APPENDIX B5

RESPONSES TO OPERATOR COMMENTS
B-326 

RESPONSES TO OPERATOR COMMENTS

This Appendix Section B5 provides detailed responses to Operator letters, presented in the below 

order: 

 CSX Transportation (CSXT) ................................................................................................. B-327 

 Norfolk Southern (NS) ......................................................................................................... B-409 

 Amtrak .................................................................................................................................... B-412 

 Virginia Railway Express (VRE) ......................................................................................... B-416 

 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) ...................................... B-426 

Appendix B5 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT

(No comments on this page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-328 

CSXT (continued) (No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) Note that the response numbering correspon

statements (as indicated by the numbered bl

the CSXT letter), and is not intended to align within the CSXT letter. 

1. The Department of Rail and Publi

acknowledges that CSXT owns the rail corridor. DRPT looks forwacooperation with CSXT on projects increase rail capacity to efficienpassenger service. 

 DRPT notes that, in addition to th

CSXT’s letter dated November 7, 201these responses to CSXT’s comments DC2RVA Project Recommendation Alternative, which is Appendix I of t

2. DRPT has been working in partnersh

projects to construct a third main liadditional VRE service on the corridoto Hamilton third track project comthe Atlantic Gateway project to add between Franconia and Occoquan, initial phases of design. In additionCSXT and the Federal Railroad Admthird main line track in the corridoand Arkendale. Both of these separain Chapter 4 of the Final EIS. 

3. The Preferred Alternative, as defined 

EIS, proposes to construct a third macorridor, including the portion of tVirginia Railway Express (VRE) conot covered under existing commlimited by existing physical, enconditions, such as in Area 5 through 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-330 

CSXT (continued) (Response to comment 3 on previous page) 4. DRPT acknowledges CSXT’s stat

principles for permitting new passlines. 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) 5. DRPT concurs that freight rail is a d

and provides environmental benefithe nation. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-332 

CSXT (continued) (Response to comment 5 on previous page) 6. DRPT concurs that the DC2RVA 

component of CSXT’s rail network. 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) (For response to comment 6, refer to page B-3
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-334 

CSXT (continued) (For response to comment 6, refer to page B-37. DRPT agrees that additional rail ca

corridor to accommodate proposed service, and through the years DRPT CSXT and VRE to construct additiocorridor. DRPT looks forward to conwith CSXT on the DC2RVA Project 

rail corridor that may increase rail cincreased freight, passenger, and com
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) (For response to comment 7, refer to page B-3
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-336 

CSXT (continued) (For response to comment 7, refer to page B-3
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) 8. Comment noted. 9. and 10. DRPT conducted additional m

with FRA that included cases that siway outages, which is summarized EIS and fully discussed in Appendix is conducting additional Project mCorridor Service Development PlDC2RVA Project, which would incluassumptions, cases, and inputs, simulation with maintenance-of-way 7.3 of the Final EIS for description of 

11. See response to DRPT-numbered sta12. See response to DRPT-numbered sta13. See response to DRPT-numbered sta14. Comment noted. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-338 

CSXT (continued) (Response to comment 14 on previous page) 15. Comment noted. 16. Comment noted. 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) (Response to comment 16 on previous page) 17. Comment noted. 18. As described in statements #9 

conducted refined modeling that usethe Ashland area subsequent to thsimulation modeling; the findinsummarized in Section 3.2 of the Finin Appendix I of the Final EIS. Thanalysis modeling confirmed that evaluated in the Draft EIS, and sAlternative in the Final EIS, were appthe level of service proposed. DRPsection of the Project in Area 5 throulimited by existing physical, enviconditions, which cannot be overcomand impact to the community and enthe DC2RVA corridor are develincrementally, DRPT looks forward future phases of the Project. 

