D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

NOISE AND VIBRATION PTECHNICAL REPORT
Noise and VibraƟon Technical Report

September 2017
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail i Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1 

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1 Passenger Rail Service in Project Corridor ...................................................................... 2-3 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates .................................................................................................. 2-4

2.2 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................... 2-8

2.2.2 Build Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.2.1 Build Alternatives in Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) ............... 2-8 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternatives in Area 2: Northern Virginia .............................................. 2-9

2.2.2.3 Build Alternatives in Area 3: Fredericksburg ................................................. 2-10

2.2.2.4 Build Alternatives in Area 4: Central Virginia ............................................... 2-11

2.2.2.5 Build Alternatives in Area 5: Ashland ............................................................. 2-12

2.2.2.6 Build Alternatives in Area 6: Richmond .......................................................... 2-14

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Noise Descriptors ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Noise Measurements ........................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.3 Existing Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Vibration........................................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.1 Vibration Descriptors .......................................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.2 Vibration Study Area .......................................................................................................... 3-9

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Noise Impact Criteria .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Noise Impact Assessment Methodology .......................................................................... 4-3

4.1.2.1 Noise-Sensitive Land Use Identification ........................................................... 4-3

4.1.2.2 Existing Noise Environment for Noise Analysis .............................................. 4-3

4.1.2.3 Train Characteristics ............................................................................................. 4-4

4.1.3 Predicted Noise Levels ....................................................................................................... 4-7

4.1.4 Noise Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 4-8

4.1.4.1 Operational Noise Impacts .................................................................................. 4-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail ii Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

4.1.4.2 Construction Noise Impacts .............................................................................. 4-12

4.2 Vibration......................................................................................................................................... 4-15

4.2.1 Vibration Impact Criteria ................................................................................................. 4-15

4.2.2 Vibration Prediction Methodology ................................................................................. 4-16

4.2.2.1 Computation Assumptions and Input Data ................................................... 4-18

4.2.3 Predicted Vibration Levels ............................................................................................... 4-20

4.2.4 Vibration Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 4-20

4.2.4.1 Operational Vibration Impacts ......................................................................... 4-20

4.2.4.2 Construction Vibration Impacts ....................................................................... 4-22

CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Vibration........................................................................................................................................... 5-2

CHAPTER 6 – MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1 Noise Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Noise Mitigation during Operation .................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.2 Noise Mitigation during Construction ............................................................................. 6-2

6.2 Vibration Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.2.1 Vibration Mitigation during Operation ........................................................................... 6-2

6.2.2 Vibration Mitigation during Construction ...................................................................... 6-3

CHAPTER 7 – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 7-1 

APPENDICIES 

A Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C .................... A-1 

B Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 2A .......................................... B-1 

C Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 3A and 3B ........................... C-1 

D Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 3C ........................................... D-1 

E Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 4A .......................................... E-1 

F Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake ............................................................................................................... F-1 

G Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Aschcake ......... G-1 

H Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6A .......................................... H-1 

I Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6B–A-Line ...............................I-1 

J Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6C .............................................J-1 

K Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6E ........................................... K-1 

L Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6B–S-Line .............................. L-1 

M Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6D ......................................... M-1 

N Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6F ........................................... N-1 

O Noise Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 6G .......................................... O-1 

P Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 2A .................................... P-1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iii Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Q Vibration Impacts And Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 3A and 3B .................... Q-1 

R Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 3C .................................... R-1 

S Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternative 4A ..................................... S-1 

T Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake ....................................................................................................... T-1 

U Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake .... U-1 

V Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, And 6E ........................................................................................................................................ V-1 

W Vibration Impacts and Impact Contour Maps – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, and 6G ........................................................................................................................................ W-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1: Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-7

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C ................................................. 2-9

Table 2-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A .................................................................... 2-9

Table 2-4: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3A ............................................................. 2-10

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B .............................................................. 2-10

Table 2-6: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3C .............................................................. 2-11

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A ............................................................ 2-11

Table 2-8: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake ........................................ 2-12

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake ......................................... 2-12

Table 2-10: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake ........................................ 2-13

Table 2-11: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake ..................................................... 2-13

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples 

Mill Road Station Only) ............................................................................................. 2-14

Table 2-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line 

(Boulevard Station Only) ........................................................................................... 2-15

Table 2-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line 

(Boulevard Station Only) ........................................................................................... 2-15

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C 

(Broad Street Station Only) ........................................................................................ 2-15

Table 2-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D 

(Broad Street Station Only) ........................................................................................ 2-16

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) ............................... 2-16

Table 2-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) ................................. 2-17

Table 2-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) .......................... 2-17

Table 3-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites ................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-2: Distances to Establish Vibration Study Areas ......................................................... 3-10

Table 4-1: Existing Noise Environment for Noise Assessment ................................................ 4-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iv Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-2: Additional SEHSR Passenger Train Characteristics Used in the 

Noise Assessment ......................................................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-3: Characteristics of Existing Trains Analyzed in the Noise Assessment ................. 4-7

Table 4-4: Build Alternative 2A Noise Impacts .......................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-5: Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, And 3C Noise Impacts ................................................... 4-9

Table 4-6: Build Alternative 4A Noise Impacts .......................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-7: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

5D–Ashcake Noise Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-10

Table 4-8: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 

Noise Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-11

Table 4-9: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................. 4-12

Table 4-10: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) 

Impact Criteria for General Assessment .................................................................. 4-16

Table 4-11: Vibration Analysis Modeling Assumptions ............................................................ 4-18

Table 4-12: Build Alternative 2A Vibration Impacts .................................................................. 4-20

Table 4-13: Build Alternative 3C Vibration Impacts .................................................................. 4-21

Table 4-14: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

5D–Ashcake Vibration Impacts ................................................................................ 4-21

Table 4-15: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E Vibration Impacts .............................. 4-22

Table 4-16: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G Vibration Impacts ............................... 4-22

Table 4-17: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ................................................................ 4-22

Table 4-18: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria–Vibration-Sensitive Equipment ........ 4-23

Table 4-19: Construction Equipment PPV ................................................................................... 4-23

Table 5-1: Noise Impact Summary by Alternative ..................................................................... 5-1

Table 5-2: Vibration Impact Summary by Alternative ............................................................... 5-2

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor ........................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2: Build Alternative Areas................................................................................................ 2-6

Figure 2-3: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C .................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-4: Build Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 2-19

Figure 2-5: Build Alternative 3A ................................................................................................... 2-20

Figure 2-6: Build Alternative 3B ................................................................................................... 2-21

Figure 2-7: Build Alternative 3C ................................................................................................... 2-22

Figure 2-8: Build Alternative 4A ................................................................................................... 2-23

Figure 2-9: Build Alternative 5A ................................................................................................... 2-24

Figure 2-10: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake .................................................................................. 2-25

Figure 2-11: Build Alternative 5B ................................................................................................... 2-26

Figure 2-12: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake .................................................................................. 2-27
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail v Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-13: Build Alternative 5C ................................................................................................... 2-28

Figure 2-14: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake .................................................................................. 2-29

Figure 2-15: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake .................................................................................. 2-30

Figure 2-16: Build Alternative 6A ................................................................................................... 2-31

Figure 2-17: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line ..................................................................................... 2-32

Figure 2-18: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line ...................................................................................... 2-33

Figure 2-19: Build Alternative 6C ................................................................................................... 2-34

Figure 2-20: Build Alternative 6D ................................................................................................... 2-35

Figure 2-21: Build Alternative 6E ................................................................................................... 2-36

Figure 2-22: Build Alternative 6F .................................................................................................... 2-37

Figure 2-23: Build Alternative 6G ................................................................................................... 2-38

Figure 2-24: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ................................ 2-39

Figure 2-25: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ............................. 2-40

Figure 2-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C ......... 2-41

Figure 2-27: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B ......................... 2-42

Figure 2-28A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) .............................................................................. 2-43

Figure 2-28B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms) .............................................................................. 2-44

Figure 2-29: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake ......................................................... 2-45

Figure 2-30A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ........................................................................... 2-46

Figure 2-30B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ........................................................................... 2-47

Figure 2-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A .................... 2-48

Figure 2-32: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line 

and 6B–S-Line .............................................................................................................. 2-49

Figure 2-33: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C .............................. 2-50

Figure 2-34: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D ............................... 2-51

Figure 2-35: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ..................... 2-52

Figure 2-36: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ................................ 2-53

Figure 2-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F ..................... 2-54

Figure 2-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F ................................ 2-55

Figure 2-39: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G .................... 2-56

Figure 2-40: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ............................... 2-57

Figure 3-1: Typical Noise Levels ..................................................................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2: Noise Measurement Locations .................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 3-3: Measured Day-Night Noise Levels ............................................................................ 3-7

Figure 3-4: Measured Hourly Noise Levels .................................................................................. 3-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail vi Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 3-5: Example of Vibration Velocity Levels ........................................................................ 3-9

Figure 4-1: FTA/FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects .............................................. 4-2

Figure 4-2: FRA Sample Train Noise Contour .............................................................................. 4-6

Figure 4-3: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves ............................................. 4-17

Figure 4-4 FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Suitable for 

Assessing Transit and Freight Trains ....................................................................... 4-18
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in 

the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger 

rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. 

to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project. The Project will increase capacity to 

deliver additional intercity passenger rail, improve conventional speed passenger service, expand 

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

multimodal rail corridor. The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, 

reliability and travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and 

freight rail traffic, thereby providing a door-to-door time-competitive option for travelers 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and those traveling to and from adjacent connecting 

corridors. The Project is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor, which 

extends from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, and continues east to Hampton Roads 

(Norfolk), VA, and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues west to Atlanta, 

GA and south to Florida. The Project connects to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) at Union Station in Washington, D.C. 

The purpose of the SEHSR program, as stated in the 2002 Tier I Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) completed for the full SEHSR corridor, is to provide a competitive transportation 

choice to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. The current DC2RVA 

project carries forward the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond segment of the larger SEHSR corridor by identifying the infrastructure improvements 

necessary to provide a competitive transportation choice for current and future conditions. The 

Purpose of the DC2RVA project is to increase the capacity between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, improve conventional speed passenger rail, 

expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable 

multimodal rail corridor. This Project will enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation 

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

The purpose of this Noise and Vibration Technical Report is to identify the existing noise and 

vibration environment along the DC2RVA corridor and analyze potential effects that could result 

from implementation of the build alternatives. Information in this Technical Report supports 

discussions presented in the Draft EIS.

1 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor spans 123 miles along an existing rail corridor owned 

by CSXT between Control Point Rosslyn (RO) at milepost (MP) CFP 110 in Arlington County, VA to 

the junction of the CSXT North End Subdivision (referred to as the A-Line) between West Acca Yard 

in Richmond and Centralia, VA, and the CSXT Bellwood Subdivision (referred to as the S-Line) 

between Control Point Hermitage in Richmond and Centralia, VA (CE) at MP A-11 in Chesterfield 

County, VA (Figure 2-1). At the northern terminus in Arlington County, the Project limit is marked 

by the southern approach to Long Bridge, a double-track rail bridge connecting the rail corridor over 

the Potomac River to Washington, D.C. The Project corridor follows the CSXT Richmond, 

Fredericksburg & Potomac (RF&P) Subdivision from the Potomac River to Richmond. The southern 

terminus in Centralia is the junction of two CSXT routes (the A-Line and the S-Line) that begin in 

Richmond and rejoin approximately 11 miles south of the city. 

