May 11, 2016 

Appendix OO

At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum 

FINAL
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail i At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE & HISTORY ...................................................................................... OO-1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................... OO-1

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM .................................................... OO-2

1.4 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ............................. OO-2

2 EXISTING AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS

2.1 PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ..................................................................................... OO-6

2.2 PRIVATE AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ................................................................................ OO-10

2.3 AT-GRADE CROSSINGS, BYPASS ALIGNMENTS...................................................... OO-12

3 PROCESS & ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 AT-GRADE CROSSING EVALUATION OBJECTIVE .................................................. OO-14

3.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS, DEFINED................................................................................... OO-15

3.3 FEDERAL GUIDANCE CRITERIA, CROSSING ELIMINATION............................... OO-17

3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AT INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS ................................. OO-20

3.5 IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS AT INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS ...... OO-20

4 EVALUATION RESULTS: PROPOSED ACTIONS

4.1 PROPOSED ACTIONS: PUBLIC CROSSINGS.............................................................. OO-22

4.1.1. Public Crossing Proposed Actions: Grade Separate........................................ OO-24

4.1.2. Public Crossing Proposed Action: Closure...................................................... OO-30

4.1.3. Public Crossing Proposed Action: Median Treatment................................... OO-32

4.1.4. Public Crossing Proposed Action: Four Quadrant Gate................................ OO-34

4.1.5. Public Crossing Proposed Action: No Action ................................................. OO-38

4.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS: PRIVATE CROSSINGS........................................................... OO-40

4.3 PROPOSED ACTIONS: FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS CROSSINGS ......................... OO-42
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail ii At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure OO-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor....................................................................................... OO-3

Figure OO-2: Public & Private At-Grade Crossings Overview .................................................. OO-5

Figure OO-3: Examples of Public At-Grade Crossings................................................................ OO-6

Figure OO-4: Examples of Private At-Grade Crossings ............................................................ OO-10

Figure OO-5: Fredericksburg Bypass Public & Private At-Grade Crossings Overview....... OO-13

Figure OO-6: Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions Overview ................................ OO-23

Figure OO-7: Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed Grade Separate Locations ................... OO-25

Figure OO-8: Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed Closure Locations................................. OO-31

Figure OO-9: Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed Median Treatment Locations.............. OO-33

Figure OO-10: Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed Four Quad Gate Locations................ OO-35

Figure OO-11: Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed No Action Locations .......................... OO-39

Figure OO-12: Private At-Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions................................................ OO-41

Figure OO-13: Fredericksburg Bypass Private and Public At-Grade Crossings: Proposed 

Actions Overview................................................................................................................. OO-43

LIST OF TABLES

Table OO-1: Summary of Public At-Grade Crossings ................................................................. OO-7

Table OO-2: Summary of Private At-Grade Crossings.............................................................. OO-11

Table OO-3: Summary of At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass ................................. OO-12

Table OO-4: FHWA Conditions, Consideration for Crossing Elimination............................. OO-18

Table OO-5: Summary of Decision-Making Diagram, Public Crossings ................................ OO-21

Table OO-6: Summary of Decision-Making Diagram, Private Crossings............................... OO-21

Table OO-7: Summary of Proposed Closures, Public Crossings.............................................. OO-30

Table OO-8: Summary of Proposed Median Treatments, Public Crossings........................... OO-32

Table OO-9: Summary of Proposed Four Quadrant Gate, Public Crossings ......................... OO-36

Table OO-10: Summary of Proposed Actions, Private Crossings ............................................ OO-40

Table OO-11: Summary of Proposed Actions, Fredericksburg Bypass ................................... OO-42
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iii At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A. Public At-Grade Crossings: 

A-1. Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis (FHWA Guidance Criteria)

− Methodology Memorandum

− Summary of Results

A-2. Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Grade Crossings: Public 

At-Grade Crossings 

A-3. Proposed Actions at Individual Grade Crossings: Public At-Grade Crossings

Attachment B. Summary of Considerations and Proposed Actions at Individual Grade 

Crossings: Private At-Grade Crossings

Attachment C. Summary of Considerations and Proposed Actions at Individual Grade 

Crossings: Fredericksburg Bypass, Public and Private At-Grade Crossings
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-1 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE & HISTORY

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 deliver higher 

speed passenger rail service, increase passenger and freight rail capacity, and improve 

passenger rail service frequency and reliability in a corridor shared by growing volumes of 

passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic, thereby providing a competitive option for 

travelers going 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, VA, and from 

Richmond 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 

purpose of the current Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail project 

described here is to fulfill the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within this segment of the larger 

SEHSR corridor. The Project, by increasing rail capacity and improving travel times between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond, will improve passenger train performance and reliability in 

the corridor, enabling intercity passenger rail to be a competitive transportation choice for 

travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

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

owned by CSX Transportation (CSXT) between Control Point RO (milepost (MP) CFP 110) in 

Arlington, VA to the CSXT A-Line and S-Line junction at MP A-11 in Centralia, VA 

(Chesterfield County) (Figure OO-1). At the northern terminus in Arlington, VA, the Project 

limit ends at the southern approach to Long Bridge, a double-track rail bridge taking the rail 

corridor over the Potomac River; however, the northern terminus of Union Station in 

Washington, D.C. will be used for ridership and revenue forecasting, as well as service 

development planning within the Project corridor. The southern terminus in Centralia is the 

junction of two CSXT routes that begin in Richmond and rejoin approximately 11 miles south of 

the city.
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-2 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

Additional segments of the Project include approximately 8.3 miles of the CSXT Peninsula 

Subdivision CA-Line from Beulah Road (MP CA-76.1) in Henrico County, VA to AM Junction 

in the City of Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile Buckingham Branch Railroad (BBR) 

from AM Junction to the RF&P Crossing (MP CA-111.8) 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. The northern section of the DC2RVA corridor is shared with Virginia Railway Express 

(VRE), which operates commuter rail service from Union Station to just south of 

Fredericksburg, VA. 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 intercity passenger 

service from Boston to Washington, D.C. and the southeastern United States. 

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

The DC2RVA rail corridor crosses public and private roadways as well as pedestrian paths, 

other rail corridors, and major and minor waterways throughout its extents. These crossings 

include both at-grade crossings (roadways or pedestrian paths) as well as grade-separated 

crossings (all modes). Evaluation of existing at-grade roadway crossings was conducted in 

support of the alternatives development screening process for the DC2RVA project1. This

technical memorandum documents the evaluation of at-grade roadway crossings within the 

corridor to identify a proposed action(s) at each individual crossing as part of the Build 

Alternative. The proposed actions described herein are intended to modify the existing crossing 

treatment and/or condition in accordance with Federal guidance criteria for high speed rail 

corridors and, as necessary, based on site-specific physical and/or operating characteristics. 

Note that this evaluation does not include existing at-grade crossings along DC2RVA project 

segments that were eliminated from further consideration as part of the alternatives 

development screening process prior to this evaluation2. 

1.4 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

The terms “grade crossing” and “at-grade crossing” are often used interchangeably, both 

colloquially and within Federal documentation, to indicate a roadway-rail crossing that occurs 

at the same level (i.e., the roadway pavement and railroad tracks directly intersect). While the

term “grade crossing” is more utilized within official documentation, this technical 

memorandum uses the term “at-grade crossing” to ensure a distinct and readily understandable 

difference from the term “grade separated crossing”.

 

1 DRPT conducted evaluation of existing at-grade crossings to identify physical impacts and preferred alignment 

resulting from the proposed addition of a single track on either the east or west side of the existing track(s). That 

evaluation was conducted independently from and prior to this proposed action evaluation.

2 The Peninsula Subdivision and Buckingham Branch lines, as described in Section 1.2, were eliminated from further 

consideration as part of the alternatives screening process prior to this evaluation, 
!

!

!

!

A 011

CFP 006

CFP 053

CFP 110

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-1_8.5x11_ProjectCorridor_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 6 12

Miles

Legend

! CSXT Mileposts

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail Lines

DC2RVA Project

Segments

Northern Virginia

Central Virginia

Richmond

1 inch = 12 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-1

Basemap Source: 2015 USGS

Topographic Map

RF&P

RF&P

A-Line

Buckingham

Branch

Railroad

AM Junction

S-Line

Peninsula

Subdivision

Doswell

Centralia

Arlington

(RO)

Acca

Yard

Richmond

W A S H I N G T O N ,

D . C .

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-4 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

2. EXISTING AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

Section 2 summarizes the 50 public and 19 private existing roadway-rail at-grade crossings in 

the DC2RVA corridor, the locations of which are shown in Figure OO-2. Additionally, the 5 

public and 5 private existing at-grade crossings that are part of the DC2RVA Fredericksburg 

Bypass alignment are summarized separately in Section 2.3. 

A more detailed summary of existing conditions at these crossings are provided as part of the 

following attachments to this technical memorandum:

 Attachment A-2 for Public At-Grade Crossings 

 Attachment B for Private At-Grade Crossings

 Attachment C for Fredericksburg Bypass, Public and Private At-Grade Crossings
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

!?!?!?!?

!?!?!?!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?!?!?

!?!?

!?

!?!?!?!?!?!?

!?

!?!?

!?

!?

!?

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-2_8.5x11_CorridorXngsOverview_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public & Private

At-Grade Crossings

Overview

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[

06 12

Miles

1 inch = 12 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-2

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

W A S H I N G T O N ,

D . C .

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Crossing Type !? At Grade, Private !? At Grade, Public
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-6 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

2.1 PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

Public at-grade crossings are defined as roadway-rail crossings that are located on roadways 

that are open to use by the public and are maintained by a public authority. 

There are 50 public at-grade crossings that operate within the DC2RVA corridor, located in the 

following jurisdictions (listed north to south):

 Prince William County: 2 public at-grade crossings

 Stafford County: 2 public at-grade crossings

 Fredericksburg City: 1 public at-grade crossing

 Spotsylvania County: 2 public at-grade crossings

 Caroline County: 7 public at-grade crossings

 Hanover County: 11 public at-grade crossings

 Henrico County: 4 public at-grade crossings

 Richmond: 16 public at-grade crossings

 Chesterfield County: 5 public at-grade crossings

These public at-grade roadway crossings range from urban, median-separated, multi-lane 

facilities that carry more than 15,000 vehicles daily to rural, un-striped crossings with 100 daily 

vehicles (representative examples shown in Figure OO-3). 

FIGURE OO-3: EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS IN THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR

A summary of characteristics for each public at-grade crossing is provided in Table OO-1. Full 

details of each crossing are provided in Attachment A-2, including location maps, photos, and 

descriptive text of the crossing and surrounding area. Note that six crossings in the DC2RVA 

corridor have been permanently closed and/or removed from public use and are therefore not 

included in the DC2RVA inventory or analyses. 

All public roadway-rail crossings are required to have warning/control devices, just as

roadway intersections are required to have stop signs or traffic signals. These warning/control 

devices are specified in the Manual of Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD), and include both 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-7 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

passive and active types. “Passive” warning devices are the basic devices used at all roadwayrail crossings; they include the crossbuck (the X-shaped signs that identify a crossing), signage, 

and roadway approach pavement markings. “Active” control devices are activated by the 

passage of a train over detection circuit in the track and are intended to physically warn and/or 

impede vehicles from the tracks when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. Typical 

active traffic control devices include flashing light signals, bells, automatic gates, and highway 

traffic signals.

In the DC2RVA corridor, the majority of public at-grade two-lane crossings have active flashing 

signal lights with automatic gates on the roadway approach lanes (termed a two-quadrant gate 

system). An automatic gate serves as a physical barrier across the roadway travel lanes when a 

train is approaching or occupying a crossing. However, when automatic gates are located on 

the approach lanes only, vehicles are able to cross the centerline pavement marking and 

navigate around an activated gate with little difficulty. 

The larger multi-lane roadway crossings in the DC2RVA corridor typically have active control 

devices that include either four-quadrant gates or median separation. 

 Four-quadrant gates are a system of automatic flashing light signals and automatic gates 

in which the gates extend across both the approach and the departure sides of roadway. 

By inhibiting nearly all traffic movements over the crossing when the gates are activated 

by an approaching train, four-quadrant gates provide an additional measure of safety. 

 Median separation and/or treatment, which includes barrier wall systems, wide raised 

medians, and mountable raised curb systems with vertical median separators, can be 

used with a two-quadrant gate system to impede vehicles from traversing a crossing 

when the automatic gate is activated by disallowing vehicles from using the roadway 

lane serving traffic flowing in the opposite direction. The barrier provided by the 

median treatment also provides an additional measure of safety as compared to the twoquadrant gate system.

TABLE OO-1. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

JurisdictionCrossing 

Name

Crossing 

Number

Rail 

Line

Functional 

Classification 

AADT

2015

# 

Lanes

Warning 

Device

Prince 

William 

County

Featherstone 

Road 860600A RF&P Major Collector 10,150 2 Four Quad Gates

Potomac 

Avenue 860605J RF&P Local 7,105 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Stafford 

County

Brent Point 

Road 860581X RF&P Local 538 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Mount Hope 

Church Road 860578P RF&P Local 213 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Fredericksburg CityLandsdowne 

Road 860558D RF&P Major Collector 8,729 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Spotsylvania 

County

Mine Road 860557W RF&P Major Collector 5,177 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Summit 

Crossing Road 860548X RF&P Local 406 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Caroline 

County

Claiborne 

Crossing Road 860547R RF&P Local 477 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Stonewall 860545C RF&P Major Collector 1,929 2 Flashing Signal 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-8 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OO-1. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

JurisdictionCrossing 

Name

Crossing 

Number

Rail 

Line

Functional 

Classification 

AADT

2015

# 

Lanes

Warning 

Device

Jackson Road w/ Gates

Woodford 

Road 860542G RF&P Local 386 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Woodslane 

Road 860541A RF&P Local 102 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Paige Road 860539Y RF&P Minor Collector 477 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Penola Road 860527E RF&P Local 426 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Colemans Mill 

Road 860525R RF&P Local 447 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Hanover 

County

Doswell Road 860520G RF&P Local 315 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

W Vaughan 

Road / Henry 

Street

860513W RF&P Local 1,320 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

W Patrick 

Street 860512P RF&P Minor Collector 302 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

College Avenue 

/ Henry Clay 

Street

860462N RF&P Major Collector 1,320 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

England Street / 

Thompson 

Street

860459F RF&P Minor Arterial 14,210 3 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Myrtle Street 860454W RF&P Major Collector 1,827 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

E Francis Street 860450U RF&P Local 1,421 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Ashcake Road 860448T RF&P Minor Arterial 7,714 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Gwathmey 

Church Road 860447L RF&P Minor Collector 162 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Elmont Road 860445X RF&P Major Collector 2,132 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Cedar Lane 860443J RF&P Major Collector 1,929 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Henrico 

County

Mill Road 860441V RF&P Major Collector 2,741 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Mountain Road 860438M RF&P Minor Arterial 5,278 2 Four Quad 

Gates

Hungary Road 860437F RF&P Minor Arterial 16,240 4 

Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates and 

Median 

Separation

Hermitage 

Road 860435S RF&P Major Collector 4,263 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Richmond Jahnke Road 623663D A-LINE Minor Arterial 12,180 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Bassett Avenue 623664K A-LINE Local 1,393 2 Flashing Signal 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-9 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OO-1. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

JurisdictionCrossing 

Name

Crossing 

Number

Rail 

Line

Functional 

Classification 

AADT

2015

# 

Lanes

Warning 

Device

w/ Gates

Broad Rock 

Boulevard 623668M A-LINE Other Principal Arterial 19,285 4 

Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates and 

Median 

Separation

Terminal 

Avenue 623670N A-LINE Major Collector 680 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Walmsley 

Boulevard 623672C A-LINE Minor Arterial 4,974 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Chesterfield 

County

Kingsland Road 623678T A-LINE Major Collector 2,132 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Thurston Road 623679A A-LINE Local 457 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Old Lane 623680U A & S 

LINES Major Collector 4,872 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Richmond

Hermitage 

Road 623518E S-LINE Minor Arterial 10,150 4 

Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates and 

Median 

Separation

Brook Road 623522U S-LINE Minor Arterial 8,222 4 

Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates and 

Median 

Separation

St James Street 623525P S-LINE Local 995 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

N 2nd Street / 

Valley Road 623527D S-LINE Local 2,132 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Hospital Street 

/ N 7th Street 623530L S-LINE Minor Arterial 5,786 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Maury Street 623539X S-LINE Local 2,576 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Goodes Street 623543M S-LINE Local 203 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

E Commerce 

Road 623545B S-LINE Minor Arterial 4,263 2 Flashing Signal w/ Gates

Ruffin Road 623547P S-LINE Major Collector 1,827 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Bells Road 623548W S-LINE Minor Arterial 8,932 4 

Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates and 

Median 

Separation

Dale Avenue / 

Trenton 

Avenue

623549D S-LINE Local 274 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Chesterfield 

County

Kingsland Road 623559J S-LINE Major Collector 2,030 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Brinkley Road 623660H S-LINE Local 1,827 2 Flashing Signal 

w/ Gates

Notes: “Flashing Signal w/ Gates” are two-quadrant gates. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-10 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

2.2 PRIVATE AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

Private at-grade crossings are defined as roadway-rail crossings located on roadways that are 

not intended for use by the public nor maintained by a public authority. 

There are 19 private at-grade crossings that operate within the DC2RVA corridor, located in the 

following jurisdictions (listed north to south):

 Alexandria City: 1 private at-grade crossing

 Prince William County: 2 private at-grade crossings

 Stafford County: 2 private at-grade crossings

 Caroline County: 7 private at-grade crossings

 Hanover County: 1 private at-grade crossing

 Richmond: 2 private at-grade crossings

 Chesterfield County: 2 private at-grade crossings

These private at-grade roadway crossings typically serve as driveways to residences, access 

between farm or undeveloped land tracts on both sides of the railroad, or provide access to 

industrial properties (representative examples shown in Figure OO-4). Additionally, crossings 

located within military properties are considered private crossings. 

FIGURE OO-4: EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE AT-GRADE CROSSINGS IN THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR

The private at-grade crossings within the DC2RVA corridor are typical of private crossings in 

general, located on narrow or un-paved roadways with minimal warning devices. The majority 

of residential, farm, and industrial private crossings provide sole access to the property (i.e., 

there are no alternate routes to access the property across the railroad tracks). In general, the 

private crossings with active control devices (i.e., automatic gates) are those serving industrial 

areas; residential and farm crossings typically have signage as the sole passive warning device. 

Private crossings can be controlled by a barrier gate, which is a moveable gate (manual or 

automatic) that is kept in the controlled position (i.e., blocking the travel lanes) and opening 

only on demand; however, none of the private crossings in the mainline DC2RVA corridor 

currently use barrier gates. 

A summary of characteristics for each private at-grade crossing is provided in Table OO-2. Full 

details of each crossing are provided in Attachment B, including location maps, photos, and 

descriptive text of the crossing and surrounding area.
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-11 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OO-2. SUMMARY OF PRIVATE AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

Jurisdiction Crossing Name Crossing 

# 

Rail 

Line

Warning 

Device 

Crossing 

Type Paved # Lanes

Alexandria 

City Unnamed Private Crossing None RF&P None

Railroad 

Exclusive 

Access

No 1 

Prince William 

County

Cherry Hill Road Private 

Crossing 860601G RF&P

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Commercial Yes 2 

Henderson Road / 

Epperson Avenue 860609L RF&P

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Military Yes 2 

Stafford 

County

Flemming Street 860586G RF&P

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Military Yes 2 

Lees Private Crossing 860582E RF&P

Passive 

(Ropes by 

Owner)

Residential No 1 

Caroline 

County

Jones Private Crossing 860543N RF&P None Farm No 1 

Rixey Road Private 

Crossing 860540T RF&P None Residential No 1 

Roes Private Crossing 860538S RF&P None Farm No 1 

Unnamed Private Crossing 860531U RF&P None Residential Yes 1 

Unnamed Private Crossing 860530M RF&P None Residential Yes 1 

Unnamed Private Crossing 860529T RF&P None Farm No 1 

Unnamed Private Crossing 860528L RF&P None Farm No 1 

Georges Private Crossing 860526X RF&P None Farm No 1 

Chandlers Private Crossing 860521N RF&P None Farm No 1 

Hanover 

County

Excelsior Mill Private 

Crossing 860519M RF&P None Residential No 1 

Richmond

4th Street Extension 

Private Crossing 623541Y S-LINE

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Industrial Yes 2 

Federal Paper Private 

Crossing 623544U S-LINE None Industrial No 1 

Chesterfield 

County

Texaco Road Private 

Crossing 623552L S-LINE Passive Industrial Yes 2 

Station Road Private 

Crossing 623554A S-LINE Passive Industrial Yes 1 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-12 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

2.3 AT-GRADE CROSSINGS, BYPASS ALIGNMENTS

There are two bypass alignments under consideration as part of this project: the Ashland 

Bypass Build Alternative and the Fredericksburg Bypass Build Alternative. Details of these 

alignments are provided in the Alternatives Technical Report. The Ashland Bypass diverges from 

the main line around the Town of Ashland; there are no existing at-grade crossings as the 

extents of this alignment would be new track. However, the Fredericksburg Bypass, which 

diverges from the main line around the City of Fredericksburg, partially uses an existing rail 

line that has five public and five private existing at-grade crossings, the locations of which are 

shown in Figure OO-5. 

A summary of characteristics for each Fredericksburg Bypass at-grade crossing is provided in 

Table OO-3. Full details of each crossing are provided in Attachment C, including location 

maps, photos, and descriptive text of the crossing and surrounding area. 

TABLE OO-3. SUMMARY OF AT-GRADE CROSSINGS, FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS

County Type Crossing 

Name

Crossing 

#

Functional 

Classification

AADT 

2014 # Lanes Paved Warning Device

Stafford 

County

Public

Debruen Ln 860345T Local -- 2 Yes 

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Ferry Rd 860348N Major Collector 9,000 2 Yes 

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Federal Dr 860349V Local 1,300 2 Yes 

Flashing 

Signal w/ 

Gates

Little Falls 

Rd 860353K Local 150 2 Yes Flashing Signal

Forest Lane 

Rd 860357M Local 1,400 2 Yes Flashing Signal

Private

Hot Top Rd 

(Private) None n/a n/a 1 No

Locking Gate 

(Passive with 

Stop Signs)

Driveway 

(Private) None n/a n/a 1 Yes Passive (Stop 

Signs)

Cleek Ln 

(Driveway, 

Private)

860352D n/a n/a 1 No None

Driveway 

(Private) None n/a n/a 1 No None

Driveway 

(Private) 860356F n/a n/a 1 No Passive (Stop 

Signs)
!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-5_8.5x11_FBBPXngsOverview_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Fredericksburg

Bypass

Public & Private

At-Grade Crossings

Overview

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[

0 0.25 0.5

Mile

1 inch = 0.5 mile

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-5

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 Esri World Transportation

DAHLGREN SPUR

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Crossing Type !? Private !? Public
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-14 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

3. PROCESS & ASSUMPTIONS

Section 3 summarizes the process that was developed and the associated assumptions that were 

used in the evaluation of the at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor, which included four 

steps:

1) Define the objective of the evaluation process and potential proposed actions. See Section 

3.1 and 3.2.

2) Apply Federal guidance criteria for crossing elimination, as applicable. See Section 3.3.

3) Analyze site-specific conditions for each at-grade crossing. See Section 3.4.

4) Develop and apply decision-making logic to identify proposed action(s) at each at-grade 

crossing. See Section 3.5. 

The FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised 

Second Edition (“the handbook”) provides a single reference 

document on best practices as well as adopted standards 

relative to roadway-rail at-grade crossings that have proven 

effective and are accepted nationwide. The handbook provides 

general information on highway-rail crossings; characteristics of 

the crossing environment and users; and the physical and 

operational improvements for roadway-rail at-grade crossings 

to enhance the safety and operation of both roadway and rail 

traffic through the crossings. The process developed for this

DC2RVA at-grade crossing evaluation aligns with the guidelines 

presented in the handbook. 

3.1 AT-GRADE CROSSING EVALUATION OBJECTIVE

This at-grade crossing evaluation is being performed in support of the alternatives development 

process for the DC2RVA project. The objective of this evaluation is to identify a primary 

proposed action for each at-grade crossing as part of the Build Alternative. The proposed 

actions will be identified by developing and applying a standardized process that is 

documented and consistent for all crossings, regardless of size, type, or location. The process 

will consider all applicable Federal guidance criteria, and will be based on site-specific data that 

is available at the time that the analysis was completed. 

It is important to note that the primary proposed actions resulting from this evaluation are 

intended to represent the initial preferred action to be considered and moved forward in the 

overall alternatives development process. Final actions will be determined based on detailed 

engineering analyses and design considerations as well as coordination with VDOT, local 

governments, communities, and other stakeholders, which may result in modification to the 

primary proposed actions that are described herein. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-15 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

3.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS, DEFINED

The DC2RVA corridor will be an “Emerging High Speed Rail” corridor, which, per the FRA, is 

defined as having “top speeds of 90-110 mph on primarily shared track...with advanced 

crossing protection or separation”3. Accordingly, as part of the Build Alternative for the 

DC2RVA project, every at-grade crossing must be grade separated, closed, or have appropriate

crossing treatment that is connected into the train detection circuitry and physically impedes 

vehicles from accessing the tracks when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. The 

handbook correspondingly states that “it is desirable that all crossings located on high-speed 

rail corridors either be closed, grade separated, or equipped with automatic gates”.

Based on the Emerging HSR definition and per FRA guidance, the following proposed actions 

are defined for use in the DC2RVA existing at-grade crossing evaluation (note that example 

images shown below are representative of typical application; they are included for illustrative purposes 

only): 

Closure. Per the handbook, “closure of a 

highway-rail grade crossing to highway 

traffic should always be considered as an 

alternative.” Benefits include reduction in 

collisions, vehicle and rail delay, and rail 

maintenance costs. Considerations include 

elimination of redundant crossings, 

convenience / travel cost of vehicles using an 

adjacent crossing, and impacts to adjacent 

crossings and connecting roadway network 

due to diversion of vehicles. 

Grade Separation. Per the handbook, “the 

decision to grade separate at highway-rail 

crossings is primarily a matter of economics” 

as a long-term investment. Benefits include 

reduction in collisions, vehicle and rail delay, 

and rail maintenance costs. 

Four Quadrant Gates. A system of gates 

(entrance and exit gates on all roadway 

approaches) designed to provide full closure 

of the crossing when a train is approaching or 

occupying the crossing, thus elimination the 

opportunity for vehicles to navigate around a 

single lowered gate. Design can include 

detection inside the gates to ensure that 

vehicles do not get “trapped” inside lowered 

gates. 

 

3 Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan, FRA, April 2009. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-16 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

Median Treatment. A system of physical 

improvements designed to impede the 

movement of vehicles into the opposing 

traffic lane and around the single lowered 

gate (two quadrant gate) when a train is 

approaching or occupying the crossing. 

Treatments include barrier wall systems, 

wide raised medians, and mountable raised 

curb systems with vertical median separators. 

Considerations include cost-benefit (median 

treatments are generally less expensive to 

install than four quadrant gate systems) and 

presence / distance of nearby intersections 

and driveways that may limit the effective 

median length. Note that for the DC2RVA 

evaluation, a 60-foot minimum median 

distance from the gate arm to the closest 

driveway or intersection was used. 

Locking Gate (private crossings only). This 

term refers to a barrier gate that is a moveable 

gate that is in engaged (i.e., closed) and only 

opens on demand. For the DC2RVA project, 

locking gates are only applicable to private 

crossings and must be tied into the track 

circuitry. The locking gate could be manual 

(requiring property owners to exit their 

vehicle to manually interact with the gate) or 

more automated (such as key card access to 

open and close the gate), the details of which 

will be determined during final design. 

Site Improvements. Site improvements 

(geometric and/or safety improvements) may 

be necessary as part of or in addition to the 

above proposed actions, to improve overall 

crossing safety (roadway or railroad), such as 

improving sight distances or crossing 

geometry.

No Action. Considered at crossings where 

the existing crossing treatment is sufficient to 

the proposed actions described above. 

Note that grade separation must be provided for any new roadway-rail crossings that would be 

created by the DC2RVA project (i.e., for Build Alternatives along new track alignment). This 

could result in closure and/or consolidation of public or private roadways across the rail 

alignment, based on design considerations. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-17 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

3.3 FEDERAL GUIDANCE CRITERIA, CROSSING ELIMINATION

The FHWA handbook provides guidance criteria from the Technical Working Group (TWG) 

established by the US DOT that is led by representatives from the FHWA, FRA, FTA, and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The guidance is not intended to be 

mandatory, but is intended to set the precedent for best practices in developing and 

implementing policies, rules, and regulations between highway agencies, railroad companies, 

and governmental agencies. 

Specifically, “Chapter V Selection of Alternatives, Part A Technical Working Group Guidance on 

Traffic Control Devices Selection Criteria and Procedure” outlines analysis methodologies for 

consideration of traffic control devices or other measures at every public roadway-rail at-grade 

crossing. Section 6 of the guidance provides 11 conditions, as shown in Table OO-4, for which 

public at-grade crossings “should be considered for grade separation or otherwise eliminated” 

if any one or more of the set thresholds are met or exceeded. Note that this crossing 

elimination analysis is appropriate for existing public at-grade crossings on the main rail line 

(i.e., private crossings as well as crossings along the Fredericksburg Bypass rail spur alignment). 

A review of the existing public at-grade crossings determined that Conditions i) through vi) are 

not currently met, nor expected to be met, within the DC2RVA project corridor. Conditions vii) 

through xi) were determined to be potentially applicable, and were therefore included in a 

crossing elimination screening analysis that was conducted as one step of this overall at-grade 

crossing evaluation. A variety of detailed roadway and railroad input data, as well as train 

operational data, was required to complete the analysis. The FHWA conditions were analyzed 

for existing year (2015), the project opening year (2025), and the project forecast year (2045). 

However, the decision was made to base the proposed action evaluation on existing and 

opening year conditions only as the proposed action would be in effect by 2025, and 2045 

analyses reflect projects and/or conditions that are outside the purview of the DC2RVA 

proposed action; any public at-grade crossings that may exceed the FHWA condition thresholds 

by 2045 will be noted in the at-grade crossing evaluation. 

Refer to Attachment A-1 for the Crossing Elimination Screen Analysis methodology report and 

results, as summarized below:

 5 crossings meet or exceed FHWA condition thresholds in 2015

 21 crossings meet or exceed FHWA condition thresholds by 2025

Accordingly, these crossing locations will be considered for grade separation and/or closure as 

part of the at-grade crossing evaluation process. As previously mentioned, however, the 

triggering of these thresholds is not intended to be prescriptive and the proposed action will be 

based on a variety of considerations and local crossing conditions. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-18 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OO-4: FHWA CONDITIONS, CONSIDERATION FOR CROSSING ELIMINATION

FHWA Condition Applicability to DC2RVA At-Grade Crossings 

i. The road is a part of the designated Interstate Highway 

System. 

Not applicable - None of the at-grade crossings 

include a road that is part of the Interstate 

Highway System.

ii. The road is otherwise designed to have full controlled 

access. 

Not applicable - None of the at-grade crossings 

are fully access controlled. 

iii. The posted road speed equals or exceeds 70 mph. Not applicable - The posted highway speed at all 

at-grade crossings does not equal or exceed 70 

mph.

iv. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) exceeds 100,000 in 

urban areas or 50,000 in rural areas. 

Not applicable - The AADT at the at-grade 

crossings does not exceed these limits. 

v. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 110 mph. Not applicable - The maximum authorized speed 

for the Project is 90 mph and does not exceed 

110 mph at any of the at-grade crossings.

vi. An average of 150 or more trains per day or 300 million 

gross tons per year. 

Not applicable - The average number of trains 

per day at the at-grade crossings does not 

exceed these limits.

vii. An average of 75 or more passenger trains per day in 

urban areas or 30 or more passenger trains per day in 

rural areas.

Potentially applicable.

viii. Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains 

per day and AADT) exceeds 1 million in urban areas or 

250,000 in rural areas; or

Potentially applicable.

ix. Passenger train crossing exposure (the product of the 

number of passenger trains per day and AADT) exceeds 

800,000 in urban areas or 200,000 in rural areas.

Potentially applicable.

x. The expected accident frequency for active devices with 

gates, as calculated by the USDOT Accident Prediction 

Formula including five-year accident history, exceeds 0.5.

Potentially applicable.

xi. Vehicle delay exceeds 40 vehicle hours per day. Potentially applicable.
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-19 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AT INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS

The following site-specific conditions were documented at each existing public at-grade 

crossing location. These characteristics were identified as the aspects of the roadway, railroad, 

and/or surrounding area (defined as a 1,000 foot radius around the crossing) that potentially 

physically or operationally affect the design and control of the type of the crossing to be 

proposed. Private crossings were documented using a similar approach to the level appropriate 

of the decisions to be made. 

 Traffic Data and Traffic Operations. Including crossing roadway classification and 

number of lanes; daily volumes; adjacent or intersecting driveways and streets 

(including distance from crossing); and presence of pedestrian and bicycle crossings.

 Train Data and Rail Operations. Including daily volumes; number of tracks. 

 Safety / Geometric Deficiencies. Including roadway and/or railroad deficiencies that 

affect safety, such as: sight distance; crossing angle; minimum widths, clearances, or 

striping/signage; or horizontal and vertical alignment. 

 Major Environmental Impacts. Including: parks / recreation areas; schools; high 

priority cultural and/or historic areas; wetlands; military installations; and wetlands. 

 Engineering Considerations. Feasibility issues, such as horizontal and vertical 

alignment, if grade separation of crossing was considered. 

 Adjacent Property Uses. Including type and intensity/density of land uses on each side 

of crossing. 

 Preliminary Cost-Benefit. For locations where grade separation was considered. 

 Accessibility. Including summary of area/uses that the crossing roadway serves, and if 

the crossing provides sole access (i.e., no feasible alternate route to property(ies)). 

 Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings. Including distances to closest upstream (to the 

north) and downstream (to the south) crossings. 

 Crossing Safety Treatment Considerations. Including proximity to intersection 

driveways and/or roadways, if median separation or four quadrant gates were 

considered. 

 Special Uses at Crossing. Including use and/or access to the crossing by emergency 

vehicles; school buses; and public transit. 

Documentation was based on project site visits, aerial and/or street-view photography, and 

VDOT and FRA online databases. The level of detail documented for the site-specific 

conditions was intended to support identification of feasibility considerations for each proposed 

action at the crossing location. 

The detailed documentation of these site-specific conditions are provided as part of the 

following attachments to this technical memorandum:

 Attachment A-2 for Public At-Grade Crossings 

 Attachment B for Private At-Grade Crossings

 Attachment C for Fredericksburg Bypass, Public and Private At-Grade Crossings
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-20 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

3.5 IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS AT INDIVIDUAL 

CROSSINGS

Decisions regarding whether an existing at-grade crossing should be eliminated (grade 

separated or closed) or improved through the installation of traffic control devices or site 

and/or surface improvements depend upon a number of factors including the FHWA crossing 

elimination guidance criteria as well as safety, operational, and cost considerations. To ensure 

that the decision-making process to identify a proposed action at each existing at-grade crossing 

in the DC2RVA corridor was consistent and unbiased, decision-making logic diagrams were 

developed to provide a general analytical structure with which to identify a proposed action. 

Separate decision-making diagrams were developed for public and private crossings and are 

included in Attachment A-3 and Attachment B, respectively. The logic process for private 

crossings followed a similar decision-making path but was more dependent on type of crossing 

(i.e., what type of property the crossing serves). These charts were developed to illustrate and 

summarize the general logic that was used in identifying proposed actions for improvements; 

this logic was used to guide the process and was not intended to be rigidly prescriptive. 

Table OO-5 summarizes the decision-making process for proposed improvements at public atgrade crossings and Table OO-6 summarizes the decision-making process for private at-grade 

crossing proposed improvements. As shown in these tables, there are multiple “paths” to a 

potential proposed action, using a variety of data. 

For example, for a public at-grade crossing that does not have four quadrant gates and that has 

at least one FHWA condition threshold met or exceeded, grade separation and closure would 

both be considered; however, those two actions could be dismissed (based, for example, on 

engineering feasibility or cost-benefit considerations); median treatments or four quadrant gates 

would then be considered. 

Within the proposed actions considered, the following assumptions were used:

 “Median Treatment” is defined as either raised medians (new or extension of existing 

raised medians, with or without addition of median tubes) or median separator 

treatment. Note that median treatment is considered before four quadrant gate 

treatment for this evaluation based on prioritization of lower overall cost. 

 For a crossing closure, a new reasonable diversion route is defined as construction of 1 

mile or less of a new connecting roadway. If closure is determined to be not feasible 

based on roadway connectivity considerations (i.e., requiring construction of over 1 mile 

of connecting roads), rerouting traffic to a new connecting roadway is also considered 

not feasible. 

 For some crossings, a secondary proposed action is shown. The secondary action is 

proposed in the event that the initial proposed action is determined to be infeasible. 

 The “No Action” proposal does not preclude any modifications / improvements that 

may be necessary to accommodate the installation of the 3rd track (such as relocation of 

gates). 

As previously stated in the beginning of Section 3, it is important to note that the primary 

proposed actions resulting from this evaluation may be modified based on analyses performed 

at a greater level of detail or considerations identified over the course of the environmental 

analyses. The actions described in this document represent proposed actions to be considered 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-21 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

and moved forward in the overall alternatives development process; final actions will be 

determined based on detailed engineering analyses and design considerations as well as 

coordination with VDOT, local governments, communities, and other stakeholders. 

TABLE OO-5: SUMMARY OF DECISION-MAKING DIAGRAM, PUBLIC CROSSINGS

Condition Proposed Action(s) Considered

If any 1 of the 11 FHWA condition thresholds are met or 

exceeded in 2015 or 2025

• Grade Separation

• Closure

If an adjacent crossing is located within 1 rail mile • Closure

If there are rail or roadway safety or geometric deficiencies 

to be mitigated

• Geometric Safety Improvement

• Grade Separation

• Closure

If the existing condition is gates (not four quadrant) • Median Treatment

• Four Quadrant Gate

If there are existing median treatment or four quadrant 

gates • No Action

TABLE OO-6: SUMMARY OF DECISION-MAKING DIAGRAM, PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Condition Proposed Action(s) Considered

If a farm / residence or industrial crossing has feasible 

alternate routes • Closure

If a crossing is commercial / used by the public • Median Treatment

• Four Quadrant Gate 

If a residence / farm crossing provides sole access • Locking Gate

If an industrial crossing provides sole access • Four Quadrant Gate

• Locking Gate

If the crossing is on a military property • Four Quadrant Gate

If the crossing is exclusively railroad access • No Action
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-22 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4. EVALUATION RESULTS: PROPOSED ACTIONS

Section 4 provides a summary of the proposed actions resulting from the at-grade crossing 

evaluation:

 Proposed Actions at Public Crossings: Section 4.1 and its subsections. Refer to 

Attachment A-3 for documentation of the decision-making process and resulting 

proposed actions for public at-grade crossings.

 Proposed Actions at Private Crossings: Section 4.2 and its subsections. Refer to 

Attachment B for documentation of the decision-making process and resulting 

proposed actions for private at-grade crossings.

 Proposed Actions at Fredericksburg Bypass Crossings: Section 4.3 and its subsections. 

Refer to Attachment C for documentation of the decision-making process and resulting 

proposed actions for crossings along the existing rail line of the proposed 

Fredericksburg Bypass (both public and private crossings). 

4.1 PROPOSED ACTIONS: PUBLIC CROSSINGS

The at-grade crossing evaluation resulted in the following proposed actions at the 50 existing atgrade public crossings in the DC2RVA corridor:

 Grade Separate: 8 Crossings

 Closure: 12 Crossings

 Median Treatment: 9 Crossings

 Four Quad Gates: 19 Crossings

 No Action: 2 Crossings 

The locations of these proposed actions are shown in Figure OO-6, and are each described in 

more detail in the following subsections. 
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

!?!?!?!?

!?!?!?!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-6_8.5x11_PAOverview_Public_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed Actions

Overview

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[

06 12

Miles

1 inch = 12 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-6

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

W A S H I N G T O N ,

D . C .

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action !? Closure !? Four Quad Gates !? Grade Separate !? Median Treatment !? No Action
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-24 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.1.1. Public Crossing Proposed Actions: Grade Separate

There are 8 existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that are proposed to be 

grade separated, as shown in Figure OO-7 and described in more detail below. 

The following summarizes the locations of the 8 crossings that are proposed to be grade 

separated:

 Fredericksburg City: 1 crossing

 Hanover County: 2 crossings

 Henrico County: 1 crossing

 Richmond: 4 crossings (two located on the A-line; two located on the S-line)

The justification for the proposed grade separation at these locations include the following:

 4 locations are proposed due to exceeding FHWA condition thresholds

 3 locations are proposed due to mitigating safety / geometric deficiencies

 1 location is required based on considerations related to industrial rail siding (such 

as roadways being blocked for long periods by sitting trains)
!?

!? !?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

Hospital Street / N 7th Street

Broad Rock E Commerce Road

Boulevard

Walmsley Boulevard

Hungary

Road

W Vaughan Road/Henry Street

Ashcake Road

Landsdowne Road

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-7_8.5x11_PAGradeSeparate_Public_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed

Grade Separate

Locations

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 4.5 9

Miles

1 inch = 9 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-7

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action

!? Grade Separate
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-26 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

The key factors supporting the decision-making process at each of the 8 crossings that are 

proposed to be grade separated are summarized below:

Landsdowne Road (Crossing Number 860558D), Fredericksburg City: 

 Exceeds three FHWA condition thresholds in 2015 and 2025.

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to network as a major 

collector roadway with more than 10,000 daily vehicles by 2025 and lack 

of adjacent crossings within 1 mile.

o Grade separation determined feasible (no major geometrics issues 

identified, and mitigatable impacts to existing businesses).

W Vaughn Road / Henry Street (Crossing Number 860513W), Hanover County: 

 Exceeds one FHWA condition thresholds in 2025.

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to Town of Ashland 

network as the northern-most crossings of the railroad.

o Grade separation determined feasible: 

 Benefit to having a grade separated crossing on the north side of 

the town, including location of the only fire station in town on 

crossing roadway (east of crossing). 

 Further design considerations: School access, Henry Street access, 

water treatment access, and County-owned park. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-27 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

Ashcake Road (Crossing Number 860448T), Hanover County: 

 Grade separation determined feasible:

o Mitigates safety / geometric deficiencies of proximity of parallel roadway 

intersection within a few feet of high speed / high volume Ashcake Road.

o Benefit to having a grade separated crossing for the southern-most 

crossing that serves the Town of Ashland. 

o Further design considerations: Frontage roads to maintain access to 

residences and/or side streets; pump station location.

Hungary Road (Crossing Number 860437F), Henrico County: 

 Exceeds one FHWA condition thresholds in 2015 and 2025.

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to network as a 

minor arterial roadway with over 18,000 daily vehicles by 2025. 

o Grade separation determined feasible:

 Emergency response considerations to consider grade separation, 

per VDOT.

 Further design considerations: proximity to historic property;

proximity to recreation area; maintaining access to side street(s). 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-28 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

Broad Rock Boulevard (Crossing Number 623668M), Richmond: 

 Exceeds one FHWA condition thresholds in 2015 and 2025.

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to network as a 

principal arterial with more than 22,000 daily vehicles by 2025. 

o Grade separation determined feasible:

 Further design considerations: accommodation of existing major 

intersection with E Belt Boulevard (located directly north of 

crossing); proximity to McGuire Veterans Hospital complex; 

expected impacts to businesses located immediately adjacent to 

existing crossing. 

Walmsley Boulevard (Crossing Number 623672C), Richmond: 

 Major safety / geometric deficiency: existing roadway hump (signed 5 mph) over 

tracks will be exacerbated by 3rd track of the DC2RVA project

o Geometric improvements determined not preferred (curve cannot be 

eliminated)

o Grade separation determined feasible.
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-29 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

Hospital Street / N 7th Street (Crossing Number 623530L), Richmond: 

 Major safety / geometric deficiency: limited sight distance due to railroad track 

curve and proximity of N 7th Street intersection to crossing location:

o Four quadrant gates with intersection realignment of N 7th Street to the 

west determined feasible but not preferred because of the existing track 

curve.

o Grade separation determined feasible:

 Further design considerations: realignment of N 7th Street 

intersection to the west of existing location; potential use of 

retaining wall to minimize impacts to existing buildings.

E Commerce Road (Crossing Number 623545B), Richmond: 

 3rd track of DC2RVA project includes an approximately 10,000 foot siding to the 

industrial area located adjacent to this crossing, which will result in stopped trains 

through this crossing:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity of the crossing as the 

industrial area’s primary northern-most crossing.

o Grade separation determined feasible and required. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-30 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.1.2. Public Crossing Proposed Action: Closure

There are 12 existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that are proposed to be 

closed, as shown in Figure OO-8 and described in more detail below. The following 

summarizes the locations of the 12 crossings that are proposed to be closed:

 Stafford County: 1 crossing

 Caroline County: 1 crossing

 Hanover County: 2 crossings

 Richmond: 5 crossings (two located on the A-line; three located on the S-line)

 Chesterfield County: 3 crossings

The justification for the proposed closures at these locations include the following: 

 3 locations are proposed due to exceeding FHWA condition thresholds

 10 locations are proposed due to having adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile

that have reasonable alternate routes for vehicles

 2 locations are proposed due to mitigating safety / geometric deficiencies 

 2 locations are required as part of the 3rd track and station improvements of the 

DC2RVA project

The key factors supporting the decision-making process at each of the 12 crossings that are 

proposed to be closed are summarized in Table OO-7 below: 

TABLE OO-7. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CLOSURES, PUBLIC CROSSINGS

Crossing Name Crossing 

Number Location Closure Justification

Mount Hope Church 

Road 860578P Stafford County

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s)

Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossing

Requires construction of new connection roadway

Colemans Mill Road 860525R Caroline County Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s)

Major safety / geometric deficiency (track curve)

W Patrick Street 860512P

Hanover County

Required as part of DC2RVA 3rd Track improvement

College Avenue / 

Henry Clay Street 860462N Required as part of DC2RVA station improvement

Bassett Avenue 623664K

Richmond Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossings 

Terminal Avenue 623670N Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossings 

Thurston Road 623679A

Chesterfield County

Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossing

Old Lane 623680U Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s)

Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossing

St James Street 623525P

Richmond

Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossing

N 2nd Street / Valley 

Road 623527D Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossingMajor safety / geometric deficiency (track curve)

Dale Avenue / 

Trenton Avenue 623549D Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossing

Brinkley Road 623660H Chesterfield County Located within 1 rail mile of adjacent crossing
!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?!?

!?

!?

