Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

As planning and design for the Project progresses, future approvals will be required. Required documentation
to comply with Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act were not completed as part of the Tier [ EIS
but will be undertaken during Tier Il analyses to the extent federal actions triggering these requirements are
present. Initial coordination with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) were initiated and potentially affected resources protected under Section 4(f) and
Section 106 identified as part of this Tier 1 EIS process. Upon refinement of the Selected Alternative
alignment and ancillary facilities, coordination with the aforementioned agencies will be conducted to
complete the requirements of each of these regulations.

6.0 Conclusion

FRA selects Alternative 1 as the environmentally preferable alternative for the Richmond/Hampton Roads
Passenger Rail Project documented in the Tier | EIS. The Selected Alternative provides for continued
conventional speed passenger rail service on the Peninsula/CSXT route with three (3) daily roundtrips serving
the existing Richmond Main Street, Williamsburg, and Newport News stations and new higher-speed
passenger rail service with a MAS of 90 mph along the Southside/NS route with six (6) roundtrips daily
seryi tions in the Petersburg area, Bowers Hill and Norfolk.

Joseph C. Szabo

Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration

Date: td “fy hs 2—

camel
Record of Decision Page 15


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

The Selected Alternative on the Southside/NS route would begin in Richmond, travel through Petersburg, and
terminate in downtown Norfolk. The portion of the Southside/NS route between Richmond and Petersburg,
including station improvements in the Petersburg area, is being evaluated as part of a separate Tier Il EIS for
the SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh project. The Selected Alternative and the SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh
project would share the same route between Richmond and Petersburg. Once the SEHSR Richmond to
Raleigh project alignment for this section is finalized, final design and construction of improvements in this
section could be implemented.

The Selected Alternative on the Southside/NS route continues from Petersburg to Suffolk and then uses a
portion of the right-of-way of the abandoned Virginian Railway line between Kilby and Algren. This line
parallels the existing operating NS freight line between Suffolk and Norfolk. A new connection between the
existing NS line and the abandoned Virginian Railway line would be required in the vicinity of Kilby. This
connection would likely require new right-of-way to accommodate the transition between lines. This route
alignment decreases the level of potential impact to the existing freight operations in this area. The existing
double track on the NS line between Petersburg and Norfolk is augmented with a single passing siding, the
Ivor Middle Track, about one half-mile long. Other middle tracks existed earlier, when Norfolk and Western
operated passenger trains on the route. The middle tracks allowed faster passenger trains to pass slower
freight trains. New passenger operations would require more passing capacity, possibly through reinstallation
and extension of former sidings and middle tracks. Signal improvements would be needed to meet FRA
regulations for services operating over 79 mph.

Selected Alternative stations include the existing Richmond Main Street Station, Williamsburg, and Newport
News Stations on the Peninsula/CSXT route; a Petersburg area station, the proposed Bowers Hill Station in
Suffolk, and a Downtown Norfolk Station on the Southside/NS route. General locations for new stations have
been evaluated generally for purposes of this analysis. Specific station sites and site-specific improvements
will be determined in the future by the municipalities. All stations would have parking facilities. In the case of
Norfolk, existing downtown parking facilities could be used.* Existing parking at Richmond Main Street
Station may be augmented to accommodate more parking spaces.

Potential station locations in the Petersburg area are being evaluated as part of the Tier il EIS for the SEHSR
Richmond to Raleigh project. Service to Bowers Hill and Downtown Norfolk would involve the construction of
new stations. The Bowers Hill Station would serve the large Southside geographic area beyond Norfolk and
Portsmouth. This location could provide a strong interface between passenger rail service and automobile
traffic at |-264 and the Hampton Roads Beltway (I-64/664). Preliminary analysis suggests that a suitable
location could be established just east of the Algren track connection at the crossing of Homestead Road.
Other potential station sites examined did not have adequate highway access or sufficient space for station
facilities. The station location in Downtown Norfolk is located just north of the Elizabeth River and east of the
Harbor Park baseball stadium, terminating near |-264 and Park Avenue. The Downtown Norfolk station would
serve the markets of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach, providing a central location with access to and
from the regional transportation network. The Norfolk Tide, a light rail line that began operating in 2011,
serves as an additional local transit interface.

3.2 Basis of Selection

3.2.1 Route Selection

The Tier | ElS analysis and evaluation showed the Selected Alternative to better meet the Project's purpose
and need, and the identified goals and objectives of the Project. The Selected Alternative supports the goals
to improve regional linkage and ability to limit growth of highway congestion. It also provides greater benefits
for hurricane evacuation and improving regional air quality. Overwhelmingly, the public came out in support

8 Using state rail enhancement funds, the Commonwealth has begun an initial passenger service to Norfolk by extending
some Amtrak Virginia regional train service to Norfolk. This initial service has involved the construction of a new station in
Norfolk, and the construction of a new CSXT A-Line junction with NS. These improvements may have on-going utility for
the implementation of the Project.