19. Comment noted. Analysis on the 

Branch as a freight bypass around Appendix A of the Draft EIS. In addithe Buckingham Branch as a freigharound Ashland is included in Appepart of the summary of the Town County Community Advisory ComRouting certain passenger trains via Branch line from Richmond to skipping both the Staples Mill Roawhich would not meet the intercity the Project and thus would not meet the Project. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-340 

CSXT (continued) (Response to comment 19 on previous page) 20. Comment noted. 21. The capital infrastructure cost est

Alternative are summarized in Sectioestimates are based on conceptapproximately 10% level of design data. The purpose of the capital cost comparative cost between alternativ

decisions to be made. Railroad signsystems are estimated based on comthe California High Speed Rail prconceptual engineering that was perenvironmental documentation for cost information for railroad signsystems was not available for inclulevel of design at that phase. Appropcost estimates of the system were incestimates for comparative purposes reflect refined actual costs based on design, as noted by CSXT acknowledgement of the statement and in their assessment of crossing g
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) (Response to comment 21 on previous page) 22. DRPT acknowledges that CSXT, as t

DC2RVA corridor, has total plenarwhat constitutes safe passenger opein accordance with safety regulatiooperations enacted by FRA. 

23. As services in the DC2RVA corri

implemented incrementally, DRPT lwith CSXT on future phases of the Corridor Service Development Plan implement the service improvementProject. As part of the SDP effort (seEIS), DRPT will prepare additional odefine the infrastructure required to passenger rail service growth thAlternative. DRPT and FRA recognianalysis may suggest modifications tproposed operating plan beyond thShould potential modifications incluin environmental impacts or a represented in the EIS, a supplementarequired, as applicable under curegulations. 

Separate from the Purpose and Need 

DRPT and FRA also recognize that Cstakeholders may pursue additionalong the DC2RVA Corridor bWashington, D.C., or on the adjAdditional operations analysis perfoor in subsequent iterations through Project, will need to include the monetwork constructed by others to coninfrastructure defined in the EIS fremains effective to meet the Purpos

Exhibit A: Letter from Robert E

Transportation, Commonwealth of ViChairman & Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 10, 1995. 

 (Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-342 

CSXT (continued) 

Exhibit B: Operating/Access Agreemen

Transportation, Inc. and Northern VirgCommission and Potomac and RappahaCommission, Concerning Commuter Ra10, 1995.

 DRPT acknowledges the exhibit and 

comment responses to this content. 

Exhibit C: Memorandum of Understan

of January 2001, by and among CSX TrNorthern Virginia Transportation Comand Rappahannock Transportation ComCommonwealth of Virginia’s DepartmenTransportation. 

 DRPT acknowledges the exhibit and 

comment responses to this content. 

Exhibit D: Framework Agreement by a

Department of Rail and Public TranspoTransportation, Inc., dated March 19, 2

 DRPT acknowledges the exhibit and 

comment responses to this content. 

 Exhibit E: Non-Binding Term Sheet be

of Rail and Public Transportation and dated April 11, 2016. 

 DRPT acknowledges the exhibit a

comment responses to this content. 

Separate Attachment: DC2RVA S

Technical Review of Draft EnvironmenEIS), prepared for CSXT, prepared by Cwith Willard Keeney, dated November 6

 DRPT acknowledges the exhibit a

comment responses to this contentabout operations modeling work coDC2RVA Project that appear in this acomments in the overall letter from Cprepared responses (see above). 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued)  As summarized in Section 3.2 o

conducted refined operations anDC2RVA corridor as well as in the inform the selection of a Preferred previous operations simulation mopreparation of the Draft EIS and revisions to the infrastructure and oin the Draft EIS that were developeconsistency and reduce delays aconflicts within the DC2RVA corrrefined operations analysis modelitechnical memos in Appendix F of thhow the refined operations analy

selection of a Preferred Alternative is Recommendation Report, which is A

DRPT has presented this and rinformation to CSX on June 5 and 9, 2

July 7 and 12, 2017; August 16, 2017; 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-344 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-346 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-348 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-350 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-352 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-354 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-356 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-358 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-360 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-362 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-364 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-366 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-368 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-370 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-372 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-374 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-376 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-378 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-380 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-382 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-384 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-386 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-388 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-390 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-392 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-394 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-396 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-398 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-400 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-402 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-404 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-406 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-408 

