CHAPTER 4

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
 4-1 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Preferred Alternative1 for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 

(DC2RVA) Project includes the following two elements: 

 An intercity passenger rail service plan with increased passenger train frequency (i.e., 

more trains) and improved on-time performance of existing intercity passenger service. 

Refer to Section 4.2. 

 A physical infrastructure modification plan to provide an additional track (i.e., to provide 

more capacity for more trains) as well as station area and roadway crossing improvements 

to provide better train performance. Refer to Section 4.3. 

Appendix L of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides a detailed mapbook of 

the Preferred Alternative for the 123-mile Project corridor, including permanent and temporary 

Limits of Disturbance (LOD) from which the environmental impacts are evaluated. Appendix L 

presents the same elements as the mapbooks from Appendices C through H of the Draft EIS, but 

reflects the LOD of the Preferred Alternative, including any changes between the Draft and Final 

EIS. The LOD changes are the result of design refinements that were made subsequent to 

publication of the Draft EIS in response to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS or from 

refined data (i.e., new data and/or changes to the data that were previously available). 

The Preferred Alternative is based on conceptual engineering, which is approximately a 10 

percent level of design and is appropriate for decisions to be made during the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The conceptual engineering will be further refined 

during future design phases of the Project, as described in Chapter 7 of this Final EIS. For the 

conceptual layouts of the intercity passenger rail stations described in this chapter, the Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has applied Amtrak’s Station Program and 

Planning Guidelines (2013) to determine the general footprint of each station in order to 

accommodate various crew, passenger, and service amenities based on the projected train service 

and ridership for the Project. However, the actual size, design, and layout of each station, and the 

staffing of station and service amenities (such as checked baggage service), will be determined by 

DRPT when service is initiated, in coordination with Amtrak, the station owner/operator, and 

other stakeholders, in accordance with the Intercity Passenger Rail Station Policy.2

 

1 As described in Section 1.1.2, this chapter uses a condensed format that presents the Preferred Alternative only. 

Details of all Build Alternatives that were evaluated in the Draft EIS, as well as the process that was used to develop, 

evaluate, and eliminate them, were presented in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Draft EIS. 

2 The Intercity Passenger Rail Station Policy was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in 

January 2018, and is available at: http://drpt.virginia.gov/media/2372/station-stop-policy-final-010817.pdf 

4
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-2 

4.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTION PROCESS 

The selection of the Preferred Alternative presented in this Final EIS includes the following 

considerations: 

 Meeting the Project’s Purpose and Need. The selected Preferred Alternative meets the 

DC2RVA Purpose and Need to increase railroad capacity between Washington, D.C., and 

Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and 

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

corridor (refer to Section 1.3). 

 Information and analyses disclosed in the Draft EIS, including impacts to the natural and 

human environment and intercity passenger rail ridership, rail operations, cost, and 

constructability of each alternative. 

 Extensive outreach and communications undertaken with the public, stakeholders, and 

elected officials in the DC2RVA corridor (refer to Section 2.1 and 2.2). 

 Comments from agencies, organizations, and the public that were received during the 

comment period on the Draft EIS (refer to Section 2.4). 

 Ongoing coordination with regard to the historical context along the corridor, specifically 

with Consulting Parties in regard to the Section 106 process and minimization of impacts 

to historic properties (refer to Section 3.1). 

 Additional rail operations simulation modeling to test proposed infrastructure sufficiency 

conducted in support of the Project (refer to Section 3.2). 

 Recommendations from the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Community Advisory 

Committee (CAC) process (refer to Section 3.3). 

 The CTB Resolution for the Project (refer to Section 3.4 and Appendix H of this Final EIS), 

and the subsequent Recommendation Report (refer to Appendix I of this Final EIS). 

 The refinement of feasible alternatives for the construction of additional capacity as part 

of the Long Bridge project by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

(DDOT) (refer to section 4.3.1.2). 

4.2 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE PLAN 

This section summarizes the intercity passenger rail service that is proposed to be added as part 

of the Project, and the Virginia Railways Express (VRE) and freight service that operates in the 

corridor today and will continue to do so in the future. Refer to Section 2.2 of the Draft EIS and 

its Appendix I for full details of existing intercity passenger, VRE, and freight train service. 

 The Project proposes to add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains 

per day) by 2025. Under the proposed service plan, intercity passenger trains will operate 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond every 1 to 2 hours in each direction during the 

day and early evening. See Section 4.2.1 and Figure 4.2-1. 

 Regardless of whether the DC2RVA Project is implemented, DRPT estimates that there 

could be close to 100 total daily trains in the corridor by 2025 and close to 120 total daily 

trains in the corridor by 2045, compared to as many as 89 total daily trains today. These 

estimates include daily intercity passenger, VRE, and freight service. See Section 4.2.2.
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-3 

Figure 4.2-1: Intercity Passenger Train Service for the Preferred Alternative
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-4 

4.2.1 Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

The Preferred Alternative will add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per 

day) to the DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. Figure 4.2-1 

illustrates the proposed service patterns of the proposed intercity passenger rail services that will 

operate in the corridor and includes both existing service and the proposed Southeast High Speed 

Rail (SEHSR) service that will be implemented as part of this Project, each of which are described 

in detail separately below. 

Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service. Amtrak currently operates four types of intercity 

passenger service in the Project corridor, which will continue after implementation of the 

DC2RVA Project: 

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

through Virginia, making fewer stops in the Project corridor than the Northeast Regional 

(Virginia) service. The Project will add new similar service, as described below. 

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

Boston and New York and continues south to serve routes in Virginia. Trains make local 

station stops. The Project will add new similar trains, as described below. 

 Long Distance service operates from New York and continues through Washington, D.C. 

and Virginia to other out-of-state locations. Long distance trains serve the fewest Amtrak 

station stops within the Project corridor. The Project will not affect the frequency of Long 

Distance trains in service, but will modify routing/scheduling of those trains within the 

corridor and improve their operating reliability within the corridor to meet Project goals. 

The Project will add one additional stop for these trains at Main Street Station in 

Richmond. 

 Auto Train service is a daily nonstop, overnight train between dedicated station facilities 

in Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL, and carries passengers and their automobiles. The Project 

will not affect the frequency, routing, or scheduling of the Auto Train within the corridor, 

but will improve operating reliability within the corridor to meet Project goals. 

Proposed Intercity Passenger Rail Service. The 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 

total trains per day) proposed by this Project will be incorporated into the existing passenger rail 

network, as follows (subject to available capacity and future operating schedule): 

 4 new daily Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) round trips (8 total trains per day) to North 

Carolina, with station stops in the DC2RVA corridor in: Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and 

Richmond. 

- This service will complement Amtrak’s current Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) 

service by providing additional frequencies to North Carolina; however, the new 

SEHSR trains will have slightly different service patterns in the DC2RVA corridor and 

use different routes south of the DC2RVA corridor, where SEHSR trains are expected 

to provide a faster and more direct route to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC. 

- This service aligns with the proposed intercity passenger trains between Washington, 

D.C. and Charlotte, NC from the 2002 Tier I EIS (refer to Section 1.2.1 for further 

details). 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-5 

 5 new daily Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trips (10 total trains per day) to Virginia, 

with station stops in the DC2RVA corridor in: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond. 

- This service will provide additional frequencies on the same routes of existing Amtrak 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) services, originating/terminating within Virginia in 

Newport News (1 new daily round trip), Norfolk (3 new daily round trips), or 

Richmond (1 new daily round trip). 

- This service completes the service plan defined in the 2012 Richmond to Hampton 

Roads (R2HR) EIS (refer to Section 1.2.2 of this Final EIS for further details), and adds 

1 new daily round trip originating in Richmond at Main Street Station, which was 

added to the Project to provide an early morning departure north to Washington, D.C. 

and a corresponding late evening train. 

Main Street Station is unique in the Project corridor in that existing intercity passenger trains will 

be rerouted to it as part of the Preferred Alternative. Main Street Station is currently served by 2 

daily round-trip (4 total per day) intercity passenger trains along the route to Newport News. The 

Project will rebuild the S-Line through Richmond, enabling all existing and proposed new 

intercity passenger trains stopping at Richmond to serve both Staples Mill Road and Main Street 

Stations. As a result, Main Street Station will see a total of 18 daily round-trip (36 total per day) 

intercity passenger trains, which is an increase of 16 daily round-trip (32 total per day) intercity 

passenger trains above the current service level at Main Street Station. Of those, the DC2RVA 

Project will add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day) and also 

reroute 7 existing daily round trips (14 existing total trains per day). 

As part of the Project, the maximum operating speed for all passenger trains on the DC2RVA 

corridor, except for the Auto Train, will be increased from the current 70 mph to a maximum 

authorized speed of 90 mph. However, due to localized speed restrictions, track curvature, track 

geometry and/or station proximity, there are certain portions of the DC2RVA Project corridor 

over which trains will not be able to operate at the 90 mph maximum authorized speed. 

Additional details on the specific station operations of the service plan and speeds within each 

portion of the corridor are provided in the alternative descriptions in Section 4.3 of this Final EIS. 

Draft EIS Section 2.2 presented descriptions of existing Amtrak service and additional details on 

the proposed DC2RVA service plan for intercity passenger trains. 

4.2.2 Other Service in the DC2RVA Corridor 

The Project capacity improvements, as described in Section 4.3 of this chapter, provide the 

additional infrastructure necessary to meet the Purpose and Need, which includes additional 

capacity to accommodate both the planned expansion of VRE commuter rail service and the 

forecasted growth of freight rail service by CSXT, the host railroad. It is important to note that 

VRE and CSXT growth is independent of the DC2RVA Project and will occur regardless of 

whether or not the DC2RVA Project is implemented. 

Separate from the Purpose and Need of the Project, DRPT and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) recognize that CSX Transportation (CSXT), VRE, or other stakeholders 

may pursue additional capital improvements in the Project corridor between Washington, D.C. 

and Centralia, or on the adjacent railroad network, that may impact Project corridor operations 

beyond what was assumed for this study. Subsequent iterations of rail operations analysis and 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-6 

infrastructure validation through the life of the Project will include any modifications to the 

railroad network constructed by others, as needed, to ensure that the proposed Project 

infrastructure and operations remains effective to meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

VRE. The DC2RVA corridor hosts all VRE commuter rail service between CP Virginia in 

Washington, D.C. and AF interlocking in Alexandria, which is currently 34 trains (17 daily round 

trips). At AF Interlocking, approximately half of the VRE service leaves the corridor heading 

toward Manassas/Broad Run. The remaining VRE service continues on the DC2RVA corridor 

south of Alexandria to the VRE Spotsylvania station and Crossroads maintenance facility. The 

DC2RVA Project will accommodate the following planned future expansion of VRE service: two 

additional Fredericksburg Line trains (one daily roundtrip) that will operate in the DC2RVA 

corridor between Washington, D.C. and Spotsylvania; and two additional Manassas Line trains 

(one daily roundtrip) that will operate in the DC2RVA corridor only between Washington, D.C. 

and Alexandria. Any additional plans to expand VRE service beyond the aforementioned levels 

are beyond the scope of the DC2RVA Project and would require additional analysis, at that time.