C—O
Page 6


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

done at the Tier ll level as the Project advances. Many of the agencies indicate the need for more detail on
the Project and its components in order to make an assessment of effect and many are requesting field
surveys for various natural resources. Comments received also pointed to various adopted plans and data
that are more current than what was used in the Final Tier | EIS.

Response: As planning for the Project progresses, more detailed analysis and engineering will be conducted.
Should federal funding sources for the future phases of the Project be identified, DRPT will coordinate with
FRA to determine the appropriate scope of environmental analysis to be conducted. As suggested by the
comments received from DEQ, on behalf of the Commonwealth, FRA and DRPT will reinitiate communication
and correspondence with potentially affected agencies as appropriate and recommended.

The Final Tier | EIS does not need to be updated to reflect the comments pertaining to updating data sources;
however, future environmental review documents will be updated to reflect current conditions and data
sources at the time documents are prepared.

Virginia DOT, Hampton Roads Transportation Planning and Land Use Office

The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning and Land Use Office of VDOT expressed concern over
potential vehicular and pedestrian safety at various at-grade crossings identified by the Final Tier |.EIS.
VDOT recommends a more detailed program that looks at closing or improving all grade crossings should be
implemented prior to commencement of any higher speed rail operations. Additionally, VDOT notes that
several planning documents, including the January 2012 Hampton Roads 2034 Long Range Plan, and the
April 2011 Crater 2030 Long Range Plan, have been updated and should have been referenced in the Tier 1
EIS. VDOT further recommends continued coordination with the jurisdictions affected by the proposed
improvements.

VDOT also identified several Projects listed in the FY 13-18 Six Year Improvement Program that may be
impacted:

e  Peninsula/CSXT Route

o UPC 17633 Route 60 — Croaker Road Bikeway - James City County
UPC 102980 Pocahontas Trail/Route 60 Reconstruction - James City County
UPC 13496 Route 60 Relocation and Upgrading - James City County/Newport News
UPC 57313 1-64 Peninsula Widening - James City County/Newport News.
UPC 93077 Bridge Replacement over I-64 and CSXT Railroad - Newport News
UPC 11816 Middle Ground Boulevard - Newport News

o UPC 102734 Amtrak Multimodal Station Relocation - Newport News
« Southside/NS Route

o UPC 13486 Route 460 Relocation — Suffolk to Prince George County

o UPC 99296 Route 460 Maintenance — Windsor

o UPC 85945 22TM Street Bridge over Seaboard Avenue — Chesapeake

Response: As planning for the Project progresses, data used to compile the Tier | EIS will be updated,
reported and used for analysis in the Tier tI analysis and documentation. Effects on Projects noted by VDOT
will be reviewed and documented, as appropriate, in future stages of Project development as more detailed
planning and engineering become available. DRPT will continue coordination with applicable federal, state
and local agencies; stakeholders; and the public.

oo0000

Norfolk Southern Corporation
A comment was received from the Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS). The letter raised the following points:

e The ROD should make clear that the Selected Alternative does not consider a MAS of 90 to 110
mph, but instead considers only a MAS of 90 mph.

e  [t is unclear whether the Final Tier | EIS is consistent with current NS policy that requires
passenger operations at speeds above 79 mph to be performed on separate tracks, separated
from freight operations.

* The ROD should make clear if the Selected Alternative involves construction of dedicated
passenger tracks on the partially-abandoned Virginia Railroad right-of-way between Algren and
Kenyon.

| el
Record of Decision Page 11


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

f Potential Environmental Effects

ZT

Estimated Probable Ridership (055 projection)

High rider estimate: 1,110,000

Low rider estimate: 939,600

On-time performance 84% (projected)
Trip time — vehicle/rail (savings) 0:53 (minutes)
Grade Crossing Safety.

Need for Grade Crossing Consolidation/Closures LYes

Air Quality

Effects on Regional Air Quality

| Provides greatest benefit to regional air quality

Noise and Vibration

Sensitive Land Uses Identified

Yes

Noise and Vibration Impacts

Increase in frequency of noise exposure/New noise source

Energy

Annual Energy Use (lions of BTUs)

31

% annual Energy Use over Status Quo Alternative

417%

Land Use

Consistency with Regional/Local Adopted Plans

Supports specified goals related to transportation, regional
connectivity, economic growth along both routes

Requires Conversion of Land Use

Potentially on Southside/NS route (Kilby Connection, new
station locations)

Communities

Population and Employment (existing and proposed)

Likely increase

Environmental Justice (disproportionate adverse impacts
expected?)

