CHAPTER 7

OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS
 7-1 

OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

This chapter describes the anticipated sequence of events following the publication of this Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High 

Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project. The events and their anticipated dates are provided in Table 7.0-1 

and described in the sections in this chapter. 

Table 7.0-1: Anticipated Dates of Future Steps 

Project Development Event Anticipated Date 

Record of Decision (ROD) Spring 2019 

Preliminary Engineering Completion Spring 2019 

Corridor Service Development Plan Completion Spring 2019 

Design and construction of AF – RO 4th main track and two 

crossovers in Area 4 (funded through Atlantic Gateway program)1 2022 

Funding for remainder of DC2RVA Project Undetermined at this Time 

Final Design and Permitting Subject to Funding 

Property Acquisition Subject to Funding 

Construction Subject to Funding 

DC2RVA New Passenger Service Starts Undetermined (2025 used for planning purposes in 

Final EIS) 

The anticipated dates provided above are intended for planning purposes and reflect what was 

assumed for the purposes of this environmental evaluation (see Section 1.3.6 of this Final EIS for 

full details on EIS planning dates). Actual dates for future Project development are dependent on 

obtaining a Record of Decision (ROD), identifying and securing construction funding, completing 

Project design, and finalizing all necessary approvals and permits, including agreements with 

Amtrak and CSX Transportation (CSXT). Further, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

 

1 The Commonwealth of Virginia received a $165 million FASTLANE grant award in 2016, leveraging additional 

public and private funding to implement a $1.4 billion program of highway and rail projects along the I-95 corridor 

(the Atlantic Gateway program). As part of this program, DRPT proposes expediting design, funding, and 

construction of approximately 6 miles of fourth main track between Rosslyn (RO – CFP 110.1) and Alexandria (AF – 

CFP 104.3), referred to as the RO to AF Fourth Track project. As of the publication of this Final EIS, DRPT has 

confirmed funding for the RO to AF project through Areas 1 and 2, with construction planned to commence in 2020; 

refer to Section 7.7.1 for more details on the project, which includes two new crossovers in Caroline County as well. 

7
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-2 

the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) understand that funding for 

construction—as well as the timelines of separate but related projects (summarized below and 

provided in detail in Section 7.7)—may require that the DC2RVA Project be constructed 

incrementally over the 20-year planning horizon from 2025 to 2045. 

FRA and DRPT acknowledge that the full benefits of the proposed DC2RVA service are 

dependent upon completion of intercity passenger rail infrastructure projects outside the 

DC2RVA corridor in the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor: 

 A four-track Long Bridge with a four-track route north of Long Bridge through L’Enfant 

Plaza to CP Virginia in Washington, D.C. is required to connect the DC2RVA service to 

Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC). 

 The SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh project (SEHSR R2R project) included 

improvements/service between Raleigh, NC and Richmond, VA, and overlaps the 

DC2RVA Project between Main Street Station and Centralia, VA. The SESHR R2R project 

infrastructure improvements south of the overlap area are required to implement the four 

additional Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains originating in North Carolina and traveling 

through the DC2RVA corridor. 

 The Richmond to Hampton Roads project (R2HR project) included 

improvements/service between Norfolk/Newport News and Richmond, VA, and 

overlaps the DC2RVA Project between Main Street Station and Centralia, VA. The SESHR 

R2HR project infrastructure improvements south of the overlap area are required to 

support the four additional Northeast Regional (SEHSR) trains originating in Newport 

News and Norfolk and also traveling through the DC2RVA corridor to the Northeast 

Corridor. 

Additionally, construction of the infrastructure improvements that are part of the DC2RVA 

Preferred Alternative is not currently funded (other than the AF—RO 4th project, as shown in 

Table 7.0-1), and it is unlikely that funding for full construction will be available all at once. 

Therefore, DRPT has developed an approach to implement the DC2RVA Project in increments as 

funding becomes available and has prioritized the six areas for construction as shown below, with 

higher priority given to areas with greater rail corridor congestion: 

 Areas 1, 2, and 3—Arlington through Fredericksburg 

 Area 6—Richmond 

 Area 4—Central Virginia 

 Area 5—Ashland 

These incremental infrastructure construction and service improvements address the 

Commonwealth’s priorities for the DC2RVA Project and reasonable construction sequences, and 

link service improvements to infrastructure improvements in the DC2RVA, Long Bridge, SEHSR 

R2R project, and R2HR project corridors. The incremental approach is designed so that existing 

freight and passenger rail service can be maintained during the Project buildout. The Project’s 

Corridor Service Development Plan (SDP), which DRPT is preparing concurrently with this Final 

EIS, provides additional detail on DRPT’s anticipated approach to delivering the DC2RVA 

Project. 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-3 

7.1 RECORD OF DECISION 

FRA will prepare a ROD after the 30-day review period following the Federal Register Notice of 

Availability for this Final EIS. The ROD is a concise public record of FRA’s decision on the 

Selected Alternative, which would either be the Preferred Alternative as described in this Final 

EIS or any variant of this alternative as determined by FRA based on any input received on the 

Final EIS. 

The ROD is intended to document that the Selected Alternative: 

1. Best satisfies Purpose and Need 

2. Poses the least overall impacts to the natural and human environments 

3. Has been selected based on processes in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable requirements 

4. May be advanced for final design and construction 

The ROD will discuss the range of alternatives and all factors considered by FRA in the decisionmaking for the Selected Alternative. In the ROD, FRA will also identify the measures to minimize 

harm and the mitigations required for unavoidable impacts. Mitigation and monitoring measures 

will be delineated in sufficient detail to constitute an enforceable commitment (or will incorporate 

by reference the portions of the Final EIS that constitute such a commitment). 