Freight. Approximately 20 to 30 freight trains currently operate daily on the DC2RVA corridor 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. As part of the planning work to accommodate the 

forecasted growth of freight service, DRPT solicited input from CSXT about future increases in 

freight traffic in the corridor through the year 2045, which is the 20-year horizon beyond the 

Project’s proposed implementation year of 2025. DRPT used the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Freight Analysis Framework3 to forecast how rail freight traffic in the DC2RVA 

Corridor will increase and change through the year 2045. Based on this estimation, DRPT 

anticipates that there will be 25 to 37 daily freight trains by 2025 (an increase of 5 to 7 trains) and 

40 to 55 daily freight trains by 2045 (an increase of 20 to 25 trains); however, actual CSXT freight 

growth may vary based on market demands. For more information on how planned increases in 

freight rail traffic were taken into account, refer to Appendix I of the Draft EIS. 

In certain segments of the Corridor, the new and upgraded infrastructure proposed by the Project 

could also allow for a potential increase in freight train speeds. The most significant increase in 

freight train speeds could occur between Richmond’s Main Street Station and Centralia, where 

the Project proposes to rebuild a 25 mph freight line to track standards that could accommodate 

passenger trains with a maximum authorized speed of 79 mph and freight trains with a maximum 

authorized speed of 60 mph. Throughout the corridor north of Richmond, a number of curves 

will be rebuilt, which could result in potential freight train speed increases of 5 mph to 20 mph. 

4.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE BY AREA 

The Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project identified potential Build Alternatives in six alternative 

areas from north to south along the corridor, as described below. This Final EIS evaluates the 

Preferred Alternative, as presented in this section and summarized in Figure 4.3-1; it connects a 

Build Alternative from each of the 6 alternative areas to form a contiguous 123-mile route through 

the Project corridor. The Preferred Alternative consists of Build Alternatives 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, 5A, 

and 6F as evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

Alternative Area 1: Arlington. A 1-mile section in Arlington from the south side of the Potomac 

River to Crystal City that includes the approach to the existing two-track Long Bridge, which 

 

3 The Freight Analysis Framework is available at: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/ 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-7 

crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. and Arlington, VA. The Long Bridge is the 

subject of a separate environmental study being led by DDOT to expand capacity of the crossing 

to four-tracks (see Section 1.4.2 for summary of that study). There are no intercity passenger rail 

stations located in Area 1. 

Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia. A 47-mile section from Crystal City in Arlington to the 

Dahlgren Spur just north of the Rappahannock River at Fredericksburg, which passes through 

developed urban areas and crosses several major waterways, including the Occoquan River, 

Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek, and Aquia Creek. It is the most congested area in the Project 

corridor with intercity passenger trains, VRE commuter trains, and CSXT freight trains operating 

on the existing tracks. There are three intercity passenger rail stations in Area 2: Alexandria, 

Woodbridge, and Quantico. VRE provides commuter service to these three stations as well as at 

six other stations in Area 2: Crystal City, Franconia/Springfield, Lorton, Rippon, Brooke, and 

Leeland Road. A new VRE station at Potomac Shores is scheduled to open in 2020. 

Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg. A 14-mile section through Fredericksburg, from the 

Dahlgren Spur just north of the Rappahannock River to Crossroads, VA. The corridor in this area 

crosses the Rappahannock River, passes through the City of Fredericksburg, and traverses several 

historic and cultural resources including the Fredericksburg National Military Park. The 

Fredericksburg Station in the City of Fredericksburg is served by both Amtrak and VRE. 

Additionally, VRE serves Spotsylvania Station at Crossroads in the southern end of Area 3, which 

is also the southern terminus of VRE service in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia. A 29-mile section from Crossroads to Doswell, through a 

largely rural area with multiple small waterway crossings and extensive wetlands. This portion 

of the corridor represents the best opportunity for passenger trains to achieve and maintain the 

90 mph maximum authorized speed identified for the Project. There are no intercity passenger 

rail stations located in Area 4. 

Alternative Area 5: Ashland. A 10-mile section including the Town of Ashland and rural portions 

of Hanover County, extending from Doswell to I-295. There is one intercity passenger rail station 

in Area 5 at Ashland. Near the center of the area, the existing two-track main line runs at-grade 

for approximately two miles on narrow right-of-way through the center of Railroad 

Avenue/Center Street in the Town of Ashland. 

Alternative Area 6: Richmond. A 23-mile section from I-295 to Centralia, VA, that includes 

Henrico County, the City of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. There are two intercity 

passenger rail stations in Area 6 at Staples Mill Road Station (in Henrico County) and Main Street 

Station (in downtown Richmond). Two rail routes diverge at Acca Yard, north of Richmond, and 

reconnect at Centralia (the southern terminus of the Project): 

 The A-Line is the western rail line around Richmond, and is currently used by the majority 

of north-south passenger and freight trains. It is CSXT’s principal freight route and is 

approximately 14.3 miles from the south end of Acca Yard to Centralia. 

 The S-Line runs through the downtown center of Richmond, as shown in Figure 4.3-1, and 

is currently used primarily by local freight to serve industry and intercity passenger rail 

service to Newport News. It is approximately 15.6 miles from the south end of Acca Yard 

to Centralia. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-8 

Figure 4.3-1: Preferred Alternative 

Note that for the figures and tables in this chapter, CSXT uses prefixes to denote track mileposts within 

subdivisions: “CFP” is the milepost prefix designating the RF&P subdivision of CSXT, and “A” is the 

milepost prefix designating the North End (A-Line) subdivision of CSXT.
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-9 

4.3.1 Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

4.3.1.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 1B 

The Preferred Alternative in Area 1 (Arlington, Long Bridge Approach) is 1B: Add Two Tracks 

on the West. Detailed infrastructure improvements associated with Preferred Alternative 1B are 

provided in Table 4.3-1, and a single-page summary schematic is shown in Figure 4.3-2. Refer to 

Appendix L of this Final EIS for a mapbook of the Preferred Alternative that shows additional 

engineering details for the 123-mile Project corridor, including permanent and temporary LOD. 

Table 4.3-1: Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

1B: Add Two Main Tracks on 

the West (CFP 110.0 to CFP 

109.3)

The west alignment will add two 

additional tracks west of the existing 

tracks, within existing right-of-way 

and, in some curves, realign and 

improve existing tracks to increase 

speed. The maximum authorized 

speed for this area is ≤ 50 mph 

based on curve and track geometry; 

actual operating speeds will be 

refined during the next phases of 

design and future modeling of train 

operations. 

Track 

 Add two tracks to the west side of the existing tracks south of George Washington 

Memorial Parkway1 (CFP 110.05) for approximately 1,650 and 3,000 feet. 

 Add one new track beside the existing tracks to the: 

- West and south of the two new tracks noted above for approximately 2,900 feet. 

- East between the improved existing tracks and the end of Area 1/beginning of 

Area 2 (CFP 109.3). 

 Improve existing tracks to increase speeds through the curve at CFP 109.7 to 109.3. 

 Construct crossovers south of George Washington Memorial Parkway. 

 Extend existing culverts to accommodate the new third track. 

 Install additional 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line 

along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Relocate (or protect in place) utilities and/or fiber optics lines as required. 

Stations 

 No stations in this area. 

Structures 

 No structure modifications. 

Notes: 1. No encroachment onto the existing railroad bridge over the George Washington Memorial Parkway is proposed by 

the addition of the two tracks from the DC2RVA Project. 

Long Bridge over the Potomac River 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-10 

Figure 4.3-2: Preferred Alternative 1B: Add Two Main Tracks on the West
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-11 

4.3.1.2 Basis for Selecting 1B 

In the Draft EIS, DRPT identified the approximately one-mile Alternative Area 1, located 

immediately south of the Long Bridge, to evaluate potential connections between the DC2RVA 

corridor and a future recommendation from the separate Long Bridge project (see Section 1.4.2 

for summary). DRPT assumed that an additional two tracks would be added across the Potomac 

River as part of the Long Bridge project, and identified three DC2RVA Project Build Alternatives 

in Area 1 to add two tracks to the existing two tracks within existing CSXT right-of-way to connect 

to potential future Long Bridge recommendation options: 

 1A: Add two tracks on the east 

 1B: Add two tracks on the west 

 1C: Add one track on the west and one track on the east 

Since each of these Area 1 Build Alternatives equally fulfilled the DC2RVA Project’s Purpose and 

Need, DRPT determined in the Draft EIS that selection of the Preferred Alternative in Area 1 

should be based on compatibility with the future decision on how capacity will be added at Long 

Bridge and deferred a recommendation until that time. 

Subsequent to the Draft EIS, on June 19, 2018, DDOT released the Alternatives Development 

Report for the Long Bridge project4 that established two action alternatives to be evaluated in 

their project Draft EIS (which is separate from this DC2RVA EIS process): 

 Long Bridge Action Alternative A. A new two-track bridge would be constructed 

upstream (west) of the existing Long Bridge, and the existing two-track Long Bridge 

would be retained, creating a four-track crossing. 

 Long Bridge Action Alternative B. A new two-track bridge would be constructed 

upstream (west) of the existing bridge, and the existing bridge would be replaced with a 

new two-track bridge, creating a four-track crossing. 

While the Long Bridge project has two alternatives that are advancing, both Long Bridge 

alternatives align with DC2RVA Alternative 1B (i.e., adding two tracks upstream (west) of 

existing), and do not align with DC2RVA Alternatives 1A or 1C. Therefore, Alternative 1B is the 

Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Project. 

4.3.1.3 Changes to 1B Subsequent to the Draft EIS 

Since the publication of the Draft EIS, the alternatives development process for the Long Bridge 

project moved forward to allow for selection of an alignment for the DC2RVA Preferred 

Alternative, as described above. Additionally, comments from the public and review agencies 

(such as from Arlington County regarding the Long Bridge Park project5), combined with new 

data either provided or discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted in modifications 

to the conceptual engineering for Alternative 1B. 

 

4 The Long Bridge project Alternatives Development Report is available on their project website: 

 http://longbridgeproject.com/study-documents/

5 Details available at the Long Bridge Park website: 

 https://projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/parks-open-space/long-bridge-park/ 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-12 

These conceptual engineering modifications in Area 1 originated from: 

 Addressing Draft EIS comments to minimize impacts by adding or extending retaining walls 

 Addressing specific comments about: 

- Adjustments to track curves for train operations or impact mitigations 

- Track improvements, such as crossovers, proposed between the existing tracks or 

between the existing and proposed track(s) for train operations 

4.3.2 Area 2: Northern Virginia 

4.3.2.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 2A 

The Preferred Alternative in Area 2 (Northern Virginia) is 2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track. 

Detailed infrastructure improvements associated with Preferred Alternative 2A are provided in 

Table 4.3-2, and a single-page summary schematic is shown in Figure 4.3-3. Refer to Appendix L 

of this Final EIS for a mapbook of the Preferred Alternative that shows additional engineering 

details for the 123-mile Project corridor, including permanent and temporary LOD. 

Station improvements at Alexandria and Woodbridge stations are shown in Figure 4.3-4 and 4.3-

5, respectively. The station at Quantico is undergoing improvements as part of a separate project 

being led by VRE. 

4.3.2.2 Basis for Selecting 2A 

Alternative Area 2 is the most congested area in the DC2RVA corridor, with intercity passenger 

trains, VRE commuter trains, and CSXT freight trains utilizing capacity on the existing tracks. 

This 47.3-mile area of the corridor, from Crystal City in Arlington to Fredericksburg, also passes 

through developed urban areas and crosses several major rivers, including at the Occoquan River, 

Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek, and Aquia Creek. 