St. James Street

N 2nd Street/ Valley Road

Dale Avenue/ Trenton Avenue

Brinkley Road

Bassett Avenue

Terminal Avenue

Thurston Road

Old Lane

College Avenue/ Henry Clay Street

W Patrick Street

Colemans Mill Road

Mount Hope Church Road

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-8_8.5x11_PAClosure_Public_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed

Closure Locations

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 4.5 9

Miles

1 inch = 9 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-8

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action

!? Closure
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-32 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.1.3. Public Crossing Proposed Action: Median Treatment

There are 9 existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that are proposed for 

median treatment crossing improvements, as shown in Figure OO-9 and described in more 

detail below. The following summarizes the locations of the 9 crossings that are proposed to 

have median treatment:

 Caroline County: 3 crossings

 Henrico County: 1 crossings

 Chesterfield County: 1 crossing

 Richmond: 4 crossings (all located on the S-line)

As part of the decision-making process as described in Section 3.5, if grade separation or closure 

did not need to be considered or was determined to be not feasible, median treatment was 

considered first as a proposed action before four quadrant gates based on preliminary costbenefit considerations. Three of these 9 locations did exceed FHWA condition threshold(s); 

however, grade separation was determined to be not feasible at these locations based on costbenefit considerations (such as low volumes served on the roadway) and were also determined 

to be not feasible for closure because there are no adjacent crossings within 1 rail mile. Of these 

crossings that did have an adjacent crossing within 1 rail mile, closure was determined to be not 

feasible due to roadway network connectivity considerations and/or traffic volumes served. 

The key factors supporting the decision-making process at each of the 9 crossings that are 

proposed for median treatment crossing improvements are summarized in Table OO-8. 

TABLE OO-8. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MEDIAN TREATMENTS, PUBLIC CROSSINGS

Crossing Name Crossing 

Number Location Median Treatment Justification 

Claiborne Crossing 

Road 860547R

Caroline County

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Woodslane Road 860541A

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Paige Road 860539Y

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (lack of adjacent equivalent crossing)

Mill Road 860441V Henrico County Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Kingsland Road 623678T Chesterfield County Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Hermitage Road 623518E

Richmond

Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network / volumes)

Brook Road 623522U Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network / volumes)

Ruffin Road 623547P

Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network and access to 

community center)

Bells Road 623548W Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network / volumes)
!?!?!?!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

Hermitage Road

Brook Road

Ruffin Road

Bells Road

Kingsland Road

Mill Road

Paige Road

Woodslane Road

Claiborne Crossing Road

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-9_8.5x11_PAMedian_Public_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed

Median Treatment

Locations

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[

0 4.59

Miles

1 inch = 9 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-9

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action !? Median Treatment
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-34 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.1.4. Public Crossing Proposed Action: Four Quadrant Gate

There are 20 existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that are proposed for 

four quadrant gate crossing improvements, as shown in Figure OO-10 and described in more 

detail below. The following summarizes the locations of the 20 crossings that are proposed to 

have median treatment:

 Prince William County: 1 crossing

 Stafford County: 1 crossing

 Spotsylvania County: 2 crossings

 Caroline County: 3 crossings

 Hanover County: 8 crossings

 Henrico County: 1 crossings

 Richmond: 3 crossings (one located on the A-line, two located on the S-line) 

 Chesterfield County: 1 crossing

As part of the decision-making process (described in Section 3.5), if grade separation or closure 

did not need to be considered or was determined not to be feasible, median treatment was 

considered first as a proposed action before four quadrant gates as part of the preliminary costbenefit considerations. However, if median treatment was determined to be not feasible due to, 

for example, proximity of existing roadways or access points, four quadrant gates were 

considered. 

Eleven of the 20 locations did exceed FHWA condition threshold(s); however, the locations 

were determined not feasible for grade separation due to cost-benefit considerations or 

community impacts. Additionally, the locations were determined to be not feasible for closure 

due to lack of adjacent crossings within 1 rail mile and/or due to importance of connectivity to 

the overall roadway network and/or the fact that the roadway in question provides the sole 

access to property(ies). 

The key factors supporting the decision-making process at each of the 20 crossings that are 

proposed for median treatment crossing improvements are summarized in Table OO-9. 
!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?

!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

Maury Street

Goodes Street

Kingsland Road

Jahnke Road

Hermitage Road

Doswell Road

Penola Road

Woodford Road

Stonewall Jackson Road

Summit Crossing Road

Mine Road

Brent Point Road

Potomac Avenue

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-10_8.5x11_PA4QuadGate_Public_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed

Four Quad Gate

Locations

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 4.5 9

Miles

1 inch = 9 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-10

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action

!? Four Quad Gates

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?

England Street/

Thompson Street

Cedar Lane

Elmont Road

Myrtle Street

E Francis Street

Gwathmey

Church

Road
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-36 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OO-9. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FOUR QUADRANT GATES, PUBLIC CROSSINGS

Crossing Name Crossing 

Number Location Four Quadrant Gate Justification 

Potomac Avenue 860605J Prince William 

County Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Brent Point Road 860581X Stafford County

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s): 

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (roadway provides sole access)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Intersection realignment required (sight distance)

Mine Road 860557W

Spotsylvania County

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Summit Crossing 

Road 860548X

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Stonewall Jackson 

Road 860545C

Caroline County

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (environmental impacts)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Woodford Road 860542G

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (lack of adjacent equivalent crossing)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Penola Road 860527E

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Doswell Road 860520G

Hanover County

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (environmental impacts, 

proximity to rail crossing)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

W Patrick Street 860512P

Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to campus network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

England Street / 

Thompson Street 860459F

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s): 

Grade separation not feasible (community impacts)

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity) 

Safety improvements required (pedestrian)

Myrtle Street 860454W

Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

E Francis Street 860450U

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (no adjacent crossings within 1 mile)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Gwathmey Church 

Road 860447L

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (roadway provides sole access)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity) 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-37 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

TABLE OO-9. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FOUR QUADRANT GATES, PUBLIC CROSSINGS

Crossing Name Crossing 

Number Location Four Quadrant Gate Justification 

Elmont Road 860445X

Hanover County

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (cost-benefit)

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Cedar Lane 860443J

Exceeds FHWA condition threshold(s):

Grade separation not feasible (property impacts)

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Hermitage Road 860435S Henrico County

Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Jahnke Road 623663D

Richmond

Adjacent crossing located within 1 mile:

Closure not feasible (connectivity to network)

Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Maury Street 623539X Median treatment not feasible (access point proximity)

Goodes Street 623543M Median treatment not feasible (geometrics)

Requires roadway realignment (away from flood gates)

Kingsland Road 623559J Chesterfield County Median treatment not feasible (geometrics)
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-38 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.1.5. Public Crossing Proposed Action: No Action

There are 2 existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that are proposed for no 

improvements, as shown in Figure OO-11 and described in more detail below. 

 Featherstone Road (Crossing Number 860600A), Prince William County

 Mountain Road (Crossing Number 860438M), Henrico County

The above two crossings have the following characteristics, which led to the proposed No 

Action:

 No FHWA condition thresholds are met or exceeded in 2015 or 2025.

 No feasible alternative adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile.

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies are identified that would require 

mitigation.

 The existing crossing treatment is four quadrant gates that satisfactorily meet the 

DC2RVA project requirements. 
!?

!?

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-11_8.5x11_PANoAction_Public_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Public At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed

No Action

Locations

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 6 12

Miles

1 inch = 12 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-11

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

W A S H I N G T O N ,

D . C .

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action

!? No Action

!?

Featherstone Road !?

Mountain Road
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-40 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS: PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

The proposed actions for the 19 existing private at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor 

are shown in Figure OO-12 and described in more detail below. The following summarizes the 

types of proposed actions for the 19 crossings:

 Four Quad Gate: 5 crossings

o All Commercial, Military, and/or Industrial

 Locking Gate: 13 crossings

o All Residential and/or Farm Properties

 No Action: 1 crossing

o Railroad Exclusive Access

As part of the decision-making process as described in Section 3.5, the proposed actions for 

private at-grade crossings are primarily based on the type of crossing, as well as consideration 

of whether the crossing roadway provides sole access to the property and there are no feasible 

or cost-effective alternative access routes for the type of vehicles using the crossings. These key 

factors supporting the decision-making process at each of the 19 private crossings are 

summarized in Table OO-10. 

TABLE OO-10. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS, PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Jurisdiction Crossing Name Crossing 

Number

Crossing 

Type

Sole 

Access Proposed Action

Alexandria 

City Unnamed Private Crossing None

Railroad 

Exclusive 

Access

Yes No Action

Prince William 

County

Cherry Hill Road Private Crossing 860601G Commercial Yes Four Quadrant Gate

Henderson Road / Epperson 

Avenue 860609L Military No Four Quadrant Gate

Stafford 

County

Flemming Street 860586G Military No Four Quadrant Gate

Lees Private Crossing 860582E Residential Yes Locking Gate

Caroline 

County

Jones Private Crossing 860543N Farm No Locking Gate

Rixey Road Private Crossing 860540T Residential Yes Locking Gate

Roes Private Crossing 860538S Farm No Locking Gate

Unnamed Private Crossing 860531U Residential Yes Locking Gate

Unnamed Private Crossing 860530M Residential Yes Locking Gate

Unnamed Private Crossing 860529T Farm Yes Locking Gate

Unnamed Private Crossing 860528L Farm Yes Locking Gate

Georges Private Crossing 860526X Farm Yes Locking Gate

Chandlers Private Crossing 860521N Farm Yes Locking Gate

Hanover 

County Excelsior Mill Private Crossing 860519M Residential Yes Locking Gate

Richmond

4th Street Extension Private 

Crossing 623541Y Industrial Yes Locking Gate

Federal Paper Private Crossing 623544U Industrial No Locking Gate

Chesterfield 

County

Texaco Road Private Crossing 623552L Industrial No Four Quadrant Gate

Station Road Private Crossing 623554A Industrial Yes Four Quadrant Gate
!>!>

!>!>

!>

!>

!> !>!>

!>!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

Texaco Road

Station Road

Flemming Street

Cherry Hill Road

Henderson Road /

Epperson Avenue

4th Street Extension

Federal Paper

Roes

Rixey Road

Jones

Lees

Unnamed

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-12_8.5x11_PA_Private_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Private At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed Actions

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 6 12

Miles

1 inch = 12 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-12

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 World Transportation

Doswell

CENTRALIA

RICHMOND

W A S H I N G T O N ,

D . C .

M A R Y L A N D

Potomac River

Town of

Ashland

City of

Fredericksburg

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action

!> Four Quad Gate

!> Locking Gate

!> No Action

!>

!>

!> !>

!>

!>

!>

Unnamed

Georges

Chandlers

Excelsior Mill Doswell
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail OO-42 At-Grade Crossing Evaluation

Technical Memorandum

4.3 PROPOSED ACTIONS: FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS CROSSINGS

The proposed actions for the 5 existing public and 5 existing private at-grade crossings for the 

proposed Fredericksburg Bypass are shown in Figure OO-13 and summarized in Table OO-11

below. The decision-making process for the Fredericksburg Bypass crossings followed the same 

process as for the main line public and private existing at-grade crossings. 

TABLE OO-11. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS, FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS

County Type Crossing Name Crossing # Sole 

Access Proposed Action 

Stafford 

County

Public

Debruen Ln 860345T Yes Median Separators

Ferry Rd 860348N No

Four Quad Gate with 

intersection / roadway 

realignment

Federal Dr 860349V No Four Quad Gate

Little Falls Rd 860353K Yes Gates w/ Median Separators

Forest Lane Rd 860357M Yes Gates w/ Median Separators

Private

Hot Top Rd (Private) None Yes 

Locking Gate (update to 

DC2RVA standard, i.e. tied 

into track circuit)

Driveway (Private) None No Closure

Cleek Ln (Driveway, Private) 860352D Yes Locking Gate

Driveway (Private) None Yes 

Assumed not to be an official 

FRA crossing; Remove ability 

to cross tracks at this location

Driveway (Private) 860356F Yes Closure, with new driveway 

connection
!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

Hot Top Rd

Driveway

Cleek Ln Driveway

Driveway

Debruen Ln

Ferry Rd

Federal Dr

Little Falls Rd

Forest

Lane Rd

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\AtGradeCrossings_Tech_Memo\Fig_OO-13_8.5x11_PA_FBBP_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 07.13.2016

Fredericksburg

Bypass

Private and Public

At-Grade

Crossings:

Proposed Actions

Overview

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[

0 0.25 0.5

Mile

1 inch = 0.5 mile

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure OO-13

Basemap & Data Sources:

2015 USGS Topographic Map;

2015 Esri World Transportation

DAHLGREN SPUR

Legend

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail

Lines

County/City

Boundaries

Proposed Action !? Closure !? Four Quad Gates !? Locking Gate !? Median

Treatment
ATTACHMENT A. Public At-Grade Crossings:

A-1. Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis, Methodology 

Memorandum & Results

A-2. Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Grade 

Crossings: Public At-Grade Crossings

A-3. Proposed Actions at Individual Grade Crossings: Public At-Grade 

Crossings

ATTACHMENT B. Summary of Considerations and Proposed Actions at 

Individual Grade Crossings: Private At-Grade Crossings

ATTACHMENT C. Summary of Considerations and Proposed Actions at 

Individual Grade Crossings: Fredericksburg Bypass, Public and Private 

At-Grade Crossings

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix OO

At-Grade Crossing Evaluation Technical Memorandum
ATTACHMENT A. PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

A-1. Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis, 

Methodology Memorandum & Results

A-2. Summary of Considerations for Treatments 

at Individual Grade Crossings: Public AtGrade Crossings

A-3. Proposed Actions at Individual Grade 

Crossings: Public At-Grade Crossings

Appendix OO

At-Grade Crossing Evaluation Technical Memorandum
February 2016

Preliminary Crossing Elimination Screening

Analysis – DC2RVA At‐Grade Public Crossings

Methodology Memorandum  

FINAL
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail i Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ i 

1. HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS ................................................................................... 1

2. CRITERIA VII: PASSENGER TRAINS PER DAY ................................................................... 3

3. CRITERIA VIII: CROSSING EXPOSURE (TOTAL TRAINS) ................................................ 3

4. CRITERIA IX: PASSENGER TRAIN CROSSING EXPOSURE .............................................. 3

5. CRITERIA X. EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ........................................................... 3

6. CRITERIA XI. DAILY VEHICLE DELAY ................................................................................. 4

7. DATA SOURCES & ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ 5

 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

PRELIMINARY CROSSING ELIMINATION SCREENING 

ANALYSIS – DC2RVA AT-GRADE PUBLIC CROSSINGS 

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 project (DC2RVA). The Project will deliver higher speed 

passenger rail service, increase passenger and freight rail capacity, and improve passenger rail 

service frequency and reliability in the corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, 

commuter, and freight rail traffic, thereby providing a competitive option for travelers going 

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, VA, and from Richmond continues east to 

Hampton Roads (Norfolk), VA and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues 

west to Atlanta 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 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 purpose of the current 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail project described here is to fulfill the 

purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within this segment of the larger SEHSR corridor. The Project, 

by increasing rail capacity and improving travel times between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, 

will improve passenger train performance and reliability in the corridor, enabling intercity 

passenger rail to be a competitive transportation choice for travelers between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond and beyond. 

1. HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS 

The highway-rail grade crossing is unique in that it constitutes the intersection of two 

transportation modes, which differ in both the physical characteristics of their traveled ways and 

their operations. Crossings are divided into categories: public crossings are those on highways 

under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to the traveling public, 

whereas private crossings are those on roadways privately owned and utilized only by the 

landowner or licensee. Physically, the crossings are either at-grade or grade-separated (either rail 

overpass or highway overpass). Only public, at-grade highway-railroad crossings are the subject 

of this preliminary screening analysis. 

The Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition August 2007) by the 

United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) provides a single reference document on prevalent and best practices as well as adopted 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

standards relative to highway-rail grade crossings. The guidelines presented in this handbook, 

which include physical and operational conditions to enhance safety and operations, have proven 

effective and are generally accepted nationwide. Specifically, “Chapter V Selection of 

Alternatives, Part A Technical Working Group Guidance on Traffic Control Devices Selection 

Criteria and Procedure” outlines analysis methodologies for consideration at every public 

highway-rail grade crossing. “Section 6 Grade Separation” provides the following 11 criteria for 

which highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for separation or otherwise 

eliminated if any one or more conditions are met: 

i. The highway is a part of the designated Interstate Highway System.  None of the 68 

at-grade Project Area crossings include a highway that is part of the Interstate Highway 

System. 

ii. The highway is otherwise designed to have full controlled access.  None of the 68 atgrade Project Area crossings are fully access controlled. 

iii. The posted highway speed equals or exceeds 113 km/hr (70 mph).  The posted 

highway speed at all 68 at-grade Project Area crossings does not exceed 70mph. 

iv. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) exceeds 100,000 in urban areas or 50,000 in rural 

areas.  The AADT at the 68 at-grade Project Area crossings does not exceed these limits. 

v. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 177 km/hr (110 mph).  The maximum 

timetable speed does not exceed 110 miles per hour at any of the 68 at-grade Project Area 

crossings. 

vi. An average of 150 or more trains per day or 300 million gross tons per year.  The 

average number of trains per day at any of the 68 at-grade Project Area crossings does not 

exceed these limits. 

vii. An average of 75 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 30 or more 

passenger trains per day in rural areas. 

viii. Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT) exceeds 

1 million in urban areas or 250,000 in rural areas; or 

ix. Passenger train crossing exposure (the product of the number of passenger trains per 

day and AADT) exceeds 800,000 in urban areas or 200,000 in rural areas. 

x. The expected accident frequency for active devices with gates, as calculated by the 

U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Formula including five-year accident history, exceeds 

0.5. 

xi. Vehicle delay exceeds 40 vehicle hours per day. 

Accordingly, it was determined that the preliminary screening analysis to evaluate the potential 

for crossing elimination -- i.e., grade separation or crossing closures – would be based on criteria 

vii through xi for each Project Area at-grade crossing site-specific conditions. 

Note that the urban / rural designation of each crossing location was determined based on 

objective identification of physical roadway and land use characteristics within a circle of 1,000-

foot radius centered on the highway-rail crossing. These criteria were based on descriptive 

characteristics described in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook of urban crossings and 

include: signalized roadway intersections; intersection driveways and access points; business 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

establishments and signage; significant lane interaction (such as turn lanes or add / drop lanes); 

on-street parking; roadway/crossing illumination; and density of development around the 

crossing (refer to Section 7 of this report for full data source and assumption details). 

2. CRITERIA VII: PASSENGER TRAINS PER DAY 

The number of passenger trains per day is based on a single input: the total number of daily 

passenger trains at each crossing. For the DC2RVA Project Area, this includes both intercity 

passenger service throughout the corridor, as well as Virginia Railway Express (VRE) passenger 

trains in the northern portion of the corridor. Therefore, both a larger number of daily intercity 

trains and a larger number of daily VRE trains will result in a larger daily number of passenger 

trains. 

3. CRITERIA VIII: CROSSING EXPOSURE (TOTAL TRAINS) 

As defined in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, the crossing exposure is based on the 

following input factors at each crossing: 

 Number of trains per day 

 Annual average daily traffic 

The calculation is a simple multiplication; therefore, both a larger number of daily trains and a 

larger number of daily vehicles will result in a larger crossing exposure. 

4. CRITERIA IX: PASSENGER TRAIN CROSSING EXPOSURE 

As defined in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, the crossing exposure is based on the 

following input factors at each crossing: 

 Number of total passenger trains per day 

 Annual average daily traffic 

The calculation is a simple multiplication; therefore, both a larger number of daily passenger 

trains and a larger number of daily vehicles will result in a larger passenger train crossing 

exposure. 

5. CRITERIA X. EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY 

The expected accident frequency was calculated based on the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction 

Model. The model is intended to predict, in absolute terms, the likelihood of a collision occurring 

over a given period of time given conditions at the crossing, and can be used to identify potential 

high-accident locations for further review. The U.S. DOT collision prediction formula combines 

three independent calculations to produce a collision prediction value, and incorporates crossingspecific characteristics, historical collision history, and current collision trends. 

The expected accident frequency is based on the following input factors at each crossing: 

 Type of warning device. There are three main categories of warning devices: 

– Gates 

– Flashing lights 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

– Passive (includes stop signs, other signage, and no signs or signals) 

 Annual average daily traffic. 

 Number of trains per day. 

 Number of tracks. 

 Number of trains in daylight. 

 Highway characteristics based on number of lanes, if paved, and functional 

classification. 

 Maximum speed of train. 

 Number of reported accidents, over five years. This is defined as a collision between a 

train and a highway user. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has redefined a 

reportable highway-rail grade crossing collision; under new guidelines, any impact 

“between railroad on-track equipment and an automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle, 

bicycle, farm vehicle, pedestrian or other highway user at a rail-highway crossing” must 

be reported. 

The formulas additionally utilize several constant factors, provided per U.S. DOT and FHWA 

criteria. The expected accident frequency provides a comparative estimate of the number of 

collisions per year; therefore, a lower number is more desirable. 

6. CRITERIA XI. DAILY VEHICLE DELAY 

The total vehicle delay per day is an amount of time that vehicles spend queuing at an at-grade 

crossing over the course of a day (24 hours). The daily vehicle delay is based on the following 

input factors: 

 Average individual delay per vehicle per day 

 Annual average daily traffic 

The first factor above was calculated using Adolf May’s Traffic Flow Fundamentals, which is the 

traffic flow theory upon which most of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity 

Manual (HCM) equations are based. Input factors to calculate the average individual delay per 

vehicle per crossing are: 

 Arrival rate. This represents how many vehicles (AADT) are arriving at the crossing per 

lane. 

 Service rate. This is a constant factor, based on highway characteristics, that represents 

how many vehicles a highway can functionally handle, per lane. 

 Activation time. This represents the length of time it takes for the train to complete the 

crossing, and is based on the length of the train and the speed of the train. 

 Cycle time. The represents the amount of time between crossings each day and is 

directly based on the number of trains per day. 

The total daily delay calculation is a straightforward multiplication. More trains and longer 

and/or slower moving trains result in more crossing closure time, and more motor vehicles on 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

the crossing road means that there is more total vehicle delay. Any combination of more trains, 

slower trains, and more motor vehicles would result in increases in resulting daily vehicle delay. 

Given that the DC2RVA Project rail lines carry a combination of both passenger and freight trains, 

which have distinct speed and length characteristics, the delay calculation was separated into two 

calculations for each crossing – one for passenger trains and one for freight trains – so as to not 

over- or under-estimate total delay. Separate train lengths and speeds were estimated for each 

line for average passenger and freight trains, in addition to separate number of trains per day for 

passenger and freight trains. It is important to note that the train speeds used were operating 

speeds based on model output, and not the maximum timetable speed. The calculated passenger 

daily delay and the calculated freight daily delay were then added together to provide a single 

total daily delay at each crossing against which to compare to the 40 hour per day threshold. 

Because trains could arrive at any time and the equation provides estimates of daily vehicle 

delays, the analysis does not separately calculate delays for particular peak or off-peak hours. 

While the total vehicle delay may be higher when traffic volumes are higher, it would also be 

lower when traffic volumes are lower. Over the course of the day, it is assumed for purposes of 

this high level analysis that this would average out. 

7. DATA SOURCES & ASSUMPTIONS – PRELIMINARY SCREENING 

ANALYSIS, NOVEMBER 2015 

There are a total of 241 highway-rail crossings within the DC2RVA corridor; of those, there are 

68 public, at-grade crossings (i.e., the subject crossings of this preliminary screening analysis). 

The identification of crossing location, crossing number, and type of crossing was sourced 

directly from the U.S. DOT FRA GIS Web Application (http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/, accessed 

November 2015), and verified and/or supplemented as necessary with the U.S. DOT Crossing 

Inventory Form (Form FRA F 6180.71) (accessed via 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/PublicSite/Crossing/Crossing.aspx, November 

2015) and aerial photography and/or field data. 

ROADWAY INPUT DATA 

To conduct the public at-grade crossing screening analysis, roadway data from multiple sources 

was used for each crossing. The data sources and any subsequent processing of data or 

assumptions that was used for this preliminary analysis is listed below. 