7.2 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 

DRPT developed each of the Build Alternatives presented in the Draft EIS and the Preferred 

Alternative presented in this Final EIS to an approximately 10 percent level of design (conceptual 

engineering), using readily available data. These conceptual-level designs were sufficient to 

determine infrastructure requirements to meet operational needs, perform the comparative 

impact analyses reported in the Draft and Final EIS, and support the decision-making for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

To advance the Preferred Alternative to the next phase of development, DRPT is progressing the 

conceptual designs to a 30 percent level of design (preliminary engineering). The 30 percent 

infrastructure design plans take into consideration the operational requirements, adequacy of the 

infrastructure to improve reliability and resiliency, and environmental mitigations and 

commitments. The Basis of Design developed for conceptual engineering, which was included as 

Appendix B in the Draft EIS, serves as a guide for the preliminary engineering as well. In general, 

CSXT design standards govern the designs within railroad right-of-way. Amtrak and Virginia 

Railway Express (VRE) design standards govern the design of the intercity passenger and 

commuter rail station facilities, respectively. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

design standards generally govern the designs within highway right-of-way. Additional 

standards used for other infrastructure are identified in the Basis of Design. 

Advancing from conceptual engineering to preliminary engineering requires additional detailed 

data, including, but not limited to: 

 Surveys for topography, property, drainage, utilities, traffic 

 Investigations for geotechnical and environmental information 

 Research for planned or proposed infrastructure projects within the design area 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-4 

Although DRPT developed much of this information during the preparation of the Draft and 

Final EIS, circumstances can change such that updated information will be necessary when 

progressing to a more detailed level of design. For example, property and right-of-way lines 

move, stormwater and drainage regulations evolve, and wetland and stream boundaries as well 

as traffic patterns shift over time. As DRPT conducts structural and geotechnical surveys beyond 

preliminary engineering levels, the more precise information available at that time will be used 

to determine the final alignment of the facilities constructed as part of the Project. Because of these 

and other potential changes, along with the uncertainty of funding availability (see Section 7.4 

for discussion of funding), DRPT has limited preliminary engineering to the level of existing data 

available through remote sensing (aerial photography), geographic information system (GIS), 

and other existing sources. As DC2RVA infrastructure is incrementally funded and moves to the 

next level of design, additional data will be obtained, and the resulting infrastructure design will 

be compared to the alignment and impacts identified in the Final EIS. The 30 percent design plans 

will serve as “bridging documents” to maintain compliance with the NEPA commitments 

established in the Final EIS and ROD as the Project progresses to final design and construction 

(see Sections 7.5 and 7.6, respectively). If the Project’s final design or impacts exceed the NEPA 

commitments established in the Final EIS and ROD, then DRPT will re-evaluate the design 

and/or the NEPA documentation. 

7.3 CORRIDOR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 

DRPT is concurrently preparing a Corridor Service Development Plan for the DC2RVA Project 

that lays out the overall scope and approach to provide the proposed passenger rail service. The 

purpose of the SDP is to further refine the operating aspects, cost estimate, and schedule for 

development of the infrastructure and service improvements planned for the DC2RVA corridor 

to a greater level of detail than that provided in the Draft and Final EIS.2 The service planning 

information provided in the Draft and Final EIS demonstrates the feasibility for the infrastructure 

to support the railroad operating plan presented in the EIS; however, DRPT will continue to refine 

this plan throughout the delivery of the DC2RVA Project to reflect additional detail provided 

from design, current railroad operating conditions, and the availability of funding to construct 

the Project. The Corridor SDP is the first step in laying out DRPT’s initial vision to construct the 

improvements and implement the proposed DC2RVA service—a manual for DRPT and the 

Project stakeholders that will be continually updated over the life of the Project. 

While not required as part of DC2RVA’s process for obtaining a ROD, the SDP details the 

operational and financial feasibility of the Preferred Alternative: 

 Operational feasibility considers network capacity, specific stopping patterns, and train 

schedules at several points in the future. 

 Financial feasibility requires detailed analysis of the anticipated ridership and revenue 

from fares paid and any auxiliary revenue (for example, from on-board food and beverage 

sales) and a comparison of Project costs and benefits. 

The SDP also defines the phased timeline for funding and construction of infrastructure necessary 

to deliver incremental increases in service planned by the DC2RVA Project. The SDP for the 

DC2RVA Project carries forward from the Final EIS two milestone projection years for operations 

 

2 Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS describes a proposed service plan for the DC2RVA Project and the associated operations 

analysis, which is further refined in Chapter 3 and Appendix F of this Final EIS. 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-5 

modeling and ridership: 2025 and 2045. The year 2025 represents the assumed completion of all 

infrastructure improvements and the implementation year for the DC2RVA service (i.e., 9 new 

daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day)) and serves as the baseline for impact 

evaluations in the Final EIS. The year 2045 represents a 20-year planning horizon and is used to 

show the long-term sustainability and return on the investment of the Project, both financially 

and in terms of passenger, commuter, and freight service performance. 

The SDP does not represent a commitment of service; rather, it is a planning document, based on 

operating assumptions at a given point in time to define what the proposed DC2RVA service 

would look like, how it would operate, and the infrastructure necessary to support the 

incremental service improvements. It has some elements in common with the Final EIS; for 

example, confirming the Purpose and Need for the proposed higher speed rail service and 

describing alternatives that were considered. The SDP discusses the location of the stations to be 

served under the Preferred Alternative, how these stations will accommodate the proposed 

service (for example, with amenities such as checked baggage handling or parking), how 

passengers will access those stations, and how these stations will be integrated with connections 

to other modes of transportation. It also estimates potential equipment and train crew utilization 

requirements anticipated for the Project. The SDP also describes how the DC2RVA Project is 

likely to be implemented through a phased program over time, laying out the incremental 

improvements that would come on line in various years throughout the planning horizon. 

