FRA is the Lead Federa

38) Funds used for SEHSR should not be diverted from highway improvements. 

Funds for the development of high-speed intercity rail, or tfrom highway improvements. Federal funding for high-spfrom FRA and not FHWA, with the exception of eligible r

39) Impact of the changes to the proposed at-grade crossings must be eliminated. 

Grade separations, pedestrian-only crossings, and traffic acalong the Project corridor to mitigate for the changes to exprovisions have been developed in coordination with local Study Area. 

40) The following water and sewer lines may be impacted by the project - 

a. MAP 005- There is a thirty (30) inch sewer trunk line extending along 

Grindall Creek (Stream SO15) which may be impacted by any stream or right-of-way adjustments on the west side of the existing railroad right-of-way (6102-7B-I). 

b. MAP 006 - The existing thirty (30) inch sewer trunk line along 

Grindall Creek extends into the existing railroad right-of-way under 

the "Dupont" bridge at the end of Cogbill Road (6102-7B-I). 

c. An existing thirty (30) inch sewer trunk line extends across the 

existing portion of the railroad right-of-way that is designated as the old "Richmond and Petersburg Electric Railway. This sewer line extends from the southern boundary of the Dupont property parallel to the existing railroad right-of-way to the northern boundary of West Pocahontas Pkwy. (6102-7B-I and S88-145D). 

d. A privately owned and maintained eight (8) inch sewer line serving 

"Air Liquide Industrial US, LP" extends across the existing railroad right-of-way and connects to the county sewer system in the right-ofway of West Pocahontas Pkwy. (S74-4ICD). 

e. The proposed Station Road Bridge and road re-alignment will impact 

the existing forty-eight (48) inch sewer trunk line that carries 

The Project Team appreciates the information provided on 

information will be shared with utility coordinators and prostage of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

wastewater to the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (6102-3). 

f. Two (2) eight (8) inch sewer collector lines extend across Station road 

west of the existing railroad right-of-way to serve adjacent business (S70-20D, S76-68D). 

g. There is an existing twelve (12) inch water line extending along the 

north side of Station Road which crosses the existing railroad right-ofway, and extends as an eight (8) inch north along the access road to serve the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. This line will be impacted by the proposed Station Road re-alignment and bridge (W70-16CD, W71-37D, W73-75D, and W74-7C). 

h. Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side, south of Falling 

Creek, will impact the existing twenty (20) inch sewer trunk line extending along the east boundary of the existing railroad right-ofway (6102-1). 

i. MAP 007- Additional railroad right-of-way on the west side of the 

existing railroad right-of-way from Marina Drive to south of Sherbourne Road will impact the existing twenty-one (21) inch sewer trunk line crossing of the railroad adjacent to Marina Drive (S64-17D). 

j. An existing twelve (12) inch waterline extends along Marina Drive 

and passes under the existing railroad bridge across Falling Creek. This line will be impacted by the additional railroad right-of-way (AC379). 

k. Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side of the existing 

railroad right-of-way south of Falling Creek and opposite Sherbourne Road will impact the existing twenty (20) inch sewer trunk line (6102-1) and the existing eighteen (18) inch sewer line crossing from Alfalfa 

Lane (6102-1). 

l. Approximately seven hundred fifty (750) feet of existing eighteen (18) 

inch sewer trunk line extends into the existing railroad right-of-way along the western boundary adjacent to Merriewood Ridge Road. An existing eight (8) inch sewer collector line extends from this trunk line to Merriewood Ridge Road (6102-1). 

m. An existing eight (8) inch waterline extends across the existing 

railroad right-of-way at Merriewood Ridge Road (A363). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

n. Approximately seven hundred (700) feet of existing eighteen (18) inch 

sewer trunk line extends into the western side of the existing railroad right-of-way in the vicinity of Gwynn Avenue (6102-1). 

o. A twelve (12) inch waterline extends across the existing railroad rightof-way approximately two-hundred (200) feet south of Gayland 

Avenue (W81-67B). 

p. MAP 008- Additional railroad right-of-way on the west side of the 

existing railroad right-of-way from south of the Jefferson Davis Highway overpass to Gettings Lane will impact the existing ten (10) 

inch sewer line (6511-19C) and possibly the existing sixteen (16) inch water line crossing of the railroad south of Jefferson Davis Highway (W96-173CD Phase 3). 

q. Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side at the Jefferson Davis 

Highway crossing may impact the existing water line crossing (W96-173 CD Phase 3). 

r. A sixteen (16) inch waterline extends across the existing railroad 

right-of-way approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet south of the Jefferson Davis Highway crossing (W96-173CDPH3). 

s. A thirty-three (33) inch sewer trunk line extends along Kingsland 

Creek (Stream S035) and crosses the existing railroad right-of-way approximately eight hundred (800) feet north of Kingsland Road (7032-18). 

t. KINGSLAND ROAD- The proposed re-alignment of Kingsland road 

with the proposed bridge across both the railroad right-of-way and Chester Road, and the new road connection with Perrymont Road at Norcliff Road will impact the existing Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) at Kingsland Road and Dorsey Road (5907-8). A twelve (12) inch sewer trunk line extends along a tributary of Kingsland Creek (stream S038) and will be impacted by the relocated Kingsland Road 

(S74-42C). An eight (8) inch sewer collector line adjacent to Ferncliff Street may also be impacted by the road relocation (S90-538D). Existing eight (8) inch water lines extend along Perrymont Road and Norcliff Road and will have to be evaluated for impact (PB 53/54, W74-85C). 

u. A twelve (12) inch waterline extends along the north side of 

Kingsland Road and crosses the existing railroad right-of-way. This 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

line may be impacted by the proposed abandonment of the existing Kingsland Road grade crossing (5907-8). 

v. CHESTER ROAD (NORTH OF KINGSLAND ROAD)- A twelve 

(12) inch waterline extends along the northwest side of Chester Road from the existing Kingsland Road crossing to Perrymont Road. This water line as well as the existing eight (8) inch water line along the west side of Perrymont Road will be impacted by the Chester Road improvements (5907-8, PB 53/54). 

w. MAP 009- The relocation of Chester Road with the expanded right-ofway will impact the existing twelve (12) inch water line along Chester 

Road from Kingsdale Road to the point north of Park Road where the realignment of Chester Road ends (00-0368 and 564). The proposed extension of Park Road to Thurston Road and the proposed bridge, will impact the existing twelve (12) inch line in Chester Road and the existing eight (8) inch water line in Park Road (U89-614D and W86-61C). 

x. The additional railroad right-of-way on the west side of the Route 288 

overpass will impact an existing forty-eight (48) inch sewer force main that extends along the north side of Proctors creek (Stream S040) and crosses the existing railroad right-of-way (S87-76R). An existing thirty 30) inch sewer trunk line extends along Proctors Creek (stream S040), crosses Route 288 adjacent to the existing railroad right-of-way, and then crosses the existing railroad right of- way to the south side of Route 288. This trunk line will be impacted by the additional railroad right-of-way (7032-14, S86-18C). 

y. A twelve (12) inch sewer trunk line extends across the existing 

railroad right-of-way adjacent to the north side of Route 288 to serve the parcels north of Route 288 and east of the railroad. This line could be impacted by any widening of the railroad right-of-way in this area (S87-76R). 

z. MAP 010- The additional railroad right-of-way on the east side of the 

existing railroad right-of-way between Route 288 and a point approximately 700 feet north of Centralia Road will potentially impact an existing eight (8) inch water line (W89-5120, UOI-I040) and an existing eight (8) inch sewer collector line (U89-3150, U02-750) that extends through the properties east of the railroad right-of-way. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

Impact will be dependent upon the amount of additional right-of-way acquired. 

aa. The relocation of Centralia Road and proposed bridge across both the 

railroad right-of-way and Chester Road will impact the existing sixteen (16) inch water line in Centralia Road (W77-77C), the existing eight (8) inch sewer collector line along the south side of Centralia Road, and an existing eight (8) inch collector line that extends south from Centralia Road along the eastern boundary of the existing railroad right-of-way (U05-2060, U93-147C, UOI-1870). 

bb. The proposed bridge and additional right-of-way will impact an 

existing sixteen (16) inch water line along the west side of Chester Road (U93-1470) and the thirty (30) inch Hamlin Creek Sewer Trunk Line that extends along the east side of Chester Road (7032-15). The new Centralia Road loop and connection with Chester Road will impact the thirty (30) inch Hamlin Creek Sewer Trunk Line (7032-15) and the existing eight (8) inch water line along Chester Road (U93-147C). 

cc. MAP 011 AND 012- The thirty (30) inch Hamlin Creek Sewer Trunk 

Line (7032-15) crosses the existing railroad right-of-way north of stream S041 and will impacted by the new rail line. 

dd. The thirty (30) inch Hamlin Creek Sewer Trunk Line extends along 

the western boundary of the railroad right-of-way from stream S041 to West Hundred Road (7032-15 and 6102-41). Any change in the existing railroad right-of-way along this section will impact that sewer trunk line. 

ee. Additional right-of-way on the east side of the existing railroad rightof-way at Chester Station Drive will impact the existing eight (8) inch 

sewer line crossing from Coastline Circle (S78-7lD). 

ff. A portion of the eighteen (18) inch sewer trunk line (7032-15) extends 

into the existing railroad right-of-way for approximately 240 feet at a point opposite Chester Village Circle. An eight (8) inch sewer collector line extends from Chester Village Circle and ties-into the eighteen (18) inch line in the existing railroad right-of-way (U02-192D). 

gg. Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side of the existing 

railroad right-of-way, starting at a point approximately 1,000 feet 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

north of West Hundred Road and continuing to a point approximately 500 feet north of Curtis Street, will impact the existing sixteen (16) inch water line crossing approximately 700 feet north of West Hundred Road (W98-190CO), and an eight (8) inch sewer line crossing of the railroad right-of-way approximately 1,300 feet north of West Hundred Road (S63-18C, 6102-41, and S89-917R). The existing twelve (12) inch water line crossing at Dodomeade Street (C346A) 

will be impacted as will the existing ten (10) inch sewer line crossing at Railroad Street (7032-27). 

hh. CURTIS STREET CROSSING- A bridge is proposed to carry the 

railroad over Curtis Street and the existing road will tunnel under the tracks. The existing water lines in Curtis Street (Sixteen (16) inch - W86-IB and six (6) inch - A-3 and 292) and sewer lines (eight (8) inch - 7032-27 A) will be impacted as well as the existing water (six (6) inch - 292) and sewer lines (ten (10) inch - 7032-27) along a portion of Richmond Street. 

ii. MAP 013- Additional railroad right-of-way starts at Curtis Street and 

continues south to Ashton Creek. This will impact the existing thirty (30) inch Ashton Creek trunk line (6511-9A). 

jj. Between milepost A-14.5 and milepost A-15 two (2) eight (8) inch 

sewer collector lines extend across the existing railroad right-of-way. One is adjacent to Stockleigh Drive (S97-249CD) and serves Stockleigh Subdivision. The other, adjacent to Oxley Court serves Oxley Subdivision (S97-249CD). 

kk. MAP 014- Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side of the 

existing railroad right-of-way, opposite Stockleigh Drive, will impact an existing eight (8) inch sewer line (S97-249CD). The existing sewer collector lines that serve both Stockleigh and Oxley subdivisions extend into existing railroad property on the north side of the existing right-of-way. This section of sewer line is approximately 1,050 feet in length and is located south of milepost A-14.5 (S97-249CD). 

ll. MAP 015- Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side of the 

existing railroad right-of-way approximately 1500 feet southeast of Bankwood Court, will impact the existing fifteen (15) inch sewer trunk line crossing (S83-92CD). 

mm. Additional railroad right-of-way on the east side of the existing 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

railroad right-of-way from approximately 400 feet north of Jefferson Davis Highway to approximately 250 feet south of Ruffin Mill Road will impact water project W96-175R (a twenty-four (24) inch line) sewer project S77-89CD (an eight (8) inch line), S73-24T (a fifteen (15) inch line) and U96-33C (a twelve (12) inch line). 

nn. Existing water and sewer lines cross the existing railroad right-of-way 

at Jefferson Davis Highway. An eight (8) inch sewer collector line crosses on the northwest side of Jefferson Davis Highway (S77-89CD) along with an existing eight (8) inch water line (PB 53/54). On the southeast side of Jefferson Davis Highway, an existing twentyfour (24) inch water line crosses the railroad right-of-way (W96-175R). 

oo. MAP 016- Additional right-of-way is being added to the east side of 

the existing railroad right-of-way starting approximately 800 feet 

north of Woods Edge Road, north of milepost A-17, and continuing to a point approximately 800 feet south of Woods Edge Road. This will impact project S73-30T (a fourteen (14) inch sewer force main) and project 04-0180 (a sixteen (16) inch sewer force main) that will be constructed prior to the high speed rail project. 

pp. WOODS EDGE ROAD- The May 4, 2010 revisions delete the 

proposed relocation of Woods Edge Road and bridge, and now 

propose closing that railroad crossing. There is an existing thirty (30) inch water line (W97-119C) and an existing sixteen (16) inch water line (AC353 and U96-33C) that extend along the south side of Woods Edge Road that will be impacted by the crossing closure and additional railroad right-of-way. 

qq. WALTHALL INDUSTRIAL PKWY- The May 4, 2010 revisions 

propose realigning and extending Walthall Industrial Parkway to connect to a proposed extension of Pine Forest Drive. An existing twelve (12) inch water line (U99-195D) and an existing twelve (12) inch sewer collector line extends along the existing portion of Walthall Industrial Parkway and will be impacted by the road extension. 

rr. The existing thirty (30) inch Timsberry Creek Sewer Trunk Line 

extends along Timsberry Creek (Stream S063) and crosses the existing railroad right-of-way approximately 1,700 feet north of 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

milepost A-18 (S73-31T). 

ss. MAP 017-Additional right-of-way is being added to the east side of 

the railroad right-of-way from a point approximately 2,300 feet north of Pine Forest Drive and continuing south to Swift Creek. This will impact the existing six (6) inch water line at the Pine Forest Drive crossing (W83-53D) and the existing (8) inch water line (W96-167R), an existing (8) inch sewer line (S74-38T) that crosses the existing railroad right-of-way at the end of Aldridge Avenue and project 04-0180 (a sixteen (16) inch sewer force main) that will be constructed prior to the high speed rail project. 

tt. PINE FOREST DRIVE- The May4, 2010 revisions propose a road 

realignment of Pine Forest Drive with a bridge over the railroad rightof-way. Pine Forest Drive will also be extended to the east to connect with the Walthall Industrial Parkway extension. The proposed Pine Forest Drive extension will impact the existing thirty-three (33) inch Timsberry Creek Sewer Trunk Line and fourteen (14) inch sewer force main, approximately 1,950 feet east of the railroad right-of-way near stream S063 (S73-30T). A privately owned and maintained eight (8) inch sewer collector line serving 2103 Pine Forest drive, near the southern right-of-way line for the proposed Pine Forest Drive extension, may be impacted by the road improvements (S81-72D). 

uu. MAP 019 - The new bridge proposed at Branders Bridge Road with 

the additional road right-of-way and the New Pine Grove Avenue will impact the existing thirty (30) inch Appomattox River Water Authority (A.R.W.A.) transmission line and the County's existing sixteen (16) inch waterline along Brander's Bridge Road (W73-32CD). 

vv. The existing thirty (30) inch A.R.W.A water transmission line enters 

the west side of the existing railroad right-of-way at a point approximately 450 feet north of River Road and continues north within the existing railroad right-of-way to a point approximately 650 feet south of Branders Bridge Road. This water transmission line reenters the railroad right-of-way on the north side of Branders Bridge Road and continues with the right-of-way to the Colonial Heights/Chesterfield county line. Proposed railroad improvements may impact this water line. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG3, AG27 & AG40 

 Chesterfield County, VA, Consolidated Comments (including Anne Wright (Utilities), Rachael Lumpkin 

(Parks/Design/Construction), James (Robby) Dawson (Fire/EMS), Will Davis (Economic Dev), Barb Smith (Tran

County Commissioners (County Resolution 8-25-10)) 

Also includes additional requests/comments from County based on on-going coordination with the P

Comment Response 

ww. The new bridge and road realignment of DuPuy Road will impact the 

thirty (30) inch-AR.W.A. transmission line and an existing eight (8) inch water line (C483 and 555) and existing eight (8) inch sewer lines 

along DuPuy Road (S74-8C and S65-21D). Additional right-of-way and road improvements may impact existing water and sewer lines in Piedmont Avenue (six (6) inch water line - project: C483 and an eight (8) inch sewer collector line project: S75-58C) and in Roosevelt Avenue (six (6) inch water line - project 514A and an eight (8) inch sewer collector line - project S84-109C). 

xx. MAP 020- Additional railroad right-of-way is proposed for the east 

side of !he existing railroad right-of-way. from a point approximately 1,100 feet south of Branders Bridge Road and continuing to the County line. This will impact an existing eight (8) inch sewer line crossing approximately 550 feet south of DuPuy Road (S74-8C). Existing water lines are at River Road/Chesterfield Avenue (twelve (12) inch line - W79-\06C, eight (8) inch line - U88-ICD, twelve (12) inch line - W89-79B, and the existing County meter station off the AR.W.A.line). 

yy. An existing twelve (12) inch sewer line crossing approximately 1700 

feet south of River Road will be impacted (S72-58CD). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG4 & AG30 

 City of Henderson, NC, James D. O'Geary, Mayor Letter & Council Resolution 

Comment Response 

The City of Henderson is highly supportive of this project; however, several concerns merit attention as the Project’s Plan is fine tuned. The Henderson City Council has unanimously approved Resolution 10—74 concerning the fine tuning it thinks is necessary and appropriate in order to make the high speed rail project work well as it traverses Henderson. The current and proposed railroad tracks bisect the city of Henderson. The Resolution articulates points of support and/or concern as follows: 

1) Full support for the Southeast High Speed Rail Project. From RESOLUTION 

10-74 – 

WHEREAS, the Henderson City Council (Council) identified eight Key Strategic 

Objectives (KSO) at its 2010 Strategic Planning Retreat; and 

WHEREAS, one of the Key Strategic Objectives is addressed by this Resolution as 

follows: KSO 3: Enhanced Economic Development: To create new jobs and investment, expand the tax base and increase the per capita income. Action Plan 3-3: High Speed Rail: Locate the High Speed Rail Passenger Station in Downtown; and 

WHEREAS, the City of Henderson (City) is highly supportive of the Southeast High 

Speed Rail Project (HSRP) and believes its implementation will help revive the 

local economy as did the construction of I-85 did in the 1960’s and 1970’s, 

As discussed in an amended/expanded Purpose and Need sthere have been several detailed cost/benefit analyses prepincluding one for the entire national HSR system (which thsegment) prepared in 1997, as well as a detailed feasibility DC, to Charlotte SEHSR corridor completed in 1999, as w

the benefits of the Richmond to Raleigh Project. These stu

there will be substantial long term economic benefits from 

creation of jobs in railroad construction and operation; ind

hotel and higher density housing near planned rail stations

rail passenger transportation industry, including car, equip

tourism; reduction in use of carbon fuel; reduced need to wbenefits, as noted in Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS. 

2) Strongly urge the location of a passenger rail station with daily service in 

downtown Henderson. From RESOLUTION 10-74 – 

WHEREAS, Henderson is the largest regional population and commercial retail 

center in North Central North Carolina along the proposed HSRP route, and is one of two rural stops planned on the HSRP between Petersburg, Virginia and Raleigh, North Carolina, with the other rural stop being La Crosse, Virginia; and 

WHEREAS, the location of a passenger rail station in downtown Henderson would 

be a significant boost to the redevelopment of the local economic base that has 

been devastated by the loss of the traditional economic stalwarts of textiles and tobacco in the early part of the decade as well as the lingering negative effects 

of the current Recession; and 

As stated in the Section 2.2 of the Tier II DEIS, evaluation support one daily round-trip train stop in Henderson, NC. development of stations is a unique undertaking at an indivevaluated only to the level to ensure that a station placed alocation would provide sufficient accessibility to the larger 

3) The impacts of the new High Speed Rail Project will serve to divide the city into 

two halves as a result of the fencing and closure of 12 of the current 17 rail crossing locations. Thus, the proper planning and design of the new rail crossings is of upmost concern to us. 

From RESOLUTION 10-74 – 

WHEREAS, the proposed high speed rail line will run along the same right-of-way 

that currently provides for the current north/south rail line as it traverses Henderson, and said rail line DIVIDES AND BISECTS the city, thus providing 

Through additional coordination with the City of Hendersoresponse to these comments, several revisions to roadwork revised roadwork has been reviewed by the City Council, athe revised roadwork were passed by the City of Hendersothat there are no outstanding issues that need to be resolved related to the Project in the City of Henderson. Refer to Acopy of City of Henderson Resolution 11-84 and Resolutioroadwork can be viewed in the Map Book Appendix of the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG4 & AG30 

 City of Henderson, NC, James D. O'Geary, Mayor Letter & Council Resolution 

Comment Response 

for unique challenges and opportunities to address cross-city transportation connectors in a way that meets the current and future needs of the City and its residents, businesses and visitors. 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HENDERSON CITY COUNCIL that it 

does hereby: 

AFFIRMS that Henderson is a city with a population of approximately 16,000 and the railroad right-of-way DIVIDES AND BISECTS the city in half. Crosscity connectors that are functional and effective for traffic flow and delivery of public safety services is critical for the public health, safety and welfare and is also critically vital to the City’s future economic growth and development. The proposed reconfigurations of the local and State streets and roads to accommodate the HSRP crossings are not well designed and do not think about current and/or future needs of the City’s transportation network in a logical and systematic manner. 

4) This is particularly true given the fact that 12 of the existing 17 crossings within 

the City and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction are slated to be closed. (See Attachment No. 5). Thus, leaving the City with only 5 existing crossings. 

a. The addition of the Alexander Ave/Dabney Dr./Raleigh Rd. intersection would 

bring the crossing number to 6. The addition of the requested Chavasse Ave. underpass would bring the total crossings to 7. 

5) Full support for a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Peachtree Street. 6) Request and full support for the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks on both 

sides of any new bridges, underpasses and reconfigurations of local streets designed to accommodate the new rail crossings. 

7) Major concerns and objections to the planned crossings and the local street and 

road reconfigurations planned to accommodate the crossings.

From RESOLUTION 10-74 – 

WHEREAS, the Council has MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT AND OBJECTIONS to 

the proposed reconfiguration of local streets and State roads designed to support the planned bridge crossings of the HSRP at – 

a. Main St. and North Garnett St. 

Main Street Crossing: The City Council appreciates the plan aligning with the 

Thoroughfare Plan; however, the proposed termination of direct north/south 

traffic flow along the N. Chestnut St.—Rt. 1, N. Garnett St. corridor is neither satisfactory nor acceptable. This corridor carries a significant amount of traffic that bypasses the core downtown area as well as provides a direct access for police, fire and other public safety delivery services that provide service to the 

Northern sector of the city. The City Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG4 & AG30 

 City of Henderson, NC, James D. O'Geary, Mayor Letter & Council Resolution 

Comment Response 

proposed design and respectfully requests that the proposed realignment of local and State streets be redesigned to maintain and provide for the northsouth N. Chestnut St.—Rt. 1, N. Garnett St. Corridor traffic flow. (See Attachment No. 1 for current HSRP design); 

b. Andrews Ave. at N. Garnett St. 

Andrews Avenue Crossing: This avenue is a main connector between I-85 and US Rt. 1 Bypass and has four lanes from I-85 to N. Chestnut Street and three 

and four lanes from Booth Avenue to Rt. 1 Bypass. The City Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to the construction of a two lane bridge crossing and it respectfully requests that the bridge be widened to provide for future traffic needs and to meet the needs of the bridge crossing as articulated in the City’s Thoroughfare Plan—or 4 lanes. Further, the reconfiguration of local streets 

with this construction does not provide for convenient access from N. Garnett Street in downtown onto Andrews Avenue. The City Council respectfully requests that on/off ramps be provided from the new Andrews Avenue Bridge Crossing to N. Garnett Street. Further, it is requested that Williams Street not be closed at Andrews Avenue on the East side of the rail road right-of-way. (See 

Attachment No. 2 for current HSRP design); 

c. Chavasse Ave. 

Chavasse Avenue Crossing: The current plan is to permanently close the Chavasse Avenue crossing. The City Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to the permanent closure of the Chavasse Avenue Crossing. While a bridge would not be appropriate due to the historic eligible nature of the residential neighborhood on the East side of the railroad right-of-way, the City Council respectfully requests and proposes that an underpass be provided for Chavasse Avenue in a manner similar to the underpass provided at Charles Street in downtown. This crossing is seen as being critically necessary for the effective delivery of fire services from the Dabney Drive Fire Station into East Henderson as well as the effective access for police personnel. This crossing is 

extremely important given the fact that the current plans would otherwise leave approximately a 1 mile gap between crossings in a heavily traveled part of the city and where four other downtown crossings are planned to be eliminated. Thus, the only crossings for this heavily populated area of the city without the Chavasse Ave. crossing would be Charles St. Underpass at the northern edge of the Business District and Dabney Dr./Alexander Ave. crossing which is almost at the end of the city limits. (See Attachment No. 3 for current HSRP design); and 

WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Southerland, a private citizen and resident of Gholson 

Avenue located on the East side of the railroad right-of-way in the vicinity of Chavasse Avenue, addressed the City Council at its 26 July 2010 regular 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG4 & AG30 

 City of Henderson, NC, James D. O'Geary, Mayor Letter & Council Resolution 

Comment Response 

meeting and expressed strong support for keeping the Chavasse Avenue railroad 

crossing open via construction of an underpass similar to the one currently in use at Charles Street in downtown, and no other citizens came forward to speak for or against the Chavasse Avenue crossing proposal being considered by the City Council; 

d. Dabney Dr. Extension—Alexander St. Extension at US1 Raleigh Rd. 

Dabney Drive Extension—Alexander Avenue Extension: The proposed 

relocation of Dabney Drive to connect with the Alexander Avenue Extension is almost out of the city limits; therefore, It is critical that the connection provide 

for the direct access onto Nicholas Street in order to provide for direct 

emergency services access from the Dabney Drive Fire Station and police cruisers onto Williams Street and the East Henderson area. The City Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to any design that does not provide for at-grade or on/off ramp connections from the proposed overpass improvements of Alexander Avenue onto Nicholas Street. The City Council respectfully requests that direct access from the rail crossing improvement onto Nicholas Street be 

designed and constructed as part of this project. (See Attachment No. 4 for current HSRP design); 

e. J. P. Taylor Rd. at US-1 Raleigh Rd. 

J. P. Taylor Road Crossing: The proposed rail crossing at this intersection does not provide for direct access onto US-1 Business/Raleigh Road. This is a critical 

crossing providing general traffic and public safety service delivery to Southeast 

Henderson. The City Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to the proposed design because it does not provide for direct access from the J. P. Taylor rail crossing improvement onto US-1 Raleigh Road. It is critical that on/off ramps be provided to connect Raleigh Road with J. P. Taylor Road in order to maintain a high level of public safety service delivery services, particularly fire and police services into the area East of the rail road tracks. The City Council respectfully requests that on/off ramps be provided so as to connect US1 Raleigh Road with the J. P. Taylor rail crossing improvements. Additionally, Belmont Dr. should be widened and improved from the intersection of J. P. Taylor Rd. Extension to Raleigh Road in order to adequately handle the increased traffic load being placed on this small, rural road. (See Attachment No. 6 for current HSRP design); 

f. The lack of a connection between Nicholas St. and J. P. Taylor Rd. 

Nicholas St. not Connecting with J. P. Taylor Road: The proposed road configuration does not provide for a physical connection between Nicholas St. and the J. P. Taylor Rd. This is unacceptable as it completely eliminates any direct public safety access to the neighborhoods and businesses to the East of the Railroad track. The City Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to the termination 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG4 & AG30 

 City of Henderson, NC, James D. O'Geary, Mayor Letter & Council Resolution 

Comment Response 

of Nicholas St. prior to its intersection with J. P. Taylor Road and it requests that it be extended from its planned termination point to J. P. Taylor Rd. in order to ensure that the area can and will receive adequate and appropriate public safety services. (See Attachment No. 7 for current HSRP design). 

8) From RESOLUTION 10-74 – 

EXPRESSES Strong concern for and objection to the fencing off of the railroad 

right-of-way and exceeding the current use of said right-of-way for the Southeast High Speed Rail project in a manner that would cause serious, negative impacts on the North/South corridor along Williams Street and the businesses that abut said right-of-way, especially within the downtown area. 

9) Any major improvement to a transportation network requires change on the part 

of those affected. The City Council and I understand this and realize that we 

must plan well and implement change in a manner that mitigates negative impacts and provides such change in as seamless a manner as possible. This is the spirit in which my comments are made this evening. The City Council and I request that you give full consideration to the requests made this evening regarding our concerns and work with us to improve the rail crossings and local street reconfigurations to accommodate them. 

AG7/31 

Town of Youngsville, NC, Public Hearing Comments; Brenda Robbins (former Town Admini

Comment Response 

1) We are pleased with the proposed connector route from Fleming Road to the 

intersection of Hwy 96/US1-A North. However we do feel that if the connector route was from North Cross Street to Hwy 96/US1-A North it would make a 

tremendous difference in our downtown area. In order for Hwy 96 traffic to get 

through Town they will have to make a right turn onto East Main Street and 

then a left onto North Nassau Street/Fleming Road. With Hwy 96 being Main Street we have a tremendous amount of tractor trailer traffic coming through Youngsville. Hwy 96 is a connector route for Interstate 95 to Interstate 85. Gas 

tankers are loaded in Selma and any that are going north come through Youngsville. We were told that because of the historical district the traffic could not be rerouted on North Cross Street, but that it would have to be detoured on Nassau Street/Fleming Road therefore requiring 2 unnecessary turns. We feel that we would have no other choice but to cul-de-sac South Nassau Street 

because it cannot withstand the tractor trailer traffic or just the volume of traffic. South Nassau Street is a residential neighborhood with quite a few children, the 

In response to comments from individuals and from local oNC, that was proposed in the Tier II DEIS has been redesigFEIS. The new designs utilize Cross Street as a connection during the construction of the Main Street bridge over the Construction of the Highway NC 96 bypass is outside the sorder to maintain the flow of traffic during construction of Street, Highway NC 96 will be realigned north of town witWake Forest's proposed Highway NC 96 bypass, to interseThe Richmond to Raleigh Project design will allow the bypplanned. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG7/31 

Town of Youngsville, NC, Public Hearing Comments; Brenda Robbins (former Town Admini

Comment Response 

homes are close to the street and our water and sewer lines are close to or either in the street. There is a 12” water line on South Nassau Street from East Main Street to East Persimmon Street that serves the Youngsville/Wake Forest Mobile Home Park as well as the Commerce Center South Industrial Park that houses Harborlite and K-Flex. Fleming Road cannot withstand the traffic due to the road condition as well as numerous curves. This road has several subdivisions on it and it is a residential 

neighborhood as well. We don’t think it is fair for the residents of Fleming Road to have to worry about the volume of traffic during construction as well as the possibility of having their property split in half. We understand and appreciate the fact that our NCDOT Rail Division has designed the high speed rail with no at grade crossings, but tractor trailer/vehicle wrecks can be just as deadly. We must take in the fact that there are school buses traveling that road and picking up and letting children off. As far as the rail alignment, we feel the best solution in order to have the least impact on our residents as well as our industrial neighbors would be to go with Section S NC1, NC3 (Map# 51 Sheet 1 of 2). With the economy being in the state that it is in we need all of our industrial companies to be able to continue operating so that they will be in a position to pay their taxes. We feel that the connector route (roadway) should be from N Cross St to 96/US1A N not from Fleming Rd. With Hwy 96 having tremendous amount of traffic we know that Fleming Rd cannot handle it. That road is hilly and curvy. Best suggestion - build 96 by pass. 

2) We were told that the North Cross Street connector was not an option because of 

our historic district. We do not have a historic district. Several years ago our Youngsville Area Business Association Downtown Revitalization Committee worked on trying to get either a historical district or a historical designation. 

Neither one happened. The committee did not have the resources to spend to make the designation happen. We don’t understand how something that has not 

been approved can be shown on a map and used as an excuse for something not to happen. During construction of the high speed rail on Main Street, traffic has got to be detoured. The ideal plan would be for our bypass to be built. It has been approved since 1991 (revised in 2003) and has been presented to the DOT Board numerous times. If that is not a possibility then the extension from Fleming Road to Hwy 96/US1-A North would work however we feel very strongly about an extension being built from North Cross Street to Hwy 96/US1-

The request to use Cross Street was accommodated in coorHistoric Preservation Office. Although Youngsville does nNational Register of Historic Places (NRHP), surveys cond

Raleigh Project’s compliance with Section 106 of the Natiidentified a historic district that is eligible for the NRHP. Bthe Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provide the for the NRHP as those listed in it. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG7/31 

Town of Youngsville, NC, Public Hearing Comments; Brenda Robbins (former Town Admini

Comment Response 

A. This would make traffic flow so much easier from the intersection of East Main Street and North Cross Street because large trucks would be able to keep straight at the stoplight. The plans would have to be changed but we feel that it would work a lot better for everyone. 

3) Also we have asked for and have been told that it would not be a problem to 

have pedestrian crossings at Persimmon Street as well as Franklin Street. The one for Franklin Street is shown on the maps on the SEHSR website the one for 

Persimmon Street needs to be added. Not having the Persimmon Street pedestrian crossing would cut off all the foot traffic from the south side of Town including walkers, joggers and school kids. We are losing a vehicle crossing at 

East Pine Street as well as West Winston Street therefore making the pedestrian crossings a necessity. We need a pedestrian crossing on the Southside of Main St. There is a lot of traffic on that side of Town needing access to Youngsville Elementary School and a convenience store. 

A pedestrian crossing could not be accommodated at Persithe north side of the street (on the east side of the railroad tYoungsville Historic District (see above). A pedestrian crothe Project designs to provide the requested connectivity. 

4) North of our corporate limits (but within our ETJ) at Bert Winston and 

Northbrook Dr. we would encourage you to use Section S NC1, NC3 (map 51 sheet 1 of 2) instead of NC2. NC1 and NC3 would disturb a lot less property owners, industrial and residential. 

Alternative NC1 is the preferred alternative in Section S. 

AG8/9/45/49 

Town of Wake Forest, NC, Vivian A. Jones, Mayor; and Ann Ayers Comments and Em

Comment Response 

1) As stated in a Resolution signed on the July 21, 2009, the Board of 

Commissioners of Wake Forest fully support and desire the development of 

higher speed rail service along the Federally-Designated Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor network and supports the undertaking of planning, land acquisition and construction required to bring about implementation of these 

service improvements. 

Comment noted. 

2) While we support the overall goals of the SEHSR project, we are deeply 

concerned about the unintended impacts this important project could have on existing at-grade crossings, public safety access, and the built environment (business and residential property). 

Comment noted. The Richmond to Raleigh Project has coWake Forest to discuss these concerns and methods to min

3) Upon review of the three alternatives under consideration for providing HighSpeed Rail service through Wake Forest's jurisdiction, we offer the following 

recommendations: 

Elm AvenueIn response to these comments on the Tier II DEIS as well rail underpass was designed for Elm Avenue. There are nu
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG8/9/45/49 

Town of Wake Forest, NC, Vivian A. Jones, Mayor; and Ann Ayers Comments and Em

Comment Response 

a. Provide additional grade-separated crossings at Elm Avenue, Northside Loop, 

and Height Lane/Unicon Drive. 

i. Please consider at grade crossing at Elm Street in Wake Forest. The federal rail 

administration, I understand, has established guidelines for at grade crossings on 

high speed rail lines. The crossing at Elm St is a major entrance to our downtown. We need either an at grade crossing or a bridge. DO NOT CLOSE THIS CROSSING, PLEASE! 

Wake Forest supports this project with several crossing closures. However, the Elm 

Avenue crossing is not one of those. The interconnected street grid predates most of the buildings in the historic district. Wake Forest wants an at grade crossing with a folder quad or similar gate system to prevent pedestrians, biking and other drivers from crossing when a train is present. Keep Elm Ave open. 

location including the terrain, the Wake Forest Historic Di

driveway encroachment on the rail ROW. Coordination wCarolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) occdeveloped. The public was provided an opportunity to view and commupdate meeting (PUM) on May 15, 2012. Strong oppositioPUM, particularly from the businesses and residences imp

with the Town and with a representative from the North Cawas held on Monday, June 18, 2012, to discuss the responsimpacts of a grade separation at this location were too sevea minimal footprint pedestrian bridge (i.e. steps but not ramfit at this location. The pedestrian bridge would minimize would still allow students from Wake Forest Elementary SNorthside LoopThe mapping for the Richmond to Raleigh Project includes planned road. Construction of a grade separation for this pProject; however, the Richmond to Raleigh Project does noroad in the future. Height Lane/Unicon DriveThere is no existing connection between these two roads, aoutside the scope of this Project. 

b. Support the proposed grade-separated crossings at Cedar Avenue (pedestrian 

only), Dunn Avenue, Ligon Mill Road and Rogers Road; Comment noted. 

c. Please consider modifying the alignment at Ligon Mill Road to preserve historic 

property. Specifically, David Cooke property (9737 Ligon Mill Road), 

preferred alignment drawings have been provided to N C Rail Division. 

i. I hope that you can work with David and Pinky Cooke to provide for the needs 

of the road, rail and preservation of an important historic home site. If it is 

possible to construct a temporary road to accommodate traffic while placing the crossing into a location that does not impact the historic fabric of the home 

place, the property owners have indicated a willingness to work with SEHSR. Mayor Jones and I recall discussions from previous SEHSR meetings where the 

location of the Ligon Mill Road bridge came up. It is our recollection that the bridge shift has been proposed to allow traffic to continue to use the existing 

The Project Team is aware of the concerns about impacts tMill Road in Wake Forest, NC, as well as questions about not being eligible for the National Register of Historic Plac

and Capital Area Preservation have stated they will providCarolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) and eligibility. NC-HPO and NCDOT have reviewed the origi

the Hartsfield House and do not recommend altering its NRthe information it contains. Additional materials have not NC-HPO and NCDOT will review it and reevaluate the eliCertificate of Appropriateness from the Wake Forest Historequired to address impacts to the property under North Ca

as a local landmark. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG8/9/45/49 

Town of Wake Forest, NC, Vivian A. Jones, Mayor; and Ann Ayers Comments and Em

Comment Response 

Ligon Mill Road while the bridge is being constructed. However, doing this shifts the new Ligon Mill Road onto property in an area that is entwined with the historic character of the Hartsfield House in Wake Forest, near old Forestville. The Hartsfield House, a two story Federal-style building, was built in ca. 1803 as dated on one of the double-shouldered chimneys. (The Historical Architecture of Wake County North Carolina by Kelly A. Lally, pg. 249 [WA1487] S.R. 2044). In the path of the new alignment, there are three old white oaks remaining from a grove (a fourth was lost in Hurricane Fran) and a garden, originally planted by the Hartsfield family, likely over 125 years ago, where daffodils and hyacinth still come up in the spring. The current owners, Pinky and David Cooke provided the attached pictures. For scale, Mrs. Cooke is standing in front of one of the trees in the last photo. I hope that you will contact David and Pinky Cooke at your earliest convenience to explore temporary solutions that result in a more satisfactory alternative. 

Alternative design concepts, both provided by the Cookes design team, have attempted to minimize impacts to the pr

oak trees. However, such designs present safety issues witsight distance in the vicinity of the proposed bridge over thLigon Mill Road near the property provide evidence of the Road. It should be noted that the current designs are based on pre

be very conservative (showing the greatest possible impactduring the final design stage of the Project, it may be possiestimated impacts to the Hartsfield House property. 

d. Support the realignment of East Holding Avenue; and Comment noted. e. Support the Southeast High Speed Rail Trail Project by using the Smith Creek 

Corridor as the preferred route through Wake Forest, east side of the rail. 

Attempts will be made to accommodate this request during Corridor Plan. However, it should be noted that design coexisting rail corridor, property impacts, etc.) may effect whrecommended for the greenway. 

f. Provide pedestrian accommodations at all grade-separated crossings. 

All of the new bridges will have sufficient width so as not movement. In locations where existing pedestrian accommexist, these accommodations will be provided on the bridg

pedestrian accommodations on the bridges/underpasses wibased on the current NCDOT and VDOT pedestrian policithe provision of pedestrian accommodations in more populcurrently exists. 

4) Buffer vibration. 

Vibration mitigation will be provided in accordance with tHigh Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Im2012). 

5) Incorporate art in stations. This is a multigenerational project and should be a 

source of great pride and not just utilitarian. Therefore, incorporate public art into structure design and construct the high speed rail trail concurrently where possible as is the case in Wake Forest. 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environme

specific station locations or station amenities because the dundertaking at an individual location. Recommendations rshould be provided to the governments at the individual sta
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG8/9/45/49 

Town of Wake Forest, NC, Vivian A. Jones, Mayor; and Ann Ayers Comments and Em

Comment Response 

6) Fund rail trail concurrently. 

The concept of a greenway located parallel to the RichmonVA, to the Neuse River (just north of Raleigh, NC) was intProject DEIS. The rationale for its inclusion was to allow documentation for the greenway to be prepared so that locpursue the construction of the greenway in their jurisdictiowas never intended to be funded as part of the Richmond tsource of Federal funding for HSR projects) does not have greenways. Although the parallel greenway is still being sRaleigh Project, the process of developing the environmenchanged since publication of the Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHWNorth Carolina have jointly determined that the greenway NEPA Greenway Corridor Plan, rather than being included to Raleigh Project, as previously considered. This is primawill ultimately construct the greenway greater flexibility to time rather than limiting them to a particular funding agencfor the greenway will, therefore, not be contained within thbut rather in a separate Greenway Corridor Plan. This docwith completion anticipated at the time of the ROD for the website will provide additional details on this separate plan review and comment. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG2 

Town of Wake Forest, NC, Planning Services, Ann M. Ayers 

Comment Response 

1) I hope that you can work with David and Pinky Cooke to provide for the needs 

of the road, rail and preservation of an important historic home site. If it is 

possible to construct a temporary road to accommodate traffic while placing the crossing into a location that does not impact the historic fabric of the home 

place, the property owners have indicated a willingness to work with SEHSR. The Hartsfield House, a two story Federal-style building, was built in ca. 1803 as dated on one of the double-shouldered chimneys. (The Historical Architecture of Wake County North Carolina by Kelly A. Lally, pg. 249 

[WA1487] S.R. 2044). In the path of the new alignment, there are three old 

white oaks remaining from a grove (a fourth was lost in Hurricane Fran) and a garden, originally planted by the Hartsfield family, likely over 125 years ago, 

where daffodils and hyacinth still come up in the spring. The current owners, Pinky and David Cooke provided the attached pictures. For scale, Mrs. Cooke is standing in front of one of the trees in the last photo. I hope that you will contact David and Pinky Cooke at your earliest convenience to explore temporary solutions that result in a more satisfactory alternative. 

The Project Team is aware of the concerns about impacts tMill Road in Wake Forest, NC, as well as questions about not being eligible for the National Register of Historic Plac

and Capital Area Preservation have stated they will providCarolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) and eligibility. NC-HPO and NCDOT have reviewed the origi

the Hartsfield House and do not recommend altering its NRthe information it contains. Additional materials have not NC-HPO and NCDOT will review it and reevaluate the eliCertificate of Appropriateness from the Wake Forest Historequired to address impacts to the property under North Ca

as a local landmark. Alternative design concepts, both provided by the Cookes design team, have attempted to minimize impacts to the pr

oak trees. However, such designs present safety issues witsight distance in the vicinity of the proposed bridge over thLigon Mill Road near the property provide evidence of the Road. It should be noted that the current designs are based on pre

be very conservative (showing the greatest possible impactduring the final design stage of the Project, it may be possiestimated impacts to the Hartsfield House property. 

AG15 

Town of Kittrell, NC, Jack Ball, Town Councilor, 

Comment Response 

1) We voted on August 2nd a new version of the Rail Design. We filled out a form 

on that day and was supposed to be submitted to Kerr-Tar by August 16: The Town of Kittrell would like to make sure that proposed plan Y220RJ is being used for the future planning of the High Speed Rail System. Please make sure 

that proposed plan Y220RK is NOT USED. 

As requested by the Town of Kittrell, the road designs shochange from Y220RK to Y220RJ. To see the design changfor the Tier II FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG20 

Town of McKenney, VA, Charles T. Mansfield, Mayor 

Comment Response 

Some of the concerns to the Town of McKenney include the following: 

1) Well No.1. This is the primary source of water for the town. It was drilled in 

1939 on railroad property and had been considered an Artesian well. We request the proposed route of the high speed rail be kept as far as possible from that well to insure its continued productivity. 

Access Road to Well and Sewage Treatment Facility. We recommend the proposed access 

road to Well No 1 and the Sewage Treatment Facility follow Community Street then along the railroad behind Sunnyside Elementary School. That should have the least amount of 

impact on the historically designated property at the Zehmer farm. 

The railroad alignment has been redesigned to include a sliNRHP boundary for the Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill Falisted in the NRHP in 2009 encompasses an area much largeligible for the NRHP as part of the Richmond to Raleigh Palso takes the alignment further away from the Town of MThe alignment for the public access road to the well and seredesigned. The revised impacts associated with these desthe Tier II FEIS and maps can be found in the Map Book A

2) Effect of Vibration. We are concerned about the negative effects of vibration on 

the infrastructure of the water and sewer system. 

Refer to Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS for information regaalong the alignment of the preferred alternative. 

3) Relocation of Sewer Lines. There is a major sewer line which crosses the 

proposed railroad route at St. Route 40. It is likely the sewer lines will have to be relocated to be accessible after the construction of the proposed bridge. Likewise, a sewage pumping station will be required to move the sewage either over the tracks on the proposed bridge or under the railroad. The operation of another sewage pumping station would place an additional burden upon the town. 

Relocation of Water Lines. In a similar manner, the several water lines which presently pass below the railroad right-of-way will have to be relocated, especially in the area of the Rt. 40 bridge. 

Comments noted. Assessment of impacts and relocation pas all other utilities, will be considered during the final des

4) Pedestrian Traffic on Route 40 Bridge. A significant amount of foot traffic 

presently uses St. Route 40. We ask that sidewalks be included on the proposed 

bridge to accommodate pedestrians. 

The Project bridge design for this location provides sidewaalong Doyle Boulevard/VA Route 40. 

5) Proposed station or siding. We request the plans include a siding or station in 

McKenney to accommodate future industrial development. 

Project designs include a rail passing siding that ties into thnorth of Doyle Boulevard/VA Route 40. 

6) Increased traffic on Rives Avenue. It is likely traffic will increase on Rives 

Avenue during construction and afterwards. That is a narrow road with poor drainage. We recommend that road be improved by widening and adding curbs 

and gutters. 

Rives Avenue is planned to be used as part of the proposed of the Doyle Avenue/Route 40 bridge. Prior to constructidetermine the level of improvements necessary to safely acThe improvements will be made according to VDOT stand
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG20 

Town of McKenney, VA, Charles T. Mansfield, Mayor 

Comment Response 

7) Commercial Access to Railroad Avenue. Under the present proposal, Railroad 

Avenue will become a dead end where it presently intersects with St. Rt. 40. The hardware store and other commercial enterprises require access to tractor trailer deliveries. We ask that that road be improved to allow continued access to 

these vehicles. 

The Project designs accommodate rear delivery access alonwith a 50-foot wheel base (WB50) through a backing mov

location were evaluated but found not practicable due to thon 1st Street that the access is intended to serve. 

8) We hope these concerns can be addressed to prevent additional expense to the 

town citizens. 

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains an expanded discussoperate the Richmond to Raleigh Project. At this time, it iwill pursue Federal funding, along with state and public-prProject. It is not possible to know if the future use of FederFederal taxes for citizens. It is anticipated, however, that lto fund project construction. Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains updated ridership anprior studies that projects that the Richmond to Raleigh Prwill generate net revenue annually. And, given the eventuresponsible for all costs of operating and maintaining the fnot be forced with any increased costs. In summary, local governments will not face additional exAnd, although it will require an upfront Federal investmenRaleigh Project will not require tax or other Federal subsidannual operations. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG22 

Port of Richmond Commission - John G. Hekman, Chairman 

Comment Response 

1) Succinctly stated, the Port objects to the currently-proposed SEHSR design 

which would apparently eliminate the fixed, at-grade ("rigid"), rail crossing (sometimes referred to as a "diamond") of the CSX “S” line by Norfolk Southern at "Rockets", just south of the James River in South Richmond, 

between the existing flood wall and Maury Street. While we certainly understand the desirability of simplifying and eliminating lightly-used 

infrastructure, abandonment of this particular element, absent a more satisfactory alternative than is currently depicted on the SEHSR plans, could serve to seriously compromise, or even preclude, our plans for enhancing rail access to the Port, as well as to the rail-served industrial area along the City of Richmond's Deepwater Terminal Railroad. Alternatives which require permissive and non-competitive "switching" on or via CSX rail by NS are not viable business solutions. 

The FEIS designs have been revised to show that the at-graretained under the Richmond to Raleigh Project. 

2) As to our second objective, we wish to advise that enhanced rail access plans 

previously discussed with Kevin Page of your staff remain very much a part of 

the Port's planning program. But for funding issues which arose at the Port over the past two years, we would have more actively pursued preliminary design of the Port's proposed direct rail connection with Norfolk Southern, which 

connection currently depends upon our ability to reach and utilize the line of NS railroad mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Page can explain prior consideration of this as a potential Rail Enhancement Fund project. 

The Virginia DRPT notes that enhanced rail access plans r

program. Furthermore, DRPT is committed to continued c

in long-range planning efforts. 