Source: FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory by State 

(https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/downloaddbf.aspx, CSV file type 

downloaded for the State of Virginia on 21 October 2015) 

The following input data was used, identified automatically by matching the Crossing Number 

of each DC2RVA public at-grade crossing to the source data: 

 Railroad Milepost 

 Annual Average Daily Traffic (Secondary source, see Source: Virginia Department of 

Transportation Below) 

 FHWA Highway Classification 

 Maximum Timetable Speed 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

Source: FRA Public Highway-Rail Crossings Accident Prediction System 

(http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/webaps/default.aspx, PDF file type of accident prediction report 

downloaded for the DC2RVA counties and independent cities in March 2015) 

The following input data was used, identified automatically by matching the Crossing Number 

of each DC2RVA public at-grade crossing to the source data: 

 Paved / Unpaved Crossing Condition 

 Number of Collisions, over a 5-year period 

 Warning Device at Crossing 

 Number of Traffic Lanes at Crossing 

 Number of Main Tracks at Crossing 

If any crossings were not included in the source data, the required data was verified and/or 

supplemented as necessary with aerial photography and/or field data and, for the case of the 

number of collisions, the average of the nearest upstream and downstream representative 

crossings. 

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2014 Daily Traffic Volume 

Estimates Jurisdiction Reports 

(http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2014_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp, PDF file format of 

2014 traffic data downloaded for the DC2RVA counties and cities in November 2015) 

The following input data was used, identified manually by locating the crossing within the 

VDOT “from” and “to” limits for the appropriate crossing roadway: 

 AADT 

If any crossings were not included in the source data, the FRA Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory by State AADT was used as a secondary source. 

Other roadway input data processing / assumptions: 

 Future year AADT was calculated using an assumed linear (non-compounding) growth 

rate of 1.5% per year. 

 The number of traffic lanes for future years was assumed to be equal to the existing year 

input data. 

 The warning device was assumed to be four-quadrant gates at every crossing for all 

future years. 

 The number of main tracks was assumed to be 3 tracks for all future years. 

 A “Rural” or “Urban” designation is needed for each crossing location to determine the 

appropriate threshold to apply to the calculation result (if applicable). The RailroadHighway Grade Crossing Handbook provides descriptive criteria for urban crossing 

locations, which include higher development density and more / closer proximity of 

signalized intersections, driveways / access points, lane interaction, and on-street 

parking compared to rural crossing locations. Additionally, the presence of 

signed/striped pedestrian crossings was used as a criteria. For each crossing, aerial 

imagery and/or field data was used to determine the presence of these urban criteria 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 7 Crossing Elimination Screening Analysis Methodology 

and objectively assign a “rural” or “urban” designation based on the total number of 

criteria present. 

TRAIN OPERATIONS INPUT DATA 

To conduct the public at-grade crossing preliminary screening analysis, rail operations input 

data as listed below was needed for each crossing for Intercity Passenger trains, VRE Passenger 

trains, and Freight trains separately, by rail line: 

 Train length 

 Train speed 

 Total number of trains per day 

The input data for train speed and total number of daily trains for the preliminary screening 

analysis is based on the DC2RVA rail operations RTC modeling analysis conducted to date and 

professional judgment based on projected freight and passenger rail improvements. Future year 

train speeds were based on the existing year input data and adjusted as necessary based on 

professional engineering judgment to account for higher future maximum authorized speeds. 

Note that the increase in the number of total trains per day between 2025 and 2045 reflects an 

increase in the number of Passenger VRE and Freight trains only, as the total number of projectrelated Passenger Intercity trains will not change between the opening year (2025) and design 

year (2045). 

 
2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 2015 

623680U Old Lane Chesterfield County 10.74 A-LINE Rural -- X X 165,648 324,336 513,336 No YES YES -- -- -- 0.0347 

623679A Thurston Road Chesterfield County 10.01 A-LINE Rural -- -- -- 15,538 30,450 48,180 No No No -- -- -- 0.0207 

623678T Kingsland Road Chesterfield County 9.38 A-LINE Rural -- -- -- 72,488 141,926 224,621 No No No -- -- -- 0.0294 

623672C Walmsley Boulevard Richmond 5.52 A-LINE Urban -- -- -- 169,116 331,122 524,067 -- -- -- No No No 0.0414 623670N Terminal Avenue Richmond 3.87 A-LINE Urban -- -- -- 23,154 45,298 71,686 -- -- -- No No No 0.0594 

623668M Broad Rock Boulevard Richmond 3.08 A-LINE Urban -- X X 655,690 1,283,830 2,031,955 -- -- -- No YES YES 0.2225 

623664K Bassett Avenue Richmond 1.00 A-LINE Urban -- -- -- 47,362 92,742 146,730 -- -- -- No No No 0.0268 

623663D Jahnke Road Richmond 0.68 A-LINE Urban -- -- X 414,120 810,840 1,283,340 -- -- -- No No YES 0.0411 

860435S Hermitage Road Henrico County 5.45 RF&P Urban -- -- -- 179,046 322,938 498,393 -- -- -- No No No 0.0353 

860437F Hungary Road Henrico County 6.60 RF&P Urban X X X 682,080 1,230,240 1,898,640 -- -- -- No YES YES 0.0494 

860438M Mountain Road Henrico County 8.10 RF&P Urban -- -- X 221,676 399,828 617,058 -- -- -- No No No 0.0367 

860441V Mill Road Henrico County 9.65 RF&P Urban -- -- -- 115,122 207,636 320,436 -- -- -- No No No 0.0323 

860443J Cedar Lane Hanover County 11.15 RF&P Rural -- X X 81,018 146,124 225,504 No No No -- -- -- 0.0301 

860445X Elmont Road Hanover County 11.55 RF&P Rural -- X X 89,544 161,502 249,237 No No No -- -- -- 0.0307 

860447L Gwathmey Church Road Hanover County 12.95 RF&P Rural -- X X 6,846 12,342 19,035 No No No -- -- -- 0.0169 

860448T Ashcake Road Hanover County 13.85 RF&P Urban -- -- -- 323,988 584,364 901,854 -- -- -- No No No 0.0394 

860450U E Francis Street Hanover County 14.20 RF&P Rural -- X X 59,682 107,646 166,131 No No No -- -- -- 0.0282 

860454W Myrtle Street Hanover County 14.64 RF&P Urban -- -- -- 76,734 138,402 213,597 -- -- -- No No No 0.0719 

860459F England Street / Thompson Street Hanover County 14.72 RF&P Urban -- X X 596,820 1,076,460 1,661,310 -- -- -- No YES YES 0.0461 

860462N College Avenue / Henry Clay Street Hanover County 14.85 RF&P Urban -- -- -- 55,440 99,990 154,305 -- -- -- No No No 0.0277 

860512P W Patrick Street Hanover County 15.16 RF&P Urban -- -- -- 12,726 22,968 35,397 -- -- -- No No No 0.0197 

860513W W Vaughan Road / Henry Street Hanover County 15.62 RF&P Rural -- X X 55,440 99,990 154,305 No No No -- -- -- 0.0277 

860520G Doswell Road Hanover County 21.87 RF&P Rural -- X X 13,230 23,892 36,855 No No No -- -- -- 0.0199 

860525R Colemans Mill Road Caroline County 29.72 RF&P Rural -- X X 18,774 33,858 52,245 No No No -- -- -- 0.0216 

860527E Penola Road Caroline County 33.00 RF&P Rural -- X X 17,934 32,340 49,896 No No No -- -- -- 0.0214 860539Y Paige Road Caroline County 40.43 RF&P Rural -- X X 20,076 36,168 55,809 No No No -- -- -- 0.0220 860541A Woodslane Road Caroline County 43.50 RF&P Rural -- X X 4,284 7,722 11,907 No No No -- -- -- 0.0149 

860542G Woodford Road Caroline County 44.50 RF&P Rural -- X X 16,212 29,238 45,117 No No No -- -- -- 0.0209 

860545C Stonewall Jackson Road Caroline County 47.24 RF&P Rural -- X X 81,018 146,124 225,504 No No No -- -- -- 0.0301 860547R Claiborne Crossing Road Caroline County 48.63 RF&P Rural -- X X 20,076 36,168 55,809 No No No -- -- -- 0.0220 

860548X Summit Crossing Road Spotsylvania County 51.41 RF&P Rural X X X 22,736 38,212 74,422 No No No -- -- -- 0.0226 

860557W Mine Road Spotsylvania County 54.77 RF&P Urban -- -- X 289,912 487,244 948,944 -- -- -- No No No 0.0452 

860558D Landsdowne Road Fredericksburg City 57.57 RF&P Rural X X X 488,824 821,558 1,600,073 YES YES YES -- -- -- 0.0490 

860578P Mount Hope Church Road Stafford County 67.57 RF&P Rural X X X 11,984 20,090 39,116 No No No -- -- -- 0.0194 

860581X Brent Point Road Stafford County 72.34 RF&P Rural X X X 30,128 50,676 98,679 No No No -- -- -- 0.0242 

860605J Potomac Avenue Prince William County 78.83 RF&P Urban -- -- X 397,880 668,710 1,302,385 -- -- -- No No YES 0.0919 

860600A Featherstone Road Prince William County 86.85 RF&P Urban -- -- X 568,400 955,300 1,860,550 -- -- -- No No YES 0.0434 

623660H Brinkley Road Chesterfield County 9.83 S-LINE Rural -- -- -- 38,367 92,268 116,028 No No No -- -- -- 0.0205 

623559J Kingsland Road Chesterfield County 9.16 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 42,630 102,520 128,920 -- -- -- No No No 0.0210 

623549D Dale Avenue / Trenton Avenue Richmond 4.97 S-LINE Rural -- -- -- 5,775 13,860 17,424 No No No -- -- -- 0.0385 

623548W Bells Road Richmond 4.43 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 187,572 451,088 567,248 -- -- -- No No No 0.0402 

623547P Ruffin Road Richmond 3.95 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 38,367 92,268 116,028 -- -- -- No No No 0.0255 

623545B E Commerce Road Richmond 2.99 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 89,523 215,292 270,732 -- -- -- No No No 0.0307 

623543M Goodes Street Richmond 1.66 S-LINE Rural -- -- -- 4,263 10,252 12,892 No No No -- -- -- 0.0362 

623539X Maury Street Richmond 0.77 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 54,117 130,108 163,636 -- -- -- No No No 0.0298 

623530L Hospital Street / N 7th Street Richmond 1.23 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 121,506 345,332 434,252 -- -- -- No No No 0.0773 

623527D N 2nd Street / Valley Road Richmond 1.55 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 44,772 127,244 160,004 -- -- -- No No No 0.0322 

623525P St James Street Richmond 1.69 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 20,895 59,384 74,672 -- -- -- No No No 0.0222 

623522U Brook Road Richmond 2.30 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 172,662 490,724 617,084 -- -- -- No No No 0.0396 

623518E Hermitage Road Richmond 3.45 S-LINE Urban -- -- -- 213,150 605,800 761,800 -- -- -- No No No 0.0411 

224286R Beulah Road Henrico County 76.87 PENINSULASU Rural -- -- -- 38,367 46,134 58,014 No No No -- -- -- 0.0255 

224289L Charles City Road Henrico County 78.40 PENINSULASU Rural -- -- -- 53,298 64,086 80,586 No No No -- -- -- 0.0275 

224298K Miller Road Henrico County 78.99 PENINSULASU Rural -- -- -- 24,402 29,326 36,872 No No No -- -- -- 0.0284 224964X Hospital Street Richmond 85.77 BBRR Urban -- -- -- 34,716 39,846 50,106 -- -- -- No No No 0.0200 

224967T Dill Road Henrico County 87.58 BBRR Urban -- -- -- 29,844 34,254 43,074 -- -- -- No No No 0.0193 

224970B Richmond Henrico Turnpike Henrico County 90.19 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 53,592 61,512 77,352 No No No -- -- -- 0.0222 228389E Industrial Park Road Hanover County 90.96 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 4,872 5,592 7,032 No No No -- -- -- 0.0121 224976S Cool Spring Road Hanover County 94.24 BBRR Urban -- -- -- 17,664 20,274 25,494 -- -- -- No No No 0.0231 

224979M New Ashcake Road Hanover County 96.95 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 49,332 56,622 71,202 No No No -- -- -- 0.0218 

224980G Wyndale Drive Hanover County 97.50 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 366 420 528 No No No -- -- -- 0.0138 

224981N Stumpy Road Hanover County 98.54 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 7,308 8,388 10,548 No No No -- -- -- 0.0134 

224984J Peaks Road Hanover County 99.32 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 13,398 15,378 19,338 No No No -- -- -- 0.0158 

224985R Cadys Mill Road Hanover County 99.67 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 1,524 1,752 2,202 No No No -- -- -- 0.0087 

224986X Cadys Mill Road Hanover County 101.48 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 1,524 1,752 2,202 No No No -- -- -- 0.0087 

224991U E Patrick Henry Road Hanover County 103.51 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 22,536 25,866 32,526 No No No -- -- -- 0.0180 

224992B Hickory Hill Road Hanover County 105.34 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 1,284 1,470 1,848 No No No -- -- -- 0.0083 224998S Kings Dominion Boulevard Hanover County 110.68 BBRR Urban -- -- -- 79,170 90,870 114,270 -- -- -- No No No 0.0303 

225003U Doswell Road Hanover County 111.93 BBRR Rural -- -- -- 1,890 2,172 2,730 No No No -- -- -- 0.0093 

Totals: 5 21 26 122036 

Rail Line

Urban / 

Rural

Crossing Exposure (CE)

Total Trains Acc

RURAL Threshold: CE > 250,000 URBAN Threshold: CE > 1,000,000 

Triggered Crossings Crossing (Any Criteria)

Number Crossing Name Location RR Milepost

SummaryScreeningResultsCrossing Elimination Screening AnalysisPublic At-Grade Crossings Preliminary Build Conditions 
623680U Old Lane Chesterfield County 10.74 A-LINE Rural

623679A Thurston Road Chesterfield County 10.01 A-LINE Rural

623678T Kingsland Road Chesterfield County 9.38 A-LINE Rural

623672C Walmsley Boulevard Richmond 5.52 A-LINE Urban623670N Terminal Avenue Richmond 3.87 A-LINE Urban

623668M Broad Rock Boulevard Richmond 3.08 A-LINE Urban

623664K Bassett Avenue Richmond 1.00 A-LINE Urban

623663D Jahnke Road Richmond 0.68 A-LINE Urban

860435S Hermitage Road Henrico County 5.45 RF&P Urban

860437F Hungary Road Henrico County 6.60 RF&P Urban

860438M Mountain Road Henrico County 8.10 RF&P Urban

860441V Mill Road Henrico County 9.65 RF&P Urban

860443J Cedar Lane Hanover County 11.15 RF&P Rural

860445X Elmont Road Hanover County 11.55 RF&P Rural

860447L Gwathmey Church Road Hanover County 12.95 RF&P Rural

860448T Ashcake Road Hanover County 13.85 RF&P Urban

860450U E Francis Street Hanover County 14.20 RF&P Rural

860454W Myrtle Street Hanover County 14.64 RF&P Urban

860459F England Street / Thompson Street Hanover County 14.72 RF&P Urban

860462N College Avenue / Henry Clay Street Hanover County 14.85 RF&P Urban

860512P W Patrick Street Hanover County 15.16 RF&P Urban

860513W W Vaughan Road / Henry Street Hanover County 15.62 RF&P Rural

860520G Doswell Road Hanover County 21.87 RF&P Rural

860525R Colemans Mill Road Caroline County 29.72 RF&P Rural

860527E Penola Road Caroline County 33.00 RF&P Rural860539Y Paige Road Caroline County 40.43 RF&P Rural860541A Woodslane Road Caroline County 43.50 RF&P Rural

860542G Woodford Road Caroline County 44.50 RF&P Rural

860545C Stonewall Jackson Road Caroline County 47.24 RF&P Rural860547R Claiborne Crossing Road Caroline County 48.63 RF&P Rural

860548X Summit Crossing Road Spotsylvania County 51.41 RF&P Rural

860557W Mine Road Spotsylvania County 54.77 RF&P Urban

860558D Landsdowne Road Fredericksburg City 57.57 RF&P Rural

860578P Mount Hope Church Road Stafford County 67.57 RF&P Rural860581X Brent Point Road Stafford County 72.34 RF&P Rural

860605J Potomac Avenue Prince William County 78.83 RF&P Urban

860600A Featherstone Road Prince William County 86.85 RF&P Urban

623660H Brinkley Road Chesterfield County 9.83 S-LINE Rural

623559J Kingsland Road Chesterfield County 9.16 S-LINE Urban

623549D Dale Avenue / Trenton Avenue Richmond 4.97 S-LINE Rural

623548W Bells Road Richmond 4.43 S-LINE Urban

623547P Ruffin Road Richmond 3.95 S-LINE Urban623545B E Commerce Road Richmond 2.99 S-LINE Urban

623543M Goodes Street Richmond 1.66 S-LINE Rural

623539X Maury Street Richmond 0.77 S-LINE Urban

623530L Hospital Street / N 7th Street Richmond 1.23 S-LINE Urban

623527D N 2nd Street / Valley Road Richmond 1.55 S-LINE Urban

623525P St James Street Richmond 1.69 S-LINE Urban

623522U Brook Road Richmond 2.30 S-LINE Urban

623518E Hermitage Road Richmond 3.45 S-LINE Urban

224286R Beulah Road Henrico County 76.87 PENINSULASU Rural

224289L Charles City Road Henrico County 78.40 PENINSULASU Rural

224298K Miller Road Henrico County 78.99 PENINSULASU Rural224964X Hospital Street Richmond 85.77 BBRR Urban

224967T Dill Road Henrico County 87.58 BBRR Urban

224970B Richmond Henrico Turnpike Henrico County 90.19 BBRR Rural228389E Industrial Park Road Hanover County 90.96 BBRR Rural224976S Cool Spring Road Hanover County 94.24 BBRR Urban

224979M New Ashcake Road Hanover County 96.95 BBRR Rural

224980G Wyndale Drive Hanover County 97.50 BBRR Rural

224981N Stumpy Road Hanover County 98.54 BBRR Rural

224984J Peaks Road Hanover County 99.32 BBRR Rural

224985R Cadys Mill Road Hanover County 99.67 BBRR Rural

224986X Cadys Mill Road Hanover County 101.48 BBRR Rural

224991U E Patrick Henry Road Hanover County 103.51 BBRR Rural

224992B Hickory Hill Road Hanover County 105.34 BBRR Rural224998S Kings Dominion Boulevard Hanover County 110.68 BBRR Urban

225003U Doswell Road Hanover County 111.93 BBRR Rural

Totals:

Rail Line Urban / Rural Crossing Number Crossing Name Location RR Milepost

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 20

12 30 30 No No No -- -- -- 58,464 167,760 210,960 N

12 30 30 No No No -- -- -- 5,484 15,750 19,800 N12 30 30 No No No -- -- -- 25,584 73,410 92,310 N12 30 30 -- -- -- No No No 59,688 171,270 215,370 12 30 30 -- -- -- No No No 8,172 23,430 29,460 12 30 30 -- -- -- No No No 231,420 664,050 835,050 

12 30 30 -- -- -- No No No 16,716 47,970 60,300 12 30 30 -- -- -- No No No 146,160 419,400 527,400 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 85,260 185,934 233,814 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 324,800 708,320 890,720 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 105,560 230,204 289,484 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 54,820 119,548 150,328 20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 38,580 84,132 105,792 N

20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 42,640 92,986 116,926 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 3,260 7,106 8,930 N20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 154,280 336,452 423,092 20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 28,420 61,978 77,938 N20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 36,540 79,686 100,206 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 284,200 619,780 779,380 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 26,400 57,570 72,390 20 38 38 -- -- -- No No No 6,060 13,224 16,606 20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 26,400 57,570 72,390 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 6,300 13,756 17,290 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 8,940 19,494 24,510 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 8,540 18,620 23,408 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 9,560 20,824 26,182 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 2,040 4,446 5,586 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 7,720 16,834 21,166 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 38,580 84,132 105,792 N20 38 38 No YES YES -- -- -- 9,560 20,824 26,182 N34 54 84 YES YES YES -- -- -- 13,804 25,164 49,224 N34 54 84 -- -- -- No No YES 176,018 320,868 627,648 

34 54 84 YES YES YES -- -- -- 296,786 541,026 1,058,316 Y

34 54 84 YES YES YES -- -- -- 7,276 13,230 25,872 N

34 54 84 YES YES YES -- -- -- 18,292 33,372 65,268 N34 54 84 -- -- -- No No YES 241,570 440,370 861,420 

34 54 84 -- -- -- No No YES 345,100 629,100 1,230,600 

5 28 28 No No No -- -- -- 9,135 58,716 73,836 N5 28 28 -- -- -- No No No 10,150 65,240 82,040 5 28 28 No No No -- -- -- 1,375 8,820 11,088 N5 28 28 -- -- -- No No No 44,660 287,056 360,976 5 28 28 -- -- -- No No No 9,135 58,716 73,836 5 28 28 -- -- -- No No No 21,315 137,004 172,284 5 28 28 No No No -- -- -- 1,015 6,524 8,204 N5 28 28 -- -- -- No No No 12,885 82,796 104,132 5 36 36 -- -- -- No No No 28,930 239,076 300,636 5 36 36 -- -- -- No No No 10,660 88,092 110,772 5 36 36 -- -- -- No No No 4,975 41,112 51,696 5 36 36 -- -- -- No No No 41,110 339,732 427,212 5 36 36 -- -- -- No No No 50,750 419,400 527,400 5 6 6 No No No -- -- -- 9,135 12,582 15,822 N5 6 6 No No No -- -- -- 12,690 17,478 21,978 N5 6 6 No No No -- -- -- 5,810 7,998 10,056 N0 0 0 -- -- -- No No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- No No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 -- -- -- No No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N0 0 0 -- -- -- No No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No No No -- -- -- 0 0 0 N

4 17 17 0 0 3 

Passenger Trains Per Day RURAL Threshold: Trains > 30 URBAN Threshold: Trains > 75 Passenger Crossing Exposure (PCE) 

SummaryScreeningResultsCrossing Elimination Screening AnalysisPublic At-Grade Crossings Preliminary Build Conditions 
Summary of ConsideraƟons for Treatments at Individual Grade Crossing

Public At-Grade Crossings
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

The DC2RVA emerging high‐speed rail corridor must be a sealed corridor – all crossings must be grade separated or have

appropriate crossing treatments that do not allow vehicles to cross the tracks when the warning device gates are activated.

This document is intended to provide a single‐page summary that identifies preliminary feasibility considerations for

potential grade separation; elimination / consolidation; and/or crossing safety treatments of existing at‐grade existing

crossings. In addition, there may be other improvements including but not limited to constructing a connecting roadway to

an adjacent crossing or intersection improvements that are included as part of the overall improvement.

The remainder of this document contains a summary table of this analysis, followed by the single‐page data sheets for each

crossing, in the following order:

‐ RFP Line: Crossings listed North to South

‐ A Line: Crossings listed North to South‐ S Line: Crossings listed North to South‐ Buckingham‐Branch Line: Crossings not included as this line is not part of the Build Alternatives that are carried forward at

this time.

‐ Peninsula Sub Line: Crossings not included as this line is not part of the Build Alternatives that are carried forward at this

time.

With regard to direction, “UPSTREAM” refers to north / toward Washington, D.C. and “downstream” refers to south /

toward Richmond.With regard to the daily number of bus trips using the crossing, the volume shown is total trips (not number of buses). For

example, a volume of “2” indicates a single bus using the crossing twice per day. Bus trip crossings data was provided for

VDOT based on crossing roadway, but is preliminary and may not represent the crossing link in all cases.