The SDP will include the following elements: 

 Purpose and Need 

 Rationale 

 Identification of Alternatives 

 Planning Methodology 

 Demand and Revenue Forecasts 

 Operations Modeling 

 Station and Access Analysis 

 Preliminary Engineering and Capital 

Programming 

 Operating and Maintenance Costs 

 Public Benefits Analysis, including 

economic impacts 

 Safety and Security 

 Future Steps 

The SDP will include construction priorities and timelines for funding, construction, and service 

implementation, as well as phased implementation of infrastructure improvements. 

7.4 FUNDING 

Funding to prepare the current DC2RVA Tier II EIS was provided through an FRA grant to DRPT 

for high performance intercity passenger rail development, with the Commonwealth of Virginia 

and CSXT providing a required non-federal match to the FRA grant funds. 

DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA Project would be implemented incrementally, as funding 

becomes available. DRPT has not secured funding for the full-build of the DC2RVA Project but 

has identified several possible sources of funds, including public and private sources. Potential 

federal sources for construction include: funding programs authorized under the Passenger Rail 

Reinvestment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), such as the FRA high speed intercity 

passenger program; funding programs authorized under the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act) of 2015, such as the Fostering Advancements in Shipping and 

Transportation for the Long-Term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) or 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-6 

Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant programs; annual appropriations, such as 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant program (recently retitled Better Utilizing 

Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)); and other discretionary sources. Non-federal 

funding sources include Commonwealth of Virginia, local governmental, and private sector 

funds. Operations and maintenance costs would be covered by a combination of passenger fare 

revenue recovery and federal, state, and/or local funds. As of the publication of this Final EIS, 

DRPT has secured funding from both the U.S. DOT FASTLANE program and state sources to 

construct a fourth mainline track for approximately 6 miles between the Potomac River and 

Alexandria plus two new crossovers in Caroline County as part of the Commonwealth’s Atlantic 

Gateway Program, described in greater detail in Section 7.7.1. 

Amtrak has sole fiscal responsibility for long-distance routes through Virginia. The 

Commonwealth is financially responsible for the capital and operating costs associated with 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) intercity passenger rail services originating and terminating in 

Virginia. Virginia’s state-sponsored intercity passenger rail operations are funded through the 

Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital (IPROC) Fund. Additionally, passenger fares and 

other revenues are used to defray a portion of passenger rail operating costs. Five of the nine new 

daily round-trip passenger trains to be added to the corridor under the DC2RVA Project will 

operate in a similar manner as Northeast Regional (Virginia) intercity passenger trains with 

extended service beyond Washington, D.C. into Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC). State 

funding from the Commonwealth will be required to support the operation and maintenance of 

these five new Northeast Regional (SEHSR) trains. The remaining four new round-trip trains 

implemented under the DC2RVA Project will be Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) intercity passenger 

rail trains serving destinations in North Carolina and will operate in a similar manner as the 

Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) train within the DC2RVA Corridor. Other funding will be 

required to support the operation and maintenance of these trains. The current Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian) train that operates through the DC2RVA corridor to North Carolina is supported by 

the State of North Carolina. 

Virginia's capital and operating financing mechanisms for passenger rail are described in detail 

in its 2017 State Rail Plan.3 All of Virginia’s passenger rail services operate over the infrastructure 

of private freight rail carriers, allowing the state to combine funding from both public and private 

sources to deliver projects with joint passenger and freight rail benefits. Virginia uses the 

following funding sources for rail capital projects: 

IPROC Fund. The IPROC Fund was created by the General Assembly in 2011 as a strategy to 

sustain Virginia’s share of Amtrak Virginia’s operating budget, pursuant to PRIIA guidelines, 

and can be found in Virginia Code §33.2-1602.50. The IPROC fund is used to fund four statesupported Amtrak routes consisting of six daily round-trip Amtrak trains. The PRIIA Act of 2008 

required states with Amtrak services less than 750 miles to pay for the routes or cease operation, 

and the IPROC fund enables the Commonwealth to continue those services. The IPROC fund is 

also the source of funds for passenger rail equipment upgrades and capital improvements. 

Rail Enhancement Fund (REF). Created by the Virginia General Assembly in 2005, REF provides 

for the retention, maintenance, improvement, and development of freight and passenger 

railways, which are essential to the Commonwealth's continued economic growth, vitality, and 

 

3 The Virginia 2017 State Rail Plan is available at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/rail/reference-materials/virginiastate-rail-plan 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-7 

competitiveness in national and world markets. Projects undertaken using these funds must 

create public benefits within the Commonwealth that exceed the investment from the fund. Such 

benefits include the improvement of traffic congestion and environmental quality and the 

reduction in highway maintenance needs. This fund is the primary source for the implementation 

of large capital projects for rail improvements, and all projects receiving funds from REF must 

include a minimum of 30 percent cash or “in-kind” matching contribution from a non-state 

source, which may include a private source, a railroad, a regional authority, a local government 

source, or a combination of such sources. 

Private railroad funds. Private railroad funds are investments contributed by private railroads, 

such as CSXT or Norfolk Southern, working in partnership with the state to address system 

bottlenecks, access, or other infrastructure projects. 

Other local or regional matching funds. These include funds contributed by localities or regional 

agencies to advance a project with local or regional significance, such as grade separations, 

improvements to safety, station access, or parking, etc. 

Federally-administered rail funds. Federal transportation funding to states is periodically 

authorized through federal surface transportation acts. The FAST Act of 2015 is a five-year 

program to improve the nation’s transportation infrastructure, including roads, bridges, transit 

systems, and the rail transportation network. The bill authorizes a total of $305 billion in funding 

from fiscal year (FY) 2016 through FY 2020. 