3) One of the options currently being considered by the Port could involve some 

form of joint and collaborative operational arrangement with the Virginia Port Authority. If such were to materialize, this could make it even more feasible to revive and progress the NS connection project at an earlier date than had otherwise been thought likely. A direct NS connection would be of great 

strategic transportation value to the Port, and potentially to VPA. If constructed, it would provide the only clear route for movement of double-stack rail containers to and from the Port area. We believe that the Port of Richmond has 

the potential to function as yet another Virginia "inland port", providing multimodal (water, highway and rail) cargo services in the central Virginia region. 

Comment noted. 

4) In addition, and at your convenience, we would appreciate having the 

opportunity to further acquaint you with the unique attributes of our Richmond intermodal complex. 

As noted above, DRPT is committed to continued coordinalong-range planning efforts. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG25 

Triangle Transit Authority, David King (Jonathan Parker Point of Contact) 

Comment Response 

1) As you know, Triangle Transit prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for 

a Regional Rail System for the Triangle and the Federal Transit Administration issued the Record of Decision in 2003. The DEIS included an alternative 

alignment developed by NCDOT and the FEIS incorporated NCDOT's requirements for future rail expansion (SEHSR) throughout the entire project corridor. The environmental clearance for this corridor included a segment from 

downtown Raleigh to Durant Road in Raleigh, coincident with the Raleigh to Richmond SEHSR corridor of interest. While Triangle Transit is currently 

evaluating potential options for future rail service with our regional partners 

through a transitional and alternatives analysis process, we request that the SEHSR project be designed in such a way that the implementation of regional 

rail service as originally envisioned on separate tracks within the CSX S-Line railroad corridor is not precluded. This includes designing new roadway and rail 

bridges to allow lateral separation for future tracks to be constructed adjacent to the proposed SEHSR/freight tracks. 

Triangle Transit owns a corridor parallel to the east side of the CSX S-Line railroad corridor from the Boylan Wye in Downtown Raleigh to Old Wake Forest Road in North Raleigh which was purchased as a part of the previously proposed Regional Rail project. Although plans are currently being reconsidered for this corridor, potential impacts to the 

use of this right-of-way should be avoided to allow for future transit use. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project and the NCDOT Rail Dicontinue to work collaboratively with Triangle Transit (TTRegional Rail System for the Triangle area. In keeping wiRaleigh Project has taken the TT plans into consideration, implementation of TT as originally envisioned on separate New roadway and rail bridges allow lateral separation for fSEHSR Corridor tracks. 

2) For informational purposes, please show the Triangle Transit-owned right-ofway within the CSX S-Line railroad corridor on future hearing maps and plan 

sheets. To that end, we also request that cross sections be made available for the portion of the SEHSR project proposed along the S-Line corridor and adjacent to the TTA-owned right of way. 

For the sake of simplicity, TT ROW continues to be includon the maps, rather than shown as separate ROW within thfor areas along the S-line which are adjacent to TT ROW wstage of the Project when survey level data is available. 

3) The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization has included a 

recommendation for possible shared-track commuter rail service from Wake Forest to Raleigh in its 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. More recently, Triangle Transit has been asked to evaluate the suitability of this corridor for future commuter rail service, and would, at the appropriate time, like to begin a conversation with NCDOT Rail Division and CSX about the potential for implementing such a project. 

As stated above, the NCDOT Rail Division will continue tdevelopment of a Regional Rail System for the Triangle ar

4) Section U - Plan Sheet 55: We request that the approach slopes for the proposed 

Durant Road Bridge be limited through the use of retaining walls or steeper 

slopes in order to facilitate access to the proposed Durant Road station which was included in the original regional rail project. 

Project designs do not preclude implementation of TT desiconcepts in the Project (including the proposed Durant Roaend bent slope to fit TT rail underneath the end span of the Rail-over-road bridges in the Project also do not preclude crail over road bridges. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG25 

Triangle Transit Authority, David King (Jonathan Parker Point of Contact) 

Comment Response 

5) Section V - Plan Sheet 57, comment 1: Please consider constructing a new 

roadway grade separation connecting Pacific Drive to Atlantic Avenue, east of the railroad corridor. The City of Raleigh has already constructed a segment of Pacific Drive between the east side of the rail corridor and Atlantic Avenue. Rather than expending unrecoverable funds on detour routes for construction of the grade separations at Millbrook and New Hope Church Roads, this would provide a permanent safer crossing for vehicles and pedestrians during the 

construction of both projects. In addition to facilitating construction of the grade 

separations the Pacific Avenue grade crossing would greatly enhance connectivity in an area that may see an increase in transit oriented development 

(TOD) and pedestrian activity with the introduction of future regional rail 

service in the corridor. Please see Figure 1. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not necessitate inclconnection to Pacific Drive. However, as part of the collabrequest has been discussed with the City of Raleigh. The R

have been amended such that they show a general location bridge constructed by others.” The construction of a City olocation can be coordinated with the construction plans for 

6) Section V - Plan Sheet 57, comment 2: Please consider connecting the proposed 

realignment of Saint Alban's Drive to connect directly to Craftsman Drive at New Hope Church Road. This would consolidate intersections along New Hope Road and move the proposed realignment of Saint Albans Drive further away from the railroad right-of-way, allowing for improved access to the proposed New Hope Church Road transit station, and potential for transit-oriented development adjacent to the station site. Please see Figure 2. 

The changes brought by the Richmond to Raleigh Project dAlbans to connect with Craftsman Drive. Note, however, location do contain revisions to what was shown in the Tiecoordination with the City of Raleigh. The designs can be Tier II FEIS. 

7) Section V - Plan Sheet 57, comment 3: Please consider ways in which the 

Highwoods Blvd. and Wolfpack Lane street connection could be retained. As you may be aware, a transit station was identified in the Final EIS for the Regional Rail Project. Should this street connection be permanently severed through a crossing closure, a station in this location would be rendered 

infeasible due to a lack of a street connection to Atlantic Avenue as well as the 

Highwoods office complex. We would like to identify ways in which this street connection could be retained, including looking at additional grade separation 

options in the vicinity. 

 In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS from the pub

alternative designs were developed for the Wolfpack Lane vehicular bridge (accommodating pedestrians and bicycleswere presented for comment at a public update meeting on strong support for the addition of a bridge over the railroad meeting as Alternative 57A) and those designs have been aTier II FEIS. The designs can be seen in the Map Book Ap
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG25 

Triangle Transit Authority, David King (Jonathan Parker Point of Contact) 

Comment Response 

8) Section V - Plan Sheet 58, comment 1: Regarding proposed street crossing 

closures at Harrington and West Streets (NC 1 & 2) or Jones Street (NC 3), we would like clarification of the policy that dictates 100% grade separation of the 

SEHSR Raleigh to Richmond corridor. The northwest area of downtown Raleigh is perhaps unlike any other on the Tier II EIS, in terms of its strategic importance for long term economic development and as a viable pedestrianfriendly area, including a potential transit station as proposed in the Regional Rail Project. If these crossing closures must be maintained, mitigation measures should include pedestrian/bicycle connections that maintain the grid street urban fabric of the area. 

Between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, the Richmond to consolidate and grade separate all railroad-roadway crosensuring both rail and roadway safety. The recommended preferred alternative in Section V is Altresponse to comments received from the public and local oalternative is discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and impacts is found in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the MFEIS. With the NC5 alternative, the existing vehicular and Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alignment through the dothe crossings at Hargett Street, which would be closed, and 

to vehicular traffic and a pedestrian bridge would be constr

9) Section V - Plan Sheet 58, comment 2: Please explain the proposed right-of-way 

impacts shown at the Dillon Supply parcels in downtown Raleigh in the area north and south of Hargett Street in downtown Raleigh. 

In this location, the proposed rail ROW is expanded on botaccommodate a station platform. As shown in the maps in FEIS, the ROW lines encompass a portion of the existing sProperty impacts are determined during final design when 

10) Section V - Plan Sheet 58, comment 3: Triangle Transit strongly supports the 

proposed elimination and realignment/consolidation of the Norfolk Southern 

(NS) tracks to Fuquay-Varina within the Boylan Wye area from the western to the eastern side of the junction area. We are now advancing corridor studies that include potential light rail transit alignment options in the Boylan Wye area. Among these alternatives is an alignment proposal coincident with the NS tracks 

on the western side of the Wye. In addition to being a critical component of the 

SEHSR project, the proposed relocation of these freight tracks has tremendous benefits to the advancement of a future transit project. Chief among these is the 

removal of a potential fixed guideway transit conflict at the Boylan Street 

Bridge and the NS tracks. We will continue to support this important relocation for both high speed rail and future fixed guideway transit purposes, and appreciate the chance to work together in this effort. 

As noted above, the recommended preferred alternative in does not change the route NS trains would take from the Gthe track horizontal alignment is essentially the same betwAvenue). 

11) Section V - Plan Sheet 58, comment 4: Due the geometric and operational 

advantages presented by locating the proposed SEHSR tracks along the NS 

railroad corridor west of Capital Boulevard and away from the right-of-way 

owned by Triangle Transit within the constrained CSX corridor, Triangle Transit supports the selection of the NC 3 alternative. While the NC 3 option 

has technical advantages over the others for a future regional rail operation in this vicinity, Triangle Transit will work collaboratively with NCDOT Rail 

Division, the City of Raleigh and our other regional partners to ensure that we 

can implement a regional rail solution north of downtown Raleigh regardless of the ultimate alignment selection for the SEHSR project. 

Alternative NC5 allows lateral separation for future TT traCorridor tracks. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

A. The Raleigh City Council held a public hearing on August 31, 2010 for the 

purpose of seeking public comment regarding the project. After deliberating on the project and its potential impacts at our meeting on September 7, 2010, the City Council adopted the following recommendations for your consideration: 

1) Study the hybrid alternatives to NC1/NC2 and NC3 south of Wake Forest Road 

that have been independently developed, and identify their probable impacts and 

costs. If alternative designs deemed viable and feasible, NCDOT should seek 

additional public input from the community. The Council requests the opportunity to hold a public hearing and comment on that option. 

2) Consider the recommendations developed by City staff and by the Raleigh 

Passenger Rail Task Force regarding the project, copies of which are attached. (Pertinent elements are included as follows): ........ 

a. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Passenger Rail Task Force 

recommends that the alternate alignment called NC3 in the SEHSR Tier II Draft EIS which parallels the NS Railway between Edgeton (Wake Forest Road) and Jones Street on the west side of Capital Boulevard is the preferred track 

alignment because: 

i. NC3, unlike NC1/NC2, leaves open the at-grade highway-rail crossings at West 

Street and Harrington Street, which is consistent with the 2030 Comp Plan’s requirements for connectivity and is essential for north-south connectivity along West and Harrington in downtown Raleigh; 

ii. NC3, unlike NC1/NC2, does not call for a 1300’ elevated highway-like bridge 

high above Jones Street, the ends of which would connect only Boylan Avenue 

and Dawson Streets with no access to Glenwood, West Street, or Harrington; 

would cut Harrington; would be a considerable eyesore looming over Glenwood South; and which bridge would result in negative impacts upon the businesses on both sides of Jones Street around the railroad crossing; 

iii. NC3 allows a center platform at Union Depot to serve HSR trains, which will 

result in safer train access and more efficient connections between trains, whereas NC1/NC2 would require two less safe and far less convenient side platforms; 

The recommended preferred alternative through Raleigh, Nwhich was developed in response to these comments as wepublic. Development of the new alternative is discussed in information about the reduced impacts is found in Chapter Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. With the NC5 alterna

Five Points, Roanoke Park, Fairview Road, and the Norfol

unchanged and the existing vehicular and pedestrian accesProject rail alignment through the downtown area is preserStreet, which would be closed, and the crossing at Jones Stvehicular traffic, but where pedestrian access would be mapedestrian bridge over the railroad. Alternative NC5 would accommodate construction of a cen

block area between Hillsborough Street and Hargett Streetcurrent plans for a new multi-modal Union Station in this vWith regard to potential conflicts with freight operations, Afreight operations. CSX freight operations are accommodaroute NS trains would take from the Glenwood Yard south from the current configuration (i.e., the track horizontal ali

between Morgan Street and Boylan Avenue). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

iv. NC3 is cited in the Draft EIS as a positive impact for constructability and 

operation, whereas NC1/NC2 are cited as a negative impact for constructability and operation due to freight operations conflicts at the at-grade rail crossing (called a diamond in rail parlance) at Edgeton (NC3 avoids crossing the 

diamond—and thus avoids the freight operations conflict—by veering southwest 

to parallel the NS tracks on the west side of Capital Boulevard); 

v. NC3 is cited in the Draft EIS as a positive impact for constructability and 

operation, whereas NC1/NC2 are cited as a negative impact for constructability and operation due to freight operations conflicts due to passenger trains having to move through a crossover track from the east track to the west track between Jones Street and the Boylan wye (NC3 avoids the freight operations conflict 

because the HSR tracks are already on the west side of parallel tracks between Jones Street and the Boylan wye where they turn due west through NCSU); 

b. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Passenger Rail Task Force 

recommends the NC3 alignment be selected for SEHSR conditioned upon: 

i. Wherever a closure of an existing street is proposed, an acceptable replacement 

is provided; (From the PRTF Summary of Decision and Recommendation document): 

 In other words, we recommend 1:1 connectivity exchanges for closing Fairview 

and Jones, for example, perhaps bridging Washington Street as a swap for closing Fairview, and perhaps bridging Edenton Street in exchange for closing Jones Street. 

 We recommend that these mitigation exchanges be deemed acceptable by the 

City of Raleigh, not just to the SEHSR project team and FRA. 

 If, however, the 1:1 replacement is not feasible at Jones, then we recommend 

pedestrian access in the area as a minimum. 

ii. Wherever designs for new public infrastructure improvements are established, 

they are conducted according to the highest standard of design excellence; 

(From the PRTF Summary of Decision and Recommendation document): 

 The PRTF contends that any barriers at rail lines, such as those closing crossings 

at Fairview and Jones, should be designed to be visually pleasant and 

transparent, so as to see the trains as they pass by. We recommend against any barriers that could serve to isolate the community. Similarly, the PRTF asks 

that designs for a Jones Street pedestrian bridge should be pleasing, attractive, 

and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. 

Fencing locations and types, as well as proposed landscapi

design based on coordination between the owner of the raiand adjacent communities. The Section 106 MOA for the PFEIS) will address mitigation of visual impacts on historic proposed pedestrian bridge at Jones Street. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

 The PRTF believes that large bridges and long walls foster negative patterns on 

livability and commerce. All designs for such features should preserve and highlight the area’s best qualities as public art and use as guidelines the GSA 

Design Excellence Program. 

iii. Wherever noise and vibration impacts are felt, there are appropriate abatements 

and mitigations installed; 

Noise and vibration mitigation will be addressed during fin

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assess

iv. Wherever adopted plans and policies are found to be inconsistent, that those 

inaccuracies and inconsistencies are corrected; (From the PRTF Summary of Decision and Recommendation document): 

a. Staff informed the PRTF that none of the three alternatives (NC1, NC2, or NC3) 

is consistent with the current Transportation Plan and 2030 Comp Plan. Jones Street, for instance, is designated as a Green Street in the Plan. The old Comp Plan has not changed in terms of the grid system, yet the DEIS offers no 

mitigation for street closures (it left out consideration for local streets). 

b. Street closures without mitigation would be in conflict with the Plan (Jones, 

West, Harrington, Fairview). 

c. The Bike Plan is in conflict with all three options (all relatively equal in terms of 

conflict). However, the Bike Plan did not exist before 2009 and could not have been considered in the DEIS. 

d. Technically there are no conflicts with the Thoroughfare Plan or the Transit 

Plan. 

e. In some ways the SEHSR project Team set up this conflict by ignoring the city’s 

need for connectivity. However, our test is one of consistency, not absolute compatibility, with the Plan. This implies judging the DEIS against the city’s 

ability to flex its Comp Plan to be consistent with overall future goals and 

objectives. 

The Project Team has coordinated extensively with the Citplans while meeting the Purpose and Need for the Project. developed to address several of these connectivity issues, a

input from the Raleigh public. With regard to the specific items listed here: 

a. A pedestrian bridge has been provided at Jones Sb. Fairview Road, Harrington Street, and West Strec. Several conflicts with the Raleigh Bicycle Plan h

publication of the Tier II DEIS. The preferred alpedestrian/bicycle crossing at Jones Street; woulgrade separate Wolfpack Lane. In addition, a meRaleigh Project and City of Raleigh Transportati2011, to discuss bike lanes and other accommodMore details on the design changes resulting from response C below. 

d. The closure of Hargett Street was determined in 

separation was determined to have too great impmaintaining the connection, especially given oth

v. Wherever historic resources are impacted, mitigations are provided to ensure the 

integrity of that resource; 

A Section 106 MOA will be developed to outline mitigatioresources listed in or eligible for the National Register of H

vi. Wherever future planning and development options are impacted, that 

adjustments are made to the project to ensure that those are not lost; 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project has coordinated with the 

address any such issues. The City has not made the Projecexist with the NC5 alternative. 

vii. Where private property is impacted, that best available proposals are provided to 

ensure that the integrity of existing property that is to remain is maintained, and where it is relocated, that the integrity of those businesses and proximity to their 

The project will follow standard NCDOT procedures for Rin Section 4.11.6 of the Tier II DEIS and in Section 4.11.6 should be addressed to the NCDOT Right-of-Way and Rel
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

clients and customers is preserved. The PRTF will submit an accompanying letter with detail and elaboration on the points in this resolution. 

(http://www.ncdot.org/projects/roadbuilt/default.html). 

c. PRTF MINORITY RECOMMENDATIONS & COMPLEMENTARY 

STATEMENTS. 

i. Gerry Cohen - After reviewing all three options, I selected the NC1 option. I 

believe strongly in the SEHSR project and its transportation benefits to Raleigh as an intermediate point on the (Boston to NYC to Washington to) Richmond to Charlotte corridor are very high. 

Comment noted. As discussed in an amended/expanded PFEIS (Chapter 1), there will be substantial long term econoProject. 

In my opinion the NC3 option chosen by the majority is beneficial and acceptable, but not my first choice. Here are my points in favor of NC1 over NC3 and NC2: 

a. The necessity for closing all crossings in the vicinity of the new Union Station 

intermodal facility has not been shown. The FRA will allow at-grade crossings with sufficient protection and gating, and the running speeds [approximately 45 MPH per NCDOT-Rail] as far north as West and Harrington do not necessitate 

all crossings being closed, to the detriment of interconnectivity in the Glenwood 

South area. 

The recommended preferred alternative through Raleigh, Nwhich was developed in response to these comments as wepublic. Development of the new alternative is discussed in information about the reduced impacts is found in Chapter Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. With the NC5 alterna

Five-Points, Roanoke Park, Fairview Road and the Norfolk 

unchanged and the existing vehicular and pedestrian accesProject rail alignment through the downtown area and Glen

the crossing at Hargett Street, which would be closed, and would be closed to vehicular traffic, but where pedestrian aconstruction of a pedestrian bridge over the railroad. The overarching philosophy of the design of the Richmond and grade separate all railroad-roadway crossings for the pand roadway safety. Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS provideat-grade crossings: absolute collision avoidance; eliminatioelimination of possible system failure; elimination of horn access; improved long term cost of maintenance; allows fo

b. With the proposed Triangle Transit rail line already being in the NC1 and NC2 

corridor north of Union Station, on balance also adding the SEHSR track(s) on 

this alignment is less disruptive than disturbing the NS freight operations at its freight yard and the additional relocation of businesses and residences. 

Under Alternative NC5, the route NS trains would take froFuquay-Varina remains unchanged from the current configalignment is essentially the same between Morgan Street a

c. I would, however, under NC1, close either West or Harrington Streets to reduce 

the number of at-grade crossings. Jones Street should also remain open. It should be noted that FRA guidelines might be best attained by making these two 

crossings (Jones and Harrington or West) each one-way for motorized vehicles. 

Refer to response provided above regarding Alternative NCRaleigh. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

d. I favor NC1 over NC2 as removing the NS connector track through the Boylan 

Wye and routing this traffic a short distance on the CSX line. This will allow removing a rail diamond with its conflicting rail traffic through the Boylan wye, 

as well as opening up redevelopment options in the vicinity of the Boylan wye. I do note the same benefits in this area will be obtained with the NC3 alignment. 

As stated above, Alternative NC5 does not impede freight accommodated with the track alignment, and the route NS Yard south to Fuquay remains unchanged from the current alignment is essentially the same between Morgan Street a

ii. SAF FAHIM (Complementary Statement to Majority View) 

a. The options presented by NCDOT to date reflect an approach of “least overall 

harm” to the environment. Alternatively, there are other engineering and urban options that could consider enhancing the environment; one of them is a trench in which to bury the rails beneath ground level for option NC3. Putting the NC3 rail alignment in a trench will eliminate street closures, reduce potential of noise and vibration, and link Glenwood South to the east side of the town. This will have the added benefit of creating a beautiful gateway to the city. 

The concept of trenching through downtown Raleigh was cdue to an overall increase in impacts. 

b. The high speed train brings an additional dimension connecting the city to the 

Northeast Corridor and offers potential opportunity for creating a powerful economic zone with Virginia. 

Comment noted. As discussed in an amended/expanded PFEIS (Chapter 1), there will be substantial long term econoProject. 

c. Such novel approaches are needed to secure a national and international future 

for the city. Raleigh aspires to be a city of a national and international stature. Its 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes this aspiration by providing density and better connectivity to the city fabric in the hope to invigorate urban and 

economic development. 

Without a rail trench, the initial rail lines entering the city from the north divided the urban fabric into east and west districts separating the city into urban strips and land fragments. While the 2030 plan called for connectivity and requested the NCDOT for options that correspond with the city planning, the options proposed in the DEIS yielded 

little to help the city. 

As stated above, the concept of trenching through downtownot practicable due to overall increase in impacts. The NCcoordination with the City and best maintains and/or improthe rail corridor. 

d. In fact the options proposed once evaluated, yielded negative impact which 

prompted the task force to consider an amended resolution to help mitigate the impact of the rail. A suggestion that seemed to meet all the criteria was to place 

the rail lines proposed for alternate NC3 in a trench; however, the task force decided that making such a recommendation was not within scope of the DEIS document. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

iii. Betsy Kane - I have concerns about the SEHSR project's impacts on Raleigh: 

a. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the SEHSR project is 

deficient and inaccurate in certain respects. I know a little bit about EISs from working on them at NCDOT and from reviewing many NCDOT and consultant 

products, as well as formal legal training including coursework specifically on NEPA, the federal law that requires environmental impact documentation. The official materials handed out at the NCDOT-provided SEHSR Public Hearing 

on Monday night, including an apparent excerpt from the DEIS, show the 

following: 

1. The Purpose and Need statement for the project is vague and ambiguous (pp. 5-

6 of the handout). Bullets 2 and 3 (of 4 purpose statements) are so vague as to be 

almost meaningless and therefore fail to operate as a sound basis for project metrics and decision-making, including, particularly, the purported decision that all at-grade crossings will be closed. The need statements do not support some of the draft conclusions in favor of the project. 

The Purpose and Need for the Project was determined for t(from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC) in the Tier I Drafapproved in October 2002 by the FRA and the Federal Hig

tiered process was selected for the Project because of the gbecause of the numerous alternative study areas and existinCorridor Tier I EIS defined the Project’s Purpose and Needthe rail project and identified a 6-mile wide preferred corri

way. The concept of tiering is defined in the NEPA regulatEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) (see Sections 1502.20 and 1FHWA and FTA’s joint regulations for implementing NEP771 and 23 C.F.R. Part 774). Because the Tier I document established the Purpose and Ndetailed discussion of the issue was not warranted in the Taddress the numerous public comments and questions on thChapters 1 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended and expathe previously-decided Purpose and Need elements. 

For example, bullet 5 discusses air quality and emissions reductions in particular counties along the corridor, which emissions are overwhelmingly the product of local traffic and 

not of long-distance motor trips. The project with crossing closures as proposed would increase air-quality related emissions by increasing local congestion and travel lengths because of impeded connectivity, while removing long-distance trips but not local ones. 

In an urban area such as Raleigh, the existing road network 

routes so as not to travel a great distance to reach a grade sAlthough vehicles would have to travel a slightly longer di

grade separations would remove the need for vehicles to ididling is anticipated to offset emissions associated with addthe potential number of trains in the corridor in the future (The additional distance vehicles will need to travel to the nless than one mile. The anticipated CO emissions associatlikely to be offset by the removal of the vehicle idling that grade crossings. As an example, a vehicle idling for one mcrossing would produce approximately 70 grams of CO (bemission factors). Were the same car to travel two miles ocrossing (one mile in each direction), it would generate appUSEPA’s MOBILE factors for vehicles traveling on urban can affect vehicle emissions of CO, the benefit of removinincrease in CO emissions due to additional vehicle miles tr
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

2. The DEIS is inaccurate in at least the following respects: (1) It states that the 

project is consistent with adopted bike/ped and other modal plans (p. 10 of the handout). This is incorrect; Chairman Steve Waters of the Bike/Ped Advisory Commission has already pointed out some inconsistencies of proposed road closures with the Raleigh Bike/Ped plan. (2) It states that the project is consistent with the Comp Plan. This is incorrect; some of the inconsistencies are 

detailed in Ken Bowers' memo "HSR Alternatives and the Comprehensive Plan" dated July 9, 2010, and addressed to the Passenger Rail Task Force. 

Chapters 3 and 4 of the Tier II FEIS have been amended to dealing with consistency of the Project with existing land uProject Study Area. 

3. The DEIS is deficient in at least the following respects: (1) It states (p. 10) that 

the project is compatible with highway plans, but contains no mention of city 

streets plans. As is not uncommon in NCDOT project environmental documents, highway planning appears to have been given paramount or exclusive consideration (p. 9) to the neglect of urban streets and complete streets. 

Chapters 3 and 4 of the Tier II FEIS have been amended to dealing with consistency of the Project with existing land uProject Study Areas. 

4. (2) The statement of effect on emissions and air quality fails to account for 

where the overwhelming majority of emissions are produced (local travel and congestion), which will be worsened by closing at-grade crossings and 

maintaining crossings reducing connectivity to one-mile intervals. 

As stated above, the removal of idling while trains pass at-

emissions associated with additional travel time, especially in the corridor in the future (e.g., freight, SEHSR, light rail

5. It has been stated to us on numerous occasions, including in the materials 

handed out at the SEHSR public hearing, and in the oral presentation by Mr. Ed 

Lewis at the hearing, that "the project would create a fully grade-separated railroad (no at-grade crossings)." I do not accept this apparent "determination." It is a public decision, first of all. Therefore, the decision must be taken in accordance with public accountability and process of law. However, in contrast to this principle, at present: 

 It is not clear who, specifically, decided this. 

 It is not clear by what authority it was decided. 

 The factors that went into the purported decision have not been conveyed (to my 

knowledge) in writing. 

 It was not made due to any mandate or requirement of federal or state law. 

Chapter 2 of the Tier II DEIS contains a discussion about tfor the Richmond to Raleigh Project to consolidate and gra

crossings for the primary purpose of ensuring both rail and II FEIS provides an expanded description of reasons for clcollision avoidance; elimination of railroad/roadway traffic failure; elimination of horn noise; elimination of easy trespof maintenance; and allowance for future speed increases. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

b. I have read the FRA guidelines for safe crossing of HSR corridors thoroughly, 

and in nowhere is the closing of at-grade crossings required. Nor does "sealed 

corridor" mean all at-grade crossings are eliminated. "Sealed corridor" allows for many other safety measures besides closing of crossings (including 4-

quadrant gates, one-way pairs, medians, barriers and other measures). 

By the conspicuous absence of the above elements, it may be surmised that this purported decision is at least in part, a bureaucratic and unaccountable one, to be regarded as 

inherently suspect because autocratic, and therefore not to be taken as an assumption by anyone concerned, including our Task Force, without a close investigation of its legitimacy. This project is a publicly-funded project and under our system of governance, the decisions that are made around it are to be in accordance with law and accountable to the 

public in the communities through which it passes. In accordance with law means that the decision is not to be autocratically made by agency personnel. In accordance with law mean that whereas the mandates of state and federal law will be obeyed, those decisions that are not compelled by state and federal law or regulation are flexible, and will be made in consultation with the public and in accordance with its best interests overall. The closing of city streets is a concern of utmost importance to Raleigh and other communities through which the SEHSR will pass. The well-being of businesses and the vibrancy of urban settings depends heavily, even primarily, upon access, as we know from the Fayetteville Street experience. 

Please refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for an expandgrade crossings. 

c. The most important factor in walkability is intersection density (street 

connectivity), more important than population density, job density, distance to 

stores, distance to a transit stop. Intersection density also has large effects on 

transit use and the amount of driving (Cervero and Ewing, Travel and the Built 

Environment, June 2010). 

It is impossible that we should accept as a baseline project assumption that Raleigh's greatest urban revitalization successes, such as Glenwood South, shall be severed and 

divided due to road closings which are not necessary, not mandated, and to which safe 

As described above, the recommended preferred alternativAlternative NC5, which was developed in response to thesreceived from the public. Under NC5 the existing road netPark, Fairview Road and the Norfolk Southern rail yard arexisting vehicular and pedestrian access across the Richmo

through the downtown area is preserved except for: the crbe closed; and the crossing at Jones Street which would be pedestrian access across the railroad would be maintained bridge over the railroad. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

alternatives exist. In Raleigh we've long congratulated ourselves on our escape from the fate of most other large cities in NC, and nationally, to have been divided and sundered by downtown freeways in the 50s-60s-70s, and sometimes the decades beyond (Durham was still fighting one off as of 2008). Whether due to good fortune or foresight, the avoidance of that fate has been a significant factor in the success and health of our downtown core and neighborhoods. It would be unfortunate (and ironic in the dramatic sense) if rail infrastructure improvements were allowed to sunder critical core-city connections decades later. 

The delivery of this decision that all crossings "will be closed" from "on high" from an agency and in a fashion, as far as I can tell, arbitrary and not accountable to the public, is entirely consistent with the long history of abuses by transportation bureaucracies towards local communities. The very law requiring public input, and incorporating our deliberations as the PRTF, was enacted to prevent these abuses and failures of accountability. This law is NEPA. NEPA's bedrock principle is public accountability of 

the impact on the built and natural environments on project decisions that involve federal 

funding. 

d. DOWNTOWN LIVING ALLIANCE: 

1. The DLA requests that rather than simply mitigating negative impacts as 

proposed in the NCDOT options, that tunneling the Norfolk Southern tracks 

along Glenwood South be considered. This would permit Jones Street to stay open, and allow the city the opportunity to reap substantial economic benefits from the associated redevelopment opportunities that would effectively triple the commercial and residential activity of Glenwood South. 

The fact that the tunneling of tracks has not been studied to-date as part of the SEHSR project is indeed unfortunate, and the DLA recognizes the benefit of having this option properly considered at this stage in the project, and has therefore prepared the attached addendum. 

Note that although the Downtown Alliance is not part of thwere included with the City of Raleigh Passenger Rail TasThe concept of trenching through downtown Raleigh was cdue to overall increase in impacts. 

2. The decisions made on the high speed rail pathways will have long term 

consequences, and we remain fully supportive of the high speed rail initiative. However, we believe that the city’s goals of urban development and excellence need to be fully integrated with the rail project to yield an overall positive result 

Through ongoing coordination with the City and resulting DEIS, the Richmond to Raleigh Project in downtown Rale

City’s goals, as evidenced through current City support for 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

and sustainable economic development. 

3. Pedestrian access at Jones or very close-by is critical. That area is extremely 

popular on weekend evenings given the mid-street location in Glenwood South 

and the variety of restaurants and clubs nearby. 

A pedestrian bridge is provided at Jones Street the preferre

3) Replace Fire Station No. 22 on Durant Road, as it appears that the impacts to the 

property associated with the Durant Road bridge over the rail corridor will render it unusable as an emergency response facility. 

a. (From City Transportation Division Comments) - In constructing the proposed 

Durant Road overpass, the change in grades will directly impact the operation of the Fire Station No. 22. The proposed change in grades associated with the station driveway will render the facility unusable as a fire station. It is unclear if 

architectural modifications can be made to offset these impacts. Staff recommends that NCDOT explore potential relocation of this fire station to an equivalent site in the immediate vicinity of this station. 

In response to these comments and those received from the alignment has been designed for this location and is shown Tier II FEIS. The road alignment and bridge over the railrofrom the residential and commercial development on the sonorthward shift will take the road alignment through City oStation No. 22 is located, requiring the fire station to be rel

4) Minimize and mitigate any impacts to the Windsor Forest neighborhood on 

Durant Road, which is also potentially impacted by the aforementioned Durant Road bridge. 

See response above. 

5) Include pedestrian overpasses at Jones Street in all alternatives. As outlined in 

the City staff memorandum, an overpass at Jones Street and an overpass from the Powerhouse Square parking deck to Glenwood Avenue will help offset the loss of pedestrian connectivity resulting from the proposed Jones Street closure. 

A pedestrian bridge is provided at Jones Street under Alterin downtown Raleigh. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

6) Replace the Hargett Street overpass with a pedestrian bridge in all alternatives. 

Any pedestrian bridge construction should be coordinated with the City's 

planning for Union Station. 

a. (From the Transportation Services Division’s Recommendations) - Swap the 

West Street Extension for the Hargett Street Bridge. The proposed Hargett 

Street bridge is problematic for several reasons. In addition to the physical 

impacts of closing Harrington Street and the visual impacts of spanning West Street, this bridge would sever the proposed Union Station plan into two separate blocks and is not recommended. In lieu of this bridge, staff 

recommends that NCDOT investigate including the proposed West Street 

Extension as part of the project. The West Street Extension was examined as part of the Union Station study and would maintain connectivity to the Boylan Heights neighborhood to offset the loss of Hargett Street. The Passenger Rail Task Force is in the process of evaluating this proposal and will offer 

recommendations to the City Council in the coming months. 

b. (From separate communications from Eric Lamb) - We have been developing a 

concept for extending West Street southward, and we would like to see this incorporated into the SEHSR project in exchange for doing away with the proposed Hargett Street Bridge. Furthermore, the Hargett Street pedestrian bridge referenced in the Mayor’s letter will require extensive coordination with the City’s proposed Union Station concept. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project has coordinated with the station in this location, and will continue to do so. Under Acrossing is closed. The Richmond to Raleigh Project plans providing pedestrian access across the railroad in the vicinstation in the future. The City’s West Street Extension project is outside the sco

7) Do not impact the residential properties on S. Saunders Street near Rosengarten. 

If a crossing of the NC Railroad corridor is to occur in this area, alternative alignments should be considered; a pedestrian crossing may be sufficient. 

a. (From separate communications from Eric Lamb) - There is a little bit of 

confusion regarding item #7 in the Mayor’s transmittal letter of the City’s comments. Your project does not currently entail any impacts to the S. Saunders Street properties referenced in this comment. The intent behind the comment was to avoid impacts associated with the proposed West Street Extension. 

The residential properties on South Saunders Street are out

8) Coordinate directly with Triangle Transit on your project for all alternatives, 

especially in the area adjacent to Seaboard Station in the NC1/NC2 alternative. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project and the NCDOT Rail Dicontinue to work collaboratively with Triangle Transit (TTRegional Rail System for the Triangle area. In keeping wiRaleigh Project has taken the TT plans into consideration, implementation of Triangle Transit as originally envisioneline corridor. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

9) Relocate the Norfolk-Southern Rail Yard to a location outside the City as part of 

NC3. While it is not currently in the scope of your project, the relocation of the yard will allow for the avoidance of any impacts to the historic Roanoke Park 

neighborhood. 

This request is outside the scope of this Project. 

10) Utilize retaining walls wherever possible to minimize impacts to residential and 

commercial property. 

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the designs fo

11) Where retaining walls or noise walls are used, use brick materials where these 

surfaces will be visible from the community and from passenger trains. 

As discussed in Section 1.4.1.7 of the Tier II FEIS, fencing determined during final design based on coordination betwoperator of the railroad, and adjacent communities. 

12) If access to Fairview Road is closed in NC3 as proposed, consider mitigating 

this impact with a new pedestrian crossing over Capital Boulevard connecting 

the Five Points/Roanoke Park neighborhoods with the Mordecai neighborhood. 

Fairview Road remains open under Alternative NC5, the pV). 

13) Evaluate the feasibility of a separate viaduct alternative down the center of 

Capital Boulevard south of Wake Forest Road. Please also consider the comments on urban design regarding the project that are included in the attached 

letter from City Councilor Thomas Crowder (Applicable excerpt included as 

follows): “I request the Council propose this partnership fund, carefully study and seriously consider extending the downtown road grid network north along the Capital Boulevard Valley to the intersection of US #1 and Wake Forest Road, aligning the SEHSR Corridor from this intersection south to West Street via an elevated viaduct shared with Triangle Transit lines over a rehabilitated and potentially realigned Pigeon House Branch watercourse integrated into a heavily landscaped urban greenway and a stormwater control system below it, creating the multi-modal transportation infrastructure needed for an urban scale mixeduse, mixed-income expansion of downtown. With great vision and leadership the opportunity exist to reclaim the most 

polluted and impaired watercourse in the City of Raleigh, turning it into a major 

amenity, while also creating a true alternate SEHSR route down though the valley, which will protect not just one, or two, but ALL three northern downtown historic neighborhoods, simultaneously creating a multimodal 

transportation network for downtown growth coming with the creation of a 

As noted earlier the recommended preferred alternative thr

Alternative NC5, which was developed in response to comwell as comments received from the public. Alternative NHouse Branch, and West Street on a bridge (i.e., Pigeon HRichmond to Raleigh Project). Alternative NC5 shows a reduction in property impacts another alternatives evaluated (NC1, NC2, and NC3). Coordination will continue with TT and the City of RaleigProject. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

high-speed rail and Triangle Transit hubs at the future Union Station.” 

14) Conduct advance right-of-way acquisition wherever possible. Unfortunately the 

duration of the project planning and construction could leave many property owners in limbo, therefore early acquisition would help to reduce the burden to the community. 

North Carolina and Virginia will seek ROW and constructminimize the amount of time properties could be in this sit

for this Project cannot begin until the FRA issues a ROD, a

acquisition process in each state will be followed. In the sDepartment of Transportation (VDOT) will likely oversee Department of Rail and Transportation (DRPT). In North ROW acquisition for the Project. It should be noted that "hacquisition cannot apply to the Richmond to Raleigh Projecontingent on the Project receiving a ROD. Chapter 1 of thproject history, summary of project steps, discussion of futschedule, including anticipated date of the final NEPA step funding, and when property acquisition and project constru

15) Clarify any potential the property impacts in the Bickett Boulevard area in 

Roanoke Park. Please utilize up-to-date mapping and property owner information as the project moves forward. 

This area would not be affected by the preferred alternative 

16) (From separate communications from Eric Lamb) - One item that escaped 

mention during the process is the proposed Ruritania Street Extension near I540. This is a proposed collector street that connects under the rail corridor in 

the vicinity of a planned TTA rail station. We originally planned to coordinate it 

with TTA’s project, but it may be better to evaluate construction of the grade separation as part of your scope of work. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will continue to coordinaextension of Ruritania Street. 

17) Additional comments from City Councilor Thomas Crowder (in separate letter 

attached to City of Raleigh Recommendations package): 

a. I implore the Council to request the following mitigation measures be 

implemented where our existing neighborhoods and businesses abut the SEHSR 

sealed corridor. 

1. Construct brick masonry sound walls with drought resistant landscaping 

enhancements located on the property owner side of the walls adjacent any residential property. 

Noise and vibration mitigation will be addressed during finGround Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assess

2. Install brick clad retaining walls and drought resistant landscaping 

enhancements located on the property owner’s side instead of slope easements 

and takings of any businesses, or residential properties where remotely feasible. 

As discussed in Section 1.4 of the Tier II FEIS, fencing loclandscaping, will be determined during final design based the rail corridor, the operator of the railroad, and adjacent c
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

3. Install the most state-of-the-art rail bed and track designs, engine mufflers and 

other technological advancements to reduce train noise and vibration, regardless of existing conditions. 

Noise and vibration mitigation will be addressed during fin

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assess

4. Ensure that any raised viaduct and bridge structures are architectural visual 

enhancements to our city and allow urban greenways in the r/o/w below the viaducts. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project is working with the RaleCommission as part of the Section 106 MOA for the Projethe Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Project (Chapter 5 

5. That no road closures take place along Phase I, or Phase II without 1:1 

replacements. The exception being Jones Street, where a pedestrian connection and urban park should be designed with public input. 

This request was accommodated with the exception of HarStreet was determined in coordination with the City. A gratoo great impacts to justify the benefits of maintaining the 

east-west travel options. 

6. That where at all remotely possible, all grade separations be located under the 

existing rail lines in lieu of bridge interchanges in order to avoid stymieing economic development, or redevelopment and insuring multimodal interconnectivity along the corridor and future light rail stations. 

The decision to design a bridge versus an underpass is site factors including existing grade, density of nearby developresources, and the surrounding street network. In each locto the surrounding area. 

7. That the Raleigh Appearance Commission work with the Passenger Rail Task 

Force and City Planning Staff to review and report to Council on the status of these request in the subsequent review phases of this process. 

Comment noted. 

18) Transportation Services Division’s Endorsement of NC3 – This 

recommendation is consistent with the recent recommendations of the Passenger Rail Task Force and is accompanied with similar requests for mitigation. It is recognized that recommending this alternative may be more controversial due to 

the higher construction costs, street closures, and associated property impacts, however this alternative appears to offer significant long‐term advantages to the 

City: 

The recommended preferred alternative through Raleigh, Nwhich was developed in response to comments from the Cthe public. Development of the new alternative is discussed information about the reduced impacts is found in Chapter Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. With the NC5 alterna

Five-Points, Roanoke Park, Fairview Road and the Norfolk 

unchanged and the existing vehicular and pedestrian accesProject rail alignment through the downtown area is preserStreet, which would be closed; and the crossing at Jones S

vehicular traffic, but where pedestrian access across the raiconstruction of a pedestrian bridge over the railroad. 

a. The construction of the proposed viaduct is a good long‐term solution for the 

community with respect to replacing the existing trestles adjacent to Glenwood South. It also offers the potential removal of berms associated with the current trestles, which may provide options for use of the land beneath the viaduct. The viaduct construction also eliminates the historic vertical clearance issues at Peace Street. 

Alternative NC5 does not affect the existing NS track or tr
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

b. The NC3 alternative is better‐suited to a downtown station with respect to the 

use of a single center platform location. The outside platforms in the NC1/NC2 

alternatives are necessary due to the curvature of the track and the alignment of the tangent section required for a train platform as the corridor approaches the 

proposed Union Station. A single center platform is operationally superior 

compared to separate outside platforms. 

Alternative NC5 would accommodate construction of a cen

block area between Hillsborough Street and Hargett Streetcurrent plans for a new multi-modal Union Station in this v

c. While NC3 will likely include property impacts to low‐density industrial uses 

along West Street north of Peace Street, such impacts may not be inconsistent 

with long‐term redevelopment options for City’s West Street property holdings. 

These impacts could allow for the possible reconstruction and realignment of West Street closer to the railroad corridor to allow for better aggregation of parcels in this area. 

Between the City Sanitation Yard and Peace Street, the presame businesses on West Street that NC3 impacts. 

d. New track construction associated with NC3 would move existing rail service 

further away from homes in the Brooklyn‐Glenwood neighborhood. By 

comparison, NC1/NC2 would build new tracks closer to existing homes within the Mordecai neighborhood. 

Comment noted. 

e. NC3 creates fewer long‐term impacts for Triangle Transit’s planned rail line. 

The addition of passenger rail lines on the east side of existing freight rails could create additional impacts for the Triangle Transit rail plan beyond those 

originally anticipated. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project and the NCDOT Rail Di

continue to work collaboratively with TT on the plans for dSystem for the Triangle area. In keeping with this coordinhas taken the TT plans into consideration, and the Project dimplementation of Triangle Transit as originally envisioneline corridor. 

f. Although NC3 would close Jones Street, this closure has fewer impacts overall 

than the closures and mitigations proposed with NC1/NC2. These closures will have a greater barrier effect on this portion of downtown and could be more harmful with respect to economic impacts in this area. 

As noted above, under the NC5 alternative, the existing vethe Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alignment through th

for the crossing at Hargett Street, which would be closed, awould be closed to vehicular traffic, but where pedestrian aconstruction of a pedestrian bridge over the railroad. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

g. With respect to the impacts of closing Jones Street, the street grid can absorb the 

impacts associated with cars and bicycles via either Edenton Street or via West Street and North Street. Given the direct impacts to pedestrian circulation, staff recommends three specific mitigations to offset the impact of the street closure: 

1. Construction of a pedestrian overpass/overlook plaza at Jones Street; 

2. Construction of a second pedestrian overpass spanning from the Powerhouse 

Square parking deck to Glenwood Avenue south of Jones Street; and, 

3. Construct additional streetscape improvements along West Street and North 

Street from Jones Street to Glenwood Avenue. 

See above response. In addition, note that the Project will 

the proposed Jones Street pedestrian bridge (along West Stcoordination for the proposed Jones Street pedestrian bridgdevelopment of the Section 106 MOA. 

h. With respect to closing Fairview Road, staff does not propose any mitigation at 

this time. This street is frequently closed due to the operations of the NS rail 

yard. Alternatives to the Fairview Road closure may be considered with the 

City’s current Capital Boulevard Corridor Study. 

Refer to response above. Fairview Road would not be clos

B. Transportation Services Division’s Recommendations that were not 

included in the Raleigh City Council Recommendations: 

1) Construct the Pacific Drive Extension - Due to right‐of‐way constraints, 

NCDOT will likely propose temporary closures of New Hope Church Road and Millbrook Road during construction of the street overpasses, which could have significant impacts on traffic operations in this area. As a means of offsetting the impacts associated with these closures, staff recommends the construction of the proposed Pacific Drive Extension from Old Wake Forest Road to Atlantic Avenue as a possible mitigation alternative. This street is a proposed minor thoroughfare in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and its construction would help alleviate traffic impacts during construction. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project does not necessitate inclconnection to Pacific Drive. However, the Richmond to R

amended such that they show a general location on the map

constructed by others.” The construction of a City of Rale

be coordinated with the construction plans for the Richmon

1) Construct a Wolfpack Lane Overpass - NCDOT’s efforts to mitigate the 

Wolfpack Lane closure have been related to attempting to establish a full‐

movement interchange at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Highwoods Boulevard. Instead staff recommends bridging Wolfpack Lane over Atlantic 

Avenue and connecting to Beechleaf Court. This connection would maintain connectivity for the area with respect to cars, bicycles and pedestrians without substantial physical impacts to the community. 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS from the pubalternative designs were developed for the Wolfpack Lane vehicular bridge (accommodating pedestrians and bicycleswere presented for comment at a public update meeting on strong support for the addition of a bridge over the railroad meeting as Alternative 57A) and those designs have been aTier II FEIS. The designs can be seen in the Map Book Ap
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

C. Transportation Services Division’s Technical Comments and Corrections 

on the FEIS: 

1) Cross‐sections for each street proposed for grade‐ separation are not included in 

the report. Based on the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan and City standards, the following cross-sections should be included in the design of each crossing: 

a. Durant Road: five‐lane section, with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides 

b. Gresham’s Lake Road: five‐lane section, with bike lanes and sidewalks on both 

sides 

c. Millbrook Road: five‐lane section, with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides 

d. New Hope Church Road: five‐lane section, with bike lanes and sidewalks on 

both sides 

e. Whitaker Mill Road: three‐lane section, with bike lanes and sidewalks on both 

sides 

A meeting between the Richmond to Raleigh Project and Cwas held on February 22, 2011, to discuss these specific rethe design decisions that were agreed upon at that meeting

a. Durant Road bridge: the 60 feet of pavement inc

accommodate the City’s future plans for Durant reducing the center turn lane to a narrower painte

b. Gresham’s Lake Road bridge: the Richmond to R

constructed asymmetrically, with sidewalk and callow the City to later build a second bridge to cawithout the need to replace what was constructed 

coordination will take place during final design; 

c. Millbrook Road underpass: the Project designs w

have been modified to also include five feet of bunderpass; 

d. New Hope Church Road: the Project designs, wh

have been modified to also include five feet of bvicinity of the bridge; 

e. Whitaker Mill Road: The width of the Project de

curb and gutter can accommodate three lanes and Project typical section will be adjusted according

2) The report fails to document the impacts to residential property at the 

intersection of Georgetown Road and Wake Forest Road under NC3. In looking at the public hearing maps, the construction of NC3 appears to take one 

residence and impact a second adjacent residence. 

The DEIS public hearing map had an error in that a road clat Georgetown Road. However, the property impacts were the impacts shown in the Tier II DEIS (Table ES 23). Notby the preferred alternative (NC5). 

3) The closures of Georgetown Road and Patton Road associated with NC3 near 

Wake Forest Road would create cul‐de‐sacs that exceed the City’s standards for 

dead‐end streets. Mitigation by extending New Road to Wake Forest Road should be considered to meet City standards. 

Refer to response above. 

4) The report does not account for multiple City‐owned 4(f) resources, including: 

a. Neuse River Greenway (currently under construction) 

b. Simms Branch Greenway (proposed) 

c. Marsh Creek Greenway (proposed) 

d. Camp Durant Park 

The first three resources have been added to the Section 4(outside the Project Study Area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

5) The Marsh Creek Greenway corridor crosses the proposed rail line 

approximately 500’ north of Millbrook Road. The City currently has greenway easement on either side of the existing rail corridor. In order to provide for the future trail connection, one of two options are available: 

a. reconstruct the existing culvert under the existing rail line to accommodate 

pedestrians (minimum 10’ wide X 10’ high); or, 

b. provide a 10’ multi‐purpose path adjacent to the west side of the rail line from 

the stream corridor to Millbrook Road and then continue with a multipurpose path along the north side of Millbrook from the west side of the rail line to the 

intersection of Millbrook and Atlantic Avenue. 

c. In the future, either of these alternatives will allow the City to extend the 

greenway trail north and south along Marsh Creek. 