In general, roadway volumes were described as the following:

‐ Very high volume ( > 20 k) roadway = Daily volumes greater than 20,000 vehicles

‐ High volume ( > 10 k) roadway = Daily volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles

‐ High volume ( > 5k) roadway = Daily volumes greater than 5,000 vehicles

‐ Mid volume roadway = Daily volumes between 1,000 and 5,000 vehicles

‐ Low volume roadway = Daily volumes less than 1,000 vehicles

‐ Very low volume roadway = Daily volumes less than 100 vehicles.

Notes on FHWA Screening Analysis for Grade Separation and/or Closure:

The Railroad‐Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition August 2007) by the United States Department of

Transportation (U.S. DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides a single reference document that outlines

analysis methodologies for consideration at every public highway‐rail grade crossing. “Section 6 Grade Separation” provides

the following 11 criteria for which highway‐rail grade crossings should be considered for separation or otherwise eliminated

if any one or more conditions are met:

i. The highway is a part of the designated Interstate Highway System.  None of the 68 at‐grade Project Area crossings

include a highway that is part of the Interstate Highway System.

ii. The highway is otherwise designed to have full controlled access.  None of the 68 at‐grade Project Area crossings

are fully access controlled.

iii. The posted highway speed equals or exceeds 113 km/hr (70 mph).  The posted highway speed at all 68 at‐grade

Project Area crossings does not exceed 70mph.

iv. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) exceeds 100,000 in urban areas or 50,000 in rural areas.  The AADT at the 68

at‐grade Project Area crossings does not exceed these limits.

v. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 177 km/hr (110 mph).  The maximum timetable speed does not exceed 110

miles per hour at any of the 68 at‐grade Project Area crossings.

vi. An average of 150 or mo

at any of the 68 at‐grade Pr

vii. An average of 75 or mor

areas.

viii. Crossing exposure (the p

250,000 in rural areas; or

ix. Passenger train crossing 

800,000 in urban areas or 

x. The expected accident fr

Formula including five‐y

xi. Vehicle delay exceeds 40 

Accordingly, it was determined that 

be based on criteria vii through xi for 

are included on the following pages.

Notes for Considerations for Crossing Cl

Typically crossing closures are considere

addition to FHWA criteria):

∙        Adjacent crossing <= 1 mile do

∙        < 1,000 ADT/AADT on the su

∙        >2 trains/day on the subject cr

∙        The crossing is humped∙    The crossing has restricted sig

∙        The subject crossing ends < 5 b

∙        The Crossing is private with a

∙        The crossing has more than 2 t

∙        Reasonable alternative access i

∙        The crossing does not provide 

∙        The crossing is not a US or Sta

Notes for Considerations for Median Sep

Median separators should be used if you 

driveway. Requires standard width road
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing 

Number 

Crossing Name 

(North to South, by Rail Line) Location RR Milepost Rail Line 

AADT Total # of Daily Trai

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 20

860600A Featherstone Road Prince William County 86.85 RF&P 10,150 11,650 14,650 56 82 1

860605J Potomac Avenue Prince William County 78.83 RF&P 7,105 8,155 10,255 56 82 1

860581X Brent Point Road Stafford County 72.34 RF&P 538 618 777 56 82 1860578P Mount Hope Church Road Stafford County 67.57 RF&P 214 245 308 56 82 1

860558D Landsdowne Road Fredericksburg City 57.57 RF&P 8,729 10,019 12,599 58 84 1

860557W Mine Road Spotsylvania County 54.77 RF&P 5,177 5,942 7,472 58 84 1

860548X Summit Crossing Road Spotsylvania County 51.41 RF&P 406 466 586 58 84 1

860547R Claiborne Crossing Road Caroline County 48.63 RF&P 478 548 689 41 65 860545C Stonewall Jackson Road Caroline County 47.24 RF&P 1,929 2,214 2,784 41 65 

860542G Woodford Road Caroline County 44.50 RF&P 386 443 557 41 65 

860541A Woodslane Road Caroline County 43.50 RF&P 102 117 147 41 65 

860539Y Paige Road Caroline County 40.43 RF&P 478 548 689 41 65 860527E Penola Road Caroline County 33.00 RF&P 427 490 616 41 65 

860525R Colemans Mill Road Caroline County 29.72 RF&P 447 513 645 41 65 

860520G Doswell Road Hanover County 21.87 RF&P 315 362 455 41 65 

860513W W Vaughan Road / Henry Street Hanover County 15.62 RF&P 1,320 1,515 1,905 40 64 

860512P W Patrick Street Hanover County 15.16 RF&P 303 348 437 40 64 

860462N College Avenue / Henry Clay Street Hanover County 14.85 RF&P 1,320 1,515 1,905 40 64 

860459F England Street / Thompson Street Hanover County 14.72 RF&P 14,210 16,310 20,510 40 64 

860454W Myrtle Street Hanover County 14.64 RF&P 1,827 2,097 2,637 40 64 

860450U E Francis Street Hanover County 14.20 RF&P 1,421 1,631 2,051 40 64 

860448T Ashcake Road Hanover County 13.85 RF&P 7,714 8,854 11,134 40 64 860447L Gwathmey Church Road Hanover County 12.95 RF&P 163 187 235 40 64 

860445X Elmont Road Hanover County 11.55 RF&P 2,132 2,447 3,077 40 64 

860443J Cedar Lane Hanover County 11.15 RF&P 1,929 2,214 2,784 40 64 

860441V Mill Road Henrico County 9.65 RF&P 2,741 3,146 3,956 40 64 

860438M Mountain Road Henrico County 8.10 RF&P 5,278 6,058 7,618 40 64 

860437F Hungary Road Henrico County 6.60 RF&P 16,240 18,640 23,440 40 64 

860435S Hermitage Road Henrico County 5.45 RF&P 4,263 4,893 6,153 40 64 

623663D Jahnke Road Richmond 0.68 A-LINE 12,180 13,980 17,580 34 50 623664K Bassett Avenue Richmond 1.00 A-LINE 1,393 1,599 2,010 34 50 

623668M Broad Rock Boulevard Richmond 3.08 A-LINE 19,285 22,135 27,835 34 50 

623670N Terminal Avenue Richmond 3.87 A-LINE 681 781 982 34 50 623672C Walmsley Boulevard Richmond 5.52 A-LINE 4,974 5,709 7,179 34 50 

623678T Kingsland Road Chesterfield County 9.38 A-LINE 2,132 2,447 3,077 34 50 

623679A Thurston Road Chesterfield County 10.01 A-LINE 457 525 660 34 50 623680U Old Lane Chesterfield County 10.74 A-LINE / S-LINE 4,872 5,592 7,032 34 50 

623518E Hermitage Road Richmond 3.45 S-LINE 10,150 11,650 14,650 21 35 

623522U Brook Road Richmond 2.30 S-LINE 8,222 9,437 11,867 21 35 

623525P St James Street Richmond 1.69 S-LINE 995 1,142 1,436 21 35 

623527D N 2nd Street / Valley Road Richmond 1.55 S-LINE 2,132 2,447 3,077 21 35 

623530L Hospital Street / N 7th Street Richmond 1.23 S-LINE 5,786 6,641 8,351 21 35 

623539X Maury Street Richmond 0.77 S-LINE 2,577 2,957 3,719 21 35 

623543M Goodes Street Richmond 1.66 S-LINE 203 233 293 21 35 

623545B E Commerce Road Richmond 2.99 S-LINE 4,263 4,893 6,153 21 35 

623547P Ruffin Road Richmond 3.95 S-LINE 1,827 2,097 2,637 21 35 

623548W Bells Road Richmond 4.43 S-LINE 8,932 10,252 12,892 21 35 

623549D Dale Avenue / Trenton Avenue Richmond 4.97 S-LINE 275 315 396 21 35 

623559J Kingsland Road Chesterfield County 9.16 S-LINE 2,030 2,330 2,930 21 35 

623660H Brinkley Road Chesterfield County 9.83 S-LINE 1,827 2,097 2,637 21 35 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: FEATHERSTONE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860600A

Jurisdiction: Prince William County Current Warning Device: Four Quad Gates

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

10,150 11,650 14,650 56 82 124

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes at crossing with turn lanes before/after. Urban area –

dense residential to the east, businesses to the west. Provides access to Route 1 to the west. Provides sole access to

residential community to the east.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) 

Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tFour Quad Gates is existing conditionTotal Bus Trips Using Crossing (DaSummary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: POTOMAC AVENUE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860605J

Jurisdiction: Prince William County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

7,105 8,155 10,255 56 82 124

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area – downtown Quantico, directly adjacent to theVRE/Amtrak Station. To the east, the roadway has on‐street parking and store fronts. To the west, it connects to residential

military housing. Fuller Rd (intersection to the west of crossing) is public access and connects directly to Rt 1 and I‐95.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tAddition of Four Quad Gates could i

Location is not feasible for median se

street access.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (DaSummary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: BRENT POINT ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860581X

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

538 618 777 56 82 124

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – undeveloped land on both sides of crossing. Brent

Point Rd to the east provides sole access into the widewater peninsula area. To the west, it connects into the winding rural

roadway network that provides access to residences east of US Rt 1. Arkendale Road parallels the tracks on the north/west.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

Four Quad Gates could improve the 

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: MOUNT HOPE CHURCH ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860578P

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

214 245 308 56 82 124

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Mount Hope Church Road is approximately 1 mile

long, beginning at the T intersection on the east side of the crossing with Brooke Rd (Rt 608). It provides sole access to a

residential area on the west side of the crossing. VRE Brooke Rd Station is located directly upstream of crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

roadway.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: LANDSDOWNE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860558D

Jurisdiction: Fredericksburg City Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

8,729 10,019 12,599 58 84 126

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – businesses (no residences) in immediate

vicinity of crossing. Landsdowne Road runs between Mine Rd/Hood Dr (west) and US 17 (east), thereby serving traffic to

I‐95 and US Rt 3, respectively.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: MINE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860557W

Jurisdiction: Spotsylvania County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

5,177 5,942 7,472 58 84 126

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area ‐‐ residences and commercial buildings

and access points on both sides of crossing. To the west, Mine Rd intersects Route 1 within ~0.5 mile of interchange with I‐

95. To the east, Benchmark Rd (T‐intersection with Mine Rd) connects Tidewater Trail (Rt 2) with US Route 17.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: SUMMIT CROSSING ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860548X

Jurisdiction: Spotsylvania County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

406 466 586 58 84 126

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – largely undeveloped on both sides of crossing,

with a few residential / farm properties. Summit Crossing Rd is ~3 miles in length and connects Massaponax Church Rd

(west of crossing) too Thorton Rolling Rd (east of crossing).

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tMedian separator treatment not poss

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: CLAIRBORNE CROSSING ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860547R

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

478 548 689 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mostly undeveloped with sparse residential

properties. West of crossing, Summit Crossing Rd becomes Guinea Station Rd, underpasses I‐95, and connects to Rt 1. East

of crossing, ends in T‐intersection with Macedonia Rd, which connects to Stonewall Jackson Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation feasible for median separati

separator.Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: STONEWALL JACKSON ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860545C

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,929 2,214 2,784 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mostly undeveloped / farmland with

sparse residences. Jackson Shrine / associated park is in north‐east quadrant of crossing. Stonewall Jackson Rd

interchanges with both I‐95 and Rt 1 to the east. To the west, it terminates at Rt 2 / Fredericksburg Turnpike.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

intersection, east / north side of crossFour Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: WOODFORD ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860542G

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

386 443 557 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mainly undeveloped / farmland in vicinity, with

sparse residential. Woodford Rd is approximately 5 miles long, and connects Paige Rd (which connects to Rt 1) to the east,

to Rt 2 / Fredericksburg Turnpike to the west.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

of crossing.Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: WOODSLANE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860541A

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

102 117 147 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Woodslane Rd (Rt 609) is just over 2 miles in length

and runs from Woodford Rd (west of crossing) to Fredericksburg Turnpike / Rt 2 (east of crossing), providing access to

residences / farm properties along its length.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility 

Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation feasible for median separato

there is an unpaved access within ~50 

property. May require widening exis

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: PAIGE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860539Y

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

478 548 689 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Minor collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mainly undeveloped. Paige Rd

terminates at Fredericksburg Turnpike / Rt 2, approximately 1 mile east of the crossing. West of the crossing, Paige Rd

terminates at US Rt 1.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tPrivate driveways within ~300 feet of 

access is, however, with 100ft of cros

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: PENOLA ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860527E

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

427 490 616 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mostly undeveloped with a cluster of houses along

the intersecting roadway at the crossing. Penola Rd terminates at Rogers Clark Blvd north/west of the crossing. East of the

crossing, Penola Rd connects to US Rt 301.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNot feasible for median separator tre

crossing.Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: COLEMANS MILL ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860525R

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

447 513 645 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mainly undeveloped on both sides of crossing.

Colemans Mill Rd is approximately 1 mile in length and provides access between Dry Bridge Rd and Rogers Clark Blvd,

which themselves intersect just over a mile south of this at‐grade crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNo paved access points within 100 ft 

widening to accommodate improvem

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: DOSWELL ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860520G

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

315 362 455 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. This is a public roadway that provides access

through the middle of the railroad crossing, and provides sole access on the west side of I‐95 to the residential / commercial

area on the east side of the tracks.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: W VAUGHN ROAD / HENRY STREET Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860513W

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,320 1,515 1,905 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. W Vaughn Rd / Henry street is less than 1 mile long

and is the northernmost east‐west crossing of the tracks on the north side of the Town of Ashland. To the west, it connects

to N James St and to the east, it connects to Rt 1. Fire station, school, and water treatment facility in proximity of crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: W PATRICK STREET Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860512P

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

303 348 437 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area (downtown Ashland). W Patrick Streetprovides access to and through Randolph Macon College’s sports complex area. N Center Street runs parallel to both sides

of railroad tracks, and intersects with a surface parking lot directly at the crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: COLLEGE AVE / HENRY CLAY RD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860462N

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,320 1,515 1,905 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector, 2 lanes. Urban area (downtown Ashland). College Ave / Henry Clay

Rd is just over a mile in length and provides connection between Thompson St (west) to US Rt 1 (east), through Randolph

Macon College.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: ENGLAND ST / THOMPSON ST Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860459F

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

14,210 16,310 20,510 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 3 lanes. Urban area – the main roadway through downtown

Ashland. England Street / Thompson Street has dedicate turn lanes, on‐street parking, and is part of a 7‐legged intersection

at the crossing. Ashland train station in north/west quadrant of crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could increase cros

pedestrians.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: MYRTLE STREET Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860454W

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,827 2,097 2,637 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area (downtown Ashland). Myrtle Street isjust over 1⁄2 mile in length and connects Hanover Rd (to the west) to Us Rt 1 (to the east), through dense residential

community.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: E FRANCIS STREET Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860450U

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,421 1,631 2,051 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area (southern limit of Ashland). E Francis Street isapproximately 1⁄2 mile in length and provides the southern‐most east‐west roadway connection to the residential grid street

network in Ashland.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: ASHCAKE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860448T

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

7,714 8,854 11,134 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area – crossing is located just south of the Town

of Ashland, and connects to the town via two local roadways that run parallel to the railroad tracks and intersect at the

crossing. To the east, Ashcake Rd connects to US Rt 1 and beyond. To the west, it connects to US Rt 33 and beyond.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: GWATHMEY CHURCH ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860447L

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

163 187 235 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Gwathmey Church Rd is approximately

1⁄2 mile in length and provides the sole access to the residential community on the east side of the tracks. To the west, it

connects to Elmont Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related t

Location not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for DecGrade Separate Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: ELMONT ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860445X

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,132 2,447 3,077 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Elmont Rd begins at Cedar Lane within

1⁄2 mile of the crossing, to the east. To the west, Elmont Rd runs north towards Ashcake Rd and beyond (whereas Cedar

Lane runs more due west to Ashland Rd).

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: CEDAR LANE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860443J

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,929 2,214 2,784 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – undeveloped areas and larger residential

properties. To the east, Cedar Lane terminates at US Rt 1 in proximity to the interchange with I‐95 at Sliding Hill. To the

west, it terminates at Ashland Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: MILL ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860441V

Jurisdiction: Henrico County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,741 3,146 3,956 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area. Mill Rd is approximately 2 miles in

length, and connects Mountain Rd to the south (west of crossing) with Greenwood Rd, the intersection with which islocated immediately east of the crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation feasible for median separato

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: MOUNTAIN ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860438M

Jurisdiction: Henrico County Current Warning Device: Four Quad Gates

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

5,278 6,058 7,618 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area. Mountain Rd roughly parallels I‐295 and

intersects with at least three north‐south roadways that interchange with the interstate (US Rt 33, Woodman Rd, and US Rt

1), and serves the largely and densely residential area that is Glen Allen.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related t

Four Quad Gates is existing conditio

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median SeparatorsOther
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: HUNGARY ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860437F

Jurisdiction: Henrico County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)*

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

16,240 18,640 23,440 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 4 lanes. Urban area – it is the main roadway serving the Laurel

area with dense residential development. 1⁄2 mile to the west of the crossing, Hungary Rd intersects US Rt 33 / Staples Mill

Rd. Existing crossing treatment is medians with gates.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tMedian tubes could be installed on th

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: HERMITAGE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860435S

Jurisdiction: Henrico County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,263 4,893 6,153 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area – located between commercial / industrial

that is adjacent to US Rt 33, and residential area. Approximately 1,000 ft to the west of the crossing, Hermitage Rd

intersects (and terminates) at US Rt 33 / Staples Mill Rd. To the east, Hermitage Rd terminates at Woodman Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is notfeasible for median sep

crossing, both sides.

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: JAHNKE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623663D

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

12,180 13,980 17,580 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area – dense residential in vicinity of crossing,

as well as an elementary school. To the west, Jahnke Rd interchanges with both the Powhite Pkwy and the Chippenham

Pkwy. To the east, it terminates at Forest Hill Ave (which also interchanges with the Powhite Pkwy).

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

curvature of roadway.

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: BASSETT AVENUE Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623664K

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,393 1,599 2,010 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area. Bassett Avenue just over 1⁄2 mile total length and is

part of the grid network of streets serving this residential area. To the east, it intersection Westover Hills Rd and beyond.

It terminates at Faye St approximately 1,500 ft east of the crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation feasible for median separati

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: BROAD ROCK BOULEVARD Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623668M

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)*

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

19,285 22,135 27,835 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Other principal arterial roadway, 4 lanes, median separated. Urban area – high density

development along roadway, including veterans’ hospital. Major intersection with Belt Blvd just east of crossing. Broad

Rock Blvd connects to Hull Street Rd to the north/east, and to the west, interchanges with Chippenham Pkwy.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates would provide min

violators as the addition of exit gates 

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: TERMINAL AVENUE Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623670N

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

681 781 982 34 58 73

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes that provides access to 4 residences. Urban area. Terminal

Avenue is just over 1⁄2 mile in total length, and is an unclassified local roadway between Hopkins Rd (west of crossing) to E

Belt Blvd (east of crossing).

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: WALMSLEY BOULEVARD Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623672C

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,974 5,709 7,179 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area – dense residential properties east of

crossing truck distribution center west of crossing. Walmsley Blvd terminates at US Rt 1 approximately 1⁄2 mile east of the

crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNo access points within 100 ft of eith

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separators Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: KINGSLAND ROAD Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623678T

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,132 2,447 3,077 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Kingsland Road is approximately 4 miles

in total length and crosses both the A and S Lines. In this vicinity of this crossing, it provides east‐west access through and

to residences.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is feasible for median separ

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: THURSTON ROAD Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623679A

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

457 525 660 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Thurston Road is approximately 1⁄2 mile in length

and connects to Hopkins Rd to the west and Dorsey Rd to the east. It provides access to residential properties along its

length.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNo paved access points within 100 ft 

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: OLD LANE Line / Crossing Number: A & S LINES / 623680U

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,872 5,592 7,032 34 58 73

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural. Old Lane is less than 1⁄2 mile in length and

provides connectivity between Hopkins Rd (west) to Chester Rd (east). The area is mainly undeveloped with large

commercial / industrial properties adjacent to Chester Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNot feasible for median separator tre

side.Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separators Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: HERMITAGE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623518E

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)*

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

10,150 11,650 14,650 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 4 lanes – divided/median separated. Urban – dense residential

and commercial. Hermitage Road is the primary north‐south roadway that connects downtown Richmond (to the south) to

this commercial / sports area.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Existing median adjacent to tracks ar

gates with median separation).

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: BROOK ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LI NE / 623522U

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)*

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

8,222 9,437 11,867 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 4 lanes – divided/median separated. Urban area – mainly dense

commercial / industrial, in direct proximity to I‐64 and US Rt 1 interchange.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible (with current cr

both sides.Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: ST JAMES STREET Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623525P

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

995 1,142 1,436 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban areas to north and south, while crossing is mainly

undeveloped with dense residential to south and north. St James Street is a north‐south roadway that connects to

residential grid networks on both sides of the crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNo access points within 100 ft of cros

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separator Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: N 2ND STREET / VALLEY ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623527D

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,132 2,447 3,077 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban – dense residential areas on both sides of crossing, but

commercial / industrial at crossing location between the two adjacent grade separated crossings of N 1st Street and N 5th

Road.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: HOSPITAL STREET / N 7TH STREET Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623530L

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

5,786 6,641 8,351 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes. Urban – large commercial / industrial properties at

crossing, though Hospital street connects to residential areas. I‐64 overpass Hospital Street within approximately 300 ft of

crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

crossing to improve geometrics and b

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: MAURY STREET Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623539X

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Flashing Lights

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,577 2,957 3,719 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban. Maury Street provides sole access to an industrial area

that is located on the east side of I‐95, which Maury Street underpasses directly east of the crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tMedian separators not feasible due u

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: GOODES STREET Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623543M

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: None

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

203 233 293 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural. Goodes Street provides the sole access from Commerce

Road to a commercial / industrial area located on the east side of I‐95 (Goodes Street underpass I‐95 east of crossing).

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: E COMMERCE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623545B

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,263 4,893 6,153 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes, with significant skew at crossing. Urban. E Commerce

Road is the primary access point to the north side of the large industrial region that is located just south of this crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tFour Quad Gates not feasible with ex

Location is feasible for median separ

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: RUFFIN ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623547P

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,827 2,097 2,637 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban – dense residential communities and industry.