The FAST Act places major emphasis on freight investments to be supported by the Highway 

Trust Fund by creating a new National Freight Program authorized for funding at an average of 

$1.2 billion per year, to be distributed to states by formula. Non-highway projects eligible to 

receive these funds include rail-highway grade separation and intermodal transfer and access 

projects. 

Title XI of the FAST Act, also known as the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 

(PRRIA), authorizes for $5.5 billion to be spent on the national intercity rail network outside the 

NEC. Funding for this program, as well as another $2.2 billion for FRA grant programs, however, 

are dependent on annual Congressional budget appropriations. No passenger appropriations 

passed during the first year of the program. 

7.5 FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING 

Final design progresses the design from preliminary engineering through the preparation of 

construction documents. Design progress is guided by commitments in the DC2RVA Tier II EIS 

and ROD as well as the SDP. The DC2RVA Project is funded through the completion of 

preliminary engineering (as described in Section 7.2). Funding for final design, or to construct 

incremental portions of the corridor, will be identified in the future. 

The final design will further develop preliminary engineering plans and documents into 

construction documents. This process varies depending on the procurement process selected by 

the sponsoring agency and on the agency in charge of producing the particular construction 

documents. It has not been determined at this time which agency will be responsible for future 

procurements, thus the following discussion is silent on specific agency responsibilities. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-8 

At this time, DRPT anticipates that the most likely procurement process will be through a DesignBid-Build (DBB) procurement. The following paragraphs describe the typical final design process 

for DBB procurement. 

Agency design processes are somewhat similar and generally require intermediate deliverables 

that are expressed in terms of the level of design as a percentage of the total design, e.g., 60 

percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent. DBB procurement advances plans, specifications, and cost 

estimates (PS&E) through the 60-90-100 percent intermediate deliverables of final design to 

deliver construction documents used for bidding or letting the project. 

Construction documents provide the foundation and framework for the construction activities. 

These documents may include, but are not limited to, construction plans, specifications, estimate 

of probable construction costs, project manual, bridging documents, and project schedule. 

Construction plans graphically represent existing conditions, the proposed conditions, and the 

intermediate steps required to get from existing to proposed conditions. These plans may include 

notes and standards to be used during the removal of existing infrastructure or the construction 

of proposed infrastructure. 

Project specifications are the written instruction manual for construction. Specifications provide 

the details for materials, storage, handling, fabrication, and construction of the components of the 

proposed infrastructure. 

An estimate of probable construction costs checks the design against the project budget. Analysis 

of the items and unit costs in the estimate and in the budget may be needed if the budget exceeds 

the funding available for the project. Further value engineering may be applied if the estimate 

continues to exceed the budget for the project after conducting a cost analysis. An estimate is 

generally used for analysis of the bids and in preparing a bid recommendation. 

A project manual may combine pre-bid materials, bid materials, addenda, general specifications, 

technical specifications, special provisions, proposed construction schedule, and/or the 

construction plans. Project manual contents and the need for a project manual vary by project. 

If the project is procured through a Design-Build process instead of the Design-Bid-Build 

approach, then bridging documents may also be necessary at that time. Bridging documents 

provide the next steps required to “bridge” the transfer of responsibility from the owner’s 

engineer to the design-build team. These documents should clearly convey the owner’s objectives 

and goals, the design status, the basis of design, and the general specifications. Bridging 

documents should also clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of all parties to 

the design-build agreement. 

A project schedule provides the agency/owner and the contractor with a clear expectation of 

when the project is to be complete. Schedules may be externally driven by dates to begin 

operations or internally driven by the infrastructure to be constructed. Once a contractor is 

selected, the construction schedule should conform to the project schedule. 

Permitting will be required to progress from design to construction. The specific permits required 

will vary based on the proposed infrastructure and jurisdiction(s) through which the incremental 

portions of the corridor pass. Permit submittal and approval processes will also vary based on 

the same factors. Identification of the required permits and coordination with the permitting 

agency/agencies should be an early design task and should progress concurrently with the 

design to reduce potential construction delays. 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-9 

7.6 CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY ACQUISITION, AND 

IMPLEMENTATION 

7.6.1 Construction Packaging 

DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA Project segments would be divided into construction 

packages. Construction packages would be further subdivided based on the types of 

infrastructure improvements and would be let to meet project schedules as developed during the 

incremental phases of the overall Project, which were presented at the beginning of this chapter: 

 Areas 1, 2, and 3—Arlington through Fredericksburg 

 Area 6—Richmond 

 Area 4—Central Virginia 

 Area 5—Ashland 

All work within CSXT right-of-way will be performed under CSXT’s Contractors Handbook for 

CSXT Roadway Worker Protection. Right-of-way acquisition will be a major factor in determining 

the overall segment construction packaging and scheduling. DRPT assumes that all rights-of-way 

for a particular segment will be acquired before construction activities commence for that 

segment. 

Refer to Section 2.8 of the Draft EIS for a general description of the construction plan for the entire 

corridor and details for each of the four major construction activities: rail, bridge, road, and 

station construction. 

7.6.2 Construction Phasing 

Within the DC2RVA Project corridor, the construction of the additional track and infrastructure, 

modification to control points, station infrastructure with new and upgraded platforms, and 

speed-related modifications requires phased construction. Where additional tracks are proposed, 

or existing tracks are being shifted through curves, construction will be phased to maintain 

passenger and freight rail services to the extent practicable. Station improvements for platform 

additions and pedestrian access will be advanced early to support the new track when placed in 

operation. Construction phasing will be defined in the next phase of design and further refined 

during final design for each of the corridor construction packages. 