CSXT (continued) CSXT (continued) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

NORFOLK SOUTHERN 1. The Purpose of the DC2RVA Project 

deliver higher speed passenger railand accommodate growth of freight and reliable multimodal corridor beand Richmond, VA. While the Pinfrastructure improvements are lbetween Arlington (RO InterlockingProject recognizes the reality that mfrequencies would not operate solcorridor. Thus, while the DC2Environmental Impact Statements (Ecapacity improvements within the operational analyses of trains movinthe limits of the corridor. The DC2Ritself, ensure that these additional poccur – rather, the DC2RVA Project be sufficient capacity within the Richmond corridor for these additiooperate, should they be added inccurrent year and the planning horizo

 The DC2RVA Project carries forwar

Tier I EIS within the Washingtocorridor. The Project builds on the Record of Decision (ROD), and su(identified in the Final EIS Section Richmond to Raleigh Tier II Final ERichmond to Hampton Roads Tier I Project used these studies and decianticipated frequency of intercity paDC2RVA corridor, and thereby improvements within the corridor additional passenger trains while acrail and growth of freight service. In k

I ROD, and the determination oAdministration (FRA) to develop ththe DC2RVA Project is itself just oprogram. The Department of Rail a

(DRPT) recognizes that addition

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-410 

NORFOLK SOUTHERN (continued)  engineering and host railroad coord

completed prior to extending addit

service to Norfolk. Section 7.7 of the added since the Draft EIS, details thprevious, ongoing, concurrent, anprojects within or adjacent to the Dcritical to the DC2RVA Project; Sectiothe coordination with other Sout(SEHSR) projects, including trains tRichmond to Hampton Roads study

 Additionally, DRPT conducted refin

to the Draft EIS preliminary simulatiof this effort are summarized in Sectifully discussed in Appendix F. 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

NORFOLK SOUTHERN (continued) (Response to comment 1 on previous page) 2. The No Build Alternative incorpor

infrastructure and service levels from the corridor that are likely to occur inimprovements planned by the DC2Radditional service level was under coor was the focus of advanced collabassumed to be complete by 2025 for EIS evaluation. An additional Nortsupported) Washington, D.C. to Lywas identified in the 2017 Virginia 

short-term project that the Commonwto pursue. Daily operation of Amtrakbetween New York and Chicago wPassenger Rail Investment and ImSection 210 Performance Improvemdated September 2010 and reaffirmeincrease to include in the No Build apurposes for the DC2RVA Project. 

As stated above, the DC2RVA Pro

ensure that these additional passengrather, the DC2RVA Project ensursufficient capacity within the Washicorridor for these additional passeSection 4.2 of the Final EIS presentPreferred Alternative, which will bCorridor Service Development Plawhich is summarized in Chapter 7 o
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-412 

AMTRAK

1. and 2. Comments noted. The Depart

Transportation (DRPT) will continAmtrak as it refines the passengeconceptual schedule for the Preferrepreparation of the Corridor Service for the DC2RVA Project and beyond 

3. The engineering and service plans p

Tier II Draft and Final Environmentawere developed based on the 2002 Tof Decision (ROD) issued for the So(SEHSR) corridor between WashingNC, which selected an incremental apSEHSR program. Key elements of approach are: 

• Upgrade existing rail corridors (in

corridors). 

• Utilize fossil-fuel burning equipm

powered equipment. 

• Add service as market demand 

funding is available. 