It is approximately 1⁄2 mile in total length, and connects Commerce Rd to the east and US Rt 1 to the west. Community

center is located on east side of crossing. Public transit utilizes the crossing. Parallel parking along the crossing roadway.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tNo paved access points within 100 ft 

Four Quad Gates could improve exis

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: BELLS ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623548W

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)*

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

8,932 10,252 12,892 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 4 lanes. Urban – high density residential to the west of the

crossing, and along Bells Rd, industrial / commercial area to the east of the crossing. Bells Rd is median separated (raised

grassed medians, broken by turning lanes). It connects Commerce Rd to the east and US Rt 1 and beyond to the west.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for additional m

crossing.Extending the existing 12 ft medians 

Morris to the east.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad GatesAdd Median Separator Other
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: DALE AVENUE / TRENTON AVENUE Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623549D

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

275 315 396 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural. Dale Avenue is used as a short cut connector roadway

by local vehicles. Directly east of crossing, Dale Ave has a 90‐degree turn and becomes Trenton Ave and provides access to

the industrial / commercial area that connects to Commerce Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation is not feasible for median se

Four Quad Gates could increase the e

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: KINGSLAND ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623559J

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,030 2,330 2,930 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban. Kingsland Road is approximately 4 miles in

total length and crosses both the A and S Lines. In this vicinity of this crossing, it provides east‐west access through

residential area to connect traffic to US Rt 1 less than 1⁄2 mile east of crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

crossing.Four Quad Gates could improve the 

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Considerations for Treatments at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name: BRINKLEY ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623660H

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,827 2,097 2,637 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural. Brinkley Road dead‐ends, to the west, in a residential

area. The Brinkley Road crossing provides connection from Thurston Rd / Dorsey Rd, the intersection with which is

located within 150 ft west of crossing. East of crossing, Brinkley Rd T‐intersects Chester Rd within 50 ft of crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related tFHWA Grade Separation Criteria Traffic / Operations General Description of MajorEnvironmentalSafety/Geometric Deficiencies Engineering Existing Property Cost‐Benefit (Preliminary) Feasibility Considerations Related t

Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

Accessibility Feasibility Considerations Related tLocation not feasible for median sepa

width of roadway.Four Quad Gates could improve the 

intersections with Dorsey Rd and Ch

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Da

Summary of Considerations for Dec

Grade Separate 

Eliminate / Consolidate Add Quad Gates Add Median Separator Other
Proposed AcƟons at Individual Grade Crossings

Public At-Grade Crossings
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

The purpose of this document is provide record of the screening process and resulting proposed actions for the

public at‐grade crossings.The DC2RVA emerging high‐speed rail corridor must be a sealed corridor – defined as all crossings must be grade

separated or have appropriate crossing treatments that do not allow vehicles to cross the tracks when the warning

device gates are activated. Accordingly, the proposed action for each DC2RVA existing public at‐grade crossing is

one of the following:

 Grade Separate

 Closure / Consolidation

 Four Quad Gates

 Median Treatment Other Treatment

 No Action

“Median Treatment” is defined as either raised medians (new or extension of existing raised medians, with or without

addition of median tubes) or median separator treatment. Note that median treatment is considered before four quad gate

treatment based on their lower overall costs.

For a crossing closure, a new reasonable diversion route is defined as construction of 1 mile or less of a new connecting

roadway. If closure is determined not feasible based on roadway connectivity considerations (i.e., requiring construction

of over 1 mile of connecting roads), rerouting traffic to a new connecting roadway is also considered not feasible.

For some crossing, a secondary proposed action is shown. The secondary action is proposed in the event that the initial

proposed action is determined to be infeasible.

Note that No Action does not preclude any modifications / improvements that may be necessary to accommodate the

installation of the 3rd track (such as relocation of gates, etc).

A flow‐chart that depicts the screening criteria and subsequent process is presented on the next page (page 2).

This chart was prepared to illustrate and summarize the general logic that was used in identifying proposed

actions for improvements at public grade crossings, as described further in the text of this report. This logic is

being used to guide the process and is not intended to be rigidly prescriptive.

The proposed actions resulting from this analysis represent the most likely scenario at this time and are thus being

used for purposes of assessing potential environmental impacts; final actions will be determined based on detailed

engineering analyses, design considerations, and coordination with local governments, communities, and other

stakeholders.The remainder of this document begins with a summary table of the proposed action for each public at‐grade

crossing, followed by a half‐page for each crossing that summarizes the steps through the flow‐chart logic to get to

the final proposed action.
PURPOSE: 

Provide sealed 

corridor 

Is any one of 

the 11 FHWA 

criteria 

triggered in 

2015 or 2025? 

Is grade 

separation or 

closure 

feasible? 

YES 

NO 

YES 

Determine if grade separation 

or closure serves needs and 

has least amount of impacts, 

and move forward with 

planning and design. 

Grade Separation 

Is an adjacent 

crossing 

located within 

1 rail mile? 

Are existing / 

new traffic 

diversion 

routes 

reasonable? 

YES YES Move forward with planning 

and design of closure. 

Are there rail 

or roadway 

safety or 

geometric 

deficiencies? 

YES YES 

Move forward with planning 

and design of necessary 

roadway and/or rail physical 

geometric safety 

improvements. 

Do physical 

safety 

improvements 

mitigate the 

deficiencies? 

Determine if grade separation 

or closure has the least 

amount of impacts, and move 

forward with planning and 

design. 

NO 

NO NO 

NO 

NO 

YES 

Determine if median 

separators or four quad gates 

serves needs and has the least 

amount of impacts, and move 

forward with planning and 

design. 

NO 

Public At-Grade Criteria Preliminary Feasibility Considerations Refined Impact Analysis & Design PROPOSED ACTION 

Closure 

Closure 

Geometric 

Safety 

Improvement 

Grade Separation 

Closure 

Median 

Separators 

Four Quad Gates 

Are there 

existing 

medians2 or 

four quad 

gates? 

YES No improvements necessary as None 

part of project. 

NO 

This chart was prepared to illustrate and summarize the general logic that was used in identifying proposed actions for improvements at

public grade crossings, as described further in the text of this report. This logic is being used to guide the process and is not intended to 

be rigidly prescriptive. The proposed actions resulting from this analysis represent the most likely scenario at this time and are thus 

being used for purposes of assessing potential environmental impacts; final actions will be determined based on detailed engineering 

analyses, design considerations, and coordination with local governments, communities, and other stakeholders.

Are medians2 

or four quad 

gates 

feasible?

1: A new reasonable diversion route is defined as construction of 1 mile or 

less of a connecting roadway. 

2: Medians are defined as either raised medians or median separator 

treatments.
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Number Crossing Name (North to South, by Rail Line) Location Rail Line AADT Total # of Daily Trains Triggered Crossings (Any Criteria) 

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045 GRADE SEPARAT

860600A Featherstone Road Prince William County RF&P 10,150 11,650 14,650 56 82 124 -- -- X 

860605J Potomac Avenue Prince William County RF&P 7,105 8,155 10,255 56 82 124 -- -- X 

860581X Brent Point Road Stafford County RF&P 538 618 777 56 82 124 X X X 860578P Mount Hope Church Road Stafford County RF&P 214 245 308 56 82 124 X X X 

860558D Landsdowne Road Fredericksburg City RF&P 8,729 10,019 12,599 58 84 126 X X X X 

860557W Mine Road Spotsylvania County RF&P 5,177 5,942 7,472 58 84 126 -- -- X 

860548X Summit Crossing Road Spotsylvania County RF&P 406 466 586 58 84 126 X X X 

860547R Claiborne Crossing Road Caroline County RF&P 478 548 689 41 65 79 -- X X 860545C Stonewall Jackson Road Caroline County RF&P 1,929 2,214 2,784 41 65 79 -- X X 

860542G Woodford Road Caroline County RF&P 386 443 557 41 65 79 -- X X 

860541A Woodslane Road Caroline County RF&P 102 117 147 41 65 79 -- X X 

860539Y Paige Road Caroline County RF&P 478 548 689 41 65 79 -- X X 860527E Penola Road Caroline County RF&P 427 490 616 41 65 79 -- X X 

860525R Colemans Mill Road Caroline County RF&P 447 513 645 41 65 79 -- X X 

860520G Doswell Road Hanover County RF&P 315 362 455 41 65 79 -- X X 

860513W W Vaughan Road / Henry Street Hanover County RF&P 1,320 1,515 1,905 40 64 78 -- X X X 

860512P W Patrick Street Hanover County RF&P 303 348 437 40 64 78 -- -- -- 

860462N College Avenue / Henry Clay Street Hanover County RF&P 1,320 1,515 1,905 40 64 78 -- -- -- 

860459F England Street / Thompson Street Hanover County RF&P 14,210 16,310 20,510 40 64 78 -- X X 

860454W Myrtle Street Hanover County RF&P 1,827 2,097 2,637 40 64 78 -- -- -- 

860450U E Francis Street Hanover County RF&P 1,421 1,631 2,051 40 64 78 -- X X 

860448T Ashcake Road Hanover County RF&P 7,714 8,854 11,134 40 64 78 -- -- -- X 860447L Gwathmey Church Road Hanover County RF&P 163 187 235 40 64 78 -- X X 

860445X Elmont Road Hanover County RF&P 2,132 2,447 3,077 40 64 78 -- X X 

860443J Cedar Lane Hanover County RF&P 1,929 2,214 2,784 40 64 78 -- X X 

860441V Mill Road Henrico County RF&P 2,741 3,146 3,956 40 64 78 -- -- -- 

860438M Mountain Road Henrico County RF&P 5,278 6,058 7,618 40 64 78 -- -- X 

860437F Hungary Road Henrico County RF&P 16,240 18,640 23,440 40 64 78 X X X X 

860435S Hermitage Road Henrico County RF&P 4,263 4,893 6,153 40 64 78 -- -- -- 

623663D Jahnke Road Richmond A-LINE 12,180 13,980 17,580 34 50 64 -- -- X 623664K Bassett Avenue Richmond A-LINE 1,393 1,599 2,010 34 50 64 -- -- -- 

623668M Broad Rock Boulevard Richmond A-LINE 19,285 22,135 27,835 34 50 64 -- X X X 

623670N Terminal Avenue Richmond A-LINE 681 781 982 34 50 64 -- -- -- 623672C Walmsley Boulevard Richmond A-LINE 4,974 5,709 7,179 34 50 64 -- -- -- X 

623678T Kingsland Road Chesterfield County A-LINE 2,132 2,447 3,077 34 50 64 -- -- -- 

623679A Thurston Road Chesterfield County A-LINE 457 525 660 34 50 64 -- -- -- 623680U Old Lane Chesterfield County A-LINE / S-LINE 4,872 5,592 7,032 34 50 64 -- X X 

623518E Hermitage Road Richmond S-LINE 10,150 11,650 14,650 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623522U Brook Road Richmond S-LINE 8,222 9,437 11,867 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623525P St James Street Richmond S-LINE 995 1,142 1,436 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623527D N 2nd Street / Valley Road Richmond S-LINE 2,132 2,447 3,077 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623530L Hospital Street / N 7th Street Richmond S-LINE 5,786 6,641 8,351 21 35 46 -- -- -- X 

623539X Maury Street Richmond S-LINE 2,577 2,957 3,719 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623543M Goodes Street Richmond S-LINE 203 233 293 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623545B E Commerce Road Richmond S-LINE 4,263 4,893 6,153 21 35 46 -- -- -- X

623547P Ruffin Road Richmond S-LINE 1,827 2,097 2,637 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623548W Bells Road Richmond S-LINE 8,932 10,252 12,892 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623549D Dale Avenue / Trenton Avenue Richmond S-LINE 275 315 396 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623559J Kingsland Road Chesterfield County S-LINE 2,030 2,330 2,930 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

623660H Brinkley Road Chesterfield County S-LINE 1,827 2,097 2,637 21 35 46 -- -- -- 

TOTALS: 5 21 26 8 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: FEATHERSTONE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860600A

Jurisdiction: Prince William County Current Warning Device: Four Quad Gates

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

10,150 11,650 14,650 56 82 124

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes at crossing with turn lanes before/after, with T

intersection of roadway directly east of crossing. Urban area (dense residential to the east, businesses to the west) within

~500 feet of crossing. Provides access to Route 1 to the west. Provides sole access to residential community to the east.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? No [Triggered in 2045]Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No Crossing provides sole accessMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? Yes Four Quad Gates existing condition

PROPOSED

ACTION:

NO ACTION

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is Four Quad Gates; no further treatment necessary

Crossing Name: POTOMAC AV

Jurisdiction: Prince William Count

AADT 

2015 2025 

7,105 8,155 

General Description of Crossing: LoVRE/Amtrak Station. To the east, the 

military housing. Fuller Rd (intersec

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATcrossing protection

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 No adjacent crossings located wi

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

sides of crossing

o Addition of Four Quad G

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Pedestrian crossing protection ne

 Note that this location is part of t
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: BRENT POINT ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860581X

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

538 618 777 56 82 124

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area (undeveloped). Provides sole access into the

widewater peninsula area (east). To the west, it connects into the rural roadway network that provides access to residences

east of US Rt 1. Three‐legged intersection with Arkendale Rd within ~25 ft of crossing, west side.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No Provides sole access to the east of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? Yes Brent Point Rd / Arkendale Rd intersectionExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES, with intersection realignment at Brent Point Rd / Arkendale Rd

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (low volume, local roadway in a

rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible because roadway provides sole access and no alternate crossings or connecting

roadways available

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 Major safety or geometric deficiencies identified: Sight distance of existing intersection alignment / proximity to

crossing. Mitigation:

o Design improvements of at‐grade crossing

 Existing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to existing intersection geometrics and driveway access to

parking area immediate east of crossing

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Realignment of Brent Point Rd and Arkendale Rd intersection needs to be part of improvement for safety

Crossing Name: MOUNT HOPE 

Jurisdiction: Stafford County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

214 245 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

long, beginning at the T intersection 

residential area on the west side of th

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Four Q

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

rural area)

o Closure determined FEA

 Adjacent crossing is located with

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing treatment is gates (non‐q

o Median Treatment determ

roadway

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Crossing provides sole access to 

roadway:

o Construct new connectin

 Existing roadwa Provides direct a
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: LANDSDOWNE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860558D

Jurisdiction: Fredericksburg City Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

8,729 10,019 12,599 58 84 126

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – businesses (no residences) adjacent to

crossing. Landsdowne Road runs between Mine Rd/Hood Dr (west) and US 17 (east), thereby serving traffic to I‐95 and US

Rt 3, respectively. High percentage of truck traffic (access to industrial area).

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? NoMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARATION(Secondary: Four Quad Gates)

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined FEASIBLE

o Closure determined not feasible due to high vehicle volumes and connectivity to roadway network, as well as

lack of adjacent alternate crossings

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of existing industrial driveway

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Feasible / few complications preliminarily identified from a geometrics standpoint

 NE corner parcel will be impacted (potential property take or wall to mitigate)

 NW corner parcel parking / access will be impacted

Crossing Name: MINE ROAD 

Jurisdiction: Spotsylvania County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

5,177 5,942 

General Description of Crossing: M

and access points on both sides of cro

95. To the east, Benchmark Rd (T‐int

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GAT

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 No adjacent crossings located wi

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

of crossing) and proximi

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Intersection geometrics of T‐inter

queuing ability on crossing roadw
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: SUMMIT CROSSING ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860548X

Jurisdiction: Spotsylvania County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

406 466 586 58 84 126

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – largely undeveloped on both sides of crossing,

with a few residential / farm properties. Summit Crossing Rd is ~3 miles in length and connects Massaponax Church Rd

(west of crossing) to Thorton Rolling Rd (east of crossing).

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? NoMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (low volume, local roadway in a

rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible due to lack of adjacent alternate crossings

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of unpaved access roads that run parallel to

railroad tracks (access needs to be maintained)

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of

design)

Crossing Name: CLAIBORNE C

Jurisdiction: Caroline County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

478 548 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

properties. West of crossing, Summi

of crossing, ends in T‐intersection wi

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARA

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

rural area)

o Closure determined not f

 No adjacent crossings located wi

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median separators determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 At least 60’ clearance to nearest d

 Minimal striping and narrow roa

design)
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: STONEWALL JACKSON ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860545C

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,929 2,214 2,784 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – undeveloped / farmland with sparse

residences. Stonewall Jackson Shrine is in north‐east quadrant. Stonewall Jackson Rd interchanges with I‐95 and Rt 1 to

the east. To the west, it terminates at Fredericksburg Turnpike. Guinea Station Rd intersects within ~500 ft of crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? NoMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to proximity of National Park Service property, proximity of

intersecting roadways, and potential cost‐benefit considerations (low volume, local roadway in a rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to roadway network as a major collector roadway, as well

as lack of adjacent alternate crossings

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of existing park access and intersections with

Guinea Station Rd

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimize potential impacts to NPS property

Crossing Name: WOODFORD R

Jurisdiction: Caroline County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

386 443 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

residential. Woodford Rd is approxi

/ Fredericksburg Turnpike to the wes

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GAT

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

rural area)

o Closure determined not f

largest roadway crossing 

 No adjacent crossings located wi

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

crossing

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimal striping and narrow roa

design)
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: WOODSLANE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860541A

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

102 117 147 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – undeveloped / farmland with sparse residences.

Woodslane Rd (Rt 609) is just over 2 miles in length and runs from Woodford Rd (west of crossing) to Fredericksburg

Turnpike / Rt 2 (east of crossing), providing access to residences / farm properties along its length.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? NoMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARATORS

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (low volume, local roadway in a

rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible due to lack of adjacent alternate crossings

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Separators determined FEASIBLE

o Four Quad Gates determined feasible and secondary to median treatment

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No paved access points within 100 ft of either side of crossing; however, there is an unpaved access within ~50 ft, east

side, to farm fields, which can be closed and relocated within the same property

 Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of

design)

Crossing Name: PAIGE ROAD 

Jurisdiction: Caroline County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

478 548 

General Description of Crossing: M

terminates at Fredericksburg Turnpik

terminates at US Rt 1.

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARA

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

rural area)

o Closure determined not f

roadway crossing within 

 No adjacent crossings located wi

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Separators detero Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Feasible, as crossing roadway is s

 Dirt road access (parallel to track

median separator treatment
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: PENOLA ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860527E

Jurisdiction: Caroline County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

427 490 616 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – mostly undeveloped with a cluster of houses along

the intersecting roadway at the crossing. Penola Rd terminates at Rogers Clark Blvd north/west of the crossing. East of the

crossing, Penola Rd connects to US Rt 301. Polecat Ln (residential access) intersection is within ~50 ft of crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? NoMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (low volume, local roadway in a

rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible due to lack of adjacent alternate crossings

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of Polecat Ln

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of

design)

Crossing Name: COLEMANS M

Jurisdiction: Caroline County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

447 513 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

Colemans Mill Rd is approximately 1 

which themselves intersect just over 

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Media

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

rural area)

o Closure determined FEA

 Adjacent crossing is located with

 Major safety or geometric deficie

o Mitigation: Closure, or s

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

o Any at‐grade treatment m

roadway widths.

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Eliminate this crossing / consolid

o Existing traffic could use 

existing traffic

o Existing intersection of D
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: DOSWELL ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860520G

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

315 362 455 41 65 79

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Provides access through the middle of the railroad

crossing, with residential / commercial area on the east side of the tracks. Accessibility along western side of crossing

functions more like a parking lot than a roadway. Doswell Historic District in proximity to crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? NoMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? Yes Undefined roadway / track accessibility, west side of crossingExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES, with safety improvements of roadway

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to proximity of adjacent rail line to the west (i.e., length of

structure required to span both tracks), impacts to historic / industrial districts, and cost‐benefit considerations

(low volume, local roadway in a rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible due to lack of adjacent alternate crossings

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 Major safety or geometric deficiencies identified: lack of roadway definition / parking lot access to tracks on west side

of crossing. Mitigation:

o Defining roadway west of at‐grade crossing

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of access points on both sides of crossing

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Improvements to increase safety of roadway crossing on west side must be part of the design

Crossing Name: W VAUGHN R

Jurisdiction: Hanover County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

1,320 1,515 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

northernmost east‐west crossing of th

St and to the east, it connects to Rt 1. 

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARAT(Secondary: Four Q

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

Town of Ashland. The n

currently no grade‐separ

tracks for long periods of 

o Closure determined not f

Town of Ashland

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure of W Vaughn Rd 

network

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Maintain required access to scho
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: W PATRICK STREET Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860512P

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

303 348 437 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area (downtown Ashland). W Patrick Streetprovides access to and through Randolph Macon College’s sports complex area. N Center Street runs parallel to both sides

of railroad tracks, and intersects with a surface parking lot directly at the crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes W Vaughn St (north of crossing) and College Ave and England St (south of crossing), all existing at‐gradeMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

If crossing is not closed as part of the 3rd Track alignment option through Town of Ashland:FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to the importance of the crossing providing internal access through the

college campus, including connection to and through the major sports complex area

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of existing access points and geometrics of Center

St (that runs parallel to the railroad tracks), both sides of crossing

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Note: This crossing would be closed as part of the 3rd Track alignment through the Town of Ashland as part of the

DC2RVA project (with realignment of Center St to maintain access to the parking lot on the east side of the

crossing); traffic that currently uses this crossing can utilize the existing Ashland grid street system after closure.

Four Quad Gates are the proposed action IF that alignment option does not move forward.

Crossing Name: COLLEGE AVE 

Jurisdiction: Hanover County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

1,320 1,515 

General Description of Crossing: M

Rd is just over a mile in length and p

Macon College.

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CROSSING ELIMI

Process / Justification / Future Consi

 This crossing is eliminated as pa

increased platform length). Tra

system after closure.
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: ENGLAND ST / THOMPSON ST Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860459F

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

14,210 16,310 20,510 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 3 lanes. Urban area – the main roadway through downtown

Ashland. England Street / Thompson Street has dedicate turn lanes, on‐street parking, and is part of a 7‐legged intersection

at the crossing. Ashland train station in north/west quadrant of crossing. Major pedestrian crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes All Town of Ashland crossings are within 1 mileMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? Yes 7‐legged unsignalized intersection, major pedestrian crossingExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES, with safety improvements

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to significant community impacts

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity of road as the main roadway through downtown Ashland

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity of road as the main roadway through downtown Ashland

 Major safety or geometric deficiencies identified: Intersection geometrics / pedestrian safety. Mitigation:

o Design improvements of at‐grade crossing to include pedestrian protection and safety of all movements

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to existing intersection geometrics / safety

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Design needs to accommodate safety of all users (vehicle and pedestrian) and mitigate existing safety and/or geometric

deficiencies

Crossing Name: MYRTLE STRE

Jurisdiction: Hanover County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

1,827 2,097 

General Description of Crossing: Mjust over 1⁄2 mile in length and connec

community with direct access to busi

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GAT

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined not f

through the Town of Ash

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No special design considerations 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: E FRANCIS STREET Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860450U

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,421 1,631 2,051 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area (southern limit of Ashland). E Francis Street isapproximately 1⁄2 mile in length and provides the southern‐most east‐west roadway connection to the residential grid street

network in Ashland. Center St (parallel to tracks) is one‐way on west side of tracks.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes England St and E Francis St (north of crossing) and Ashcake Rd (south of crossing), all existing at‐gradeMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (local roadway through a rural,

mainly residential area)

o Closure determined not feasible due to lack of connectivity of alternate roadways to network (Center St is one‐

way on the west side of the crossing)

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to lack of connectivity of alternate roadways to network (Center St is one‐

way on the west side of the crossing)

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of Center St intersection to crossing on both sides

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of

design)

Crossing Name: ASHCAKE ROA

Jurisdiction: Hanover County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

7,714 8,854 

General Description of Crossing: M

of Ashland, and connects to the town 

crossing. To the east, Ashcake Rd co

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARAT(Secondary: Four Q

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined not f

east‐west crossing south 

could not accommodate 

 Major safety or geometric deficie

on both sides of crossing, with hi

o Mitigation: Grade separ

o GRADE SEPARATION i

Further benefit to grade 

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Grade separation may require fro

may be impacted by 3rd Track ali
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: GWATHMEY CHURCH ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860447L

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

163 187 235 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Gwathmey Church Rd is approximately

1⁄2 mile in length and provides the sole access to the residential community on the east side of the tracks. To the west, it

connects to Elmont Rd. Center St Rd runs parallel to tracks to the north and terminates at the crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Ashcake Rd north of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (low volume, local roadway

through a rural area)

o Closure determined not feasible as crossing provides sole access to residential community and historic trail on

the east side of the crossing

 Adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible as crossing provides sole access, as described above

o Closure with construction of a new connecting roadway (less than 1 mile) to Ashcake Rd determined not

feasible due to impacts to existing properties and intersection geometrics at Ashcake Rd

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of Center Street Rd intersection

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of

design)

Crossing Name: ELMONT ROA

Jurisdiction: Hanover County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

2,132 2,447 

General Description of Crossing: M

1⁄2 mile of the crossing, to the east. To 

Lane runs more due west to Ashland 

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GAT

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

cost‐benefit consideration

o Closure determined not f

 Adjacent crossing located within 

o Closure determined not f

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No special design considerations 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: CEDAR LANE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860443J

Jurisdiction: Hanover County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,929 2,214 2,784 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area – undeveloped areas and larger residential

properties. To the east, Cedar Lane terminates at US Rt 1 in proximity to the interchange with I‐95 at Sliding Hill. To the

west, it terminates at Ashland Rd.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Elmont Rd north of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to substantial property impacts

o Closure determined not feasible due to roadway connectivity to network as a major collector

 Adjacent crossing located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to roadway connectivity to network as a major collector

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of existing driveway / residential roadways

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No special design considerations identified

Crossing Name: MILL ROAD 

Jurisdiction: Henrico County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

2,741 3,146 

General Description of Crossing: M

length, and connects Mountain Rd to located immediately east of the cross

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARA

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossing is located with

o Closure determined not f

as the lack of the alternat

streets)

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Separators detero Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Median separators will require re

within same property (shifted to 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: MOUNTAIN ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860438M

Jurisdiction: Henrico County Current Warning Device: Four Quad Gates

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

5,278 6,058 7,618 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area. Mountain Rd generally parallels I‐295 and

intersects with at least three north‐south roadways that interchange with the interstate (US Rt 33, Woodman Rd, and US Rt

1), and serves the largely and densely residential area that is Glen Allen.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? No [Triggered in 2045]Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes I‐295 (roadway overpass), north of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? Yes

PROPOSED

ACTION:

NO ACTION

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossing is located within 1 rail mile; however, the I‐295 adjacent crossing does not provide roadway access

within the same proximity as the railroad crossing, and Mountain Rd is an important minor arterial roadway to the

overall network. Closure determined not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is Four Quad Gates; no further treatment necessary

Crossing Name: HUNGARY RO

Jurisdiction: Henrico County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

16,240 18,640 

General Description of Crossing: M

Urban area – it is the main roadway s

intersects US Rt 33 / Staples Mill Rd. 