No impact

Communities/ Community Facilities

Southside/NS route: Potential grade crossing closures
could impact community cohesion

Peninsula/CSXT route: Continues current conditions

Federally Owned Land, Open space, Parklands, State Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Conservation Easements

Federally Owned Land

No impact

Open Space, Parklands, State forests , Conservation
Easements

Potential for proximity effects (noise) along both routes

Wildlife Refuges

No impact (alignment is north of the Dismal Swamp)

Farmlands

Farmlands, Agricutture

| Potential impacts (Kilby connection)

Visual and Aesthetic Characteristics

Change in Visual and Aesthetic Characteristics

Alterations in aesthetic/visual character expected near
proposed Bower's Hill and Norfolk stations

Utilities

Utility Relocations Potentially
Potential Disruption in Services Potentially
Contamination and Hazardous Materials

Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) Identified Yes
Potential to Encounter RECs Potentially

Cultural Resources

Architectural Resources

Potential “ for proximity effects, primarily along
Southside/NS routes

Archaeological Resources

Potential to impact where infrastructure improvements
require additional ROW

Geologic Resources

Mines

L Inactive mines identified

Hydrologic/Water Resources

Surface waters

Potential to impact where infrastructure improvements
require additional ROW.

Floodplains Potential to impact where infrastructure improvements
require additional ROW.
Wetlands Potential to impact where infrastructure improvements

Page 8



Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

of this alternative’ due to the mobility options provided and its ability to serve a greater share of Hampton
Roads’ population. The geography of the Hampton Roads region presents many challenges and barriers,
and limits connectivity to regions outside of Hampton Roads. By continuing passenger rail service to Newport
News and providing new passenger rail service to Norfolk, the Selected Alternative has the ability to serve
more people, helping them avoid the bridge and tunnel systems at the confluence of the James River and
Chesapeake Bay. More detail on how the Selected Alternative meets the Project's purpose and need, and
supports the identified goals and objectives of the Project, is provided in Chapter 6 of the Final Tier | EIS.

3.2.2 Maximum Authorized Speed (MAS) Selection

The Selected Alternative proposes higher speed passenger rail with a MAS of 90 mph, and does not include
or propose 110 mph operations. The basis of this selection of a MAS of 90 mph is due to several factors;
primarily, cost and potential interference with the host freight railroad’s (NS) operations and concerns. As
documented in the Tier [ EIS, the preliminary capital cost estimate for the alternative with a MAS of 90 mph
was approximately 15 percent lower than the option with a MAS of 110 mph ($475.4 million and $543.0
million, respectively, in 2008 dollars). In addition, the preliminary annual operating costs of system with a
MAS of 90 mph are slightly lower than preliminary annual operating costs for a system with a MAS of 110
mph ($80.0 million and $81.4 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars).

Higher speed passenger rail trains running on the NS freight lines also raises other operational considerations
that factor into the basis of selection. In a letter dated February 11, 2010, the NS Corporation indicated that
the operation of passenger rail service with a MAS of 90 to 110 mph on reactivated middle tracks and/or
reactivating or extending passing sidings was not compatible with high-tonnage freight service between
Petersburg and Norfolk. The letter further suggests that higher speed passenger trains should ideally be
separated from freight trains by constructing dedicated passenger tracks.

Furthermore, FRA has regulations regarding safety at grade crossings. An alternative with a MAS of 90 mph
would require some grade crossing enhancements. However, alternatives with a MAS of 110 would require
substantially more safety enhancements. Another way of meeting the mandate to upgrade crossings would
be to close them. Project analyses determined that a corridor with a MAS of 90 mph would require the
upgrade or closure of approximately 17 percent of public grade crossings and 42 percent of private grade
crossings, as compared with a corridor with a MAS of 110 mph, which would require the upgrade or closure of
approximately 45 percent of the public grade crossings and 71 percent of the private grade crossings.
Therefore, the 90 mph Selected Alternative has more moderate capital costs and impacts related to grade
crossing upgrades and closures than a 110 mph alternative.

3.3. Summary of Potential Environmental Effects

In accordance with NEPA, and as part of the Tier | EIS process, FRA and DRPT assessed the potential
impacts to the built and natural environment. The Tier | EIS identified impacts on a general and qualitative
basis. More detailed analysis will be conducted during Tier II analyses. To assess potential effects for each
resource, readily available information and data was used. Detailed methodologies for each resource can be
found in the Tier | EIS and supporting appendices. Most of the analysis is a qualitative assessment of effects.
Where feasible, quantitative data was used to assess effects of the Project on the environment.