7.6.3 Coordination with Railroad Operations 

Implementation of multiple infrastructure projects along an active and highly congested rail 

corridor presents challenges. The construction of the various projects must be scheduled to 

minimize disruptions of passenger and freight service from temporary track outages (where a 

track is removed from service) and slow orders (delays to continuous train operations). The 

planning and staging of work to minimize adverse impacts to continuous rail operations will 

require a high level of coordination among the various construction stakeholders. 

Coordinated scheduling and phasing of the segmental construction will be essential to timely 

Project delivery. Construction tasks that can be performed prior to impacting track removal, track 

shifts, or temporary outages from service changes will be early construction items. These early 

tasks include utility relocations; roadway relocations; bridge, retaining wall, grading, and track 

roadbed construction; offline railway bridges; special trackwork preassembly; and station 

improvements. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-10 

7.7 COORDINATION WITH OTHER STUDIES AND PROJECTS 

The DC2RVA Project was designed to fit FRA’s 2009 Strategic Vision for Higher Speed Rail nearterm strategy of upgrading reliability and service of conventional intercity rail services at speeds 

up to 90 miles per hour (mph), where practical, in a corridor shared with commuter and freight 

services. In order to obtain the full benefit of the DC2RVA infrastructure and service 

improvements, several other ongoing rail improvement projects must also be completed in the 

DC2RVA corridor and corridors adjacent to the DC2RVA Project. 

The DC2RVA Project provides a critical link between Amtrak’s heavily traveled NEC and the 

developing Southeast Rail Corridor. The ability of the DC2RVA Project to improve intercity 

passenger rail is dependent upon the performance and capacity of these connecting corridors and 

completion of the related projects and their associated rail improvements. A summary of some of 

the key interrelated rail improvement projects and studies is presented below. Additional details 

on rail and related transit projects can be found in Chapter 4 of the Alternatives Technical Report 

(Appendix A of the Draft EIS), which provided an overview of some of the previous and ongoing 

rail planning studies in the DC2RVA corridor and adjacent sections of the larger Southeast and 

Northeast Rail Corridors and described the relationship of these other studies/projects to the 

DC2RVA Project. 

7.7.1 Coordination with Local/Regional Rail Projects 

The following rail projects are included in the No Build assumptions for the DC2RVA Project 

(refer to Draft EIS Section 2.5.1 for details); the ongoing and/or current coordination efforts and 

status are included for each project, which are presented in north to south order in the Project 

corridor. In addition, the Ashland Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant platforms, 

which were proposed by Amtrak in 2017 after the publication of the Draft EIS, are described. 

Washington Union Station Expansion Project. The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation 

(USRC), in coordination with Amtrak, is proposing to expand and modernize Washington Union 

Station in order to provide a more positive customer experience; support current and future rail 

service and operational needs; facilitate intermodal transportation; preserve and maintain the 

historic station and its features; sustain the economic viability of Washington Union Station; and 

integrate with the adjacent neighborhoods, businesses, and planned development. The proposed 

project includes reconstructing and realigning tracks and platforms, developing new passenger 

concourses, improving multimodal transportation facilities, and improving and expanding other 

supporting facilities. 

The Washington Union Station Expansion project is currently in the planning process. Upon 

completion of the environmental review, USRC and Amtrak will pursue implementation of the 

project using all of the financing tools available, which may include federal grant and loan 

programs. 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel Expansion. CSXT is nearing completion in Spring 2019 on the Virginia 

Avenue Tunnel expansion project. When complete, the project will provide CSXT with the ability 

to operate double-stack intermodal container freight trains on CSXT’s National Gateway, and 

second, to eliminate a chokepoint caused by the Virginia Avenue Tunnel’s single track. The 

DC2RVA Project assumes the Virginia Avenue Tunnel will be completed prior to implementation 

of the 2025 DC2RVA service plan and includes the tunnel in the No Build Alternative. 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-11 

Atlantic Gateway Program. Virginia is continuing to advance the Atlantic Gateway Program. In 

2016, U.S. DOT selected the Commonwealth of Virginia to receive an award of $165 million from 

the FASTLANE program to expand rail and highway capacity in Northern Virginia as part of the 

Atlantic Gateway suite of projects. The $165 million FASTLANE grant will leverage $565 million 

in private investments and $710 million in other transportation funds to fund a $1.4 billion 

package of rail and highway expansion projects intended to address some of the worst freight 

and passenger transportation bottlenecks on the Interstate 95 corridor. 

Atlantic Gateway consists of five distinct rail capacity and engineering projects: 

 Long Bridge Program development funding to advance engineering, stakeholder 

agreements, and outreach in support of the long-term, multi-agency initiative to increase 

rail capacity across the Potomac River through the expansion or replacement of the Long 

Bridge. This project is estimated at $30 million,4 with $15 million provided by DRPT and 

$15 million being provided by CSXT. There are no federal funds on this portion of the 

Atlantic Gateway. 

 Construction of 6 miles of fourth mainline track from the north bank of the Potomac River 

at Arlington to the AF interlocking in Alexandria, where passenger and commuter trains 

bound for Manassas diverge from the DC2RVA corridor. This piece of the DC2RVA 

Project is estimated at $225 million, with $454 million provided by the grant and the 

remainder being provided by the Commonwealth and other federal sources. Construction 

is planned to commence in 2020. DRPT did not include this project in the No Build 

Alternative. 

 Construction of 8 miles of third mainline track from the Franconia-Springfield VRE station 

to a location just north of the Occoquan River. This project is estimated at $220 million 

and is being funded by the Commonwealth. DRPT included this project in the No Build 

Alternative. 

 Construction of two interlockings in Caroline County south of Fredericksburg to improve 

operational flexibility and network fluidity just south of the VRE commuter territory. This 

piece of the DC2RVA Project is estimated at $30 million and is being funded by the 

Commonwealth. 