Additional sections evaluated as part of the Project included approximately 8.3 miles of the CSXT 

Peninsula Subdivision CA-Line from Beulah Road (MP CA-76.1) in Henrico County, VA east of 

Richmond to AM Junction in downtown Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile Buckingham 

Branch Railroad (BBR) from AM Junction to the RF&P Crossing (MP CA-111.8) north of 

Richmond in Doswell, VA. 

In Arlington, the Project connects to existing CSXT track extending across the Potomac River on 

the Long Bridge into Washington, D.C. and Union Station, the southern terminus of Amtrak’s 

NEC. In downtown Richmond and at Centralia, the Project connects to both the Richmond to 

Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor and the Richmond to Hampton Roads segment of the 

SEHSR corridor. The Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment is an integral part of the overall 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR corridor and provides a critical link between high speed 

passenger service from Boston to Washington, D.C. and the southeastern United States (U.S.). 

Long Bridge Over the Potomac River 

2 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-2 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-3 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Alternatives developed as part of the DC2RVA Project include two elements: proposed train 

service that would run throughout the corridor (see Section 2.1.1), and physical improvements 

along the rail alignment. The Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and 

service upgrades to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and 

accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. 

The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and door-todoor competitive travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, 

and freight rail traffic. Specific improvements to the existing rail infrastructure between 

Arlington, VA, and Centralia, VA, include: 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to accommodate efficient 

operation of passenger, commuter, and freight rail service with increased frequency, 

reliability, and speed, including an additional main track along most of the corridor, 

additional sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity and reliability 

improvements at certain locations. 

 Corridor-wide upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating 

speeds, including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing 

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 

 New or replacement station, platform, and parking improvements at intercity passenger 

stations in the corridor to improve the efficiency of railroad operations, improve quality 

of service, and accommodate increased ridership. 

 Safety improvements to roadway crossing treatments, to include median treatment, grade 

separations, and/or closure of existing at-grade crossings of the rail corridor. 

The environmental impacts of these improvements and measures to avoid, minimize, or 

otherwise mitigate such impacts are described in the EIS. 

Studies in support of the Project addressed passenger and freight rail operations and service 

between Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond, but the Project will not 

include physical improvements to the Long Bridge across the Potomac River or to rail infrastructure 

within Washington, D.C. Other projects will address these improvements as well as improvements 

to the rail infrastructure north of Arlington and south of Centralia along the SEHSR corridor. 

2.1.1 Passenger Rail Service in Project Corridor 

Amtrak operates four types of passenger service in the DC2RVA corridor: 

 Northeast Regional (Virginia) Amtrak service provides regional passenger rail service 

along the length of the Northeast Corridor from Boston and New York and continues 

south to serve routes in Virginia. Trains make local station stops. 

 Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) Amtrak operates between New York and North Carolina 

(one single daily round trip) through Virginia, making fewer stops in the DC2RVA 

corridor than the Northeast Regional service. 

 Long Distance Amtrak service operates from New York and continues through 

Washington, D.C. and Virginia to other out-of-state locations. Long distance trains serve 

the fewest of Amtrak station stops within the DC2RVA corridor. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-4 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

 Auto Train Amtrak service operates as a daily nonstop, overnight train between dedicated 

station facilities in Lorton, VA and Florida, and carries passengers and their automobiles. 

DRPT is proposing to add nine daily roundtrip SEHSR intercity passenger trains to the corridor: 

 Four new roundtrips of Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service, to provide additional 

frequencies on the same routes of existing Amtrak Northeast Regional (Virginia) services, 

terminating within Virginia (either Newport News, Norfolk, or Richmond). 

 Five new roundtrips of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, to complement Amtrak’s 

current Interstate Corridor (North Carolina) service, by providing additional frequencies 

to North Carolina. The SEHSR trains have slightly different service patterns in the 

DC2RVA corridor than the existing Amtrak service, and use different routes south of the 

DC2RVA corridor, where SEHSR trains are expected to provide a faster and more direct 

route to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC. 

From Washington, D.C., all new SEHSR trains would continue on to Philadelphia, New York, 

and Boston. The plan is to incorporate this service in to Amtrak’s regional and long-distance 

intercity passenger rail network. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for full summary of proposed 

service and ridership. 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates 

For this EIS, FRA and DRPT established two important planning dates. The first planning date 

is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA 

infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed in operation. 

FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening day” is dependent on many factors, 

not the least of which is finalizing the EIS and Record of Decision. The date also assumes that 

federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be available at the level required to build 

all of the proposed infrastructure improvements and acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. DRPT based this date on an aggressive but potentially achievable schedule assumption that 

all necessary permits, approvals, agreements, and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design 

would take one year (2021), right-of-way acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and 

construction would take three years (2023 – 2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the date 

when the physical impacts associated with DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, 

all of the physical impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are 

estimated for 2025, and compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new rail service in 2025. Both the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and FRA guidance require that DRPT 

demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger rail benefits 

and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon following the 

completion of the passenger project. DRPT uses operational simulations analysis, as discussed in 

Section 2.6.2, to test the proposed alternatives to determine if the rail capacity is adequate for both 

the opening day (2025) levels of projected freight, commuter and passenger rail traffic and to 

determine if the infrastructure remains adequate over the 20 year planning horizon or until 2045. 

DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate some of the longer term effects of the 

proposed service such as ridership, energy use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and 

cumulative effects. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-5 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

2.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Developing potential rail alignments was an iterative process. DRPT relied on previous studies 

and public scoping comment as the starting point for developing potential rail alignments. Rail 

alignment modifications were made to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on 

environmental resources and existing infrastructure, and to minimize the need for additional new 

infrastructure, while preserving the ability of that alignment to meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need. The final screening evaluation—to determine the Build Alternatives to be carried forward 

for evaluation in the Draft EIS—focused on each rail alignment’s ability to reduce trip times based 

on increased track design speed and to increase the reliability of rail operations based upon added 

capacity, with the least potential environmental impact and consideration of cost to construct. 

As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT evaluated both existing and potential new passenger rail 

stations in the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT plans to incorporate the DC2RVA SEHSR passenger train 

service into Amtrak’s regional and long distance intercity passenger rail network; along the 

DC2RVA corridor, these existing stations include: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Staples Mill Road and Main Street in Richmond. Additionally, in 

Richmond, DRPT is considering two proposed new locations under some Build Alternatives: 

Boulevard Station and Broad Street Station. However, not all proposed trains would necessarily 

serve all existing or proposed stations. 

For evaluation in the Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT combined and categorized Build Alternatives into 

six alternative areas along the corridor (Figure 2-2): 

 Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach): 1-mile section that includes 

approach alignments to the Long Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River between VA 

and DC. 

 Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia: 47-mile section that includes additional track 

within existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads): 14-mile section that 

includes alignments through or around the city. 

 Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell): 29-mile section that includes 

additional track primarily within the existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 5 Ashland: Ashland (Doswell to I-295): 10-mile section including 

alignments through or around the town. 

 Alternative 6 Richmond (I-295 to Centralia): 23-mile section including different station 

locations and routing options along the A-Line and/or S-Line. 

Project Build Alternatives were developed separately, specific to the existing conditions, 

constraints, and/or needs of each of the six areas, and will be linked to form a single DRPT 

Recommended Preferred Alternative for the corridor, to be confirmed in the Final EIS and Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for full summary of the alternatives development process and 

description of Build Alternatives, and Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS for description of the DRPT 

Recommended Preferred Alternative. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-6 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-2: Build Alternative Areas 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-7 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

In general, the DC2RVA Project proposes to increase capacity by adding one additional main 

track. In most areas, the Project will add a new third track in addition to two existing tracks. The 

determination of the location of the new track on the east or west of existing trackage varies by 

location within the corridor based on physical constraints and minimization of impacts. For each 

alternative, DRPT also evaluated the potential to realign the tracks to improve speeds. The 

proposed Build Alternatives vary within the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland, 

where alignments outside of the existing right-of-way were considered (i.e., bypass alignments 

around the downtown areas); the typical section of the new bypass alignments consists of two 

tracks. 

From a wide range of options that were considered during the alternatives development process, 

23 Build Alternatives, which vary within each alternative area, were included for evaluation in 

the Draft EIS (Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1: Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

5A–Ashcake Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 

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

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

6C Broad Street Station Only 

6D Main Street Station Only 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

As shown in the table, the eight Build Alternatives in Richmond include four single-station 

options that would consolidate passenger service to one station, and three two-station 

alternatives that offer combinations of services and rail line routes using Main Street Station and 

Staples Mill Road Station. These Richmond station options drive the corridor-wide operations of 

the DC2RVA Project. Ridership, travel time, and on-time performance vary by Build Alternative 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-8 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

based on the different Richmond station options. Estimated travel time between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond is dependent on the number and location of station stops as well as the track 

design. 

Each Build Alternative includes build-alternative-specific improvements to features such as 

stations and at-grade roadway crossings, as applicable. The following sections provide details of 

each of these Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative. 

2.2.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative defines the future infrastructure and service levels that will result from 

planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. 

Information about planned physical improvements and rail service additions in the corridor was 

gathered from fiscally-constrained Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning 

documents, Commonwealth multiyear improvement programs, and from transit agency 

planning documents. If a project was under construction, fully-funded, or was the focus of 

advanced collaborative planning (evidenced by partial funding, board-level commitments, or 

interagency agreements), it was assumed to be complete by 2025 for the purposes of the Draft EIS 

evaluation. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full description of elements included in the No 

Build Alternative. 

The purpose of the No Build Alternative is to serve as a baseline for comparison of potential 

effects and impacts of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative was fully 

evaluated and dismissed by the FRA in the 2002 SEHSR Tier I ROD because it does not meet the 

SEHSR Purpose and Need. Although previously dismissed as not a viable alternative, it is fully 

considered as part of the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project because the baseline is required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the FRA guidelines for evaluating 

noise and vibration do not include evaluation of a No Build Alternative. Therefore, noise and 

vibration levels associated with the No Build Alternative are not presented in this technical 

report. 

2.2.2 Build Alternatives 

The 23 Build Alternatives that are evaluated in the Tier II EIS for the DC2RVA Project are 

summarized below. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full information, including lists of specific 

improvements for track and station improvements, for each Build Alternative. 

Figures 2-3 through 2-23 show the proposed rail alignment improvements by alternative. Figures 

2-24 through 2-40 show the proposed station improvements. Note that all figures are provided 

at the end of this section. 

2.2.2.1 Build Alternatives in Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

There are three Build Alternatives in Area 1, which are described in Table 2-2. Build Alternative 

1A, 1B, and 1C are shown in Figure 2-3. There are no stations within this alternative area. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-9 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

TRACK 

All three Build Alternatives would: 

 Equally support expanded intercity passenger service (all types), expanded VRE commuter service, and expanded CSXT 

freight service 

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

 Be constructed within existing railroad right-of-way 

The difference between the alternatives is on which side(s) of the existing track the new track is added (as indicated in Build

Alternative names): two tracks on the east (1A); two tracks on the west (1B); one track east and one track west (1C) 

Final decision deferred to the completion of the Long Bridge Study (separate study by DDOT) 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 45 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within area 

CROSSINGS 

No changes to existing public roadway crossings 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternatives in Area 2: Northern Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Area 2, which is described in Table 2-3. Build Alternative 2A is 

shown in Figure 2-4. 