4 The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the
Hampton Roads region, resolution endorsing Alternative 1 with enhancements focused on the designation of a “High-
Speed Rail’ corridor along the NS/US Route 460 corridor designed ultimately at speeds of more than 110 mph; and in
conjunction with the high-speed rail corridor, the enhancement of the intercity passenger rail service along the
CSX/Amtrak/I-64 corridor. This “Enhanced Alternative 1” was not endorsed by the CTB for the Selected Alternative.

eee al
Record of Decision Page 7


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

via Survey Monkey). Each commenter was designated with a unique identification number to track and
compile comments into comment/response matrices. In general, a majority of the comments received from
the public were in support of the Southside/NS route and maintaining the existing passenger rail service along
the Peninsula/CSXT route. In particular, there was support for the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning
Organization's (HRTPO) October 2009 resolution supporting the Selected Alternative with enhancements.
Other comments reiterated the purpose and need for the Project, addressed costs and funding, railroad
operations and technical resource analysis. Comments received were responded to in the Final Tier | ElS
(See Chapter 7 and Appendix F of the Final Tier | ElS).

4.2. Summary of Comments on the Final Tier | EIS

The Final Tier | EIS was distrinuted to various agencies, elected officials, and libraries along the corridor. The
availability of the document was also announced in the Federal Register, through a DRPT mailing/press
Telease, and the Project website. A 30-day waiting period was established for the Final Tier | EIS and later
extended to October 1, 2012. Eight written letters were received on the Final Tier | EIS. The following
provides a summary of those comments and provides responses.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region Ill

EPA reports that they have some concerns over the. level of detail provided in the Final Tier | EIS and that
they are unclear as to the level of NEPA documentation that will be used for the Tier Il analysis. In the Tier II
analysis, all impacts should be evaluated more fully at a Project level to include all aspects of the Project,
such as access roads, storage areas, maintenance, parking, stations, etc. EPA further suggests that during
the Tier Il analysis, FRA and DRPT should continue to evaluate ways to avoid and minimize impacts and that
detailed mitigation should be provided for unavoidable impacts.

Response: As planning for the Project progresses, more detailed analysis and engineering will be conducted
that will allow for more detailed analysis of impacts. Mitigation will be identified in Project-level analysis at
Tier Il, as appropriate and determined in coordination with the regulating resource agency.

Should federal funding sources for the future phases of the Project be identified, DRPT will coordinate with
FRA to determine the appropriate scope of environmental analysis to be conducted. Given that funding
sources are unclear at this stage of the Project for Tier Il, FRA and DRPT are unable to determine the
appropriate NEPA class of action for future stages of project development. Project features such as stations,
for example, could be locally or privately funded and, therefore, may not result in the use of federal funds or
actions to be assessed under NEPA.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

DEQ completed a review of the Final Tier | EIS on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia. As part of this
review DEQ invited various state agencies and localities and planning district commissions to participate;
however, only the following agencies, localities, and planning district commissions participated in the review:

¢ Department of Environmental Quality

e Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

« Department of Conservation and Recreation

« Department of Historic Resources

e Department of Health

e Department of Transportation

« Department of Forestry

e Marine Resources Commission

« Richmond Regional Planning District Commission

e = City of Williamsburg
In general, the Commonwealth's review highlights the need for future coordination with overseeing regulatory

agencies and localities to ensure all applicable reviews and permits are acquired prior to advancing the
Project. Most comments from the DEQ acknowledge that more detailed analysis and coordination will be

Fe
Page 10


Record of Decision
Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail
Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

This document records the decision of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with regard to the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation’s (DRPT) proposed Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail
Project (Project). In making this decision, FRA considered the information, analysis, and public comments
contained in the Draft and Final Tier | Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for the proposed Project.

This Record of Decision (ROD) has been drafted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321-4347); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Environmental
Procedures) (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999); and guidelines published by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) on implementing NEPA. Specifically, this ROD:

« Provides background on the NEPA process undertaken as part of the Project;

¢ Identifies Alternatives Considered as part of the NEPA process, including the environmentally
preferable alternative;

e Identifies and provides the basis of selection for the Selected Alternative;

e Summarizes comments received on the Final Tier | ElS;

e Identifies Next Steps.

1.0 Introduction

In 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) designated the Southeast High Speed Rail
(SEHSR) Corridor connecting Washington, D.C., Richmond, VA and Charlotte, NC as authorized under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Also under this authorization, the USDOT
designated an extension of the SEHSR Corridor from Richmond to Hampton Roads in 1995. In total, the
Federally designated SEHSR Corridor extends from Washington, D.C. to Richmond and Hampton Roads in
Virginia and southward to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC; Columbia, SC; Atlanta, Macon and Savannah, GA; and
terminates in Jacksonville, FL. The Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project encompasses the
extension of the SEHSR Corridor from Richmond to Newport News and Norfolk in Hampton Roads. Under
the vision of the development of the Richmond/Hampton Roads extension of the SEHSR Corridor, DRPT
proposes an improved passenger rail service between Richmond, Virginia and the Hampton Roads region of
Virginia with the purpose of providing a competitive transportation choice that seeks to expand the capacity of
the region’s transportation system and provide residents, tourists, and visitors with a broader array of reliable
transportation options.