 S-Line transfer mechanism (an agreement between the Commonwealth of Virginia, State 

of North Carolina, and CSXT) to allow for the transfer from CSXT to public ownership of 

an abandoned portion of the S-Line that runs from Petersburg, VA to Norlina, NC. The 

transferred S-Line will host the passenger service extending south from the DC2RVA 

corridor to the Richmond to Raleigh Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project. This 

project is estimated at $30 million and is being funded by the Commonwealth and CSXT. 

The S-Line transfer is part of the implementation of the SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh 

(SEHSR R2R project), described in greater detail in Section 7.7.2 below. 

Long Bridge Capacity Expansion. The Long Bridge is a double-track railroad bridge built in 1904 

and owned by CSXT that crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. and Arlington, 

VA. The bridge provides the only Potomac River rail crossing between Washington, D.C. and 

 

4 Cost estimates are from the 2016 Atlantic Gateway FASTLANE application:: 

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/atlantic_gateway/Atlantic_Gateway_FASTLANEGrantApp2016.

pdf 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-12 

Northern Virginia and is used by all Amtrak intercity passenger trains, VRE commuter trains, 

and CSXT freight trains. Intercity passenger and commuter trains now comprise more than twothirds of the train traffic crossing Long Bridge. The increasing train traffic on the two-track bridge 

has produced the most significant rail network bottleneck in Virginia. 

Washington, D.C.’s Department of Transportation (DDOT) is managing an EIS to study an 

expansion of capacity on the Long Bridge in coordination with DRPT, VRE, CSXT, and FRA. The 

Final EIS and ROD for the Long Bridge Capacity Expansion Study are anticipated in 2020. In 

developing the service planning for DC2RVA, DRPT has assumed the Long Bridge Capacity 

Expansion would provide at least four main tracks across the Potomac River, past VRE’s L’Enfant 

Plaza station, to CP Virginia in Washington, D.C., where Amtrak-owned tracks diverge from 

CSXT tracks to Union Station through the First Street Tunnel. DRPT has also assumed, based on 

the Long Bridge Alternatives Development Report (June 2018),5 that the Long Bridge capacity 

expansion would add two tracks on a new structure immediately upstream and parallel to the 

existing two-track bridge, providing a total of four tracks across the river. DRPT included the 

Long Bridge Capacity Expansion in the No Build Alternative. 

VRE Capital Improvements. VRE is conducting assessments for station improvements to several 

stations on the Fredericksburg line. The stations included in VRE’s study are: Alexandria, Crystal 

City, Lorton, Rippon, Quantico, Brooke, and Leeland Road. Proposed improvements in the 

assessments include recommendations for: extending platforms, placing island platforms, 

providing for ADA and grade-separated access to the platforms, and ways to integrate the stations 

with existing or proposed development in the surrounding areas, and relocation of the Crystal City 

VRE platforms. DRPT and FRA have been coordinating the design of the DC2RVA track 

improvements with VRE’s plans for platform and station improvements. 

VRE is also developing recommendations for improvements to its L’Enfant station, as well as 

additional track and siding improvements between CP Virginia and CP L’Enfant in Washington, 

D.C. DRPT has included these VRE capital improvement projects in the No Build Alternative. 

Potomac Yard Metro Station. Potomac Yard is a former Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac 

Railroad (RF&P) rail classification yard located in the northeast area of the City of Alexandria, 

VA, adjacent to the CSXT rail corridor. The City of Alexandria, working with federal, state, and 

local stakeholders and private developers, is redeveloping Potomac Yard as a multi-use 

commercial, office, and residential development, including a new WMATA station serving the 

Yellow and Blue Metrorail lines. WMATA’s Potomac Yard Metrorail Station would be connected 

to additional residential and commercial development across the CSXT right-of-way by a 

pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the CSXT rail line. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and 

the National Park Service (NPS) issued their RODs for the Potomac Yard Metro Station in Fall 

2016, and in September 2018, WMATA awarded a contract for design and construction of the 

metro station. The initial plans for Potomac Yard Metro Station called for two entrances, north 

and south, with each entrance linked to a separate pedestrian bridge over the rail corridor. 

DRPT has been coordinating the design of the DC2RVA track improvements with the City of 

Alexandria and WMATA’s plans for the Potomac Yard Metro Station, pedestrian/bicycle 

overpass, and related area development. 

 

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

 http://longbridgeproject.com/study-documents/ 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-13 

Powells Creek to Arkendale Third Track. FRA awarded Virginia a $74.8 million grant to build 

up to 11 miles of third track and related improvements from Powells Creek in Prince William 

County to Arkendale in Stafford County, as well as improvements to the station at the Quantico 

Marine Base in Quantico. The third track is currently under construction between Possum Point 

and Arkendale; a distance of approximately 9 miles. The remaining 2 miles of third track, from 

Powells Creek to Possum Point, will be built in the future when additional funds are available. 

DRPT included the third track from Powells Creek to Arkendale in the No Build Alternative. 

Ashland Station ADA-Compliant Platforms. In 2017, Amtrak proposed plans to rebuild the 

existing Ashland station platforms to improve accessibility and compliance with the ADA. The 

existing station platforms were described in detail in Section 8.3.5.11 of the DC2RVA Project 

Alternatives Technical Report (Appendix A of the Draft EIS). Currently, there are two side 

platforms at Ashland, surfaced with brick pavers with an elevation of approximately top of tie. 