Table 2-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with realignment of some curves to improve speed, to create: 

 Fourth track from Alexandria to Crystal City 

 Third track from Spotsylvania to Alexandria 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Station improvements are mainly platform improvements and to be performed by VRE 

Proposed new DC2RVA service includes: 

 Alexandria: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) (Figure 2-24)

 Woodbridge: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (Figure 2-25)

 Quantico: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (no figure) 

 All other stations: VRE service only (no figure)

No changes to the locations of Amtrak (Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), Long Distance, or Auto 

Train) or VRE commuter stations served 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Mount Hope Church Road), with alternate access provided; no grade separations 

of at-grade crossings 

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

Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, and Aquia Creek 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-10 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

2.2.2.3 Build Alternatives in Area 3: Fredericksburg 

There are three Build Alternatives in Area 3, which are described in Table 2-4, Table 2-5, and 

Table 2-6. Build Alternative 3A, 3B, and 3C are shown in Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, and Figure 2-7 

respectively. All three Build Alternatives would support expanded intercity passenger (all 

types), VRE commuter, and CSXT freight service, without change to stations served by existing 

Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), and Long Distance 

passenger service or VRE commuter service. Due to constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed in this section is designed for 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3B is consistent with the City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2015). 

Table 2-4: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3A 

TRACK 

No construction of new track / no additional rail capacity within Fredericksburg 

 Existing two main tracks would be maintained, which are used by freight, passenger, and commuter trains, similar to existing conditions 

 Tracks would be shifted in some areas to improve speed 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the city 

All improvements are within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new 

parking structure (Figure 2-26)

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only 

CROSSINGS 

All public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements (no roadway crossing closures or grade 

separations of public at-grade crossings) 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B

TRACK 

One main track would be added in most areas, with track shifts to improve speed 

 Within Fredericksburg, the additional track would be added east of the existing two tracks 

 A third track already exists between Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania stations; therefore, no improvements are required 

in this section 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, a new elevated railway, side and center 

platform improvements, and a new parking structure (Figure 2-27) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only

CROSSINGS 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-11 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 2-6: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3C 

TRACK 

Existing two-track corridor through the city would be maintained, with some track shifts to improve speed 

New two-track bypass would be constructed east of the city 

 Would serve all freight rail as well as some or all of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 Would require new right-of-way 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new parking 

structure (Figure 2-26) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only

CROSSINGS 

Public roadway crossings along existing Dahlgren Spur would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

All new public roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

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

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

2.2.2.4 Build Alternatives in Area 4: Central Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Area 4, which is described in Table 2-7. Build Alternative 4A is 

shown in Figure 2-8. Based on geography throughout this area, this section is most suitable for 

higher speed passenger rail service, and therefore provides the greatest contiguous section along 

the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum authorized speed up to 90 mph. There are no stations 

within this alternative area. 

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with track shifts to improve speed 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

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

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within the area 

Would not preclude the development of a proposed future station at Carmel Church (not included as part of this study) 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Colemans Mill Road); no grade separations of at-grade crossings 

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

Multiple crossings of small waterways and wetlands 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-12 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

2.2.2.5 Build Alternatives in Area 5: Ashland 

There are seven Build Alternatives in Area 5, which are described in Table 2-8 through Table 2-

11 below. Build Alternative 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

are shown in Figure 2-9, Figure 2-10, Figure 2-11, Figure 2-12, Figure 2-13, Figure 2-14, and Figure 

2-15, respectively. 

The Ashland Build Alternatives include different station locations: either maintaining the station 

at the existing downtown station with improvements (Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C) or 

relocating the station to south of Ashcake Road (all Build Alternatives with “–Ashcake” in their 

name). The Build Alternatives with the same letter, with and without the “–Ashcake” 

designation, are otherwise similar in terms rail alignment through Ashland and identical north 

and south of Town. For ease of comparison, they are presented together in the tables below. 

Due to constraints of the geography through this location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible, with an existing 35 mph municipal slow order 

through the Town of Ashland. 

Table 2-8: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks (no construction of new track/no additional rail capacity) within Ashland 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

All rail improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5A: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which would require closure 

of the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts 

(Figure 2-28 A & B)

 5A–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks and construct one additional track east of the existing tracks within Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

 New right-of-way would be required for rail improvements within the town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia), with different station locations: 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-13 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake 

 5B: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

2-30 A & B)

 5B–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 2-10: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would construct a two-track bypass, west of Ashland, to serve all freight rail as well as all Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 New right-of-way would be required on bypass alignment 

Both alternatives would maintain the existing two-track corridor through town 

 No additional right-of-way needed in town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5C: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

2-28 A & B) 

 5C–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

All new roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 2-11: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake 

TRACK 

One additional main line track, with centering of all main line tracks on the existing alignment, would be constructed through 

the entire area, which generally requires additional railroad right-of-way, especially within the town of Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

STATIONS 

This rail alignment would require removal of the existing station building and platforms, resulting in the relocation of service 

to a new station south of Ashcake Road, to provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service (Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Includes the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-14 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

2.2.2.6 Build Alternatives in Area 6: Richmond 

There are eight Build Alternatives in Area 6. All Build Alternatives generally add one main track 

(though they vary whether they use the A-Line or S-Line through the city), and they vary in 

whether they consolidate passenger train service to a single station (including two potential new 

stations at Boulevard Station or Broad Street Station) or provide combinations of service at two 

stations. There are no changes to CSXT freight service routes due to proposed changes to 

passenger train routes as part of the DC2RVA Project. The Amtrak Auto Train does not stop in 

Richmond. 

Five of the Richmond area Build Alternatives are single-station alternatives, which are presented 

in Table 2-12 through Table 2-16. The single station alternatives are Build Alternative 6A, 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D, which are shown in Figure 2-16, Figure 2-17, Figure 2-18, Figure 2-

19, and Figure 2-20, respectively. All single-station alternatives consolidate Northeast Regional 

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

Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, to one station. 

Three of the Richmond area Build Alternatives are two-station alternatives, which are presented 

in Table 2-17 through Table 2-19. All two station alternatives use the existing Staples Mill Road 

and Main Street Stations. The two station Build Alternatives are Build Alternatives 6E, 6F, and 

6G, which are shown in Figure 2-21, Figure 2-22, and Figure 2-23, respectively. All two-station 

alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service to at 

least one station, and serves Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) to one or both stations. 

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts 

to improve speed

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street Station would be closed to passenger rail service, and all service consolidated at Staples Mill Road Station 

Staples Mill Road Station would be improved and becomes the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-31)

 Does not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-15 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 2-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

One of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

Elevated loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and consolidated 

to a new station at Boulevard Road 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-32) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

Second of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Boulevard Road 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-32)

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate four at-grade roadway crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

At-grade loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-16 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

New Broad Street Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-33)

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Station location would require two new at-grade crossings on West Leigh Street adjacent to proposed station, which would 

require a variance from state code and/or coordination with VDOT 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Staples Mill Road Station would be closed to passenger rail service and all service consolidated at Main Street Station 

Main Street Station would be improved and be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-34)

 Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

 Potential increases in passenger and freight delay may occur as proximity to I-95 prevents adding sufficient station platforms 

/ track on the west side of the station 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational. All passenger trains would serve Staples Mill Road Station; trains to and 

from Newport News would additionally serve Main Street Station. 

 Staples Mill Road Station would be expanded and would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including 

new proposed Northeast Regional (SEHSR) to Norfolk and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains (Figure 2-35)

 Main Street Station would have platform and parking improvements and would be served by all Northeast Regional (SEHSR 

and Virginia) passenger trains to Newport News (Figure 2-36)

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-17 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with all passenger trains serving both stations. 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 2-37 and Figure 2-

38) 

 Both stations would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including new proposed Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and the S-Line (through Richmond), 

with track shifts to improve speed 

 The A-Line is used for service but does not require proposed track 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with both stations being served by all new proposed SEHSR service and 

other Amtrak passenger train services to either one or both stations. 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 2-39 and Figure 2-

40)

 Both stations would be served by all Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) trains 

 Long Distance (Amtrak) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) would serve Staples Mill Station only 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

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

Major waterway crossing of James River 

 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-18 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-3: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-19 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-4: Build Alternative 2A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-20 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-5: Build Alternative 3A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-21 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-6: Build Alternative 3B 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-22 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-7: Build Alternative 3C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-23 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-8: Build Alternative 4A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-24 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-9: Build Alternative 5A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-25 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-10: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-26 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-11: Build Alternative 5B 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-27 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-12: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-28 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-13: Build Alternative 5C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-29 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-14: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-30 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-15: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-31 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-16: Build Alternative 6A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-32 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-17: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-33 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-18: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-34 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-19: Build Alternative 6C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-35 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-20: Build Alternative 6D 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-36 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-21: Build Alternative 6E 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-37 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-22: Build Alternative 6F 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-38 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 2-23: Build Alternative 6G 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-39 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-24: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-40 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-25: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-41 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-42 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-27 Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-43 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-28A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-44 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-28B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-45 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-29: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-46 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-30A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-47 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-30B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-48 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-49 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-32: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-50 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-33: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-51 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-34: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-52 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-35: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-53 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-36: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-54 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-55 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-56 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-39: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-57 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Figure 2-40: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the Project are subject to 

review by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA has noise and vibration impact 

assessment methods (FRA, 2012) that are appropriate to evaluate noise and vibration from trains 

that travel at speeds of 90 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For train speeds lower than 90 mph, 

FRA endorses use of noise and vibration impact assessment methodologies published by the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA, 2006). The Maximum Authorized Speed for 

passenger trains for the DC2RVA corridor is 90 mph, and actual train speeds with the proposed 

improvements will generally be lower than 90 mph through much of the DC2RVA corridor; 

therefore, Project-related noise and vibration levels were determined using FTA methods. Even 

though FTA methods were used to calculate noise and vibration levels, certain aspects of the FRA 

guidelines were still used for this Project to assess noise and vibration effects, where applicable. 

Additionally, certain aspects of the FRA locomotive horn noise model were adapted for use on 

this Project. The study area for the noise and vibration analysis varies in size throughout the 

corridor to account for potential impacts and is as wide as approximately 3 miles through some 

sections. Detailed information on the noise and vibration analyses conducted for the Project can 

be found in Appendix P, Noise and Vibration Technical Report. 

3.1 NOISE 

Noise is usually defined as sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech 

communication and hearing, or it 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. Noise along a railroad corridor typically consists of noise from 

locomotives, noise from steel wheels operating over rails, and noise from train horns. Sound 

travels through the air as waves of tiny air pressure fluctuations caused by vibration. The 

intensity or loudness of a sound is an effect of how much the sound pressure fluctuates. The 

magnitude of fluctuation above and below the static atmospheric pressure is the amplitude of the 

sound wave. Characterizing the instantaneous pressure of the sound wave is not very 

informative, so sound is most often characterized by a Root-Mean-Square (RMS) sound pressure. 

Additionally, sound is quantified on the logarithmic decibel (dB) scale for convenience. Because 

of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, when two identical noise sources are added together, 

the resulting increase is 3 dB (not the arithmetic sum of the two noise levels). 