This request cannot be accommodated because the Richmo

the existing condition at this location. The Richmond to Rproposed location of the Marsh Creek Greenway within thThe City of Raleigh has not obtained a legal crossing of ththe proposed changes associated with the Richmond to Ralto the development of the Marsh Creek Greenway (becauscould route the greenway south to Millbrook Road to cross would be grade-separated (road under rail) with the Richmunderpass would accommodate bikes and pedestrians. 

6) The Simms Branch Greenway corridor crosses the rail corridor between 

Gresham’s Lake Road and Durant Road. The City has existing greenway property on either side of the rail corridor and constructed trail near each side of the corridor. The EIS does not include any accommodations to connect this greenway trail. Two options are possible: 

a. reconstruct the existing culvert to provide a pedestrian connection under the rail 

line (minimum 10’ wide X 10’ high); or, 

b. construct a 10’ multi‐purpose path along the west side of the rail line from 

Simms Branch south to Gresham Lake Road. Then continue a 10’ multi‐use path along the north side of the proposed Gresham Lake Road Bridge. 

This request cannot be accommodated because the Richmo

the existing condition at this location. The Richmond to Rproposed location of the Simms Branch Greenway within tThe City of Raleigh has not obtained a legal crossing of ththe proposed changes associated with the Richmond to Ralto the development of the Simms Branch Greenway (becauCity could route the greenway south to Gresham Lake Roarail corridor. Gresham Lake Road and Durant Road would rail) with the Richmond to Raleigh Project, and the bridges pedestrians. 

7) The word “Capitol” is used throughout the document and should be replaced 

with “Capital except where referring specifically to the State Capitol building in downtown Raleigh. 

Comments noted and corrected in FEIS. 

8) There is no mention of closures of the private crossings associated with the 

Mallinckrodt pharmaceutical plant. Discussion of impacts and mitigation need to be provided within the study. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project team has initiated dialog continue to work with them throughout the NEPA and finaconcerns are addressed to the fullest extent possible. 

9) On page 3‐52, the second paragraph should also reference a heavy residential 

development concentration in the vicinity of I‐440 and Atlantic Avenue. 

The residential development referenced is outside the study been made in the Tier II FEIS. 

10) The statement regarding transit page 3‐82 is not accurate with respect to transit 

planning. Transit operations are provided by the City of Raleigh, NCSU, and Triangle Transit with respect to bus operations. 

Comment noted and corrected in the Tier II FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

11) On page 3‐172, references to public transit in Raleigh need to include Triangle 

Transit and NCSU’s Wolfline as other providers. Please also note that the CAT R‐Line currently operates within one block of the existing Amtrak station. 

Comment noted and corrected in the Tier II FEIS. 

12) Section 3.11.3.2.2.4 on Page 3‐85 references the Glenwood South Small Area 

Plan and a proposed Pedestrian Business Overlay District. This zoning overlay is in place and should be represented as existing. References to a proposed intermodal center in this section should be revised to reflect the City’s Union 

Station study. 

Section 3.11.3.3.2.8 of the Tier II FEIS has been updated tOverlay District is in place. The intermodal center referenUnion Station Study. 

13) Please note that the Raleigh Charter High School referenced on page 3‐93 has 

applied to relocate to a site outside of the proposed rail corridor. 

Chapter 3 of the Tier II FEIS notes that Raleigh Charter HiGlenwood Avenue, outside the Project Study Area. 

14) Figure 3‐14 on page 3‐147 fails to show the Durant Nature Park or the Neuse 

River Greenway. 

These resources have been added to the Project mapping. 

15) On page 3‐164, the description of the intersection of New Hope Church Road 

and St. Albans Drive needs to mention that not currently a full‐movement 

intersection. The channelization and movement restrictions can be removed 

once adjacent railroad overpass is constructed. 

Section 4.11.2.2.18 of the Tier II FEIS discusses how the Ptransportation facilities in the City of Raleigh. 

16) In section 4.11.2.2.18, a statement on page 4‐84 incorrectly states that the 

Morgan Street bridge will be maintained in all three alignments. In all public 

hearing maps associated with the project, the bridge is replaced in all three alternatives. Explanations regarding the need to replace this bridge should be 

included in the report. 

The narrative in Section 4.11.2.2.18 of the Tier II DEIS wareplacement for NC1, NC2, and NC3 were included in the (Table ES 23). Note that the preferred alternative NC5 ret

17) Section 4.11.3.3 “Police/Fire/EMS” does not include any references to Fire 

Station No. 22 on Durant Road as a directly impacted location. Relocation of the station may result in changes in the station’s service area. 

18) EIS relocation reports in Appendix C do not identify impacts to the City fire 

station property on Durant Road (RFD Station #22). Due to the level of adverse impacts associated with the site’s existing access, this impact should be 

considered a complete taking and a relocation of the station should be proposed 

prior to the construction of the Durant Road overpass. 

The designs shown in the Tier II DEIS were developed to aStation No. 22. However, in response to comments from tbridge and road alignment has been designed for this locatAppendix of the Tier II FEIS. The road alignment and bridthe north, away from the residential and commercial develRoad. This northward shift will take the road alignment threquiring the fire station to be relocated. This new alignmethe City of Raleigh Transportation Department. The need 4.11.3.of the Tier II FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG28/29 

City of Raleigh, NC, Comments and Recommendations (Pertinent comments from – City Council Recommendation

Resolution, Passenger Rail Task Force Letter of Elaboration and Detail, Passenger Rail Task Force Minorit

Complementary Statements, and Transportation Services Division Technical Comment

Comment Response 

19) Table 4‐32 on page 4‐117 incorrectly states that the plan is compatible with the 

Raleigh Bike/Ped Plan. The adopted Bicycle Plan proposes improvements to 

Fairview Road and to Wolfpack Lane that would be affected by the proposed 

closures. The adopted Livable Streets Plan also does not contemplate the closure of Jones Street and emphasizes its importance as a pedestrian connection. While the DEIS is technically compatible with the adopted CAMPO Thoroughfare Plan, it is not compatible with the local street network in the adopted 2030 

Comprehensive Plan with respect to closures of Jones Street, Fairview Street, and Wolfpack Lane. 

The preferred alternative would provide a pedestrian/bicycclose Fairview Street; and would grade separate Wolfpack alternative is compatible with the Raleigh Bike/Ped Plan in 

20) Right‐of‐way impacts identified in Appendix C are not detailed enough to 

recognize exactly which properties are being impacted and needs to be more specific. It is also unclear as to how each property is being impacted, i.e., right‐of‐way only, easement acquisition, direct structural impact, etc. 

The public hearing maps show the data available during thProject. More detailed determinations regarding ROW impwhen more survey-level data are available. 

21) Appendix F regarding street impacts needs to be modified to include traffic 

volumes for each street closure. Impacts to Georgetown Road and Patton Road 

need to be included within this Appendix. 

Traffic volumes for non-City roads were provided to the R

NCDOT and VDOT, and were used to develop adequate ro5 for the most up to date traffic volumes for state owned ro

AG37/38/50 

Town of Franklinton, NC - Official Comments (Elic A. Senter, Mayor) and Board of Commissione

Comment Response 

1) Board of Commissioners Adopted Resolution; Effects of High Speed Rail on the 

Town of Franklinton, North Carolina 

a. WHEREAS, the Town of Franklinton is a community created by and long 

supported by the existence of a major rail line traveling a north-south route 

through the central portion of Town paralleling Main Street, the historical 

United States Highway l; and 

b. WHEREAS, this rail line stopped being used over 20 years ago for passenger 

rail, and today is only lightly used for commercial freight rail; and 

c. WHEREAS, there is currently a proposal from the Federal Rail Administration 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG37/38/50 

Town of Franklinton, NC - Official Comments (Elic A. Senter, Mayor) and Board of Commissione

Comment Response 

and the Departments of Transportation in North Carolina and Virginia to construct a corridor for high speed rail along the CSX/Seaboard rail line, passing through the Town of Franklinton; and 

d. WHEREAS, all of the proposed routes for the Southeast High Speed Rail 

corridor call for the closure of at-grade rail crossings at East Mason and East College Streets and a realignment of Hawkins Street to a new crossing and realignment at Cedar Creek Road which will impact several homes, as well as a widening and realignment at East Green Street which will likely stem the loss of several commercial properties along the widened route of East Green Street; and

e. WHEREAS, the closure of the crossings at East Mason Street and East College 

Street will create a great deal of undue burden on business owners, residents, 

property owners, emergency services professionals and volunteers, and taxpayers; and 

f. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Franklinton believes 

that such results will not only prove detrimental to the health of our community, but to the wellbeing of our citizens and business owners, but also will prove to become an unnecessary fiscal burden on our citizens and taxpayers from which no benefit will arise for them; 

g. NOW, THERBFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of 

the Town of Franklinton hereby states its official opposition to these closures, and any routes for any rail project that will cause such closures and burdens on the citizens of our community. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG37/38/50 

Town of Franklinton, NC - Official Comments (Elic A. Senter, Mayor) and Board of Commissione

Comment Response 

h. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the Town 

of Franklinton seeks the support of our state and federal elected representatives to support our community in seeking alternative solutions to resolving these challenges, and expresses its appreciation for those who have already put forth such efforts, including staff of the North Carolina Department of Transportation

The Richmond to Raleigh Project has met with Town of Fr

the publication of the Tier II DEIS to try to resolve these is2011; December 19, 2011; and July 11, 2012). Several de

vehicular crossing of Mason Street were developed at the rArea Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). All have an adverse effect on the eligible Franklinton Historic would be difficult to justify these concepts given their impon Mason Street, and the ability to provide a pedestrian croAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation and North Caroagreed that the mitigation of the closure of Mason Street prthe negative impacts they would have on the historic distriIt should be noted that in addition to these meetings, two mFranklinton during development of the Tier II DEIS (June meetings led to the inclusion of pedestrian crossings at sevStreet, College Street, and Hawkins Street). 

2) High Speed Rail Official Comments, Elic Senter (Mayor) 

a. The Board of Commissioners has great concern about the proposed path of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail. While we are greatly interested in progress in transportation modalities, we are also challenged by the fact that this proposal will essentially slice our community in half, thus effectively rendering a new pair of Towns - East Franklinton and West Franklinton. The proposed rail crossing closures will have a dramatic and immediate impact on our ability to serve our citizens, unite our community, and grow as a Town. 

Comment noted. Section 4.11 of the Tier II FEIS includes closures on communities. Although four existing at-grade Town of Franklinton, two new grade separations would be Town limits, and the existing grade separated crossing at Gaddition, two pedestrian crossings would be provided withprovided just south of Town limits. It is anticipated that ththe closures of the existing at-grade crossings. 

b. Franklinton was founded originally as Franklin Depot. Our roots can be traced 

directly to the path that railroads took throughout our state. Our community 

would never have come into existence were it not for a simple rail stop about 45 minutes from the center of government in our state. Over time, however, as railroads began to see less and less use, the now-Town of Franklinton began to 

adjust, and our citizens became quite literally a car-driven society, as did the majority of Americans. Eventually, passenger rail stopped rolling through Franklinton, and our historic depot was almost lost. Recognizing the place railroads have in our history (and our future), a great effort was made to save the depot, while at the same time acknowledging that the use of passenger rail simply was not the transportation of choice of most of the citizens of our region.

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG37/38/50 

Town of Franklinton, NC - Official Comments (Elic A. Senter, Mayor) and Board of Commissione

Comment Response 

c. Franklinton today is no longer a bustling town filled with shops and boutiques. 

It's also no longer a community based in textile work. A town that once had three textile mills now has none. We are, however, home to one of the largest 

biotechnology companies in the world, and their American headquarters are 

literally a mile outside of our corporate limits. Moving raw products into Novozymes' facility on NC Highway 56, and finished products out, is crucial 

not only to their business, but to the livelihood of their employees. Based upon 

the planned route, the closure of the crossing at Mason Street will shift a great 

deal of traffic to the intersection of Main Street and Green Street (NC Highway 

56). Not only will this impact travel times, but it may also have a direct impact on the routes that some of the trucks traveling to Novozymes (as well as other 

areas of eastern Franklin County) can take. 

The importance of maintaining an adequate road network t

been discussed during the coordination between the Town 

Raleigh Project, and is noted here. Impacts to traffic at the intersection of Main Street and Greto Raleigh Project were discussed in Chapter 4 of the Tier alternatives were common throughout downtown Franklint(LOS) in the design year 2030 under the Richmond to Raleanticipated LOS in the year 2030 without the Project (i.e., 

that traffic would be approaching an unstable flow in the dand a reduced LOS for some movements under the RichmoSince publication of the Tier II DEIS, additional traffic cou

Town of Franklinton. The 2012 analysis took into account from the downtown area to a location east of downtown on for a planned middle school to be located at the old high sc

year 2030 traffic will operate under LOS B (reasonably frepeak for both the No Build and the Richmond to Raleigh PTier II FEIS for additional discussion regarding impacts to 

d. In addition, this proposed route will directly impact businesses in our historic 

downtown business district in three distinct ways. First, several of them will actually lose their physical place of business, given the course that any of the three proposals will take. Buildings will be lost or cut off from traffic flow, impacting how these businesses are able to operate, and in some cases, if they are able to continue to operate. Compensating someone for a building does not 

necessarily mean that you are compensating the business owner for a replacement location. 

NCDOT ROW procedures provide for relocation assistancvacant storefronts within the downtown area that there are relocate within the community. 

e. Second, by removing the traffic flow from Mason Street through downtown 

Franklinton, there will be a major impact on traffic flow through our downtown business district. This will not only have an adverse impact on our business owners, but on our own efforts to breathe life back into that historic district. 

The Town of Franklinton has been working for over four years through its Uptown Revitalization Committee to draw businesses and citizens to the downtown district. Cutting off a major secondary artery of travel will further reduce traffic flow - why stop if you don't need to? Thus, our downtown business owners will feel a further economic impact. 

Existing traffic on Mason Street is approximately 25% of tCounts taken in 2005 estimated traffic on Mason Street is aand counts taken in 2003 estimated traffic on NC 56/Green vehicles per day. The majority commercial businesses along Mason Street a

railroad corridor near the intersection with Main Street. Aaccessed in the same way as currently exists from the west side of the rail corridor, vehicles would only need to travel (which would remain grade separated from the railroad). AMason Street would allow pedestrian activity to continue eMason Street. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG37/38/50 

Town of Franklinton, NC - Official Comments (Elic A. Senter, Mayor) and Board of Commissione

Comment Response 

f. Third, once that major artery is cut off, we anticipate a significant drop in 

property values in our downtown business district. One may question how we surmise such, but the answer is simple. If there isn't a traffic flow as there has been for the past 75 or so years, what is the value of those properties to anyone interested in operating a business? 

Comment noted. Based on the information presented abovRaleigh Project will result in economic impacts to the TowAs discussed during a coordination meeting with the Town potential benefits to both the property owners and the Towthe district being listed in the National Register of Historic coordinated by the Richmond to Raleigh Project as mitigatHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA). These benefits include credit and Federal preservation grants for planning and rehconsideration within applications for Community Developrepresentatives were encouraged to find out more about theHistoric Preservation Office. 

g. Much has been made of 'historic' Franklinton by the maps created surrounding 

this project. As you have read, we often refer to parts of our area as historic. However, the Town of Franklinton does not have a designated historic district. A few attempts at such have been made over the last several decades; however, it has yet to be followed through. There are several historic places/structures in our community, including the Vann House, the Goswick House, the 

Franklinton/Sterling Cotton Mill, the A. O. Dunston House, and the Franklinton 

Depot. However, there is not a historic district - therefore, transportation decisions should not, in our opinion, be based upon the classification of such. 

Although Franklinton does not have a historic district listepart of the Richmond to Raleigh Project’s compliance with historic district that is eligible for the NRHP. Both Section Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provide the samthe NRHP as those listed in it. 

h. Another challenge we face if each of these closures is to become reality is the 

complete seclusion of our historically African-American neighborhood in the Albion Academy area of Franklinton. By closing the crossing at College Street, 

and rerouting the closing at Hawkins Street, not only will this route increase travel times for those living in the area, thus lowering their property values and 

creating inconvenience, but it will also impact travel times for emergency 

services vehicles. The majority of those residents living on East College, 

Hawkins, Church, Dunston, Savage, and South Chavis Streets are African American, and have historically been disproportionally disadvantaged with regards to housing, property values, and other social equality issues. 

Travel times are not expected to increase substantially und

design, which consolidates traffic from closed at-grade croStreet with grade-separated crossings at nearby locations. located approximately 0.15 miles to the north of College S

north of Hawkins Street; the new bridge over the railroad a0.5 miles south of College Street, and approximately 0.22 addition, pedestrian underpasses are proposed at both Haw
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG37/38/50 

Town of Franklinton, NC - Official Comments (Elic A. Senter, Mayor) and Board of Commissione

Comment Response 

i. Why should those residents, or any of the other residents of the eastern side of 

our Town (or the western side, for that matter) bear the brunt of the cost of constructing substations for our emergency services personnel when those 

neighborhoods affected can just as easily be unaffected by not closing the 

crossings? Having to construct such substations is almost a foregone conclusion for the Franklinton Fire Department, Franklinton Rescue & EMS, and the Franklinton Police Department, because their response times will be so adversely affected by the proposed closures. Such expenses to both volunteer organizations and those supported by tax dollars are burdensome on our citizens 

and an unnecessary distraction for those volunteers and professionals who staff 

these organizations. 

As discussed in Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS, a servGIS to determine the effect that changes in access would hFranklinton. Figure 4-7 illustrates that there is very little demergency response area between the Build and No-Build (including the preferred alternative NC1 in Section S whercovered is 97 percent of the No Build coverage area. 

j. We urge those making decisions regarding the route for the Southeast High 

Speed Rail corridor to consider these issues facing our community. We are not opposed to progress. We are opposed to "progress" that runs roughshod over our community and its citizens. 

The Project Team we will continue to work with the Town impacts to connectivity. However, the safety of the citizengrade separated crossings of the rail corridor provide the sathe Tier II FEIS for more information regarding the philosoclose and consolidate all existing at-grade crossings. 

AG48 

Vance County Planning, NC - Jordan McMillen 

Comment Response 

1) Concerning the alternative, NC-3 appears to be much cleaner and will have less 

impact on Town of Middleburg. With the existing line running through the middle of town and along an existing roadway, traffic patterns would change significantly if NC-3 were not utilized. Although there is more impact to environmental issues with NC-3, this alternative would be favored in this area due to the other changes that NC-1 and NC-2 would have on the area. 

The recommended preferred alternative in Section O (whicNC3, which is the Section 4(f) avoidance alternative in thi

minimizes wetland, noise, and vibration impacts, and has tdoes have greater stream and riparian buffer impacts, but tand the design work will include coordination with the US NC3 also had greater public support. Seven people indicatethree people preferred Alternative NC1, and one person pr

2) Additionally, a property owner contacted the county regarding your maps 

having the wrong ownership information for a particular parcel (Parcel located 

at intersection of Brookston Road and US-1-158 to right and left side of Brookston Road - Parcel # 0612 02002). I assume this was taken directly from 

county GIS data and tax records and as we have had some changes including to this property that I am referencing, I would encourage the state to obtain parcel data on a regular basis throughout the process. I have assured the property owner that before any property is taken, if it is to be taken, the correct property owners will be verified. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will attempt to ensure thmailings to property owners. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG34 

Camden County, VA - Randell K. Woodruff, County Manager 

Comment Response 

We support the Richmond to Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor. In addition, we support the need for the improvement of transportation infrastructure in Southeast Virginia through the development of a high speed rail system. Improvements in transportation in Southeast Virginia have a direct influence on commerce and development in North Carolina's Northeast Region. We feel a high speed rail line to and from Norfolk, VA, connecting in Petersburg, VA, would be an integral part of the SEHSR corridor. Addressing the operational impacts, 

along this leg of the SEHSR corridor, should be an important part of the overall plan. With a population of 1.7 million in the Virginia Beach/Norfolk/Newport News VA-NC, MSA region, along with the population of the contiguous Northeast North Carolina region and the 7+ million visitors to the Outer Banks of North Carolina annually, we believe you have potential ridership that would have a major impact to the SEHSR corridor. As plans move ahead for the SEHSR corridor, future consideration should also be given to an option for train sets that may be required in the Raleigh-Norfolk-Richmond rail line system' that will provide through service for passengers traveling between Southeast Virginia (Hampton Roads) and the Piedmont region of North Carolina and also between Hampton Roads and Central Virginia. The first train to ever run to and from Hampton Roads followed the track between Piedmont North Carolina and Portsmouth, in Hampton Roads, (through Weldon, NC) in 1834. Reasons for this route back in those days for such an initiative remain valid today in many ways and should not be overlooked. 

The Hampton Roads HSR connection has been studied thrindependent utility (as authorized by NEPA). The ROD fosigned by FRA for review in December 2012. For more inHampton Roads Tier I" study or plans for the next phase (T

involvement opportunities for that separate project, please The two projects are being designed to ensure compatibilit

VA, area. The Richmond to Raleigh Project FEIS has beeinformation on the Richmond to Hampton Roads project, scompatibility of designs as well as an update on the status 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG39 

Town of Windsor, VA - James L. Hoggard, Mayor 

Comment Response 

We support the Richmond to Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor. In addition, we support the need for the improvement of transportation infrastructure in Southeast Virginia through the development of a high speed rail system. Improvements in transportation in Southeast Virginia have a direct influence on commerce and development in North Carolina's Northeast Region. We feel a high speed rail line to and from Norfolk, VA, connecting in Petersburg, VA, would be an integral part of the SEHSR corridor. Addressing the operational impacts, 

along this leg of the SEHSR corridor, should be an important part of the overall plan. With a population of 1.7 million in the Virginia Beach/Norfolk/Newport News VA-NC, MSA region, along with the population of the contiguous Northeast North Carolina region and the 7+ million visitors to the Outer Banks of North Carolina annually, we believe you have potential ridership that would have a major impact to the SEHSR corridor. As plans move ahead for the SEHSR corridor, future consideration should also be given to an option for train sets that may be required in the Raleigh-Norfolk-Richmond rail line system that will provide through service for passengers travelling between Southeast Virginia and the Piedmont region of North Carolina and also between Hampton Roads and Central Virginia. The first train to ever run to and from Hampton Roads followed the track between Piedmont North Carolina and Portsmouth, in Hampton Roads, (through Weldon, NC) in 1834. Reasons for This route back in those days for such an initiative remain valid today in many ways and should not be overlooked. Thanks you for your dedicated work on this project that is critical to the growth and prosperity of our region. 

The Hampton Roads HSR connection has been studied thrindependent utility (as authorized by NEPA). The ROD fosigned by FRA for review in December 2012. For more inHampton Roads Tier I" study or plans for the next phase (Tinvolvement opportunities for that separate project, please The two projects are being designed to ensure compatibilit

VA, area. The Richmond to Raleigh Project FEIS has beeinformation on the Richmond to Hampton Roads project, scompatibility of designs as well as an update on the status 

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

1) General Comments -  The document should incorporate all known cost figures into the entire 

document. 

 For clarity, please label the portion of any table which continues to the page 

after the page at which the table began as "Continued", e.g. "Table ES-21, 

Continued" on page ES-34. 

 Costs have been updated in the Tier II FEIS and 

 Suggestion noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

2) Exec Study (ES), pg. 2 (Study Corridor): "There are three alternatives in each 

section .... In many areas, the alternatives are concurrent II” 

HRTPO Staff Comment: By areas you mean sections? It appears that were three alternatives are "concurrent", there is only one alternative. If that is the case, then there are NOT "three alternatives in each section". Please revise the report and tables to show the actual number of alternatives for each section. 

Within each section of the Project there are areas where all (and in all cases, this is true at the beginning and end of the alternatives are on common alignment for the entire sectioalternatives are on common alignment for the entire sectioheading in Table ES-X. 

3) ES-3 (Figure ES-l): HRTPO Staff Comment: Please explain what "Not Carried 

Forward" means. 

As referenced in the graphic, Section 2.2.2 of the Tier II DCarried Forward.” In addition to the alternatives evaluated alternative alignments were considered but subsequently e

4) ES-S (Rail Alignments): "The maximum authorized speed (MAS) is established 

as 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion.” HRTPO Staff 

Comment: Is the maximum authorized speed set in stone? Will there be future considerations for 150+ mph rail service along the alignment? 

Maximum authorized speed (MAS) is based on authorizatiand FRA safety regulations. Designs been Richmond, VAdeveloped such that the bridge clearances would allow for speeds). Conversion to electricity would require additionaappropriate time. 

5) ES-S (Rail Alignments): "2) Centralia to Collier, VA (approximately 18 miles) 

– new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track, MAS 90 mph with full grade separation.” HRSTPO Staff Comment: Why grade separated and 

separate track for 90 mph rail service? Congested corridor? If investing in a 

separate infrastructure that will be grade separated, why is the MAS so low? 

The overarching philosophy of the design of the Richmond and grade separate all railroad-roadway crossings for the pand roadway safety. Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS provideat-grade crossings: absolute collision avoidance; eliminatioelimination of possible system failure; elimination of horn access; improved long term cost of maintenance; allows fo

exception of a rail bridge over Capital Boulevard in downtthroughout the entire corridor have been designed so that buse them. MAS is based on authorization from the owner regulations. 

6) ES-S (Rail Alignments): "3) Collier to Raleigh, NC (approximately 133 miles) –

new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles (approximate), MAS 110 mph, with full grade separation (Note: Speeds above 90 mph are subject to 

CSX approval)”. HRTPO Staff Comment: Why, if new single track, is MAS capped at 110 mph and requires CSX approval? Will they be using this new track? 

MAS is based on authorization from the owner of the rail cWith the exception of a rail bridge over Capital Boulevard improvements throughout the entire corridor have been defreight trains can use them. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

7) ES-S (Rail Alignments): "Within each of the 26 sections, the three project 

alternatives are labeled 1, 2, or 3.” HRTPO Staff Comment: Please explain 

here to the reader that-given the common end points of the alternatives for each section-the selection of an alternative for one section does not impact the 

selection of an alternative for another section. Please explain that, for example, there is no relationship or similarity between alternative "VA1" on one section 

and alternative " VA1" on another section, that each VA1 is simply the first alternative for that section. Please explain that selecting, for example, VA1 is not a presented option for the Virginia portion of corridor, that, instead, selecting VA1 is a presented option for section AA, for example. 

Refer to page ES-2 in the Tier II DEIS for an explanation o

sections that was established to enable selection of a “best-corridor. 

8) ES-6 (Service): "Proposed service consists of four round trips per day between 

Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC, and four additional round trips between 

Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC." HRTPO Staff Comment: Is the document referring to initial service in this statement? 

Yes, for the purposes of evaluating environmental impactsservice. Refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for informaRidership and Revenue projections. Also note that the numtrains is affected by “choke points” within the entire corrid

fixes to “choke points” between Richmond, VA, and Raleistudies are planned and/or are underway to address design Corridor. 

9) ES-6 (Service): "The conventional service would allow additional stops in the 

smaller towns along the corridor." HRTPO Staff Comment: What is defined as 

conventional passenger rail service in the context of this project? 

Conventional services means the equipment would be of thlocomotives), operating on shared track. The difference bepassenger would be in the frequency of stops at smaller statime from beginning to end. 

10) ES-6 (Summary of Impacts for Alternative Alignments) 

HRTPO Staff Comment: Explain in this section that no totals by alternative 1, 2, and 3 are shown on the following tables because a different alternative may be chosen for each section, i.e. VA1 may be chosen for section AA and VA2 may be chosen for section BB. 

Refer to pages ES-2 in the Tier II DEIS for an explanation sections that was established to enable selection of a “best-corridor. 

11) ES-7 thru ES-10 (Tables ES-1 thru ES-7) 

HRTPO Staff Comment: Please remove the min/max subtotals from these tables because their existence implies to the reader that the same alternative (e.g., VA1) must be chosen 

for the handful of sections under which subtotals are provided. Because 1) the reader naturally will, as stated above, be inclined to think that there are only a few overall alternatives for this study, and 2) these are the first tables encountered by the reader of the executive summary, it is particularly important that these subtotals be removed. In addition, because an alternative must be chosen for each section, these max/min subtotals have little or no use for the reader. 

The min/max values used to describe potential impacts werange of potential impacts for a given resource. For the Tialternative. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

12) ES-12 (Highway Vehicle Operations): " ... the microscale analysis for co 

showed little or no change in those concentrations for the worst-case intersections." HRTPO Staff Comment: Since the project reduces VMT, why 

does the DEIS examine CO concentrations from highway/highway 

intersections? Also, please fully label the intersections in Table ES-12 (i.e. is "New Hope Church" actually a street, e.g. "New Hope Church Road"?). 

A microscale analysis was conducted to determine if changassociated with closing at-grade crossings had the potentia

Section 4.6.3 of the Tier II DEIS. The specific intersectionwith the worst-case predicted levels of service. Road nambeen reviewed. 

13) ES-27 (Table ES-18) HRTPO Staff Comment: Over what time period are the 

shown dollar impacts realized? 

Based on the report, which was developed for the Tier I DEupdated to 2005, the estimations of economic and fiscal imdesign year (20 years after construction). 

14) ES-36 (Historical Resources) HRTPO Staff Comment: Are there any battlefields 

in North Carolina? 

Coordination for the Richmond to Raleigh Project under SPreservation Act did not identify any Civil War battlefieldProject corridor in North Carolina. There are battlefields loutside of the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor. 

15) ES-37 (Rail) HRTPO Staff Comment: Please identify the impact which each 

alternative on section CC (Petersburg area) would have on 1) the cost of the 

Norfolk-to-Petersburg improvements and 2) the Norfolk-to-Richmond travel time of the rail improvements recently selected by the CTB from the Tier I DEIS for the Richmond Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project. 

All alternatives are on common alignment in Section CC. 

16) ES-37 (Stations) HRTPO Staff Comment: Please identify the impact which each 

of the three "potential station locations" in Petersburg would have on 1) the cost 

of the Norfolk-to-Petersburg improvements and 2) the Norfolk-to-Richmond travel time of the rail improvements. 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environme

specific station locations or design needs because the deveundertaking at an individual location. As noted, generalize

level to ensure that a station placed along the Project corridprovide sufficient accessibility to the larger transportation 

comments received regarding specific station locations havtransportation planning organizations in each station locatiindividual station locations will perform separate environm

decision on the station location and design at a later date. 

the Tier II FEIS, locating the HSR stations in developing upopulation centers, rather than undeveloped, sparsely popuminimize many potential direct and indirect environmental 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

17) ES-38 (Parks. Recreation Areas. Wildlife Refuges) HRTPO Staff Comment: 

Instead of "no Section 4(f) use" did you mean "no Section 4(f) impact"? 

The terminology used is correct. Section 4(f) of the Deparprotects publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlihistoric sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Recan only be used for a Federally-funded transportation projprudent alternative, and the Project incorporates all possiblis occurs when land is permanently incorporated into a tranfull acquisition. A “temporary use” may also occur when tthat is adverse in terms of the preservationist purpose of Se“constructive use” when there is no permanent incorporatiotransportation facility results in impacts so severe that the pattributes that qualify a resource for protection under Secti

Examples of constructive use include substantial increases amphitheater, impairment to aesthetics, and restrictions on 

18) ES-39 (Table ES-23) HRTPO Staff Comment: Please provide a written 

introduction prior to this table and a written recap following this table. In the recap, please explain to the reader that no simple total page for Table ES-23 is shown because a different alternative may be chosen for each section. In order, however, that the reader may get an idea of the magnitude of the overall impact and cost of this project, please add a one-page "average total" table (i.e. Table ES-24) showing the sum (over 26 sections) of the average values (over the 3 

alternatives for each section) by Topic. (Note that Limiting Speed and Operability /Constructability would be omitted from, or shown as "n.a." in, this table because they are not additive.). 

Page ES-2 in the Tier II DEIS provides an explanation of tsections that was established to enable selection of a “best-corridor. Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS provides information on impproject section and the resulting total impacts for the corrid

19) (Chapter 1, page 10), 1-10 (Need for the Proposed Project): "Population and 

economic growth rates in Virginia and North Carolina have been higher than 

national averages over the past several decades and are projected to remain high over the next few decades." HRTPO Staff Comment: From what cited report does this assertion come from? 

Population growth rates are based on US Census Data. In disposable income by state for the years 1960 to 2010 foun

states with an annual growth rate of 7.99%. North Carolin

annual growth rate for that period of 7.92%. (See http://ww

numbers/scott-thomas/2011/05/nevada-is-income-winner-f

20) 2-44 (Section 2.2.2.3.1): Conformity with Local Plans/Local Support. HRTPO 

Staff Comment: Is there any consideration of the alternatives for the Richmond/Hampton Roads project? And if these are the alternatives considered but dropped, why were they brought up again as local alternatives for the Richmond/Hampton Roads project in that Tier I DEIS, which is dated after the Record of Decision for the Tier I DEIS for the SEHSR? 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project has been coordinated wiensure compatibility and connectivity in Petersburg. The Rnot evaluating use of a downtown Petersburg station. 

21) 2-44 (Section 2.2.2.3.5): Engineering Issues and Cost. HRTPO Staff Comment: 

Why wasn't some of this discussion not mentioned in the Richmond/Hampton 

Roads Tier I DEIS? If it impacts the SEHSR, it definitely would impact the Richmond/Hampton Roads project, per various citations in the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Tier I DEIS. 

This question does not relate to the Richmond to Raleigh P

the Richmond to Hampton Roads project (http://www.rich
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

22) 2-49 (Section 2.2.4.2): "The potential Washington Street location is on the west 

side of Petersburg, VA, near the intersection of the CSX A-line, S-line, and the NS N-line. There is no current railroad station at this location." HRTPO Staff Comment: Any mention of the Petersburg multimodal center planned near this location? Discussion later talks about the Raleigh multimodal center being planned. Petersburg multi-modal transit center is mentioned later in the document, but this is a consistency issue within this part of the document. 

The Petersburg multi-modal transit center is not located nediscussed in Section 2.2.4.2 of the Tier II DEIS, which proHSR station locations. Section 3.14.4 of the Tier II FEIS pterms of accessibility to the larger transportation network. referenced in this section of the document with regard connpotential HSR stations. 

23) 2-56 (Section 2.4): "The SEHSR Greenway Concept has potential to be an 

important feature of the state-wide trail networks that are being developed by 

the states of Virginia and North Carolina in conjunction with local governments." HRTPO Staff Comment: Is there a Hampton Roads spur to the Greenway concept? 

The concept of a greenway located parallel to the RichmonVA, to the Neuse River (just north of Raleigh, NC) was intTier II DEIS. The rationale for its inclusion was to allow tdocumentation for the greenway to be prepared so that locpursue the construction of the greenway in their jurisdictiowas never intended to be funded as part of the Richmond tsource of Federal funding for HSR projects) does not have greenways. Although the parallel greenway is still being sRaleigh Project, the process of developing the environmenchanged since publication of the Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHWNorth Carolina have jointly determined that the greenway NEPA Greenway Corridor Plan, rather than being included to Raleigh Project, as previously considered. This is primawill ultimately construct the greenway greater flexibility to time rather than limiting them to a particular funding agencfor the greenway will, therefore, not be contained within thbut rather in a separate Greenway Corridor Plan. This docwith completion anticipated at the time of the ROD for the website will provide additional details on this separate plan review and comment. Any questions about a potential Hamto the Richmond to Raleigh Project DEIS and should be diRoads Rail project (as applicable) or to the local park plannoted area. 

24) 3-6 (Section 3.1.1.1.2) Chowan River Basin. HRTPO Staff Comment: The City 

of Norfolk's public water supply system withdraws water from the Blackwater 

and Nottoway Rivers. The intakes are outside of the study area but they are 

located downstream of the project. Such considerations should be reflected in the document. 

The Project Study Area was defined based on the local geoPurpose and Need, and the expected limits of potential impagencies have agreed upon this Study Area based on the pothere are drinking water intakes located downstream of the Carolina, resource agencies have agreed that impacts to theunlikely. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

25) 3-64 (Section 3.11.1.1): “The local study area with the highest proportion of 

minority residents is Petersburg, VA, where slightly more than 82% of the population is non-white or mixed race.” HRTPO Staff Comment: Define the various study areas, if not already done, to have the spatial area defined. 

The DEIS defined the Project Study Area as block groups corridor. The local Study Area is the Project study within was used for the purposes of presenting the data. This defiof the Tier II FEIS. 

26) 3-165 (Rail) HRTPO Staff Comment: Any mention of the Strategic Rail 

Corridor Network (STRACNET) designations along the corridor? Impacts to 

STRACNET in the associated impact section (4.14)? 

The Project designs primarily include a 15 foot track-centeinstalled, and up to 30-feet along the CSX A-Line between 

Additionally, the Project designs will include a vertical cleaccommodate future electrification. These clearances are cdesignated STRACNET corridor. Where applicable, unde

be designed to accommodate the required load classificatiocorridor. 

27) 3-174 (Safety & Security): "From Norlina, NC, where the CSX S-line becomes 

an active freight railroad to the Boylan Wye in Raleigh (including the active NSline in downtown Raleigh) common safety measures are in place at all active 

grade crossings." HRTPO Staff Comment: Please explain whether or not the "safety measures remaining in place" are adequate, and, if not adequate, how the DEIS treats them (i.e. is the cost of making them adequate included in the cost of each alternative at each section?). 

The overarching philosophy of design for the Richmond to grade separate all railroad-roadway crossings for the primaroadway safety. Table ES-23 of the Tier II DEIS includes underpasses for each of the alternatives, by project section

28) 4-115 (Section 4.11.4.3): Compatibility with Future Land Use and Long-Range 

Transportation Plans. HRTPO Staff Comment: This section is not consistent 

with Section 3.11.4, where there is a discussion of local plans. Section 4.11.4.3 makes mention of the various local plans in support of the SEHSR, yet 3.11.4 

states that these localities rarely mention SEHSR. This is inconsistent information. 

Sections 3.11.3 (Existing Land Use and Transportation) anLand Use and Long-Range Transportation Plans) of the Ti

recent plan amendments, as well as clarified or corrected (the compatibility between these plans and the proposed SE

29) 4-117 (Section 4.11.4.4): "In addition, city, county, PDC, MPO, and RPO 

transportation plans within the project study area all address the issues of highway planning, with most regional plans addressing high speed rail." HRTPO Staff Comment: This statement is contradictory to sections 3.11.3 and 

3.11.4. The aforementioned sections mention how SEHSR is rarely mentioned in the various planning levels along the corridor, yet this section states most if not all localities have mentioned SEHSR and are compatible with regional plans. Denote a definition as to what constitutes a compatible planning document for the SEHSR. 

As stated above, corrections and clarifications have been m
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

30) 4-124 (Section 4.11.5.2 Community-Level Impacts): "In Alberta and La Crosse, 

VA, and Norlina, NC, low-income populations will equally share with wealthier populations the potentially disruptive and intrusive effects of a newly active rail within their community. This includes access restrictions to and from either side of the rail, and exposure to noise and visual intrusions." HRTPO Staff Comment: This statement does not account for greater opportunities that persons with higher incomes may have in relation to relocation possibilities. Persons with higher income/education generally have access to more opportunities and can relocate easier than someone with less income/education. 

Section 4.11 of the Tier II FEIS contains additional informbased on price range and addresses the potential need for h

31) 4-125 (Section 4.11.5.2.1 Richmond. VA): "The VA1, VA2, and VA3 project 

alternatives all share a common alignment on the active rail line in Richmond, 

VA. Richmond currently has a large minority population and the highest concentration of low-income population in the study area. With the rail service to be provided in Richmond and the availability of bus transit in the City that 

will be focused on a transfer center at Main Street Station, this population has a high likelihood of being able to take advantage of the high speed rail service in the corridor." HRTPO Staff Comment: This is a big assumption, and is dependent on employment opportunities OOBS); jobs during "office hours (9 a.m. - 5 p.m.) vs. second- and third-shift jobs; connectivity to other modes; and 

the cost to travel on the proposed rail line, among other factors. 

It is anticipated that HSR would be used for intercity trave

commutes. The discussion in this section is not intended tservice would be widely used for commuters. 

32) 4-125 (Section 4.11.5.2.1 Richmond. VA): ''Along Ruffin Road, one of the 

residential units at the Lafayette Gardens apartment community and several 

adjacent homes may be displaced as a result of ROW acquisition for the railroad bridge construction at this intersection. These displaces are likely lowincome and minority." HRTPO Staff Comment: Consider examining the effects on "community cohesion" attributable to the proposed displacements in this and 

all low-income areas along the corridor. Interdependence among neighbors is generally greater in low-income communities, where families and neighbors often rely on each other for day care, rides to work, rides to the grocery store, hospital, church and other activity centers. 

Comment noted. Where possible, pedestrian accommodatProject corridor to maintain access for communities on bot

33) 4-168 (Tables 4-40 and 4-41) HRTPO Staff Comment: Consider showing delay 

in seconds after each LOS for all approaches. This value will provide greater detail, particularly for approaches with severe congestion (LOS F). This 

comment applies to ALL remaining tables in this section. 

Suggestion noted. 

34) 4-189 (Figure 4.10) HRTPO Staff Comment: Figure 4-10 should indicate 

Richmond - Hampton Roads rail lines (from Newport News and Norfolk). 

This figure is intended only to convey the current ownershnumber of tracks/sidings on the rail corridor proposed to bdoes not show any rail lines outside the Project Study Area
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

35) 4-199 (Safety and Security) HRTPO Staff Comment: No mention of 

STRACNET and its impacts along the corridor in this section of the document. 

The Project designs primarily include a 15 foot track-centeinstalled, and up to 30-feet along the CSX A-Line between 

Additionally, the Project designs will include a vertical cleaccommodate future electrification. These clearances are cdesignated STRACNET corridor. Where applicable, unde

be designed to accommodate the required load classificatiocorridor. 

36) 4-202 (Section 4.17.3): ''As reported in the SEHSR Tier I EIS, implementation 

of any SEHSR project alternative is not expected to substantially alter development patterns in the project study area except in the vicinity of the rail stations in Richmond (Main Street Station) and the yet-to-be determined locations of Petersburg, VA, La Crosse, VA, Henderson, NC, and Raleigh, NC."

HRTPO Staff Comment: This is an assumption that needs to be supported. There is the distinct possibility of the rural communities developing that do not have station options now, but would vie for one in the future, marketing for satellite living from one of the metro areas. 

Additional HSR station locations are not supported by the SEHSR Corridor as conducted for the Richmond to Raleig

Richmond to Raleigh Project asset could be used for regionconsidered a reasonably foreseeable result of the immediatCorridor. 

37) 4-204(Section 4.17.4.1): Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project. 

HRTPO Staff Comment: This section should reflect the reality of the February 2010 CTB approved 'preferred alternative', calling for enhanced intercity passenger rail service on the CSX route, and higher-Speed rail on the Norfolk Southern route. Furthermore, the CTB approved $93 million in funding for reintroducing conventional passenger rail service from Richmond to Norfolk via Petersburg in June 2010. 

The FEIS has been updated to reflect the current status of tproject. 

38) 4-205(Section 4.17.4.4): "The CSX's National Gateway Project is a multi-state 

project extending from North Carolina to Ohio and includes a spur that 

connects to the Ports of Hampton Roads." HRTPO Staff Comment: The Ports of Hampton Roads should be noted as the Port of Virginia. 

Comment noted. 

39) 6-4 (Section 6.3.1) Virginia Local Agencies. HRTPO Staff Comment: Add 

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission and Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization as Section 6.3.1.17 & Section 6.3.1.18. 

This is due to our vested interest in the SEHSR project going forward, and its 

impacts to the design and planning assumptions of the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project. 

Comment noted. These entities will be added to the Tier I
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

40) 6-8 (Section 6.4) Document Distribution Location List. HRTPO Staff 

Comment: Add Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization to the 

document distribution list for it is being made available to the public. 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 757 420 8300 

Comment noted. HRTPO will be added to the list of locat

viewed (Chapter 6). 

41) Chapter 7, HRTPO Staff General Section Comments: 

 MPOs are the federally-mandated transportation policy-making, planning, and 

programming organizations for metropolitan areas. As such, MPOs should 

participate in a project like this one as formal cooperating agencies instead of only being allowed to comment during public comment periods. 

 In addition, given the potential impact of the SEHSR project on Hampton 

Roads, especially when the proposed passenger rail improvements to Hampton 

Roads are taken into consideration, at least one public meeting on the SEHSR DEIS should have been held in the Hampton Roads area. It is strongly 

recommended that future public meetings on this project include a location in 

Hampton Roads. 

Comments noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

42) 7 -5 (Tier II Public Involvement). HRTPO Staff Comment: With the high 

proportion of minorities, as indicated by Table 3-19, the project team should clearly document any information sessions, community events, or meetings with residents of minority communities or with community leaders that represent minority persons. As well, although percentages are not as high, documentation 

of outreach activities with traditionally underserved communities such as, lowincome, elderly and persons with disabilities, would be instrumental to 

demonstrate reasonable efforts to reach out to these community members. 

The environmental justice section of the Tier II DEIS (Secdisproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income anticipated within the overall Richmond to Raleigh Project expectation that minority and low-income populations wourail improvements. The EJ Section was updated for the TI4.11.5. Outreach activities were not specifically targeted to enviroHowever, public outreach was conducted with the intent to individuals along the Project corridor. Meetings and hearicoordinated with local jurisdictions and news media. Indiv

property owners within the Project corridor beforehand. T

meetings with local officials (including both elected officia

throughout the Project corridor (described in Chapter 7 of meetings was to ensure all local concerns were addressed i

Although outreach was not specifically targeted to EJ comProject corridor, both EJ and non-EJ, were well-representeJuly 2010. Attendance at the meetings ranged from 183 to significant residential relocations or changes in the existing 

These hearings provided the opportunity for citizens to proAs a result of the comments, numerous design requests havprovision of additional pedestrian crossings of the rail corr

43) 7-6 (Section 7.2.6) Small Group Informational Meetings 

HRTPO Staff Comment: There does not appear to be documentation of outreach activities 

to specifically communicate with and/or involve residents within communities with high percentages of minorities, although Table 4-33 documents several of communities having more than 50% minority. If outreach activities specifically aim to involve minority populations, please provide documentation. 

As stated above, outreach activities were not specifically ta

communities, but rather to all potentially affected individu

44) (Section 9.1) Index. HRTPO Staff Comment: Add an index to some related key 

words to the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project and other associated spur projects of the SEHSR. The SEHSR project serves as a main document cited in various other Environmental Impact Statements, and it assists the public and researchers to denote how the SEHSR mentioned these projects within its own Environmental Impact Statement. 

The Richmond to Hampton Roads project has been added FEIS. 

45) 9-13: (Acronyms). HRTPO Staff Comment: Add "HRTPO Hampton Roads 

Transportation Planning Organization" 

Comment noted. The organization will be noted in Chapteand 8 (Response to Comments) of the Tier II FEIS; howevare not used. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

SECTION: APPENDIX B. HRTPO Staff General Section Comments: 

 Although there is extensive documentation of outreach activities to inform and 

engage the public through various means, there does not appear to be documentation of outreach activities to specifically communicate with and/or involve residents within communities with high percentages of minorities, although Table 4-33 documents several of communities having more than 50% minority. If this did take place, please provide documentation. 

 If public involvement included information sessions, community events, or 

meetings with residents of minority or low-income communities or with community leaders that can represent traditionally underserved communities such as minority, low-income, elderly or persons with disabilities, this should be 

clearly documented. 

Comment noted. See responses to identical statements abo
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

AG16 

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), VA, Dwight L. Farm

Comment Response 

HRTPO Staff Questions about Public Meetings: 

 How were the small-group meetings and additional public meetings advertised? 

 How far in advance of the meetings were they advertised? 

 What media sources did the project team use? 

 Were efforts made to reach traditionally underserved persons? 

A June 13, 2003, bi-state press release announced the begi

Raleigh, NC Tier II study, as well as dates and locations fo

corridor. The first meeting in North Carolina was held JunVirginia was held July 10, 2003. In early June 2003, a newsletter was mailed to everyone on newsletter provided a status update, as well as dates and lothe corridor. The mailing list was created through a sign-uthrough signup at public meetings and hearings for the TieThe project website www.sehsr.org also provided informat

Ads were placed with local newspapers including: RichmoProgress-Index (Petersburg, VA), Dinwiddie Monitor (DinTimes Gazette (Brunswick County, VA), South Hill Enterp(Franklinton, NC), News and Observer (Raleigh, NC), Hen

The Carolinian, (Raleigh, NC), The Cary News (Cary, NCArea, NC), Que Pasa (Raleigh, NC) . Additional public meetings were held in Petersburg, VA, a2006, and March 16, 2006, when the Project was extended designated as the northern terminus. These later meetings were announced through a project nethe Project website, and through ads in the Richmond TimProgress Index (Petersburg, VA). As stated previously, although outreach was not specificallcommunities, attendance at the eight public hearings held iwas successful to all communities along the Project corrido

8.2 Public Comments and Responses 

This section presents the comments on the DEIS submitted by the public, interest groups, and businesses. As noted ab

comments, the comments were summarized for presentation in the Tier II FEIS. Each individual comment received wasummary comment codes. Responses are provided for each summary comment, and are organized by major topic (Tab

look up the summary comment codes by commenter name (where it was provided). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Table 8-1 

Major Topics for Summary Comments 

Code Topic 

A Built Environment (e.g., Homes, Towns, Businesses) 

B Crossing Closures and/or Traffic C Natural Resources (e.g., Streams, Wetlands, Air Quality) 

D Historic Resources (e.g., Historic Districts, Historic Homes, Battlefields) 

E Construction Costs and/or Economic Benefits of the Project 

F Train Speed, Equipment, Operations, or Fares 

G Ridership H Safety 

I Project Schedule and/or Funding 

J Preference for an Alternative 

K Other (Including Comments Related to Potential Station Locations) 

L Project Designs 

M Comments Handled Separately 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Code A – Comments Related to the Built Environment (e.g., Homes, Towns, Businesses) 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC1 Concerns about vibration during 

construction and subsequent train operations. 