 The incremental approach seeks 

potential impacts to the environmrailroad tracks and rail rights-of-wPassenger service and freight servicowned tracks. The 2002 Tier I EIS assof 110 mph, with an average speed along the full length of the SEWashington, D.C. and Charlotte, NCthe Federal Railroad Administratstrategic plan for higher speed rail strategies included upgrading relconventional intercity rail services (oto 90 mph on shared track) and dregional higher-speed corridor servito 90 to 110 mph on shared track). 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO OPERA

AMTRA

K (continued) 

 DRPT released its I-95 Southeast Hig

Service Plan, which set a goal of ispeed to a 90-mph maximum in tPetersburg, VA corridor. In keeping Plan, the DC2RVA Project was dreliability and service of conventionspeeds up to 90 mph, where practicalcommuter and freight services. Dmaximum speed of 90 mph, where Project provided the optimal capacithe DC2RVA corridor while miimpacts and costs. However, DRPmaximum authorized speed of 90 mpin the DC2RVA corridor does not pthe future to increase the maximum corridor. Additional details on the selection of a maximum authorized Project corridor are provided in Sect

4. As work on the Tier II Draft EIS 

advanced, DRPT recognized that eaAlternatives would have potential athe citizens and resources of the THanover County, and there was preference for a Build Alternative in the Town of Ashland/Hanover CounCommittee (CAC) to review all prevfor greater rail capacity in the Ashlanand to identify potential options thaand Need of the DC2RVA Project, wavoiding potential impacts to environment. Ultimately, the CAC objectionable” alternatives for throand bypass options, which are fully dthe Final EIS and its Appendix G, below: 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-414 

AMTRAK (continued) 

• “3-2-3” Option (i.e., maintaining tw

A third track would be added to thway north and south of the Towexisting two tracks would remAshland. This option is similar to was evaluated in the Draft EIS, witinfrastructure and associated pdowntown Ashland. 

• Three-Track Trench: A trench wou

Ashland approximately 50 feet wtwo existing tracks through the with a new third track, would pass the trench. This below-grade opttown alignment similar to Build Aevaluated in the Draft EIS, budismissed in the Draft EIS aprocess. 

• Western Bypass Alignment: A tw

bypass approximately seven maround the Town of Ashland to alignment is similar to Build Alterthe Draft EIS, but with a modifiealignment was considered and dialternatives development process. 

 The CAC’s identification of least o

was intended to inform the final detalternative for the Ashland/Hanovethe Commonwealth Transportatiultimately, FRA. In accordance wrecommendation of the Town of ACommunity Advisory Committee resolution of the CTB, Alternative Preferred Alternative for the Ashlanto Section 4.3.5 of the Final EIS foalternative and the basis for its select

 Details of CAC activities are provid

Report, which is Appendix G of the F
RESPONSES TO OPERA

AMTRA

K (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-416 

VRE 

Note DRPT responded to the specific commen

summarized in the first two pages of VREs letbelow corresponds to the DRPT-numbered stnumbered black bars on the right side of the and is not intended to align with the letter suby VRE. 

(No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

VRE (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-418 

VRE (continued) 

1. The Department of Rail and Public Tr

the Federal Railroad Administration implementation process that followNational Environmental Policy Act design can be lengthy, and includes permits, equipment selection and materials, and actual constructioimprovements. DRPT and FRA have approach to develop new service and the owner of the railroad, to identconstruct railroad infrastructure anservice in the corridor as quickly apurposes, DRPT and FRA assumed thcould be in operation would be 2025on a completed NEPA process immediately available. The build-ouimplementation of the DC2RVA Projstate and federal funding. Full detailProject process, including fundinservice priorities, final design, permare included in Chapter 7 of this FinStatement (EIS), which has been addaddress these topics. 

2. The design criteria for the DC2RVA 

passenger rail stations providing including stations shared by Amtrak Express (VRE). Adjustments to Vcoordinated between VRE and DDC2RVA Project. Application of the solely serving VRE is limited to thdistance from VRE platforms and relative to the VRE platforms. Arealignments constructed under thsupport the planned platform imserved by VRE. DRPT will continue ensure proposed track improvemenwith VRE’s ongoing and planned sta

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO OPERA

VRE (continued) 

3. Comment noted. DRPT will continu

the District Department of Transporstakeholders on the Long Bridge DC2RVA design process. 