FRA and DRPT jointly prepared a Tier | EIS for this Project documenting the proposed action and reasonable
alternatives. A Tier | EIS is a broad-level document that provides an analysis of applicable conditions and
factors to consider at decisional milestones during Project development. FRA and DRPT circulated the Draft
Tier | ElS for agency and public review and responded to comments in the Final Tier | EIS. The decisions
that are ready to be made at this stage of Project development define the route, location, and operating
characteristics of the Project and include selection of the:

« Proposed rail route and general station locations for investing in higher-speed rail;
e Frequency of train service; and
« Maximum Authorized Speed (MAS).

The information available at this stage of Project development does not support the identification and
designation of site-specific aspects of the Project, such as locations for storage and maintenance
facilities/yards and definitive station sites. These decisions are deferred to future phases of Project
development that would be evaluated at Tier II, or project-level analyses. As such, the Tier | EIS provides a
general overview of the existing conditions along the proposed rail routes and evaluates potential effects to
resources through the use of readily available information and data. The potential effects were evaluated


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

In regards to station planning and development, the specific locations of proposed stations will be a local
decision. The basis of this selection of an alternative with MAS of 90 mph, as noted in this ROD and
response to the VHSR comment, is primarily because of cost and potential interference with the host freight
railroad’s (NS) operations.

Future of Hampton Roads, Inc.

The Future of Hampton Roads, Inc. raised various points about the need for rail service for the Hampton
Roads region and the need for thinking about how this corridor relates to other corridors such as the SEHSR
and the NEC FUTURE projects. Specifically, the two primary recommendations of this input are:

e Modify the design and speed descriptions of the Preferred Alternative in the Final Tier | EIS and
of the Selected Alternative in the ROD to state that design and classification levels can be
changed later.

« Add specificity and urgency about the next steps needed for the service to Norfolk and call for an
early completion of a Service Development Plan and completion of a Tier Il EIS process.

James F. Babcock, Virginia Beach resident/Former Chairman, Future of Hampton Roads, Inc.,
and Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Babcock expressed support for the comments submitted by the Future of Hampton Roads, Inc. and
further expressed that the “Tier | Final EIS should not constrict the eventual development of high-performance
passenger rail service for Hampton Roads to a feeder line status.” He further notes that the Final Tier | EIS
should clearly say that if the initial development is restricted to a MAS of 90 mph, it would not preclude
possible adoption of higher-speeds in the future.

Response: As noted in this ROD and previous responses to the VHSR and SELC comments, considering
DRPT’s recommendation, FRA has selected the alternative with a MAS of 90 mph for the Southside/NS route.
This is primarily due to cost and potential interference with the host freight railroad’s (NS) operations. The
next steps for this Project would be to identify potential funding that could to advance Project implementation.
Following Project implementation, further improvements can be considered as needed.

Sunray Farmers Association of Bowers Hill

Mr. Szymanski, president of the Sunray Farmer Association of Bowers Hill, expressed concern over the Final
Tier | EIS not specifically locating rail stations and added that development associated with the Project and
the study needs more detailed analysis to address the potential effects on cultural and environmental
resources, human safety, and an evaluation of the interim service plan presented by this organization to use
the NS dual tracks through the Dismal Swamp with a station at Yadkin.

Response: The Final Tier | ElS evaluates potential station locations including a location in the vicinity of
Bowers Hill. Specific sites for new stations will be determined in the future by the municipalities, and
appropriate levels of environmental documentation and a more detailed assessment of effects on the natural,
built and human environment will be undertaken at that time.

In regards to the use of tracks through the Dismal Swamp, the US Department of the Interior reviewed the
Draft Tier | EIS and provided comments regarding the use of the abandoned Virginian Railway, a portion of
which runs adjacent to the Dismal Swamp, a National Wildlife Refuge. The USFWS is concerned that there
could be significant impacts on the Refuge. Specific impacts cited by the USFWS include bear and other
wildlife movement, increased wildlife strikes/mortality (particularly bear), disturbance to wildlife living within the
corridor, wetlands impacts from construction, changed hydrology associated with widening the right-of-way
and altering flow in the ditches, and impacts to and loss of wildlife habitat due to widening the right-of-way.

Louis Guy, Norfolk, VA resident

Mr. Guy wrote in support of any passenger rail serving this corridor should be considered “first class” and
therefore speeds 110 mph or higher should be considered. He further suggests combining the Richmond to
Hampton Roads Project and the Richmond to Washington, D.C. Project.