In the Draft EIS, in order to reduce impacts to property, wetlands, and existing infrastructure, 

DRPT considered and dismissed the alternative alignments that would increase speed and/or 

capacity but required construction outside the CSXT right-of-way in Area 2. By adding a fourth 

track to the existing triple-track section from Crystal City to Alexandria and adding a third track 

in locations that currently only have two tracks from Alexandria to Fredericksburg, where 

required, Preferred Alternative 2A will support expanded intercity passenger service, VRE 

commuter service, and CSXT freight service and improve reliability. Preferred Alternative 2A 

will also increase speed and/or capacity while remaining primarily within the existing CSXT 

right-of-way. Locations of river crossings were carefully selected to reduce impacts. 

The Preferred Alternative will increase passenger train speeds where practicable, with increased 

speeds of 80 to 90 mph achievable in some sections based on curve and track geometry; actual 

operating speeds will be refined during the next phases of design and future modeling of train 

operations. 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-13 

Table 4.3-2: Area 2: Northern Virginia Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

(CFP 109.3 to CFP 62) 

2A will add one additional main line track and, 

in some curves, realign and improve existing 

tracks to improve speed. The additional track 

will result in a fourth track from Crystal City 

to Alexandria, and a third track from 

Alexandria to Dahlgren Junction. 

The additional track will be located on either 

the east or west side of the existing tracks, 

based on rail operation considerations, site 

constraints, and potential impacts. Rail 

improvements are generally within existing 

right-of-way. 

The track maximum authorized speed in this 

area is variable by segment, with increased 

speeds of 80 to 90 mph in some sections 

where practicable, based on curve and track 

geometry; actual operating speeds will be 

refined during future phases of design and 

future modeling of train operations. 

Track 

 Add one new track beside the existing tracks to the: 

- East between the end of Area 1/beginning of Area 2 (CFP 109.3) and 

Norfolk Southern rail yard (CFP 103.9). 

- East between north of Furnace Road (CFP 90.0) and south of Rippon VRE 

Station (CFP 85.3). 

- West between south of Rippon VRE Station (CFP 85.3) and south of 

Powells Creek (CFP 83.7). 

- East between north of Brent Point Road (CFP 72.3) and north of 

Courthouse Road (CFP 69.1). 

- West between north of Courthouse Road (CFP 69.1) and north of 

Andrew Chapel Road (CFP 68.0). 

- East between north of Andrew Chapel Road (CFP 68.0) and north of Mt. 

Hope Church Road (CFP 67.6). 

- West between north of Mt. Hope Church Road (CFP 67.6) and north of 

Potomac Creek (CFP 65.7). 

- East between north of Potomac Creek (CFP 65.7) and north of Leeland 

Road VRE Station (CFP 64.6). 

- West between north of Leeland Road VRE Station (CFP 64.6) and north 

of Claiborne Run (CFP 62.6). 

- East between north of Claiborne Run (CFP 62.6) and the end of Area 

2/beginning of Area 3 (CFP 62). 

Several sections within this area do not 

require the addition of a main track as part 

of the Project because either the required 

capacity has been added or an additional 

main track is under construction through an 

independent action: 

 Alexandria to Franconia currently has 

three tracks from the AF interlocking at 

CFP 104.5 south to CFP 98 just north of 

the Franconia-Springfield VRE station. 

 Franconia to Occoquan is currently two 

tracks but is being designed for three 

tracks as part of a separate project 

(project limits CFP 99 to CFP 90). 

 A third track between Powells Creek and 

Arkendale (CFP 83 to CFP 72) has been 

approved under a separate project, and 

the portion of it from North Possum 

Point to Arkendale (CFP 79 to CFP 72) is 

currently under construction to add a 

third track (construction of the remainder 

is postponed until additional construction 

funding is available). This separate project 

includes improvements to Quantico 

Amtrak/VRE Station. 

 Improve existing tracks to increase speeds from: 

- CFP 109.3 to 109.2 

- CFP 109.2 to 109.1 

- CFP 109.0 to 108.6 

- CFP 108.6 to 108.2 

- CFP 108.1 to 107.9 

- CFP 107.8 to 107.4 

- CFP 107.4 to 107.2 

- CFP 106.9 to 106.5 

- CFP 105.8 to 105.3 

- CFP 105.2 to 104.8 

- CFP 103.7 to 103.4 

- CFP 102.6 to 101.8 

- CFP 100.5 to 99.7 

- CFP 89.5 to 88.9 

- CFP 88.9 to 88.0 

- CFP 86.6 to 86.3 

- CFP 85.7 to 85.4 

- CFP 84.5 to 83.9 

- CFP 83.6 to 83.4 

- CFP 72.1 to 71.7 

- CFP 70.6 to 70.0 

- CFP 69.7 to 69.4 

- CFP 68.5 to 68.0 

- CFP 67.9 to 67.4 

- CFP 67.1 to 66.7 

- CFP 66.4 to 65.7 

- CFP 65.0 to 64.4 

- CFP 63.3 to 62.4 

 Construct crossovers at: 

- Slater’s Lane (CFP 106.3) 

- AF (CFP 104.3) 

- Featherstone (CFP 87.0) 

- Arkendale (CFP 72.1) 

- Ross (CFP 66.2) 

 Improve at-grade crossing and crossing protection at: 

- Featherstone Road (CFP 86.9) (to be replaced in-kind) 

- Brent Point Road (CFP 72.3) 

 Extend existing culverts to accommodate the new third track. 

 Install 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Relocate (or protect in place) utilities and/or fiber optics lines as required. 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-14 

Table 4.3-2: Area 2: Northern Virginia Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

Stations 

 Crystal City VRE Station (CFP 108.6) – Align tracks to accommodate VRE 

platform updates. 

 Alexandria Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 105.3) – Improve existing City-owned 

surface parking to accommodate ~150 parking spaces adjacent to the 

existing station building. 1

 Woodbridge Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 89.1) – Lengthen and widen east 

platform to become the center island platform, align track to accommodate 

VRE platform updates on the west side, and improve the pedestrian bridge. 

 Rippon VRE Station (CFP 85.3) – Align track to accommodate VRE platform 

updates. 

 Brooke VRE Station (CFP 67.9) – Align track to accommodate VRE platform 

updates. 

 Leeland Road VRE Station (CFP 63.5) – Align track to accommodate VRE 

platform updates. 

Structures 

 Add one track to the existing railroad bridges on the: 

- East side over Four Mile Run Creek (CFP 107.9) 

- East side over Braddock Street (CFP 105.9) 

- East side over Commonwealth Avenue (CFP 105.4) 

- East side over King Street (CFP 105.3). 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge adjacent to existing structure on 

the: 

- East side over Furnace Road (CFP 90.0) 

- East side over Farm Creek (CFP 86.6) 

- East side over Unnamed Creek (CFP 86.1) 

- East side over Andrew Chapel Road (CFP 68.0) 

- East side over Claiborne Run (CFP 62.5) 

 Construct substructure/foundation for a new two-track rail bridge (DC2RVA 

Project includes construction of a single-track bridge with space to add a 

second track, if required for future capacity2) adjacent to the existing 

structure on the: 

- East side over the Occoquan River (CFP 89.7) 

- West side over Neabsco Creek (CFP 84.8) 

- West side over Powells Creek (CFP 83.7) 

- East side over Aquia Creek (CFP 70.9) 

- East side over Potomac Creek (CFP 65.3) 

 Replace road overpasses to provide sufficient vertical and horizontal 

clearance for the new track at: 

- Dawson Beach Road (CFP 88.8) 

- Eskimo Hill Road (CFP 66.8) 

- Leeland Road (CFP 63.5) 

- Primmer House Road (CFP 63.0) 

 Add crash wall to the pedestrian bridge at Veterans Memorial Park (CFP 

87.8). 

 Close Mt. Hope Church Road (CFP 67.6) and construct an alternative route 

prior to closure. 

Notes: 1. Project improvements and impact limits of disturbance at the Alexandria Station, including improvements to the City-owned parking 

lot, are provided for station planning by the City and do not indicate property acquisition for new parking facilities. 

2. Provision of alignment for future installation of a second track (fourth track) at this location does not preclude the requirement for future 

environmental analysis to construct the fourth track through this section of the corridor. 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-15 

Figure 4.3-3: Preferred Alternative 2A: Add Third or Fourth Main Track
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-16 

Figure 4.3-4: Alexandria Station Improvements for Preferred Alternative 2A
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERR

Figure 4.3-5: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Preferred Alternative 2A
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-18 

4.3.2.3 Changes to 2A Subsequent to the Draft EIS 

Comments from the public and review agencies, combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted in modifications to the conceptual 

engineering to Alternative 2A. These conceptual engineering modifications originated from: 

 Coordinating with adjacent active projects: 

- Atlantic Gateway 

- Powells Creek to Arkendale Third Track project, including: 

 Adding design for temporary end of project at North Possum Point. 

 Adding design for completion of project from North Possum Point to Powells Creek. 

 Removing improvements proposed by DC2RVA that were added to conceptual 

design based on DC2RVA design criteria, e.g. shifting track to improve curve 

speeds and crossing protection 

- VRE Station Expansions. While the stations would be improved by others (i.e., VRE), 

DRPT has included the following improvements as part of the DC2RVA Project where 

needed to accommodate the construction of the third track: 

 Crystal City VRE Station (CFP 108.6)—Align tracks to accommodate VRE platform 

updates 

 Alexandria Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 105.3)—Align tracks to accommodate VRE 

platform updates 

 Woodbridge Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 89.1)—Align track to accommodate VRE 

platform updates on the west side, improve the pedestrian bridge, and provide for 

an intertrack fence 

 Rippon VRE Station (CFP 85.3)—Align track to accommodate VRE platform updates 

 Addressing access impacts to driveways and properties along the corridor 

 Incorporating crossing improvements, i.e., additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, and potential locations of gates and equipment sheds 

 Addressing specific comments about: 

- Access at Railroad Avenue in Woodbridge 

- Adjustments to track curves for train operations or impact mitigations 

- Crash walls to protect highway bridge piers 

Rail Bridge over Neabsco Creek in Area 2 (Northern Virginia) 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-19 

4.3.3 Area 3: Fredericksburg 

4.3.3.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 3B 

The Preferred Alternative in Area 3 (Fredericksburg) is 3B: Add Third Main Track Through City. 

Detailed infrastructure improvements associated with Preferred Alternative 3B are provided in 

Table 4.3-3, and a single-page summary schematic is shown in Figure 4.3-6. Refer to Appendix L 

of this Final EIS for a mapbook of the Preferred Alternative that shows additional engineering 

details for the 123-mile Project corridor, including permanent and temporary LOD. Station 

improvements at Fredericksburg Station are shown in Figure 4.3-7. 

Table 4.3-3: Area 3: Fredericksburg Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Infrastructure Improvements 

3B: Add Third Main Track Through 

the City, Add a Third Main Track 

North and South of the City (CFP 

62 to CFP 48) 

3B will add one additional main line track 

in areas with only two existing tracks 

and, in some curves, realign and improve 

existing tracks to improve speed. 

Through the city, the additional track 

will be constructed east of the existing 

two tracks. Improvements between the 

Amtrak/VRE station in Fredericksburg 

and VRE’s Spotsylvania Station will be 

limited to re-aligning existing tracks 

through curves to improve speed as a 

third track already exists. Rail 

improvements are generally within 

existing right-of-way. 