As per Section 4.7.1.3 in the Tier II FEIS, once the final design of the Project has been evibration analysis would be required to determine the soil characteristics and the efficienpropagates through the ground at various locations along the alignment, the most appropmitigation, and the specific locations where mitigation would be required. 

A_SC2 Concerns about train noise and the need for 

noise barriers. 

As per Section 4.7.2.1 of the Tier II FEIS, once the final design of the Project has been eanalysis will be performed according to the procedures outlined in FRA’s High-Speed GVibration Assessment (USDOT, 2012). This analysis will be completed by DRPT and Nthe Project. It will also reassess the potential impact of new intermodal and freight train and Raleigh, NC. Several types of measures will be explored to mitigate noise impacts, itreatments, vehicle treatments, building insulation, and noise barriers. 

A_SC3 Concerns about urban business and 

residential relocations in existing active rail corridors. 

As per Section 4.11.2.1.2 of the Tier II DEIS, because the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridors, neighborhood disruptions and relocations have been minimized to the greatest assistance policies were discussed in Section 4.11.6 of the Tier II DEIS and the Tier II F

A_SC4 Concerns over potential changes in the 

viewshed (i.e., visual impacts). 

The DEIS addressed potential impacts to the visual environment in Section 4.9. The visuchanges related to the implementation of the Richmond to Raleigh Project into the existiRaleigh Project study corridor. The FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental ImEIS should identify any significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and iSpecific visual impacts for Virginia communities were discussed in Section 4.9.1 of the Carolina were discussed in Section 4.9.2. Visual impacts were summarized in Table 4.23Project (see Section 4.12 of the Tier II FEIS) will address mitigation of visual impacts as by the National Historic Preservation Act. 

A_SC5 Concerns about potential property impacts 

(disruptions and relocations). 

Because the Richmond to Raleigh Project maximizes the use of existing rail corridors, nrelocations have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Current designs are pvery conservative (showing the greatest possible impacts). As more detailed surveys are alternative, it is hoped that it will be possible to refine and reduce the estimated property to construct the proposed Richmond to Raleigh Project. Compensation for property impaSection 4.11.6.1 of the Tier II DEIS and the North Carolina process for property impacts of the Tier II DEIS. 

A_SC6 Concerns that the project will reduce the 

values of adjacent properties (those properties to remain adjacent/near the future rail line). Statements speculating that properties adjacent to proposed stations will gain in value. 

The project does not anticipate a loss in adjacent property values, as explained throughouNCDOT Relocation policies indicate that compensation is only provided for acquisition perceived depreciation in value. As discussed in the expanded Purpose and Need section there is predicted to be substantial long term economic benefits from development of the limited to) induced demand for office, retail, hotel and higher density housing near propofor redevelopment/infill opportunities increase surrounding station locations, surroundinover the long term. Further questions should be addressed to the NCDOT or VDOT Righat the following - in North Carolina (http://www.ncdot.org/projects/roadbuilt/default.htm(http://www.virginiadot.org/business/row-default.asp). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC7 Concerns about division of neighborhoods in 

Sections R and S (Franklinton area); opposition to Alternative NC2 in Section S due to impacts to community. 

In Section R, the rail designs for the preferred alternative (Alternative NC1) have been ssubdivision off Montgomery Road. The preferred alternative for Section S (Alternative Npublic support (267 for Alternative NC1 compared to 3 for Alternative NC2). Also, baseof Franklinton and public comments, the proposed improvements to Tanyard Street showremoved from the Project designs (i.e., no changes proposed for existing Tanyard Street)connection between East Green Street and East College Street has been moved to an aligof the Sterling Mill historic resource. The Project Team will continue to work with the Tclosures, bridges, and pedestrian connectivity within the town. The new designs are discFEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map Book A

A_SC8 Concerns about division of neighborhoods 

and other impacts from Alternative NC3 in Section V (Five Points area). 

Alternative NC5 was developed in response to strong public opposition to Alternative NRaleigh’s opposition to the disruption of traffic and pedestrian patterns in the area arounpresented by Alternatives NC1 and NC2. An iterative series of designs were submitted bcomment period (dubbed NC4, and “Hybrid” alternatives by members of the public). Thconsideration, but found to be infeasible due to greater impacts. However, consideration development of Alternative NC5. Alternative NC5 also provides the benefit of avoiding NS Glenwood Yard, which minimizes/reduces any potential conflicts between freight anRaleigh and is the preferred alternative for this Section. The route also avoids impacts to Roanoke Park. 

A_SC9 Concerns about community connectivity and 

pedestrian routes; would like to see pedestrian tunnels and/or other pedestrian accommodations. 

Due to the fact that the Project returns rail to communities developed along rail corridorscommunity connectivity. Steps have been taken throughout the Project to minimize negawill have sufficient width so as not to create a hazard for pedestrian movement. In locatiaccommodations (e.g., sidewalks) currently exist, these accommodations will be provideother locations, pedestrian accommodations on the bridges/underpasses will be evaluated current NCDOT and Virginia pedestrian policies. In general, these policies consider the accommodations in more populous locations where pedestrian activity currently exists. I2 existing pedestrian-only underpasses have been maintained and 12 new pedestrian-onlproposed for construction. The locations of these pedestrian crossings were determined igovernment representatives and in response to comments from the public on the Tier II Dpedestrian accommodations will be considered as they are received and added to the fina* Section 4.16 of the Tier II DEIS mistakenly stated that all bridge designs would includaccess. While pedestrians will be able to cross at all bridges, the inclusion of sidewalks wand Virginia pedestrian policy at the time the Richmond to Raleigh Project is constructed

A_SC10 Concerns about emergency vehicle response 

times (general). 

The inconvenience posed by consolidation of crossings is balanced by the benefit of havcrossings that allow continued, unimpeded access to and from both sides of the rail line. experience several minutes of delay while stopped at at-grade crossings to allow a train tcan cause further delays as it must accelerate very slowly near crossings to avoid occupydown. Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS provided a discussion of the effect that closincrossings and consolidating access would have on police, fire and emergency services alTier II FEIS contains additional discussion on this topic. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC11 Concerns about impacts to communities on 

the south side of Durant Road in Raleigh, NC (Section U). 

In response to comments received from the public and local officials, a revised bridge andesigned for this location. The revised designs were shown at a Public Update Meeting oand are shown in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. The road alignment and bshifted to the north, away from the residential and commercial development on the south northward shift will take the road alignment through City of Raleigh property where Ralrequiring the fire station to be relocated. This design has been coordinated with the City maintaining traffic on the existing Durant Road during construction of the bridge over th

A_SC12 Concerns about EMS response times in 

Franklinton, NC (Section S). 

EMS response times for the Franklinton Fire Department were modeled in the Tier II DETown of Franklinton in Franklin County, NC, straddles the active CSX S-line about 30 mFranklinton Fire Department facility is very near and to the west of the existing rail ROWaffect several crossings that are proposed for consolidation, and approximately three roaChanges in access could affect response time and coverage to the east of the corridor. Hoin the five-minute response area between the No Build and Build (with SEHSR) scenarioProject, the total area covered is 97 percent of the No Build coverage area; thus, there is EMS service area for Franklinton with or without the Project. 

A_SC13 Concerns about potential impacts to Durant 

Nature Park in Raleigh, NC (Section U). 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alignment stays within the existing rail ROW in thPark. The northern entrance to the park is approximately one half mile west of the railroaentrance is approximately on quarter mile west of the railroad off Spottswood Street. No park and the Project would have no effect on access to the park or the use of its facilities

A_SC14 Comments or concerns about consistency of 

SESHR with existing local land use, transportation, or comprehensive plans. 

The project has coordinated with local municipalities to ensure that the Richmond to Ralextent possible with local transportation and long-range community goals. Information owith state and local plans was included in Sections 4.11.4.1 to 4.11.4.4 of the Tier II DEwith Federal, state, and local agencies was provided in Appendix A of the Tier II DEIS aFEIS. 

A_SC15 Concerns about benefits of SEHSR for 

municipalities without service stops. 

The overall economic benefits of the Richmond to Raleigh Project were summarized in SThey include economic impacts/benefits during construction (jobs for individuals to upgsignal and safety devices, build frontage/service roads, improve grade separated crossinggrade crossings). It is anticipated that the impact of the construction would have additionmanufacturing, as well as restaurants, hotels, and other service industries. While operatiostations are obvious, the installation of high-speed compatible track will enable communof potential freight access, including enhanced incentives for new industry locations. Somaddition of local or regional passenger service in the future, once the overall system and Corridor Tier I EIS estimated that in North Carolina alone, the SEHSR Corridor program state and local tax revenues, $10.5 billion in employee wages over 20 years, over 31,400 more than 800 permanent new railroad operation positions, and nearly 19,000 permanenwhich choose to locate or expand in North Carolina because of the SEHSR Corridor servthat similarly positive benefits would accrue in Virginia. 

A_SC16 Concerns about potential increases in noise 

from freight trains idling in downtown Raleigh, NC. 

The preferred alternative in Section V is Alternative NC5. With the separation of freight Jones St. under Alternative NC5, and the additional capacity created through the Projectbe a substantial change in freight idling times in downtown Raleigh resulting from the P
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC17 Concerns about emergency evacuations from 

Raleigh in the event of a nuclear disaster, hurricane or other major disaster. 

In the event of a nuclear or natural disaster, SEHSR Corridor service could be temporariaccordance with disaster plans that will be part of the operations plan for the service provand passenger train operators have established plans that dictate actions that are taken in emergencies. In the past, there have been instances where rail travel after disasters has pran affected area. 

A_SC18 Stated preference for VA2 for Section D 

(north of Alberta, VA) due to impacts of other alternatives, including impacts to farm land, timber land, and a Virginia Century Farm. 

Alternative VA4 is the preferred alternative for Section D. It was developed after the pubDEIS, through coordination and consultation with Federal and state natural resource and During discussions with these agencies, it was determined that none of the existing alternconflicting concerns of the agencies (endangered species and historic resources on Alternimpacts on Alternative VA2). Alternative VA4 reduces impacts to wetlands (compared tavoiding a Section 4(f) use of the Wynnhurst historic resource and impacts to a populatioSumac (Rhus michauxii). 

A_SC19 Concerns about impacts to Rawlings Quarry 

(Lake Rawlings) near Alberta, VA (Section D). 

The preferred alternative in this section is Alternative VA4. The VA4 Alternative stays wthe vicinity of Rawlings Quarry, then shifts to the west (away from the quarry) to straighsouth of the quarry. No impacts to the private quarry are anticipated. 

A_SC20 Resident states that CSX abandoned the 

right of way (between Collier Yard south of Petersburg, VA, and north of Norlina, NC) and it should devolve to the existing landowners along the corridor. 

Although CSX has removed the tracks in the area referenced in the comment, CSX retainexceptions, of the S-line (i.e., fee simple) and leases a portion of the corridor for operatiocable. The exceptions are located along the Burgess Connector south of Collier Yard, whbeen sold to individual property owners for driveway access, and in Southside Virginia, been sold to adjacent landowners, such as the 1.3 mile long section owned by Reedy CreNottoway River in Dinwiddie County. Specific questions regarding ownership of the corROW acquisition phase of the Project. 

A_SC21 Concerns about environmental justice. The FEIS has been updated to include additional information on potential environmental 

discusses corridor-wide impacts, and Section 4.11.5.2 discusses Community-level impac

A_SC22 Questions about why stream, wetland, 

and/or historic resource surveys were conducted in Mecklenburg County, VA, after the public hearings for the DEIS. 

Based on comments received for the Tier II DEIS, potential design modifications were eproject impacts could be minimized or avoided. In areas where these evaluations extendedetermined Project Study Area, resource surveys were conducted to determine if these ar

A_SC23 Concerns about a potential Jones Street 

Bridge and impacts to Hargett Street in downtown Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

The preferred alternative for Section V (NC5) would close Jones Street and provide a peminimize impacts to area businesses. Hargett Street would be closed under this alternativ

A_SC24 Concerns about noise and vibration 

associated with idling trains (in areas without stations). 

The proposed Richmond to Raleigh Project would include increased sidings to allow freeach other while minimizing idling and stopping; sidings will allow trains to pass each o

A_SC25 Concerns about property specific impacts to 

Traylor Farms in Norlina, NC (Section M). 

Several modifications were made to the proposed roadwork for the area around the Ridgcomments on the Tier II DEIS. The Preferred Alternative has no direct impacts to the TrAppendix R, maps 101 and 102). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC26 Request to move intersection of Glebe Road 

and Hamilton Arms Road in DeWitt, VA, to minimize specific impacts to a parcel (Section C). 

The alignment of Glebe Rd/Hamilton Arms Rd is constrained by the Bowen House, a prRegister of Historic Places. Impacts to the septic system on this property will be evaluateappropriate mitigation/compensation will be determined. 

A_SC27 Question regarding access to US1 in 

Middleburg, NC (Section O). 

In Middleburg, access from US-1 across the existing CSX ROW is unaffected by Alternin Section O. 

A_SC28 Concerns about impacts to Franklin Farm 

parcel in Henderson, NC (Section O). 

The recommended, preferred alternative for this section is NC3, which would minimize 

A_SC29 Noted the proposed SEHSR project does not 

provide stops in certain areas. 

Some communities could also see the addition of local or regional passenger service in tand capacity are in place. The location of stops along the corridor would be determined bcoordination by the governments at the potential station locations, based upon the ridersh

A_SC30 Questions about construction, maintenance, 

and ownership of access roads and driveways to private parcels whose previous access to their property would be closed/rerouted by proposed designs. 

Owners of parcels with current, legal access to existing roads will have access to their pacompensated if it is not possible to maintain the access); driveway access to these parceldesign when survey level data is available. Questions related to ownership of land within easements across railroad rights of way can be directed to the freight railroads - CSX: (9(404) 962-5742. 

A_SC31 Questions about who owns existing railroad 

ROW; statements by private property owners claimed ownership of land the public hearing maps identified as railroad ROW. 

Mapping used in this study was based on county tax parcel data, as well as railroad valuathis particular rail corridor, CSX maintains exclusive ownership of the railroad ROW (in some instances where portions of the former railroad ROW have been sold to other entitconducted during the ROW acquisition stage of the Project to verify ownership. 

A_SC32 Questions regarding who will own 

purchased ROW and whether rail lines will have track rights. 

It is considered most likely that ROW purchased for the Project will be owned by the stabe determined when funding for the Project is secured. Throughout the entire project cordesigned for mixed use (i.e., passenger and freight). 

A_SC33 Concerns about train whistle/horn noise. For general safety, trains are required to sound horns as they approach an at-grade crossi

developed for the SESHR project means that trains will not be required to whistle at cros

A_SC34 Assertion that regional mobility should be 

the primary goal of the project and that impacts are secondary in importance. 

Comment noted. 

A_SC35 Assertion that the impacts of the project 

outweigh the benefits. 

Comment noted. 

A_SC36 Concerns about division of neighborhoods in 

La Crosse, VA (Section I). 

The designs presented in the Tier II DEIS are the result of an iterative design process devcoordination with the Town of La Crosse, with a goal of preserving connectivity across tRaleigh Project plans shown in the Tier II DEIS provide for a bridge and an underpass hlimits (the town limits are less than one mile across), as well as a pedestrian/bicycle undeTobacco Heritage Trail. 

A_SC37 Statements about impacts to specific 

properties with no questions. 

Comment investigated and noted. 

A_SC38 General comment on impacts with no 

question. 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC39 Questions asking for clarification of impacts 

to a specific parcel. 

Information was provided by the Project team directly to the commenter. 

A_SC40 Property specific question on impacts to 

Heartsfield House c. 1803 property and other properties along Ligon Mill Road in Wake Forest, NC (Section U). 

Numerous alternative designs have been evaluated in the vicinity of the Heartsfield Houimpacts; however, the designs are constrained by the curvature of Ligon Mill Road, as wdevelopment on the east side of the railroad. The alternative designs were found not to bbe made to minimize impacts from the roadwork during the final design stage of the Projavailable. The proposed new access road (northward extension of Steeple Run Drive) eaDrive and Ligon Mill Road shown in the Tier II DEIS was designed to provide access eawith the proposed closing of Seawell Drive and nearby driveways. In response to requeshas been redesigned. The road alignment was shifted westward, closer to the railroad to minimize impacts to a family cemetery. Adjustments to property access at the northern eROW phase of the Project. The revised impacts associated with these design changes are II FEIS and maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

A_SC41 Request for pedestrian crossing to allow 

access to Ettrick Community Recreational Park (Section CC). 

Due to the fact that there is no location near the park where public ROW exists on both sallow public access), it was not possible to design a public pedestrian crossing in this are

A_SC42 Property specific question on impacts to 

parcel off Defense Road (Section CC). 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project would require ROW along Defense Road in order to aDefense Road (directly adjacent to the existing railroad bridge). 

A_SC43 Property specific question on impacts to 

family cemetery off Keelers Mill Road in DeWitt, VA (Section C). 

The road designs in this area were revised to avoid impacts to the cemetery. Refer to Secdiscussion, and Appendix R for a map of the revised designs. 

A_SC44 Requests use of rail line for areas not served 

by SEHSR stations. 

It is anticipated that the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor accommodate additional rcorridor. However, such development is not part of the undertaking described in this FEI

A_SC45 Requests for number of relocations near 

Kittrell, NC (Section Q). 

Relocations are included in the Executive Summary and Chapter 4 of the Tier II DEIS (PII FEIS in the corresponding sections. 

A_SC46 Concerns about a specific parcel between 

Alberta, VA, and La Crosse, VA, in Section G that would be impacted by Alternative VA3. 

The preferred alternative for Section G is VA3, which would impact the parcel in questiobased on the balancing of conflicting impacts (historic resources and streams) among the section. All alternatives would have similar impacts to private properties. VA3 was selecFederal natural and historic resource agencies who noted that although it would impact tresource, mitigation could be used to minimize the impacts. Compared to the three other avoids impacts to two other historic resources (Orgain House and Oak Shades) and mini

A_SC47 Concerns about impacts associated with the 

proposed closure of Wolfpack Lane in Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS from local officials and the public, a bridge Wolfpack Lane. The design was coordinated with City of Raleigh staff, and the public walternative at an update meeting on May 15, 2012. The design, which accommodates vehtraffic was favorably received, and has been added to the Tier II FEIS. The new designs Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map B
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC48 Concerns about impacts to Porto Fino 

subdivision in Wake Forest, NC (Section U).

Numerous alternative designs have been evaluated in the vicinity of the Porto Fino subdiproperty impacts, but the designs are constrained by the curvature of Ligon Mill Road, adevelopment on the east side of the railroad. Alternative designs were found not to be prmade to minimize impacts from the roadwork during the final design stage of the Projecavailable. 

A_SC49 Concerns about community impacts to if the 

Marina Drive crossing in Richmond, VA is closed (Section AA). 

Marina Drive currently passes under the existing Falling Creek railroad bridge. There are bridge under the Richmond to Raleigh Project. Thus, Marina Drive would not be impact

A_SC50 Concerns about rerouting of Centralia Road 

and Chester Road in Chester, VA (Section BB). 

Numerous alternative designs have been evaluated at this location in an effort to reduce are constrained by nearby development and the close proximity of three historic propertiHouse, and Circle Oaks) that are afforded protections under Section 106 of the National and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The designs for this lodesign process developed through extensive coordination with Chesterfield County. 

A_SC51 Concerns about closing Elm Avenue in 

Wake Forest, NC (Section U). 

In response to comments received from the public and local officials regarding the closuTier II DEIS, a road underpass was subsequently designed that would allow Elm Avenue presented at a Project Update Meeting on May 15, 2012. The response from both the pubofficials was that the impacts resulting from the design were too severe. These impacts inbusinesses on Elm Avenue and impacts to several properties along White Street, includinBased on further coordination with the Town of Wake Forest, it was determined the mosAvenue would be to close the crossing to vehicular traffic, but provide for non-vehicular bridge. The pedestrian bridge would not result in the same degree of property impacts as it would similarly preclude vehicular access to Railroad Street (which is located within tROW). In order to provide a means of entry to the properties along Railroad Street, the nPublic Update Meeting is needed. This access road would result in the potential relocatioproperty impacts to the rear of the Railroad Street properties. Several alternative designs in coordination with the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and the design presdetermined to minimize impacts to the Wake Forest Historic District. It may be possible during final design (when more accurate survey level data is available); however, it is no

A_SC52 Concerns or questions about receiving 

adequate/fair value for full or partial acquisition or condemnation or imminent domain of properties for the project. Suggestions regarding land to be used by the project (e.g., recommendations of parcel splits, sites available for acquisition, offers of land for sale). 

The processes that Virginia and North Carolina have established for ROW Acquisition aTier II FEIS. Wherever possible, NCDOT and Virginia try to find an agreeable price for owner. When such a price cannot be reached, the legal system is used to ensure a fair maProperty owners are encouraged to obtain their own property appraisal for use in negotiaproperty with ROW agents. Property acquisition policies can be found under Right-of-Whttp://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/property_owners2006.pdf (for VA) and http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/roadbuilt/ (for NC). In all cases the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Aapplied as directed by Federal law. It is not the policy of Virginia or NCDOT to provide businesses if no acquisition of property takes place. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC53 Question about possible legal action related 

to fiber optic cable being installed by telecommunication facilities without the consent of property owners. 

Although CSX has removed the tracks in the area referenced in the comment, CSX retainexceptions, of the S-line (i.e., fee simple) and leases the corridor for operation of an undeexceptions are located along the Burgess Connector south of Collier Yard, where portionindividual property owners for driveway access, and in Southside Virginia, where sectioadjacent landowners, such as the 1.3 mile long section owned by Reedy Creek Farm AssDinwiddie County. Fiber optic cable was not installed as part of the Richmond to Raleig

A_SC54 Assertion that in North Carolina the railroad 

needs to show proof of ownership of property after being abandoned more than the 7 years or it would revert to adjacent private land owners. Request for information about House Bill 116. 

NC Statute 1-44.1 currently reads, “any railroad which has removed its tracks from a ROwhole or in part within a period of seven (7) years after such removal and which has not of such ROW after such removal of tracks for a period of seven (7) years after such remoabandoned the railroad ROW.” This presumption applies only to rights of way held as eaownership) per McLaurin v. Winston-Salem Southbound Railway Co. (1988). Although Cportions of the Project corridor, they retain exclusive ownership, with a few exceptions, lease the corridor for operation of an underground fiber optic cable. The exceptions are lConnector south of Collier Yard, where portions of the ROW have been sold to individuaccess, and in Southside Virginia, where sections of the ROW have been sold to adjacenlong section owned by Reedy Creek Associates, at the Nottoway River in Dinwiddie CoCorridor Management) did not apply to rights of way owned in fee simple. It proposed rprovision with the following - "A railroad shall not be found to have abandoned a ROW holds an easement interest unless the railroad first records a certificate of abandonment ifor the county where the ROW is located. Upon the filing of the certificate of abandonmdeemed abandoned." This Bill passed the House, but not the Senate; therefore, it was not referred to judiciary committee in May 2009. All questions related to property ownership acquisition phase of the Richmond to Raleigh Project. Questions related to ownership of corridor and/or easements across railroad rights of way can be directed to the freight railNorfolk Southern: (404) 962-5742. 

A_SC56 Concerns about impacts of Alternative 

NC1/NC3 in Norlina, NC (Section M) and a stated preference for Alternative NC2. 

In the Norlina area (Section M), the preferred alternative is NC1. Refer to Chapter 2 of tof decision regarding the preferred alternative. 

A_SC57 Question regarding when offers would be 

made on impacted properties and whether advanced acquisition is possible. 

ROW negotiations on impacted properties cannot begin until after the ROD has been sigpurchase is available. Although both Virginia and NCDOT have advanced acquisition poutilized without a source of funding and at this time none exists. 

A_SC58 Concerns about potential impacts associated 

with Alternative NC2 along Fleming Drive in Youngsville, NC (Section T). 

The preferred alternative in this section is Alternative NC1. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Tiedecision regarding the preferred alternative. Note that in response to comments from the Youngsville that the designs for Flemming Road have been modified. The revised impacchanges are discussed in Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS and maps can be found in the Map FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC59 Concerns that the proposed project would 

make it impossible for home and business owners to sell or refinance homes in the area if they are proposed to be impacted by the project. 

North Carolina and Virginia will seek ROW and construction funding based on state rail phase for this Project cannot begin until the FRA issues a ROD, at which point the estabeach state will be followed. No construction funding has been identified for this Project time. ROW acquisition is based on the fair market value of the property, which considervalue. North Carolina and Virginia encourage owners and real estate professionals to adhstate regarding disclosure of information to prospective buyers. They are encouraged to contacting their appropriate state real estate licensing agency or county tax office when tshould be noted that "hardship" ROW acquisition typically cannot apply to the Richmonis established, which is contingent on the completion of the environmental review proces

A_SC60 Concerns about existing problem with allterrain vehicles (ATV) and other trespassers 

on railroad ROW and adjacent private property where tracks have been removed. 

It is anticipated that the re-introduction of train operations within the section of the corriwill help reduce problems with trespassing on private property. 

A_SC61 Concerns about potential impacts to 

farmland currently set aside under USDA or county farmland protection programs. 

During final design, efforts will be made to minimize the impacts to private property to tnecessary for the Richmond to Raleigh Project to acquire land protected under Federal oprograms, the Project will coordinate with the applicable agencies and follow all Federal implementation of mitigation strategies as required. 

A_SC62 Concerns about impacts to The Factory 

baseball fields in Wake Forest, NC (Section U). 

Refer to Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS for an explanation of the decision regarding the prprimarily on the need to balance the degree of impacts to the ball fields and a nearby privalternative in Section U is NC1, which minimizes impacts to the referenced ball fields. 

A_SC63 Concerns about impacts of Alternative NC2 

near Norlina, NC, in Section M. 

In the Norlina area (Section M), the preferred alternative is NC1. 

A_SC64 General comment in support of the project. Comment noted. A_SC65 Concerns about the effect of Alternative 

NC3 to businesses using Norfolk Southern's service on their operations in downtown Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

After the public hearings in 2010, a new alternative (NC5) was developed to address the public and Norfolk Southern for downtown Raleigh. This alternative is not anticipated to to serve its Raleigh customers. 

A_SC66 Concerns about traffic and safety with 

proposed new access between US-1 Business and Bobbitt Road in Kittrell, NC (Section Q). 

The proposed new intersection across from Wildlife Lane is approximately 1,500 feet soUS-1 Business and Peter Gill Road. The new intersection is safer than the existing one bbetween intersections and turn lanes have been provided. 

A_SC67 Concerns from Reedy Creek Farm 

Associates, LLC, regarding impacts to property immediately north of the Nottoway River near McKenney, VA (Section C). Requests clarification if it is possible to bypass the property and, if not, to have advance acquisition of the property. 

Due to the need to use the existing railroad alignment over the Nottoway River (i.e., it is prudent to bypass the Reedy Creek Farm property. Any bypass of the property would cauhuman environment for a significant distance both north and south of the river. Although advanced acquisition policies, these policies cannot be utilized without a source of fundiimpacted properties after the ROD has been signed and funding for ROW purchase is av
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

A_SC68 The DEIS analysis of land use impacts 

should be expanded and the total acres of farm land taken should be provided. Encourage further efforts to reduce or mitigate land use impacts (beyond using existing ROW). 

The total amount of acres projected to be impacted (additional ROW to be acquired), by 4 of the Tier II FEIS. Where a preferred alternative has greater ROW impacts than anothbenefit of providing faster speeds, which better meets the Purpose and Need for the Projeother resources (e.g., streams, wetlands, historic sites). In both the Tier II DEIS and FEIScalculated by acreages (prime and important farmland, forested uplands, wetlands), whilresidential, business, parks) are captured by the number of relocations or sites impacted. farmland, Section 4.3 of the Tier II FEIS provides an analysis of impacts to Prime and Imfarmlands of statewide and local importance) in accordance with the requirements of the (FPPA) of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 1202(a)). All efforts will be made to minimize land use impacfinal design process when more detailed survey information is available. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Code B – Comments Related to Crossing Closures and/or Traffic 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC1 Concern about the effect that crossing 

closures will have on connectivity and pedestrian access across the railroad and/or that the SEHSR project should mitigate for the impact that railroad crossing closures have on pedestrian activity in the project corridor. 

The Project designs include more than 80 new roadway bridges or underpasses crossing the length of the Project. As discussed in Section 4.11.2.2. of the Tier II DEIS, the locatiwere determined in coordination with local government representatives, who provided inpedestrian activity. All of the new bridges will have sufficient width so as not to create a In locations where existing pedestrian accommodations (e.g., sidewalks) currently exist, provided on the bridges/underpasses.* At other locations, pedestrian accommodations on evaluated during final design based on the current NCDOT and Virginia pedestrian policconsider the provision of pedestrian accommodations in more populous locations where The SESHR designs also include 12 new pedestrian-only crossings of the rail corridor wincreased pedestrian access. The locations of these pedestrian crossings were determined government representatives and in response to comments from the public on the Tier II Dpedestrian accommodations will be considered as they are received and added to the fina* Section 4.16 of the Tier II DEIS mistakenly stated that all bridge designs would includaccess. While pedestrians will be able to cross at all bridges, the inclusion of sidewalks wand Virginia pedestrian policy at the time the Richmond to Raleigh Project is constructed

B_SC2 Question regarding why the SEHSR corridor 

has been designed to be completely gradeseparated rather than retaining some existing at-grade crossings using improved signal systems with longer crossing gates. 

The overarching philosophy of the design of the Richmond to Raleigh Project, is to consrailroad-roadway crossings for the primary purpose of ensuring both rail and roadway sahave risk of train-automobile collisions. A collision at a crossing on a higher speed track a death in the vehicle and in the case of larger, heavier trucks, the possible derailment of Chapter 2 of the Tier II DEIS provides a description of reasons for closing at-grade crosselimination of railroad/roadway traffic issues; elimination of possible system failure; elimof easy trespasser access; improved long term cost of maintenance; allows for future spegrade crossings fail to meet one of the purposes of the Richmond to Raleigh Project, whioperability of the transportation system within the travel corridor. 

B_SC3 Concern expressed about impacts to traffic 

and safety resulting from proposed closure of existing at-grade crossings at College Street and Hawkins Street in Franklinton, NC (Section S). 

Section 4.14.2.8.2 of the Tier II DEIS provided information on traffic analysis for this arroadwork designs. The analysis showed that all intersection movements will operate with project. In response to public comments, there have been some modifications to proposehowever, those changes are not anticipated to have a substantial impact on traffic along Hnew designs are discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. Note that in addition to the improvement Street (one block north of College Street), and the new bridge over the railroad at Cedar pedestrian-only underpasses are proposed for College Street, Hawkins Street, and Mason 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC4 Concerned about the effect that the SEHSR 

designs will have on emergency response times in Franklinton, NC (Section S). 

EMS response times for the Franklinton Fire Department were modeled in the Tier II DETown of Franklinton in Franklin County, NC, straddles the active CSX S-line about 30 mFranklinton Fire Department facility is very near and to the west of the existing rail ROWaffect several crossings that are proposed for consolidation, and approximately three roaChanges in access could affect response time and coverage to the east of the corridor. Hoin the five-minute response area between the No Build and Build (with SEHSR) scenarioProject, the total area covered is 97 percent of the No Build coverage area; thus, there is EMS service area for Franklinton with or without the Project. 

B_SC5 Concern expressed that adding rerouted 

traffic to Green Street in Franklinton, NC, will present a danger to residents (Section S). 

The designs for Green Street meet the American Association of State Highway and TranFederally adopted design standards. The existing underpass at Green Street is proposed thorizontal clearance, creating safer access across the railroad for motorists, pedestrians adesigns for Green Street in the downtown area call for the construction of curb and guttepedestrians and bicyclists. 

B_SC6 Expression of opposition to the closure of 

the Wolfpack Lane at-grade crossing in Raleigh, NC, and/or a request for a pedestrian/bicycle overpass or another transportation connection in this vicinity (Section V). 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS from local officials and the public, a bridge Wolfpack Lane. The design was coordinated with City of Raleigh staff, and the public walternative at an update meeting on May 15, 2012. The design which accommodates vehtraffic was favorably received, and has been added to the Tier II FEIS. The new designs Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map B

B_SC7 General concern about impacts to 

police/fire/emergency service providers; concern that proposed closure of at-grade crossings will result in slower response times for emergency services. General concern about inconvenience of having to travel additional distance because of inability to cross the tracks at grade. 

The inconvenience posed by consolidation of crossings is balanced by the benefit of havcrossings that allow continued, unimpeded access to and from both sides of the rail line. experience several minutes of delay while stopped at at-grade crossings to allow a train tcan cause further delays as it must accelerate very slowly near crossings to avoid occupydown. Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS provided a discussion of the effect that closincrossings and consolidating access would have on police, fire and emergency services alTier II FEIS provides information about changes in impacts resulting from modifications the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC9 Expression of opposition to the proposed 

closure of the Old Lane at-grade crossing in Chester, VA, and/or concerned about ease of entry onto Chester Road from Hopkins Road (Section BB). 

The Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, Richmond to Raleigh Project has been designed to (through bridges or underpasses) all railroad-roadway crossings. A grade separation in thbe provided due to several design constraints, most notably the location of the rail interlobetween the CSX A-line and S-line; therefore, the Project proposes to close the existing traffic analysis for this area was conducted following the Tier II DEIS, which indicated a accommodations such as turn lanes for the Hopkins Road and Centralia Road intersectiobeen revised to include these accommodations. These design revision were shown at a P26, 2013, 2012 in Chesterfield, VA. Refer to Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS for informatiodiscussion about the traffic analysis. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of th
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC10 Expression of concern about impacts to local 

traffic in the downtown Raleigh, NC, area near Five Points, Roanoke Park, Fairview Road, and the Norfolk Southern rail yard under Alternative NC3 (Section V). 

The preferred alternative in this section (Section V) is Alternative NC5, which was devereceived from the public and from local officials. Under NC5, the existing road network Fairview Road and the NS Yard area will remain unchanged. The new alternative is discFEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map Book A

B_SC11 Concern expressed about an increase in 

traffic on Fleming Road/Nassau Street in Youngsville, NC, resulting from the DEIS designs utilizing Nassau Street as a detour for Highway NC-96 Hwy during construction of Main Street bridge over the railroad (Section T). 

In response to comments from individuals and from local officials, the roadwork for Youthe Tier II DEIS has been redesigned. The new designs utilize Cross Street as a connectiNassau Street, during the construction of the Main Street bridge over the railroad. The neChapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be fothe Tier II FEIS. Based on these new designs, and the fact that Cross Street will be signesubstantial increase in traffic on Nassau Street or Fleming Road northward is anticipated Richmond to Raleigh Project. 

B_SC12 Concern about traffic delays during 

construction, including questions regarding how traffic will be maintained on-site throughout construction. 

In some locations, traffic will be maintained on-site during a staged construction processdetour will be used. Refer to Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS for information regarding plantraffic for specific locations during construction of the Project. 

B_SC13 General concern about impacts to traffic in 

Chesterfield County, VA, including questions about whether or not traffic analysis was conducted for this area (Sections AA, BB, CC). 

Chapter 3 of the Tier II DEIS contains information about existing traffic in the ChesterfiII DEIS provides an overview of the traffic analysis that was conducted for the area. In rindividuals and from local officials, changes were made to some of the roadwork that waChesterfield County, and additional traffic studies were conducted. The revised designs wwith the County. The results of the additional traffic analysis are contained in Chapter 4 

B_SC14 Statement of opinion regarding crossing 

closures and grade-separated crossings (bridges and underpasses), and/or support for closing crossings. 

Comment noted. 

B_SC15 Concern about the effect that the SEHSR 

designs will have on emergency response times in Youngsville, NC (Section T). 

Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS provided a discussion of the effect that closing existconsolidating access would have on police, fire and emergency services. A service area afacilities along the corridor that are representative of worst-case changes; Youngsville wanalysis showed that there is no negative impact to the EMS service response area for thin Franklin County under the Project designs and there are actual improvements in respo

B_SC16 Concern about the effect that the SEHSR 

designs will have on emergency response times in Henderson, NC (Section P). 

Section 4.11.3.3 of the Tier II DEIS provides a discussion of the effect that closing existconsolidating access would have on police, fire and emergency services. A service area afacilities along the corridor that are representative of worst-case changes; Vance County Henderson was one of the seven analyzed. The analysis showed that with the Project desminute response time is 93 percent of the No Build Coverage area, thus there is very littlresponse area between a No Build and the designs for the Richmond to Raleigh Project BDEIS. In response to comments following publication of the Tier II DEIS, modifications proposed roadwork designs in Henderson. Another service area analysis was conducted troadwork. The analysis revealed no substantial difference in a 5 minute response time codesigns. Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS contains additional discussion on this topic. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC17 Concern about slowed emergency response 

times to property located between Henderson, NC, and Kittrell, NC, resulting from the closure of the private rail crossing near rail milepost S-119.5 (Section Q). 

The nearest proposed grade separated crossing is located approximately 1/2 mile south ois proposed to be closed. No substantial increase in emergency response time is anticipat

B_SC18 Concern about emergency access to a 

property that is separated from US-1 by the existing railroad corridor in Middleburg, NC (Section O). 

The preferred alternative in this area (Section O) is Alternative NC3. In Middleburg, NCalignment east of town. Access from US-1 across the existing CSX ROW is unaffected bNC3 designs. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC19 Request to maintain access across the 

railroad at Elm Avenue in downtown Wake Forest, NC, for the sake of local businesses and/or emergency responders who are located on the east side of the railroad (Section U). 

In response to comments received from the public and local officials regarding the closuTier II DEIS, a road underpass was subsequently designed that would allow Elm Avenue presented at a Project Update Meeting on May 15, 2012. The response from both the pubofficials was that the impacts resulting from the design were too severe. These impacts inbusinesses on Elm Avenue and impacts to several properties along White Street, includinBased on further coordination with the Town of Wake Forest and correspondence dated the most appropriate design for Elm Avenue would be to close the crossing to vehicular vehicular accessibility with a staircase-only pedestrian bridge to minimize impacts. The in the same degree of property impacts as the vehicular underpass; however, it would simRailroad Street (which is located within the existing, active CSX railroad ROW). In ordethe properties along Railroad Street, the new access road shown at the Project Update Mwould result in the potential relocation of one business, as well as property impacts to thproperties. Several alternative designs for this access road were reviewed in coordination Historic Preservation Office and the design presented in the Tier II FEIS was determined Forest Historic District. 

B_SC20 General question regarding where fencing 

will be used, and how it will be used in conjunction with bridges and overpasses, and/or concern that fencing will inhibit pedestrian movement across the railroad. 

It is important to note that it is unsafe for pedestrians to cross the railroad (either existing locations that are not legal crossings; note that it is also considered trespassing. Howeversafely across the HSR corridor is an important design criterion of the Richmond to Raleialong the corridor, fencing may be used to direct pedestrians to bridges/underpasses that accommodate pedestrian access. Specific locations for fencing will be determined later dwith the owner of the railroad, the operator of the railroad, and local governments. Refer for additional information. 

B_SC21 Question regarding whether or not the 

SEHSR designs provide a pedestrian bridge near the Ettrick Community Recreational Park in Ettrick, VA, to accommodate the residents of the College Park subdivision who currently use a shortcut across the tracks (near the existing train station). Request that if a pedestrian bridge is included at this location, that it also span Laurel Road (Section CC). 

A pedestrian crossing was studied for the area between Dupuy Road north of the park, anRoad to the south, where no legal crossing currently exists. Due to the fact that there is npublic ROW exists on both sides of the railroad (which would allow public access), it wapedestrian crossing in this area. This project calls for the existing Chesterfield Avenue/Rsidewalks) located approximately 0.18 miles to the south to be retained, and for a bridge miles to the north at Dupuy Road with sufficient width so as not to create a hazard for pepedestrian accommodations on bridges/underpasses will be evaluated during final design pedestrian policies. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC22 Request that a crossing at Chavasse Avenue 

in Henderson, NC, be maintained (Section P). 

The project has been designed to be completely grade-separated. Multiple designs for wehowever, due to constructability issues related to existing grades, it was not possible to pChavasse Avenue while maintaining the existing side street intersections. Cutting off thenetwork in the town to such a degree as to render the option imprudent. However, to faciconnectivity in this area, a new bridge over the railroad is proposed approximately 0.35 mAlexander Avenue. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC23 Concern expressed about impacts to 

Williams Street in Henderson, NC, and/or a request to maintain this street as a north/south corridor through town on the east side of the railroad tracks (Section P). 

In response to comments from the public and from officials with the City of Henderson, made to the proposed roadwork designs that were shown in the Tier II DEIS. The new deNicholas Street corridor from Lowery Street on the northern end, through an intersection at the southern end of the city. The new designs are discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEI

B_SC25 Expression of opposition to the potential loss 

of east/west pedestrian and vehicular connectivity at Mason Street in downtown Franklinton, NC, that would result from the proposed crossing closure (Section S). 

The DEIS proposed a pedestrian bridge at Mason Street to maintain pedestrian connectivconcepts were developed for a vehicular bridge or underpass at Mason Street both before DEIS and afterwards. Designs in this location are constrained by the Franklinton HistoriRegister of Historic Places), existing development, and the surrounding topography. Refmore information about the protections provided to eligible resources by Section 106 of Act of 1966. In consideration of current and projected traffic volumes, and the location oapproximately 0.7-mile north of Mason Street (proposed) and 0.15-mile south of Mason Street), it was determined that the impacts associated with a vehicular bridge or underpaunacceptable from a Section 106 perspective, provided that intersection improvements acould accommodate the increased traffic and that a newly developed pedestrian underpadesigns. A subsequent analysis verified that intersection improvements can accommodatpedestrian underpass at Mason Street incorporating both ramps and steps have been includesigns are discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in CMap Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC26 Concern about the impact to school bus 

routes in Franklinton, NC (Section S). 

Although school bus routes were not specifically analyzed, Section 4.14.2.8.2 of the Tier the traffic in this area resulting from the proposed roadwork designs. The analysis shows intersection movements will operate with a stable flow under the proposed project. In reshave been some modifications to proposed roadwork in Franklinton. The changes were iconducted for the Tier II FEIS. The results show that the changes were not found to have flow through the town. The new designs are discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS aChapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC27 Request for an additional pedestrian crossing 

within the Town of Youngsville, NC (Section T). 

In coordination with local officials, an additional pedestrian crossing has been added to tPine Street pedestrian bridge over the railroad has been included in the Tier II FEIS. The Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. A map can be fof the Tier II FEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC30 Question regarding the placement of the 

proposed underpass in La Crosse, VA, along with concern that it will be difficult for the fire department on the east side of the railroad to respond to calls on the west side (Section I). 

Emergency response times are not expected to be substantially altered in La Crosse, VA4.11.3.3 for additional discussion regarding analysis of emergency response times. This Section 4.11.5.2.5 of the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC31 Question regarding the placement of the 

proposed underpass in La Crosse, VA, along with concern that it will difficult for citizens to move from one side of town to the other (Section I). 

In the Town of La Crosse, there are several design constraints that limit the locations whlocated within the town limits while preserving the downtown core. These constraints inarea in relation to the grade of the railroad; historic resource boundaries; compact develostation platform; and the orientation of Main Street, which crosses the railroad at a severpresented in the Tier II DEIS were the result of an iterative design process developed thrthe Town of La Crosse, with a goal of preserving connectivity across the railroad. The Rshown in the Tier II DEIS provided for a bridge and an underpass half a mile apart withiare less than one mile across), as well as a pedestrian/bicycle underpass in the center of tTrail. Based on ongoing discussions with the Town, the Project Team attempted to proviin the center of Town; however, the impacts to adjacent properties were deemed too grea

B_SC32 Concern about impacts in downtown 

Raleigh, NC, associated with alternatives NC1, NC2 and NC3, including potential effect that crossing closures will have on vehicular and pedestrian access across the railroad; the impact on emergency services; and/or visual impacts of a vehicular bridge on Jones Street (Section V). 

The preferred alternative in Section V is Alternative NC5, which was developed in respothe public and from local officials. Alternative NC5 preserves the existing vehicular and Richmond to Raleigh Project rail alignment through the downtown area except for the Jopedestrian bridge would be constructed, and the Hargett Street crossing, which would be discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. MAppendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

B_SC33 Concern that fencing will prevent pedestrian 

access across the railroad in Norlina, NC (Section M). 

In downtown Norlina, the existing US-158 underpass includes a partial shoulder sectionwould rebuild the facility with curb and gutter and widened sufficiently to avoid creating movement. Specific pedestrian accommodations for the underpass will be evaluated duricurrent NCDOT pedestrian policies. 

B_SC34 Request for the NCDOT to immediately 

close the Beachtree Trail at-grade crossing of the railroad corridor just south of Kittrell, NC, as presented in the DEIS (Section Q). 

Although the Richmond to Raleigh Project would not close this crossing until sometime Division has a process regarding requests for crossing closures. A request can be made to internally (from within NCDOT), from the railroad, municipality or private citizens. Oncassigned, an NCDOT Rail Division engineer will run a preliminary review to make sure closure. After that a field investigation with the Division office and railroad is held. If threcommendation for closure, a public workshop is held. After the public comment period Committee (TRC) meeting is held and the subsequent recommendation is taken to the N(BOT). After BOT approval, the NCDOT Rail Division would enter into an agreement wcrossing, and identify funding if available. Once funding is secured the NCDOT Rail Divappropriate level of environmental documentation, develop the design, and then set up cwith the closure and any identified mitigation projects. Contact the NCDOT Rail Divisio1553 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 to submit a formal request for closu
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC35 Expression of concern that the closing of atgrade crossings will result in an increase in 

fuel use and an increase in the production of pollutants and greenhouse gasses. 

The consolidation of rail crossings throughout the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor automobiles travel an additional distance to reach a grade-separated crossing. However, travel less, depending upon the origin and destination of the trip. Any additional distance nearest bridge or underpass is typically less than one mile. The anticipated CO emissions distance are likely to be offset by the removal of the vehicle idling that currently occurs crossings. As an example, a vehicle idling for one minute as a train crosses an at-grade capproximately 70 grams of CO (based on USEPA’s CAL3QHC idle emission factors). Wmiles out of its way to use a grade-separated crossing (one mile in each direction – a congenerate approximately 16 grams of CO (based on USEPA’s MOBILE factors for vehiclAlthough many factors can affect vehicle emissions of CO, the benefit of removing vehiincrease in CO emissions due to additional vehicle miles traveled. 

B_SC36 Concern about the effect that the SEHSR 

designs will have on emergency response times in the area north of Highway 288 in Chesterfield County, VA (Section AA). 

The Chesterfield County Fire Station 17, located at the intersection of Chester Road and improved (direct) access across the railroad through construction of the proposed Park Rshould improve emergency response. A map of the design is shown in the Map Book Ap

B_SC37 Request to retain the existing at-grade 

crossing at Centralia Road in Chester, VA (Section BB). 

No at-grade crossings will be retained under this Project. The overarching philosophy of Raleigh Project is to consolidate and grade separate all railroad-roadway crossings for thrail and roadway safety. Chapter 2 of the Tier II DEIS provides a description of reasons absolute collision avoidance; elimination of railroad/roadway traffic issues; elimination oelimination of horn noise; elimination of easy trespasser access; improved long term cosspeed increases. 

B_SC38 Request that Brookston Road in Henderson, 

NC, be left open for traffic to accommodate existing use as a cut through road for residents of the county (Section O). 

Brookston Road is proposed to remain open, and has been designed to cross over the rail

B_SC39 Concern about the effect that the SEHSR 

designs will have on emergency response times in Ridgeway, NC (Section N). 

The DEIS designs included a grade separation at Ridgeway Warrenton Road, approximanorth of the Ridgeway Volunteer Fire Department (VFD), in keeping with the County thTier II DEIS, coordination with Warren County Fire and EMS representatives led to devbridge over the railroad located closer to the Ridgway VFD, to replace the design at RidgWarren County thoroughfare plan was modified, with planned routing that include a gradChapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS contains a discussion of the GIS analysis of the 5-minute renew design. The results indicate some difference between the overall EMS service area Department under the Preferred Alternative compared to a No Build scenario. Howeverthan the difference for the designs in the Tier II DEIS. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

B_SC40 Concern expressed that NCDOT and/or 

DRPT have plans to close all or a number of at-grade crossings in advance of project approval or funding. 

NCDOT and DRPT do not plan to close crossings proposed by this Project in advance oHowever, both NCDOT and DRPT have existing policies that provide a process (outside to Raleigh Project) for evaluation of crossings when requests are made for closure based Requests for individual rail crossing closures within the Richmond to Raleigh Project stuto project construction under the existing policies. Separate from this Project, in 2010 NCSeparation Study for Henderson, NC where there is existing freight railroad service. The crossings and was conducted in coordination with the City. The recommendations includseveral crossing closures that are also proposed to be closed under the Richmond to RaleProject is on hold pending funding availability. Implementation of the recommendations will include additional coordination with the City, and will follow NCDOT policy for pu

B_SC42 Request to retain a crossing at Woods Edge 

Road in Chesterfield County, VA (Section BB). 

In response to numerous comments received from the public and local officials indicatinconnectivity across the railroad, and additional analysis of traffic data, a bridge over the Edge Road. The proposed bridge at Pine Forest Drive to the south will also be retained; hWalthall Industrial Parkway has been removed from the designs. The revised impacts asare discussed in Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS and maps can be found in the Map Book A

B_SC43 Concern that providing only one road 

crossing of the rail corridor in Norlina (US401/158) is not enough to support the traffic and/or that another crossing is needed at Division Street. Recommendation to connect Warren Plains or Yancey Road to Hyco Street. 