The west side platform is approximately 500 feet in length and varies in width between 

approximately 4 feet on the south end and 12 feet on the center and north end. The east side 

platform is approximately 500 feet in length and is approximately 6 feet in width. The existing 

pedestrian grade crossing between the two platforms is approximately 3 feet in width. Amtrak’s 

plans call for replacing the west side platform with an approximately 374-foot-long platform, 12 

feet wide, raised to 8 inches above top of rail north and south of the existing Visitor Center 

building, where the platform would remain at top of tie. The east side platform would be 

approximately 487 feet in length, 12 feet wide, and raised to 8 inches above top of rail. A section 

of the east side platform across from the Visitor Center would be at approximately top of tie to 

facilitate ADA-compliant access to Railroad Avenue. There would be an area enclosed by a 

canopy on the east side platform, and both east and west platforms would be provided with 

mobile wheelchair lifts. A new passenger grade crossing approximately 30 feet wide would be 

installed between the platforms. The existing at-grade road/rail intersections at College Avenue 

and England Street (S.R. 54) would remain as the north and south boundaries of the platforms. 

Railroad Avenue on the east side of the station would be shifted easterly to accommodate the 

expanded width of the east side platform, resulting in the loss of some on-street parking. 

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2019. 

Main Line Relocation Project at Acca Yard and Crossovers South of the James River. In 2019, 

CSXT completed a mainline relocation project at Acca Yard to relieve the current bottleneck. The 

reconfiguration of the switching yard incudes a two track mainline connection around the west 

side of Acca Yard, allowing through passenger and freight trains to bypass Acca Yard. The project 

includes addition of two crossovers on the A-Line south of the James River. DRPT included this 

project in the No Build Alternative. 

7.7.2 Coordination with Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Projects 

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) became law, under which 

Section 1036 authorized a program of high speed rail corridors in the United States. In 1992, the 

U.S. DOT designated the SEHSR corridor from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC as one of the 

original national high speed rail corridors, and in 1996, administratively designated an extension 

of the corridor from Richmond to Hampton Roads. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA-21) became law, under which Section 7201 authorized the designation of 

additional high speed rail corridors and extensions of existing corridors. That same year, the U.S. 

DOT extended the SEHSR corridor into South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, with further 

connections added within Georgia and Florida in 2000. The SEHSR program calls for developing 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-14 

a range of improved intercity passenger rail speeds, from 79 to 110 mph on shared track (freight 

and passenger service), and possibly speeds above 110 mph, on dedicated track (passenger 

service only) on the Atlanta to Charlotte corridor only. 

FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Virginia and North 

Carolina, initiated a Tier I EIS for the section of the SEHSR corridor from Washington, D.C. to 

Charlotte, NC in 1999, for which FRA and FHWA completed a Final EIS and issued a ROD in 

2002. The Tier I EIS selected an incremental approach to develop the SEHSR between Washington, 

D.C. and Charlotte, NC, which is inclusive of the DC2RVA corridor. Key elements of the selected 

incremental approach are: 

 Upgrade existing rail corridors (instead of developing new corridors) 

 Utilize fossil-fuel burning equipment rather than electric-powered equipment 

 Add service as market demand increases and/or when funding is available 

The incremental approach seeks to minimize cost and potential impacts to the environment by 

utilizing existing railroad tracks and rail rights-of-way as much as possible. 

The components of the SEHSR corridor are in different stages of planning and NEPA clearance 

based on need and funding. The following summary identifies the status of the five major 

components of the SEHSR corridor: 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC. Tier I Final EIS and ROD completed in 2002. 

SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh (SEHSR R2R Project) Final Design and Implementation. FRA, 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and DRPT completed a Tier II EIS in 

2015 and signed a ROD for the SEHSR R2R project in 2017. The study covered the 162-mile 

segment of the SEHSR corridor between Richmond6 and Raleigh, NC and called for reactivation 

of 76 miles of CSXT’s abandoned S-Line. The SEHSR R2R project proposed operating four daily 

Interstate Corridor round trips between New York and Raleigh via Richmond, which are 

included in the DC2RVA service plan as Interstate Corridor SEHSR trains operating through 

Richmond to Washington, D.C. As part of the Atlantic Gateway suite of projects, DRPT and CSXT 

will enter into an agreement that will establish a process for transferring ownership of the 

abandoned S-Line right-of-way to continue advancing work on this segment of the SEHSR 

corridor. 

Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier II Study. DRPT is in the process of identifying funding 

sources to initiate a Tier II environmental study within the next six years for the Richmond to 

Hampton Roads segment of the SEHSR corridor. In 2012, FRA and DRPT completed a Tier I EIS 

and ROD for the Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail project (R2HR project), which 

defined the route and service characteristics for the extension of the SEHSR corridor from 

Richmond south and east to Hampton Roads. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia currently supports five daily round-trip Northeast Regional 

(Virginia) trains from Washington, D.C. and the NEC to or through Richmond, including: two 

daily round-trip trains terminating at Staples Mill Road Station in Richmond; one daily round-

 

6 As previously detailed in Chapter 4, for purposes of NEPA, the DC2RVA Project overlaps and supersedes the SEHSR 

R2R project for the segment between Main Street Station and Centralia, VA; all track and roadway improvements 

and the effects of additional train frequencies between Main Street Station and Centralia are evaluated as part of 

DC2RVA. 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-15 

trip train extending south of Staples Mill Road Station to Norfolk; and two daily round-trip trains 

continuing east through Main Street Station to Newport News. DRPT plans to extend the two 

daily Northeast Regional (Virginia) round-trip trains that currently terminate in Richmond to 

Norfolk providing three round-trip trains per day south of Richmond; the second Norfolk round 

trip is planned to begin operations in Spring 2019, and the third round trip is planned to begin in 

2021. DRPT included the extension of these existing passenger trains to Norfolk in the No Build 

Alternative. The R2HR project will expand upon the existing Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

service to Hampton Roads by adding one daily round-trip to Newport News (for three total) at a 

maximum authorized speed of 79 mph and three additional round trips to Norfolk (for six total) 

at a maximum authorized speed of 90 mph. DRPT did not include the R2HR expansion of 

intercity passenger service as part of the No Build Alternative. 