4. Draft EIS Table 2.5-1 has been upda

the errata table for the Draft EIS, whFinal EIS. Note that the Broad Run EIS Table 2.5-1, so no addition is nee

5. and 6. DRPT acknowledges that VRE

construction timelines for the two been revised since publication of the any effects from revised plans or caddressed in Section 4.4.2 and Sectio

7. The text has been corrected to refle

pedestrian tunnel would connect Alethe King Street Metro Station and platforms and station that are compwith Disabilities Act (ADA); refer tDraft EIS, which is Appendix A of th

8. The referenced description has been 

it refers to VRE’s Crystal City Stationfor the Draft EIS, which is Appendix 

9. See DRPT-numbered statement #2 a(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-420 

VRE (continued) 

10. Table 4-4 in the Noise and Vib

(Appendix P in the Draft EIS) presefor Build Alternative 2A in the No(Area 2) of the DC2RVA corridor. Bonly Build Alternative for the NoDraft EIS Table 5-1 summarizes ncorridor segments and all of the Projeresults for Build Alternative 2A are Draft EIS Table 4-4 identifies noismunicipality per Area, whereas Drpresents the total number of projecte(all municipalities in that segment). vibration effects are presented in the 

There are no changes to the vibration 

impact contours since the publication exception of two areas for noise onlCity in Arlington and one location areas are detailed in Final EIS Sectioare provided in Appendix M of the F

The noise analysis tables in Section 

presented for only the defined Alternative through all six area corridor. 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

VRE (continued) 

(Response to comment 10 on previous page) 11. No Build assumptions regarding pro

intercity passenger, and commuter radeveloped in consultation with FRA, The DC2RVA Project does not precadditional rail capacity projects increases in rail traffic as future sconditions change. Separate from the DC2RVA Project, DRPT and FRA aVRE, or other interested parties may improvements (or service changes) albetween Washington, D.C. and Centrrailroad network that would affect Project corridor. Additional operatthrough the life of the DC2RVA modifications to the railroad networchanges implemented) by others to coinfrastructure defined in the EIS fremains effective to meet the Purpose 

12. The referenced text is part of a 

maintaining operations throughout and does not preclude the need to track in operation. VRE’s description than one track would need to remain 

13. The referenced text was revised, 

indicate a minimum of 12 inches of bunder the ties; refer to the errata tablis Appendix A of the Final EIS. 

14. Build Alternative 1A, as evaluated i

four mainline tracks between RO referenced Draft EIS Figure 7.1-1 wagraphical preview of the Recommenat that time, and is not included document. Rather, the Final EIS provmapbook of the Preferred Alternatthat subsequent to the Draft EIS, Alas the Preferred Alternative for Approach (refer to Final EIS Section 

(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-422 

VRE (continued) 

15. In the Draft EIS, to avoid unnece

possible alternatives of the separate and DRPT identified and evaconfigurations for the one-mile scorridor in Arlington, without recomalternative between them at that timrequirement for a Draft EIS to alternative. Subsequently, Alternativthe West was selected as the PrefeDC2RVA Project to align with the twrecommended in the Long Bridge Ato Final EIS Section 4.3.1 for details and description of Preferred Altecontinue to coordinate with the Long a smooth transition to the proposed 

 The corridor segment south of the 

implemented as part of the Atlantic include positioning of rail to actransition to the bridge approach (regwill allow VRE’s proposed improStation to proceed with two tracks in 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

VRE (continued) 

16. The referenced Figure 7.2-1 on page 

intended as a high-level grapRecommended Preferred Alternativincluded as part of the Final EIS doEIS provides updated detailed descrthe Preferred Alternative Refer in Serespectively. 

17. The referenced section was rewor

“...with four interoperable main interlocking and three interoperabinterlocking to Fredericksburg”; refeDraft EIS, which is Appendix A of th

18. The DC2RVA Project’s stated Purpo

capacity between Washington, D.Cdeliver higher speed passenger supporting the planned expansion service and accommodating the forerail service by developing an efficienrail corridor. DRPT and FRA are sufficient infrastructure improvemento support the Purpose and Need – Project is not to re-build the entire Cnecessary infrastructure. CSXT has crail bridges meet all necessary standards, and replacement of exiproposed unless directly necessary Need. The DC2RVA Project’s major band environmental impact evaluationsufficient to support a two-track preliminary Project designs would bridge. This allows for an evaluatiosub-structure and in-water impacts ufuture design flexibility, while limitiinfrastructure and costs to that necesNeed. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-424 

VRE (continued) 

19. DRPT remains committed to work

stakeholders for the duration of the solution as shown in Figure 1 in the 

20. Refer to DRPT-numbered statement 21. By way of this response, DRPT 

Franconia-Springfield station will repon page 4-9 of the Alternatives Technof the Draft EIS), under the Pdescription. 