3.1.1 Noise Descriptors 

The 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 to different frequencies. 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 A3 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-2 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

weighted 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 3-1 

illustrates typical A-weighted sound pressure levels for various noise sources. 

Figure 3-1: Typical Noise Levels 

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 

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. FRA uses Ldn and Leq to evaluate 

train noise effects at the surrounding communities (FRA, 2012). 

3.1.2 Noise Measurements 

In accordance with FRA and FTA noise assessment methodologies, existing noise levels were 

measured throughout the Project area. Existing noise levels were measured for a continuous 24-hour 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-3 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

period at 29 residential locations. Noise levels were also measured for 1-hour durations at 8 

institutional locations. 

3.1.3 Existing Noise Levels 

Table 3-1 presents the results of the 24-hour and 1-hour noise measurements. The table shows the 

measured Ldn at each residential measurement location (ML) and the Leq at each institutional 

measurement location. Figure 3-2 shows the noise measurement sites. Land use adjacent to the 

railroad right-of-way varies throughout the DC2RVA corridor and can be broadly described as 

ranging from urban to suburban and rural. Ambient noise levels among those three categories of 

land use are typically highest in urban areas, where population density and the density of 

roadways and vehicular traffic are also highest among these three broad land use categories. In 

urban areas, human activities and traffic noise typically dominate the ambient soundscape. That 

is also true in suburban areas; however, the density of population and traffic is usually lower and 

that corresponds to noise levels generally being lower in suburban areas. Rural areas have the 

lowest population density of these three land use categories. The density of roadways and 

vehicular traffic is also lowest, and ambient noise levels are also generally lower than urban and 

suburban areas. Rural areas also exhibit noise from traffic and human activities; however, noise 

from agricultural activities is also common. Trains are a noise source that all three of these broad 

land use categories also have in common. Noise measurement results presented in Table 3-1 

generally indicate higher noise levels in urban areas and lower noise levels in rural areas; 

however, the proximity between the measurement locations and the rail line or local roadways 

also influenced noise measurement results in urban, suburban, and even rural areas. 

Table 3-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML01 1801 Crystal Drive, Arlington 24-hour 66 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML02 301 Mt. Vernon, Alexandria 24-hour 68 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML03 DC Metro Church, 1100 N. Fayette Street, 

Alexandria 

1-hour 61 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML04 Summers Grove Homeowners Association, 

Alexandria 

24-hour 65 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML05 6261 Franconia Station Court, Franconia 24-hour 63 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML06 6701 Jerome Street, Springfield 24-hour 75 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML07 8923 Milford Haven Court, Lorton 24-hour 69 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML08 Lorton Station Elem School, 9298 Lewis 

Chapel, Lorton 

1-hour 64 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML09 10526 Old Colchester Road, Lorton 24-hour 62 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML10 14726 Featherstone Road, Woodbridge 24-hour 69 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML11 333 3rd Avenue, Quantico 24-hour 68 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML12 945 Widewater Road, Stafford 24-hour 62 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML13 71 Mt. Hope Church Road, Stafford 24-hour 77 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-4 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 3-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML14 Andrew Chapel, Andrew Chapel Road, 

Stafford 

1-hour 62 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

ML15 7 Fairfax Circle, Falmouth 24-hour 63 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

ML16 432 Summit Street, Fredericksburg 24-hour 68 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

ML17 10235 Sunset Hill Lane, Fredericksburg 24-hour 77 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

ML18 9015 McAlister Street, Fredericksburg 24-hour 64 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

ML19 Jackson Shrine, 12023 Stonewall Jackson 

Road, Woodford 

1-hour 60 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

ML20 15503 Nelson Hill Road, Milford 24-hour 69 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

ML21 11491 Chesterfield Road, Ruther Glen 24-hour 71 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

ML22 14158 Independence Road, Ashland 24-hour 49 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

ML23 Randolph Macon, 204 Henry Street, Ashland 1-hour 60 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

ML24 403 S. Center Street, Ashland 24-hour 74 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

ML25 15503 Ashcake Road, Ashland 24-hr 60 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

ML26 Gwathmey Church, Ashland 1-hour 68 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

ML27 Glen Allen Freewill Baptist Church, 

11101 Old Washington Highway, Glen Allen 

1-hour 61 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML28 2912 Allen's Crossing, Glen Allen 24-hour 69 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML29 2733 Hungary Road, Richmond 24-hour 73 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML30 1415 Chamberlayne Parkway, Richmond 24-hour 61 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML31 1901 5th Avenue, Richmond 24-hour 77 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML32 Hebrew Cemetery, N. 4th & Hospital Street, 

Richmond 

1-hour 59 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML33 5516 Parker Street, Richmond 24-hour 77 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML34 912 Hill Top Drive, Richmond 24-hour 75 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML35 2290 Ruffin Road, Richmond 24-hour 75 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML36 4405 Atlantic Avenue, Richmond 24-hour 71 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

ML37 2900 Kingsland Road, Richmond 24-hour 73 

Note: *ML refers to “measurement location.” 

Figure 3-3 presents a graph of the 24-hour noise measurement results. Figure 3-4 presents a graph 

of the 1-hour noise measurement results. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-5 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 3-2: Noise Measurement Locations 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-6 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-7 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 3-3: Measured Day-Night Noise Levels 

 Figure 3-4: Measured Hourly Noise Levels 

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

ML01ML02ML04ML05ML06ML07ML09ML10ML11ML12ML13ML15ML16ML17ML18ML20ML21ML22ML24ML25ML28ML29ML30ML31ML33ML34ML35ML36ML37

Day-Night Average Level Ldn (dBA)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

ML03 ML08 ML14 ML19 ML23 ML26 ML27 ML32

Noise Level Leq(h) (dBA)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-8 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

3.2 VIBRATION 

Vibration is an oscillatory motion that 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. 

Velocity will be used in describing ground-borne vibration. 

Ground-borne vibration (GBV) can be a serious concern for residents or at facilities that are 

vibration-sensitive, such as laboratories or recording studios. The effects of GBV include 

perceptible movement of building floors, interference with vibration-sensitive instruments, 

rattling of windows, and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. Additionally, GBV can 

cause the vibration of room surfaces resulting in ground-borne noise (GBN). GBN is typically 

perceived as a low-frequency rumbling sound. 

3.2.1 Vibration Descriptors 

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 because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. The RMS 

of a signal is the square root of 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 

and FTA use the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration dBs for RMS and PPV to reduce the potential 

for confusion with sound dBs (FRA, 2012). 

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 equivalent 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 VdB; however, human response to vibration is not usually significant unless 

the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. 

In contrast to airborne noise, neither GBV nor GBN is an everyday experience for most people. 

The background vibration level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower⎯well below the 

threshold of perception for humans. Levels at which vibration interferes with sensitive 

instrumentation can be much lower than the threshold of human perception, such as for medical 

imaging equipment or extremely high-precision manufacturing. Most perceptible indoor 

vibration is caused by sources within a building, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, 

movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible GBV are 

construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads; though in most soils, 

GBV dissipates very rapidly, and it is not a common environmental concern. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-9 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Figure 3-5: Example of Vibration Velocity Levels 

3.2.2 Vibration Study Area 

Evaluating the existing vibration conditions required establishing a vibration study area through 

a screening process. The screening process identified an area of potential influence from Projectrelated vibration and the set of vibration-sensitive receptors to evaluate. This vibration 

assessment used a two-step screening process. The first step consisted of identifying the 

vibration-sensitive land uses located within the FRA vibration screening distances (i.e., distances 

from the existing rail lines). Once this set of vibration-sensitive land uses was identified, the 

measurement data was analyzed to determine at what distance vibration impacts could be 

expected to occur under existing conditions. 

Only certain land uses are considered vibration sensitive, and FRA guidance establishes three 

sensitive-use categories that resemble the noise land use categories but differ in a few important 

respects: 

 Vibration Category 1⎯High Sensitivity: Where vibration would interfere with operations 

within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with human 

annoyance, such as electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and 

magnetic resonance imaging devices. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-10 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

 Vibration Category 2⎯Residential: Where people sleep, including hotels and hospitals. 

 Vibration Category 3⎯Institutional: Where vibration has potential to interfere with 

activities within the building, but there is not particularly vibration-sensitive equipment 

present, such as schools, places of worship, quiet offices, and other institutions. 

Table 3-2 shows the screening distances to identify which receptors should be evaluated for 

existing vibration, as well as future Project-related vibration. A total of 341 receptors were 

identified within the screening distances for the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 3-2: Distances to Establish Vibration Study Areas 

Land Use Train Frequency Screening distance (ft.) by train speed (mph) 

Less than 100 mph 100 to 200 mph 200 to 300 mph 

Residential Frequent or Occasional 120 feet 220 feet 275 feet 

Infrequent 60 feet 100 feet 140 feet 

Institutional Frequent or Occasional 100 feet 160 feet 220 feet 

Infrequent 20 feet 70 feet 100 feet 

Source: FRA, 2012. 

Soil types and other subsurface conditions affect GBV. For example, GBV can propagate more 

efficiently in areas where the soil is characterized by stiff shallow clay, or where there is shallow 

bedrock. This assessment briefly reviewed publicly available and reasonably obtainable soils and 

geologic data for the purpose of evaluating where GBV might propagate very efficiently. Based 

on this limited review, most of the soils in the corridor consist of coarse-grained unconsolidated 

deposits, which include regions with mixed combinations of gravel, sand, and silt. There are also 

limited areas of fine-grained unconsolidated deposits, which include alluvium, clay, or mud, 

although some of the clay or mud is mixed with sand. The coarse-grained unconsolidated 

deposits, which make up the majority of the soils along the alignment, as well as most of the finegrained unconsolidated deposits generally propagate GBV less efficiently than highly efficient 

soils such as stiff clay. However, the soils data are relatively coarse and may not identify highly 

localized soil-type differences or geologic features. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This section describes potential Project-related noise and vibration effects and identifies 

mitigation measures to offset Project-related impacts. These analyses only evaluated noise and 

vibration from the additional intercity trains proposed under this project, except where noted. 

Noise and vibration effects were assessed based on the methods and criteria included in FRA’s 

High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual 

(September 2012) for sections of the study corridor where passenger train speeds can reach 90 

miles per hour (mph). On sections where all train speeds are below 90 mph, this assessment used 

the noise and vibration impact assessment methods published in the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) manual per 

FRA guidance. The assessment addresses both operational and construction effects from the 

proposed alternatives. 

4.1 NOISE 

4.1.1 Noise Impact Criteria 

According to FRA and FTA, noise-sensitive land uses are divided into one of three categories. 

 Category 1: Land where quiet is an essential element (e.g., amphitheaters and concert 

pavilions). 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 (NHLs) with significant outdoor use. 

 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance. 

 Category 3: 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. 

Category 1 and 3 receptors are evaluated using the equivalent-average sound level (Leq) from the 

noisiest hour of train-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. The Leq represents a 

constant sound that, over the hour, has the same acoustic energy as the time-varying signal. 

Category 2 receptors are evaluated using the day-night sound level (Ldn) because Category 2 

receptors are sensitive to noise during all hours of the 24-hour day. The Ldn describes a receiver’s 

4 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-2 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

cumulative noise exposure from all events over a full 24 hours, with events between 10:00 p.m. 

and 7:00 a.m. penalized by adding an additional 10 decibels (dB) to account for greater nighttime 

sensitivity to noise. 