The track maximum authorized speed is 

variable by segment , with increased 

speeds of 80 to 90 mph in some sections 

where practicable, based on curve and 

track geometry; actual operating speeds 

will be refined during future phases of 

design and future modeling of train 

operations 

Two areas do not require an additional 

main line track because the segments 

already have three main line tracks: 

 Fredericksburg to Hamilton currently 

has three main line tracks from CFP 

58.9 to CFP 55.7. 

 Hamilton to Crossroads currently has 

three main line tracks from CFP 55.7 

to CFP 53.2, along with the new VRE 

Spotsylvania Station (CFP 53.3). 

Track 

 Add one new track beside the existing tracks, generally to the: 

- East between the end of Area 2/beginning of Area 3 (CFP 62) and north of 

Blue & Gray Parkway (CFP 58.7) 

- West between CFP 57.6 and CFP 54.5 

- East between south of Spotsylvania VRE Station (CFP 53.3) and south of VRE 

Crossroads Layover Yard (CFP 52.6) 

- West between south of VRE Crossroads Layover Yard (CFP 52.6) and the 

end of Area 3/beginning of Area 4 (CFP 48) 

 Improve existing tracks to increase speeds from: 

- CFP 62.3 to 61.7 

- CFP 61.6 to 61.2 

- CFP 60.4 to 59.6 

- CFP 59.3 to 58.5 

- CFP 57.9 to 57.6 

- CFP 56.8 to 56.5 

- CFP 56.1 to 55.8 

- CFP 55.6 to 54.8 

- CFP 54.7 to 54.4 

- CFP 54.1 to 53.5 

- CFP 52.6 to 51.61

- CFP 51.5 to 51.01

- CFP 50.9 to 48.41

 Construct crossovers at: 

- Dahlgren Junction (CFP 61.1) 

- Hamilton (CFP 55.7) 

- Crossroads (CFP 53.2) 

- Claiborne Crossing (CFP 48.2) 

 Improve at-grade crossing and crossing protection at: 

- Mine Road (CFP 54.77) 

- Summit Crossing Road (Route 668) (CFP 51.41) 

- Claiborne Crossing Road (Route 660) (CFP 48.63) 

 Extend existing culverts to accommodate the new third track. 

 Install 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line along 

the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Relocate (or protect in place) utilities and/or fiber optics lines, as required. 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-20 

Table 4.3-3: Area 3: Fredericksburg Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Infrastructure Improvements 

Stations 

 Fredericksburg Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 59.4): 

- Lengthen and widen east platform to become a center island platform with a 

length of 850 feet 

- Length and widen the west platform to a length of 950 feet. All platforms to 

be 8 inches above top of rail 

- Construct new station building (approximately 6,800 square feet) west of the 

existing tracks at the intersection of Caroline Street and Lafayette Boulevard 

- Construct a new vertical access between the station building, platforms, and 

parking structure 

- Relocate existing elevator on east platform to accommodate the new third 

track 

- Construct a multi-level parking garage for approximately 225 parking spaces 

and modify the existing surface parking to accommodate approximately 20 

parking spaces. The new parking garage and surface parking will be located 

east of the tracks opposite the new station where a current surface parking 

lot is located. Approximately nine ADA parking spaces will be installed 

adjacent to the new station building.2

Structures

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge adjacent to the existing structure on 

the: 

- East side over Harrell Road (CFP 61.8) 

- East side over Claiborne Run (CFP 60.6) 

- East side of the platform at Fredericksburg Station (CFP 59.4) 

- East side over Sophia Street (CFP 59.4) 

- East side over Caroline Street (CFP 59.4) 

- East side over Princess Anne Street (CFP 59.4) 

- East side over Charles Street (CFP 59.3) 

 Construct substructure/foundation for a new two-track rail bridge (DC2RVA 

Project includes construction of a single-track bridge with space to add a second 

track, if required for future capacity3) on the east side of the existing structure 

over the Rappahannock River (CFP 59.45). 

 Construct new road overpass providing sufficient vertical and horizontal 

clearances for new track at Lansdowne Road (Route 638) (CFP 57.57). 

 Replace road overpass to provide sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for 

the new track at Kings Highway (CFP 60.0). 

 Add crash wall to the existing piers at Butler/White Oak Road (CFP 60.8).

Notes: 1. These curve improvements require track constructions on a new alignment within the existing CSXT right-of-way. 

2. Project improvements and impact limits of disturbance at the Fredericksburg Station, including improvements to the existing surface parking 

areas, are provided for station planning by the City but do not indicate property acquisition for new parking facilities. 

3. Provision of alignment for future installation of a second track (fourth track) at this location does not preclude the requirement for future 

environmental analysis to construct the fourth track through this section of the corridor. 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-21 

Figure 4.3-6: Preferred Alternative 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through City
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-22 

Figure 4.3-7: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Preferred Alternative 3B
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-23 

4.3.3.2 Basis for Selecting 3B 

In the Draft EIS, DRPT screened multiple alignments and evaluated three Build Alternatives in detail: 

 3A: Maintain Two Tracks Through City 

 3B: Add One Track Through City East of Existing Tracks 

 3C: Add a Two-Track Bypass East of City 

Maintaining two tracks through the City of Fredericksburg (i.e., Build Alternative 3A as evaluated 

in the Draft EIS) does not provide sufficient capacity to support increased intercity passenger 

service, support VRE commuter service, or accommodate CSXT freight service through the City, 

and therefore does not meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. Adding a two-track bypass to 

the east of the City (i.e., Build Alternative 3C as evaluated in the Draft EIS) provides sufficient 

capacity, but would incur substantial impacts to wetlands, historic and cultural resources, 

property, and infrastructure. In addition, there was strong local opposition to a new greenfield 

bypass. Therefore, Alternative 3B, which adds a third main track to link existing sections of three 

or more tracks and provides a continuous three track corridor through the City, was selected as 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 3B provides the capacity to support intercity passenger service, VRE commuter 

service, and CSXT freight service, and will have fewer impacts to property, wetlands, and 

infrastructure than a bypass, and occurs largely within the existing CSXT-owned right-of-way. 

Alternative 3B supports past and ongoing investments by the Commonwealth and VRE and has 

local government support. 

It is important to note that while the Commonwealth considered a two-track option through 

Fredericksburg (Build Alternative 3A), similar to the Preferred Alternative in Area 5 through 

Ashland (Alternative 5A, see Section 4.3.5), the two-track option through Fredericksburg did not 

provide sufficient capacity at the mid-point location along the Project corridor. The rail corridor 

through Fredericksburg hosts more train traffic than Ashland, particularly due to the presence of 

VRE commuter service north of Spotsylvania, and a two-track railroad with only two platform 

edges in Fredericksburg will not support reliable service for intercity passenger, VRE commuter, 

or CSXT freight trains. Therefore, FRA and DRPT determined that while two tracks will be 

sufficient for the Project in Ashland, additional capacity was necessary in Fredericksburg. 

FRA and DRPT also considered extending the east and west platforms up to 1,200 feet in length to better 

accommodate long distance trains and crew access; however, the tracks curve south of the station on 

limited width right-of-way which constrains platform expansion to the south. North of the station, 

extended platforms of 1,200 feet would need to be built on new structures extending over the 

Rappahannock River, with additional impacts to property, historic and cultural resources, visual 

quality, natural resources, and waters of the U.S. Therefore, FRA and DRPT determined that the west 

side platform would be extended to 950 feet, and the east side platform would be 850 feet in length in 

order to improve passenger and crew access to trains while reducing impacts. 

4.3.3.3 Changes to 3B Subsequent to the Draft EIS 

Comments from the public and review agencies, combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted in modifications to the conceptual 

engineering for Alterative 3B. These conceptual engineering modifications originated from: 

 Addressing train operations improvements within the existing/proposed track limits 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-24 

 Addressing local planning comments to: 

- Eliminate a highway bridge replacement at White Oak Road 

- Plan for a pedestrian culvert at Naomi Road 

 Addressing access impacts to driveways and properties along the corridor 

 Incorporating crossing improvements, i.e., additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, and potential locations of gates and equipment sheds 

 Adding a fourth track/siding to allow trains to pass a stopped or slow-moving train south 

of Fredericksburg 

 Extending the west side platform at the Fredericksburg station to the maximum allowable 

by site constraints while avoiding/minimizing impacts 

Rail Bridge over the Rappahannock River in Area 3 (Fredericksburg) 

4.3.4 Area 4: Central Virginia 

4.3.4.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 4A 

The Preferred Alternative in Area 4 (Central Virginia) is 4A: Add a Third Main Track. Detailed 

infrastructure improvements associated with Preferred Alternative 4A are provided in Table 4.3-

4, and a single-page summary schematic is shown in Figure 4.3-8. Refer to Appendix L of this 

Final EIS for a mapbook of the Preferred Alternative that shows additional engineering details 

for the 123-mile Project corridor, including permanent and temporary LOD. There are no intercity 

passenger rail stations located within Area 4. 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-25 

Table 4.3-4: Area 4: Central Virginia Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

4A: Add a Third Main Track 

(CFP 48 to CFP 19) 

4A will add one additional main 

line track and, in some curves, 

realign and improve existing tracks 

to improve speed. The additional 

track will be located on either the 

east or west side of the existing 

tracks based on rail operation 

considerations, site constraints, 

and potential impacts. 

The track maximum authorized 

speed is variable by segment, with 

increased speeds of 80 to 90 mph in 

some sections where practicable, 

based on curve and track geometry; 

actual operating speeds will be 

refined during future phases of 

design and future modeling of train 

operations. 

Track 

 Add one new track beside the existing tracks to the: 

- West between the end of Area 3/beginning of Area 4 and south of the North Anna 

River (CFP 23.8) 

- East between south of the North Anna River (CFP 23.8) and north of Kings 

Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.8) 

- West between north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.8) and the end of Area 

4/beginning of Area 5 (CFP 19) 

 Improve existing tracks to increase speeds from: 

- CFP 45.7 to 45.4 

- CFP 41.9 to 41.5 

- CFP 40.9 to 40.6 

- CFP 40.3 to 40.0 

- CFP 39.1 to 38.8 

- CFP 36.4 to 36.0 

- CFP 35.0 to 34.8 

- CFP 31.7 to 31.1 

- CFP 30.6 to 30.2 

- CFP 30.0 to 29.5 

- CFP 29.4 to 28.2 

- CFP 27.7 to 27.1 

- CFP 26.9 to 26.6 

- CFP 26.4 to 25.5 

- CFP 23.5 to 23.2 

- CFP 20.5 to 19.9 

 Construct crossovers at: 

- Milford (CFP 37.6) 

- Colemans Mill (CFP 29.6) 

- North Doswell (CFP 23.1) 

 Improve at-grade crossing and crossing protection at:

- Stonewall Jackson Road (Route 

606) (CFP 47.2) 

- Woodford Road (CFP 44.5) 

- Woodslane Road (CFP 43.5) 

- Paige Road (CFP 40.4) 

- Penola Road (CFP 33.0) 

- Doswell Road (CFP 21.9) 

- Multiple private road crossings 

 Improve existing tracks at Rogers Clark Boulevard (CFP 38.5) to provide adequate 

horizontal clearance. 

 Close existing at-grade crossing at Colemans Mill Road (CFP 29.7). 

 Extend existing culverts to accommodate the new third track. 

 Install 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line along the 

alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Relocate (or protect in place) utilities and/or fiber optics lines, as required. 