Response: FRA considered DRPT recommendations and selected an alternative with a MAS of 90 mph
primarily due to cost and potential interference with the host freight railroad’s (NS) operations. While the
Richmond to Hampton Roads Project connects to the section of the SEHSR Corridor from Washington, D.C.

SS
Record of Decision Page 13


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

Response: DRPT has worked over the course of the Tier | EIS to coordinate with the existing freight carriers
on proposed routes and acknowledges the willingness of NS to work together to achieve improved passenger
tail service in the Commonwealth. Section 3.0 describes the Selected Alternative with a new higher speed
passenger rail service on the Southside/NS route with a MAS of 90 mph, and further describes the
Southside/NS route beginning with conventional speeds with a MAS of 79 mph with incremental increases up
to a MAS of 90 mph consistent with FRA regulations. It also specifies the use of the abandoned Virginian
Railway right-of-way between Kilby and Norfolk, which, with signal improvements, could meet FRA
regulations for services operating at a MAS of 90 mph. As noted in the response to comments in the Final
Tier | EIS, DRPT will continue to work cooperatively with NS in reintroducing passenger rail service to this
corridor.

Virginians for High Speed Rail

Virginians for High Speed Rail (VHSR) expressed support for the advancement of improved, enhanced, and
high speed rail from Richmond to Hampton Roads and noted that it is vital for the economic prosperity of the
Commonwealth. VHSR further stated that the FRA needs to advance this Project and noted its
disappointment for proposed corridor with a MAS of 90 mph.

Response: DRPT will continue to work with FRA and continue to seek potential funding sources for
advancing the Project. As noted in this ROD, DRPT has recommended, and FRA has accepted, the Selected
Alternative with a MAS of 90 mph. The basis of the selection of a MAS of 90 mph is due to several factors;
primarily, cost and potential interference with the host freight railroad’s (NS) operations and concerns. As
documented in the Tier | EIS, the preliminary capital cost estimate for the alternative with a MAS of 90 mph
was approximately 15 percent lower than the option with a MAS of 110 mph ($475.4 million and $543.0
million, respectively, in 2008 dollars). In addition, the preliminary annual operating costs of system with a
MAS of 90 mph are slightly lower than preliminary annual operating costs for a system with a MAS of 110
mph ($80.6 million and $81.4 million, respectively, in 2008 dollars).

Operationally, running higher speed passenger rail trains along the NS freight lines also creates other
considerations that factor into the basis of selection. In a letter dated February 11, 2010, the NS Corporation
indicated that operation of speeds of 90 to 110 mph passenger rail service on reactivated middle tracks
and/or reactivating or extending passing sidings was not compatible with high tonnage freight service
between Petersburg and Norfolk.

Furthermore, FRA has regulations regarding safety at grade crossings. An alternative with a MAS of 90 mph
would require some grade crossing enhancements. However, alternatives with a MAS of 110 would require
substantially more enhancements. Another way of meeting the mandate to upgrade crossings would be to
close them. Project analyses determined that a corridor with a MAS of 90 mph would require the upgrade or
closure of approximately 17 percent of public grade crossings and 42 percent of private grade crossings, as
compared with a corridor with a MAS of 110 mph, which would require the upgrade or closure of
approximately 45 percent of the public grade crossings and 71 percent of the private grade crossings.
Therefore, the 90 mph Selected Alternative has more moderate capital costs and impacts related to grade
crossing upgrades and closures than a 110 mph alternative.

Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)

The SELC strongly supported efforts to connect Richmond and Hampton Roads through fast, frequent, and
reliable passenger rail service. Further, the SELC indicated that several shortcomings identified for the Tier |
Draft EIS in their February 2010 comments were not addressed in regards to wetlands; the proposed Bowers
Hill Station; ridership and cost estimates; and transportation and energy impacts. SELC also stated support
for consideration of speeds in excess of 90 mph and that the ROD leave the issue of higher speeds open for
further analysis to be studied in the Tier II documentation.

Response: As planning and design for the Project progresses and potential funding sources are identified,
more detailed analysis will be conducted. With more refined engineering, site specific impacts will be
identified and for any adverse effects, appropriate mitigation will be identified and coordinated with the
overseeing regulatory agency. With more detailed planning and engineering, ridership, cost estimates,
transportation effects and energy effects will be refined to a greater level of specificity.