As stated in Section 4.14.4.2 of the Tier II DEIS, traffic currently using the Division Strein the grid network to access US-401/158 and reach its intended destination. The traffic of the east leg of the intersection of Liberty Street and US-401/158 would route traffic to back to Main Street. The closure of the east and west legs of the intersection of Hyco Strto route traffic back to US-1 to reach its desired destination. With the closure of the crosadditional changes to the above intersections, the intersection of Main Street and US-401effects of the proposed traffic rerouting and design in the 2030 design year. With the Ricanticipated to be a marked improvement in the level of service (LOS) for the northbound which carry the greatest volume through the intersection. Eastbound and westbound apprincrease in delay (i.e., the time it takes a driver to complete his/her movement through threduced LOS. However, it is important to note that the number of cars waiting in line at small (i.e., one or two cars). 

Code C – Comments Related to Natural Resources (e.g., Streams, Wetlands, Air Quality) 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

C_SC1 Concerns about wildlife encroachment on 

the rail corridor. 

The area immediately adjacent to the rail line will be cleared and maintained. This shoulwildlife foraging within the rail corridor. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

C_SC2 Concerns about airborne asbestos caused by 

vibration in Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

As stated in Section 3.7.1 of the Tier II DEIS, the maximum vibration from HSR would decibels (VdB) at a distance of 50 feet. According to FRA (1988), the vibration amount damage to fragile buildings is 100 VdB. The preferred alternative in Raleigh (NC5), is gresidential areas, minimizing the potential for the SEHSR Corridor passenger trains to cacases, existing freight trains will be closer to residential areas than the proposed SEHSR USEPA Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings (USEPA, potential to release asbestos, the asbestos must be exposed, accessible, and near movemeIt is unlikely that the preferred alternative would increase asbestos releases in downtown 

C_SC3 Concerns about diesel emissions. Emissions from the proposed diesel trains have been included in the air quality analysis f

4.6.1). The predicted annual emissions are well below the de minimis levels established iaction or mitigation is required 

C_SC4 Concerns about wildlife habitat impacts Impacts to natural terrestrial communities have been minimized to the extent possible thr

that include the lowest acreages of mixed forested habitats for each section of the ProjecFEIS). 

C_SC5 Concerned about potential wetland impacts. Measures will be taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable 

Tier II FEIS. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and perennial streambed or important intfrom activities authorized under an individual permit from the USACE require compensarequirements for Virginia and North Carolina are discussed in the Tier II FEIS in Section 

C_SC6 Concerns about wildlife impacts of 

Alternative NC2 in Section S (Franklinton/Youngsville areas). 

For Section S, Alternative NC1 was selected to minimize impacts to natural resources an

C_SC7 Concerns about potential impacts to the 

artesian drinking water well in the Town of McKenney, VA (Section C). 

As a result of requests from the property owner and other Town residents, the Project defurther away from well. 

C_SC8 Assertion that the proposed SESHR service 

would have positive effects on the environment by removing vehicles from the road. 

Comment noted. 

C_SC9 Concerns about stormwater impacts to water 

quality. 

The addition of new paved surfaces and railroad tracks has the potential to affect water qwould implement, to the extent practicable, procedures to limit stormwater impacts to wdirect surface water impacts; avoidance of stormwater discharges into public water suppmanagement practices (Tier II DEIS Section 4.1.1.3 and Tier II FEIS Section 4.1.1.3). 

C_SC10 Concerned about impacts to Neuse River 

Basin water quality. 

Streamside riparian zones within the Neuse River Basin in North Carolina are protected River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules administered by the North Carolina Division of Wateprotect two riparian zones: Zone 1 extends 30 feet from stream bank and Zone 2 extends bank (Tier II DEIS Section 4.1.1.2 and Tier II FEIS Section 4.1.1.2). Where these rules afor impacts to riparian buffers at each stream crossing. Mitigation requirements will be c

C_SC11 Concerned about overall impacts to natural 

resources. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will make all efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to possible through the final design process and coordination with Federal and state natural 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

C_SC12 Statement that the corridor should provide 

access to natural resources (i.e., wildlife can cross). 

Comment noted. 

C_SC13 Concerns that the NC2 alternative in Section 

S would have greater negative air quality impacts to area (Franklinton/Youngsville) residents. 

For Section S, Alternative NC1 is the preferred alternative. It should be noted that emisstrains have been included in the air quality modeling for the Project (DEIS section 4.6.1)for the entire project (all alternatives) are well below the de minimis levels established in 

C_SC14 Concerns about stream impacts. Measures will be taken to avoid and minimize stream impacts to the extent practicable a

II FEIS. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and perennial streambed or important intermiactivities authorized under an individual permit from the USACE require compensatory requirements for Virginia and North Carolina are discussed in the Tier II FEIS in Section 

C_SC15 Concerns about wetland impacts in the area 

of Chester, VA, in Section BB. 

In the Tier II DEIS, it was estimated that there would be 4.88 acres of wetlands impacted taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable as outlined in SecImpacts to jurisdictional wetlands and perennial streambed or important intermittent streauthorized under an individual permit from the USACE require compensatory mitigationVirginia and North Carolina are discussed in the Tier II FEIS in Section 4.1.6. 

C_SC16 Concerns about stream and natural spring 

impacts and flooding between Green Street and Bullock Street in Franklinton, NC, if Tanyard Street is extended (Section S). 

In response to comments received from the public, the proposed improvements to Tanyahave been removed from the Project designs (i.e., no changes proposed for existing Tanynorth-south connection between East Green Street and East College Street has been movboundary of the Sterling Mill historic resource. This design includes removal of pavemeStreet. The revised impacts associated with these design changes are shown in Chapter 4 be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

C_SC17 Assertion that estimated stream impacts for 

Alternatives NC1/NC3 and Alternative NC2 in the area near Bert Winston Rd in Youngsville, NC, are incorrect; proposed corrected impacts provided (Section S). 

The stream impact numbers presented in the Tier II DEIS were correct based on coordinEngineers (USACE), who reviewed and approved the stream and wetland delineations foAction ID 200421016). The jurisdictional determination from the USACE is included in Updated stream impacts are shown in Section 4.11.1.1 of the Tier II FEIS. 

C_SC18 Concerned about potential impacts to four 

trees in excess of 240 years old on the Cooke Property, which would be impacted by the proposed Ligon Mill Road railroad bridge in Wake Forest, NC (Section U). 

Numerous alternative designs have been evaluated at this location in an effort to reduce pthe railroad and road. However, the designs are constrained by the curvature of the road the railroad. During final design, attempts will be made to avoid and minimize impacts t

C_SC19 Assertion that SEHSR could have a positive 

impact on local air quality. 

As stated in Section 4.6.1 of the Tier II DEIS, "From an air quality perspective, the additwould likely result in a regional efficiency improvement as a result of freight providers sto intermodal and freight rail. Quantification of the reductions and re-routing of truck hathe scope of this Project. The intermodal and freight trains are not considered to be inducrepresent an improved and more efficient transfer from other fuel-consumption sources." 

C_SC20 Statement about the importance of 

maintaining natural habitat and open spaces.

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

C_SC21 Concerns about environmental impacts 

associated with Alternative NC3 in Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

The preferred alternative for Section V is NC5, which would have fewer linear feet of strNC3) and would place the proposed railway further from several residential areas compathrough downtown Raleigh. 

C_SC22 Concerns that SEHSR trains would increase 

idling of freight trains in downtown Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

None of the alternatives through downtown Raleigh would cause substantial increases in 

C_SC23 Concerns about heat pollution in downtown 

Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

Heat pollution is not anticipated to be an impact associated with the Richmond to Raleig

C_SC24 Concerns about the proposed designs 

resulting in an increase in flooding. 

Potential impacts to floodplains and floodways were evaluated in Section 4.1.3 of the Tiwill be re-examined once the final designs have been completed, when detailed survey-lincludes designing proposed floodplain crossings to minimize or eliminate an increase in Mitigation measures include right angle crossings and typical section reductions. The Ricoordinate with FEMA and local authorities in the final design to ensure compliance witmanagement ordinances. Also, the agency review and permitting process will require thastate floodplain development guidelines. 

C_SC25 Concern that the project's reliance on fossil 

(diesel) fuels is not energy efficient or sustainable. 

The ROD for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS established that the SEHSR Corridor woulpowered trains. Refer to Chapter 2 of the SEHSR Corridor Tier I DEIS for background othat the designs for the R covered by this Tier II document will accommodate future elecis not covered under this environmental document process. 

C_SC26 Request that more analysis should be 

completed regarding the potential benefits of this project to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use. 

The relevant Federal guidelines for assessing air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissioused in preparing the Tier II FEIS. Benefits to air quality and energy consumption are a process regarding the implementation of HSR service, and efforts to quantity the benefitnumber of assumptions (e.g., modal split, origin and destination of travelers, load factor options if train were not taken). An expanded discussion of greenhouse gas emissions caTier II FEIS. 

C_SC27 Statement that if the SEHSR project crosses 

Lake Gaston at the location of the existing railroad easement, Dominion Power would not need to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). If it does not, a formal FERC filing must be initiated. 

The Project designs cross Lake Gaston on the existing railroad corridor. 

C_SC28 Request for additional data and analysis of 

air quality impacts, including steps to reduce adverse air quality impacts (cleaner engines, electrification, requirements on contractors, etc.). 

All relevant Federal guidelines for assessing air quality impacts have been followed. Mitimpacts" is not required because the air quality analysis did not identify violation of air qthe system is beyond the scope of this Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

C_SC29 Preference for restoration, enhancement, and 

creation as opposed to "less desirable" inlieu fees and mitigation banks; once alignments are selected, FEIS should indicate specific mitigation to be used and seek to locate it within same watershed. 

Specific mitigation cannot be described in the Tier II FEIS as it will be determined in coCorps of Engineers and state water quality agencies during the permitting stage of the Prdocuments the availability of existing mitigation assets and the potential for permittee-re4.1. 

C_SC30 Request that the FEIS should specifically set 

out the methods to be used to ensure enforcement of erosion and sediment control measures. In Virginia, the FEIS should state how the SEHSR will avoid falling into the "repair" and "rebuilding" categories which provide for exceptions to the rules. 

The requirements for sediment and erosion control, National Pollutant Discharge Eliminstormwater permits should provide adequate protection from erosion and sedimentation. oversight by a state agency whose responsibility is to ensure the enforcement of the requconstruction funding, it is not possible to identify what agency or organization will be coit is not appropriate to specify specific measures that be undertaken to ensure enforcememeasures during project construction. While the regulatory exception cited may apply to repair or rebuilding of railroad infrastructure, the bulk of the Richmond to Raleigh Projewould be associated with roadway changes due to the relocation and/or consolidation of roadway changes and improvements associated with the Project would fall under the juribe exempt from the aforementioned land-disturbing activity requirements set forth in the regulations. VDOT would still be required to construct all roadway improvements in accof the VDEQ’s Virginia E&S Control Handbook and VDOT’s Annual Erosion and SediManagement Standards and Specifications, as approved by VDCR. 

Code D – Comments Related to Historic Resources (e.g., Historic Districts, Historic Homes, Battlefields) 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

D_SC1 Question of whether the project properly 

complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic resources that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP. 

Yes. The Richmond to Raleigh Project EIS identifies all historic resources within its area included in or eligible for the NRHP, and assesses the effects of the Project on these resoVirginia Department of Historic Resources, North Carolina State Historic Preservation OAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation has been ongoing throughout the Project. A Sdeveloped with these agencies and other consulting parties to minimize and mitigate for resources. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

D_SC2 Assertion that the following properties 

should be recognized as historic, but were not identified as such in the DEIS: (1) Bishop property (old Burgess A train station) in Dinwiddie County, VA; (2) Harry Blacknall house/Old Dutch Inn (southeast corner of US-1 & Kittrell College Rd) in Kittrell, VA; (3) Heartsfield House on Ligon Mill Rd in Wake Forest, NC; (4) City Road United Methodist Church (903 N Garnett Street) in Henderson, NC; (5) family cemetery at 15920 Keelers Mill Road in Dewitt, VA; (6) Weldon family home site on Weldon Road north of Norlina, NC; (7) Homes located south of Ruffin Road directly east of the Davee Gardens Historic District. Request to verify whether they are eligible for the NRHP and afforded Section 106 protections. 

These seven properties have been verified as not meeting the criteria for the National ReThose wanting specific documentation regarding the evaluation of their property can conProject’s toll-free hotline: (877) 749-7245. It should be noted that cemeteries are not ordinclusion in the NRHP unless they are contributing elements of eligible properties or mereferred to as "Criteria Considerations," such as a birthplace or grave of a historical figurthere is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life. 

D_SC3 Expressions of concern about impacts to the 

c. 1803 Hartsfield House at 9737 Ligon Mill Road in Wake Forest, NC, and questions about whether it was incorrectly assessed as not being eligible for the NRHP. Statement that Capital Area Preservation will submit additional materials to NC-HPO and NCDOT in support of the property's eligibility. 

NC-HPO and NCDOT reviewed the original Section 106 eligibility (Phase II) survey for recommend altering its NRHP eligibility determination based on the information it contain Capital Area Preservation's letter have not been received. NC-HPO and NCDOT awaiwill review it upon submittal. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be required to addresNorth Carolina statutes based on its designation as a local landmark. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

D_SC4 Request to avoid or minimize impacts to 

historic resources, in particular noise and vibration and visual intrusions (e.g., fences).

All efforts will be made to avoid and minimize impacts to historic resources along the Proutline agreed-upon measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the advehistoric resources. The MOA will likely include specifications for fencing, bridges, and ovibration mitigation will be assessed for all impacted areas along the Project per the FRA

D_SC5 Assertion that the NC3 alternative in 

downtown Raleigh, NC, would impact the Glenwood-Brooklyn and/or Roanoke Park historic districts (part of the Five Points neighborhood), including vibration damage to its historic terra cotta sewer pipes and historic plaster walls, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and relocation of local businesses. 

The preferred alternative in Section V is Alternative NC5, which was developed in respothe public and local officials. The NC5 alternative addresses these concerns expressed by neighborhood. Alternative NC5 was presented at a Public Update Meeting on September Development of the new alternative is discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and infimpacts is found in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tie

D_SC6 Assertion that the alternative through 

downtown Petersburg, VA, which was considered but not carried forward, would have enhanced the Petersburg historic district. 

An alternative that would serve old Union Station in downtown Petersburg, VA, was expFRA. It was excluded from further consideration because of lack of conformity with locaresources, residential and business relocations, travel time, and engineering issues/cost. SDEIS for more information. 

D_SC7 Question of whether the project properly 

complied with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which protects publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges, as well as historic sites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Yes. The Richmond to Raleigh Project Section has fully complied with Section 4(f). For Section 4(f) evaluation (Chapter 5 of the Tier II FEIS). 

D_SC8 Request to not impact the historic 

Butterworth family home (located at the terminus of Glebe Road on Route 1) in DeWitt, VA. 

This property is referred to as the Bowen House in the Tier II DEIS and is eligible for thProject alternatives would add a set of tracks within the existing rail corridor on the west approximately 75 feet west of the western boundary of this resource and over 150 feet frroad system in this area would also be modified by rerouting the corridor to the south of Glebe Road over the rail lines. This new bridge would be just southwest of the Bowen Hthe new structure would be visible from the main house. However, any modifications to by a vegetative screen, distance, and the US-1 corridor. Therefore, it was recommended Project alternatives would have no adverse effect on this resource under Section 106 of tAct of 1966 (NHPA). The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) concurreletter dated November 23, 2009. 

D_SC9 Question of who will maintain the bridges in 

historic areas (such as along Centralia Road in Chesterfield County, VA) when they have graffiti, litter, etc. 

Maintenance of the bridges built as part of the Project would be by the owner of the road VDOT (as in the case of Centralia Road) or the municipal government. In North Carolinalthough there are also local roads maintained by city governments (such as in downtow
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

D_SC10 Question of whether the project has studied 

how other countries have handled impacts to historic sites and other human and natural resources. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project has followed all applicable regulations set forth by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of North Carolina. Regulations and mitigation not considered as part of the Project. 

D_SC11 Request to identify that the Massenburg 

property at 9985 Seawell Drive in Wake Forest, NC, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Also note that the grade crossing of the CSX railroad at the property is a private road predating the railroad at the property is a private road predating the railroad line (prior to the 1840s). 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project mapping now includes the Massenburg property, whicNRHP. It should be noted, however, that the private road to the house was not included wNRHP. Only the listed property is afforded protections under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

D_SC12 Request to not impact the three historic 

properties on Thurston Road in Chesterfield County, VA. 

The historic resource surveys for the Richmond to Raleigh Project identified only one prthe Project Study Area as eligible for the NRHP (House at 3619 Thurston Road). The Ricall for rerouting an extension of Park Road to the southwest of the house. Although the of ROW from the southwest corner of the parcel, the roadwork would not be visible from contributing outbuildings. In a letter dated November 23, 2009, VDHR concurred with thRichmond to Raleigh Project would have "no adverse effect" on this resource. 

D_SC13 Question of how the project will impact the 

property between Defense Road and Kutchen Road in Petersburg, VA, that was a Civil War battlefield. 

A portion of this property was determine eligible for the NRHP and is referred to as the DRichmond to Raleigh Project would require ROW along Defense Road from the Dimmoa second railroad bridge over Defense Road (directly adjacent to the existing railroad briand associated improvements to Defense Road would necessitate large disturbances to a Project Team is coordinating with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and thNational Battlefield to determine ways to minimize the impacts of the Project on the resoRoad and establish mitigation for unavoidable impacts. 

D_SC14 Statement that the DEIS identified a 

property as historic, but it is not listed on the National Register. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) protects all resoufor the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Properties not listed in the NRHP, are afforded the same protections as those listed in it. 

D_SC15 Request to minimize impacts to the National 

Register-listed Honeymoon Hill Farm (referred to in the DEIS as Zehmer Farm). 

Based on coordination with the property owner and VDHR, the Richmond to Raleigh Prto this property have been revised to minimize impacts. 

D_SC16 Assertion that the following historic 

structures in Franklinton, NC (Section S), would be negatively impacted by the SEHSR project: the historic First Baptist Church, Sterling Mill (listed on the National Register), and the Franklinton Depot (listed on the National Register). 

In coordination with NC-HPO, the Richmond to Raleigh Project was determined to have on the First Baptist Church, Sterling Mill, and Franklinton Depot under Section 106 of thimpact the structure of any of these historic resources. A small amount of ROW would band Franklinton Depot properties; none would be required from the First Baptist Church
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

D_SC17 Concern regarding the closure of the atgrade crossings at Elm Avenue and East 

Holding Avenue on the Wake Forest Historic District (Section U). Question whether the concrete CSX railroad overpass at Roosevelt Avenue (mistakenly identified in comment as West Avenue) would have to be replaced and, if so, whether its demolition would be an adverse effect on the district. 

Coordination with NC-HPO determined that the at-grade crossing closures within the Whave "no adverse effect" under Section 106 of the NHPA. However, in response to numelocal officials to maintain access across the railroad at Elm Avenue, a road underpass wawas presented to the public at an update meeting on May 15, 2012, in Raleigh, NC. Basemeeting regarding the impacts of the underpass, as well as input from the Town, it was nFEIS. Rather, a pedestrian-only bridge has been added in this location to improve pedestexisting railroad overpass at Roosevelt Avenue, the Project designs intend to retain it prostructurally sound. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Code E – Comments Related to Construction Costs and/or Economic Benefits of the Project 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

E_SC1 Comments and questions on how the 

SEHSR will compete for profitability compared with other modes of transportation. Comments on the motivation to use HSR when other transportation options, especially cars, are perceived as cheaper, faster, more reliable, etc. 

As discussed in detail in the amended Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS, the proposed HSR wfaster and more reliable than driving. This amended section also shows results of a recenincluding how many riders are attracted from other transportation modes, as well as addisupports the need for the SEHSR for the entire Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, corridsystem is a mixture of both private and public investment in infrastructure (roadways, raoperations (vehicles, aircraft, vessels, etc.) that provide modal alternatives and options fotransportation are subsidized (i.e., use tax funds) to some degree, and none are expected 

E_SC2 Comments that there are not enough benefits 

of the project compared to costs and impacts; that the project is not economically justified. 

As discussed in an amended/expanded Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS, there have been sevprepared for the SEHSR Corridor, including one for the entire national HSR system (whone segment) prepared in 1997, as well as a detailed feasibility study specifically for the NC, SEHSR corridor completed in 1999 (http://www.sehsr.org/reports/feasibility/defaulthe benefits of the Project (http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html). These studies have repeatand intangible benefits of the Project (to rail users as well as the public at large) exceed irevenues greater than annual operating costs and substantial positive economic, environm

E_SC3 Questions and comments on the perceived 

greater value of pursuing less costly and incremental railroad improvement projects instead of this project. 

The purpose of this Project is to create a new high speed passenger rail facility as part of defined in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS (http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html), as well a(http://www.sehsr.org/deis/sehsr_deis_download_files.html). The amended/expanded Chexpands on the Project's purpose, including a summary of Federal policies and programs intermodal transportation network since 1965. The Project's purpose does not include adimprovement needs that are outside of those needed for the Project. As summarized in SII DEIS, both Virginia and North Carolina have been implementing ongoing railroad impaddress various railroad operation and safety needs, including reducing congestion for exoperations. To review or comment on ongoing railroad programs and projects, please visNCDOT Rail Division (http://www.bytrain.org/) and Virginia DRPT (http://www.drpt.vaddition, it should be noted that the improvements presented in this Tier II FEIS could bavailability of project funding. 

E_SC4 Questions and comments on the high speed 

rail jobs created by the project or others along the rail line. Questions and comments on who is going to have preference for those jobs. Comments recommending preference be given to those affected by the project 

As discussed in an amended/expanded Purpose and Need section of the Tier II FEIS (Chanalyses prepared in 1997 for the entire national HSR system (which the SEHSR Corridthe substantial long term economic benefits from development of the Project, including: construction and operation; induced development of office, retail, hotel and higher densistations; and, increased manufacturing jobs in the rail passenger transportation industry, manufacturers. Many of these jobs will likely be in the vicinity of the rail alignment. Mothe private sector. There is no plan for the government to require private companies or ancontracting or hiring requirements or preferences for these spin-off jobs. Where public fuof the Project, however, all applicable hiring laws and policies will apply. Existing Federhiring of illegal workers and conflicts of interests by contractors are illegal. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

E_SC5 Comments or questions related to the cost of 

the project being too expensive and how much money the United States has or should spend on this project. Comments included suggesting funding the project is wasteful, putting too great a burden on taxpayers, 

As discussed in an amended/expanded FEIS Chapter 1, there have been several detailed the Richmond to Raleigh Project. These studies have repeatedly concluded that the tangiProject (to rail users as well as the public at large) exceed its costs, including projected roperating costs and substantial positive economic and fiscal impacts. An expanded Chapindicates that Congressional interest and funding for developing HSR in the US dates baWashington, DC to Charlotte, NC corridor is one of five key corridors in the overall natifastest growing corridors in the nation, with ridership doubling in the last year. 

E_SC6 Comments or questions about the harm the 

project would inflict on the economy, including statements that it would not create jobs, not bring in revenue, would increase costs to localities, etc. 

As discussed in an amended/expanded Purpose and Need section of the Tier II FEIS (Chdetailed cost/benefit analyses prepared for the SEHSR Corridor, including one for the enwhich the SEHSR Corridor is only one segment) prepared in 1997, as well as a detailed Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC SEHSR Corridor completed in 1999, as well as other benefits of the Richmond to Raleigh Project. These studies have repeatedly concluded thterm economic benefits from development of the Project, including: creation of jobs in rinduced development of office, retail, hotel and higher density housing near planned rail jobs in the rail passenger transportation industry, including car, equipment and part manureduction in use of carbon fuel; reduced need to widen highways; and, many other benefTier II FEIS. Maintenance or other responsibilities for localities would be established throperation of the system and local governments that specify payments or other terms. 

E_SC7 Comments in support of the project, 

claiming it will benefit the economy, create new jobs, have less environmental impact, create positive net benefits (compared to costs and impacts) and overall benefit the communities, including helping the economies along the rail line, throughout NC and VA, as well as nationally. 

As discussed in an amended/expanded Purpose and Need section of the Tier II FEIS (Chdetailed cost/benefit analyses prepared for the SEHSR Corridor, including one prepared system (of which the SEHSR Corridor is only one segment), a detailed feasibility study to Washington, DC SEHSR corridor completed in 1999, as well as other studies that demRichmond to Raleigh Project. These studies have repeatedly concluded that there will be benefits from development of the Project, including: creation of jobs in railroad construcdevelopment of office, retail, hotel and higher density housing near planned rail stationsthe rail passenger transportation industry, including car, equipment and part manufactureuse of carbon fuel; reduced need to widen highways; and, many other benefits, as noted 

E_SC8 Comments from companies or individuals 

interested in getting work from the project during its construction or operations, and/or requesting to be contacted when work begins. 

Comment noted. Please keep up with the Project's progress at http://www.sehsr.org. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

E_SC9 Assertions that other transportation projects 

should be funded first, before the SEHSR, given they are perceived to be more important and of a higher priority. 

As discussed in an amended/expanded Purpose and Need section of the Tier II FEIS (Chdetailed cost/benefit analyses prepared for the SEHSR Corridor, including one for the enthe SEHSR Corridor is only one segment) prepared in 1997, as well as a detailed feasibiCharlotte, NC to Washington, DC SEHSR corridor completed in 1999, as well as other sbenefits of the Richmond to Raleigh Project. These studies have repeatedly concluded thterm economic benefits from development of the Project, including: creation of jobs in rinduced development of office, retail, hotel and higher density housing near planned rail manufacturing jobs in the rail passenger transportation industry, including car, equipmenincreased tourism; reduction in use of carbon fuel; reduced need to widen highways; and Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS. Given these substantial public benefits, Congress has repeprogram, including the SEHSR Corridor. The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate and mitilisted priority project; it is not to evaluate the various components and priorities of the enTo provide input on those decisions, please contact your US Senator and Representative

Code F – Comments Related to Train Speed, Equipment, Operations, or Fares 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

F_SC1 Statement of opinion regarding the 

importance of train speed/ trip time/schedule (e.g., faster is better; convenient schedules will enhance ridership). 

Comment noted. 

F_SC2 Request to have high-level platforms at 

stations to facilitate quick and easy passenger boarding and transport of bicycles; also a request for policies and procedures that allow for easy transport of bicycles (i.e., not the current policies on some Amtrak trains which require bicycles to be dismantled, boxed, and checked as baggage). 

The level of platforms is determined, in part, from compliance guidelines established to Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and regulated under ADA Accessibility Guidelines publJuly 23, 2004 (amended August 5, 2005). To comply with ADA requirements, FRA reqtop-of-rail (ATR) for east coast services. Where passenger service is operated on shared this requirement with 8” ATR platform height is commonly applied. The Project will cofeasible and compatible with the proposed service at that location. 

F_SC3 Request for specific train 

amenities/upgraded equipment/specific operations to enhance ridership. 

Equipment and operational specifications will be developed at a later date, once funding been secured. 

F_SC4 Request for state of the art construction of 

the railroad. 

The Project designs call for new ballast (the rock surface underneath the railroad ties), co
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

F_SC5 Comment related to selection of train 

technology (diesel/hydrogen cell traction /electric as well as monorail), and/or comments/questions related to the compatibility of the train technology proposed for this project segment and the segments proposed for Richmond/Raleigh, Petersburg/Hampton Roads, Richmond/DC, as well as existing HSR trains in the Northeast Corridor and local/commuter trains that may be used on the system. 

The ROD for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS established that the SEHSR Corridor woulpowered trains. Refer to Chapter 2 of the SEHSR Corridor Tier I DEIS for background othat the designs for the Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC covered by this Tier II document electrification. The purpose of the Project is to eventually connect this Project with high VA, to Washington, DC, and beyond to the Northeast Corridor, as well as Hampton Roatechnology proposed with this Project and all proposed connected corridors are being deassumptions for system compatibility in mind. 

F_SC6 Comment related to the importance of 

improved reliability (e.g., frustrations posed by delays associated with freight dispatching and congestion at choke points), and/or statement of preference for dedicated tracks to achieve better performance. 

The ROD for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS established that the SEHSR Corridor woulincremental approach to HSR using existing (freight) railroad rights of way to the greateprovides the least overall environmental impacts and highest commercial feasibility. The between Petersburg, VA, and Richmond, VA where there is existing rail, to minimize coand passenger service. Between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC the designs call for cotrack with passing sidings five miles long, every ten miles, which will allow freight and 

F_SC8 Question regarding why the system has not 

been designed to achieve higher speeds similar to the systems that are used in Europe and Asia. 

The ROD for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS established that the SEHSR Corridor woulincremental approach and would utilize fossil fuel powered trains. Refer to Chapter 2 of for background information on the basis for the decision. A finding discussed in the SEHwith fossil fuel engines, speed increases above the 110 mph did not generate significant revenues, but they did significantly increase costs because of more stringent regulations. bridges and underpasses have been designed to allow for electrification in the future. 

F_SC9 Question regarding the funding source for 

the project (i.e., public vs. private). 

Refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for an expanded discussion of the necessary involvdevelopment of the SEHSR Corridor. It is anticipated that North Carolina and Virginia wthe Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), reauthorization of Federal Federal funding sources (which was anticipated by the Federal government as needed as investment). Public-private partnership funding opportunities may also be sought along wDecisions regarding future funding of the SEHSR Corridor will be made at the completioprocess. The Project is not anticipated to be funded by local governments. Maintenance olocalities would be established through agreements between the operation of the system payments or other terms. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

F_SC10 Question regarding whether there is a limit 

on the number of high speed passenger trains, freight trains, and conventional passenger trains that can use the corridor. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project contemplates eight additional intermodal freight trains conventional freight or passenger trains. Construction of the Richmond to Raleigh Projecconventional passenger service (i.e., local service with more stops in smaller towns) in thgrows. The daily number of trains that could operate within the proposed SEHSR Corridor is coavailable “slots” in the dispatch schedule. The number of slots is affected by “choke poincorridors north of Petersburg and south of Raleigh. This project provides additional rail cand Raleigh, NC; however, such points in other locations throughout the corridor will imfor trains operating on the new corridor. Separate environmental studies are planned andissues in other sections of the corridor. For the purposes of this environmental documentRichmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, portion of the SEHSR Corridor consists of four new higday (eight trains). 

F_SC11 Statement of opinion that higher speeds are 

not necessary, and/or do not justify the potential impacts and amount of work or cost needed to achieve higher speeds. 

Comment noted. 

F_SC12 Question regarding fares and/or statement of 

opinion that fares need to be structured to be competitive with other modes of transportation. 

Refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for discussion regarding the ridership and revenue updated forecast includes information regarding projected fares. 

F_SC14 Question regarding proposed speeds 

throughout the corridor. 

The Maximum authorized speed (the maximum allowable speed a train may operate basof the rail corridor and FRA safety regulations) is anticipated to be: 79 mph from Richmmph from Centralia, VA, to Collier, VA (south of Petersburg); and 110 mph from CollieChapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for additional discussion related to anticipated speeds. 

F_SC15 Concern about stopped and idling trains 

within passing sidings in Section S. 

Between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC, the Project designs call for construction of npassing sidings five miles long, approximately every ten miles, which will allow freight stopping. 

F_SC16 Question regarding whether intermodal 

freight trains are anticipated to be stopping in Raleigh, NC, or just passing through; concern expressed about impacts associated with potential intermodal loading/offloading operations in Raleigh (Section V). 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project EIS document assumes eight additional intermodal traconventional freight trains to account for impacts related to a potential increase in freighintermodal freight service through Raleigh, and no known plans for introduction of the sintermodal trains is controlled by the freight railroad companies and is driven by market 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

F_SC17 Statement of preference to use or modify 

tracks currently used by Amtrak, or to develop the project on new alignment rather than following the alignment studied in DEIS. 

The SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS concluded that of the nine existing railway options consline), modified with passenger connectivity to Winston-Salem (Alternative B), was the cmet the Project's Purpose and Need while minimizing environmental impacts. It is, thereproject to revisit the use of other existing rail lines. Also, based on the findings of feasibdocument, NCDOT, DRPT, FRA, and FHWA, focused on an "incremental" developmenand analyze the SEHSR Corridor from the beginning. The decision to utilize existing raitransportation corridor and railroad ROW (with only small areas requiring new infrastrucspeeds and crossing grade closures), allowed a significant reduction in the initial capital This "incremental" approach also reduces the potential environmental impacts by avoidinapproximately 500-mile long facility on new alignment, thereby avoiding significant impareas over a much larger project area. These factors would also allow the Project to be buensure it met the fundamental project goal of connecting the downtowns of major cities aassumption in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS and this Tier II study that rail transportatioprovided on the NCRR and S-lines, with standard gauge railroad tracks that are capable standard heavy-haul freight trains as well as high speed passenger trains. Sharing trackagprovide substantial benefits to freight service. Also, the design will allow for higher speetechnology, equipment, and design assumptions (e.g. electrification, tilt technology). 

F_SC18 Statement of opinion that it is important that 

fares be affordable. 

Refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for discussion regarding the ridership and revenue updated forecast includes information regarding projected fares. 

F_SC19 Statement of opinion (general). Comment noted. 

Code G – Comments Related to Ridership 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

G_SC1 Comments supporting the project, including 

indicating they or others would ride/use it. 

Comment noted. The following were reasons expressed in support of the Project, which Need defined for the Project: 1) Connecting east coast cities with HSR will expand the pproviding an opportunity that equals Eisenhower's building of the interstate highway sysus into the next 30 years. 2) The average plane is delayed over 56 and a half minutes for Corridor, and over the next 20 years our population is expected to grow 26 percent. 3) Wour way out of congestion. 4) Personal willingness to use train. 

G_SC2 Comment that ridership information could 

not be found in the DEIS and/or the issue did not appear to have been fully assessed. 

Ridership has been assessed in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS (Chapter 1) and Tier II Dare available on the Project website - http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html. Ridership has aProject (see Chapter 1 of this FEIS). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

G_SC3 Questions/comments on the need and/or 

demand for high speed rail. 

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS has been expanded to further define the Project's Purpose aprevious studies. 

G_SC4 Questions/comments on adequate amounts 

of ridership to support the facility. 

Ridership has been assessed in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS (Chapter 1) and Tier II Davailable on the Project website - http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html. Chapter 1 of the Tieridership estimates and assumptions, specifically about the proposed users of the facility been developed. 

G_SC5 Questions/comments on users of the existing 

Amtrak rail system. 

Ridership was assessed in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS (Chapter 1) and Tier II DEIS (the Project website - http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html. Existing Amtrak ridership as weassumptions for future riders on the SEHSR Corridor facility have been updated and expFEIS. 

G_SC6 Questions/comments on riders of SEHSR 

trains regarding where they live, where they travel, the purpose of their travel, and when they travel. Questions regarding whether they will really use it, given our low population densities, people's natural inclination to drive their own vehicles, and the limitations in other public transportation needed to support the system. 

Ridership was assessed in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS (Chapter 1) and Tier II DEIS (the Project website - http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html. Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS coand assumptions, specifically about the proposed users of the facility. It also details how and verified, and discusses any improvements needed to the public transportation systemsystem. Chapter 3 of the Tier II FEIS has been amended to provide additional discussion systems and all proposed improvements to the overall public transportation system that wwith the SEHSR Corridor system. 

G_SC7 Questions/comments on how the facility will 

compete for ridership and profitability compared with other modes of transportation, especially in the long term. Questions regarding whether the number of riders justify the cost. Assertion that people will not use HSR as long as other transportation options are faster, more reliable, cheaper, etc. 

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS expands on the Tier II DEIS and demonstrates how the procompetitive and cheaper than flying for trips within a 550 mile distance, and faster and msection also contains additional modal comparison data (cost, speed, travel time, reliabiliprojects the use of the SEHSR for the entire Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, corridor

G_SC8 Questions/comments on specific detailed 

ridership projections at all the proposed stations. Clarify existing Amtrak versus future ridership projections at each station. 

Section 2 of the Tier II DEIS, including Table 2-1, contains ridership estimates that incluAmtrak and future HSR passenger trains. Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains updated on-off ridership projections at each proposed station for the selected alternative. 

G_SC9 Comments or questions about portions of the 

project corridor having very low population densities, which would not provide enough ridership to support the facility (i.e., people do not live close enough or in dense enough locations to the proposed station to justify their use of the facility). 

Updated ridership and revenue projections for the Richmond to Raleigh Project were devAlternative. The results of this analysis are discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.5 of the Tiin Appendix C. The updated modelling results agreed with earlier assessments that the pexceed anticipated operation and maintenance expenses. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

G_SC10 Questions/comments on how the SEHSR 

will reduce traffic and congestion on local roads and major routes through the area. 

The purpose of the Project is not to reduce traffic or relieve congestion on local roads or to supply local public transit options to relieve local commuter congestion or to directly airports, though there may be ancillary benefits. Those goals are met through the coordinseparate regional transportation planning programs and agencies along the corridor, incluand metropolitan planning associations, who will coordinate with the SEHSR Corridor. Hintended to be the main north/south spine to which many local commuter options are conamended Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS, the purpose of the Project is to provide multimodlong-distance and interstate leisure and business travelers between major metropolitan arthe I-85 & I-95 travel corridor on the east coast (in North Carolina and Virginia and beyoProject would offer a competitive intercity transportation mode which would divert over air and auto travel within the Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, travel corridor. 

G_SC11 Questions/comments on the proposed 

technology, rate of speed, rate of return on investment, resulting number of riders and/or future expansion capabilities of the system. 

Prior to the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS, the USDOT, along with North Carolina and oththe SEHSR Corridor, determined that an "incremental approach" would be used for the Pimprovement of existing railroad ROW for the Project (rather than developing a new railorder to minimize impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as substantially would allow the Project to be built much faster and would also ensure it met the fundamdowntowns of major cities along its route. It was therefore an assumption in the SEHSR study that rail transportation service for this Project would be provided on standard gaugsupporting North American standard heavy-haul freight trains as well as high speed passconventional rail will provide substantial benefits to freight service, but will place certain operational limitations on the high-speed train sets and other technology choices. One of operational, with a maximum speed of 110 mph in the corridor, with an average speed of project designs do allow for higher speeds in the future with changes in technology, equi(e.g., electrification, tilt technology). However, in more urban areas and near stations higTherefore, with this incremental approach as the underlying basis for the Project, the spethat could be modified to maximize ridership. However, the number and frequency of staevaluated and modified to maximize ridership and therefore profitability under the initiaand design assumptions. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

G_SC12 Questions/comments on the need/demand 

for a route between Charlotte and Richmond, and Raleigh to Richmond. Question of who is going to use those routes.

Richmond is not the northern terminus of the SEHSR Corridor. The Richmond to Raleigthe overall SEHSR Corridor, which will extend HSR service south from the Northeast Cbetween Boston, MA, New York, NY, and Washington, DC, southward from Washingtothe future) to Atlanta, GA. Because of the length of the overall SEHSR Corridor (over 45adopted for the required environmental studies. Refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II DEIS foThe Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis for the portion of the preferred termini of Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC. These termini were selected because of the (i.e., introducing passenger rail service to a significant section of this corridor where it denvironmental documentation will be prepared separately for implementation of the remappropriate to those improvements. Project segments are needed together to serve regionleisure and business travelers between major metropolitan areas traveling north and soutcorridor on the east coast (in North Carolina and Virginia and beyond). As noted in the Sentire SEHSR Corridor will help balance the overall transportation system by offering a mode which would divert over a million travelers annually from air and auto travel from NC. The amended Chapter 1 of this FEIS provides additional ridership information on ththe SEHSR Corridor, given the planned SEHSR Corridor linkages from Raleigh to CharDC, and beyond to points northeast. 

G_SC13 Questions/comments on how the train 

schedules (frequency of trains) were set to maximize ridership. 

The expanded FEIS Chapter 1 discusses how ridership was estimated as well as the antic

G_SC14 Questions/comments on using existing rail 

lines versus building a new system on a totally new alignment (bypassing towns). 

The SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS concluded that of the nine existing railway options consline), modified with passenger connectivity to Winston-Salem (Alternative B), was the cmet the Project's Purpose and Need while minimizing environmental impacts. It is not threvisit the use of other existing rail lines, and a new system on totally new alignment is nof feasibility studies prior to the Tier I document, NCDOT, DRPT, FRA, and FHWA, fodevelopment approach to HSR to formulate and analyze the SEHSR Corridor from the bexisting rail infrastructure, an established transportation corridor and existing railroad ROrequiring new infrastructure to reach desired project speeds and crossing grade closures)the initial capital investment required by the system. This "incremental" approach also reimpacts by avoiding the creation of a new 450 mile long facility on new alignment, thereexisting urban and natural areas over a much larger project area. These factors would alsmuch faster and would also ensure it met the fundamental project goal of connecting the its route. It was, therefore, an assumption in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS and this Tieservice for this Project would be provided on the NCRR and S-lines, with standard gaugalso supporting North American standard heavy-haul freight trains as well as high speed with conventional rail will also provide substantial benefits to freight service. Also, the din the future with changes in technology, equipment, and design assumptions (e.g., electr

G_SC15 Questions/comments regarding the inclusion 

of the Petersburg to Hampton Roads HSR segment, and its effect on ridership. 

The updated ridership and revenue estimates provided in Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS insegment linkage. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Code H – Comments Related to Safety 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

H_SC1 Questions and comments on the location of 

fencing and landscaping in the project corridor. Questions about whether the high speed rail corridor will be completely sealed/impenetrable from any unauthorized access. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor will not be completely sealed from any unauthnote that it is unsafe to cross the railroad (either existing or proposed with this Project) in crossings; this is also considered trespassing. In developed areas along the corridor, fencpedestrians to bridges/underpasses that have been designed to accommodate pedestrian awill be determined during final design based on coordination between the owner of the rrailroad, and adjacent communities. Along the rail alignment, landscaping will be consisAlong road work, landscaping will be addressed during final design using VDOT or NCfor landscaping in historic districts may be specified under the Section 106 MOA (with iother consulting parties). 

H_SC2 Comments stating that to ensure safety from 

the high speed rail, fencing or walls should be placed along the rail line where the following uses are present - residential homes or neighborhoods, pedestrians, bicyclists, parks, schools, libraries, other uses that attract children, or where pets or wildlife may be inclined to cross. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor will not be completely sealed from any unauthnote that it is unsafe to cross the railroad (either existing or proposed with this Project) in crossings; this is also considered trespassing. However, the ability of pedestrians to movan important design criterion of the Richmond to Raleigh Project. In developed areas aloused to direct pedestrians to bridges/underpasses that have been designed to accommodalocations and types will be determined during final design based on coordination betweeoperator of the railroad, and adjacent communities. 

H_SC3 Questions regarding the type of fencing 

materials to be used and the height of the fencing. Comments included concerns that the fencing will be very tall (e.g., 20-foot) or made of chain link or concertina wire. 

As discussed in Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS, fencing locations and types will be deteon coordination between the owner of the rail corridor, the operator of the railroad, and a

H_SC4 Questions about the speed of each train as it 

passes through each town, including those without a stop. 

The description of the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 2 includes information on the matrain by project section. In areas without a stop, it can be assumed that the train will traveauthorized speed for the section in which the area is located. In areas with a stop, it can bslowing down at least one to two miles in advance of the station. 

H_SC5 Questions about the protections that will be 

put into place to avoid accidents, including derailments. 

As discussed in Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS, numerous safety measures are required proposed HSR according to FRA regulations and design standards. The most effective mderailments is full grade separation of the facility, which this Project proposes. Other safas degree of curvature, minimum ROW widths, and maximum grades. 

H_SC6 Comments regarding the overall assurance 

of safety of high speed trains, including factors such as speed, weight, and turns. 

As discussed in Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS, numerous safety measures are required proposed HSR according to Federal regulations as well as FRA design standards. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

H_SC7 Comments regarding the history of 

numerous grade crossing collisions along the project route and/or support for the project achieving 100% grade separation. 

As discussed in Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS, the safest design for HSR is full grade sproposes. 

H_SC8 Comments on the relative safety of high 

speed rail trains versus other forms of transportation or statements that HSR is more dangerous or have more accidents than aircraft. 

Section 1.6 of the Tier II FEIS has been updated to include statistics on the relative safettransportation, including flying. As noted, fatality statistics show rail and flying have neaare substantially better than any other mode of transportation. 

H_SC9 Questions on the appropriate size of "safety 

buffer zones" for conventional versus high speed trains to keep residents and the environment safe. 

As discussed in Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS, numerous safety measures are required proposed HSR according to FRA regulations and design standards. The most effective mderailments is full grade separation of the facility, which this Project proposes. Other safas degree of curvature, minimum ROW widths, and maximum grades. 

H_SC10 Questions and comments on how terrorist 

attacks on the system will be prevented, including the kinds of security measures/monitoring systems/safety techniques proposed to be used. 

As discussed in Sections 3.19 and 4.16 of the Tier II DEIS, the entire corridor will be acarterial and secondary roadways where security measures will not be practicable. Howevsafety standards and regulations with which each railroad must comply. The regulations specified minimum frequencies based on several criteria that include Class of track and wcarried. All Federal safety and security regulations current at the time of completion of cpassenger service will be followed. Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS also describes how fdetermined during final design based on coordination between the owner of the rail corriand adjacent communities. This may include urban locations where fencing is determinesafety and preventing unauthorized access. 

H_SC11 Questions and comments on how it will be 

ensured that no illegal immigrants work on this railway (in order to ensure national security). 

Current US Federal employment law mandates that employers only hire legal citizens an

H_SC12 Comments on the current "poor 

maintenance" of the existing rail lines, which pose a current safety hazard. Questions on how this new system would improve long-term maintenance. 

Any existing lines will be improved as needed and in many locations new lines will be cand 2 of the Tier II DEIS and FEIS. All of the rail improvements must meet current Fedemaintenance requirements and standards as discussed in Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEISshared freight systems as well. Another benefit of the lines being improved for high spee(less curved), which results in less long-term maintenance requirements (because of less 

H_SC13 Comments that the existing conventional 

train corridor is a current safety issue and should be removed entirely. 

FRA has prescribed track safety standards and regulations with which each railroad mustrack inspections at specified minimum frequencies based on several criteria that include passenger trains are carried. As owner of the existing railroad in the corridor between RiCSX is required to meet all current Federal safety regulations. Likewise, all of the propocurrent federal HSR design, operations, and maintenance requirements and standards as Tier II FEIS, which will improve the rail for shared freight systems as well. Revised Chathe reasons for the current corridor location being located between cities. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

H_SC14 Comments and questions requesting that the 

project consider methods of improving safety other than closing crossings, especially in areas that are pedestrianoriented. 

Revised Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS discusses the proposed full grade separation despedestrian over/under-passes. Fencing locations and types will be determined during finabetween the owner of the rail corridor, the operator of the railroad, and adjacent communelements will protect surrounding communities to the greatest extent practicable while alintrusion into the community. 

H_SC15 Comments that the high speed rail will turn 

existing thriving neighborhoods and downtowns into unsafe areas to live. 

It is the experience of NCDOT and DRPT that an inactive rail line near a neighborhood well maintained one. Revised Section 4.16 of the Tier II FEIS discusses the proposed fulas the proposed pedestrian over/under-passes. 

H_SC16 Comments on the safety of specific proposed 

road or rail design elements. 

All specific location design comments and concerns are addressed in individual responserequests/clarifications. 

H_SC17 Suggestions that a new system on a 

completely new alignment, bypassing towns, should be considered to avoid the potential for accidents affecting downtowns and urbanized areas. 

Based on the findings of earlier feasibility studies, NCDOT, DRPT, FRA, and FHWA fodevelopment approach to HSR to formulate and analyze the SEHSR Corridor in the Tier the use of existing infrastructure so that the initial capital investment required by the sysbuilt faster, and the Project would meet the fundamental goal of connecting the downtowBypassing cities would have required the creation of an entirely new 450 mile long facilnew alignment, thereby creating much greater impacts to existing urban and undevelopeimpact area. A bypass option would also have been substantially more expensive, the timeven greater, and the goal of connecting downtowns, the heart and soul of any city or towFor these reasons, it was determined that the Richmond to Raleigh Project would utilize be located within an established transportation corridor and railroad ROW. 

Code I – Comments Related to Project Schedule and/or Funding 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

I_SC1 Comments and questions on the source of 

funds to be used for the construction of the project including the use of public versus private funds. 

At this time, it is anticipated that North Carolina and Virginia will pursue Federal fundinInvestment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), reauthorization of Federal transportation prosources (which was anticipated by the Federal government as needed as part of the overaPublic-private partnership funding opportunities may also be sought along with Federal aTier II FEIS contains an expanded discussion of the necessary involvement of Federal fuCorridor. As was done in the 1950s when the Federal government created the Interstate HHSR system will use a variety of Federal funding options over many years to invest the blarge new national transportation network. In authorizing this network, the Federal govereconomic and environmental benefits such an investment will provide to all elements of As was the case for interstate highways, the initial cost to construct such a massive new not be fully funded by private sources or alone by individual end users (see Chapter 1 of information). Thus, the estimated $2.1 billion in construction costs for the Raleigh to Ricnever intended to be fully financed by the system's ridership; however, most long-term ocovered through ridership fees (see I_SC2). Decisions regarding future funding of the Rimade at the completion of the environmental review process. The Project is not anticipatgovernments. 

I_SC2 Comments and questions on the need for 

public subsidies for the project for operations and maintenance. Comments and questions on whether the project will "pay for itself." 