Stations 

 No stations within this area. 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge adjacent to the existing structure on the: 

- West side over Mattaponi River (CFP 34.8) 

- West side over North Anna River (CFP 23.9) 

- West side over Polecat Creek (CFP 32.1) 

- West side over Taylorsville Road (Route 689) (CFP 19.6) 

- West side over Little River (CFP 19.5) 

 Add crash wall to the existing piers at: 

- Rogers Clark Boulevard (CFP 38.5) 

- Dry Bridge Road (CFP 28.4) 

- Ruther Glen Road (CFP 27.0) 

- I-95 (CFP 26.5) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-26 

Figure 4.3-8: Preferred Alternative 4A: Add a Third Main Track
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-27 

4.3.4.2 Basis for Selecting 4A 

In the Draft EIS, DRPT screened multiple alignments to improve capacity and reach the 90 mph 

speed, while minimizing impacts to wetlands, waterways, and other resources, and carried one 

alternative forward for further evaluation in the Draft EIS—Alternative 4A, which adds a third 

main track to the west of the existing two tracks through most of Area 4. Alternative 4A was selected 

as the Preferred Alternative as it increases passenger train speed and will add Project improvements 

largely within the existing CSXT-owned right-of-way. It will support expanded intercity passenger 

service and CSXT freight service, while minimizing impacts to wetlands and property. 

4.3.4.3 Changes to 4A Subsequent to the Draft EIS 

Comments from the public and review agencies, combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted in modifications to the conceptual 

engineering for Alternative 4A. These conceptual engineering modifications originated from: 

 Addressing train operations improvements, including crossovers, within the existing or 

proposed track limits 

 Addressing access impacts to driveways and properties along the corridor 

 Incorporating crossing improvements, i.e., additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, and potential locations of gates and equipment sheds 

Buckingham Branch Railroad Crossing at Doswell in Area 4 (Central Virginia) 

4.3.5 Area 5: Ashland 

4.3.5.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 5A 

The Preferred Alternative in Area 5 (Ashland) is 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No 

Station Improvements). Alternative 5A includes the construction of a third track for 3.1 miles 

north and 4.7 miles south of Ashland while retaining the existing two-track alignment for 

approximately 2.2 miles through the Town of Ashland, without improvements to the existing 

Ashland Station. Detailed infrastructure improvements associated with Preferred Alternative 5A 

are provided in Table 4.3-5, and a single-page summary schematic is shown in Figure 4.3-9. Refer 

to Appendix L of this Final EIS for a mapbook of the Preferred Alternative that shows additional 

engineering details for the 123-mile Project corridor, including permanent and temporary LOD. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-28 

Table 4.3-5: Area 5: Ashland Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(No Station Improvements) Add a Third 

Main Track North and South of Town 

(CFP 19 to CFP 9) 

5A will maintain the existing two tracks (i.e., no 

construction of new track) through Ashland, 

which will be used by freight and passenger 

trains similar to current conditions. No station 

improvements are part of the Project. 

One new track will be constructed north and 

south of town, and there are some shifts of 

existing tracks to improve speed throughout the 

area. Rail improvements are generally within 

existing right-of-way. 

The track maximum authorized speed in this 

area is variable by segment, with increased 

speeds of 80 to 90 mph in some sections where 

practicable, and with an existing 35 mph 

municipal slow order within the Town of 

Ashland. Maximum authorized speeds are based 

on curve and track geometry; actual operating 

speeds will be refined during future phases of 

design and future modeling of train operations. 

Ashland station improvements, including new 

low-level side platforms, are part of a separate 

plan for ADA improvements by Amtrak, as 

discussed in Section 7.7.1. 

The CTB included several Ashland-specific 

directives as part of their resolution for this 

Project (Appendix H of this Final EIS), which are 

summarized in Section 3.4 of this Final EIS. 

Accordingly, at-grade road and pedestrian 

crossing improvements in Ashland are part of a 

plan separate from this Project. 

Track 

 Add one new track beside the existing tracks to the: 

- West between the end of Area 4/beginning of Area 5 (CFP 19) and 

north of Vaughan Road (CFP 15.6) 

- East between Ashcake Road (CFP 13.9) and south of Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 13.0) 

- West between south of Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 13.0) and the 

end of Area 5/beginning of Area 6 (CFP 9). 

 Construct crossovers at: 

- Vaughan (CFP 15.8) 

- Ashcake (CFP 13.6) 

- Elmont (CFP 11.4) 

 Improve at-grade crossing and crossing protection at: 

- Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 13.0) 

- Elmont Road (CFP 11.6) 

- Cedar Lane (CFP 11.2) 

- Mill Road (CFP 9.7) 

 Extend existing culverts to accommodate the new third track. 

 Install 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line 

along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Relocate (or protect in place) utilities and/or fiber optics lines as 

required. 

Stations 

 Ashland Station (CFP 14.70): No improvements under the DC2RVA Project. 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge adjacent to the existing structure 

on the west side over Elletts Crossing Road (Route 641) (CFP 17.7). 

 Construct substructure/foundation for a new two-track rail bridge 

(DC2RVA Project includes construction of a single-track bridge with space 

to add a second track, if required for future capacity1) adjacent to the 

existing structure on the: 

- West side over the South Anna River (CFP 18.7) 

- West side over the Chickahominy River (CFP 10.6) 

 Construct new road overpass providing sufficient vertical and horizontal 

clearances for new track at: 

- Vaughan Road (CFP 15.6) 

- Ashcake Road (CFP 13.9) with new connector road from Ashcake 

Road to Center Street 

 Replace road overpass to provide sufficient vertical and horizontal 

clearance for the new track at Washington Highway (CFP 17.2). 

 Add crash wall to the existing piers at: 

- Old Ridge Road (CFP 19.0) 

- Greenwood Road (CFP 9.9) 

Notes: 1. Provision of alignment for future installation of a second track (fourth track) at this location does not preclude the requirement for 

future environmental analysis to construct the fourth track through this section of the corridor.
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-29 

Figure 4.3-9: Preferred Alternative 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-30 

4.3.5.2 Basis for Selecting 5A 

During development of the Draft EIS, DRPT screened numerous at-grade, above-ground, belowground, and bypass alignments, including use of the existing Buckingham Branch Railroad east 

of I-95. In the Draft EIS, DRPT evaluated seven alternatives in detail: 

 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (3-2-3 Option) 

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

 5B: Add One Track Through Town East of Existing Tracks 

 5B–Ashcake: Add One Track Through Town East of Existing Tracks (Relocate Station to 

Ashcake) 

 5C: Add Two-Track Western Bypass 

 5C–Ashcake: Add Two-Track Western Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

 5D-Ashcake: Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track), Relocate Station to 

Ashcake 

During preparation of the DC2RVA Draft EIS, DRPT recognized that many of the alternatives for 

greater rail capacity in the Town of Ashland and Hanover County area generated community 

concerns. FRA and DRPT deferred the recommendation of a preferred alternative for Area 5 to 

the Final EIS, and DRPT established the Ashland/Hanover Area Community Advisory 

Committee (CAC) to advise and inform DRPT on DC2RVA alternatives and issues in the 

Ashland/Hanover County area. The CAC was tasked with reassessing all previous options 

considered for greater rail capacity in the Ashland/Hanover County area and identifying 

potential options that could meet the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project, while also 

minimizing or avoiding potential impacts to the community. The CAC process was initiated to 

run in parallel to the Draft EIS; in this Final EIS, refer to Section 2.1.4.3 for summary of the CAC 

and to Appendix G for a summary report of all CAC activities. 

After careful and deliberate consideration of over 30 options for greater rail capacity in the 

Ashland/Hanover area, the CAC identified the following least objectionable alternatives, which 

were previously described in detail in Section 3.3: 

 Modified Alternative 5A. The “3-2-3” option (i.e., maintaining two tracks through Town 

without station or at-grade crossing improvements) was determined by the CAC to be the 

least objectionable option for adding rail capacity through the Town of Ashland at-grade. 

 Three-Track Trench. A three-track trench through the Town of Ashland was determined 

by the CAC to be the least objectionable option for adding capacity below-grade. 

 Modified Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake. The western bypass closest to the Town of 

Ashland was determined by the CAC to be the least objectionable option for adding rail 

capacity outside the Town of Ashland—with the provision that the alignment would be 

adjusted to avoid directly impacting a children’s daycare facility on State Route 54, and to 

minimize impacts to residential properties. 

Based on the information and analyses of the seven Build Alternatives presented for Area 5 in the 

Draft EIS, public comments on the Draft EIS, information and comments developed through the 

CAC process, and subsequent refined rail operations analyses, Alternative 5A was selected by 

FRA and DRPT as the Preferred Alternative for Area 5. Alternative 5A provides sufficient 

capacity to support intercity passenger rail service and CSXT freight service while keeping 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-31 

improvements largely within existing CSXT-owned right-of-way. Alternative 5A has the least 

impact on property, wetlands and other natural resources, historic and cultural resources, and 

the built environment compared to other Project alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need. 

Alternative 5A also best addresses the larger Ashland/Hanover community’s concerns, including 

strong opposition to a bypass from Hanover County residents, and strong opposition to adding 

a track through Ashland from Town residents and Randolph-Macon College. Further, Preferred 

Alternative 5A as presented in this Final EIS further minimizes potential impacts within the 

downtown Ashland area with several design changes, as detailed in Section 4.3.5.3. Additionally, 

the CTB included a number of Ashland-specific directives as part of their resolution, which are 

summarized in Section 3.4 of this Final EIS. 

4.3.5.3 Changes to 5A Subsequent to the Draft EIS 

Comments from the public and review agencies, combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted in modifications to the conceptual 

engineering for Alternative 5A. Conceptual engineering modifications originated from: 

 Addressing agency comments and the CTB resolution to reduce impacts to the Town of 

Ashland between Vaughan Road/Archie Cannon Drive and Ashcake Road that include: 

- Eliminating Project-related station improvements6

- Reducing/minimizing Project footprint outside of existing CSXT right-of-way 

- Reassigning crossing safety improvements in the Town of Ashland to a future study 

by the town and DRPT (separate from this DC2RVA Project) 

 Addressing access impacts to driveways and properties along the corridor 

 Addressing train operations improvements, including crossovers, within the existing or 

proposed track limits 

 Addressing effects of additional information at Washington Highway (Route 1), requiring 

replacement of the existing overpass due to insufficient horizontal clearance for an 

additional track and crash wall

4.3.6 Area 6: Richmond 

4.3.6.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 6F 

The Preferred Alternative in Area 6 (Richmond) is 6F: Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations 

Full Service with S-Line Improvements. Detailed infrastructure improvements associated with 

Preferred Alternative 6F are provided in Table 4.3-6, and a single-page summary schematic is 

shown in Figure 4.3-10. Refer to Appendix L of this Final EIS for a mapbook of the Preferred 

Alternative that shows additional engineering details for the 123-mile Project corridor, including 

permanent and temporary LOD. 

Station improvements at Staples Mill Road and Main Street stations are shown in Figure 4.3-11 

and Figure 4.3-12, respectively. It is important to note that the Project aligns with the recent 

accessibility and multimodal improvements that were completed by Amtrak at Staples Mill Road 

Station in June 2018 under a separate project. 

 

6 While there are no station improvements in Ashland as part of this Project, it is part of a separate plan for ADA 

improvements by Amtrak, as discussed in Section 7.7.1 of this Final EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-32 

Table 4.3-6: Area 6: Richmond Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

6F: Staples Mill Road and Main Street 

Stations Full Service with S-Line 

Improvements (CFP 9 to A 11) 

6F includes railroad network and station 

infrastructure improvements required to 

provide improved service through Richmond 

at Staples Mill Road Station and Main Street 

Station (Full Service), where both stations 

will remain operational. One main track will 

be added along portions of existing RF&P 

(north of Richmond) and S-Line (through 

Richmond), and, in some curves, realign and 

improve existing tracks to improve speed. 