This analysis followed the FTA/FRA noise impact assessment methodology in which 

measurements of existing noise levels are used to determine the noise impact threshold. Projectrelated noise is then calculated using FTA and FRA methods, and the resulting noise levels are 

compared with the predetermined noise impact thresholds to determine if noise impacts are 

expected to occur. 

Figure 4-1 from the FTA guidance manual shows the noise impact criteria used by both FTA and 

FRA, which are based on the land use category and the existing noise exposure in the area. No 

impact indicates Project noise levels are unlikely to cause annoyance. A moderate noise impact is 

a noise level increase that is noticeable to most people, yet generally not enough to cause adverse 

reactions. A severe noise impact is a noise level increase that could cause annoyance to a 

significant percentage of people. FTA guidance requires consideration and adoption of noise 

mitigation measures for moderate noise impacts when it is reasonable. When severe noise 

impacts are projected to occur, FTA assumes that mitigation measures will be implemented to 

reduce project noise levels below impact thresholds, unless there are truly extenuating 

circumstances which prevent it. In the context of environmental review under NEPA, severe noise 

impacts are considered significant impacts. 

Figure 4-1: FTA/FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-3 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

4.1.2 Noise Impact Assessment Methodology 

The FRA and FTA noise impact assessment methodologies include the following basic 

components: 

1. Identify noise-sensitive land uses 

2. Measure existing outdoor noise levels 

3. Measure train specific noise source levels 

4. Define impact thresholds based on measured existing noise levels 

5. Calculate Project-related outdoor noise levels using identified train and operations 

characteristics 

6. Determine if Project-related noise levels exceed FRA and FTA defined noise impact 

thresholds. 

4.1.2.1 Noise-Sensitive Land Use Identification 

Noise-sensitive land uses throughout the corridor were identified according to FRA and FTA 

land use categories. Noise-sensitive land uses located within 1 mile of the rail centerline through 

the DC2RVA corridor, and beyond through some sections, were included in the noise impact 

assessment. Land use was identified from several sources, including GIS databases, digital aerial 

photographs, field surveys, and information on planned development from local planning 

departments where publicly available and reasonably obtainable. 

Noise-sensitive land uses in the noise study area include Category 1, 2 and 3 receptors. Category 

1 noise-sensitive land uses in the noise study area include recording studios. Category 2 noisesensitive land uses in the study area primarily consist of single family homes, multi-unit 

residential buildings, and hospitals. Category 3 noise-sensitive land uses in the study area include 

schools, churches, and outdoor recreation facilities. 

4.1.2.2 Existing Noise Environment for Noise Analysis 

The track alignments were divided into noise and vibration analysis sections which were 

differentiated by changes in train traffic characteristics and changes in existing ambient sound 

environments. From collected monitoring data, average existing noise levels were calculated for 

each noise and vibration section. The existing noise level for Category 2 land uses was calculated 

based on the average day-night noise level at the 24-hour noise measurement locations within 

each section. Existing noise levels for Category 1 and 3 land uses were based on the average 

measured noise levels at institutional land uses in each section, where applicable. In sections 

where one-hour noise measurements were not performed, the existing peak hour Leq was 

estimated based on the average noise levels recorded between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 

between 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. at representative 24-hour noise measurement locations. 

Table 4-1 summarizes the existing noise levels by noise and vibration analysis section. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-4 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-1: Existing Noise Environment for Noise Assessment 

Section Section Average Noise Level2 (dBA) 

Ldn Leq(h) 

1 67 61 

21 64 61 

3 65 64 

41 65 57 

51 65 60 

6 77 62 

71 65 60 

81 72 66 

91 77 71 

10 64 60 

111 69 60 

121 70 60 

13 74 64 

14 71 61 

151 67 61 

16 61 59 

171 74 55 

181 73 63 

191 57 49 

201 77 73 

21N1 63 58 

21S1 64 44 

221 55 45 

Notes: 1. 1-hour measurements were not performed in this section. The existing peak hour Leq is based on the average noise levels recorded 

between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. at representative 24-hour measurement locations. 2. The average noise 

level, Ldn and Leq(h) for each section was used in the noise impact assessment. 

4.1.2.3 Train Characteristics 

Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is an acoustical descriptor that contains all acoustical energy 

associated with a single event such as the passby of a locomotive, railcar, or a locomotive horn 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-5 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

use event. SEL values are used as the noise emissions terms in the train noise models; they are 

expressed in units of dBA (A-weighted decibel). Actual noise levels from passenger passenger 

trains between Poughkeepsie and Albany, New York (the Empire Line) that are similar to the 

trains proposed on this Project were measured to calculate projected noise levels on the DC2RVA 

corridor. Noise measurements were performed in areas where Empire Line trains were expected 

to reach speeds of 90 mph. Due to track maintenance and other unknown factors, none of the 

Empire Line trains were traveling at or above 90 mph during measurements of passby noise; 

therefore, SEL values measured along the Empire Line were used to calculate noise from all other 

passenger trains (at speeds below 90 mph). The SEL values for freight locomotives and railcars 

were obtained from FRA’s CREATE Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual (FRA, 2013). The SEL 

for CSXT locomotive horns was obtained from the Final EIS for the Acquisition of Conrail by Norfolk 

Southern Railroad and CSX Railroad (United States Surface Transportation Board, 1998). Noise from 

freight trains on the proposed bypasses and passenger trains traveling at speeds below 90 mph 

were modeled using FTA’s general noise assessment methods. SEL values for proposed trains 

traveling at 90 mph were obtained from Appendix E of the FRA guidance manual. This analysis 

used the maximum allowable speed on each rail section to calculate train noise. 

Characteristics of the additional SEHSR passenger trains that were used in the noise analysis are 

shown in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2: Additional SEHSR Passenger Train Characteristics Used in the Noise Assessment 

Characteristics Proposed DC2RVA Train 

Train speed (mph)(1) 90 

Train length (feet) 665 

Number of locomotives per train 2 

Number of railcars per train 8 

Throttle setting 8 

Locomotive length (feet) 70 

Length of train railcars (feet) 85 

Notes: 1. Maximum train speed varies by rail section; the maximum allowable speed per section was modeled. 

Growth in the passenger (non-SEHSR) and freight trains that currently use the corridor will occur 

independently from the proposed Project; therefore, the noise analysis only modeled the 

proposed additional intercity passenger trains on most rail sections in study area. The exceptions 

to this are the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). In these areas, the distribution of freight and/or passenger 

trains that currently use the corridor may change and was, therefore, modeled. 

The proposed bypasses in Fredericksburg and Ashland are expected to have unique combinations 

of freight and intercity passenger trains and were modeled based on the way trains are proposed 

to use the bypasses. In Fredericksburg, only freight trains are expected to use the proposed bypass 

alignment (Build Alternative 3C); therefore, noise from freight trains was evaluated on that bypass 

alignment. The proposed additional intercity passenger trains that will bypass downtown 

Fredericksburg were also modeled on the existing alignment under the Fredericksburg Bypass 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-6 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

alternative. In Ashland, under the bypass alternatives (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

freight trains and intercity passenger trains that do not stop in Ashland are expected to use the 

bypass alignment while other passenger trains would use the existing alignment. This results in a 

net reduction in train noise on the existing alignment and is considered a benefit of the proposed 

Project. Noise from freight trains was not evaluated in areas other than on the proposed bypass 

alignments because freight train traffic would continue to operate and expand on the existing 

corridor in the Build Alternatives as it would in the No Build Alternative. 

Trains operate on five different rail sections in each of the eight Richmond Build Alternatives. In 

addition to operating on different sections, sometimes passenger train length increases under 

different Richmond alternatives; therefore, each alternative was evaluated individually, and 

noise from all trains on all five sections was calculated for each alternative. Noise from freight 

trains was not included in the evaluation of Project-related noise under each Richmond 

alternative because freight trains currently operate on those lines (unlike the proposed bypass 

alternatives), and changes in freight train volume and size will occur based on market forces and 

in a manner that is unrelated to the proposed Project. Under FRA safety rules, locomotive horns 

are required to be used at public at-grade crossings. CSXT operating rules also require locomotive 

horns to be used when trains:

 Approach public crossings 

 Approach tunnels, yards, or locations where railroad employees may be working 

 Approach roadway workers 

 Approach standing trains 

 Approach passenger stations 

 When warning people or animals near the track 

This analysis utilized FRA methods to evaluate locomotive horn noise at public at-grade 

crossings, yards, and near passenger stations. FRA has studied locomotive horn noise and had 

determined that horn noise contours exhibit the general cone-like shape shown in Figure 4-2. 

Locomotive horn use increases as trains approach the crossing, and therefore, the noise contour 

flares outward at the crossing. The locomotive horn contours created during this noise analysis 

exhibit a similar shape; refer to the noise contour figures in Appendices A through O. 

Figure 4-2: FRA Sample Train Noise Contour
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-7 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-3 shows other train characteristics used to evaluate noise from trains on the proposed 

bypasses in Fredericksburg (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) and on the eight Richmond Build Alternatives. 

Table 4-3: Characteristics of Existing Trains Analyzed in the Noise Assessment 

Amtrak Auto 

Train 

Amtrak 

Long 

Distance 

Amtrak 

Interstate 

Corridor 

Carolinian 

Interstate 

Corridor 

(SEHSR) 

and 

Regional 

(Virginia 

and SEHSR) 

Freight 

Train(1)

SEL for locomotive at 50 feet(2)(3) 97 97 97 97 97(4)

SEL for railcar at 50 feet(2)(3) 82 82 82 82 100(4)

SEL for locomotive Horn at 50 feet(2)(3) 108 108 108 108 110(5)

Maximum train speed (mph)(6) 90 90 90 90 60(7)

Train length (feet) 4390 1075 750 992 7083 

Number of locomotives per train 2 2 1 2 2 

Number of railcars per train 50 11 8 10 73(8)

Throttle setting 8 8 8 8 8 

Locomotive length (feet) 70 70 70 70 74 

Length of train railcars (feet) 85 85 85 85 95 

Notes: 

1

 Freight trains were only modeled on the proposed bypasses. 

2

 Source: HDR Engineering, Inc. 

3

 SEL for 90 mph trains from FRA (September 2012). 

4

 Source: FRA CREATE. 

5

 Source: United States Surface Transportation Board, 1998 

6

 Varies by rail section; the maximum allowable speed per section was modeled. 

7

 Maximum freight train speed is 60 mph. 

8

 Based on an average of cars on intermodal trains and coal and merchandise trains. 

4.1.3 Predicted Noise Levels 

Using the information in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, train noise levels under the Build Alternatives were 

calculated throughout the study area. These calculations accounted for wayside noise (locomotive 

and wheel-rail noise) and locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings. FRA locomotive horn 

use rules do not require locomotive horn use at private at-grade crossings. The analysis assumed 

that freight trains would use the bypass in Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), and the 

bypass in Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would be used by freight 

trains and passenger trains that do not stop in Ashland. Analysis results were used to determine 

the distance from the tracks at which train noise levels equal the noise impact thresholds for 

moderate and severe noise impacts at Category 1, 2, and 3 land uses. Noise impacts are identified 

at the noise-sensitive land uses within those distances to the track. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-8 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

4.1.4 Noise Impact Assessment 

This section presents the results of the assessment of Project-related noise during operation and 

construction. Appendices A through O include figures that show the noise impact contours. 