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARAT(Secondary: Install 

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

o Closure determined not f

significant daily volumes

 Adjacent crossing is located with

o Closure determined not f

significant daily volumes

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is me

o Feasible further treatmen

improve safety

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 If grade separation is determined 

raised medians
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: HERMITAGE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860435S

Jurisdiction: Henrico County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,263 4,893 6,153 40 64 78

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area – located between commercial / industrial

that is adjacent to US Rt 33, and residential area. Approximately 1,000 ft to the west of the crossing, Hermitage Rd

intersects (and terminates) at US Rt 33 / Staples Mill Rd. To the east, Hermitage Rd terminates at Woodman Rd.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Hilliard Rd (roadway overpass), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered.

 Adjacent crossing is located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to network as a major collector roadway

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of existing industrial access (including loading

dock location) and adjacent roadway intersections

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

 Additional Site‐Specific Consideration of Grade Separation per VDOT Input: Grade separation determined not feasible due

to substantial residential and industrial impacts

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No special design considerations identified

Crossing Name: JAHNKE ROAD 

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

12,180 13,980 

General Description of Crossing: M

school in proximity to the crossing. T

Pkwy. To the east, it terminates at Fo

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GAT

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossing is located with

o Closure determined not f

daily volumes, and use o

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

intersections

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No special design considerations 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: BASSETT AVENUE Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623664K

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,393 1,599 2,010 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban area. Bassett Avenue just over 1⁄2 mile total length and is

part of the grid network of streets serving this residential area. To the east, it intersection Westover Hills Rd and beyond.

It terminates at Faye St approximately 1,500 ft east of the crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Jahnke Rd (at‐grade), north of crossing Midlothian Trnpk (roadway overpass), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Median Separators, with roadway improvements)

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined FEASIBLE.

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined feasible but secondary

o Four Quad Gates determined feasible but secondary

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provides good connectivity to rail crossings within 1 mile both north and south of existing

crossing that existing traffic can utilized after closure. Minor roadway improvements along these routes may be

required to accommodate additional traffic from closure

Crossing Name: BROAD ROCK 

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

19,285 22,135 

General Description of Crossing: O

development along roadway, includi

Rock Blvd connects to Hull Street Rd 

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARAT(Secondary: No Ac

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

o Grade separation determ

o Closure determined not f

significant daily volumes

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined not f

significant daily volumes

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Grade separation design needs to 

intersection. Feasible with impac
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: TERMINAL AVENUE Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623670N

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

681 781 982 34 58 73

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes that provides access to 4 residences. Urban area. Terminal

Avenue is just over 1⁄2 mile in total length, and is an unclassified local roadway between Hopkins Rd (west of crossing) to E

Belt Blvd (east of crossing). Access to Hopkins Rd is currently restricted / closed.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Hopkins Rd (roadway overpass), north of crossing Bells Rd (roadway overpass), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION: CLOSURE, with improvements to re‐open signalized intersection of Terminal Ave and Hopkins Rd

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossing located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure considered FEASIBLE

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity to driveways

o Four Quad Gates determined feasible but secondary to closure

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Crossing closure is feasible by re‐opening the currently closed intersection of Terminal Ave and Hopkins Rd to provide

access to houses that are located on the west side of the crossing.

o Intersection is currently signalized, and may require installation of signal heads for Terminal Ave

o Existing roadway network provides good connectivity to rail crossings within 1 mile both north and south of

existing crossing

Crossing Name: WALMSLEY BO

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

4,974 5,709 

General Description of Crossing: M

crossing and truck distribution cente

the crossing. High percentage of truc

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARAT(Secondary: Four Q

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure considered not f

roadway

 Major safety or geometric deficie

over tracks; will be exacerbated b

track lower and continuing straig

o Mitigation: Grade separ

remains. Grade separati

elevation of tracks to roa

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Grade separation preferred.
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: KINGSLAND ROAD Line / Crossing Number: A LINE / 623678T

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,132 2,447 3,077 34 50 64

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural area. Kingsland Road is approximately 4 miles

in total length and crosses both the A and S Lines. In this vicinity of this crossing, it provides east‐west access through and

to residences.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Thurston Rd (at‐grade), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARATORS

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossing is located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to roadway network as a major collector roadway, as well

as that the adjacent crossing is a minor local residential street crossing that could not accommodate the traffic

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median separators determined FEASIBLE

o Four Quad Gates determined feasible but secondary to median treatment

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 The existing residential driveway that is in proximity to the crossing will be relocated on the property as part of the 3rd

track work

Crossing Name: THURSTON RO

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

457 525 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

and connects to Hopkins Rd to the w

length.

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Media

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossing is located with

o Closure is determined FE

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median separators deter

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provi
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: OLD LANE Line / Crossing Number: A & S LINES / 623680U

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,872 5,592 7,032 34 58 73

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Rural. Old Lane is less than 1⁄2 mile in length and

provides connectivity between Hopkins Rd (west) to Chester Rd (east). The area is mainly undeveloped with large

commercial / industrial properties adjacent to Chester Rd.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? YesAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Centralia Rd (to be grade separated as part of Raleigh to Richmond Project), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Four Quad Gates)

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are triggered:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (rural area) and impacts due to

proximity of crossing to intersection with Chester Rd

o Closure determined FEASBILE

 Adjacent crossing is located within 1 rail mile

o Closure determined FEASIBLE

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of industrial access

o Four Quad Gates determined feasible but secondary to closure

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provides good connectivity to rail crossing within 1 mile north of existing crossing

Crossing Name: HERMITAGE R

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

10,150 11,650 

General Description of Crossing: M

and commercial. Hermitage Road is 

this commercial / sports area. Pedest

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

ADDITIONAL ME

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossing is located with

o Closure determined not f

significant daily volumes

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is rai

o Further treatment to incr

pedestrians from attemp

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Additional median treatment to e
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: BROOK ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623522U

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

8,222 9,437 11,867 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 4 lanes – divided/median separated. Urban area – mainly dense

commercial / industrial, in direct proximity to I‐64 and US Rt 1 interchange. Crossing is located on a restrictive railroad

track curve that will continue to future (slow moving trains).

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes N Lombardy St (roadway overpass), north of crossing Chamberlayne Ave (roadway overpass), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? Yes Roadway has short raised medians

PROPOSED

ACTION:

ADDITIONAL MEDIAN TREATMENT

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to roadway network as minor arterial roadway with

significant daily volumes

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is raised medians with gates:

o Further treatment to increase safety potentially includes extension of raised medians to preclude vehicles from

attempting to cross the median, and/or addition of median tubes

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Additional median treatment to extend existing raised medians and/or addition of median tubes

Crossing Name: ST JAMES STRE

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

995 1,142 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

undeveloped with dense residential t

residential grid networks on both sid

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE, WITH (Secondary: Media

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined FEA

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median separators determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provi

traffic can utilize after closure

 Community uses roadway as ma

as part of roadway closure
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: N 2ND STREET / VALLEY ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623527D

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,132 2,447 3,077 21 52 52

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban – dense residential areas on both sides of crossing, but

commercial / industrial at crossing location between the two adjacent grade separated crossings of N 1st Street and N 5th

Road. Crossing is located on a railroad track curve. High percentage truck traffic (industrial access).

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes N 1st St (roadway overpass), north of crossing N 5th St (roadway overpass) and Hospital St (at‐grade), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? Yes Limited sight distance at crossing due to curvature of track and roadwayExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Four Quad Gates, with roadway realignment for safety)

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined FEASIBLE

 Major safety or geometric deficiencies identified: Limited sight distance at crossing due to curvature of track and

roadway. Mitigation:

o Grade separation determined not feasible due to cost‐benefit considerations (low volume roadway) and

existing geometrics / impacts

o Closure determined FEASIBLE

o Roadway geometric improvements determined feasible with impacts

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of existing industrial access

o Four Quad Gates determined feasible but secondary to closure due to safety mitigation

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provides good connectivity to rail crossing within 1 mile of existing crossing that existing

traffic can utilize after closure

o Industrial access maintained via existing Valley Rd to Hospital St crossing

Crossing Name: HOSPITAL STR

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

5,786 6,641 

General Description of Crossing: M

crossing, though Hospital street conn

crossing. Hazmat facility located wi

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARAT(Secondary: Four Q

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined not f

industrial area access

 Major safety or geometric deficie

location at crossing. Mitigation:

o Safety geometric modific

7th St intersection

o Grade separation determ

o Closure determined not f

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Grade separation is preferred for 
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: MAURY STREET Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623539X

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Flashing Lights

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,577 2,957 3,719 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Urban. Maury Street provides sole access to an industrial area

that is located on the east side of I‐95, which Maury Street underpasses directly east of the crossing. High percentage truck

traffic (industrial access). Manchester Warehouse & Industrial Historic District is located along Maury St, west of crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No I‐95 Maury St ramp (grade separated) located immediately adjacent to crossing but does not provide access to surface street network for trafficMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to use of crossing by large vehicles (larger turning radii)

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 No special design considerations identified

Crossing Name: GOODES STRE

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

203 233 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

Road to a commercial / industrial are

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GAT

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossing is located with

o Closure determined not f

of the crossing

 Major safety or geometric deficie

o Realignment of roadway 

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Design of four quad gates to inclu
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: E COMMERCE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623545B

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

4,263 4,893 6,153 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 2 lanes, with significant skew at crossing. Urban. E Commerce

Road is the primary access point to the north side of the large industrial region that is located just south of this crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Ruffin Rd (at‐grade), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GRADE SEPARATE (required as part of siding to industrial area)

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: The DC2RVA 3rd track improvement includes a ~ 10,000 ft siding to the industrial area that will affect this crossing

(i.e., stopped trains will be on tracks across this crossing). As the crossing is the primary access point to the large

industrial area and cannot be closed, this crossing must be grade separated to accommodate the siding.

Crossing Name: RUFFIN ROAD 

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

1,827 2,097 

General Description of Crossing: M

It is approximately 1⁄2 mile in total len

center is located on east side of crossi

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARA

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined not f

primary access to large c

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median separators determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 The DC2RVA siding into the ind

compared to four quad gates wil

activations.
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: BELLS ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623548W

Jurisdiction: Richmond Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

8,932 10,252 12,892 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Minor arterial roadway, 4 lanes. Urban – high density residential to the west of the

crossing, and along Bells Rd, industrial / commercial area to the east of the crossing. Bells Rd is median separated (raised

grassed medians, broken by turning lanes). It connects Commerce Rd to the east and US Rt 1 and beyond to the west.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Ruffin Rd (at‐grade), north of crossing Dale Ave (at‐grade), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? Yes Raised medians with gates.

PROPOSED

ACTION:

ADDITIONAL MEDIAN TREATMENT

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to network as a minor arterial roadway with significant

daily volumes

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is raised medians with gates:

o Further treatment includes extension of raised medians (east side of crossing) to preclude vehicles from

crossing the median.

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Additional median treatment to extend existing raised medians will require slight relocation of existing driveway

access to Phillip Morris (north side of roadway, east side of crossing), slightly more to the east within their existing

property to access the same existing gated entrance

Crossing Name: DALE AVENUE 

Jurisdiction: Richmond 

AADT 

2015 2025 

275 315 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

by local vehicles. Directly east of cro

the industrial / commercial area that 

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Lockin

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure determined FEA

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

maintenance is needed.

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provi

traffic can utilize after closure
Public At‐Grade Crossings: Proposed Actions 

Crossing Name: KINGSLAND ROAD Line / Crossing Number: S LINE / 623559J

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non‐Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

2,030 2,330 2,930 21 44 44

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Urban. Kingsland Road is approximately 4 miles in

total length and crosses both the A and S Lines. In this vicinity of this crossing, it provides east‐west access through

residential area to connect traffic to US Rt 1 less than 1⁄2 mile east of crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? NoAdjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Rt 1 (roadway overpass), north of crossing Brinkley Rd (at‐grade), south of crossingMajor Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? NoExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

FOUR QUAD GATES

Process / Justification / Future Considerations: FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

 Adjacent crossings are located within 1 rail mile:

o Closure determined not feasible due to connectivity to roadway network as a major collector that provides

primary crossing to and through dense residential areas

 No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

 Existing crossing treatment is gates (non‐quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of T‐intersection

o Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of

design)

Crossing Name: BRINKLEY ROA

Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County 

AADT 

2015 2025 

1,827 2,097 

General Description of Crossing: Lo

area. The Brinkley Road crossing pro

located within 150 ft west of crossing

Criteria: FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mileMajor Safety / Geometric DeficienciExisting Four Quad, Medians, or

Median Separators? 

PROPOSED

ACTION:

CLOSURE(Secondary: Four Q

Process / Justification / Future Consi FHWA threshold(s) for grade sep

 Adjacent crossings are located w

o Closure is determined FE

 No major safety or geometric def

 Existing crossing treatment is gat

o Median Treatment determ

o Four Quad Gates determ

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

 Existing roadway network provi

roadways to railroad tracks on bo
ATTACHMENT B. 

Summary of Considerations and Proposed 

Actions at Individual Grade Crossings:

Private At-Grade Crossings

Appendix OO

At-Grade Crossing Evaluation Technical Memorandum
Summary of ConsideraƟons and Proposed AcƟons 

at Individual Grade Crossings

Private At-Grade Crossings
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

The purpose of this document is provide a record of the screening process

and resulting proposed actions for the private at‐grade crossings.

The DC2RVA emerging high‐speed rail corridor must be a sealed corridor;

this means that all crossings must be grade separated or have appropriate

crossing treatments that do not allow vehicles to cross the tracks when train

crossings are active. Accordingly, the proposed action for each DC2RVA

private crossing is one of the following:

 Closure Locking Gate (users need to have a key or code to open the gates,

gates would not open when a train is on approach)

 Four Quad Gates

 Median Separators

 No Action (applicable too Railroad Exclusive Access crossings only)

A flow‐chart that depicts the screening criteria and subsequent process is

presented on the next page (page 2). This chart was prepared to illustrate

and summarize the general logic that was used in identifying proposed

actions for improvements at private grade crossings, as described further in

the text of this report. This logic is being used to guide the process and is not

intended to be rigidly prescriptive.

The proposed actions resulting from this analysis represent the most likely

scenario at this time and are thus being used for purposes of assessing

potential environmental impacts; final actions will be determined based on

detailed engineering analyses, design considerations, and coordination with

local governments, communities, and other stakeholders.

The remainder of this document begins with a summary table of the

proposed action for each private at‐grade crossing, followed by a one‐page

summary for each crossing that steps through the flow‐chart logic to get tothe final proposed action.
YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

Is the 

crossing type 

Military? 

YES 

NO 

NO 

Private At-Grade Crossings PROPOSED ACTION 

Closure 

Is the 

crossing type 

Railroad 

Exclusive 

Access? 

YES 

YES 

YES NO 

Are the 

alternate 

access routes 

appropriate / 

feasible? 

Closure YES 

Are the 

alternate 

access routes 

appropriate / 

feasible? 

NO 

Are there 

frequent slowmoving trucks 

through the 

crossings? 

Does the 

crossing 

provide SOLE 

ACCESS to 

the property? 

YES 

YES 

NO 

Are there 

geometric 

issues for 

trucks? 

Four Quad Gate 

NO YES 

NO 

Is the 

crossing type 

Industrial? 

Four Quad Gate 

None 

Feasibility Planning & Design Considerations and Analysis

NO 

Does the 

crossing 

provide SOLE 

ACCESS to 

the property? 

Is the 

crossing type 

Commercial / 

used by the 

public? 

Is the 

crossing type 

Residential / 

Farm? 

YES 

This chart was prepared to illustrate and summarize the general logic that was used in identifying proposed actions for improvements at

private grade crossings, as described further in the text of this report. This logic is being used to guide the process and is not intended to 

be rigidly prescriptive. The proposed actions resulting from this analysis represent the most likely scenario at this time and are thus being 

used for purposes of assessing potential environmental impacts; final actions will be determined based on detailed engineering analyses, 

design considerations, and coordination with local governments, communities, and other stakeholders. 

Locking Gate

(See text for description of 

locking gate options)

Four Quad Gate 

Median Separators 

Determine if median 

separators or four quad gates 

serves needs and has the least 

amount of impacts, and move 

forward with planning and 

design. 

Locking Gate

(See text for description of 

locking gate options)
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

CROSSING 

NUMBER 

Crossing Roadway Name 

Listed North to South, by Rail Line Location Rail Line Existing Warning Device Crossing Type Sole Access? (Yes / No) 

Unknown09 Unnamed Private Crossing Alexandria City RF&P None Railroad Exclusive Access Yes 860601G Cherry Hill Road Prince William County RF&P Flashing Signal w/ Gates Commercial Yes 860609L Henderson Road / Epperson Avenue Prince William County RF&P Flashing Signal w/ Gates Military No 860586G Flemming Street Stafford County RF&P Flashing Signal w/ Gates Military No 860582E Lees Private Crossing Stafford County RF&P Passive (Ropes) Residential Yes 860543N Jones Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Farm No 860540T Rixey Road Caroline County RF&P None Residential Yes 860538S Roes Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Farm No 860531U Unnamed Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Residential Yes 860530M Unnamed Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Residential Yes 860529T Unnamed Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Farm Yes 860528L Unnamed Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Farm Yes 860526X Georges Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Farm Yes 860521N Chandlers Private Crossing Caroline County RF&P None Farm Yes 860519M Excelsior Mill Private Crossing Hanover County RF&P None Residential Yes 623541Y 4th Street Extension Private Crossing Richmond S-LINE Flashing Signal w/ Gates Industrial Yes 623544U Federal Paper Private Crossing Richmond S-LINE None Industrial No 623552L Texaco Road Private Crossing Chesterfield County S-LINE Passive Industrial No 623554A Station Road Private Crossing Chesterfield County S-LINE Passive Industrial Yes 
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / Unknown09

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Alexandria City

Observations:Warning Device None

Sole Access Yes

Crossing Type Railroad Exclusive Access

# Lanes 2Rdwy Paved? No

GeneralDescription

 Unpaved roadway that 

 Appears to be within ra Roadway connects to Bu

 No residences served by 

 No businesses served by 

PROPOSED ACTION: Process / Justification:‐ Railroad exclusive access (within ROW and 

further treatment required
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Cherry Hill Road / 860601G

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Prince William County

Observations:Warning Device Flashing signal with gatesSole Access Yes, roadway dead‐ends o

Crossing Type Commercial / Residential# Lanes 2Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Marina access with pop

 Serves 1‐2 residential pr

 Connecting unpaved ro

the south (not pictured)

 Limited striping, pavem

at crossing

PROPOSED ACTION: FoProcess / Justification:‐ Commercial / residential crossing

‐ Designed for marina access

‐ Used by the public

‐ Median separator not feasible due to interse

of T‐intersection)
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Henderson Rd / Epperson Ave / 860609L

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Prince William County / Quantico

Observations:Warning Device Flashing signal with gatesSole Access

No, though connection to 

appears to be blockaded / 

northern crossing through 

Crossing Type Military# Lanes 2Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Crossing just over 1⁄2 mi

crossing (Potomac Ave)

 Provides access to indus

crossing; high density re

and airfield area (restric

 Close proximity to build

PROPOSED ACTION: FoProcess / Justification:‐ Military crossing
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Flemming Street / 860586G

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County / Quantico

Observations:Warning Device Flashing signal with gatesSole Access No

Crossing Type Military# Lanes 2Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Only crossing of tracks i

(south of waterway/airp

 Access to upstream grad

provided via Bauer Rd (

 Industrial area on east s

 High density residential 

tracks

 Close proximity to wate

PROPOSED ACTION: FoProcess / Justification:‐ Military crossing
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Lees Private Crossing / 860582E

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County

Observations:Warning Device Passive (Owner installed rSole Access Yes, east side

Crossing Type Residential# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Driveway to 1 property

 Driveway connects to A Limited width, no stripi

distance at crossing

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Residential crossing‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Jones Private Crossing / 860543N

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access

No – Unpaved road contin

connect to Woodford Roa

part of this project.

Crossing Type Farm# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Single property farm ac

undeveloped areas

 Connects to Rozell Rd / 

 Dead end roads on west 

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Farm crossing

‐ While it is not the sole access point for the p

route is not feasible (too long and/or not appr
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Rixey Road / 860540T

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes, west side.

Crossing Type Residential# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Driveway to single prop

west side of crossing

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Residential crossing‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Roes Private Crossing / 860538S

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access No – unpaved connection 

main roadway

Crossing Type Farm / Residential# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Connects to Rogers Clar

crossing (median separa

 Residential on east side 

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Farm / Residential crossing‐ While it is not the sole access point for the p

route is not feasible – the connecting roadway 

speed, median separated without cross‐overs 

equipment
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / 860531U

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes, west side

Crossing Type Residential / Farm# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Driveway to 1‐2 residen

 Connects to Industrial D

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Residential / Farm crossing

‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / 860530M

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes, west side

Crossing Type Residential# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Connects to end of Indu

crossing)

 Connects to 1‐2 residenc

crossing

 Active spur

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Residential crossing‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / 860529T

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes

Crossing Type Farm# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Access between fields

 Connects to unpaved tra

 No nearby residences or 

is ~1/2 mile on the south

 No residences served by 

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Farm crossing

‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / 860528L

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes

Crossing Type Farm# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Access between fields

 Connects to unpaved tra

 No nearby residences or 

is ~1/2 mile on the west 

 No residences served by 

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Farm crossing

‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Georges Private Crossing / 860526X

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes

Crossing Type Farm / Residential# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Access between field / u

 May be a residence / RV 

served by crossing

 Connects to unpaved tra

undeveloped area

 Closest structure is ~1,50

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Farm / Residential crossing‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Chandlers Private Crossing / 860521N

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Caroline County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes, east side

Crossing Type Farm# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Access to undeveloped 

fields) and track networ

 Cleared area may be use

permanent residence str

imagery.