Moving all passenger train service (except 

Auto Train, which does not stop in 

Richmond) to the S-Line, separate from 

CSXT’s principal freight corridor through 

Richmond (i.e., the A-Line), will reduce rail 

congestion/delay. 

The track maximum authorized speed 

through this area is variable by segment, with 

increased speeds of 80 to 90 mph in some 

sections where practicable, and with top 

speeds of 40 mph through the Acca Yard 

area. Maximum authorized speeds are based 

on track and curve geometry; actual 

operating speeds will be refined during the 

next phases of design and future modeling of 

train operations. 

A portion within this area is part of 

ongoing work: the Mainline Relocation 

Project is under construction at Acca 

Yard and involves crossovers and new 

mainline track on west side of the yard. 

Passenger Service: All passenger trains 

that stop in Richmond will serve both 

stations, as described further below. 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian) to North Carolina, Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) to Norfolk, 

and Long Distance (Amtrak) passenger 

trains moving north-south through 

Richmond will be routed through Staples 

Mill Road Station and then to the west 

side of Main Street Station and beyond to 

Centralia and points south using the SLine. One Northeast Regional (SEHSR) 

Track 

 Add two new tracks beside the existing tracks to the: 

- East between south of Parham Rd (CFP 5.9), through Staples Mill Road 

Station (CFP 4.6), and north Acca Yard (CFP 3.4) 

- East between north Acca Yard (CFP 3.4), through Acca Yard, and south of 

Westwood Avenue (CFP 1.7) 

 Add one new track beside the existing tracks to the: 

- West between the end of Area 5/beginning of Area 6 (CFP 9) and south of 

Hermitage Road (CFP 5.4) 

- East between south of Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) and AM Junction (CA 85.5) 

- West between south of Falling Creek (S 7.2) and north of Kingsland Road (S 9.2) 

- East between south of Jefferson Davis Highway (S 8.8) and Centralia (S 10.9). 

 Add one new track at the following locations: 

- Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6), east of the proposed tracks and provide 

two new station tracks east of the new track 

- Between SAY (CFP 1.3) and south of Hermitage Road (SRN 3.5) to provide a 

new connecting track 

- On the existing elevated rail structure on both the east and west side of 

Main Street Station (SRN 0.0): the east track is between AM Junction (CA 

85.5) and Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5), and the west track is between AM 

Junction (CA 85.5), through the Triple Rail Crossing, and the James River 

- In the center of the existing tracks between the James River bridge (S 0.6) 

and south of the South Yard (S 2.5) 

- West of the existing tracks between south of the South Yard (S 1.7) and 

south of Ruffin Rd (S 4.0) to provide a 12,000-foot staging track 

 Reconstruct NS track at new diamond crossing south of the James River. 

 Close CSXT TransFlo facility and CSXT yard office on the east side of Acca 

Yard for CSXT to relocate to a new site to be determined by CSXT. 

 Add a new three-track passenger layover/servicing facility inside the Bellwood 

Wye (S 8.9). 

 Improve existing tracks to increase speeds from: 

- CFP 6.9 to 6.3 

- SRN 3.0 to 2.6 

- SRN 1.4 to 1.2 

- S 0.6 to 0.9

- S 2.4 to 2.8 

- S 8.4 to 8.6 

- S 10.0 to 10.8

 Construct crossovers at:

- Parham (CFP 6.0) 

- Dumbarton (CFP 3.7) 

- SAY (CFP 1.3) 

- Hermitage (SRN 3.5) 

- Hospital (SRN 1.2) 

- Bone Dry (SRN 0.4) 

- Rivanna (CA 84.5)

- Williams (S 1.2) 

- Federal (S 2.4) 

- Marlboro (S 4.0) 

- Falling Creek (S 7.2) 

- Bellwood (S 8.9) 

- Centralia (S 10.9)

 Improve at-grade crossing and crossing protection at:

- Mountain Road (CFP 8.1) 

- Hermitage Road (SRN 3.37) 

- Brook Road (SRN 2.3) 

- Maury Street (S 0.8) 

- Goodes Street (S 1.7) 

- Ruffin Road (S 4.0) 

- Bells Road (S 4.4) 

- Kingsland Road (S 9.2) 

- Multiple private roads

 Continued.
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-33 

Table 4.3-6: Area 6: Richmond Preferred Alternative 

Preferred Alternative Proposed Infrastructure Improvements 

round-trip train to Richmond will serve 

Staples Mill Road Station and then 

terminate at Main Street Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) 

passenger trains to Newport News will be 

routed through Staples Mill Road Station 

and then to the east side of Main Street 

Station using the Bellwood Subdivision, 

then continue on to Newport News using 

the Peninsula Subdivision.

 Close existing at-grade crossings at: 

- St. James Street (SRN 1.7) 

- Valley Road (SRN 1.6) 

- Dale Avenue / Trenton Avenue (S 4.98) 

- Brinkley Road (S 9.8) 

- Old Lane (A 10.7) 

 Extend existing culverts to accommodate the new third track. 

 Install 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required, under the rail line. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Relocate (or protect in place) utilities and/or fiber optics lines, as required. 

Stations 

 Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) 

- Construct two level-boarding island platforms (top elevation 48” above top 

of rail) 1,200 feet in length on east side of the main tracks. 

- Construct a pedestrian overpass or underpass with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms from the existing station. 

- Replace the existing station building with an approximately 10,400 square 

foot two-story building. 

 Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) 

- Construct two low-level platforms on each side of the station (a total of four 

platforms). 

- Platforms on the east side of the station will be 850 feet long by 15 feet wide. 

- Platforms on the west side of the station will be 950 feet long by 15 feet wide. 

- The east and west-side platforms adjacent to the station (the “inside” platforms) 

will incorporate the platforms built into the renovated train shed and extend 

them north on new structures parallel to the existing track viaduct. 

- These platforms will be accessible from the train shed. The “outside” east 

and west-side platforms will be built on new structures adjacent to the 

existing east and west viaducts. 

- Elevators and staircases will provide access to the outside platforms. 

- Construct a crew walkway attached to both sides of the western track 

viaduct, extending approximately 50 feet north and 100 feet south from the 

new platform ends. 

- Construct station facilities within the approximately 6,800 square foot 

existing station building, and renovated train shed. 

Structures 

 Construct substructure/foundation for a new two-track rail bridge (DC2RVA 

Project includes construction of a single track bridge with space to add a second 

track, if required for future capacity) on the S-Line across the James River. 

 Construct new road overpasses providing sufficient vertical and horizontal 

clearances for new track at: 

- Hungary Road (CFP 6.60) 

- Hermitage Road (Henrico County, CFP 5.45) 

- St James Street Pedestrian Bridge (SRN 1.69) closing existing at-grade crossing 

- Hospital Street (SRN 1.23) 

- Commerce Road (S 3.07) on new alignment closing existing at-grade crossing 

 Replace road overpasses to provide sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance 

for the new track at: 

- Dumbarton Road (CFP 3.71) 

- Elliham Avenue (S 7.83) 

 Modify floodwall gates at the north and south floodwall penetrations for the 

new track across the James River bridge.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-34 

Figure 4.3-10: Preferred Alternative 6F: Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations Full Service
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERR

Figure 4.3-11: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Preferred Alternative 6F
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-36 

Figure 4.3-12: Main Street Station Improvements for Preferred Alternative 6F
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-37 

4.3.6.2 Basis for Selecting 6F 

In the Richmond area, DRPT identified alternatives by station location and service combinations 

along the two main north-south rail routes through the City: the CSXT A-Line to the west and the 

CSXT S-Line running through the city center. DRPT evaluated eight Build Alternatives for Area 

6 in the Draft EIS—five are single station alternatives and three are two-station alternatives: 

 6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only (A-Line) 

 6B–A-Line: Boulevard Station Only (A-Line) 

 6B–S-Line: Boulevard Station Only (S-Line) 

 6C: Broad Street Station Only (A-Line) 

 6D: Main Street Station Only (S-Line) 

 6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (A-Line) 

 6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (S-Line) 

 6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (A-Line and S-Line) 

Richmond area alternatives that would rely on the A-Line to carry additional passenger service 

(Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G) were eliminated from further consideration in the 

Draft EIS as being unable to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. Rail operations analyses show 

that passenger and freight rail performance goals cannot be met using the A-Line without 

additional track capacity; however, the existing A-Line through Richmond runs in a trench down 

the middle of I-195, which itself is within a trench, so options to expand rail capacity are limited 

or cost-prohibitive. These alternatives would also require a new third track on the A-Line on a 

bridge across the James River. An additional track cannot be added to the A-Line without 

expanding both the rail trench and the I-195 trench, creating extensive infrastructure and 

property impacts. 

The three Richmond area alternatives that rely on the S-Line (Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, and 6F) 

were retained primarily because they would consolidate passenger service on the S-Line through 

downtown Richmond, leaving the A-Line primarily for CSXT freight operations. The potential 

for conflicts between passenger and freight trains in the Richmond terminal area will be reduced, 

since most north-south freight traffic through Richmond will continue to use the A-Line, while 

passenger trains will use the S-Line. Although the S-Line route from Centralia to Staples Mill 

Road is one mile longer than the A-Line and passes through the urbanized core of Richmond, 

there is more opportunity to construct necessary capacity improvements on the S-Line than on 

the A-Line. Additionally, the S-Line alternatives 6D and 6F allow for the expansion of intercity 

passenger rail service to Richmond Main Street Station, which is nearer to the City’s Central 

Business District. Alternative 6B–S-Line: Boulevard Station Only (S-Line) is feasible and could 

meet the DC2RVA passenger and freight service performance goals. However, the Boulevard 

Station would not be consistent with prior FRA and Commonwealth decisions regarding high 

speed rail and does not meet FRA and Amtrak guidance for intercity passenger trains to serve 

the city center. Furthermore, the Boulevard Station option would require the closure of the nearby 

Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations and was not endorsed by leadership from the City of 

Richmond or Henrico County. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-38 

Alternative 6D: Main Street Station Only (S-Line) would not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need 

due to insufficient track and platform capacity at Main Street Station. Spatial constraints posed 

by support structures for I-95 and the Triple Crossing (an iconic piece of rail infrastructure in 

Shockoe Valley where three rail lines cross each other at different elevations in a highlyconstrained environment) limit Main Street Station to two tracks and two platform edges on the 

west side served by the S-Line. For the Main Street Station Only alternative, a third track and 

three platform edges are required on the west side to support the increased passenger service, 

including all necessary passenger train crew changes, and to meet passenger and freight 

performance goals. 

DC2RVA’s Basis of Design, following Amtrak’s Station Program and Planning Guidelines (2013), 

calls for 1,200-foot long platforms for stations servicing Amtrak’s Long Distance passenger trains 

and 850-foot long platforms for stations serving only Regional passenger trains. The Basis of 

Design matches the length of the platforms to the length of the train consists, with the goal of 

allowing direct access from the entire train to the platform with a single stop. Matching the 

platform length to the train consist optimizes passenger access and allows crew members to exit 

the train safely at the station if needed. DRPT considered adding two 1,200-foot long platforms 

on the west side of Main Street Station that could accommodate the full length of Long Distance 

trains. However, DRPT determined that two 1,200-foot platforms were not practical on the west 

side due to physical site constraints and potential impacts to cultural resources. Site constraints 

that precluded extending the platforms to 1,200 feet include: 

 The viaduct on the west side of the station threads between two piers (located at the 

southwest corner of the station building adjacent to East Main Street) supporting I-95 

elevated above the viaduct. These piers physically prevent the west side platforms from 

extending south. 