As noted in Section 2.2.5.1 of the Tier II DEIS, earlier studies showed the Washington, Dthe SEHSR Corridor is projected to net $21.6 million more per year in 2025 than it will c1 of the Tier II FEIS provides an update of projected ridership/costs/revenue for the RichSEHSR Corridor. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.5 of the Tier II FEIS and includebeen studied repeatedly since 1997 with the conclusion that proposed revenues will exceexpenses. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

I_SC3 Comments and questions on whether high 

speed rail is economically viable, including comments that if the system was viable, there would be no need for massive subsidies for its construction and operation, or if it is was potentially profitable, someone in the private industry would have built it already. 

The transportation system is a mixture of both private and public investment in infrastrucwaterways) and operations (vehicles, aircraft, vessels, etc.) that provide modal alternativwas done in the 1950s when the Federal government created and paid for the Interstate Hspeed passenger rail system (of which the SEHSR Corridor is currently one of five high was initially conceived in the 1960s and has received billions of dollars in Federal funds since the early 1990s. In authorizing this network, the Federal government has consisteneconomic and environmental benefits such a large new national transportation network wdecades to come. (See Chapter of the Tier II FEIS for expanded discussion of project comodern toll roadways, such a massive new public transportation system could not be initby individual end users (see I_SC11). Thus, the estimated $2.1 billion in construction coportion of SEHSR Corridor (as provided in the Tier II DEIS, with updated costs provideintended to be financed by the system's ridership, but by the Federal government as part system investment. Because the Project involves improving rail lines that will continue tcompanies, that public investment will also benefit freight companies as well as the passCorridor. As noted in Section 2.2.3 of the Tier II DEIS, stations are proposed at reasonabmaximize service to surrounding populations. The forecasts for the HSR between Charloridership (including both long distance and southeast trains) of approximately 1.3 million resulting in annual ticket revenues of $103.5 million. As noted in Section 2.2.5.1 of the Tto Charlotte, NC portion of the HSR alone is projected to bring in $21.6 million more peoperate the facility. These independent studies consistently indicate that the facility wouwould generate net revenue annually. Therefore, although it would require an upfront Feit is not expected to require tax or other Federal subsidies for annual operations and wouand environmental benefits. (See Chapter 1, Section 1.5 and Appendix C of the Tier II Fthe Project Purpose and Need as well as several previous cost/benefit studies that have reviability of the system. Updated ridership and revenue information is also presented here

I_SC4 Comments and questions about funneling all 

trains through Richmond's Main Street Station, including the opinion that to do so will create a bottleneck for train passage, will be excessively expensive, and will harm the viability of the entire SEHSR network. 

The SEHSR Tier I EIS evaluated a corridor swath through Richmond without specificallstudies focused on HSR from the Richmond area north will address issues associated witStation. 

I_SC5 Comments regarding the availability of 

enough federal funding to pay for the project. Also, statement that it is highly unlikely that substantial federal funding will be available in the future in light of foreseeable fiscal realities. 

As discussed in detail in Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS, this Project is an integral portion system, which in turn is part of a larger nationwide HSR network established through the Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The Federal government established the through several previous studies, including the Tier I DEIS for the SEHSR Corridor (see http://www.sehsr.org/reports/DEISes.pdf). The FRA, as well as the states of Virginia and identify this Project as a priority, and as such are moving forward to complete the requirpermitting approvals, and have committed to continue pursuing funding for its constructenvironmental planning process is essential to obtaining Federal funding. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

I_SC6 Comments about on how the project is very 

much needed and is supported, with a desire to fund it and build it as soon as possible. Assertion that waiting any longer will only cost the project more. Reasons stated in support include: to boost economic de 

Support for the Project, including its funding, has been noted. See an expanded Chapter project Purpose and Need (including cost/benefit) information. 

I_SC7 Questions and comments on Norfolk 

Southern's decision in Raleigh, NC, to not move their train yard and whether it would affect funding or federal approval of Alternative NC3 and/or put the entire SEHSR project at risk (Section V). 

In Section V (Raleigh), the preferred alternative (NC5) avoids both the Norfolk Southern (Seaboard). Norfolk Southern's decision to keep their rail yard in Raleigh does not put thrisk. 

I_SC8 Questions and comments on when it will be 

known which specific houses/businesses will be acquired for the project and when acquisitions will happen. Questions on the specific steps for the project to move forward and the project schedule, including when and how final decisions will be made. 

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains an updated project history, summary of project stesteps and a new project schedule, including anticipated date of the final NEPA step (appon funding, which is a precursor to property acquisition and project construction. 

I_SC9 Comments and questions on the uncertainty 

of the project and the extended timeframe before many final decisions will be made. Comments that this situation could potentially put properties "under a cloud," or "on hold," or "essentially unmarketable, unsellable or severely reduced in value" for years. Related questions about what property owners should do if they are to be impacted and plan to sell, or want to make improvements, and what are the public disclosure requirements in each state. 

North Carolina and Virginia will seek ROW and construction funding based on state rail phase for this Project cannot begin until the FRA issues a ROD, at which point, the estabeach state will be followed. No construction funding has been identified for this Project time. ROW acquisition is based on the fair market value of the property, which considervalue. North Carolina and Virginia do not have a position on the issue of disclosure othereal estate professionals to adhere to all laws and rules in their state regarding disclosure buyers. They are encouraged to check those laws and rules by contacting their appropriaor county tax office when they list their home for sale. It should be noted that "hardship" apply to the Richmond to Raleigh Project until funding is established, which is contingenenvironmental review process. 

I_SC10 Comments and questions on how the project 

will efficiently spend the public's money. 

FRA, NCDOT, and DRPT require efficient project management and have strict project arequirements. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

I_SC11 Statements that the project should only be 

built by the private sector, given the assumption that the private sector would make it a success, unlike federal projects. 

High speed passenger rail outside the NEC is inherently a public-private partnership becwith freight rail. Although public-private partnerships can play a critical role in final delsystem in the world has succeeded without significant up-front public investment and invinvestment is not possible in the early stages of most large-scale infrastructure and publifor highways constructed as toll roads) due to the sheer size of initial investment requiresystem. Other obstacles to privatization that would need to be overcome include substancomplex and multi-jurisdictional projects, the amount of time for projects to become opeon when the projects, once they are up and running, will produce a strong enough return revised Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS, it is anticipated that North Carolina and Virginia wthrough various Federal sources, including the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvemof Federal transportation programs and other Federal funding sources (which was anticipneeded as part of the overall Federal HSR investment). State and public-private partnershalso be sought along with Federal funding. Such a P3 initiative to create private investmein California (see http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/). See Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS Project's costs and benefits that support the public need for the Project. 

I_SC12 Comment that the project is going to be 

another federal financial failure, worsen national debt, and burden taxpayers, similar to other federal initiatives such as the US Postal Service, Social Security, and Amtrak.

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains an expanded discussion of the necessary involvemdevelopment of the SEHSR Corridor. As was done in the 1950s when the Federal governHighway System, the nationwide HSR system will use a variety of Federal funding optiobillions of dollars needed for such a large new national transportation network. In authorgovernment recognized the substantial economic and environmental benefits such an invelements of the country for decades to come. As was the case for interstate highways, the massive new public transportation system could not be fully funded by private sources oChapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for more information). Thus, the estimated $2.1 billion in cRichmond portion of SEHSR Corridor were never intended to be fully financed by the synoted in Section 2.2.5.1 of the Tier II DEIS, the Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, portprojected to bring in $21.6 million more per year in 2025 than it will cost to operate the fII FEIS for updated ridership/costs/revenue). As discussed in Chapter 1 of the Tier II FErepeatedly since 1997 with the conclusion that it would not only be self-supporting, but irevenue annually. The project would require an upfront Federal investment to be construopportunities may also be sought. However, it is not expected to require tax or other Fedoperations. In addition, Between the substantial socio-economic benefits of the system asurpluses for the system operators (which reduces any need for future public funding), ththe SEHSR Corridor is predicted to be a financial success for Virginia and North Carolin
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

I_SC13 Comments and questions on the multiuse 

greenway/trail associated with the SEHSR, including statements that the trail should be guaranteed with the project and acquisition of the trail corridor should be part of the SEHSR and paid in full with federal money. 

The concept of a greenway located parallel to the Richmond to Raleigh Project from Din(just north of Raleigh, NC) was introduced in the Richmond to Raleigh Project DEIS. Thallow the necessary environmental documentation for the greenway to be prepared so thaquickly pursue the construction of the greenway in their jurisdictions. The construction oto be funded as part of the Richmond to Raleigh Project because FRA (the source of Feddoes not have a mechanism to provide funding for greenways. Although the parallel greewith the Richmond to Raleigh Project, the process of developing the environmental docuchanged since publication of the Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHWA, and the states of Virginia adetermined that the greenway project is more suitable for a pre-NEPA Greenway Corridin the Tier II FEIS for the Richmond to Raleigh Project, as previously considered. This ijurisdictions who will ultimately construct the greenway greater flexibility to pursue varithan limiting them to a particular funding agency's NEPA requirements. The details for tcontained within the Richmond to Raleigh Project FEIS, but rather in a separate Greenwcurrently under development, with completion anticipated at the time of the ROD for the Project website will provide additional details on this separate plan and opportunities for 

I_SC14 Comments and questions on why the project 

has been evaluated in a "piecemeal" fashion, has had so many "endless studies," "red tape," and "analysis paralysis," and/or has wasted a lot of time and money. 

As indicated in the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS and Tier II DEIS documents, the Project subject to the environmental studies and public involvement requirements of the Nationa(NEPA). Due to the size and complexity of the Project's potential impacts, a full evaluatiyears to go from corridor concept to Tier I and Tier II studies with preliminary design (i.average timeframe for smaller Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) road projects tNEPA process is 5.5 years, with 13% of projects taking more than 10 years to complete Richmond to Raleigh Project has not taken an unusually long time. For an expanded projvarious steps taken in the life of the Project and the value/purpose/requirement for each, 

I_SC15 Comments and questions on why the project 

is being "rushed through," with not enough "conservative, diligent research," and/or the need for "better evaluation of impacts." Comment that this will result in careless and reckless impacts to the environment and communities. 

As discussed in the expanded Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS, the Congressional interest in transportation dates back to 1965, with numerous detailed studies for the Washington, Ddating back to as early as 1981, with a major Federal economic study of the entire nationfeasibility study specifically for the SEHSR (Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, corridoTier I EIS prepared in 2003, and the Tier II DEIS for the current project in 2010. These sbe, methodical and deliberate, with a continued focus on avoiding, minimizing and mitigimpacts; ensuring the greatest possible economic benefits; and ensuring the tangible and exceed its costs. This is demonstrated in this FEIS document, which contains refined envengineering designs for the Preferred Alternative, which avoids human and natural resoustill allowing high operability. 

I_SC16 Comments and questions on how the project 

should be funded, including using a gas tax increase. 

Appropriate project funding sources will be evaluated once the NEPA process is comple
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

I_SC17 Comments and questions on whether or not 

a particular locality's taxes will go up if the train does not stop (at a station) in a particular locality. 

The states of Virginia and North Carolina have committed to continue pursuing funding this time, it is anticipated that Federal funding will continue to be pursued through the PaImprovement Act (PRIIA), reauthorization of Federal transportation programs and other was anticipated by the Federal government as needed as part of the overall Federal HSR private partnership funding opportunities may also be sought along with Federal fundingfuture funding of the SEHSR Corridor will be made at the completion of the environmenis not possible to speculate what revenue sources the Federal and state governments will Project; however, it is not anticipated that funding will come from localities. 

Code J – Comments Related to Preference for an Alternative 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

J_SC1 Expression of preference for a particular 

alternative. 

Preference noted. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS for an explanation of the decisioalternative for each section of the Project. 

Code K – Other Comments (Including Comments Related to Potential Station Locations) 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC1 Questions on how the station locations were 

selected, and/or why specific locations were not considered for station stops, and/or comments on the number of stations/stops in specific locations. 

Section 2.2.3 of the Tier II DEIS details the needs for placing stops/stations between RicOther linkages planned for the SEHSR Corridor will eventually connect to Washington, NC, to the south, as well as Hampton Road, VA. This study only evaluates station locatisegment of the overall SEHSR Corridor. Each of the stations must be placed at reasonabpopulation centers along the route. The DEIS recommended that stations be located in thstations - Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC. Two new stations were recoHill (VA) and Henderson (NC). These locations were recommended based on operationaforecasting, station platform engineering design needs, feedback from the public, and the along the route (see pages 2-45 to 2-48 of the Tier II DEIS for more detailed informationinfrastructure through the Richmond to Raleigh Project could create opportunities for the service to exist along with high speed service throughout the Project corridor, or to connoutside the corridor. Conventional trains could operate at the same (or lower) speeds as toften at additional locations. Additionally, Virginia and North Carolina have both evaluaconventional passenger train service to eastern and western portions of the states. The prwould serve as the spine to these added routes, allowing conventional rail service passenSEHSR Corridor service and other points in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. Note document has assessed operational data and ridership projections to identify suitable statimprovements, construction and maintenance/operations needed for each station is a loca

K_SC2 Comments in support of the use of Main 

Street Station (MSS) in Richmond, VA, as part of the SEHSR project (Section AA). 

The SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS evaluated the corridor through Richmond without speciSubsequent studies focused on HSR from the Richmond area north will address issues asMain Street Station. 

K_SC3 Suggestion for a specific station location or 

other comments about the proposed station in the Petersburg, VA area (Section CC). 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environmental impacts of stations or recobecause the development of stations is a unique undertaking at an individual location. Hothe Petersburg area were evaluated, but only to the level to ensure that a station placed algeneral location would provide sufficient accessibility to the larger transportation networlocations will be noted and provided to transportation planning organizations in the Peterseparate environmental evaluation and make the final decision on the station location annoted that Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains an expanded discussion of likely station information and detailed studies that the station NEPA studies would likely need to cont

K_SC4 Suggestion for a specific station location or 

other comments about the proposed station in in Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environmental impacts of stations or recobecause the development of stations is a unique undertaking at an individual location. NChave completed a separate environmental evaluation and are currently constructing a new project includes improvements to the CSX-S-Line and the NCRR H-Line at Boylan Junc1.1.3.2). 

K_SC5 Suggestion for a specific station location or 

other comments about the proposed station in La Crosse, VA (Section I). 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environmental impacts of specific station station locations will be noted and provided to the Town of La Crosse, who will perform evaluation and make the final decision on its location and design at a later date. It should Tier II FEIS contains an expanded discussion of station design guidelines and the types othat the station NEPA studies would likely need to contain. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC6 Suggestion for a specific station location or 

other comments about the proposed station in Henderson, NC (Section P). 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environmental impacts of stations or recobecause the development of stations is a unique undertaking at an individual location. Allocations will be noted and provided to the Town of Henderson, who will perform a sepamake the final decision on its location and design at a later date. It should be noted that Ccontains an expanded discussion of station design guidelines and the types of informatiostation NEPA studies would likely need to contain. 

K_SC7 Comments stating that Richmond's Main 

Street Station (MSS) is "impractical," "outdated," a "bottle-neck," "too congested," and a "bad idea." Assertion that funneling trains through MSS would be prohibitively expensive, degrade speeds, and affect trip times and reliability. Also suggestions that the Broad Street Station (also known as Union Station) is a better choice (Section AA). 

The Tier 1 study evaluated the corridor through Richmond without specifically designatifocused on HSR from the Richmond area north will address issues associated with routin

K_SC8 Comments and questions on amenities 

needed for each of the rail stations to ensure high ridership, including suggestions for appropriate access, parking, security, and passenger amenities. 

As detailed in Section 2.2.4 of the Tier II DEIS, the rail alignments have been designed tthe locations identified to have a station/stop. Detailed designs for the Project's proposed other entities (e.g., the municipalities or the entity who eventually operates the service) aNEPA processes. All applicable design requirements (other than the Americans with Dissecurity, station design and passenger amenities, would be controlled by the local governin conjunction with the applicable state rail agency and the rail operator, who may have tshould be noted that Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains an expanded discussion of likthe types of information and detailed studies that the station NEPA studies would likely 

K_SC9 Suggestion that only bare minimums are 

required for rail stations, specifically reduced size structures, unmanned services, basic designs and limited amenities are needed to save costs and conserve space. 

As detailed in Section 2.2.4 of the Tier II DEIS, the rail alignments have been designed tthe locations identified to have a station/stop. Detailed designs for the Project's proposed other entities (e.g., the municipalities or the entity who eventually operates the service) aNEPA processes. All applicable design requirements (other than the Americans with Dissecurity, station design and passenger amenities, would be controlled by the local governin conjunction with the applicable state rail agency and the rail operator, who may have tshould be noted that Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains an expanded discussion of likthe types of information and detailed studies that the station NEPA studies would likely 

K_SC10 Comments and questions about specific land 

use/growth/redevelopment and transportation needs in a community (outside of the project study area). 

It is advisable that all respondents with non-project related comments and suggestions rein their communities take their concerns to their local government planning department sDEIS specifies which agencies are responsible for land use planning, regulating developin the two-state project areas. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC11 Comments and questions about existing 

freight traffic sharing trackage with the proposed SEHSR. Comments expressing desire to re-route freight away from the proposed SEHSR route. 

As discussed in Section 1.3 of the Tier II DEIS, the FRA has been implementing propos1991. Figure 1-2 of the Tier II DEIS provides a map of the Designated High Speed Rail or proposed passenger rail routes across the nation. Early in the planning process NCDOthrough a series of feasibility studies and modeling, that the SEHSR Corridor should be an incremental approach. This approach minimizes impacts to both the human and naturrail infrastructure and rail ROW as much as possible. Use of existing infrastructure also investment required by the system. FRA will continue to make operational decisions on passenger trains on both HSR and conventional railways based on a variety of factors, in

K_SC12 Comments or questions about suggested 

areas the SEHSR should extend to and connect with, including airports, entertainment areas, employment centers, even if those are located outside of the project corridor. 

It has long been recognized that, for complete transit system functionality, there are a vadestinations located outside of the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor in each metropoby other transportation projects (e.g., regional rail, local light rail) with linkages to the Sairport). For example, the proposed Triangle Regional Transit Program project will addrneeds in the Research Triangle Park area of North Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina of adding conventional passenger train service to eastern and western portions of the statservice would serve as the spine to these added routes, allowing conventional rail service proposed SEHSR Corridor service and other points in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyoto receive a HSR stop initially could benefit by access to passenger rail service at defined Corridor, with the future potential for conventional passenger rail service based upon demconventional needs extend beyond the scope of the Richmond to Raleigh Project and, theby separate public transit projects developed through the coordinated activities of varioutransportation planning agencies located along the corridor (see G_SC10). As discussed for this Project, the Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, portion of the SEHSR Corridor will major cities through greatly enhanced speed, reliability, and reductions in travel time. Thserve regional (not local), long-distance and interstate leisure and business travelers betwtraveling north and south along the I-85 and I-95 travel corridor on the East Coast (in Vias north to Washington, DC, and the Northeast, and south to South Carolina, the Gulf Couse existing north-south freight and passenger rail lines and corridors to regionally connemetropolitan areas, providing an alternative that will divert long-distance intercity trips f
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC13 Comments in support of the project, 

including comments supporting current travel by train either in this corridor or along lines that connect to this corridor. Statements affirming that the new SEHSR service would be used in the future including the following: 1) Support for the project, given that it will improve regional and intercity connectivity and overall mobility; 2) It is critical that high speed rail links major cities in the east. Consistent and reliable high speed rail service will expand the worlds of older people and others less willing to drive/fly to DC, NYC, and Boston. 2) The Richmond-Raleigh high speed rail corridor is the missing link in the SEHSR, and needs to be free of at-grade crossings for safety, operational and competitive federal funding reasons, as well as include bridges where feasible to enhance connections within communities. 3) Connections between city centers is crucial to the economies of the localities along the facility. 4) The facility will create an even larger economic region. 5) Connections to other regional transportation and transit systems and modes are essential as well as SEHSR (see K_SC12 and K_SC15 for additional information). 

Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC14 Comments and questions on how the area 

around train stations should be developed, including suggestions as to their function and use, including items such as destinations for shopping, entertainment, and culture. 

The DEIS (Section 2.2.4) does not evaluate the environmental impacts of stations or recobecause the development of stations is a unique undertaking at an individual location and NEPA studies. Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS does contain an expanded discussion of likethe types of information and detailed studies that the future station NEPA studies would described in the revised Section 4.17.3 of the Tier II FEIS, a likely local effect of the SEdevelopment of higher density land uses around the planned stations, which may limit thimprovements are assumed in the various economic benefit studies summarized in the upFEIS. Section 3.11.3 of the Tier II DEIS specifies which agencies are responsible for landevelopment and transportation planning in the potential station locations. It is advisable project related comments and suggestions regarding land use or transportation in their cotheir local government planning department staff. 

K_SC15 Comments and questions on needs for 

multimodal transit connectivity to the SEHSR, including transfer points, public transportation, and other local and regional transit systems and how they will connect/work with the proposed system. 

As described in Chapters 1, 3 and 4 of the Tier II FEIS, the intent of the SEHSR Corridoof transit, which would enhance regional connectivity. For example, the SEHSR Corridowith other rail transit in the major metropolitan areas along the Project corridor (e.g., TriIn addition, Virginia and North Carolina have both evaluated the feasibility of adding coto eastern and western portions of the states. The proposed SEHSR Corridor service wouadded routes, allowing conventional rail service passengers to connect to the proposed Spoints in the Northeast, Southeast, and beyond. The Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, porenhances the connectivity through greatly enhanced speed, reliability, and reductions in Tier II DEIS discussed the associated local and regional transit services planned to conneas which agencies are responsible for planning the transportation needs in the two-state prevised Section 3.11.3.1 of the Tier II FEIS, at all proposed SEHSR Corridor stations/stopublic bus transit service agency that either currently provides, or is anticipated to be expservices for SEHSR Corridor riders at the planned station locations. This includes the foagencies/systems (listed by proposed SEHSR Corridor station location) - Richmond, VA Company (GRTC)); Petersburg, VA (Petersburg Area Transit); La Crosse, VA (Lake Ar(LAB/HART)); Henderson, NC (Kerr Area Rural Transportation System (KARTS)); and Transit (CAT) & Triangle Transit (TT)) Additionally, rail transit plans for the Richmond rail and light rail lines providing service to Main Street Station, as well as a proposed copotentially share the same ROW as the SEHSR Corridor between Main Street Station anplans for the Raleigh region involve a light rail line that could potentially share the same Corridor from north Raleigh to downtown Raleigh. It is advisable that all persons with cpublic transit needs in their communities (which are outside the scope of this Project) taklocal transit or transportation planning agencies. 

K_SC16 Comments requesting that the SEHSR 

should extend to the Hampton Roads area of Virginia and be a part of this EIS, or requesting this study better reference/incorporate that project linkage. 

The Hampton Roads HSR connection has been studied through a separate project, given authorized by NEPA). The FEIS for the Hampton Roads study was submitted to FRA in on the "Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I" study or plans for the next phase (Tier II EIopportunities for that separate project, please go to http://www.rich2hrrail.info/. The two ensure compatibility and connectivity in the Petersburg, VA/Tri-Cities area. The Richmobeen updated to include additional information on the Richmond to Hampton Roads projcompatibility of designs as well as cross-references to the results of that separate study. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC17 Questions/comments on how the SEHSR 

project will benefit or harm the communities along the inactive CSX corridor, or other active rail corridors, in terms of freight usage. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will replace the missing tracks and allow passing sidinfrom the Norlina, NC, area to Collier Yard, south of Petersburg, VA. The project will alscurrently active rail corridors. Together, these improvements will provide an opportunity usage, which would be a benefit to industries in those counties that use (or could use) frereceiving goods. 

K_SC18 Comments about existing passenger rail 

travel along the corridor being slow and of poor quality due to shared trackage and poor track and train maintenance by freight companies. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project will address these existing problems in the active corriand straightened alignments to improve passenger train travel times as well as prevent bltrains. The Richmond to Raleigh Project will also construct new or improved rail lines analong the entire corridor to dramatically improve the quality of the corridor and decrease delays. Also, it is possible that the VA-NC SEHSR Compact would own the rail corridor Raleigh, NC (CSX S-Line), which would give passenger trains preference over freight tr

K_SC19 Comments/questions regarding stopping, 

idling, and/or starting freight trains along the multiple planned passing sidings, including the perception that such a situation would create more impacts than a traveling freight train. 

The passing sidings provided along the Richmond to Raleigh Project corridor are to allow moving train (i.e., neither train stops). Idling of either freight or passenger trains is not ansidings. 

K_SC20 Comments or questions about the effect of 

Alternative NC3 on Norfolk Southern's operations in downtown Raleigh, NC (Section V). 

The preferred alternative in Section V is Alternative NC5. With the separation of freight Jones St. under Alternative NC5, and the additional capacity created through the Projectbe a substantial change in freight idling times in downtown Raleigh resulting from the P

K_SC21 Comments on intermodal freight trains, 

specifically about whether they will they be stopping or just passing through Raleigh, NC. If they would stop in Raleigh, questions about what their impacts would be. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project EIS document assumes eight additional intermodal traconventional freight trains to account for impacts related to a potential increase in freighintermodal freight service through Raleigh, and no known plans for introduction of the sintermodal trains is controlled by the freight railroad companies and is driven by market 

K_SC22 Comments that requested the need for all 

greenways to be jointly planned and linked regionally. 

There are several non-profit groups that are planning longer, multi-county or even multi-Project Study Area, such as the North Carolina Mountains to the Sea Trail (see http://wwGreenway (see http://www.greenway.org/), which is being developed from Maine to Flogreenway adjacent to the Richmond to Raleigh Project may be incorporated. It is standarto attempt to provide inter-connectivity between separate trail and greenway systems to ireduce automobile dependence and also to capitalize on other existing trails to provide licostly duplications. Greenway and bicycle path planning are traditionally accomplished Project alignment as well as by regional planning and transportation agencies, according government(s) with jurisdiction in the area. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC23 Comments, questions, suggestions or request 

for details on the proposed multiuse greenway trail system. Also, comments supporting the parallel greenway system as part of the SEHSR project. 

The concept of a greenway located parallel to the Richmond to Raleigh Project from Din(just north of Raleigh, NC) was introduced in the Richmond to Raleigh Project DEIS. Thallow the necessary environmental documentation for the greenway to be prepared so thaquickly pursue the construction of the greenway in their jurisdictions. The construction oto be funded as part of the Richmond to Raleigh Project because FRA (the source of Feddoes not have a mechanism to provide funding for greenways. Although the parallel greewith the Richmond to Raleigh Project, the process of developing the environmental docuchanged since publication of the Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHWA, and the states of Virginia adetermined that the greenway project is more suitable for a pre-NEPA Greenway Corridin the Tier II FEIS for the Richmond to Raleigh Project, as previously considered. This ijurisdictions who will ultimately construct the greenway greater flexibility to pursue varithan limiting them to a particular funding agency's NEPA requirements. The details for tcontained within the Richmond to Raleigh Project FEIS, but rather in a separate Greenwcurrently under development, with completion anticipated at the time of the ROD for the Project website will provide additional details on this separate plan and opportunities for 

K_SC24 Statements that there have not been 

sufficient opportunities for public, local government, or other agency involvement in this project. Statement that public involvement should have been coordinated between this project and the Richmond to Hampton Roads project. Statement that there needs to be additional opportunities for public input going forward. 

The SEHSR Corridor project was divided into two tiers of studies that have spanned a deopportunities for public and agency involvement. The SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS includgovernment (including elected officials) and agency involvement between 1999 and 200government outreach included: informal communications; formal joint bi-state scoping msmall group meetings; written data and input requests; the formation of an Advisory Comcommunication tools made available in the public involvement process (newsletters, web access to the public workshops and officials workshops). Specific public involvement ousurvey; public workshops; community outreach tools/techniques; media outreach; commfeedback on public involvement activities. As discussed in Chapter 7 of the Tier II DEISpublic, official and agency involvement opportunities between 2003 and 2009. Specific scoping meeting; two advisory committee meetings (with participation by representativethe Project); agency-specific coordination activities (i.e., meetings with specific agencies newsletters; a continually updated project website; development of periodic press releaseinformational workshops along the Project corridor; a project brochure; and additional coowners affected by the Project (e.g. Section 106 historic resources). The DEIS met the Nof 45 days of public review time. Eight public hearings for the Tier II DEIS were held al(Richmond, VA; Petersburg, VA; McKenney, VA; Alberta, VA; Norlina, NC; HendersoRaleigh, NC). In addition, in 2011 and 2012, public update meetings were held in severanew alternatives (near Alberta, VA, and in downtown Raleigh, NC) and show other desithe Tier II DEIS (North Raleigh, and Wake Forest, NC, Henderson, NC and Chesterfield design public hearings held after completion of the Record of Decision (ROD). Regardininvolvement of the Richmond to Hampton Roads project and this one, the same team at and daily coordination has taken place throughout the planning process. Representatives hearings in January 2010 for the Richmond to Hampton Roads project to answer questiotwo projects. Additionally, DRPT representatives attended a town hall style meeting in Nanswer public questions about the Richmond to Raleigh Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC25 There has been insufficient outreach to low 

income and protected populations (including Limited English proficiency (LEP)) in affected project areas. 

The environmental justice section of the Tier II DEIS (section 4.11.5) concluded that no adverse effects on low-income and minority populations are anticipated within the overareasonable expectation that minority and low-income populations would share in the benimprovements. Although not targeted specifically to EJ communities, substantial outreacalong the entire project corridor (see K_SC24). In the only county reaching the Project Lwithin the Study Area in a county speaking English less than "very well"), LEP assistanc

K_SC26 Comments/questions regarding sufficient 

outreach provided to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations. 

Wake County, NC, which includes the City of Raleigh and Town of Wake Forest, was thArea to meet the Project threshold that would require need for LEP assistance (5% of - oStudy Area within in a county). Therefore, a Spanish translator was provided at the July 2011 public update meeting, and May 2012 public update meeting held in Wake Countyof all the handouts and display boards were available at the hearing and meetings and all letters sent to property owners were mailed with both English and Spanish versions. For entire Project Study Area, there was a link on the Project's DEIS web page that took the Project and the toll free project hotline provided an option to hear the outgoing message 

K_SC27 Comments/questions regarding consistency 

or perceived conflicts between the Triangle Transit (TT) proposed regional light rail designs in Wake and Durham Counties and the SEHSR project (Section V). 

NCDOT, TT, and the City of Raleigh have been closely coordinating the two separate prbetween the preferred NC5 alternative in Section V and the revised TT designs (publisheaddressed by either TT or the SEHSR Corridor making minor design modifications. 

K_SC28 Questions on existing and/or future daily 

limits on the number of passenger and freight trains in the project corridor. 

The Richmond to Raleigh Project contemplates eight additional intermodal freight trains conventional freight or passenger trains. Construction of the Richmond to Raleigh Projecconventional passenger service (i.e., local service with more stops in smaller towns) in thgrows. The daily number of trains that could operate within the proposed SEHSR Corridor otheavailable “slots” in the dispatch schedule. The number of slots is affected by “choke poincorridors north of Petersburg and south of Raleigh. This project provides additional rail cand Raleigh, NC; however, such points in other locations throughout the corridor will imfor trains operating on the new corridor. Separate environmental studies are planned andissues in other sections of the corridor. For the purposes of this environmental documentRichmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, portion of the SEHSR Corridor consists of four new higday (eight trains). 

K_SC29 Comments on the need to study ridership 

and revenue for the high speed rail line to Hampton Roads in conjunction with this project, to adequately show the benefits of both projects or to compete for federal funding. 

Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS contains results of the new ridership/revenue study, which within the Richmond to Raleigh Project are completed, including Hampton Roads and Rand the Northeast Corridor. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC30 Comments against the parallel greenway 

trail system. Objections to the greenway as part of the SEHSR project due to concerns such as noise, trash, and invasion of privacy.

In December 2006, Virginia’s Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), and rBrunswick, and Mecklenburg counties voiced their support for a multiuse Greenway Cocorridor and its inclusion in the SEHSR Tier II DEIS. The North Carolina Department oResources (DENR) also voiced its support for an extension of the Greenway Concept soterminating at the Neuse River, north of Raleigh, NC Based on the above input, the concept of a greenway located parallel to the Richmond to VA, to the Neuse River (just north of Raleigh, NC) was introduced in the Richmond to Rfor its inclusion was to allow the necessary environmental documentation for the greenwmunicipalities could more quickly pursue the construction of the greenway in their jurisdgreenway was never intended to be funded as part of the Richmond to Raleigh Project befunding for high speed rail projects) does not have a mechanism to provide funding for ggreenway is still being studied along with the Richmond to Raleigh Project, the process documentation for greenway has changed since publication of the Tier II DEIS. FRA, FHand North Carolina have jointly determined that the greenway project is more suitable foPlan, rather than being included in the Tier II FEIS for the Richmond to Raleigh Project, primarily to give the local jurisdictions who will ultimately construct the greenway greatfunding types over time rather than limiting them to a particular funding agency's NEPA greenway will, therefore, not be contained within the Richmond to Raleigh Project FEISCorridor Plan. This plan will be similar to a Tier I (corridor) NEPA document but withousignature. It will focus on project feasibility as well as purpose and need, will serve as thdocuments for individual greenway segments, and will document the type and amount of impacts. It will address public concerns over the public use on the greenway, including binvasion of privacy and trespassing. It will also better serve the state park agencies and lterms of providing flexibility to pursue various funding types over time. The Project webon this separate plan and opportunities for public review and comment. 

K_SC31 Comments objecting to the project in its 

entirety. Questions about why the public cannot choose NO to ALL project alternatives, thereby choosing NO to the entire project. 

This Tier II study is the second phase of the Project. In 2001, a Tier I EIS was prepared ffocused on the evaluation of nine different Study Area Alternatives compared to a No BuAlternative included existing and committed improvements to highway, air travel, intercVRE), public transit, and freight services, without any new high speed rail passenger serBuild Alternative as the "No Project" option.) The SEHSR Corridor Tier I FEIS (June 20NCDOT, DRPT, FRA and FHWA (October 2002) selected one of the Build AlternativesAlternative, to be carried forward into the current Tier II process. Reasons for this selecttraveling public – particularly special populations such as the elderly and the disabled – choices; Helping ease existing and future congestion (air, highway, passenger rail) withiand energy effectiveness within the transportation network; Reducing the overall air quapassenger mile traveled within the corridor; and, Improving overall transportation system with a minimum of environmental impact. The No Build Alternative would not provide discarded from further study. This Tier II study builds upon the results of the Tier I study Build corridor only. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC32 Comments that the project information, 

surveys, reports, and/or studies are confusing and the commenter could not understand the provided information. 

Comment noted. Please contact the appropriate project contact in your state at the followNC - Marc Hamel, SEHSR Tier II EIS Project Manager, NCDOT Rail Division, 919-707VA - Emily Stock, Manager of Rail Planning, Virginia DRPT, 804-786-1052 

K_SC33 Comment on an area located outside of the 

project area or on a project element not under debate (e.g., elements determined during the Tier I process). 

This Tier II EIS covers the SEHSR Corridor between Richmond, VA, and Raleigh, NC, Tier II DEIS. Comments provided on areas located outside of this defined project corridoto the current project and are, therefore, not specifically answered. Also, comments provthe Tier I process (e.g., related to use of diesel engines) or even prior to the SEHSR Corr"Incremental Approach" to improve existing rail lines) are noted but not specifically ansthese decisions, please refer to these documents on the Richmond to Raleigh Project web

K_SC34 Questions about how the rail and roadway 

alignments were evaluated and selected to ensure a fair and balanced approach. 

The purpose of NEPA is to objectively evaluate and report on the Project's Purpose and Nand balanced decision-making. The details presented in the Tier II FEIS, including how Project section was selected, demonstrates how the proposed alternatives in the Tier II Dbased on equal consideration of impacts to the human and natural environment, costs, analong with public and agency comments. 

K_SC35 Request to extend public comment period to 

allow the City of Raleigh to hold a public hearing and comment on alternatives in downtown Raleigh, NC. 

Request accommodated. 

K_SC36 Statement that the FEIS should expand upon 

the purpose and need for the project to include "promotion of compact development" and "reduction of greenhouse emissions." 

The Purpose and Need for the Richmond to Raleigh Project was established in the SEHS2002). Although new items will not be added to the Purpose and Need, Chapter 1 of the information about the benefits described in the Tier I document. 

K_SC37 Comment that changes to land use around 

stations should be evaluated in the FEIS rather than postponed to later date; if not planned properly now, the project could encourage more sprawl. Statement that the project should provide funding preference to station locations where local plans and ordinances encourage transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity to stations, and that stations should be in city centers where possible. 

As described in Section 4.17.3 of the Tier II DEIS, a likely local effect of the Richmond development of higher density land uses around the planned stations which may limit the improvements are assumed in the various economic benefit studies summarized in the upFEIS. Addressing potential land use impacts due to station location can only be provided development of future stations is not a part of this Project. The development of the statiothem, is under the control of the local government at that location. Section 3.11.3 of the agencies are responsible for land use planning, regulating development and transportatioarea. Assuming Federal funding will be used for the construction of or improvement to awill be required, including an evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to laanalyses may also be required if state funding is used. It should be noted that Chapter 1, Section 4.17.3 (Local Effects/Indirect and Cumulative Effects) of the Tier II FEIS contaistations, including likely station design guidelines, the types of information and detailed studies would likely need to contain, as well as FRA's "Station Area Planning GuidelinePassenger Rail, (FRA, June 2011)." 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

K_SC38 Comment that the project should do more to 

direct and encourage redevelopment and investment near stations, including mitigation steps to reduce suburban sprawl. Statement that the project should coordinate with local agencies to promote higher density, mixed use, and pedestrian-oriented development at stations, and provide incentives, technical assistance, and best practice examples to help facilitate them. 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (S6002, 3005, and 3006 link transportation planning and programming with NEPA such thaddressed. SAFETEA-LU applies to metropolitan and statewide planning. It directs agenwith State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, enconservation, and historic preservation." This Tier II EIS is but one step in the planning pstate, and local agencies, public officials, and citizens has occurred throughout the Tier Ithe Tier II FEIS and ROD are complete. Subsequent stages of planning (by the appropriadevelopment) will provide opportunities for finite, implementable controls, incentives, adevelopment in a desirable manner, as dictated by laws, regulations, resource agency, intIt should be noted that Chapter 1, Section 4.14.4 (Stations) and Section 4.17.3 (Local EffEffects) of the Tier II FEIS contain expanded discussions related to stations, including litypes of information and detailed studies that the station NEPA studies would likely nee"Station Area Planning Guidelines for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail." 

K_SC39 Comment that in terms of multimodal 

connectivity, the DEIS overwhelmingly focuses on roads. Request that the SEHSR project should provide backbone for larger network of transportation options and the FEIS should be expanded to recognize importance of connections to transit, bicycling, and pedestrian linkages. Comment that improved connections to other modes should be mitigation for traffic and air quality impacts. Statement that stations should be multi-modal and well connected to transit and non-motorized options. 

Section 3.11.3 of the Tier II DEIS discussed the associated local and regional transit servSEHSR Corridor, as well as which agencies are responsible for planning the transportatiarea. Section 4.14.4 in the Tier II DEIS addressed connectivity to the existing public tranpotential station locations. An expanded discussion for the Tier II FEIS (Section 4.14) liagency that either currently provides, or is anticipated to be expanded to provide, bus or riders at the planned station locations. The expanded text also includes consideration of npedestrian) access. 

K_SC40 Statement that the FEIS should better 

document community support for high speed rail in corridor; use Community Facilitated Strategy (CFS) to improve the public outreach and input process into the planning process. 

The FEIS provides greater detail on community outreach and public support/opposition tII FEIS has been expanded to include documentation of outreach efforts. Much of what icommenter was implemented as part of the Project's standard outreach effort in both statprovided in response to citizen input, such as additional pedestrian crossings where at-gr

Code L – Comments Related to the Project Designs 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC1 Concern about impacts to surrounding 

neighborhoods from the bridge design at Durant Road in Raleigh, NC (Section U). 

In response to comments received from the public and local officials, a revised bridge andesigned for this location. The revised designs were shown at a Public Update Meeting oand are shown in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. The road alignment and bshifted to the north, away from the residential and commercial development on the south northward shift will take the road alignment through City of Raleigh property where Ralrequiring the fire station to be relocated; the design has been coordinated with the City o

L_SC2 Request for construction of Highway NC-96 

bypass on the north side of the Town of Wake Forest, NC (Sections S and T). 

Construction of the Highway NC-96 bypass is outside the scope of this Project. Howevetraffic during construction of the bridge over the railroad at Main Street, Highway NC-9within the alignment of the Town of Wake Forest's proposed Highway NC-96 bypass, to Cross Street. The Richmond to Raleigh Project design will allow the bypass to be complnew designs are discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC3 Concern about impacts to downtown 

Raleigh, NC, including a request for consideration of an alternative design through the downtown area (Section V). 

The preferred alternative in Section V is Alternative NC5, which was developed in respothe public and local officials. Alternative NC5 was presented at a Public Update Meeting Raleigh, NC. Development of the new alternative is discussed in Chapter 2 of the Tier II reduced impacts is found in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix oalternative, the existing road network in the Five Points, Roanoke Park, Fairview Road aarea will remain unchanged and the existing vehicular and pedestrian access across the Ralignment through the downtown area is preserved except for the crossings at Hargett StJones Street, which would be closed to vehicular traffic and a pedestrian bridge would be 

L_SC4 Questions about the SEHSR corridor 

including selection of the corridor; and/or proposal that the rail alignment bypass downtown areas; and/or serve airports instead of/in addition to downtowns; and/or that the rail alignment should bypass small towns that do not have a proposed station. 

The preferred corridor between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC, was determined by (SEHSR Tier I FEIS) and confirmed by the 2002 ROD by the FRA. The Tier I FEIS estawould be developed and implemented using an "incremental approach" previously assesapproach minimizes impacts to both the human and natural environments by using existias much as possible. Use of existing infrastructure also reduces the initial capital investmthroughout the corridor developed around the railroads; therefore, bypassing the downtoincrease in both cost and impacts. It would also reduce the ability of the Project to addreTowns that are not designated to receive a HSR stop initially could benefit by access to pstations along the SEHSR Corridor, with the future potential for conventional passenger Connectivity to airports will be addressed through coordination with local transportation 

L_SC6 Request for a design change in Wake Forest, 

NC, to the proposed new access road (northward extension of Steeple Run Drive) east of the railroad between Seawell Drive and Ligon Mill Road (Section U). 

The road shown in the Tier II DEIS was designed to provide access east of the railroad in closing of Seawell Drive and nearby driveways. In response to requests from property owredesigned. The road alignment was shifted westward, closer to the railroad to minimize impacts to a family cemetery. Adjustments to property access at the northern end will be the Project. The revised impacts associated with these design changes are discussed in Cmaps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC7 Statement of opinion regarding designs. Comment noted. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC8 Concern that designs do not allow for future 

electrification of the railroad. 

The ROD for the SEHSR Corridor Tier I EIS established that the SEHSR Corridor woulincremental approach and would utilize fossil fuel powered trains. Refer to Chapter 2 of for background information on the basis for the decision. A finding discussed in the SEHwith fossil fuel engines, speed increases above the 110 mph did not generate significant revenues, but they did significantly increase costs because of more stringent regulations. bridges and underpasses have been designed to allow for electrification in the future. Cospeeds would require additional environmental evaluation at the appropriate time and corailroads. 

L_SC9 Concern that designs will result in problems 

related to stormwater drainage. 

Drainage issues associated with the designs will be dealt with during the final design stasurvey level data is available. The agency review and permitting process will require thaand state floodplain development guidelines. 

L_SC10 Questions regarding map terms used, e.g., 

"What are right of way lines?" and "What are controlled access lines?" 

On the public hearing maps, proposed ROW lines are used to show boundaries of publichighways. Proposed controlled access lines are used to show the boundaries of rail and saccess across or through is limited and controlled by the owner of the railroad or highwaan indication of proposed fencing locations. Specific locations for fencing will be determcoordination with the owner of the railroad, the operator of the railroad, and local govern

L_SC11 Request for a bridge over the railroad at 

Woods Edge Road and/or elimination of a bridge at Pine Forest Drive, south of Chester, VA (Section BB). 

In response to numerous comments received from the public and local officials indicatinconnectivity across the railroad, along with additional analysis of traffic data, the Project include a bridge over the railroad at Woods Edge Road. The proposed bridge at Pine Forretained; however, the extension of Walthall Industrial Parkway south from Woods Edge Forest Drive has been removed from the designs. The revised impacts associated with thin Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS, and maps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of th

L_SC12 Question about proposed rail improvements 

such as Maximum Authorized Speed, number of tracks, passing sidings, and new construction of rail in a particular location along the corridor. 

Refer to Chapter 1 of the Tier II FEIS for details about the general approach of the ProjeRefer to Chapter 2 for a description of the location of the Preferred Alternative by sectio

L_SC13 Question regarding whether the residents of 

Meridian Avenue in Richmond, VA, will be able to enter and exit from Bells Road (Section AA). 

Residents living on Meridian Avenue will not be able to enter or exit from Bells Road. TAvenue to be closed at Bells Road because of the necessary increase in elevation (i.e., grbridge over the railroad. Access to Meridian Avenue will be provided through an extensiMeridian Avenue cul de sac. A map of the designs can be found in the Map Book Appen

L_SC14 Concern about detours and maintenance of 

traffic during construction of project. 

Refer to Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS for information regarding planned detours and maconstruction of the Project. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC15 Request for a design revision to reduce 

impacts to a farm on St. Tammany Road, located in a voluntary agricultural district in Warren County, NC. Request that an alternative design be developed that would consist of a single road across the property, with a possible culvert crossing for farming access (Section M). 

Several modifications were made to the proposed roadwork for the area around the Ridgcomments on the Tier II DEIS. The Preferred Alternative has no direct impacts to the revoluntary agricultural district (see Appendix R, maps 101 and 102). 

L_SC16 Concerned about ROW impacts to property 

from road or rail designs, and/or a request for a design revision. 

The road and rail alignments have been designed to allow for the maximum footprint antthe properties in question were reviewed. Although design changes were not practicable level of information available for the designs), efforts will be made to minimize impacts during the final design stage of the Project when survey level data is available. The procCarolina have established for ROW Acquisition are described in Section 4.11.6 of the Ti

L_SC17 Question about the need for the proposed 

southward extension of Tanyard Street between East Green Street and East College Street in Franklinton, NC, and concern that the design will result in an increase in flooding that already occurs in that location (Section S). 

In response to comments received from the public, the proposed improvements to Tanyahave been removed from the Project designs (i.e., no changes proposed for existing Tanynorth-south connection between East Green Street and East College Street has been movboundary of the Sterling Mill historic resource. This design includes removal of pavemeBullock Street. The revised impacts associated with these design changes are shown in Cmaps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC18 Request that Marina Drive, south of 

Chippenham Parkway, in Chesterfield County, VA, remain open (Section AA). 

Marina Drive currently passes under the existing Falling Creek railroad bridge. There are bridge under the Richmond to Raleigh Project. Thus, Marina Drive would not be impact

L_SC19 Request to shift the proposed realignment of 

Wilson Road in Mecklenburg County, VA, closer to the edge of a property lines to minimize the size of remnants (Section H). 

This proposed shift in alignment was evaluated, but the stream along the parcel boundarishifted as requested. 

L_SC21 Concerns about impacts to the Franklin 

family farm north of Henderson in Section O and statement of preference for the "easternmost alternative," which has the least impact to the farm. 

The preferred alternative in Section O is Alternative NC3, which follows the easternmosassociated with these design changes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS and mapAppendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC22 Request for a pedestrian crossing at Doyle 

Boulevard in McKenney, VA (Section C). 

The proposed Doyle Boulevard bridge over the railroad can accommodate sidewalks. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC23 Request for the railroad to follow existing 

rail right of way through McKenney, VA, to avoid the Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill historic resource and also move further away from the McKenney artesian well. Also, request to shift associated roadwork to minimize impacts to the Zehmer Farm (Section C). 

The railroad alignment has been redesigned to include a slight eastward shift away from Farm/Honeymoon Hill Farm historic resource (the boundary listed in the NRHP in 2009 than the area determined to be eligible for the NRHP as part of the Richmond to Raleigh shift also takes the alignment further away from the Town of McKenney’s artesian well. with these design changes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS and maps can be fothe Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC24 Request for shift in proposed realignment of 

Keelers Mill Road in Dewitt, VA, in order to avoid a family cemetery (Section C). 

The road designs in this area were revised to avoid impacts to the cemetery. Refer to Secadditional discussion, and Appendix R for a map of the revised designs. 

L_SC25 Question regarding whether or not the 

project will follow the existing railroad right of way in Brunswick County, VA, near Route 726 (Section E). 

The preferred alternative in Brunswick County in Section E is Alternative VA 1. Near Rwestward, away from the existing rail ROW to straighten a curve. Maps can be found in Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC26 Request for a design revision in Vance 

County, NC, that would avoid impacts to the Brookston Baptist Church off Brookston Road, which would allow vehicular access to the rear of the church, and avoid disturbing the church cemetery (Section O). 

The preferred alternative in this section is Alternative NC3; however, all the alternatives Brookston Baptist Church. The Brookston Baptist Church is just north of the Greystone location are severely constrained by the quarry; therefore, the design request cannot be acomment. During the final design stage of the Project (when detailed survey data are avaminimize impacts to the church and cemetery. 

L_SC27 General concern about impacts to Chestnut 

Street in Henderson, NC, and a request to maintain this street as a north/south corridor through the city on the west side of the railroad tracks (Section P). 