Page 12


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

Water Quality Greater potential for increased run-off with new impervious
surfaces at new stations

Coastal Zone Potential to impact coastal resources

Biological Resources

Protected Species Potential for impacts near Williamsburg Amtrak Station and
Bower's Hill Station

Protected Habitats Potential for impacts where infrastructure improvements
require additional ROW

Section 4(f/6(f) :

Section 4(f) Resources Potential for proximity effects along both routes

Section 6(f) Resources Impacts unlikely

The Project area lies within Virginia’s coastal plain, an area rich in natural resources. As such, numerous
wetlands, floodplains and wildlife habitats exist along and are crossed by both rail routes. As previously
stated, for purposes of the Tier | EIS documentation, the effects presented above are only estimates based on
readily available information and conceptual engineering. Potential impacts to identified resources are closely
linked to construction activities that may alter existing rail infrastructure and right-of-way width, such as
construction of sidings to allow for passing, potential alterations to existing structures along the rail lines, and
potential facilities, such as passenger stations. Detailed engineering was not conducted as part of the Tier [
analysis and assessment of site specific impacts was not necessary or appropriate during this phase of study.
Site specific impacts associated with the Selected Alternative will be further evaluated with Tier II
environmental analysis and documentation. It is expected that through proper planning and context-sensitive
design, many impacts will be avoided and minimized. As planning for the Project progresses, DRPT will
continue to coordinate with resource agencies to ensure that unavoidable impacts are mitigated appropriately.

4.0 Public Involvement

DRPT undertook an extensive public involvement program with an objective to provide as many opportunities
for as many people as possible to participate in the Tier | EIS process. The process has enabled the Project
team to educate stakeholders, engage public agencies and provide a forum for the public to be informed and
provide input at each phase of Project development. Elements of the program include the establishment of a
Technical Working Group to help guide the initial: Project development process, public workshops and
information meetings, and presentations to general interest groups in the corridor and elsewhere in the
Project area. Printed and electronic public information materials have been available during various meetings
and online, explaining the various phases of the Project and providing updates on milestones.

At various phases of the Project, the Project team has hosted a website, distributed newsletters and flyers
about upcoming events and Project updates, and manned a telephone hotline. Notifications, as required
under NEPA, have also been included in the Federal Register, starting with the publication by FRA on
February 23, 2004, with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier | EIS for the Project. Other publications in
the Federal Register include the NOA of the Draft Tier 1 EIS (December 18, 2009) and of the Final Tier | EIS
(August 31, 2012).

4.1. Summary of Comments on the Draft Tier | EIS

In December 2009, FRA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability (NOA) to advise the public
and other participating agencies that the Project Draft Tier | EIS was available for public review and comment.
The NOA also identified locations where the document could be reviewed and noted dates, times, and
locations for public hearings. Public hearings were held in January 2010 in Richmond, Newport News, and
Norfolk. The three public hearings were well attended with over 700 participants total.

Agencies and individuals were provided the opportunity to comment on the Draft Tier | EIS through several
avenues, including verbal comments at each public hearing, written comments, online comment forms and
Survey Monkey, a web-based tool to conduct and assimilate survey responses.

Approximately 630 agencies, individuals, interest groups, and stakeholders provided comments on the Draft
Tier | EtS, resulting in over 1,200 individual comments (846 written comments and 410 comments received

rl
Record of Decision Page 9



Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

Speed

Southside/NS route:
« Passenger train speeds with a MAS of 79 mph with incremental speed
increases to a MAS of 90 mph
Peninsula/CSXT route:
e Passenger train speeds with a MAS of 79 mph

Round Trips

Southside/NS route:

e — Six (6) daily round trips
Peninsula/CSXT route:

e Three (3) daily round trips

Page 4



found trips (for a total of nine (9) daily round trips) at a MAS of either 90 mph or 110 mph. This
alternative assumed no new passenger rail service south of the James River to Norfolk. It assumed
the continued use of the existing Richmond Main Street Station and Williamsburg Station, with a new
station in Newport News on the Peninsula/CSXT route.

During the Tier | EIS process, all alternatives were evaluated in terms of their potential to meet the
established purpose and need of the Project, established goals and objectives, and potential for effects on the
built and natural environment. Upon completion of the Draft Tier | EIS, a public comment period and public
hearing was held where all alternatives were presented for public comment.

3.0 Selected Alternative

Based on the analysis prepared and input received during the public comment period and public hearings on
the Draft Tier | EIS, FRA and DRPT determined that Alternative 1 best met the Project's purpose and need,
and goals and objectives. Alternative 1 would improve mobility options and on-time performance, reduce trip
time, and limit the growth of highway congestion through higher estimated ridership numbers over the Status
Quo and No Action alternatives. Additionally, Alternative 1 would provide a greater beneficial impact on
regional air quality; therefore FRA and DRPT identified Alternative 1 as preferred in the Final Tier | EIS.
Alternative 1, with a MAS of 90 mph, was also identified as the environmentally preferable alternative in the
Final Tier | Els.