 Approximately 500 feet north of the renovated train shed, the viaducts pass over E. Broad 

Street. The vertical clearance for Broad Street beneath the rail viaducts is 13 feet-8 inches, 

which is less than the VDOT standard of 16 feet-6 inches. Broad Street also slopes upward 

west of the rail viaducts to climb over I-95. Adding a platform across Broad Street on the 

west would further reduce the roadway clearance limitations in order to maintain access 

to an extended platform. 

 The existing rail trestle bridge over Broad Street is an approximately 75-foot thru-truss 

girder span that prevents access to the tracks from a platform over Broad Street—thus any 

platform extending north from the station across Broad Street would have an 

approximately 75-foot gap with no access to the train. 

Alternative 6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (S-Line) is feasible and 

supports passenger service and freight service to meet the Purpose and Need. This alternative 

has been modified by FRA and DRPT in response to comments from the City of Richmond and 

others, including extending the two low-level platforms on the west side of Main Street Station 

to 950 feet in length, with crew walkways added to the viaduct, and eliminating a proposed 

parking deck on the east side of the station. Alternative 6F is consistent with prior FRA and 

Commonwealth decisions regarding the SEHSR program and Main Street Station as Richmond’s 

downtown intercity passenger station, including decisions documented in the 2002 Tier I ROD, 

Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I ROD (2012), and Richmond to Raleigh Tier II ROD (2017). 

The alternative is also consistent with FRA and Amtrak guidance on providing intercity 

passenger service to the central business district and the use of a suburban station. Plus, there is 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-39 

strong local support for this alternative, including from the City of Richmond and Henrico 

County, and the alternative is consistent with their respective comprehensive plans. 

Alternative 6F will add a second track on each side of Main Street Station using the existing elevated 

rail trestles/viaducts, which currently have one operating track on each side where two tracks 

previously existed. The two tracks on both east and west sides of the station will be used by both 

freight and passenger trains. The Project will also add two low-level platforms on each side of the 

station (a total of four platforms). Platforms on the east side of the station will be 850 feet long by 15 

feet wide. Platforms on the west side of the station will be 950 feet long by 15 feet wide. The east and 

west-side platforms adjacent to the station (the “inside” platforms) will incorporate the platforms 

built into the renovated train shed and extend them north on new structures parallel to the existing 

track viaduct. These platforms will be accessible from the train shed. The “outside” east and westside platforms will be built on new structures adjacent to the existing east and west viaducts. 

Elevators and staircases will provide access to the outside platforms from ground level. The Project 

will also add a walkway attached to both sides of the western viaduct, extending approximately 50 

feet north and 100 feet south from the new platform ends. The walkways will provide crew the ability 

to safely enter/exit or inspect locomotives or rail cars that extend beyond the platforms when a 

passenger train longer than 950 feet is stopped at the station. 

Main Street Station is owned by the City of Richmond, with intercity passenger services provided by 

Amtrak. In the Draft EIS, Alternative 6F included a parking deck on the east side of Main Street Station 

to illustrate how projected future passenger parking needs at Main Street Station could be met by the 

City of Richmond. Comments from the City of Richmond and others indicated that this parking deck 

was not necessary, and created impacts to private property and cultural resources. DRPT has 

eliminated the parking deck from Alternative 6F as part of the Preferred Alternative, and instead 

proposed that future parking needs for the intercity passenger service will be met through 

development of a Main Street Station parking plan to be developed by the City of Richmond in 

coordination with DRPT, which will take into account City plans for future use of the City-owned 

property around Main Street Station and other development in Shockoe Valley. DRPT considered 

and dismissed adding a third track on the west side of the station due to site constraints and potential 

impacts to cultural resources in the area. DRPT also considered and dismissed making the west side 

platforms 1,200 feet long in keeping with the Project’s Basis of Design to fully accommodate longdistance trains, opting instead for a reduced platform length of 950 feet plus an extended walkway, 

owing to site constraints and to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources. While Main Street 

Station site constraints and concerns over potential impacts to cultural resources limit the number of 

tracks and length of platforms proposed for the station, future passenger service amenities to be 

provided at the station, such as checked baggage service, are not precluded. Specific amenities to be 

provided at each station for a particular passenger service will be determined by DRPT when service 

is initiated, in coordination with Amtrak, the City of Richmond, and other station stakeholders. 

DRPT has assumed that Amtrak’s scheduled crew changes in the Richmond area, which currently 

occur at Staples Mill Road Station, will continue to occur at Staples Mill Road Station under this 

alternative. 

Based on the above past study conclusions, FRA guidance, operational considerations, infrastructure 

modifications to avoid sensitive resources, and DRPT’s commitment to minimize the Project footprint 

to reduce potential impacts to sensitive cultural and archeological resources around Main Street 

Station, Alternative 6F was selected as the Preferred Alternative in the Richmond area. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-40 

The Project’s preliminary conceptual design efforts took into consideration cultural and 

archeological resources in Shockoe Valley. Map overlays were created using historic maps and 

previously identified historic sites to assure that known sites and buildings were included in the 

analysis. In addition, Project boundaries were compared to the conceptual outlines of the Shockoe 

Bottom Memorial Park, a proposed memorial to the Richmond slave trade and slave jail, which 

operated on land in the vicinity of Main Street Station. Additional trains planned in the DC2RVA 

Project will follow the current track alignment and remain within the existing CSXT right-of-way 

in this area, and proposed new tracks will be located on the existing viaducts where tracks existed 

previously; therefore, the only ground disturbance as part of the Project will be from support piers 

for passenger platforms on the east and west side of Main Street Station. Cultural resources work 

has been ongoing since the publication of the Draft EIS; refer to Section 3.1 of this Final EIS and 

Appendix D of this Final EIS for details. 

4.3.6.3 Changes to 6F Subsequent to the Draft EIS 

At the inception of the DC2RVA Project, there was an overlap between the DC2RVA corridor and 

the R2R corridor in the Richmond area, extending from Main Street Station south to Centralia. 

Both projects proposed improvements in this segment of the corridor; DC2RVA’s proposed 

improvements incorporated some of the R2R improvements, but also proposed slightly different 

improvements in accordance with the DC2RVA Basis of Design and Purpose and Need. For 

example, as part of the R2R project, all roadway crossings of the rail line were proposed to be 

grade separated, whereas the only new grade separation proposed in the segment as part of the 

DC2RVA Preferred Alternative is Commerce Road, south of downtown (all other existing atgrade crossings in this area will remain at-grade under the DC2RVA Project). FRA and DRPT 

have decided that when future stages of the DC2RVA Project are funded, improvements would 

advance under the DC2RVA Project design in the area between Main Street Station and Centralia 

where DC2RVA and R2R overlap. 

In addition, comments from the public and review agencies, combined with new data either 

provided or discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted in modifications to the 

conceptual engineering for Alternative 6F. Other conceptual engineering modifications 

originated from: 

 Addressing comments to minimize right-of-way impacts by adding or extending 

retaining walls 

 Addressing access impacts to driveways and properties along the corridor 

 Incorporating crossing improvements, i.e., additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, and potential locations of gates and equipment sheds 

 Addressing train operations improvements within the track limits, including extending 

the west platforms at Main Street Station and adding crew walkways at both ends of these 

platforms to reduce the footprint of these improvements 

 Addressing effects of extending the tracks across Hermitage Road (RF&P Line) in Henrico 

County, which requires the replacement of the at-grade crossing with a proposed 

overpass to avoid blockage of the crossing during train operations at Acca Yard 

 Addressing the expansion of the existing parking lot at Staples Mill Road Station by 

DRPT, Amtrak, and VDOT in June 2018. The completed project more than doubles the 

amount of available parking from 288 to 600 parking spaces. The entire existing lot was 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-41 

repaved, with improved taxi and ride share parking, pedestrian access, and bus loading. 

Along with these improvements, a second entrance off of Bremner Boulevard was added 

to improve parking lot access. This expanded parking lot meets the projected parking 

demand for DC2RVA, and no further parking improvements are recommended. 

 Limiting impacts in Richmond’s Shockoe Valley in response to public and agency 

comments, specifically: 

- Relocating the proposed turning wye and service yard to Bellwood, which reduces the 

Project footprint at Brown’s Yard and reduces private property impacts 

- Removing the proposed parking deck on the east side of Main Street Station, thereby 

reducing adverse effects on cultural resources and private property; DRPT will 

coordinate with the City as they develop a parking plan for Main Street Station when 

service is instituted 

Richmond Area Turning Wye and Service Yard Alternatives. The recommended preferred 

alternative as evaluated in the Draft EIS for the Richmond Area, Build Alternative 6F: Full Service, 

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations, included a new turning wye track at Hospital Street 

connecting the CSXT S-Line with the Buckingham Branch Railroad, and the addition of three 

siding tracks at the former CSXT Brown Street Yard for overnight storage and servicing of a 

passenger train. A turning wye and overnight storage/servicing yard are necessary to support a 

new passenger train roundtrip with an early morning departure from Richmond to Washington 

D.C. and Amtrak’s NEC. In response to comments and to reduce the impacts associated with the 

new turning wye track at Hospital Street and passenger train storage and servicing facility at 

Brown Street Yard, DRPT has relocated the Richmond area turning wye and passenger train 

service yard to CSXT’s existing Bellwood Wye and Yard, south of the James River. Relocating the 

proposed facility from Hospital Street/Brown Street Yard to Bellwood Yard will improve the 

efficiency of train operations, reduce property impacts outside of CSXT’s right-of-way, and 

reduce the rail footprint within the culturally sensitive area of Richmond’s Shockoe Valley. Refer 

to Appendix J of this Final EIS for full details on the background and decision process for the 

Richmond Area turning wye and service yard alternatives. 

James River Bridge in Richmond, VA 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-42 

4.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE DRAFT EIS, BUT NOT 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

4.4.1 Summary of Build Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIS 

From the wide range of alternatives and options that were considered during the alternatives 

development process, 23 Build Alternatives were carried forward for evaluation in the Draft EIS. 

The number of alternatives varied within the six alternative areas in the Project corridor. Each 

Build Alternative included an alignment, track configuration, and specific improvements to 

features such as stations and at-grade roadway crossings. 

Table 4.4-1 presents the 23 Build Alternatives and indicates which were selected by FRA and the 

CTB as the Preferred Alternative; for those that were not selected, a short description of the 

alternative is provided. 

Refer to Draft EIS Section 2.5.2 for detailed descriptions of each Build Alternative, including 

physical infrastructure improvements along the rail alignment and proposed train operations at 

stations. 

Refer to Section 4.2 of this Final EIS for description of the proposed DC2RVA service plan for the 

Preferred Alternative described in Table 4.4-1. 

4.4.2 No Build Alternative 

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

from planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor that would occur 

independent of any DC2RVA Project improvements—it essentially outlines a future existing 

condition. 