4.1.4.1 Operational Noise Impacts 

VDRPT plotted the distances-to-noise-impact contours and counted the receptors within the 

impact contours. The receptors inside the impact contours are considered noise impacts as 

defined by FRA/FTA. Figures in Appendices A through O show the contours and impacted 

noise-sensitive receptors for each alternative. The following sections discuss the noise impacts of 

each alternative in each area. The noise analysis did not account for terrain or buildings that block 

train noise from reaching noise-sensitive parcels; therefore, the results are considered to be 

conservatively high, over-estimating the number of likely train noise impacts. The values shown 

in Tables 4-4 through 4-8 represent the number of noise-sensitive land uses projected to 

experience noise impacts under the Build Alternatives. Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 

refer to land use categories evaluated in the noise assessment, as explained previously. 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C (Arlington). DRPT does not anticipate that Build 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C will cause any noise impacts. 

Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia). Build Alternative 2A is projected to cause noise 

impacts at 775 sensitive receptors (Table 4-4). The most severe impacts generally occur at 

residences located immediately adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor, including a trailer park just 

south of Woodbridge Station and several other residential neighborhoods in Prince William 

County. 

Table 4-4: Build Alternative 2A Noise Impacts 

County or 

Municipality 

Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

Alexandria 0 0 91 2 1 0 94 

Arlington 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 

Fairfax 0 0 104 2 0 0 106 

Prince William 0 0 404 91 3 0 498 

Stafford 0 0 64 4 2 0 70 

Total 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C (Fredericksburg). Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass 

through town would impact 75 and 76 sensitive receptors, respectively (Table 4-5). Projected 

noise impacts along the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) are substantially higher 

due to noise from freight trains on the bypass, which would run through areas that currently have 

no train traffic. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-9 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-5: Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, And 3C Noise Impacts 

Alternative County or 

Municipality 

Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

3A Caroline 0 0 8 2 0 0 10 

Fredericksburg 0 0 50 3 0 0 53 

Spotsylvania 0 0 7 3 1 0 11 

Stafford 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

Total 3A 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 

3B Caroline 0 0 8 2 0 0 10 

Fredericksburg 0 0 50 3 0 0 53 

Spotsylvania 0 0 7 3 1 0 11 

Stafford 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 

Total 3B 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 

3C Caroline 0 0 41 29 0 0 70 

Fredericksburg 1 0 538 63 0 0 602 

Spotsylvania 1 0 168 126 3 0 298 

Stafford 0 1 1645 1306 5 5 2962 

Total 3C 2 1 2392 1524 8 5 3932 

Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia). Build Alternative 4A is projected to cause noise 

impacts at 70 sensitive receptors (Table 4-6). 

Table 4-6: Build Alternative 4A Noise Impacts 

County or 

Municipality 

Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

Caroline 0 0 40 18 1 0 59 

Hanover 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 

Total 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 

Build Alternatives 5A through 5D (Ashland). Projected noise impacts are similar among 

Build Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake), ranging from 154 to 159. Under the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C 

and 5C–Ashcake), 329 noise impacts are projected (Table 4-7). The higher number of impacts is 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-10 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

due to the addition of freight train noise along the proposed bypass, which runs through areas 

that do not have trains under existing conditions. This is one example where use of the highest 

train speed on each section results in conservatively high analysis results. 

One of the severe Category 3 impacts is at the Ashland Library, located adjacent to the tracks; 

however, the proximity of the nearby station means that intercity passenger and freight trains 

would actually be traveling slower than modeled. This is one example where use of the highest 

train speed on each section results in conservatively high analysis results. 

The impacts identified with the Ashland area alternatives assume that passenger trains would 

operate at 90 mph through the Town of Ashland. In reality, the trains would slow down through 

town, even if they are not stopping at the station. Any reduction in speed would reduce the noise 

impacts from the Project. As a result, the noise analysis results are conservative. 

Table 4-7: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

5D–Ashcake Noise Impacts 

Alternative County or 

Municipality 

Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

5A, 

5A–Ashcake 

Hanover 0 0 115 10 0 3 128 

Henrico 0 0 20 4 1 1 26 

Total 5A, 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5B, 

5B–Ashcake 

Hanover 1 0 113 16 0 3 133 

Henrico 0 0 20 4 1 1 26 

Total 5B, 

5B–Ashcake 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5C, 

5C–Ashcake 

Hanover 0 0 252 47 1 3 303 

Henrico 0 0 20 4 1 1 26 

Total 5C, 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5D–Ashcake Hanover 1 0 115 14 0 3 133 

Henrico 0 0 20 4 1 1 26 

Total 

5D–Ashcake 1 0 135 18 1 4 159 

Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Richmond). Projected noise impacts through Richmond 

range from 313 to 439 under Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Table 4-8). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-11 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-8: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G Noise Impacts 

Alternative County or 

Municipality 

Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

6A Chesterfield 0 0 23 0 0 0 23 

Henrico 0 0 188 3 2 0 193 

Richmond 0 0 155 5 4 0 164 

6A Total 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 

6B–A-Line Chesterfield 0 0 23 0 0 0 23 

Henrico 0 0 195 3 2 0 200 

Richmond 0 0 168 6 4 0 178 

6B-A Total 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 

6B–S-Line Chesterfield 0 0 19 1 0 0 20 

Henrico 0 0 195 3 2 0 200 

Richmond 1 0 202 11 5 0 219 

6B-S Total 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6C Chesterfield 0 0 23 0 0 0 23 

Henrico 0 0 195 3 2 0 200 

Richmond 0 0 169 6 5 0 180 

6C Total 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 

6D Chesterfield 0 0 19 1 0 0 20 

Henrico 0 0 195 3 2 0 200 

Richmond 1 0 202 11 5 0 219 

6D Total 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6E Chesterfield 0 0 23 0 0 0 23 

Henrico 0 0 188 3 2 0 193 

Richmond 0 0 168 6 4 0 178 

6E Total 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 

6F Chesterfield 0 0 19 1 0 0 20 

Henrico 0 0 195 3 2 0 200 

Richmond 1 0 202 11 5 0 219 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-12 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-8: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G Noise Impacts 

Alternative County or 

Municipality 

Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

6F Total 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6G Chesterfield 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 

Henrico 0 0 195 3 2 0 200 

Richmond 1 0 98 7 2 0 108 

6G Total 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 

4.1.4.2 Construction Noise Impacts 

Construction of the Build Alternatives would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. 

Equipment used to move soil and other earthen materials is often the loudest construction noise 

source. 

Typical equipment used for different phases of railroad construction with typical noise levels, 

quantities, and estimated utilizations for each type of equipment used are presented in Table 4-9. 

The table shows the sound power level (SWL) used to determine sound pressure levels (SPL) at 

different distances. 

Table 4-9: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Clearing 

Off-Highway Trucks 4 6 50% 124 127 108 94 88 

Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 67% 122 125 106 92 86 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 5 42% 118 119 100 86 80 

Trenchers 2 4 33% 117 115 96 82 76 

Utility Relocation 

Cranes 1 6 50% 121 118 100 86 80 

Dumper/Tender 2 4 33% 110 108 89 75 69 

Off-Highway Trucks 2 6 50% 124 124 105 91 85 

Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 67% 122 125 106 92 86 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 5 42% 118 119 100 86 80 

Trenchers 2 6 50% 117 117 98 84 78 

Welders 3 6 50% 114 116 97 83 77 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-13 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-9: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Earthwork 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Off-Highway Trucks 4 8 67% 124 128 109 95 89 

Off-Highway Trucks 1 4 33% 123 118 100 86 80 

Rollers 2 6 50% 117 117 98 84 78 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Signal Boards 3 8 67% 106 109 90 76 70 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6 50% 118 119 101 87 81 

Bridge Construction for 

Overpasses 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Impact Pile Driver 1 6 50 n/a n/a 95 81 75 

Pavers 2 8 67% 119 120 101 87 81 

Paving Equipment 2 8 67% 119 120 101 87 81 

Rollers 2 8 67% 117 118 99 85 79 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Retaining Walls 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Impact Pile Driver 1 6 50 n/a n/a 95 81 75 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 7 58% 121 121 103 89 83 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 58% 118 120 101 87 81 

Signals 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-14 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-9: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Track Installation 

Air Compressors 1 6 50% 117 114 95 81 75 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Track Laying Machine 1 8 67% 129 128 109 95 89 

Track Tamper 1 8 67% 121 119 100 86 80 

Track Stabilizer 1 8 67% 126 124 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Demolish Existing Bridge 

Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 67% 117 115 96 82 76 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Signal Work 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Install Track and Subballast 

Over Bridge 

Air Compressors 1 6 50% 117 114 95 81 75 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Track Laying Machine 1 8 67% 129 128 109 95 89 

Track Tamper 1 8 67% 121 119 100 86 80 

Track Stabilizer 1 8 67% 126 124 106 92 86 

Ballast Regulator 1 8 67% 119 118 99 85 79 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Final Cut-Over and Removal 

of Turnouts 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 58% 118 120 101 87 81 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-15 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

The results presented in Table 4-9 conservatively overestimate actual expected construction noise 

levels by assuming that all equipment (i.e., all dump trucks or all pickup trucks) operate at the 

same location. Typically, construction equipment is spread throughout the construction work 

zone. Given the linear nature of the Project and relatively confined width of the railroad right-ofway, it is reasonable to assume that all equipment would not operate next to each other in the 

same (stationary) location for 1 hour. On this basis, construction noise levels in Table 4-9 

somewhat overestimate noise levels for construction phases that would use more than one piece 

of equipment at a particular location. In all other cases, the results are assumed to be within 3 

dBA of likely construction noise levels, if the equipment has been properly maintained and the 

mufflers are in good condition. 

Construction noise analysis results shown in Table 4-9 indicate the total combined noise for all 

equipment types and construction phases never exceeds the 90 dBA threshold at 200 feet, even 

using a conservative approach to the evaluation. Because the calculated construction noise is not 

anticipated to exceed 90 dBA at 200 feet, construction noise is not expected to be adverse; 

however, DRPT will ensure that construction noise mitigation measures will be evaluated when 

an analysis of construction noise based on the actual construction plan can be completed. At the 

preliminary design phase, construction noise mitigation measures are not recommended due to 

the overly conservative nature of these calculation results. 

FRA and FTA do not have standardized criteria for construction; however, FTA suggests 

reasonable criteria that can be used for assessment purposes. The criteria for residential land uses 

are 1-hour Leq of 90 dBA during the day and 80 dBA during the night; therefore, it would be 

prudent to limit construction to daytime hours whenever feasible. 

4.2 VIBRATION 

This section describes potential Project-related vibration effects and identifies mitigation 

measures to offset projected impacts. Vibration effects were assessed based on the methods and 

criteria included in FRA’s High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

guidance manual (September 2012) as well as those included in the FTA’s Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) manual, where applicable. 