 This crossing may be im

potential Carmel Church 

bounded by 95 and railr

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Farm crossing

‐ Provides sole access to propertyNote that proposed action is for existing condition

improvements to Carmel Church project).
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Excelsior Mill / 860519M

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Hanover County

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access Yes, east side

Crossing Type Residential# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Driveway to one residen

crossing

 Connects to Doswell Pa

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Residential crossing‐ Provides sole access to property
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: 4th Street Extension / 623541Y

Line: S‐Line Jurisdiction: Richmond

Observations:Warning Device Flashing signal with gatesSole Access Yes (assuming private un

functioning, see below).

Crossing Type Industrial# Lanes 2Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Driveway access to indu

 Private underpass (defic

located ~500 ft south of 

same area.

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Industrial crossing

‐ Provides sole access to property‐ No slow moving trucks

‐ No geometric issues
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Federal Paper Private Crossing / 623544U

Line: S‐Line Jurisdiction: Richmond

Observations:Warning Device NoneSole Access No

Crossing Type Industrial# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? NoGeneral Notes  Unpaved crossing conne

 Unpaved tracks continu

crossing) to crossing the

PROPOSED ACTION: LProcess / Justification:‐ Industrial crossing

‐ While it is not the sole access point for the p

route is not feasible (too long and/or not appr
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Texaco Rd / 623552L

Line: S‐Line Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County

Observations:Warning Device Passive (assumed, inconcluSole Access No – but connecting roadw

industrial area to the nort

Crossing Type Industrial# Lanes 2Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Southern‐most crossing 

 Crossing connects to US 

 R2R project shows this c

PROPOSED ACTION: FoProcess / Justification:‐ Industrial crossing

‐ While it is not the sole access point for the p

route is not feasible (too long and/or not appr

‐ Slow moving trucks (tanker trucks)

‐ Geometric issues (sag curve)
Private At‐Grade Crossings: Summary of Observations & Proposed Actions at Individual Crossings 

Crossing Name / Number: Station Rd / 623554A

Line: S‐Line Jurisdiction: Chesterfield County

Observations:Warning Device Passive (assumed, inconcluSole Access Yes, east side

Crossing Type Industrial# Lanes 1Rdwy Paved? YesGeneral Notes  Driveway to residence (

 Connects to Station Roa

PROPOSED ACTION: FoProcess / Justification:‐ Industrial crossing

‐ Provides sole access to property‐ Slow moving trucks
ATTACHMENT C. 

Summary of Considerations and Proposed 

Actions at Individual Grade Crossings:

Fredericksburg Bypass, Public and Private AtGrade Crossings

Appendix OO

At-Grade Crossing Evaluation Technical Memorandum
May 5, 2016

Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions

At‐Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass

FINAL
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 1 

This document provides the summary of considerations and resulting proposed actions for the existing at-grade 

public and private crossings for the DC2RVA Fredericksburg Bypass alignment. This proposed alignment

partially utilizes an existing rail spur that has five public and 5 private at-grade crossings.

The process for the DC2RVA Fredericksburg Bypass alignment decision-making is intended to follow the same 

process of the mainline corridor analysis (refer to that documentation for full details). The most notable difference 

is the consideration of the 11 FHWA Guidance Criteria for grade separation and closure of public at-grade 

crossings; this analysis was not performed for the Fredericksburg Bypass alignment as it is a rail spur and does not 

carry daily trains to warrant the analysis (i.e., no thresholds would be exceeded using existing data). 

The remainder of this document presents a summary table of all Fredericksburg Bypass crossings (both public and 

private, ordered from north to south respectively), followed by data sheets for each individual crossing that mimic 

those of the mainline analysis. The order is this document is as follows:

− Summary of Considerations for Treatments, Public At-Grade Crossings

− Proposed Actions, Public At-Grade Crossings

− Summary of Considerations and Proposed Actions, Private At-Grade Crossings
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 2 

Crossing # At-Grade Crossing Roadway Type Warning Device # Lanes Paved? Functional Classification AADT (2014) Location PROPOSED ACTION

PUBLIC CROSSINGS

860345T Debruen Ln Public Flashing Signal w/ Gates 2 Yes Local -- Stafford County Median Separators 

860348N Ferry Rd Public Flashing Signal w/ Gates 2 Yes Major Collector 9,000 Stafford County Four Quad Gate

with intersection / roadway realignment 

860349V Federal Dr Public Flashing Signal w/ Gates 2 Yes Local 1,300 Stafford County Four Quad Gate

860353K Little Falls Rd Public Flashing Signal 2 Yes Local 150 Stafford County Gates w/ Median Separators 

860357M Forest Lane Rd Public Flashing Signal 2 Yes Local 1,400 Stafford County Gates w/ Median Separators 

PRIVATE CROSSINGS

FBBP01 Hot Top Rd Private Locking Gate (Passive

with Stop Signs) 1 No -- -- Stafford County Locking Gate (update to DC2RVA standard, i.e. tied 

into track circuit)

FBBP02 Driveway (Private) Private Passive (Stop Signs) 1 Yes -- -- Stafford County Closure

860352D Cleek Ln (Driveway, Private) Private None 1 No -- -- Stafford County Locking Gate

FBBP03 Driveway (Private) Private None 1 No -- -- Stafford County Assumed not to be an official FRA crossing; 

Remove ability to cross tracks at this location

860356F Driveway (Private) Private Passive (Stop Signs) 1 No -- -- Stafford County Closure, with new driveway connection 

Secondary: Locking Gate
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 3 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS FOR TREATMENTS AT INDIVIDUAL CROSSINGS

PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS: FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 4 

Crossing Name: DEBRUEN LANE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860345T

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non-Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

- - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes at crossing. Debruen Ln is approximately 800 feet in total 

length. To the west of the crossing, it provides residential access and intersects Cool Springs Rd within ~350 feet. To the 

east of the crossing, it provides sole access to a residence and commercial properties. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Grade Separation

FHWA Grade Separation Criteria N/A

Traffic / Operations Low volume road (volume unknown per VDOT).

Unsignalized intersection with Cool Springs Road ~350 feet west of crossing. 

General Description of Major 

Environmental

None identified. 

Safety/Geometric Deficiencies Minimal striping on east side of crossing. 

Proximity of residential driveway / parking, west side of crossing.

Engineering Grade separation of roadway over railroad not feasible without impact to Cool 

Spring Rd.

Existing Property 2 residences, west side of crossing. 

1 house and commercial, east side of crossing.

Cost-Benefit (Preliminary) Cost-benefit considerations – low volume roadway. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Elimination / Consolidation

Connectivity to Adjacent 

Crossings

White Oak Road (existing roadway overpass) is located less than 1 mile upstream.

Accessibility Provides sole access to 1 residence on east side of crossing. 

Commercial buildings on the east side of the crossingmay have back access via 

Baron Park Road. If closed, would require new connection and potential 

improvements to Baron Park Road. Vehicles would then have to utilize the existing 

at-grade, unsignalized intersection of Baron Park Rd / White Oak Rd – may not be 

appropriate due to large volume of truck traffic and median-separated White Oak 

Rd.

Feasibility Considerations Related to Rail Crossing Safety Treatments

Location not feasible for median separator treatment due to proximity of driveways and use by large vehicles (turning 

radii). Four Quad Gates could improve existing safety treatment. 

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Daily): 0 Crossing Used by Public Transit? (Yes / No) No

Summary of Considerations for Decision-Making

Grade Separate Cost-benefit considerations. Proximity of Cool Springs Road. 

Eliminate / Consolidate Feasible, with new connection to Baron Park Road. 

Add Quad Gates Feasible. 

Add Median Separator Proximity of residential driveway.

Other
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 5 

Crossing Name: FERRY ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860348N

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non-Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

9,000 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes. Ferry Rd terminates at Kings Hwy intersection (less 

than 300 ft west of crossing, major signalized intersection). East of crossing, Ferry Rd provides access to residential 

neighborhoods. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Grade Separation

FHWA Grade Separation Criteria N/A

Traffic / Operations High volume roadway.

Signalized intersection with Kings Hwy <300 ft west of crossing.

Unsignalized intersection with Mount Vernon Ave (parallel separated one-way pair) 

<10 ft east of crossing.

General Description of Major 

Environmental

George Washington’s Ferry Farm adjacent to Kings Hwy. 

Safety/Geometric Deficiencies Proximity of Mount Vernon Ave intersections to crossing.

Engineering Grade separation of roadway over railroad not feasible without impact to Kings 

Hwy.

Existing Property Residential east of crossing.

Commercial west of crossing.

Cost-Benefit (Preliminary) --

Feasibility Considerations Related to Elimination / Consolidation

Connectivity to Adjacent 

Crossings

No other public roadway crossings within 1 mile. 

Accessibility Ferry Rd is the main major east-west crossing in the area.

Feasibility Considerations Related to Rail Crossing Safety Treatments

Median treatment feasible, should be able to get enough clearance to intersections / driveways on both sides of crossing.

Four Quad gates would improve existing safety treatment.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Daily): -- Crossing Used by Public Transit? (Yes / No) No

Summary of Considerations for Decision-Making

Grade Separate Proximity of Kings Hwy.

Eliminate / Consolidate Major collector roadway crossing (high volume roadway).

Add Quad Gates Feasible, would require roadway realignment for safety (See OTHER below).

Add Median Separator Proximity of intersections / driveways on both sides of crossing, but feasible.

Other Realignment of Mount Vernon Ave.
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 6 

Crossing Name: FEDERAL DRIVE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860349V

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non-Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,300 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Federal Dr provides the main south-western entrance to a large 

residential area east of the crossing. Federal Dr terminates at Kings Hwy immediately west of the crossing. Federal Dr 

operates as a one-way on- and off-ramp to northbound Kings Hwy. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Grade Separation

FHWA Grade Separation Criteria N/A

Traffic / Operations Mid-volume local roadway. 

Federal Dr runs parallel to tracks west of crossing, with one-way operations to 

access northbound Kings Hwy.

General Description of Major 

Environmental

None identified.

Safety/Geometric Deficiencies Geometrics / sight distance of T-intersection of Federal Dr at crossing.

Minimal striping and roadway width.

Engineering Grade separation of roadway over railroad not feasible without impact to Kings 

Hwy.

Existing Property Residences east of crossing.

Cost-Benefit (Preliminary) --

Feasibility Considerations Related to Elimination / Consolidation

Connectivity to Adjacent 

Crossings

No other public roadway crossings within 1 mile. 

Accessibility Federal Dr provides the main south-western entrance to a large residential area east 

of crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related to Rail Crossing Safety Treatments

Median treatment not feasible due to geometrics (T-intersection with one-way operations).

Four Quad gate would improve safety, but would require realignment of Federal Dr to accommodate the proposed 

DC2RVA proposed track.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Daily): -- Crossing Used by Public Transit? (Yes / No) No

Summary of Considerations for Decision-Making

Grade Separate Proximity of Kings Hwy.

Eliminate / Consolidate Major access point to large residential area; lack of adjacent crossings.

Add Quad Gates Feasible; would require intersection realignment for proposed track.

Add Median Separator Not feasible due to geometrics / operations.

Other Realignment of Federal Dr to accommodate proposed DC2RVA track.
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 7 

Crossing Name: LITTLE FALLS ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860353K

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Flashing Signal

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

150 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: 2 lane local roadway in rural area. Little Falls Rd is ~ 0.5 miles is total length and 

provides sole access to residential / farm area east of the crossing. It terminates at Kings Hwy ~1,300 feet west of the 

crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related to Grade Separation

FHWA Grade Separation Criteria N/A

Traffic / Operations Low volume local roadway.

Kings Hwy intersection ~1,200 ft west of crossing.

Residential driveways within ~150 ft on both sides of crossing.

General Description of Major 

Environmental

None identified.

Safety/Geometric Deficiencies Minimal striping / lane width on crossing roadway.

Engineering Grade separation of roadway over railroad could be feasible.

Existing Property Residential / farm properties on both sides of crossing.

Cost-Benefit (Preliminary) Cost-benefit considerations – low volume, local roadway in rural area. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Elimination / Consolidation

Connectivity to Adjacent 

Crossings

No other public roadway crossings within 1 mile. 

Accessibility Provides sole access to the residences / farms east of the crossing.

Feasibility Considerations Related to Rail Crossing Safety Treatments

Median separator treatment could be feasible – driveways over 150 feet from crossings.

Four Quad gates could improve existing safety treatment.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Daily): - Crossing Used by Public Transit? (Yes / No) No

Summary of Considerations for Decision-Making

Grade Separate Cost-benefit considerations.

Eliminate / Consolidate Sole access to east of crossing.

Add Quad Gates Feasible.

Add Median Separator Feasible.

Other
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 8 

Crossing Name: FOREST LANE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860357M

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Flashing Signal

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,400 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: 2 lane local roadway in rural area. Forest Lane Rd is the primary connector into a large 

farm / residential area, east of the crossing. It terminates at Kings Hwy approximately 1 mile west of the crossing. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Grade Separation

FHWA Grade Separation Criteria N/A

Traffic / Operations Mid-volume local roadway.

Big Oak Lane intersection ~150 ft east of crossing

General Description of Major 

Environmental

None identified.

Safety/Geometric Deficiencies Proximity of Big Oak Lane intersection.

Engineering Grade separation of roadway over railroad could be feasible.

Existing Property Farm / residences on both sides of crossing.

Cost-Benefit (Preliminary) Cost-benefit considerations – local roadway in a rural area. 

Feasibility Considerations Related to Elimination / Consolidation

Connectivity to Adjacent 

Crossings

No other public roadway crossings within 1 mile. 

Accessibility Forest Lane Rd is the main roadway that provides access to a large farm / residential 

area to the east of the crossing, which has limited accessibility.

Feasibility Considerations Related to Rail Crossing Safety Treatments

Median separator treatment is feasible – no driveways / intersecting roadways within more than 100 feet.

Four Quad gates could improve existing safety.

Total Bus Trips Using Crossing (Daily): Crossing Used by Public Transit? (Yes / No) No

Summary of Considerations for Decision-Making

Grade Separate Cost-benefit considerations.

Eliminate / Consolidate Lack of adjacent crossings.

Add Quad Gates Feasible.

Add Median Separator Feasible.

Other
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 9 

PROPOSED ACTIONS AT INDIVIDUAL GRADE CROSSINGS

PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS – FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 10

Crossing Name: DEBRUEN LANE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860345T

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non-Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

- - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes at crossing, urban area. Debruen Ln is approximately 800 feet in 

total length. To the west of the crossing, it provides residential access and intersects Cool Springs Rd within ~350 feet. To 

the east of the crossing, it provides sole access to a residence and commercial properties.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:

FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? - N/A 

Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? Yes Crossing provides sole access

Major Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? No

Existing Four Quad, Medians, or 

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

MEDIAN SEPARATORS

Process / Justification / Future Considerations:

− FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

− Adjacent crossing is located within 1 rail mile (White Oak Road, existing roadway overpass):

o Closure would require construction of new connection (and potential improvements) to Baron Park Rd. 

Detoured vehicles would then utilize existing unsignalized at-grade intersection of Baron Park Rd and White 

Oak Rd to overpass railroad. Determined not preferred (AS CROSSING SAFETY TREATMENT(S) ARE 

FEASIBLE, SEE BELOW) due to use of crossing by large vehicles (commercial access), would have to cross 

high-speed, median-separated White Oak Rd. 

− No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

− Existing crossing treatment is gates (non-quad):

o Median Separators determined FEASIBLE

o Addition of Four Quad Gates determined feasible but secondary to Median Separators

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

− Minimal striping on crossing roadway, east side (may require improvements as part of design)

Crossing Name: FERRY ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860348N

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non-Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

9,000 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: Major collector roadway, 2 lanes, urban area. Ferry Rd terminates at Kings Hwy 

intersection (less than 300 ft west of crossing, major signalized intersection). East of crossing, Ferry Rd provides access to 

residential neighborhoods. 

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:

FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? - N/A 

Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No

Major Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? Yes Proximity of Mount Vernon Avenue intersections to crossing

Existing Four Quad, Medians, or 

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION: FOUR QUAD GATE, with intersection / roadway realignment

Process / Justification / Future Considerations:

− FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

− No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

− Major safety or geometric deficiencies identified: Proximity of Mount Vernon Avenue intersection to crossing

o Mitigation: Realignment of intersection as part of improvement

− Existing crossing treatment is gates (non-quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to proximity of parking lot / driveway / street access on both 

sides of crossing

o Addition of Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

− Realignment of Mount Vernon Avenue and its intersection with crossing roadway

o Combine one-way parallel roads of Mount Vernon Ave to a single two-way roadway intersection

o Relocate intersection with crossing roadway further from crossing
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 11

Crossing Name: FEDERAL DRIVE Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860349V

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Gates (Non-Quad)

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,300 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: Local roadway, 2 lanes. Federal Dr provides the main south-western entrance to a large 

residential area east of the crossing. Federal Dr terminates at Kings Hwy immediately west of the crossing. Federal Dr 

operates as a one-way on- and off-ramp to northbound Kings Hwy. 

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:

FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? - N/A 

Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No

Major Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? No

Existing Four Quad, Medians, or 

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION: FOUR QUAD GATE

Process / Justification / Future Considerations:

− FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

− No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

− No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

− Existing crossing treatment is gates (non-quad):

o Median Treatment determined not feasible due to existing geometrics / operations of Federal Drive

o Addition of Four Quad Gates determined FEASIBLE

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

− Realignment of Federal Drive / Federal Drive crossing is required to accommodate the proposed DC2RVA trackwork

Crossing Name: LITTLE FALLS ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860353K

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Flashing Signal

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

150 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: 2 lane local roadway in rural area. Little Falls Rd is ~ 0.5 miles is total length and 

provides sole access to residential / farm area east of the crossing. It terminates at Kings Hwy ~1,300 feet west of the 

crossing.

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:

FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? - N/A 

Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No

Major Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? No

Existing Four Quad, Medians, or 

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GATES W/ MEDIAN SEPARATORS

Process / Justification / Future Considerations:

− FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

− No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

− No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary

− Existing crossing treatment is gates (non-quad):

o Median separator treatment determined FEASIBLE

o Addition of Four Quad Gates determined feasible, but secondary to median separator treatment

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

− Addition of automatic gates required to close corridor

− Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of 

design)
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 12

Crossing Name: FOREST LANE ROAD Line / Crossing Number: RF&P / 860357M

Jurisdiction: Stafford County Current Warning Device: Flashing Signal

AADT Total Number of Daily Trains

2015 2025 2045 2015 2025 2045

1,400 - - - - -

General Description of Crossing: 2 lane local roadway in rural area. Forest Lane Rd is the primary connector into a large 

farm / residential area, east of the crossing. It terminates at Kings Hwy approximately 1 mile west of the crossing. 

Criteria: Yes / No Notes:

FHWA Triggered in 2015 or 2025? - N/A 

Adjacent Crossing within 1 rail mile? No

Major Safety / Geometric Deficiencies? No

Existing Four Quad, Medians, or 

Median Separators? No

PROPOSED

ACTION:

GATES W/ MEDIAN SEPARATORS

Process / Justification / Future Considerations:

− FHWA threshold(s) for grade separation or closure are not triggered

− No adjacent crossings located within 1 rail mile; closure not feasible

− No major safety or geometric deficiencies identified; no mitigation necessary 

− Existing crossing treatment is gates (non-quad):

o Median separator treatment determined FEASIBLE

o Addition of Four Quad Gates determined feasible, but secondary to median separator treatment

Proposed Action Design Considerations:

− Addition of automatic gates required to close corridor

− Minimal striping and narrow roadway widths existing on crossing roadway (may require improvements as part of 

design)
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 13

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS AT INDIVIDUAL GRADE CROSSINGS

PRIVATE AT-GRADE CROSSINGS: FREDERICKSBURG BYPASS
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 14

Crossing Name / Number: Hot Top Road / Unknown FBBP01 

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County

Observations:

Warning Device Locking Gate (Passive with Stop Signs)

Sole Access Yes

Crossing Type Farm / Residential

# Lanes 1 

Rdwy Paved? No

General 

Description

− Hot Top Road is gated on west side of crossing

− Intersection with Cool Springs Road ~500 feet west of 

crossing

− Access to large field

PROPOSED ACTION: LOCKING GATE (DC2RVA Standard of tied 

to track circuit)

Process / Justification:

- Farm / Open field crossing

- Provides sole access to property 

- No alternate access routes determined appropriate or feasible
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 15

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / Unknown FBBP02

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County

Observations:

Warning Device Passive (Stop Signs)

Sole Access No

Crossing Type Residential

# Lanes 1 

Rdwy Paved? Yes

General 

Description

− Connects to Federal Drive

− Driveway access to 1 residence

− Driveway also connects to Federal Drive across from 

Windsor Circle

− Crossing needs to be eliminated to accommodate 

realignment of Federal Drive due to DC2RVA 3rd

track. 

PROPOSED ACTION: CLOSURE

Process / Justification:

- Provides access to residential property

- Property has alternate access to Federal Drive via existing driveway (i.e., 

closure does not result in change of access for property owner)
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 16

Crossing Name / Number: Cleek Lane / 860352D

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County

Observations:

Warning Device None

Sole Access Yes

Crossing Type Residential

# Lanes 1 

Rdwy Paved? No

General 

Description

− Unpaved crossing

− Driveway (sole access) to 1 residence

− Additionally, driveway section immediately adjacent 

to north side of crossing (south of residential 

property) is a different property owner that owns the 

undeveloped land (forested) on the north side of the 

tracks (assume use for farm / forest / ag purposes)

PROPOSED ACTION: LOCKING GATE

Process / Justification:

- Serves one residential property

- Provides sole access to 1 residence and property (no structures) of 

another property owner

- Alternate access route (via a new connector road to Little Falls Rd) 

determined not feasible as it is assumed that farm/ag equipment may use 

the crossing by the undeveloped land property owner – this detour would 

then result in use of the high speed, median separated Kings Hwy by farm 

/ ag equipment, which is not preferred for safety reasons 
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 17

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / Unknown FBBP03

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County

Observations:

Warning Device None

Sole Access Yes

Crossing Type Farm / Open Land

# Lanes 1 

Rdwy Paved? No

General 

Description

− Unknown if this is an official crossing per FRA

− Unpaved road and crossing

− Accesses large wooded area, possibly sole access for 

property owner

− Does not provide sole access to any structures

− Access to property can be provided by the existing 

driveway section immediately adjacent to north side 

of the adjacent Cleek Lane crossing that is the same 

property owner of the large undeveloped land on 

both the north and south sides of this crossing

PROPOSED ACTION:

Assumed not to be an official FRA crossing;

Remove ability to traverse tracks at this 

location

Process / Justification:

- Based on FRA online database resources available, assumed not to be an 

official FRA crossing; therefore, the DC2RVA project should remove the 

ability for vehicles to traverse the tracks at this location. 

- Access to property can be provided on property owner’s existing 

property adjacent to Cleek Ln crossing, with utilizing the railroad ROW if 

necessary.
Summary of Considerations & Proposed Actions, At-Grade Crossings, Fredericksburg Bypass page 18

Crossing Name / Number: Unnamed Private Crossing / 860356F

Line: RF&P Jurisdiction: Stafford County

Observations:

Warning Device Passive (Stop Signs)

Sole Access Yes

Crossing Type Residential / Farm

# Lanes 1 

Rdwy Paved? No 

General 

Description

− Gravel driveway crossing

− Provides sole access

− Access to residence and fields, farm structures

− Adjacent property driveway (called Big Oaks Lane) 

serves multiple property owners and connects to 

Forest Lane Rd, immediate adjacent to the crossing 

 potential for new connection

PROPOSED ACTION: CLOSURE, with new connector road

Secondary: Locking Gate

Process / Justification:

- Provides sole access to a residential / farm property

- Alternate access determined FEASIBLE with construction (less than 1k 

feet) of a new access road, that would run parallel to the railroad / ROW 

and connect to Big Oaks Lane immediate adjacent to public crossing