22. DRPT worked with FRA and CSXT 

conceptual location of rail crossoversbe developed during development Development Plan (SDP) for this Pro

the Final EIS for details) as well asignals and communication. 
RESPONSES TO OPERA

VRE (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-426 

WMATA

1. The Department of Rail and Public 

currently working with the DTransportation (DDOT) and Administration (FRA) to evaluate increasing the rail corridor’s capacity via Long Bridge as part of a separate Long Bridge study), for which DRPT In the Draft Environmental Impact DC2RVA Project, to avoid unnecepossible alternatives of the separate and DRPT identified and evaconfigurations for the one-mile scorridor in Arlington, without recomalternative between them at thAlternative 1B: Add Two Tracks on the Preferred Alternative for the DC2the two alternatives that were recBridge Alternatives Report. Refer to details on the selection process and Alternative 1B. DRPT will continuLong Bridge project to ensure a sproposed new Long Bridge. 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO OPERA

WMATA (continued) 

(Response to comment 1 on previous page) 2. Comment noted. The design of the D

of the Draft and Final EIS is aengineering, as appropriate for decisthe National Environmental PolicPotential impacts have been idconceptual engineering, as reported EIS for the Preferred Alternative. NWashington Metropolitan Area Tranproperties or operations have been engineering to date, as all proposed stay within the existing right-of-wMetrorail Station location. Howeverimpacts within the WMATA right-oconstruction of the proposed fourth will not affect WMATA operations athe next phase of design. DRPT is coWMATA and other stakeholders to Project effects during final designavailable and incremental improvem

3. Based on WMATA information to d

is not anticipated to impact WMAYard Metrorail Station. The permDC2RVA Project are planned to remway at the Potomac Yard Metrorail Simpacts of the DC2RVA Project are pCity of Alexandria property at thmapbooks of the Preferred AlternativAppendix L of the Final EIS, show temporary limits of disturbance. coordinate with WMATA during DCwould occur as funding becomes aimprovements are scheduled. FurthDRPT, CSXT, Virginia Railway Exprwill be required to determine conpotential infrastructure that could be
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-428 

WMATA (continued) 

4. Right-of-way and relocations for the 

presented in Section 5.11.4 of the FinaDraft and Final EIS evaluations, ownthe Project corridor was determjurisdiction databases. DRPT, in comade the determinations of potemporary property acquisition engineering and parcel boundary individual jurisdictions. The right-of

including property owner notificatioand relocation, would be conducted with Federal and state regulations future design stages of the Project 

 The right-of-way acquisition proc

owner notification, appraisal, acquisbe conducted by the Virginia Depa(VDOT) in accordance with federfollowing final design of this segmdesign will also include additiboundaries, and greater precision acquisition needs, if needed. DRPT wwith WMATA during DC2RVA finoccur as funding becomes avaimprovements are scheduled in the P

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO OPERA

WMATA (continued) 

5. DRPT acknowledges that retaining w

in this location, however, the exact be developed until final design. As passessments, DRPT evaluated the retaining walls on noise and concludwould not substantively increase noof a retaining wall was perfectly areflection would be a mirror image o(the train pass-by). When two ideadded together, the resulting increabsence of background noises (i.e.listening environment like an audiolaverage hearing senses can perceivdecrease) of approximately 3 decibwhere normal background noistransportation noise and noise from 3-decibel change would be less notaverage hearing senses. For this reasothat absorptive treatments are necescoordinate with WMATA regardiretaining walls during DC2RVA finoccur as funding becomes avaimprovements are scheduled.