4.2.1 Vibration Impact Criteria 

The FRA and FTA vibration impact criteria are identical and are used to predict future vibration 

impacts from train operations. There are separate criteria for both ground-borne vibration (GBV) 

and ground-borne noise (GBN). GBN is a rumble sound created by GBV and is often masked by 

airborne-noise; therefore, GBN criteria are primarily applied to subway operations in which 

airborne noise is negligible. The basis for evaluating rail vibration impact thresholds is the highest 

expected root mean square (RMS) vibration levels for repeated vibration events from the same 

source. As presented in Table 4-10, the thresholds are differentiated between vibration sensitive 

land uses and the frequency of the events. 

The Category 1 vibration impact threshold is acceptable for most moderately sensitive 

equipment; other highly sensitive equipment would require a detailed analysis to determine the 

acceptable vibration levels, and the effect of the Project on the equipment. There are no GBN 

impact thresholds for Category 1 land uses because equipment sensitive to GBV is generally not 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-16 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

sensitive to GBN; however, other special Category 1 land uses, such as concert halls, television 

and recording studios, and theaters, can be very sensitive to GBV and GBN. FTA has developed 

special vibration impact thresholds for these land uses, but these land uses were not encountered 

in the potential zone of influence from train vibration. 

Table 4-10: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria 

for General Assessment 

Land Use Category GBV Impact Levels (VdB re 1 μin/s) GBN Impact Levels (dBA re 20 μPa) 

Frequent 

Events 1

Occasional 

Events 2

Infrequent 

Events 3

Frequent 

Events 1

Occasional 

Events 2

Infrequent 

Events 3

Category 1: Buildings 

where vibration would 

interfere with interior 

operations. 

65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 n/a 5 n/a 5 n/a 5

Category 2: Residences 

and buildings where 

people normally sleep. 

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA 

Category 3: Institutional 

land uses with primarily 

daytime use. 

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA 

Source: FRA, 2012. 

Notes: 1. Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day; 2. Occasional Events is defined as between 30 

and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day; 3. Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day; 4. 

This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive 

manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building 

often requires special design of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and stiffened floors; 5. Vibration-sensitive equipment 

is not sensitive to GBN. 

4.2.2 Vibration Prediction Methodology 

The vibration assessment consists of the following general steps: 

1. Establish the study area and identify vibration-sensitive land uses. 

2. Evaluate the railroad traffic conditions and set corresponding impact thresholds. 

3. Select the base generalized vibration curve and apply appropriate adjustments. 

4. Determine the propagation from Project-related vibration sources to the impact thresholds. 

5. Identify receptors anticipated to experience vibration impacts. 

The FRA and FTA General Assessment methodologies are nearly identical and are intended to 

predict approximate magnitude of impact, and those with the highest magnitude of impact may 

merit a more-detailed assessment during subsequent engineering phases. Noise and vibrationsensitive land uses within the study area were identified according to FRA categories. Land use 

was identified from GIS databases, field surveys, and information on planned development from 

local planning departments. 

The vibration prediction begins with selection of a generalized base curve, depending on the 

mode considered. These curves represent typical ground-surface vibration as a function of 

distance from the source, based on many GBV measurements of numerous transit sources. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-17 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

The generalized ground surface vibration curves suitable for assessing the high speed passenger 

trains are shown in Figure 4-3. They represent the upper range of the measurement data from 

equipment in good condition. 

Figure 4-3: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves 

The generalized ground surface vibration curves suitable for assessing intercity passenger and 

freight trains are shown in Figure 4-4. These curves similarly represent the upper range of the 

measurement data from equipment in good condition. The top curve represents trains that are 

powered by diesel-electric locomotives, and the middle curve represents fixed-guideway steelwheel transit vehicles such as light-rail vehicles and streetcars. 

The base curves must then be adjusted to account for Project-specific vibration factors that differ 

from the conditions of the base curve. Adjustment parameters are given in the FRA and FTA 

guidance and include train speed, wheel and rail type and condition, and type of track support 

system, among other adjustments. The adjustment parameters are based on typical vibration 

spectra, and are given as generalized single numbers to be applied to the base curve. 

The adjustments are arithmetically added to the reference vibration curve, and the resulting levels 

are compared to the impact thresholds. This is algebraically equivalent to subtracting the same 

adjustments from the impact threshold and comparing it to the unadjusted reference curve. In 

this way, the graphical curves shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 can be used to find the distance to 

vibration impact. For this assessment, the distance to vibration impact was determined by looking 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-18 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

up the level of the adjusted criterion curve on the y-axis and then finding the distance on the xaxis from the generalized vibration curve. 

Figure 4-4: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Suitable for Assessing Transit 

and Freight Trains 

4.2.2.1 Computation Assumptions and Input Data 

The vibration assessment used the same traffic data as the noise assessment. The FRA generalized 

vibration curve “Steel-wheel at-grade” was used as the base curve for the impact assessment of 

the proposed additional intercity passenger trains. Freight trains already run through the 

DC2RVA corridor and are not modeled for any of the track in the existing corridor; however, 

where freight trains are being introduced, such as on the proposed bypass sections, the FTA 

generalized vibration curve “Locomotive powered passenger and freight” was used as the base 

curve for the impact assessment of freight trains. 

Specific modeling considerations for each Build Alternative are provided in Table 4-11. 

Table 4-11: Vibration Analysis Modeling Assumptions 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative Modeling Assumption 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 

1C 

There are three alternatives, but no vibration-sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the 

Project; therefore, no vibration assessment was completed for Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 

and 1C. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-19 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-11: Vibration Analysis Modeling Assumptions 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative Modeling Assumption 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A There is only one alternative along the existing passenger rail corridor. The additional 

intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized vibration curve for 

steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

3A and 3B Build Alternatives 3A and 3B would route Project-related trains through the existing 

passenger rail corridor. The additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using the 

FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

3C The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would route freight trains and potentially 

some of the passenger trains along a new alignment that bypasses Fredericksburg. The 

additional intercity passenger trains were modeled through the existing corridor using the 

FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. Even at a 

lower speed, the freight trains generate more vibration than the passenger trains; 

therefore, the freight trains were modeled in the bypass corridor using the FTA 

generalized vibration curve for locomotive-powered passenger or freight trains. 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A There is only one alternative along the existing passenger rail corridor. The additional 

intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized vibration curve for 

steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to 

I-295) 

5A, 5A–

Ashcake, 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–

Ashcake 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would route 

Project-related trains through the existing passenger rail corridor. The additional intercity 

passenger trains are modeled using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel 

at-grade high speed trains. 

5C and 5C–

Ashcake 

Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake would route the through passenger trains and the 

freight trains along a new alignment that bypasses the Town of Ashland, while passenger 

trains that stop in Ashland would use the bypassed area of the existing corridor. Even at a 

lower speed, the freight trains generate more vibration than the passenger trains; 

therefore, the freight trains were modeled in the bypass corridor using the FTA 

generalized vibration curve for locomotive-powered passenger or freight trains. The 

planned number of future passenger trains is the same as the number of passenger trains 

that currently use this portion of the DC2RVA corridor, and the planned future trains are 

on average shorter than the average length of existing trains, plus there would be no 

freight traffic. These changes represent a benefit to vibration effects; therefore, vibration 

contours were not calculated for the bypassed area of the existing corridor. 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A, 6B–ALine, 6C, and 

6E 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E would route Project-related trains via the current 

CSXT North End Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the A-line) between West Acca 

Yard in Richmond and Centralia, VA. The CSXT Bellwood Subdivision (sometimes 

referred to as the S-line) between Control Point Hermitage in Richmond and Centralia, 

VA, would not see any increase in passenger train traffic, so the trains were not modeled 

as a consequence of this Project on that section. The additional intercity passenger trains 

are modeled using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high 

speed trains. 

6B–S-Line, 

6D, 6F, and 

6G 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would route Project-related trains via the current 

S-line. The A-line would see a reduction in passenger trains, which represents a Project 

benefit, so the trains are not modeled as a consequence of this Project on that section. 

The additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-20 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

4.2.3 Predicted Vibration Levels 

Estimates of Project-related, train-induced GBV were developed based on the methodology 

described above. The predicted vibration levels were used to develop distance-to-vibrationimpact contours. 

4.2.4 Vibration Impact Assessment 

This section presents the results of the vibration impact assessment during operation and 

construction. 

4.2.4.1 Operational Vibration Impacts 

Using site-specific and project-specific data as explained above, DRPT conducted the vibration 

assessment by calculating the distance from the rail line at which train-induced vibration levels 

equal the FRA ground-borne vibration impact thresholds. Vibration impact contour lines were 

then overlaid upon digital aerial photographs to delineate the areas projected to experience 

vibration impacts (Appendices P through W). Vibration-sensitive land uses inside the vibration 

contours are projected to experience vibration impacts as defined by FRA. 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C (Arlington). There are no vibration-sensitive receptors 

within 500 feet of Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, or 1C; therefore, vibration impact contours were not 

calculated, and there are no anticipated vibration impacts for these Build Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia). Build Alternative 2A is projected to have 15 

vibration impacts. Additionally, there is a structure on National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP)⎯the historic Alexandria Union Station⎯which is within all vibration impact contours; 

however, this structure was designed to stand next to rail transportation. Furthermore, the 

vibration levels are currently being compared to human-comfort criteria, which is much lower 

than vibration levels necessary to cause damage to even old, fragile structures. Therefore, while 

this structure is within the vibration impact contours, it is not considered an impact and is not 

included in Table 4-12. 

Table 4-12: Build Alternative 2A Vibration Impacts 

County or 

Municipality 

Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Arlington 0 4 0 4 

Prince William 0 6 0 6 

Stafford 0 5 0 5 

Total 0 15 0 15 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C (Fredericksburg). No vibration impacts were identified 

for Build Alternatives 3A or 3B that pass through town. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) would cause 43 vibration impacts as a result of freight trains operating along new 

alignment (Table 4-13). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-21 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Table 4-13: Build Alternative 3C Vibration Impacts 

County or 

Municipality 

Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Caroline 0 1 0 1 

Spotsylvania 0 11 0 11 

Stafford 0 31 0 31 

Total 0 43 0 43 

Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia). Two vibration impacts for Category 2 (residential) 

land uses were identified for Build Alternative 4A. 

Build Alternatives 5A through 5D (Ashland). Vibration impacts for the Build Alternatives in 

the Ashland area range from 26 to 36 (Table 4-14). These impacts, including the Category 3 impact 

at the Ashland Library, are based on the assumption that passenger trains are operating at 90 

mph through Ashland. In reality, trains would slow down through town, even if they are not 

stopping at the station. At this point, the tabulation of vibration impacts is considered a 

conservative overestimate. The addition of freight traffic on the proposed bypass alignment is the 

primary source of vibration impacts for Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake. 

Table 4-14: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

5D–Ashcake Vibration Impacts 

Alternative County or Municipality Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

5A, 

5A–Ashcake 

Hanover 0 23 1 24 

Henrico 0 2 0 2 

Total 5A, 5A–Ashcake 0 25 1 26 

5B, 

5B–Ashcake 

Hanover 0 28 1 29 

Henrico 0 2 0 2 

Total 5B, 5B–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

5C, 

5C–Ashcake 

Hanover 0 33 1 34 

Henrico 0 2 0 2 

Total 5C, 5C–Ashcake 0 35 1 36 

5D–Ashcake Hanover 0 28 1 29 

Henrico 0 2 0 2 

Total 5D–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Richmond). The projected number of vibration impacts 

in the Richmond area are the same for all Build Alternatives, although which receptors would be 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-22 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

impacted varies by whether the A-Line or the S-Line would be used by the additional intercity 

passenger trains (Tables 4-15 and 4-16). 