While the No Build Alternative was evaluated and dismissed by the FRA and FHWA for not 

meeting the Purpose and Need for the overall SEHSR corridor in the 2002 Tier I EIS, it was 

considered as part of the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project as required by NEPA. The No 

Build Alternative provided a basis for comparing the potential effects of different DC2RVA Build 

Alternatives. If a planned rail or transit improvement in the Project corridor was under 

construction, fully funded, or was the focus of advanced collaborative planning, DRPT assumed 

it would be complete by 2025 for the purposes of the Draft EIS evaluation. 

Refer to Section 2.5.1 of the Draft EIS for a detailed list of rail and transit infrastructure 

improvements that were assumed to be included in the DC2RVA No Build Alternative. Note that 

certain elements of these No Build projects continue to undergo design refinements and/or 

revised construction schedules, including the VRE yard and platform expansion programs, as the 

DC2RVA Project progresses. However, these minor changes are not anticipated to have an effect 

on the DC2RVA No Build assumptions. Refer to Section 7.7 of this Final EIS for details of 

coordination of this Project with other studies and projects. 

In the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project, DRPT and FRA confirmed the findings of the 

2002 Tier I EIS that the No Build Alternative does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-43 

Table 4.4-1: Summary of Build Alternatives Evaluated in Draft EIS 

Draft EIS Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington: Three Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 1, the major difference being which side of the existing track the 

new track would be added (as indicated in the Build Alternative names). There are no intercity passenger rail stations in this area. 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East Within the Arlington Bridge approach, two tracks would be added to the 

east side of the existing tracks. 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Aligns with both alternatives 

identified in the Alternatives Development Report for the separate Long 

Bridge Study; refer to Section 4.3.1 above for detailed description. 

1C Add One Track East and One Track 

West 

Within the Arlington Bridge approach, one track would be added to the east side 

of the existing tracks and one track would be added to the west side of the existing 

tracks. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia: The sole Build Alternative evaluated in Area 2 adds one main track within the existing railroad rightof-way. There are three intercity passenger rail stations in the area: Alexandria, Woodbridge, and Quantico.

2A Add One Track / Improve Existing 

Track 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Refer to Section 4.3.2 above 

for detailed description. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg: Three Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 3, including both two- and three-track options on the 

existing alignment through the city and a two-track bypass alignment around the city. The Fredericksburg Station is within this area.

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through City 

Within Fredericksburg, there would be no construction of new track / no 

additional rail capacity, and train operations would continue through the city 

similar to existing conditions, with station improvements. North and south of the 

city, there would be construction of one additional track within the existing 

railroad right-of-way. 

3B Add One Track Through City East 

of Existing 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Refer to Section 4.3.3 above 

for detailed description. 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East of City 

A new two-track bypass east of Fredericksburg would be constructed to serve 

freight and passenger trains that do not stop in the city, which would require 

additional right-of-way. The existing rail corridor would be maintained in the 

city and the station would be improved. North and south of the city, there 

would be construction of one additional track within the existing railroad rightof-way. 

Area 4: Central Virginia: The sole Build Alternative evaluated in Area 4 adds one main track within existing railroad right-of-way. 

There are no intercity passenger rail stations in this area. 

4A Add One Track/Improve Existing 

Track 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Refer to Section 4.3.4 above 

for detailed description. 

Area 5: Ashland: Seven Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 5, varying from track alignment options through town to a new 

bypass. The alternatives include two different location options for the Ashland Station: a Downtown Station (which would maintain the 

existing station location with improvements) and an Ashcake Station location (which would close the existing station location and 

relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road). North and south of the town, all Build Alternatives would include construction 

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

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through 

Town 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Refer to Section 4.3.5 above 

for detailed description. 

5A–

Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through 

Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

This alternative is the same as 5A (the Preferred Alternative) but would 

relocate the station to Ashcake Road. 

5B Add One Track Through Town East 

of Existing 

Within town, one track would be added adjacent to the east side of the 

existing tracks, which would require additional right-of-way and closure of an 

existing at-grade crossing within town. The existing station would be 

improved. 

 Continued.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-44 

Table 4.4-1: Summary of Build Alternatives Evaluated in Draft EIS 

Draft EIS Alternative Description 

5B–

Ashcake 

Add One Track Through Town East 

of Existing (Relocate Station to 

Ashcake) 

This alternative is the same as 5B (as summarized above) but would relocate 

the station to Ashcake Road. 

5C Add Two-Track Western Bypass 

A new two-track bypass west of Ashland would be constructed to serve 

freight and passenger trains that do not stop in town, which would require 

additional right-of-way. The existing rail corridor would be maintained in the 

city and the station would be improved. 

5C–

Ashcake 

Add Two-Track Western Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

This alternative is the same as 5C (as summarized above) but would relocate 

the station to Ashcake Road. 

5D–

Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through 

Town (Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Within town, one track would be added with centering of all three tracks on 

the existing alignment. This would require additional right-of-way and 

preclude use of the existing station in town. The station would be relocated 

to Ashcake Road. 

Area 6: Richmond: Eight Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 6: five single-station options (which would consolidate all service 

to a single station location) and three two-station options (which would divide service between two stations). Use of the A-Line or S-Line 

varied by alternative, based primarily on the ability to serve station locations and optimize passenger and freight routes. 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 

The existing Staples Mill Road Station would be improved to become the 

single passenger station to serve Richmond, and existing Main Street Station 

would be closed to service. One main track would be added along the RF&P 

Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city). 

6B–ALine Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 

A new Boulevard Station would be constructed to become the single 

passenger station to serve Richmond, and existing Staples Mill Road and Main 

Street Stations would be closed to service. One main track would be added 

along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city). 

6B–SLine Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 

This alternative is similar to 6B–A-Line (as summarized above) but would 

add one main track on the S-Line (through the city). 

6C Broad Street Station Only 

A new Broad Street Station would be constructed to become the single 

passenger station to serve Richmond, and existing Staples Mill Road and Main 

Street Stations would be closed to service. One main track would be added 

along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city). 

6D Main Street Station Only 

The existing Main Street Station would be improved to become the single 

passenger station to serve Richmond, and existing Staples Mill Road Station 

would be closed to service. One main track would be added along the RF&P 

Line (north of the city) and the S-Line (through the city). 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations 

Both existing Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations would be improved 

and remain operational, with the majority of intercity passenger trains 

stopping only at Staples Mill Road. One main track would be added along the 

RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city). 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations 

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Refer to Section 4.3.6 above 

for detailed description. 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations 

Both existing Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations would be improved 

and remain operational, with the majority of intercity passenger trains 

stopping only at both stations, but some trains following the A-Line to 

bypass downtown Richmond and only serve Staples Mill Road Station. One 

main track would be added along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the 

S-Line (through the city). 
 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 4-45 

4.5 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 

4.5.1 Capital Infrastructure Costs 

Table 4.5-1 shows the capital infrastructure cost estimate for the Preferred Alternative. Capital 

infrastructure costs represent the total cost associated with the design, management, land 

acquisition, and construction of the infrastructure improvements, including communications and 

signaling systems associated with track and crossing improvements, of the DC2RVA Project. 

These costs include a 30% contingency for unknown conditions or unidentified infrastructure. 

Estimated costs are based on a conceptual (10 percent) level of design for the proposed 

improvements, as described at the beginning of this chapter, and are based on projected unit costs 

for the year 2025 (i.e., the year that FRA and DRPT have assumed that the Preferred Alternative 

would be in place for the purposes of the NEPA). The capital infrastructure costs do not include 

costs for additional rolling stock that may be necessary to implement the new service as proposed 

by the Project; see Section 4.5.3 for details. 

Table 4.5-1: Capital Infrastructure Costs for the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area Preferred Alternative 

Capital Cost 

(2025 $ millions) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 1B: Add Two Main Tracks on the West $42.4 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A: Add Third or Fourth Main Track $1,778.9 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through the City $559.4 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A: Add a Third Main Track $1,143.7 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station 

Improvements) $431.8 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6F: Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations Full Service with 

S-Line Improvements $1,667.0 

Total Capital Infrastructure Cost for the Preferred Alternative $5,623.2 

4.5.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs 

The estimate of long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) costs include both train operations 

and infrastructure maintenance. Operations consists of labor costs, fuel and other supplies, and 

other factors required to keep the DC2RVA Project in service, whereas maintenance includes 

routine servicing of vehicles, maintenance of the tracks, signals, communications, and other 

systems needed to keep the system safe and reliable. Table 4.5-2 presents a summary of the 

estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the DC2RVA passenger rail service associated with 

the Preferred Alternative. These costs are calculated based on the passenger rail service for the 

full DC2RVA corridor and are presented for the Preferred Alternative. 

Table 4.5-2: Annual Estimated O&M Costs for Preferred Alternative (Year 2045) 

Year Preferred Alternative Total O&M Cost (2015 $ millions) 

2045 Alternative 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, 5A, and 6F $100.3 

Note: Although the O&M cost varies among the alternatives, the standard deviation among all 2045 Richmond Build Alternatives was

approximately 1%, which is within the margin of error for the analysis performed. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-46 

Note that the O&M costs presented in Table 4.5-2 above represent gross expenditures and do not 

include potential revenue generated from the operation of the passenger service, which would 

provide a source of income to compensate for the O&M costs. 

The 2045 Preferred Alternative conditions represent approximately a doubling of intercity 

passenger service and ridership. Accordingly, the O&M costs for the Preferred Alternative are 

also approximately double the costs of today’s service (2015), recognizing that frequency and 

level of service are the key drivers of operating and maintenance costs. 

4.5.3 Cost of Rolling Stock 

Rolling stock consists of the locomotives, passenger cars, and baggage cars that may be necessary 

to implement the new service as proposed by the Project. 

The DC2RVA Project proposes to add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains 

per day) through the corridor (refer to Section 4.2 above for details). Of the 9 new daily intercity 

passenger round trips (19 total trains per day) proposed by the Project: 

 Four new daily round trips will be Interstate Corridor trains originating in, and supported 

by, North Carolina. While these trains pass through and provide service within the 

DC2RVA corridor, they will be part of the Richmond to Raleigh (R2R) project and are 

excluded from the cost estimate of rolling stock. 

 Five new daily round trips will be Northeast Regional trains supported by the 

Commonwealth. Of these five Commonwealth-supported round trips: 

- Four will pass through and provide service within the DC2RVA corridor as part of the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads (R2HR) project and are excluded from the cost estimate 

of rolling stock. 

- One Northeast Regional new daily roundtrip train will originate in the DC2RVA 

corridor (at Main Street Station); costs for rolling stock to support this train are 

included in the cost estimate shown below. 

DRPT anticipates the cost for rolling stock to support this additional service would be shared by 

Amtrak and those states that share in the cost of service; the cost would be apportioned through 

negotiated agreements at the time of service implementation and is not available at this time. The 

rolling stock cost estimate shown in Table 4.5-3 is an example, although how the costs will be 

apportioned are not known. The train originating at Main Street Station will be two locomotives and 

ten single-level passenger railcars, which in the early morning will run north from Main Street Station 

to Washington, D.C. and then onto the NEC to Boston, MA, and in the late afternoon/evening, return 

south. Rolling stock needed to operate this train service will include two locomotives for the round 

trip between Richmond and Washington, D.C. and 20 single-level passenger railcars for the round 

trip between Richmond and Boston. Applying a factor of 20 percent for spare vehicles, rolling stock 

procurement is projected to include three locomotives and 24 single level passenger railcars. 

Table 4.5-3: Potential Cost of Rolling Stock 

Standard Cost Category 2017 Cost ($ millions) 2025 Cost ($ millions) 

70 Rolling Stock $ 111.8 $ 144.5