In response to comments from the public and from officials with the City of Henderson, made to the proposed roadwork designs that were shown in the Tier II DEIS. Section 2.2information about the proposed changes that affect the downtown area (including Chestndiscussed in Chapter 4. A proposed roundabout intersection at Garnett Street/Beckford Dwill allow Garnett Street and Chestnut Street to function as a north/south corridor on the Maps of the designs can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC28 Concern that the change in access to 

Community National Bank in Henderson, NC, resulting from realignment of Dabney Drive Extension will negatively impact the business operations of the bank. Request that existing alignment of Dabney Drive Extension remain open to maintain existing driveways/access or that new access acceptable to property owner be incorporated into the designs (Section P). 

Due to traffic and safety concerns, the existing Dabney Drive Extension intersection with However, the location of driveway access to this property will be determined during the coordination with the property owner. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC29 Concern about the impacts of Alternative 

NC2 in Section S, where both Alternative NC1 and NC2 straighten a big curve in the existing rail alignment. 

Alternative NC1 is the preferred alternative in Section S. 

L_SC30 Concern that Forestville Road in Wake 

Forest, NC, does not show up as being closed on the SEHSR hearing maps for Section U. Request that the closure be shown on all future maps. 

The hearing maps do not include a symbol for "Existing Crossing To Be Closed" at Forewas previously closed by NCDOT as part of a separate project. 

L_SC32 Question regarding why Main Street Station 

(MSS) in Richmond, VA, was selected as a termini for the project, and/or why Broad Street Station was not considered. 

Main Street Station was identified as the northern terminus of the study because of its lopreferred route through the City of Richmond, and because it is a functioning passenger Broad Street station was not considered because of its location off of the mainline, and bMuseum of Virginia. 

L_SC33 Concern regarding family property in 

Ridgeway, NC, and whether the grade separation of Ridgeway Warrenton Road could be designed as an underpass instead of an overpass (Section M). 

The Project team reviewed the possibility of converting the grade separation to an underdesigned and the grade separation was moved. Based on the re-design, no additional desthis area. 

L_SC34 Request for a design change near First Street 

in DeWitt, VA, to minimize property impacts (Section C). Concern that construction of the Hamilton Arms Road (Route 650) bridge over the railroad will impact an existing septic system, and concern that the property will not support relocation of a drainage field elsewhere on the property. 

The designs impacting this property were reviewed; however, the road alignment in this nearby Bowen House historic property and a shift in alignment is not practicable for the information available for the designs. Efforts will be made to minimize impacts during thwhen survey level data is available. If the septic field is impacted, the impact and abilitywithin the boundaries of an impacted parcel would be considered during negotiations thaprocess. 

L_SC35 Request for an underpass of the railroad on 

Old Lane in Chester, VA, rather than closing the crossing (Section AA). Comment that this would improve traffic flow from Hopkins Road to Chester Road and reduce congestion on Centralia Road, which is already substantial (Section AA). 

The Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, Project has been designed to consolidate and grade underpasses) all railroad-roadway crossings. A grade separation in the vicinity of Old Laseveral design constraints, most notably the location of the rail interlocking that trains usline and S-line. However, additional traffic analysis for this area was conducted followina need for additional traffic accommodations such as turn lanes for the Hopkins Road anwhich provides access to Chester Road. The road work designs have been revised to incldesign revision were shown at a Public Update Meeting on February, 26, 2013 in Chestethe Tier II FEIS for information about impacts, including a discussion about the traffic aMap Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC36 Request to use the old train trestles located 

north of West Hundred Road in Chester, VA, to build a pedestrian and bicycle pathway over the railroad (Section BB). 

The trestles referenced are within former rail ROW that abuts but does not cross the Richthe ROW is owned by Chesterfield County. The County's Thoroughfare Plan shows use the future. The Richmond to Raleigh Project would not prevent the County from buildinlocation in the future. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC37 Request for a design change for Glebe Road 

in DeWitt, VA, due to a concern that the DEIS designs create a dangerous and awkward new traffic pattern that is not supported by the existing traffic patterns (in which little traffic passes via Shippings Road and onto Glebe Road). Request to tie Glebe Road into the intersection of Hamilton Arms and Route 1 to provide a more similar traffic pattern and safer travel (Section C). 

The suggestion of realigning Glebe Road to connect with Hamilton Arms at Route 1 was practicable due to greater property impacts. The designs developed for the Tier II DEIS athe American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Fe

L_SC38 Request for a design change in Wake Forest, 

NC, for Ligon Mill Road and the proposed bridge over the railroad; request that the road be shifted to the north in order to avoid impacts to the Cooke property located on the south side of Ligon Mill Road, just west of the railroad (Section U). 

Numerous alternative designs have been evaluated at this location in an effort to reduce are constrained by the curvature of Ligon Mill Road, as well as dense residential developrailroad. The alternative designs were found not to be practicable; however, efforts will bthe roadwork during the final design stage of the Project when survey level data is availa

L_SC39 Request for a design change in Wake Forest, 

NC, to reduce property impacts from the designs shown in the DEIS that provide access from Ligon Mill Road into the Smith Creek neighborhood (Section U). 

The proposed bridge over the railroad for Ligon Mill Road requires a change to the existSmith Creek neighborhood. In response to public comments an alternative to the design developed. The public was invited to comment on the revised designs at a Public Update Raleigh, NC. The revised impacts associated with these design changes are shown in Chmaps can be found in the Map Book Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC40 Request to include a vehicle and/or 

pedestrian crossing at Elm Avenue in Wake Forest, NC (Section U). 

In response to comments received from the public and local officials regarding the closuTier II DEIS, a road underpass was subsequently designed that would allow Elm Avenue presented at a Project Update Meeting on May 15, 2012. The response from both the pubofficials was that the impacts resulting from the design were too severe. These impacts inbusinesses on Elm Avenue and impacts to several properties along White Street, includinBased on further coordination with the Town of Wake Forest, it was determined the mosAvenue would be to close the crossing to vehicular traffic, but provide for non-vehicular bridge. The pedestrian bridge (designed to greenway standards) would not result in the sthe vehicular underpass; however, it would similarly preclude vehicular access to Railrothe existing, active CSX railroad ROW). In order to provide a means of entry to the propnew access road shown at the Project Update Meeting is needed. This access road would one business, as well as property impacts to the rear of the Railroad Street properties. Seaccess road were reviewed in coordination with the North Carolina Historic Preservation the Tier II FEIS was determined to minimize impacts to the Wake Forest Historic Distric
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC41 Comment that the primary route of SEHSR 

should not be through Richmond MSS because of several reasons, including: the route between MSS and Centralia will remain speed-restricted, has clearance issues, presents freight train conflicts, and has dangerous grade crossings; people will not use MSS; and the "A" line has better capacity and operating characteristics. 

The SEHSR Corridor Tier 1 study evaluated the corridor through Richmond without speSubsequent studies focused on HSR from the Richmond area north will address issues asMain Street Station. 

L_SC42 General question regarding how the SEHSR 

trains will connect with the Northeast Corridor (NEC). 

The SEHSR Corridor will connect with the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in Washington, Dto New York, Boston, and beyond. The union of these two high speed corridors would cwithin the Amtrak system, and thus the greatest potential revenues. The updated ridershiChapter 4 of the Tier II FEIS contains forecasts for trips between Charlotte, NC, and the Corridor plans would allow a passenger to connect between the SEHSR Corridor and NEentire trip. 

L_SC43 Request to shift a proposed new service road 

to the edge of a farm located on the north of Wise Five Forks Road (rather than the middle of the property) in order to utilize an existing path in the area (Section L). 

The road alignment has been shifted closer to the referenced path. A map of the design cBook Appendix of the Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC44 Request related to property access, access to 

existing roads, or across the existing railroad corridor. 

Owners of parcels with current, legal access to existing roads will have access to their pacompensated if it is not possible to maintain the access); driveway access to these parceldesign when survey level data is available. Questions related to ownership of land within easements across railroad rights of way can be directed to the freight railroads - CSX: (9(404) 962-5742. 

L_SC45 Request for a design change in Raleigh, NC 

(Section V) to include a grade separation (bridge or underpass) of Wolfpack Lane. 

In response to comments on the Tier II DEIS from local officials and the public, a bridge Wolfpack Lane. The design was coordinated with City of Raleigh staff, and the public walternative at an update meeting on May 15, 2012. The design, which accommodates vehtraffic was favorably received, and has been added to the Tier II FEIS. The new designs Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be found in the Map B

L_SC46 Request from the Mallinckrodt/Covidien 

business in Raleigh, NC, for the SEHSR designs to accommodate issues specific to their plant operations, including emergency response, use of existing railroad spur, hazardous materials, and access across the railroad corridor (Section U). 

The Project Team has initiated dialog with Mallinckrodt/Covidien and will continue to wdesign process to ensure their concerns are addressed to the fullest extent possible. 

L_SC47 Design request addressed by municipal or 

county government in separate correspondence. 

Responses to requests from government staff were evaluated and changes were made, wChapter 2. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

L_SC48 Request to use North Cross Street in 

Youngsville, NC, as a connector to Fleming Road rather than Naussau Street (Section T).

In response to comments from individuals and from local officials, the roadwork for Youthe Tier II DEIS has been redesigned. The new designs utilize Cross Street as a connectiNassau Street) during the construction of the Main Street bridge over the railroad. The nChapter 2 of the Tier II FEIS and the impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. Maps can be fothe Tier II FEIS. 

L_SC49 Request that bridge sections spanning the 

Roanoke River and Lake Gaston be constructed in such a manner as to protect the ecosystem of the shores, bottoms, and surfaces of the river and lake. Recommendation that all construction of the span use the cantilever architecture. 

The Project designs plan to use the existing railroad bridge piers across the Roanoke Rivare determined to be structurally sound. 

Code M – Comments Handled Separately 

Summary Comment 

ID 

Summary Comment Response 

M_SC1 Requested project information. Requested information sent to commenter. M_SC2 General project or process question(s). Questions answered individually via phone, email or mail M_SC3 Specific property impact questions. Individual responses made via phone, email or mail. M_SC4 Requested to be added to project mailing 

list. 

Added to mailing / interested parties list 

M_SC5 Notification that comments will be 

submitted separately. 

Comment noted. Referenced comments responded to separately. 

M_SC6 Submittal of information, including 

notification of perceived errors or inaccuracies. 

Information received and filed. 

M_SC7 Indication that commenter was not included 

on listing of property owners who received letters regarding the project. 

Confirmed that owners name and correct address were included on the Project mailing li
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 9-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

9 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities 

Federal Railroad Administration 

David Valenstein Program Manager / 

Environmental Programs FRA oversight, project guidance 

John Winkle 

Transportation Industry 

Analyst / Environmental 

Protection Specialist 

FRA oversight, project guidance 

William R. 

Fashouer 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for General Law FRA oversight, project guidance 

Daniel Orlaskey Attorney Advisor FRA oversight, project guidance 

Randy Brown Southeast High Speed 

Rail Project Manager FRA oversight, project guidance 

North Carolina Department of Transportation – Rail Division 

Sandra Stepney, 

P.E., CPM

Manager of Planning and 

Development, 22 years of 

experience 

Program direction, project oversight 

Shirley Williams

Manager of Planning and 

Development Branch,12 

years of experience at 

NCDOT 

Program direction, project oversight 

Jason Orthner, 

P.E. 

Manager of Design & 

Construction Branch, 19 

years of experience 

Railway design and optimization, engineering review 

Marc Hamel Rail Project Development 

Manager, 28 years of 

experience at NCDOT 

Overall Project Manager, public involvement, agency 

coordination, document review 

James Bridges, 

P.E., CPM 

Senior Rail Project 

Development Engineer, 

25 years of experience 

Project management, public involvement, agency 

coordination, document review 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

Kevin Page 

Chief of Infrastructure 

Initiatives and Strategic 

Partnerships, 28 years of 

experience 

Program direction, project oversight 

Emily Stock Manager of Rail Planning, 

18 years of experience 

Project management, public involvement, agency 

coordination, document review 

Michael Baker International 

Charles L. Flowe, 

P.E.

NC Office Manager, 38 

years of experience Principal-In-Charge 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 9-2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities 

Ken Mobley

Public Involvement 

Manager, over 20 years of 

experience

Project oversight

Ken Gilland, P.G. Environmental Scientist, 

24 years of experience

Technical lead, public involvement, coordination, 

prepared drafts for FEIS sections, finalized document

Richard Darling Environmental Manager, 

28 years of experience

Stream and wetland assessments, agency coordination, 

prepared drafts for FEIS sections

Chris Roessler Environmental Specialist, 

18 years of experience Prepared drafts for FEIS sections

Michelle 

Suverkrubbe, 

A.I.C.P.

Planning Project Manager, 

28 years of experience Prepared drafts for FEIS sections

Susan Manes Planning Project Manager, 

27 years of experience Prepared drafts for FEIS sections

Andrew Kuchta Air and Noise Analyst, 32 

years of experience Air quality, and noise and vibration assessments

Emaly Simone Environmental Scientist, 

15 years of experience Prepared drafts for FEIS sections

Scudder Wag, 

A.I.C.P.

Planning Project Manager, 

10 years of experience GIS analysis and mapping, greenway analysis

Jacob Thornton GIS Associate, 10 years of 

experience GIS analysis and mapping

Dwayne 

Huneycutt

Environmental Associate, 

13 years of experience Stream and wetland assessments

Ed Smail Environmental Specialist, 

9 years of experience Stream and wetland assessments

Kimberly Blake GIS Associate, 15 years of 

experience GIS analysis of census data

Three Oaks Engineering 

Craig Young, P.E. 

Senior Transportation 

Planning Engineer, 19 

years of experience 

Project management, public involvement, subconsultant coordination, agency coordination, prepared 

drafts for FEIS sections

Suzanne Unger 

Young, P.E. 

Senior Environmental 

Engineer, 19 years of 

experience 

Project management, 4(f) development, public 

involvement, agency coordination, prepared drafts for 

FEIS sections

Diana YoungPaiva 

Senior Transportation 

Planner, 20 years of 

experience 

Public involvement, agency coordination, prepared 

drafts for FEIS sections

Cary Rowells GIS Analyst, 25 years of 

experience 

Maps, GIS analysis of soils, stream and wetland impact 

determinations
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 9-3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities 

Hatch Mott MacDonald 

Glenda Gibson, 

P.E. 

Principal, Transportation 

Engineer and Project 

Manager, 27 years of 

experience 

Rail and Roadway Design Principal in Charge

Mike Pekarek, 

P.E. 

Railway and Roadway 

Design Manager, 18 years 

of experience 

Rail and Roadway Design Project Manager

Marc Freeman, 

P.E., A.I.C.P. 

Traffic Project Manager, 

20 years of experience Traffic analyses 

Nathan Philips, 

P.E. 

Traffic Project Manager, 

20 years of experience Traffic analysis 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 

Kerri Barile, 

Ph.D. 

Principal Investigator, 22 

years of experience Cultural resource investigations 

Michael Carmody, 

M.A. 

Principal Investigator, 20 

years of experience Cultural resource investigations 

Heather Dollins 

Staton, M.A. 

Architectural Historian, 7 

years of experience Cultural resource investigations 

Kerry Gonzalez, 

M.A. 

Project Archaeologist and 

Lab Manager, 13 years of 

experience 

Cultural resource investigations 

Emily Calhoun, 

M.S. 

Project Archaeologist and 

Report Manager, 9 years 

of experience 

Cultural resource investigations 

Marco Gonzalez 

Archaeologist and GIS 

Specialist, 13 years of 

experience 

Cultural resource investigations 

The Catena Group, Inc. 

Tim Savidge Biologist, over 22 years of 

experience Surveys for federally listed mussel species 

Tom Dickenson Biologist, over 12 years of 

experience Surveys for federally listed mussel species 

Chris Sheats Biologist, over 9 years of 

experience Surveys for federally listed mussel species 

Jonathan Hartsell Biologist, over 7 years of 

experience Surveys for federally listed mussel species 

Ivy Kimbrough Biologist, over 3 years of 

experience Surveys for federally listed mussel species 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-1

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

10 INDEX AND ACRONYMS 

10.1 INDEX 

Topic Section No. 

Acronyms 10.2 

Advisory Committee Meetings 7.1.2 

Agencies/Persons Provided with Statement 6 

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement 7 

Agency/Local Comments and Responses 8.1 

Agency Scoping Meetings 7.1.1 

Agency Specific Coordination 7.1.3 

Air Quality 3.6, 4.6 

 Affected Environment 3.6.2 

 Construction Impacts 4.6.6 

 Highway Vehicle Operations – CO 4.6.3 

 Highway Vehicle Operations – MSATs 4.6.5 

 Highway Vehicle Operations –PM2.5 4.6.4 

 Locomotive Operations: CO, NOx, HC, PM 4.6.1 

 Locomotive Operations: MSATs 4.6.2 

 Regulatory Setting 3.6.1 

 Summary 4.6.7 

 Updated Project Need Data 1.8.5 

Affected Environment (Air) 3.6.2 

 Ambient Air Quality in the Study Area 3.6.2.1 

 Existing Ambient Pollutant Concentrations 3.6.2.2 

Agriculture 3.11.2.2 

Alberta, VA 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward 2.3 

 Abandoned S-Line from Centralia to Lynch 2.3.1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-2

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Alternatives Serving Old Union Station 2.3.3 

 S-line from Appomattox River to Burgess 2.3.2 

Aquatic Communities 3.10.1.2, 4.10.1.2 

Archeological and Historical Resources 3.12, 4.12 

 Archaeological Resources 3.12.1, 4.12.1 

 Historical Resources 3.12.2, 4.12.2 

 Local Landmarks 3.12.3 

 Summary and Mitigation 4.12.3 

Archaeological Resources 3.12.1, 4.12.1 

 Arrowfield Plantation 3.12.1.9, 4.12.1.8 

 Battersea 3.12.1.11, 4.12.1.10 

 Centralia Earthworks 3.12.1.5, 4.12.1.4 

 Chester Hotel Site 3.12.1.6, 4.12.1.5 

 David Site 4.12.1.15 

 Dimmock Line/Earthworks 3.12.1.12, 4.12.1.11 

 Falling Creek Ironwork 3.12.1.2 

 Fort Davis Earthworks 3.12.1.13, 4.12.1.12 

 La Crosse Hotel Site 4.12.1.16 

 Oak Shades 3.12.1.15, 4.12.1.14 

 Orgain House 3.12.1.14, 4.12.1.13 

 Sheffields 3.12.1.3, 4.12.1.2 

 Site 44CF0707 3.12.1.8, 4.12.1.7 

 Site 44CF0710 3.12.1.10, 4.12.1.9 

 Swanee Site 3.12.1.7, 4.12.1.6 

 USDOD Supply Center District 3.12.1.4, 4.12.1.3 

 Williams Bridge Company 3.12.1.1, 4.12.1.1 

 Wright Farmstead 4.12.1.17 

Aviation 1.8.2.1, 3.14.6, 4.14.6 

Avoidance Alternatives 5.10 

 Alternatives that Avoid All Section 4(f) 5.10.1 

 Atlantic & Richmond/Petersburg Rails 5.10.5 

 Avoidance Alts for Use of Section 4(f) 5.10.2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-3

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Bracey Historic District 5.10.12 

 Chester-Franklinton Historic Districts 5.10.3 

 CP&L Car Barn and Automobile Garage 5.10.18 

 Defense Road and Dimmock Areas 5.10.8 

 Eichelberger House 5.10.7 

 Granite Hall/Fitts House 5.10.13 

 Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse 5.10.15 

 Holloway Farm 5.10.14 

 Orgain & Tourist Houses and Oak Shades 5.10.10 

 Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor 5.10.19 

 Raleigh Electric Company Power House 5.10.17 

 Roanoke Park Historic District 5.10.16 

 Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor 5.10.4 

 Summary 5.10.20 

 Williams Bridge Company 5.10.6 

 Wright Farmstead 5.10.11 

 Wynnhurst 5.10.9 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 4.1.6 

 Avoidance and Minimization 4.1.6.1 

 Compensatory Mitigation 4.1.6.3 

 Other Avoidance and Minimization 4.1.6.2 

Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 4.10.2.2 

Battlefields 3.12.2.2 

Biological Resources 3.10, 4.10 

 Natural Communities 3.10.1, 4.10.1 

 Rare and Protected Species 3.10.2 

Brunswick County, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-4

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.6, 4.14.1.6 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.6, 4.9.2.1 

Changes in Land Use 4.11.4.2 

Chester, VA 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.3, 4.14.2.3 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Chesterfield County, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.2, 4.14.1.2 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.2, 4.14.2.2 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.2 

Clean Air Act Amendments 

 Title I 3.6.1.2 

 Title II 3.6.1.3 

 Conformity 3.6.1.4 

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule 3.6.1.5 

Colonial Heights, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-5

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.3, 4.14.1.3 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.3 

Community Concerns 4.11.2.1 

Community Facilities and Services 3.11.5, 4.11.3 

 Emergency Services 3.11.5.2, 4.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4, 4.11.3.2 

 Public Educational Facilities 3.11.5.1, 4.11.3.1 

Community Resources 3.11, 4.11 

 Community Facilities and Services 3.11.5, 4.11.3 

 Demographics 3.11.1 

 Economics 3.11.2 

 Land Use and Transportation Planning 3.11.3, 4.11.4 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4, 4.11.2 

 Relocations and Associated ROW Costs 4.11.6 

 Socio-economics 4.11.1 

 Vulnerable Populations/EJ 4.11.5 

Compatibility w/ Future Land Use Plans 4.11.4.3 

Compatibility w/ Transportation Plans 4.11.4.4 

 County and Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

Compensatory Mitigation 4.1.6.3 

Conclusion 

 Operational Noise and Vibration 4.7.1.4 

 Purpose and Need 1.9.2 

Congestion 1.8.2 

 Air Transportation 1.8.2.1 

 Highway Transportation 1.8.2.2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-6

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Construction Impacts 

 Air 4.6.6 

 Noise 4.7.2.1 

 Vibration 4.7.2.2 

Construction Impact Analysis (Noise/Vibration) 4.7.2 

 Construction Noise 4.7.2.1 

 Construction Vibration 4.7.2.2 

County and Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

County/City Parklands 3.13.3, 4.13.2 

 North Carolina 3.13.3.2, 4.13.2.2 

 Virginia 3.13.3.1, 4.13.2.1 

Demographics 3.11.1 

 Age 3.11.1.3 

 Income and Poverty 3.11.1.4 

 Limited English Proficiency 3.11.1.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.1 

 Public Educational Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Race 3.11.1.1 

Dependency 1.8.1.2 

Description of the Proposed Action 5.1 

 Project Alternatives 5.1.3 

 Project Description and Approach 5.1.2 

 Purpose for the Project 5.1.1 

Dinwiddie County, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.5, 4.14.1.5 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.5 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-7

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Dinwiddie Courthouse Community, VA 

 Transportation Netowrk Impacts 4.11.22 

Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts 4.7.1.2 

Document 

 Distribution 6 

 Preparers 8 

Drainage Basins 3.1.1.1 

Economic Benefits 4.11.1.2 

Economic Consequences 4.11.1.1 

Economic Growth 1.8.1.3 

Economics 3.11.2 

 Agriculture 3.11.2.2 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

Elderly & Disabled Populations 4.11.5.1 

Emergency Services 3.11.5.2 

Energy 3.8, 4.8 

Energy Efficiency 1.8.7 

Environmental Consequences 4 

Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

Ettrick, VA 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Existing Bridges 1.4.1.10 

Existing Environment 3 

Existing Setting (Noise and Vibration) 3.7.3 

Farmland 3.3, 4.3 

Federal Parklands 3.13.1 

Fencing 1.4.1.8, 4.16.4 

Floodplains and Floodways 3.1.3, 4.1.3 

Franklin County, NC 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-8

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.10, 4.14.1.10 

 Visual Environment 3.9.2.3, 4.9.2.2 

Franklinton, NC 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.9, 4.14.2.9 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Freight Trackage 1.4.1.5 

Geology 3.2.2, 4.2.2 

Grade Separation 1.4.1.7, 4.16.2 

Greenway Corridor Plan 2.5 

Greenways 4.13.3 

 Appomattox Riverfront Trail 4.13.3.2 

 East Coast Greenway 4.13.3.9 

 James River Greenway 4.13.3.1 

 Marsh Creek Greenway 4.13.3.7 

 Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway 4.13.3.8 

 Multiuse Greenway Concept 4.13.3.10 

 Neuse River Greenway 4.13.3.5 

 Simms Branch Greenway 4.13.3.6 

 Tobacco Heritage Trail 4.13.3.4 

 Upper Appomattox Canal Trail 4.13.3.3 

Groundwater Wells 4.1.1.5, 4.15.1.2 

Groundwater Wells/Surface Water Intakes 4.15.1 

 Groundwater Wells 4.15.1.2 

 Surface Water Supply Intakes 4.15.1.1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-9

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Growth 1.8.1 

 Dependency 1.8.1.2 

 Economic Growth 1.8.1.3 

 Population 1.8.1.1 

Hazardous Materials 3.5, 4.5 

Health Services 3.11.5.3 

Henderson, NC 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Stations 1.4.3.3 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.7, 4.14.2.7 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

High Speed Rail 

 History 1.1 

 Safety 4.16.1 

High Speed Rail History 1.1 

 National HSR Program 1.1.1 

 Other Rail Projects and Actions 1.1.3 

 SEHSR Corridor 1.1.2 

Highway Transportation 1.8.2.2 

Highway Vehicle Operations 

 CO 4.6.3 

 MSATs 4.6.5 

 PM2.5 4.6.4 

Historical Resources 3.12.2, 4.12.2 

 North Carolina Historical Resources 3.12.2.3, 4.12.2.3 

 Resources No Longer Eligible for NRHP 3.12.2.4 

 Virginia Battlefields 3.12.2.2, 4.12.2.2 

 Virginia Historical Resources 3.12.2.1, 4.12.2.1 

Index 10 

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 4.17 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-10

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Local Effects 4.17.3 

 National Effects 4.17.1 

 Other Planned Actions 4.17.4 

 Regional Effects 4.17.2 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Resource Commitments 4.19 

Kittrell, NC 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.8, 4.14.2.8 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

La Crosse, VA 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Places of Workship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Stations 1.4.3.3 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.4, 4.14.2.4 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Land Use 

Land Use and Transportation Planning 3.11.3, 4.11.4 

 Changes in Land Use 4.11.4.2 

 Compatibility w/ Future Land Use Plans 4.11.4.3 

 Compatibility w/ Transportation Plans 4.11.4.4 

 County and Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Land Use Plans 4.11.4.1 

 Regional Planning 3.11.3.2 

 State Planning 3.11.3.1 

Land Use Planning 4.11.4 

Land Use Plans 4.11.4.1 

Least Overall Harm Analysis 5.11 

 Section A 5.11.5 

 Section AA 5.11.1 

 Section B 5.11.6 

 Section BB 5.11.2 

 Section C 5.11.7 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-11

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Section CC 5.11.3 

 Section D 5.11.8 

 Section DD 5.11.4 

 Section E 5.11.9 

 Section F 5.11.10 

 Section G 5.11.11 

 Section H 5.11.12 

 Section I 5.11.13 

 Section J 5.11.14 

 Section K 5.11.15 

 Section L 5.11.16 

 Section M 5.11.17 

 Section N 5.11.18 

 Section O 5.11.19 

 Section P 5.11.20 

 Section Q 5.11.21 

 Section R 5.11.22 

 Section S 5.11.23 

 Section T 5.11.24 

 Section U 5.11.25 

 Section V 5.11.26 

Local Indirect and Cumulative Effects 4.17.3 

 Indirect Effects to Natural Resources 4.17.3.1 

 National Effects 4.17.1 

Local Landmarks 3.12.3 

 North Carolina 3.12.3.2 

 Virginia 3.12.3.1 

Locomotive Operations 4.6.1, 4.6.2 

 CO, NOx, HC, and PM 4.6.1 

 MSATs 4.6.2 

McKenney, VA 

 Transportation Netowrk Impacts 4.11.2.2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-12

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Measures to Minimize Harm 5.12 

 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor 5.12.2 

 Chester Historic District 5.12.5 

 Defense Road/Dimmock Areas 5.12.7 

 Eichelberger House 5.12.6 

 Franklinton Historic District 5.12.12 

 Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse 5.12.13 

 Henderson Historic District and Extension 5.12.10 

 La Crosse Commercial Historic District 5.12.9 

 Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor 5.12.14 

 Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 5.12.4 

 Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor 5.12.1 

 South Henderson Industrial Historic District 5.12.11 

 Tourist Guest House 5.12.8 

 Williams Bridge Company (VA) 5.12.3 

Mecklenburg County, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.7, 4.14.1.7 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.7 

Middleburg, NC 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.6, 4.14.2.6 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 4.10.2.3 

Mineral Resources 3.4, 4.4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-13

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Minimization 

 Measures to Minimize Harm 5.12 

 Natural Communities 4.10.1.3 

 Water Resources 4.1.6 

Mitigation 

 Archeological and Historical Resources 4.12.3 

 Noise and Vibration 4.7.3 

 Water Resources 4.1.6.3 

Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 3.6.1.6 

Natural Communities 3.10.1, 4.10.1 

 Aquatic Communities 3.10.1.2, 4.10.1.2 

 Impact Minimization 4.10.1.3 

 Terrestrial Communities 3.10.1.1, 4.10.1.1 

Natural Community Impact Minimization 4.10.1.3 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.6.1.1 

National HSR Program History 1.1.1 

NCDOT Relocation Policies 4.11.6.2 

Need for Proposed Project 1.6 

Net Economic Benefits 4.11.1.3 

Neighborhood and Communities 3.11.4, 4.11.2 

 Community Concerns 4.11.2.1 

 North Carolina 3.11.4.2 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

 Virginia 3.11.4.1 

No Build Alternative 2.4 

Noise and Vibration 3.7, 4.7 

 Construction Impact Assessment 4.7.2 

 Existing Setting 3.7.3 

 Mitigation 4.7.3 

 Noise Descriptors 3.7.1 

 Noise Measurements 3.7.4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-14

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Operation Impact Assessment 4.7.1 

 Vibration Descriptors 3.7.2 

 Vibration Measurements 3.7.5 

Noise and Vibration Mitigation 4.7.3 

 Mitigation During Construction 4.7.3.1 

 Mitigation During Operation 4.7.3.2 

Noise Descriptors 3.7.1 

Noise Measurements 3.7.4 

Norlina, NC 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.5, 4.14.2.5 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

North Carolina 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/City Parklands 3.13.3.2 

 Emergency Services 3.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Highway Vehicle Operations: CO 4.6.3.2 

 Historical Resources 3.12.2.3 

 Local Landmarks 3.12.3.2 

 Local Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Rail 3.14.3.2 

 Regional Planning 3.11.3.2 

 State Parklands and Recreation Areas 3.13.2.2 

 State Planning 3.11.3.1 

 Streams 4.1.1.1 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Visual Environment 3.9.2 

Numbers of Trains 1.4.1.4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-15

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Operating Costs 1.4.4.2 

Operation Impact Assessment (Noise/Vibration) 4.7.1 

 Conclusion 4.7.1.4 

 Diverted Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts 4.7.1.2 

 Operation Vibration 4.7.1.3 

 Rail Operation Noise 4.7.1.1 

Operation Vibration 4.7.1.3 

Operational Impacts 

 Air 4.6 

 Noise and Vibration 4.7.1 

Operations 1.4.4 

 Operating Costs 1.4.4.2 

Other Planned Actions (ICE) 4.17.4 

 Fort Lee Military Reservation: BRAC 4.17.4.3 

 Hearland Corridor and National Gateway 4.17.4.4 

 Henderson: Downtown Revitalization 4.17.4.6 

 Raleigh: Long-Range Plan 4.17.4.8 

 Raleigh: New Raleigh Union Station 4.17.4.8 

 Richmond: Improve Main Street Station 4.17.4.5 

 SEHSR: I-95 Corridor 4.17.4.1 

 SEHSR: Raleigh, NC, to Charlotte, NC 4.17.4.2 

 Triangle Commuter Rail 4.17.4.7 

Other Rail Projects and Actions 1.1.3 

 North Carolina Initiatives 1.1.3.2 

 Virginia Initiatives 1.1.3.1 

Other Security Concerns 4.16.5 

Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Refuges 3.13, 4.13 

 City/County Parklands 3.13.3, 4.13.2 

 Federal Parklands 3.13.1, 4.13.1 

 Greenways 4.13.3 

 Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Resources 3.13.5, 5.2 

 State Parklands and Recreational Areas 3.13.2 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-16

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Wildlife Refuges 3.13.4 

Patronage 1.5 

Pedestrian Accommodations 1.4.1.9 

Pedestrian Safety 4.16.3 

Permits 4.1.5 

 Section 404/401 Permits 4.1.5.1 

 Stormwater Permits 4.1.5.2 

 US Coast Guard Permits 4.1.5.3 

Petersburg, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.4, 4.14.1.4 

 Stations 1.4.3.2 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.4 

Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.1 

PM Hot-Spot Analysis 3.6.1.7 

Population 1.8.1.1 

Preferred Alternative by Section 2.2 

 Introduction of Preferred Alternative 2.2.2 

 Process for Evaluation of Alternatives 2.2.1 

 Section A 2.2.7 

 Section AA 2.2.3 

 Section B 2.2.8 

 Section BB 2.2.4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-17

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Section C 2.2.9 

 Section CC 2.2.5 

 Section D 2.2.10 

 Section DD 2.2.6 

 Section E 2.2.11 

 Section F 2.2.12 

 Section G 2.2.13 

 Section H 2.2.14 

 Section I 2.2.15 

 Section J 2.2.16 

 Section K 2.2.17 

 Section L 2.2.18 

 Section M 2.2.19 

 Section N 2.2.20 

 Section O 2.2.21 

 Section P 2.2.22 

 Section Q 2.2.23 

 Section R 2.2.24 

 Section S 2.2.25 

 Section T 2.2.26 

 Section U 2.2.27 

 Section V 2.2.28 

Prime and Other Important Farmland 3.3, 4.3 

Project Assumptions 1.4.1 

 Existing Bridges 1.4.1.10 

 Fencing and Landscaping 1.4.1.8 

 Freight Trackage 1.4.1.5 

 Grade Separations/Crossing Consolidations 1.4.1.7 

 Numbers of Trains 1.4.1.4 

 Pedestrian Accommodations 1.4.1.9 

 Rail Improvements 1.4.1.2 

 Speed 1.4.1.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-18

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Technology 1.4.1.1 

 Transportation/Multimodal Connectivity 1.4.1.6 

Project Alternatives 5.1.3 

Project Background 1.2 

 SEHSR Tier I EIS 1.2.1 

 SEHSR Tier II EIS 1.2.2 

Project Description 1.4, 5.1.2 

 Project Assumptions 1.4.1 

 Project Funding 1.4.2 

 Operations 1.4.4 

 Stations 1.4.3 

Project Timeline 1.3 

Project Website 7.2.4 

Punlic Comments and Responses 8.2 

Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

Public Water Supplies 4.1.1.4 

Purpose and Need of Project 1 

Purpose of the Proposed Project 5.1.1 

Rail 

 Impacts 4.14.3 

 Improvements 1.4.1.2 

 North Carolina 3.14.3.2 

 Operation Noise 4.7.1.1 

 Virginia 3.14.3.1 

Rail Operation Noise 4.7.1.1 

Rare and Protected Species 3.10.2, 4.10.2 

 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 4.10.2.2 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 4.10.2.3 

 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.10.2.1 

Raleigh, NC 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-19

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Stations 1.4.3.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.10, 4.14.2.10 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

References 10 

Regional Indirect and Cumulative Effects 4.17.2 

Regional Planning 3.11.3.2 

Regulatory Setting (Air) 3.6.1 

 Clean Air Act Amendments – Title I 3.6.1.2 

 Clean Air Act Amendments – Title II 3.6.1.3 

 Clean Air Act Conformity 3.6.1.4 

 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule 3.6.1.5 

 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 3.6.1.6 

 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.6.1.1 

 PM Hot-Spot Analysis 3.6.1.7 

Relocation Impacts 4.11.6.3 

Relocations and Associated ROW Costs 4.11.6 

 NCDOT Relocation Policies 4.11.6.2 

 Relocation Impacts 4.11.6.3 

 Right of Way Costs 4.11.6.4 

 VDOT Relocation Policies 4.11.6.1 

Responses to Comments 8 

Richmond, VA 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.1, 4.14.1.1 

 Stations 1.4.3.1 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2.1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-20

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1.1 

Right of Way Costs 4.11.6.4 

Riparian Areas/Other Jurisdictional Waters 4.1.1.2 

Roads 3.14.1, 4.14.1 

 Brunswick County, VA 3.14.1.6, 4.14.1.6 

 Chesterfield County, VA 3.14.1.2, 4.14.1.2 

 City of Colonial Heights, VA 3.14.1.3, 4.14.1.3 

 City of Richmond 3.14.1.1, 4.14.1.1 

 City of Petersburg, VA 3.14.1.4, 4.14.1.4 

 Dinwiddie County, VA 3.14.1.5, 4.14.1.5 

 Franklin County, NC 3.14.1.10, 4.14.1.10 

 Mecklenburg County, VA 3.14.1.7, 4.14.1.7 

 Vance County, NC 3.14.1.9, 4.14.1.9 

 Wake County, NC 3.14.1.11, 4.14.1.11 

 Warren County, NC 3.14.1.8, 4.14.1.8 

Safety and Security 3.16, 4.16 

 Fencing 4.16.4 

 Grade Separation 4.16.2 

 High Speed Rail Safety 4.16.1 

 Other Security Concerns 4.16.5 

 Pedestrian Safety 4.16.3 

 Updated Project Needs Data 1.8.6 

Section 404/401 Permits 4.1.5.1 

Section 4(f) Coordination 5.13 

 Atlantic & Richmond /Petersburg Railways 5.13.3 

 Consulting Parties 5.13.12 

 Defense Road and Dimmock Areas 5.13.5 

 Franklinton Historic District 5.13.9 

 Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse 5.13.10 

 Henderson and South Henderson Districts 5.13.8 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-21

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 La Crosse Commercial Historic District 5.13.7 

 Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor 5.13.11 

 Resources Located in Chesterfield County 5.13.4 

 Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor 5.13.1 

 Tourist Guest House 5.13.6 

 US Department of Interior 5.13.13 

 Williams Bridge Company 5.13.2 

Section 4(f) Determination - Final 5.14 

Section 4(f) Evaluation – Final 5 

Section 4(f) Impacts: Archeology 5.9 

Section 4(f) Impacts: Battlefields 5.8 

 Boydton Plank Road 5.8.7 

 Dinwiddie Courthouse 5.8.10 

 Hatcher’s Run 5.8.8 

 Lewis Farm 5.8.9 

 Peebles Farm 5.8.6 

 Petersburg III/The Breakthrough 5.8.4 

 Port Walthall Junction 5.8.2 

 Proctor’s Creek 5.8.1 

 Swift Creek/Arrowfield Church 5.8.3 

 Weldon Railroad/Globe Tavern 5.8.5 

Section 4(f) Impacts: Historic Architecture 5.7 

 Appomattox River Railroad Bridge 5.7.23 

 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor 5.7.6 

 Bank of McKenney 5.7.31 

 Battersea 5.7.24 

 Bellwood-Richmond Quartermaster Depot 5.7.13 

 Blick's Store 5.7.35 

 Bowen House 5.7.30 

 Bracey & Company Store 5.7.47 

 Bracey Depot 5.7.46 

 Bracey Historic District 5.7.45 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-22

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Bridge over Defense Road 5.7.28 

 C&O & Seaboard Railroad Depot 5.7.2 

 Cedar Creek Railroad Bridge Piers 5.7.61 

 Centralia Post Office 5.7.16 

 Centralia Earthworks 5.7.19 

 Chapel of the Good Shepherd 5.7.49 

 Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Bldg 5.7.32 

 Chester Historic District 5.7.20 

 Circle Oaks/4510 Centralia Road 5.7.18 

 CP&L Car Barn and Automobile Garage 5.7.74 

 Crabtree Creek Railroad Bridge Pier 5.7.65 

 Davee Gardens Historic District 5.7.10 

 Defense Road 5.7.26 

 Depot Historic District & Amendment 5.7.75 

 Dimmock Line/Earthworks 5.7.27 

 Dr. Thomas B. Williams House and Office 5.7.50 

 Dupont Spruance 5.7.11 

 Eichelberger House 5.7.22 

 Evans House 5.7.40 

 Forrest Ellington Farm 5.7.54 

 Fort Davis Earthworks 5.7.29 

 Franklinton Historic District 5.7.59 

 Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District 5.7.63 

 Glenwood-Brooklyn Historic District 5.7.69 

 Granite Hall/Fitts House 5.7.48 

 Gulf Petroleum Products Warehouse 5.7.66 

 Henderson Historic District and Expansion 5.7.55 

 Holloway Farm 5.7.53 

 House/458 Second Avenue 5.7.36 

 House/3619 Thurston Rd 5.7.15 

 Houses (3 on 1500 block of Nicholas St) 5.7.58 

 Houses (5 on 1400 block of Nicholas St) 5.7.57 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-23

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 James River and Kanawha Canal District 5.7.5 

 La Crosse Commercial Historic District 5.7.41 

 La Crosse Hotel 5.7.42 

 Manchester Industrial Warehouse District 5.7.7 

 Marshall House/Tavern 5.7.51 

 Noland Plumbing Company Building 5.7.68 

 North Battersea/Pride’s Field District 5.7.25 

 Oak Shades 5.7.39 

 Orgain House 5.7.37 

 Pretlow House 5.7.21 

 Ragland House/4626 Centralia Rd 5.7.17 

 Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Corridor 5.7.76 

 Raleigh Cotton Mills 5.7.72 

 Raleigh Electric Company Power House 5.7.73 

 Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway 5.7.14 

 Roanoke Park Historic District 5.7.67 

 Sardis Methodist Church 5.7.44 

 Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor 5.7.1 

 Seaboard Railway Station 5.7.70 

 Seaboard Railway Warehouses 5.7.71 

 Sheffields/Auburn Chase/Bellwood/Bldg 42 5.7.12 

 Shockoe Slip Historic District 5.7.4 

 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row District 5.7.3 

 South Henderson Industrial Historic District 5.7.56 

 Sterling Cotton Mill 5.7.60 

 Sterling Mill Historic District 5.7.59 

 Transmontaigne Product Services, Inc. 5.7.9 

 Tourist Guest House 5.7.38 

 USDOD Supply Center Historic District 5.7.13 

 Wake Forest Historic District 5.7.64 

 William J. Hawkins House 5.7.52 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-24

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Williams Bridge Company 5.7.8 

 Wright Farmstead 5.7.43 

 Wynnhurst 5.7.34 

 Youngsville Historic District 5.7.62 

 Zehmer Farm/Honeymoon Hill Farm 5.7.33 

Section 4(f) Impacts: Parks, Rec Areas, Refuges 5.6 

 Appomattox Riverfront Trail 5.6.10 

 Centennial Park 5.6.14 

 Chester Kiwanis Historical Park 5.6.8 

 Chester Linear Park Expansion 5.6.7 

 Ettrick Park & Mayes-Colbert Building 5.6.9 

 Falling Creek Ironworks Park 5.6.5 

 Falling Creek Park Expansion 5.6.4 

 Franklinton Elementary School 5.6.16 

 James River Greenway (Kingsland Creek) 5.6.6 

 James River Park System: Slave Trail 5.6.2 

 Marsh Creek Greenway 5.6.19 

 Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway 5.6.20 

 Neuse River Greenway 5.6.17 

 Petersburg National Battlefield 5.6.12 

 Richmond Canal Walk 5.6.1 

 Simms Branch Greenway Expansion 5.6.18 

 Thomas B. Smith Community Center 5.6.3 

 Tobacco Heritage Trail 5.6.13 

 Town of La Crosse Playground 5.6.15 

 Upper Appomattox Canal Trail 5.6.11 

Section 4(f) Resources: Archeology 5.5 

 Arrowfield Plantation 5.5.2 

 Chester Hotel Site 5.5.1 

 Davis Site 5.5.3 

Section 4(f) Resources: Battlefields 5.4 

Section 4(f) Resources: Historic Architecture 5.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-25

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Section 4(f) Resources: Parks, Rec, Refuges 5.2 

 Appomattox Riverfront Trail 5.2.10 

 Centennial Park 5.2.14 

 Chester Kiwanis Historical Park 5.2.8 

 Chester Linear Park Expansion 5.2.7 

 Ettrick Park & Mayes-Colbert Building 5.2.9 

 Falling Creek Ironworks Park 5.2.5 

 Falling Creek Park Expansion 5.2.4 

 Franklinton Elementary School 5.2.16 

 James River Greenway (Kingsland Creek) 5.2.6 

 James River Park System: Slave Trail 5.2.2 

 Marsh Creek Greenway 5.2.19 

 Middle Crabtree Creek Greenway 5.2.20 

 Neuse River Greenway 5.2.17 

 Petersburg National Battlefield 5.2.12 

 Richmond Canal Walk 5.2.1 

 Simms Branch Greenway Expansion 5.2.18 

 Thomas B. Smith Community Center 5.2.3 

 Tobacco Heritage Trail 5.2.13 

 Town of La Crosse Playground 5.2.15 

 Upper Appomattox Canal Trail 5.2.11 

Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Resources 3.13.5, 5.2 

 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Requirements 3.13.5.3 

 Section 4(f) Requirements 3.13.5.1 

 Section 6(f) Requirements 3.13.5.2 

Section A Preferred Alternative 2.2.7 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.7.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.7.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.7.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.7.3 

Section AA Preferred Alternative 2.2.3 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.3.1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-26

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.3.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.3.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.3.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.3.4 

Section B Preferred Alternative 2.2.8 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.8.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.8.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.8.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.8.3 

Section BB Preferred Alternative 2.2.4 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.4.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.4.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.4.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.4.3 

Section C Preferred Alternative 2.2.9 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.9.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.9.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.9.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.9.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.9.4 

Section CC Preferred Alternative 2.2.5 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.5.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.5.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.5.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.5.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.5.4 

Section D Preferred Alternative 2.2.10 

 Alternatives Developed after DEIS 2.2.10.2 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.10.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.10.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.10.3 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.10.4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-27

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Section DD Preferred Alternative 2.2.6 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.6.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.6.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.6.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.6.3 

Section E Preferred Alternative 2.2.11 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.11.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.11.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.11.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.11.3 

Section F Preferred Alternative 2.2.12 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.12.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.12.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.12.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.12.3 

Section G Preferred Alternative 2.2.13 

 Alternatives Developed after DEIS 2.2.13.2 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.13.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.13.6 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.13.3 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.13.4 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.13.5 

Section H Pregerred Alternative 2.2.14 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.14.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.14.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.14.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.14.3 

Section I Preferred Alternative 2.2.15 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.15.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.15.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.15.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.15.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-28

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Section J Preferred Alternative 2.2.16 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.16.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.16.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.16.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.16.3 

Section K Preferred Alternative 2.2.17 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.17.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.17.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.17.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.17.3 

Section L Preferred Alternative 2.2.18 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.18.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.18.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.18.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.18.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.18.4 

Section M Preferred Alternative 2.2.19 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.19.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.19.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.19.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.19.3 

Section N Preferred Alternative 2.2.20 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.20.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.20.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.20.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.20.3 

Section O Preferred Alternative 2.2.21 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.21.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.21.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.21.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.21.3 

Section P Preferred Alternative 2.2.22 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-29

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.22.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.22.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.22.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.22.3 

Section Q Preferred Alternative 2.2.23 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.23.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.23.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.23.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.23.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.23.4 

Section R Preferred Alternative 2.2.24 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.24.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.24.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.24.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.24.3 

Section S Preferred Alternative 2.2.25 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.25.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.25.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.25.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.25.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.25.4 

Section T Preferred Alternative 2.2.26 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.26.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.26.4 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.26.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.26.3 

Section U Preferred Alternative 2.2.27 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.27.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.27.5 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.27.2 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.27.3 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.27.4 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-30

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Section V Preferred Alternative 2.2.28 

 Alternatives Developed after DEIS 2.2.28.2 

 Alternatives in the DEIS 2.2.28.1 

 Changes after the DEIS 2.2.28.6 

 Preferred Alternative/Basis for Selection 2.2.28.3 

 Public Road/Rail Crossings 2.2.28.4 

 River and Major Creek Bridges 2.2.28.5 

Sections with New Visual Analyses 4.9.2 

 Section D, Brunswick County, VA 4.9.2.1 

 Section S, Franklin County, NC 4.9.2.2 

 Section V, Wake County, NC 4.9.2.3 

SEHSR Corridor 1.1.2.1 

SEHSR History 1.1.2 

 SEHSR Corridor 1.1.2.1 

 SEHSR Studies and Actions 1.1.2.2 

SEHSR Studies and Actions 1.1.2.2 

Selection of the Preferred Alternative 2 

Short- and Long-Term Impacts and Benefits 4.18 

Soils 3.2.3, 4.2.3 

Socio-Economics 4.11.1 

 Economic Benefits 4.11.1.2 

 Economic Consequences 4.11.1.1 

 Net Economic Benefits 4.11.1.3 

Speed Assumptions 1.4.1.3 

State Parklands and Recreation Areas 3.13.2 

 North Carolina 3.13.2.2 

 Virginia 3.13.2.1 

State Planning 3.11.3.1 

Stations 1.4.3, 3.14.4, 4.14.4 

 Henderson, NC 1.4.3.3 

 La Crosse, VA 1.4.3.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-31

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Peteresburg, VA 1.4.3.2 

 Raleigh, NC 1.4.3.4 

 Richmond, VA 1.4.3.1 

Stormwater/Drainage 4.1.1.3 

Stormwater Permits 4.1.5.2 

Streams 4.1.1.1 

Study Area 2.1 

Summary 

 Air 4.6.7 

 Archeological and Historical Resources 4.12.3 

 Avoidance Alternatives 5.10.20 

 Purpose and Need 1.9.1 

Summary and Conclusion (Purpose and Need) 1.9 

 Conclusion 1.9.2 

 Summary 1.9.1 

Surface Waters 3.1.1, 4.1.1 

 Drainage Basins 3.1.1.1 

 Groundwater Wells 4.1.1.5 

 Public Water Supplies 4.1.1.4 

 Riparian Areas/Other Jurisdictional Waters 4.1.1.2 

 Streams 4.1.1.1 

 Stormwater/Drainage 4.1.1.3 

 Supply Intakes 4.15.1.1 

 Water Quality 3.1.1.2 

Technology Assumptions 1.4.1.1 

Terrestrial Communities 3.10.1.1, 4.10.1.1 

Threatened and Endangered Species 4.10.2 

Topography 3.2.1, 4.2.1 

Topography, Geology, and Soils 3.2, 4.2 

 Geology 3.2.2, 4.2.2 

 Soils 3.2.3, 4.2.3 

 Topography 3.2.1, 4.2.1 

Tourism 3.11.2.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-32

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Traffic Conditions 3.14.2, 4.14.2 

 Chester, VA 3.14.2.3, 4.14.2.3 

 Chesterfield County, VA 3.14.2.2, 4.14.2.2 

 Franklinton, NC 3.14.2.9, 4.14.2.9 

 Henderson, NC 3.14.2.7, 4.14.2.7 

 Kittrell, NC 3.14.2.8, 4.14.2.8 

 La Crosse, VA 3.14.2.4, 4.14.2.4 

 Middleburg, NC 3.14.2.6, 4.14.2.6 

 Norlina, NC 3.14.2.5, 4.14.2.5 

 Overview 4.14.2.1 

 Raleigh, NC 3.14.2.10, 4.14.2.10 

 Richmond, VA 3.14.2.1 

Transit 3.14.5, 4.14.5 

Transportation 3.14, 4.14 

 Aviation 3.14.6, 4.14.6 

 Rail 3.14.3, 4.14.3 

 Roads 3.14.1, 4.14.1 

 Stations 3.14.4, 4.14.4 

 Traffic Conditions 3.14.2, 4.14.2 

 Transit 3.14.5, 4.14.5 

Transportation/Multimodal Connectivity 1.4.1.6 

Travel Time/Service Reliability 1.8.3 

Updated Project Need Data 1.8 

 Air Quality 1.8.5 

 Congestion 1.8.2 

 Connnectivity 1.8.4 

 Energy Efficiency 1.8.7 

 Growth 1.8.1 

 Safety 1.8.6 

 Travel Time/Service Reliability 1.8.3 

US Coast Guard Permits 4.1.5.3 

US Coast Guard Waters 3.1.5 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-33

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

Utilities and Related Services 3.15, 4.15 

 Groundwater Wells/Surface Water Intakes 4.15.1 

 Water Supply 3.15.1 

Vance County 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.9, 4.14.1.9 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Visual Environment 3.9.2.2 

VDOT Relocation Policies 4.11.6.1 

Vibration 3.7, 4.7 

Vibration Descriptors 3.7.2 

Vibration Measurements 3.7.5 

Virginia 

 Battlefields 3.12.2.2 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/City Parklands 3.13.3.1 

 Emergency Services 3.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Highway Vehicle Operations – CO 4.6.3.1 

 Historical Resources 3.12.2.1 

 Local Landmarks 3.12.3.1 

 Local Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.1 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-34

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Rail 3.14.3.1 

 Regional Planning 3.11.3.2 

 State Parklands and Recreation Areas 3.13.2.1 

 State Planning 3.11.3.1 

 Streams 4.1.1.1 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Visual Environment 3.9.1 

Visual Environment 3.9, 4.9 

 North Carolina 3.9.2 

 Overview of Visual Impacts of the Project 4.9.1 

 Sections with New Analyses 4.9.2 

 Virginia 3.9.1 

Vulnerable Populations/EJ 4.11.5 

 Elderly & Disabled Populations 4.11.5.1 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

Wake County, NC 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.11, 4.14.11 

 Visual Environment 3.9.2.4, 4.9.2.3 

Wake Forest, NC 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

Warren County, NC 

 Community Economic Profile 3.11.2.1 

 County/Municipal Planning 3.11.3.3 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-35

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Topic Section No. 