Raleigh, NC to Charlotte, NC. FRA, in partnership with NCDOT, has completed multiple Tier 

II-level environmental reviews for individual projects along the section of the SEHSR corridor 

between Raleigh and Charlotte. In total, these projects will increase conventional speed passenger 

service to five daily round trips on this section of the corridor along with improved safety, 

reliability, and upgraded facilities. Although the primary purpose of these projects is to increase 

the frequency of conventional speed passenger trains, the NEPA documents also serve as Tier II 

clearances for SEHSR trains. 

Charlotte, NC to Atlanta, GA to Jacksonville, FL. FRA and the Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT) are working on a Tier I EIS studying the portion of the SEHSR corridor 

between Charlotte and Atlanta. In the Tier I EIS, FRA, and GDOT will identify potential corridor 

route alternatives, station locations, and levels of service. FRA anticipates publishing the Draft 

EIS in early 2019. FRA, in partnership with GDOT, completed a feasibility study for the Atlanta, 

GA to Macon, GA to Jacksonville, FL section of the corridor in 2012. 

7.7.3 Coordination with Northeast Corridor Projects 

Amtrak owns and operates 363 miles of the 457-mile mainline NEC, stretching from Boston to 

Washington, D.C. On a daily basis, approximately 820,000 trips are made on the NEC—either on 

Amtrak or one of the commuter railroads operating within the NEC. More than 2,100 passenger 

trains and 60 freight trains operate on some portion of the NEC every day.7 In the context of such 

heavy daily use and recognizing the aging NEC infrastructure, much of the NEC is approaching 

the limits of its capacity and, at the same time, is in need of rehabilitation. Many NEC rail assets 

are in need of redesign and replacement to provide the capacity needed for a growing population 

and economy and to continue to provide safe, reliable, and convenient high-speed rail service 

into the next century. 

Amtrak has created a vision and strategy to address these issues. The Amtrak Vision for the 

Northeast Corridor (which updates work first published in 2010) outlines a vision for a highcapacity, high-performance railroad featuring a major upgrade and expansion of the NEC. This 

effort would accommodate increased and improved commuter, intercity, and freight service 

using new, dedicated high-speed tracks on new and existing right-of-way and would allow 

Amtrak to increase frequencies and speeds while reducing trip times. The Amtrak Vision for 

the Northeast Corridor serves as one of the many inputs into FRA’s NEC Future planning process, 

 

7 NEC passenger and train estimates are from: https://nec.amtrak.com/about-the-nec/ 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-16 

which will help determine the options for NEC service and infrastructure development in the 

decades to come. 

The DC2RVA Project includes a service plan that would improve the reliability of intercity 

passenger service while adding 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per 

day). Four of these new round trips would provide expanded Northeast Regional service from 

Hampton Roads through Richmond to the NEC. One new round trip would originate at 

Richmond’s Main Street Station. An additional four round trips would provide interstate service 

from North Carolina through Virginia, continuing on to Amtrak’s NEC. From Washington, D.C., 

DRPT intends for all of the new trains to continue on to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, 

subject to available capacity and future operating schedules on the NEC. 

7.8 OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS/PERMITS/REGULATORY 

APPROVALS 

Throughout Project development, design, and construction, DRPT will continue to coordinate 

with appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary permits and 

approvals, including the potential use of nationwide and/or regional permits, as presented in 

Table 7.8-1 below. 

Table 7.8-1: Anticipated Future Necessary Permits and Approvals 

Permit Authorizing Regulation Regulatory Agency 

Section 401 Water Quality Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Section 402 Discharge Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Section 408 Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Subaqueous Bed Permit Code of Virginia 

Chapter 2, Title 62.1 

Virginia Marine Resources 

Commission 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Clean Water Act U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

(MS4) Permit 

Virginia Stormwater Management 

Act 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Section 9 Bridge Permit River and Harbors Act U.S. Coast Guard 

Section 10 Work in Navigable Waters 

Permit River and Harbors Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

There will be permit requirements for construction of the Preferred Alternative associated with 

the crossing and filling of water resources and wetlands. Section 404 permits will be needed from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for wetlands where filling occurs. In addition, the 

DC2RVA Project will require a Section 401 water quality certification and Section 402 discharge 

permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ). A Subaqueous 

Bed permit will also be required from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). A 
 OVERVIEW OF FUTURE STEPS 

 7-17 

Joint Permit Application (JPA) will be submitted to USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, and Local 

Wetlands Board, and will combine several of the above permits. 

As part of the JPA review and approval process, a Section 408 permission will be required. 

Permission approval will be based on a letter of concurrence from the local sponsor, any real 

estate instruments needed for construction and/or operations, and final plans for construction. It 

is anticipated that a pre-application meeting will be held with USACE during the early stages of 

the next phase of design and that a JPA pre-submittal meeting will be held with the USACE 

Section 408 team. Section 408 permission is separate from and concurrent with the JPA approval. 

DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA Project will result in the disturbance of more than five acres 

of total land area. Therefore, the Project will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges from the construction sites. Permit coverage 

for the Project will be obtained either under the Virginia DEQ General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from Construction Site Activities or under an individual NPDES permit. A Municipal 

Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit for small municipal separate storm sewer systems 

will be secured, as required by states and/or local authorities. 

Work involving the spanning of navigable waterways will require a Section 10 permit from the 

USACE and a Section 9 Bridge permit from the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Finally, coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), and National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) pursuant to 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, for potential impacts to 

federally listed species will be conducted where required during final design and permitting, 

which would occur after funding becomes available and incremental improvements are 

scheduled.