Table 4-15: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E Vibration Impacts 

County or 

Municipality 

Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Henrico 0 2 0 2 

Richmond 0 6 0 6 

Total 0 8 0 8 

Table 4-16: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G Vibration Impacts 

County or 

Municipality 

Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Chesterfield 0 1 0 1 

Henrico 0 2 0 2 

Richmond 0 5 0 5 

Total 0 8 0 8 

4.2.4.2 Construction Vibration Impacts 

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the 

equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground 

vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings near 

construction can respond to these vibrations, with varying results ranging from no perceptible 

effects at the lowest levels; low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels; 

and slight damage at the highest levels. 

Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage 

structures, but they can reach the range of perceptible vibration or audible sound in buildings 

very close to the site. A possible exception is the case of fragile buildings where special care must 

be taken to avoid damage. The construction vibration criteria include special consideration for 

fragile buildings. The damage criteria published by FTA, using units of peak particle velocity 

(PPV) expressed in inches per second, are presented in Table 4-17. 

Table 4-17: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 

Building Category Description Damage Criteria, PPV (in./sec.) 

I Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 

II Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 

III Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 

IV Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 

Ground vibrations from construction activities can be audible and perceptible in buildings near the 

construction limits. Some buildings are more sensitive to vibration than others; they might have 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-23 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

recording or broadcast facilities or vibration-sensitive equipment in them. FRA advocates a 

separate set of vibration criteria for buildings with vibration-sensitive uses or equipment inside of 

them. The criteria used for vibration-sensitive equipment is presented in Table 4-18; however, as 

noted previously in this report, no vibration-sensitive land uses were identified in the study area. 

Table 4-18: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria–Vibration-Sensitive Equipment 

Type of Building or Room Max Lv, VdB 1

TV Studios 65 

Recording Studios 65 

Theaters 65 

Vibration-Sensitive Lab 48 

Notes: 1. RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. 

PPVs associated with typical construction equipment, as published by FTA, are presented in 

Table 4-19. These vibration emission levels and factors represent a conservatively high usage 

because it is not anticipated that all this machinery is to be used at any one particular location at 

the same time. 

Table 4-19: Construction Equipment PPV 

Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in./sec.) Approx. Lv1 at 25 ft. 

Pile Driver (impact) upper range 1.518 112 

 typical 0.644 104 

Pile Driver (sonic) upper range 0.734 105 

 typical 0.17 93 

Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 

Hydromill in soil 0.008 66 

 in rock 0.017 75 

Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 

Hoe Ram 0.089 87 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87 

Caisson drilling 0.089 87 

Loaded trucks 0.076 86 

Jackhammer 0.035 79 

Small bulldozer 0.003 58 

Source: FTA, May 2006. 

Notes: 1. RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

5.1 NOISE 

Table 5-1 summarizes the noise impact assessment results for each of the build alternatives. 

Table 5-1: Noise Impact Summary by Alternative 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long 

Bridge 

Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 

3B 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 

3C 2 1 2,392 1,524 8 5 3,932 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

(Doswell to 

I-295) 

5A 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5B 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5B–Ashcake 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5C 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5D–Ashcake 1 0 135 18 1 4 159 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 

6B–A-Line 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 

6B–S-Line 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6C 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 

6D 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6E 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 

6F 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6G 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 

5 
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-2 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

5.2 VIBRATION 

Table 5-2 summarizes the vibration impact assessment results for each of the build alternatives. 

Table 5-2: Vibration Impact Summary by Alternative 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long 

Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2A 0 15 0 15 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 0 0 

3B 0 0 0 0 

3C 0 43 0 43 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A 0 2 0 2 

Area 5: 

Ashland (Doswell 

to I-295) 

5A 0 25 1 26 

5A–Ashcake 0 25 1 26 

5B 0 30 1 31 

5B–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

5C 0 35 1 36 

5C–Ashcake 0 35 1 36 

5D–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

Area 6: 

Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 0 8 0 8 

6B–A-Line 0 8 0 8 

6B–S-Line 0 8 0 8 

6C 0 8 0 8 

6D 0 8 0 8 

6E 0 8 0 8 

6F 0 8 0 8 

6G 0 8 0 8 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

MITIGATION 

6.1 NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES 

6.1.1 Noise Mitigation during Operation 

Potential noise mitigation measures are broadly categorized as applied at the source, in the 

pathway (the path that sound travels), or at the receiver. The source of most train noise is the 

interaction of steel wheels and the steel rail; this is called wayside noise. In addition to wayside 

noise, railcars (particularly, freight cars) sometimes rattle and produce noticeable amounts of 

noise. Locomotives also emit noise from the engine casing and from the cooling and exhaust 

vents. Maintaining wheels and rails is an effective way to manage and reduce wayside noise. Use 

of continuously welded rail (CWR or rail with no joints) also minimizes wayside noise (joints and 

gaps in the rail produce noise when trains roll over them). As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT 

assumes that all track will be CWR 

Locomotive horns are another loud source of train noise; however, their use is mostly limited to 

at-grade crossings and other areas required by CSXT operating rules where they are used to warn 

people that trains are approaching. Locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is required 

under FRA safety regulations. FRA does not require locomotive horn use at private at-grade 

crossings. Grade crossing closure, grade separations, and installation of wayside horns 

(stationary horns located where trains cross public at-grade crossings, whose use eliminates the 

use of locomotive horns) are potential measures to mitigate locomotive horn use. These have been 

evaluated and are incorporated into the Project to the extent deemed reasonable and appropriate 

within the design, operating, and financial constraints of the Project. FRA regulations also allow 

the creation of quiet zones, where locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is not required 

due to the installation of supplemental safety measures. Under those regulations, municipalities 

can coordinate the design and development of quiet zones. 

Noise barriers, while not commonly used on rail projects, can block train noise and reduce noise 

levels in areas behind them. To be effective, noise barriers must block the line of sight between 

the noise source and the receiver. Raising the height of the noise barrier above that line of sight 

increases the amount of noise reduction the noise barrier provides, but the cost of a noise barrier 

is directly related to the size of the barrier. Cost effectiveness is sometimes used to evaluate 

whether the noise reduction provided by a noise barrier justifies the expense of designing, 

constructing, and maintaining the barrier. This type of evaluation also considers the number of 

noise-sensitive land uses expected to experience a noise reduction due to the noise barrier. FRA 

does not have criteria for evaluating cost effectiveness of noise barriers. VDOT does, however, 

and their criteria could be useful for evaluating the cost effectiveness of noise barriers on this 

Project. At this early phase of Project development (Draft EIS and preliminary design), it is 

premature to discuss specific details of potential noise mitigation options before a recommended 

Preferred Alternative is selected. 

6 
MITIGATION 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-2 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Receiver-based mitigation is rarely implemented on rail projects because it is not cost effective to 

treat multiple individual locations across large areas. 

6.1.2 Noise Mitigation during Construction 

Practices to minimize the effects of construction noise would be in accordance with Section 

107.14(c)(3) of VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications. 

While construction noise is unavoidable in most cases, steps can be taken to minimize the impact, 

such as the following: 

 Keep all equipment well maintained, tuned, and properly lubricated to minimize atsource noise production. 

 Use sound attenuation devices on exhaust ports. 

 Substitute the use of flag persons to control construction vehicle movements, instead of 

using audible back-up alarms for vehicles. 

 Minimize unnecessary idling of heavy equipment and machinery, especially diesel 

engines and generators, when not actively in use. 

 Prohibit construction during sensitive nighttime, early evening, and early morning hours. 

DRPT will evaluate construction noise mitigation measures in more detail when an analysis of 

construction noise based on an actual construction plan can be completed and will ensure that all 

appropriate mitigation measures are employed by including these measures in the contractors’ 

contracts. 

6.2 VIBRATION MITIGATION MEASURES 

6.2.1 Vibration Mitigation during Operation 

The impact assessment for operational vibration effects indicates where further study should 

investigate the vibration effects and potential mitigation measures. A more-thorough assessment 

of vibration effects will be conducted during the final design phases. Mitigation options are 

somewhat limited due to the presence of freight trains in the DC2RVA corridor. Mitigation 

strategies, such as floating slabs, are not feasible options for tracks that also carry freight. Where 

freight trains operate, the only feasible options for mitigation of the trains are track and wheel 

maintenance measures, strategic location of special trackwork, and buffer zones between the 

tracks and the receptors. DRPT has no control over the implementation of these mitigation 

measures by the freight railroads. Passenger train maintenance can also be implemented to 

reduce ground-borne vibration; modification of the passenger rail vehicle suspension is also a 

potential mitigation option. DRPT will identify the necessary mitigation measures during the 

final design process. 

 Track and wheel maintenance: Maintenance procedures reduce vibration effects through 

regularly scheduled rail grinding, wheel truing programs, vehicle reconditioning 

programs, and implementation of flat-wheel detectors. These maintenance procedures 

minimize the vibration sources before they can affect vibration-sensitive receptors. 
MITIGATION 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-3 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

 Location of special trackwork: Effects of special trackwork has not been evaluated in this 

assessment because the locations are likely to change as Project design progresses. It is 

crucial that vibration effects on sensitive receptors are evaluated when locating special 

trackwork. 

 Buffer zones: Creation of additional buffer zones is not a feasible mitigation measure 

along existing corridors; however, it may be feasible at some places along the bypass 

corridors. 

 Vehicle suspension: Changing the vehicle suspension of the passenger trains is normally 

an option only when creating a new fleet of passenger trains. It is not feasible for the 

freight train traffic, and it is unlikely that the existing passenger train fleet will modify 

their suspension. 

6.2.2 Vibration Mitigation during Construction 

Construction-related vibration mitigation measures include BMP’s such as equipment selection, 

finding alternatives to traditional impact pile driving, and limiting the hours of operation and 

locations where sources of construction-related vibration will occur. DRPT will develop the 

details of these BMPs during the final design process. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 7-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

REFERENCES 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

2012. High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. 

September 2012. 

2013. CREATE Freight Noise and Vibration Model. Chicago, Illinois. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Washington, D.C. May 2006. 

United States Surface Transportation Board. 

1998. Final EIS for the Acquisition of Conrail by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX Railroad. 

Washington, D.C. 

 

7 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail A-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

 

A 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail B-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS 

Build Alternative 2A 

 

B 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail C-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS C Build Alternatives 3A and 3B 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail D-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS D Build Alternative 3C 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail E-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS E Build Alternative 4A 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail F-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS F Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail G-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS G Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Aschcake 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail G-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS H Build Alternative 6A 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail G-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS I Build Alternative 6B–A-Line 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail J-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS J Build Alternative 6C 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail K-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS K Build Alternative 6E 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail L-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS L Build Alternative 6B–S-Line 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail M-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS M Build Alternative 6D 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail N-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS N Build Alternative 6F 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail O-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

NOISE IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS O Build Alternative 6G 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail P-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS P Build Alternative 2A 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Q-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS Q Build Alternatives 3A and 3B 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail R-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS R Build Alternative 3C 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail S-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS S Build Alternative 4A 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail T-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS T Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail U-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS U Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail V-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS V Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail W-1 Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

VIBRATION IMPACTS AND IMPACT CONTOUR MAPS W Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G