 Environmental Justice 4.11.5.2 

 Health Services 3.11.5.3 

 Neighborhoods and Communities 3.11.4.2 

 Places of Worship and Cemeteries 3.11.5.4 

 Public Education Facilities 3.11.5.1 

 Roads 3.14.1.8, 4.14.1.8 

 Tourism 3.11.2.3 

 Visual Environment 3.9.2.1 

Water Quality 3.1.1.2 

Water Resources 3.1, 4.1 

 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 4.1.6 

 Floodplains and Floodways 3.1.3, 4.1.3 

 Permits 4.1.5 

 Surface Waters 3.1.1, 4.1.1 

 US Coast Guard Waters 3.1.5 

 Wetlands 3.1.2, 4.1.2 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers 3.1.4, 4.1.4 

Water Supply 3.15.1 

Wetlands 3.1.2, 4.1.2 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 3.1.4, 4.1.4 

Wildlife Refuges 3.13.4 

Youngsville, NC 

 Emergency Services 4.11.3.3 

 Transportation Network Impacts 4.11.2.2 

10.2 ACRONYMS 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

ACL Atlantic Coast Line 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 

CAT Capital Area Transit System 

CBD Central Business District 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-36

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFS High Speed Ground Transportation Commercial Feasibility Study of 1997 

CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision 

COG Council of Governments 

CSX CSX Transportation (Railroad Company) 

CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan 

CU Cataloging Unit 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dB Decibel 

dBa A-weighted decibel scale 

dBb B-weighted decibel scale 

DPU City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities 

DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

E Endangered 

EA Environmental Assessment 

ECG East Coast Greenway 

EDR Environmental Data Resources 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EMS Emergency Medical Service 

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESC Erosion and Sediment Control 

ESRI Environmental Science Research Institute 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEC First Energy Corporation 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act 

FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary 

Report 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FSC Federal Species of Concern 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning Satellites 

GRTC Greater Richmond Transit Company 

h Hourly equivalent sound level Leq 

HC Hydrocarbon 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-37

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

HIST - FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing 

HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System 

HRTPO Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Org 

HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site 

HSGT High Speed Ground Transportation 

HSR High speed rail 

HSRSP High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan 

HU Hydrologic Unit 

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System 

IP Individual Permits 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

JPA Joint Permit Application 

KARTS Kerr Area Rural Transportation System 

KTRPO Kerr-Tar Regional Planning Organization 

Ldn Day-night sound level 

LOMR Letter of Map Revision 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

LWB Local Wetlands Boards 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

MAS Maximum Authorized Speed 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Mg/m3

 Milligrams per meter cubed 

MINES Mines Master Index File 

MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPH Miles Per Hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MRDS Mineral Resources Data System 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxic 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NASCAR National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing 

NC North Carolina 

NCDEMLR North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources 

NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation 

NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources 

NCEEP North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 

NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

NCRR North Carolina Railroad 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-38

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NEC Northeast Corridor 

NECIP Northeast Corridor Improvement Project 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NL Not Listed 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOAA Fisheries US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NRTR Natural Resource Technical Report 

NS Norfolk Southern Railroad 

NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

O3 Ozone 

ORVs Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

PADS PCB Activity Database 

PAT Petersburg Area Transit 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PDC Planning District Commission 

PE Proposed Endangered 

PEM Palustrine Emergent 

PFO Palustrine Forested 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 μm in Diameter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 μm in Diameter 

ppm Parts Per Million 

PSCNC Public Service Company of North Carolina 

PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 

PT Proposed Threatened 

PUB Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 

R2HR Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project 

RAMPO Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 

RAPS Richmond Area to Potomac River Project 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System 

REEF Recreation, Economic Development, Education, and Family 

RMS Root Mean Square 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-39

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

ROW Rights of way 

RPA Resource Protection Area 

RPO Rural Planning organization 

RRPDC Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 

RRRT Roanoke River Rails-to-Trails, Inc. 

RRT Regional Response Team 

RUS Raleigh Union Station 

SAL Seaboard Air Line 

SC Special Concern 

SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SOX Sulfur Oxides 

SR A Significantly Rare Species 

SR-T A Significantly Rare Species throughout Its Range 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database 

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program 

SWM Stormwater Management 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

T Threatened 

TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century 

THT Tobacco Heritage Trail 

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TRIS Toxic Release Inventory System 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TT Triangle Transit 

Ug/m3

 Micrograms per cubic meter 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDA US Department of Agriculture 

USDOI US Department of the Interior 

USDOT US Department of Transportation 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS US Geological Survey 

USM Unified Stream Methodology 

VA Virginia 

VADCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

VAQRTF Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 

VARTF Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 

VdB Decibel measure for vibration 

VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 10-40

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015 

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation 

VLR Virginia Landmarks Registry 

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program 

VSTP Virginia 2035 Surface Transportation Plan 

VWPP Virginia Water Protection Permit 

WQS Water Quality Standards 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-1 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

11 REFERENCES 

109th Congress – National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. Vision 

for the Future: U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050. December 6, 2007. 

Page 2. http://www.sehsr.org/reports/visionfutureexecsum07dec06.pdf. Accessed 7/06/09. 

AECOM Consult, Inc. 2004. Ridership/Revenue Forecasts Update for SEHSR Station/Service 

Options. Letter to David Foster, NCDOT, dated July 5, 2004. 

AECOM, 2013. Southeast High Speed Rail Ridership. September, 2013 

Amtrak. 2008. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2008, Commonwealth of Virginia. Amtrak 

Government Affairs: November 2008. 

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/VIRGINIA08.pdf Accessed 11/15/09. 

Amtrak, 2009, 2010, 2011. Amtrak Annual Reports 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1

241245669222 

Bailey, C.M. 1999. Physiographic Map of Virginia. Map. College of William and Mary, 

Williamsburg, VA. 

Balfour JL, Kaplan GA, 2002. Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older 

adults: Evidence from the Alameda County study. American Journal of 

Epidemiology. 2002;155:507–515. [PubMed] 

Bearden, D. M. 2003. Noise Abatement and Control: An Overview of Federal Standards and 

Regulations. Congressional Research Service Report RS20531, Washington, DC. 

Berger, 2005; Legacy Research, 2005; 2007; Legacy Research, 2005, 2007; Dovetail (see 

Appendix K for list of Dovetail reports). 

Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center (BaSIC), USGS North Carolina Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, NC State University, 2008. 

Brunswick County, VA. 1999. 1997-98. Vision 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. 

Buck Engineering. 2004. Southeast High Speed Rail, Natural Resources Technical Report. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, Inflation Calculator, 

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Accessed 4/14/14-4/17/14. 

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). 2004. 2030 Long Range 

Transportation Plan. 

CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2011. 2012-2018 TIP. CAMPO, 

Raleigh, NC. 

CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2012. Capital Area Metropolitan 

Planning Organization. Webpage. CAMPO, Raleigh, NC. Available at: 

http://www.campo-nc.us/ (Accessed October 18, 2012). 

CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) and DCHCMPO (Durham-Chapel 

Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2009. 2035 Long Range 

Transportation Plans. CAMPO, Raleigh, NC. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-2 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) and DCHCMPO (Durham-Chapel 

Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2011. Amendment #2 to the NC 

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. 

CAMPO, Raleigh, NC. 

Catena Group, The, 2012. Freshwater Mussel Survey Report: Phase V. Southeast High Speed 

Rail, Raleigh, North Carolina to Richmond, Virginia. North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Raleigh, NC and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. 

Centers for Disease Control, 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports (Volume 6, Number 4), 

Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2010 (Jan. 11, 2012), available at http://www.cdc.gov as of 

June 2012. 

Chesterfield County, VA. 1997. Chesterfield County Riverfront Plan. 

Chesterfield County. 2004. Ettrick Village Plan. Chesterfield County, Board of Supervisors, 

Chesterfield, VA. 

Chesterfield County. 2012. Moving Forward... The Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield County. 

Chesterfield County, Planning Department, Chesterfield, VA. 

City of Colonial Heights. 1996. Community Development Plan for the City of Colonial Heights.

City of Colonial Heights, Colonial Heights, VA. 

City of Colonial Heights. 2015. City of Colonial Heights Comprehensive Plan 2044. City of 

Colonial Heights, Colonial Heights, VA. 

City of Henderson. 2010. The 2030 Comprehensive Development Plan. City of Henderson, Land 

Use Planning Steering Committee, Henderson, NC. 

City of Petersburg, VA. 2001. Petersburg Comprehensive Plan 2000. Petersburg City Council 

Petersburg, VA. July 2000. 

City of Petersburg. 2012. City of Petersburg 2011 Comprehensive Plan. City of Petersburg, 

Petersburg, VA. 

City of Raleigh, NC. 2007. Raleigh Comprehensive Plan. Raleigh NC. City of Raleigh Planning 

Department. 

City of Raleigh, NC. Undated. Livable Streets Website: Regional Rail Service - Downtown 

Raleigh Stations. City of Raleigh website cited on December 14, 2008: 

http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_200_0_43/http%3

B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/project/public/livable_streets/tta.htm. 

City of Raleigh, NC. Community Inventory Report: Chapter 6 – Transportation. http://raleighconsult.limehouse.com/portal/planning/community_inventory_report?pointId=120398969

0830#section-1203989690830. Accessed 7/05/09. 

City of Raleigh. 2014. Designing a 21st Century City: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City 

of Raleigh – Volume 1: Comprehensive Plan. City of Raleigh, Raleigh, NC. 

City of Richmond. 2000. Richmond Master Plan, 2000-2010. City of Richmond, Richmond, VA. 

City of Richmond. 2009. Richmond Downtown Plan. City of Richmond, Richmond, VA. 

City of Richmond, undated. “Welcome to Main Street Station.” City of Richmond web page cited 

on July 30, 2008: http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/publicworks/mainstreet/. 

City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond Riverfront Plan. City of Richmond, Richmond, VA. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-3 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Community Planning Collaborative, Inc. 2007. VISION 2015: Brunswick County, Virginia – 2006 

Comprehensive Plan Update. Brunswick County, Lawrenceville, VA. 

Cowardin, L.J., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, DC. 

Crater Planning District Commission, VA. 2003. http://www.craterpdc.state.va.us/. Cited January 

2004. 

Crater Planning District Commission. Virginia Logistics Research Center Feasibility Study. May 

22, 2009. Page 17. 

Crater PDC (Planning District Commission). 2011. 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation 

Plan. Crater PDC, Petersburg, VA. 

Crater PDC (Planning District Commission). 2012. Crater Planning District Commission.

Webpage. Crater PDC, Petersburg, VA. Available at : http://www.craterpdc.org/ 

(Accessed 10-16-2012). 

Davis, S.C., and S.W. Diegel. 2013. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 32. ORNL-6989. 

Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 

Dinwiddie County Planning Commission, VA. 2002. Dinwiddie County, Virginia, 

Comprehensive Plan Update 2001. Dinwiddie County, VA. August 2002. 

Dinwiddie County. 2007. 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update Dinwiddie County, Virginia. 

Dinwiddie County, Dinwiddie, VA. 

DOT FRA Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Station Area Planning for High Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail, June 2011, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/FRA_Station_Area_Planning_June_2011_c.pdf 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2008. Intensive Architectural Investigations along the 

Richmond-to-Petersburg Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Cities of Richmond, 

Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, and Chesterfield County. VDHR #2001-1460. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2009a. Intensive Architectural Evaluation: Road Areas 

Associated with the Southeast High Speed Rail Project, Cities of Richmond, Colonial 

Heights, and Petersburg, and Chesterfield County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2009b. Phase I Archaeological Survey of Road Construction 

Areas Associated with the Southeast High Speed Rail Project, Cities of Richmond, 

Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, and Chesterfield County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2009c. Phase I Archaeological Survey: Southeast High Speed 

Rail Corridor, Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, and Chesterfield 

County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, 

Richmond, VA. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-4 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2010a. Intensive Architectural Evaluation: Road Areas 

Associated with the Southeast High Speed Project, Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, 

and Petersburg in Chesterfield and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2010b. Management Summary, Phase II Site Evaluation of Site 

44CF0708, Southeast High Speed Rail, Chesterfield County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-

1460. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2010c. Phase II Site Evaluation of Site 44CF0755, Chesterfield 

County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, 

Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2010d. Phase II Testing at Sites 22CF0743 and 44CF0744. 

VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, 

NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2010e. Phase II Testing at Sites 44CF0305 and $$CF0705, 

Town of Chester, Chesterfield County Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2010f. Phase II Testing at Williams Bridge Company 

(44CF0724 / 127-6245), City of Richmond, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2011a.Cultural Resource Investigations of the Kress Box 

Factory (44BR0174/ 012-5075), Brunswick County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2011b. Management Summary, Partial Phase II Site 

Evaluation of Site 44CF0748, Chesterfield County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2011c. Phase II Testing at Sites 44CF0707, 44CF0708, and 

44CF0750 inn Colonial Heights, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. 2011d. Phase II Testing at Sites 44CF0740 and 44CF0742 in 

Chesterfield County, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

East Coast Greenway Alliance. 2001. State of the Trail Report 2001. 

East Coast Greenway Alliance. Website: Maps, Guides, & Cue Sheets. 

http://www.greenway.org/maps.php. Accessed 6/05/09. 

EDR (Environmental Data Resources). 2004. Query of EDR Database. Environmental Data 

Resources, Milford, CT. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-5 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

EDR (Environmental Data Resources). 2008. Query of EDR Database. Environmental Data 

Resources, Milford, CT. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management of 

May 24, 1977. http://www.fema.gov/environmental-planning-and-historic-preservationprogram/executive-order-11988-floodplain-management. Accessed February 3, 2014. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2004. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA 

Traffic Noise Model User’s Guide (Version 2.5 Addendum), Final Report, April, 2004. 

FHWA, 2012a. Vehicle Miles of Travel Report. FHWA webpage cited April 17, 2015: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/quickfinddata/qftravel.cfm 

FHWA, 2012b. Focus on Congestion Relief, Describing the Congestion Problem 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/describing_problem.htm (accessed October 2012). 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), September 1997, “High Speed Ground Transportation for 

America, Commercial Feasibility Study (CFS) Report To Congress”. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/515.shtml 

FRA 1999. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 1999. FRA Docket No. 

EP-1, Notice 5. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Page 28555. 

FRA. 2009. High-Speed Rail Corridor Route Map. Website cited November 12, 2009: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrmap-lv.pdf. 

FRA, 2009. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail. November 

2008. Website cited April 17, 2015: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02593 

FRA 2012a. Record of Decision Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement. FRA, Washington, DC. 

FRA 2012b, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. Website cited 4/21/2015: 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04090 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning, US Department of Transit, 

Washington, DC. 

FTA, 2006. Noise and Vibration Manual. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. FTA Office of Planning and 

Environment, Washington, DC, May 2006. Website cited March 18, 2009: 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf 

Fleming, G.P., Coulling, P.P., Walton, D.P., McCoy, K.M., Parrish, M.R., 2001. The Natural 

Communities of Virginia: Classification of Ecological Community Groups, First 

Approximation. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation – Division of 

Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage Technical Report 011. 

Franklin County. 2000. Franklin County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Franklin County, 

Louisburg, NC. 

Franklin County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) (adopted July 2011) 

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/planning/franklincounty.html (accessed 10-16-

12) 

Gibson Engineers, 2009. Southeast High Speed Rail, Draft Traffic Review. Gibson Engineers, 

Fuquay-Varina, NC. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-6 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Giese, G.L., H.B. Wilder, and C.G. Parker, Jr. 1985. Hydrology of Major Estuaries and Sounds of 

North Carolina. Water Supply Paper 2221. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC. 

GRCVB (Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitor’s Bureau). 2013. Annual Report: 2013-2014 

Fiscal Year. Website. GRCVB, Raleigh, NC. Available at: 

http://www.visitraleigh.com/partners/annual-report/ (Accessed November 27, 2013). 

GRTC (Greater Richmond Transit Company). 2014. Broad Street Rapid Transit Study. Webpage. 

GRTC, Richmond, VA. Available at: http://study.ridegrtc.com/ (Accessed April 28, 2014). 

Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2014. Southeast High Speed Rail Traffic Review. Hatch Mott 

MacDonald, Fuquay-Varina, NC. 

HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas. 2011. Capital Area Bus Transit Development Plan. Final 

Report. Prepared for CAMPO, Raleigh, NC. 

Henderson Planning Department. 1976. Henderson Land Use Plan. Town of Henderson. Cited 

2004. 

Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission. Special Projects: Restoration of the 

Historic Downtown District. http://www.hendersondowntown.us/SpecialProjects.aspx. 

Accessed 7/05/09. 

Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission. Special Projects: The Embassy Center. 

http://www.hendersondowntown.us/SpecialProjects.aspx. Accessed 7/05/09. 

Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission. Special Projects: REEF Project. 

http://www.hendersondowntown.us/SpecialProjects.aspx. Accessed 7/05/09. 

Hickling Lewis Broad, Inc., Feb 1997, “Benefit-Cost and Risk Assessment: High Speed Rail 

Investment Alternatives in the Piedmont Corridor [Raleigh-Charlotte]” 

Hoskinson, M., K. Gilland, P. Ilieve, D. Lawrence, and W. Kramer. 2003. Web-Based GIS for 

Public Access to National Water Quality Standards Information. Presented at the Second 

Annual Public Participation and GIS Conference, Portland Oregon. July 20-22, 2004. 

Kerr-Tar Council of Government, 2004. Website cited June 2004: 

http://www.kerrtarcog.org/index.html. 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2003. Wake County Transportation Plan. Prepared for Wake 

County, Raleigh, NC. 

KPMG Economic Impact Analysis, 1995. Data for NC only, updated to 2008 dollars (based on 

the consumer price index, South Urban Region). Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet. Accessed 7/09/09. 

KPMG Peat Marwick, et al., August 1997, “Final Report – Southeast High Speed Rail Market and 

Demand Study”, Prepared for NCDOT, VADRPT, SCDOT, GDOT, FDOT & FRA. 

Land Planning & Design Associates, VHB, Whitesell Group, and Rivanna Archaeology. Tobacco 

Heritage Trail Overall Master Plan. June 2008. Page 9. 

http://www.tobaccoheritagetrail.org. Accessed 11/15/08. 

Legacy Research Associates, Inc. 2005a. Archaeological Investigations Report Southeast High 

Speed Rail Project from the Virginia-North Carolina Border to Raleigh, North Carolina. 

State Project 9.9083002(P3819). North Carolina Environmental Review 03-1507. Legacy 

Research Associates, Durham, NC. 

Legacy Research Associates, Inc. 2005b. Archaeological Phase I Investigations for the Proposed 

Holloway Farm Avoidance Alternative in Vance County, North Carolina, for the 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-7 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Southeast High-Speed Rail Project Between Petersburg, Virginia, and Raleigh, North 

Carolina. Addendum to Archaeological Investigations Report Southeast High Speed Rail 

Project From the Virginia-North Carolina Border to Raleigh, North Carolina. State 

Project 9.9083002(P3819) North Carolina ER 03-1507. Legacy Research Associates, 

Durham, NC. 

Legacy Research Associates, Inc., 2007. Archaeological Investigations Report: Southeast High 

Speed Rail Project From the Virginia-North Carolina Border to Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Revised Draft. State Project 9.9083002(P3819). North Carolina Environmental Review 

03-1507. Legacy Research Associates, Inc., Durham, NC. 

LeGrand, H.E., Jr., Hall, S.P., and Finnegan, J.T., eds., 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of 

the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 

Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and 

Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 2001. 

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2005. Archaeological Survey and Architectural Survey and 

Evaluation Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, City of Petersburg, Dinwiddie, 

Brunswick, and Mecklenburg Counties, Virginia. VDHR #2001-1460. Prepared for North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 

Main Street National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2004. The National Main Street Center. 

http://www.mainstreet.org/WhatWeDo/index.htm 

Mineta Transportation Institute. College of Business, San José State University. Report 11-17: 

Planning for Complementarity: An Examination of the Role And Opportunities of FirstTier and Second-Tier Cities Along the High-Speed Rail Network in California, March 

2012 

Mason, George T., Jr., Arndt, Raymond E., 1996. Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS). U.S. 

Geological Survey Digital Data Series, Reston, VA. USGS Website: 

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/. Cited on May 20, 2004. 

Mattson, Alexander, and Associates, Inc. 2005. Supplement: Phase II (Intensive Level) 

Architectural Resources Survey: Holloway Farm Avoidance Alternative, Southeast High 

Speed Rail Corridor, Petersburg, Virginia to Raleigh, North Carolina. State Project 

Number 9.9083002 (P-3819). Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, 

Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Mattson, Alexander, and Associates, Inc. 2007. Supplement: Phase II (Intensive Level) 

Architectural Resources Survey: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, North Carolina. 

State Project Number 9.9083002 (P-3819). Prepared for North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, 

Richmond, VA. 

Mattson, Alexander, and Associates, Inc., 2009. Supplement: Phase II (Intensive Level) 

Architectural Resources Survey: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Petersburg, 

Virginia to Raleigh, North Carolina. State Project Number 9.9083002 (P-3819). Prepared 

for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department 

of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Mecklenburg County. 2011. Mecklenburg County Strategic Economic Plan. Mecklenburg County, 

Boydton, VA. 

Mecklenburg County. 2012. Mecklenburg 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Mecklenburg County, 

Boydton, VA. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-8 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., 2008. Southeast High Speed Rail, Natural Resources Technical 

Report Addendum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, 

NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

Michael Baker Jr, Inc., and Alta Planning and Design. 2013. Richmond Connects: Richmond 

Strategic Multimodal Transportation Plan. Prepared for The City of Richmond, 

Richmond, VA. 

Moffatt & Nichol and Lochner. 2012. Pre-NEPA Evaluation Tri-Cities Area Multimodal Station 

Study. Prepared for Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, 

VA. 

National Atlas of the United States. GIS Shapefiles of Various Environmental Datalayers from 

USGS and Other Sources. US Department of the Interior website cited on December 14, 

2008: 

http://gos2.geodata.gov/wps/portal/gos/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKL

9443cnIFSYGYfpb6kehCFgghX4_83FR9b_0A_YLc0IhyR0VFAEZ_VEU!/delta/base64x

ml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82X0tfNEFD. Washington, D.C. 

National Safety Council, 2011. Injury Facts: 2011 Edition. Itasca, IL: Author. 

http://www.nsc.org/Documents/Injury_Facts/Injury_Facts_2011_w.pdf 

Nicholls, L., and S. Walston. 2012. Comprehensive Transportation Plan for Vance County.

NCDOT, Raleigh, NC. 

North Carolina Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, September, 2011. 2012-2018 

Transportation Improvement Program 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2008. Website cited on 

December 15, 2008: http://www.agr.state.nc.us/markets/agbizmarketing.htm. 

NCDACS (North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services). 2013. North 

Carolina Agriculture Overview. Webpage. Available at: 

http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/general/overview.htm (Accessed November 27, 2013). 

NCDOC (North Carolina Department of Commerce). 2013. AccessNC. Online database. 

NCDOC, Raleigh, NC. Available at: 

http://accessnc.commerce.state.nc.us/EDIS/demographics.html (Accessed November 20, 

2013). 

NCDEHNR (North Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources). 1995. 

Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. NCDEHNR, Division of 

Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDENR, 2000. Basinwide Assessment Report of the Roanoke River Basin. NC Division of 

Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. 

NCDENR, 2001. Basinwide Assessment Report of the Neuse River Basin. NC Division of Water 

Quality. Raleigh, NC. 

NCDEHR, 2002. Basinwide Planning Program: 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. 

NC Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. Website cited on December 14, 2008: 

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/2002/Appendix%202.pdf. 

NCDENR, 2000. Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina, Water 

Quality Section. July, 2000. Raleigh, NC. NCDENR Website 

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html cited on June 22, 2004. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-9 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NCDENR, 2004a. Kerr Lake State Recreation Area. Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, 

NC. NCDPR Website http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/kela/home.html cited on 

June 24, 2004. 

NCDENR, 2004b. Falls Lake State Recreation Area. Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, 

NC. NCDPR Website http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/fala/home.html cited on 

June 24, 2004. 

NCDENR, 2006. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002 

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. NC Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. 

NCDENR, 2007. Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities. 

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, 

NC, September 2007. 

NCDENR, 2009. Public Water Supply Water Sources, Including Ground Water and Surface Water 

Sources. NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of 

Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section. Website www.nconemap.com 

NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2009. Neuse 

River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2011. TarPamlico River Basin 2010 Water Quality Plan. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2012. 2012 

North Carolina 303(d) Lists – Category 5. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Charting a New Direction for NCDOT: 

North Carolina’s Long-Range Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. September 

2004. Page 17. 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 1997. Town of Franklinton Thoroughfare 

Plan. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2004. Thoroughfare Plan Study Report 

for the Town of Norlina. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC. 

NC DOT Rail Division, April 1999, “Southeast High Speed Corridor, Feasibility Study Summary 

and Implementation Plan”. 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2008. Strategic Highway Corridors 

Vision Plan. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDOT, 2008, 2009. Right of Way Estimates. NCDOT Right of Way Branch, 2008 

NCDOT, 2008, 2009. Utility Estimates. NCDOT Utilities and Encroachments Engineering Unit, 

Raleigh, NC. 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2010. Warren County Comprehensive 

Transportation Plan Technical Report. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2011. Franklin County Comprehensive 

Transportation Plan. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC. 

NCDOT, 2011. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, 

July 13, 2011 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2012. Draft STIP 2013-2023. NCDOT, 

Raleigh, NC. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-10 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

NCDOT. Raleigh Union Station. http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/raleighunionstation. Accessed 

November 4, 2013 

NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation) and VA DRPT (Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation), 2002. Southeast High Speed Rail, Draft Tier I 

Environmental Impact Statement, SEHSR. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, and VA DRPT, 

Richmond, VA. 

NCDOT and VA DRPT, 2004b. Archaeological Resource Identification Report for the Southeast 

High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor. North Carolina Department of Transportation, 

Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

NCDOT and VA DRPT, 2004c. Phase I Architectural Resource Survey for the Southeast High 

Speed Rail Corridor. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

NCDOT and VA DRPT, 2004d. Southeast High Speed Rail, Community Profile. North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation, Richmond, VA. January, 2004.

NCDOT and VA DRPT, 2009. Southeast High Speed Rail, Traffic Review. North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation, Richmond, VA. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal Highway Administration. 

SEHSR High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Washington DC to Charlotte, NC: FEIS. June 2002. 

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 2004a. Kerr Lake 

State Recreation Area. Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

NCDPR Website http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/kela/home.html cited on June 

24, 2004. 

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 2004b. Falls Lake 

State Recreation Area. Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

NCDPR Website http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/fala/home.html cited on June 

24, 2004. 

NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2004. Water 

Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina, Water Quality Section. 

Webpage. NCDENR Raleigh, NC. Available at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html 

(Accessed June 22, 2004). 

NCDPR (North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation). 2009. North Carolina Natural 

Resources Inventory Database. Online database. NCDPR, Raleigh, NC. Available at: 

http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/nrid/public.php (Accessed December 16, 2009). 

North Carolina Economic Development Intelligence System (EDIS) online database. Website 

accessed on December 15, 2008: 

http://www.nccommerce.com/en/BusinessServices/LocateYourBusiness/EDISSearch/. 

North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. 2008. Floodplain Management Information System. 

Webpage. North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Raleigh, NC. Available at: 

http://www.NCFloodmaps.com (Accessed December 14, 2008). 

NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2013. Heritage Data Search. Online 

database. NCNHP, Raleigh, NC. Available at: http://www.ncnhp.org/web/nhp/databasesearch (Accessed 2013). 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-11 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, 2012. County/State Population 

Projections. 

http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_e

stimates/county_projections.shtm (Accessed October 2012) 

North Carolina State Demographics Unit, 2007. Population Projections for Warren and Vance 

Counties, Norlina and Henderson. NC State Demographics Unit Webpage. Website 

accessed on August 26, 2007: http://demog.state.nc.us/frame_start.html. 

NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 1997. Request for Scoping 

Comments, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the Widening of 

NC 191 (Brevard Road) from NC 112 to the North of the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Memorandum from Mark S. Davis regarding Buncombe County State Project No. 

8.1844401, F.A. Project No. STP-191(3), TIP No. U-3403C. North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. January, 1997. 

Parsons Brinkerhoff. 2012. US 1 Corridor Study – Phase II. Final Report. Prepared for CAMPO, 

Raleigh, NC. 

Projections.com, 2015. Estimates of Economic Growth for Virginia, North Carolina, and the 

United States. Website cited March 19, 2015: http://www.projectionscentral.com/ 

Raleigh Union Station (sources: http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/raleighunionstation/; 

http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanUrbanDesign/Articles/UnionStation.html; 

accessed 11-4-2013) 

RAMPO (Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2012. Plan 2035: The LongRange Transportation Plan for the Richmond Area. RAMPO, Richmond, VA. 

RAMPO (Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2013. Regional Transportation 

Priority Projects 2013. RAMPO, Richmond, VA. 

RAMPO (Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2014. Transportation 

Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015. RAMPO, Richmond, VA. 

RS&H Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc. 2006. US 1 Corridor Study- Draft Report. No. 

CAMPO 2005-2. Prepared for Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Raleigh, 

NC. 

Regional Internet Banking Information System website cited on October 21, 2009: 

http://216.83.232.125:443/pls/htmldb/f?p=101:19:4844504682353862::NO:RP:P27_BUT

TON_KEY:1 

Research Triangle Region. Public Transportation: Regional Rail Service. 

http://www.researchtriangle.org/pages.php?page1=52&page2=91&page3=98&page_id=9

8. Accessed 7/05/09. 

Richmond Region Tourism. 2013. Making History: The Impact of Tourism: Richmond Region 

Tourism 2013 Annual Report. Richmond Regional Tourism, Richmond, VA. 

RKG Associates, et.al, for the Crater Planning District Commission. Fort Lee Growth 

Management Plan: Crater Region. February 2008. Page 1-7. 

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. Richmond Area MPO: Regional 

Transportation Priority Projects – 2008. Adopted November 13, 2008. Page 7. 

RRPDC (Richmond Regional Planning District Commission). 2011. 2035 Rural Long Range 

Transportation Plan. RRPDC, Richmond, VA. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-12 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

RRPDC (Richmond Regional Planning District Commission). 2012. Richmond Regional Planning 

District Commission. Webpage. Available at : 

http://www.richmondregional.org/default.htm (Accessed October 10, 2012). 

Roger Moore, Alan R. Graffe, and Richard J. Gitelson (Penn State University) and Beth Porter 

(Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance, National Park Service). The Impacts of RailTrails: A Study of User and Property Owners From Three Trails. July 1992. 

http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/PORTALS/TRAILS/rtcimpact/impact-c.html. Accessed 6/09/09. 

Simmons, 1993. The Effect of Freight Railroad Tracks and Train Activity on Residential Property 

Values. The Appraisal Journal, October, 1993. 

Southside Planning District, 2004. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Southside 

Planning District, VA 2004 

Southside PDC (Planning District Commission). 2011. 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation 

Plan. Southside PDC, South Hill, VA. 

Southside PDC (Planning District Commission). 2012. Southside Planning District Commission. 

Webpage. Southside PDC, South Hill, VA. Available at: http://www.southsidepdc.org/ 

(Accessed October 11, 2012). 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012. TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report. December 2012. 

http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2012.pdf 

Thomas, P.J., and J.D. Harper, Jr. 2009. Soil Survey of City of Richmond, Virginia. US 

Department of Agriculture, NRCS, in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University, Blacksburg, VA. 

Town of Franklinton. 2006. Franklinton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Town of Franklinton, 

Franklinton, NC. 

Town of Wake Forest. 2003. Master Plan for NC98 Bypass Corridor. Town of Wake Forest, 

Wake Forest, NC. 

Town of Wake Forest, 2003. Town of Wake Forest Transportation Plan. . Wake Forest, NC 

website cited on December 14, 2008: 

http://www.wakeforestnc.gov/client_resources/residents/planning/Wake_Forest_Transport

ation_Plan_Final.pdf. 

Town of Wake Forest, Department of Recreation, 2004. Downtown Renaissance Plan. Wake 

Forest, NC. Town of Wake Forest website cited on June 24, 2004. http://www.ci.wakeforest.nc.us/Departments/Recreation%20Deptartment/public_buildings.htm, June 2004. 

Town of Wake Forest, Undated. J.B. Flaherty Park. Wake Forest Parks and Recreation Office 

website cited on December 14, 2008: 

http://www.wakeforestnc.gov/residents/parksrecreation_facilities_flaherty.aspx. 

Town of Wake Forest. 2009. Wake Forest Community Plan – Vision Statements and Policies 

Including the Growth Strategy Map. Town of Wake Forest, Wake Forest, NC. 

Town of Wake Forest. 2010. Wake Forest Transportation Plan Update 2010. Final Report. Town 

of Wake Forest, Wake Forest, NC. 

Town of Youngsville. 2000. 2000-2010 Land Use Plan. Town of Youngsville, Youngsville, NC. 

TCAMPO (Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2012. Tri-Cities Area Tear 2035 

Transportation Plan. TCAMPO, Petersburg, VA. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-13 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – 2004. Tri-Cities Area Year2026 

Long Range Transportation Plan. 

http://www.craterpdc.state.va.us/MPO/mpo_docs/2026DraftPlan_03-04_.pdf March 2004. 

TT (Triangle Transit). 2013. Our Transit Future. Webpage. TT, Morrisville, NC. Available at: 

http://ourtransitfuture.com/history-of-transit-planning-in-the-triangle/ (Accessed 

December 9, 2013). 

USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. USACE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

MI. 

US Census Bureau. 2001. US Census 2000 Summary File 1. Dataset. US Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC. 

US Census Bureau. 2000, Website. http://www.census.gov/main/www/glossary.html. Accessed 

July 2004-2008. 

UA Census Bureau, 2010. County Population Census Counts 1900-1990, US Census Bureau 

website: Website cited April 17, 2015: 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts/files/nc190090.txt 

US Census Bureau, 2010. Vincent, Grayson K. and Victoria A. Velkoff, 2010, THE NEXT FOUR 

DECADES, The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 2050, Current Population 

Reports, P25-1138, Washington, DC. 

US Census Bureau. 2011a. 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates. Dataset. US Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, Washington, DC. 

US Census Bureau. 2011b. US Census 2010 Summary File 1. Dataset. US Census, Washington, 

DC. 

US Census Bureau, 2011. Table GCT-T6-R, “Age Dependency Ratio of the Total Population”; 

Table GCT-T7-R, “Child Dependency Ratio of the Total Population”; and Table GCT-T8-

R, “Old-Age Dependency Ratio of the Total Population,” http://factfinder.census.gov/ 

(accessed May 2011). 

US Census Bureau. 2012a. 2007-2011 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Dataset. US Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, Washington, DC. 

US Census Bureau. 2012b. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012 – Table 17. Age 

Dependency Ratios by State: 2000 and 2010. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

US Census Bureau, 2012a. County Population Census Counts 1900-90. 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts/index.html (Accessed 

October 2012) 

US Census Bureau, 2012b. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search 

http://www.census.gov/2010census/ (Accessed October 2012) 

US Census Bureau, 2012c. PCT001-POPGROUP-Total population; Census 2000 Summary File 1 

(SF 1) 100-Percent Data Virginia. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_0

0_SF1_P001&prodType=table 

US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. 2013. Selected Economic Characteristics: 2007-2011 

American Community Survey. Source File DP03. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-14 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

USDA. 1994. North Carolina Description of Important Farmlands. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. USDA Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 

2008 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1995. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database. US 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 1998. Important Farmlands of North Carolina, May 1998. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. USDA Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 

2008 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2002a. Prime Farmland in Dinwiddie Area, Virginia. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Petersburg, VA. USDA Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2002b. Prime Farmland in Mecklenburg, VA. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Boydton, VA. USDA Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2002c. Prime Farmland in Brunswick County, VA. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Lawrenceville, VA. USDA Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2002d. Mecklenburg County, Virginia Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, VA. 

USDA Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2002e. Dinwiddie Area, Virginia Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, VA. USDA Soil Data 

Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2003a. Franklin County, North Carolina Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. USDA 

Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2003b. Vance County, North Carolina Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. USDA 

Soil Data Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA. 2003c. Wake County, North Carolina Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. USDA Soil Data 

Mart website cited on December 14, 2008 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2009a. 2007 Census of Agriculture – North Carolina 

State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 33. AC-07-A-33. USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. 

USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2009b. 2007 Census of Agriculture – Virginia State and 

County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 46. AC-07-A-46. USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. 

US Department of Energy, 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book, 27th edition. USDOE, 

Center for Transportation Analysis. Website cited on December 14, 2008: 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml. Washington, DC. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-15 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

USDOI (US Department of the Interior). 1994. Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Floodplain Maps Mapping for 100-year Floodplains. USDOI, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, DC. 

USDOI (US Department of the Interior). 2002. Flood Insurance Program: Program Description. 

USDOI, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC. 

USDOI, 2004. Nationwide Rivers Inventory, National Parks Service, Rivers, Trails, and 

Conservation Assistance Program. Washington, DC. Cited May 20, 2004. USDOI 

Website http://www.nps.gov/rtca/nri/. 

USDOI (US Department of the Interior). 2013a. Flood Map Service Center. Webpage. USDOI, 

National Parks Service, Washington, DC. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal 

(Accessed 2013). 

USDOI (US Department of the Interior). 2013b. National Rivers Inventory. Webpage. USDOI, 

National Parks Service, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html (Accessed December 2, 2013). 

USDOI, 2008. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Map Service Center. USDOI, 

Washington, DC. Document cited on December 14, 2008: http://www.msc.fema.gov. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration (USDOT), 1988. High Speed Ground Transportation 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

USDOT, FRA, High Speed Ground Transportation for America, Sept 1997. 

USDOT 1990. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy. Visual Impact 

Assessment for Highway Projects. March 1981 and reprinted September 1990. Page 8. 

USDOT, 1994. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plan, 1994. 

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment. DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. USDOT, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Washington, DC. 

USDOT, 2012b. Transit Ridership in the 50 Largest Urbanized Areas: 2009 and 2010. USDOT 

webpage cited April 17, 2015: 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/state_transportation_sta

tistics/state_transportation_statistics_2011/html/table_04_03.html 

USDOT, 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment, Office of Planning/Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT-T-95-16, May 2006. 

USDOT, FRA, 2009. Office of Railroad Safety and Office of Railroad Development. High-Speed 

Passenger Rail Safety Strategy Version 1.0. Nov 2009. 

USDOT, FRA, 2009. Office of Railroad Safety and Office of Railroad Development, “HighwayRail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail”, Version 1.0. Nov 2009. 

USDOT, FRA, DRPT 2009. Richmond Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. December, 2009. 

http://www.rich2hrrail.info/pages/mp_reports.html 

USDOT – Federal Railroad Administration. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America: High-Speed 

Rail Strategic Plan – The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. April 2009. Page 3. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-16 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Final%20FRA%20HSR%20Strat%20Plan.pdf. 

Accessed 6/24/09. 

USDOT, 2012. US Department of Transportation. Department of Transportation Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

Final DOT Environmental Justice Order 5610.2(a). March 2, 2012. 

USDOT, 2012. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed 

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report, Office of 

Railroad Policy and Development, DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15, September 2012. 

USDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2012a. Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fars, as of June 2012. 

USDOT, NHTSA, 2012b. Transportation Safety Facts: Research Notes, 2010 Motor Vehicle 

Crashes: Overview (February 2012), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fars, as of June 

2012. 

USDOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), TranStats Online Database (accessed October 2012). 

USDOT, RITA, BTS, 2010. Transportation Statistics Annual Report. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_statistics

_annual_report/2010/pdf/entire.pdf 

USDOT, RITA, 2008. Transportation Vision for 2030. January 2008. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/sites/default/files/rita_archives/rita_publications/transportation_vi

sion_2030/pdf/entire.pdf 

USDOT, RITA, 2011. State Transportation Statistics 2011. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/state_transportation_sta

tistics/state_transportation_statistics_2011/pdf/entire.pdf 

USDOT, RITA, 2012. Airline On-Time Statistics and Delay Causes. 

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/OT_DelayCause1.asp?pn=1 (accessed 10-24-12). 

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of 

Safety. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Report 

No. 550/9-74-004, March 1974. 

USEPA, 1985. Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings - EPA 

560/5-85-024. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, June 1985. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Level III Ecoregions of Virginia. 

Webpage. Hosted by Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Available at: 

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/cropmap/virginia/maps/VAeco3.html (Accessed 

December 14, 2008). 

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Water Quality Standards Basic 

Information. Webpage. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/about/ (Accessed on June 22, 2004). 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007a. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental 

United States. Map. USEPA, Washington, DC. 

USEPA, 2007b. Air Quality Index. USEPA, Washington, DC. Document Cited on December 14, 

2008: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/specprog/AQI/Aqi.htm. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-17 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

USEPA, 2008. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, 

Washington, DC. USEPA website cited on November 25, 2008: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. The Green Book of Nonattainment Areas 

for Criteria Pollutants. Website. USEPA, Office of Air Quality Standards and Planning, 

Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html 

(Accessed November 25, 2008). 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. Air Quality Index Report. Online 

database. USEPA, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html (Accessed August 28, 2014). 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014b. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Webpage. USEPA, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (Accessed August 27, 2014). 

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species 

and Federal Species of Concern by County in North Carolina. Webpage. USFWS, 

Raleigh, NC. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html 

(Accessed 2012). 

 USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species 

and Federal Species of Concern by County in Virginia. Webpage. USFWS, Gloucester, 

VA. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/county_lists.html (Accessed 

2012). 

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Find Endangered Species and Federal Species. 

Webpage. USFWS, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 

(Accessed September 4, 2014). 

US Geologic Survey (USGS), 2005a. The Mineral Industry of Virginia. USGS/Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Reston, VA and Charlottesville, VA. Cited 

on November 19, 2008. USGS Website: 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2005/myb2-2005-va.pdf. 

USGS, 2005b. The Mineral Industry of North Carolina. US Geological Survey (USGS)/North 

Carolina Geological Survey. Reston, VA and Raleigh, NC. Cited on November 19, 2008. 

USGS Website: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2005/myb2-2005-nc.xls. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. Mineral Resources Data System. Online database. USGS, 

Reston, VA. Available at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/select.php (Accessed July 28, 2008). 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2012. 2008 Minerals Yearbook, Virginia. USGS, Reston, VA. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. 2009 Minerals Yearbook, North Carolina. USGS, 

Reston, VA. 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, 2013. Has Motorization in the U.S. 

Peaked. Website cited April 17, 2015: 

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/98098/102947.pdf 

Vance County Planning Department – 1996. Vance County Land Use Plan. Vance County 

Government 1996. 

Vance County. 2010. Vance County Land Use Plan. Vance County, Henderson, NC. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-18 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Vance County CTP, Draft (last updated June 5, 2012) 

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/planning/vancecounty.html (accessed 10-17-

12) 

Virginia.com, 2012. Virginia Workforce Connection, LMI Data, Population Projections 

http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=359 (Accessed October 2012) 

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), 2006. Website cited on 

December 15, 2008: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/agribusiness/expand.shtml. 

VDACS (Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). 2013. Virginia Agriculture 

– Facts and Figures. Webpage. VDACS, Richmond, VA. Available at: 

http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/agfacts/ (Accessed November 27, 2013). 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2004. Staunton River State Park, Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA. VADCR website cited on 

June 24, 2004. http://www.dcr.state.va.us/parks/staunton.htm, 

VADCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). 2013. Virginia Natural Heritage 

Data Explorer. Online database. NADCR, Richmond, VA. Available at: 

https://vanhde.org (Accessed 2013). 

VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2014. Virginia Water Quality 

Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report. VDEQ, Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2008. 2008 303(d) Report on Impaired Waters. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Division of Mineral Resources, 2004. 

Geology of Virginia. Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Division of 

Mineral Resources, Charlottesville, VA. Cited on May 20, 2004. 

http://www.mme.state.va.us/Dmr/DOCS/Geol/vageo.html 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VA DRPT), 2008. Statewide Rail 

Resource Allocation Plan. 

VA DRPT. DRPT News. http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/news/details.aspx?id=421 Accessed 

08/06/09. 

VA DRPT (Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation). 2013. 2013 Virginia 

Statewide Rail Plan. VA DRPT, Richmond, VA. 

VA DRPT (Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation) and VDOT (Virginia 

Department of Transportation). 2013. Virginia Surface Transportation Plan 2035 – 

Update. VA DRPT and VDOT, Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), 2006, 2009. Right of Way and Utility Estimates. 

VDOT District Right of Way and Utilities Office, Colonial Heights, VA. 

VDOT, 2009. Air Quality Project-Level Analysis: Consultant Guide. VDOT Environmental 

Division, Air Section, Revision 189, May 2009. 

VDOT, 2011. Virginia Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Noise Impact Analysis 

Guidance Manual, Version 2, September, 2011. 

Virginia Natural Heritage Resource Information, 2001-2002. Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program. 2001-2002. 

VSWCB (Virginia State Water Control Board). 2003. Water Quality Standards Statutory 

Authority: 62.1-44.15(3a) of the Code of Virginia. Richmond, VA. 
SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC 11-19 

Tier II Final EIS, August 2015

SEHSR Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC

Wake County, NC Planning Department, 2003. Land Use Plan (Wake County 2003 Update). 

Warren County. 2002. Warren County-2022 Comprehensive Development Plan (Land Use Plan). 

Warren County, Warrenton, NC. 

Washington Post, 2014. The Sorry State of Amtrak’s on-time performance, mapped. Washington 

Post website cited April 17, 2015: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/10/the-sorry-state-ofamtraks-on-time-performance-mapped/ 

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, 2007. Population Estimates for Brunswick and 

Mecklenburg Counties, Alberta, La Crosse, and South Hill. Weldon Cooper Center for 

Public Service website accessed on August 26, 2007: 

http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/analysis%20&%20graphics/population%20gr

owth/analysis/index.php 

Wild Earth Guardians. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/road-riporter/impacts-railroads-wildlife. 

Accessed March 25, 2014.