3.1. Description

The Selected Alternative would provide increased frequency and higher speed passenger rail service
between Richmond and Hampton Roads, serving both Newport News and Norfolk. It provides for three (3)
daily round-trip trains’ operating at a MAS of 79 mph along the Peninsula/CSXT route and uses the existing
Richmond Main Street Station, Williamsburg Station and Newport News Station. It also includes new higher
speed passenger rail service along the Southside/NS route with six (6) daily round-trip trains ultimately
operating at a MAS of 90 mph serving Richmond and Petersburg area stations, and new stations at Bowers
Hill and Norfolk.

Table 1: Summary of Features of the Selected Alternative

E q Selected Alternative. Z
Route(s) e¢ Southside/NS route (generally canis US Route 460 and then heads east
into Norfolk)
e Existing Peninsula/CSXT route (existing CSXT/Amtrak service)
Stations Southside/NS route:

« Richmond Main Street Station (existing)
e Petersburg area (location to be determined, but assumes the same location
as selected by a separate Tier II ElS for the SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh)

¢ Bowers Hill (proposed)?

e¢ Downtown Norfolk (planned and under construction by Norfolk)
Peninsula/CSXT route:

« Richmond Main Street Station (existing)

e Williamsburg (existing)

e Newport News (existing)

‘The three daily round-trip trains along the existing Peninsula/CSXT route include current and planned service operations
by Amtrak, as documented under the No Action Alternative in the Tier | EIS.

? New station locations were evaluated generally in terms of accessibility to the larger transportation network. Specific
Station sites will be determined in the future by the municipalities, and appropriate levels of environmental documentation
will be undertaken at that time.


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

using a conservative “worst case” method to quantify impacts. More detailed analysis, identification of
specific effects, mitigation, and measures to minimize harm will be done at a project-level during future
phases of Project development once more detailed engineering and planning are completed for the Project.

As the Project proponent, DRPT has recommended, and received the appropriate concurrence from the
Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia (CTB) favoring the selection of the alternative that continues
the operation of conventional passenger rail service along the Peninsula/CSXT route and provides for the
development of new higher-speed passenger rail service along the Southside/Norfolk Southern (NS) route
with MAS of 90 mph (referred to as “Alternative 1” in the Draft and Final Tier | EIS) (Selected Alternative),
which is further discussed in Section 3.0 of this decision document.

Planning for Hampton Roads passenger rail service improvements has progressed over several years
through the ElS process. Concurrently, interest in reestablishing passenger service to Norfolk has grown. The
Commonwealth has responded to this increased interest by planning to resume Norfolk passenger service
beginning in December 2012. Using state Rail Enhancement funds, DRPT is working with Norfolk Southern,
CSXT, and Amtrak to extend state sponsored Amtrak regional service (serving Richmond since July 2010) to
Norfolk along the Route 460 corridor.

2.0 Alternatives Considered

Before selecting an alternative, FRA and DRPT evaluated and documented other alternatives in the Tier |
EIS. The EIS evaluated a Status Quo Alternative, a No Action Alternative, and three Build Alternatives that
focused on potential passenger rail service options along two existing rail routes, separated by the James
River, between Richmond and Hampton Roads. For each route, maximum authorized speeds (MAS) of 79
miles per hour (mph), 90 mph, and 110 mph were evaluated. All five (5) alternatives are summarized below:

. Status Quo Alternative: This alternative assumed no improvements to the existing Peninsula/CSXT
route with the continuation of the current passenger rail service with two (2) daily round trips at a MAS
of 79 mph. It assumed the continued use of the existing Richmond Main Street Station, Williamsburg
Station, and Newport News Station.

. No Action Alternative: This alternative assumed an increase in the frequency of the current
passenger rail service along the existing Peninsula/CSXT route with the addition of one (1) daily
round trip (for a total of three (3) daily round trips) at a MAS of 79 mph, as described in Amtrak's long
range plan. It assumed the continued use of the existing Richmond Main Street Station, Williamsburg
Station, and Newport News Station.

. Alternative 1: This alternative provided for an increase in the frequency of the current passenger rail
service along the existing Peninsula/CSXT route with the addition of one (1) daily round trip (for a
total of three (3) daily round trips) at a MAS of 79 mph, and the establishment of a new higher speed
passenger rail service south of the James River to Norfolk along the Southside/NS route. The new
higher speed passenger rail service provided six (6) daily round trips at a MAS of either 90 mph or
110 mph. It assumed the continued use of the existing Richmond Main Street Station, Williamsburg
Station, and Newport News Station on the Peninsula/CSXT route. The Southside/NS route would
serve stations in the Petersburg area, Bowers Hill and Norfolk. (Alternative 1 is identified as the
Selected Alternative, with a MAS of 79 on the existing Peninsula/CSXT route and a MAS of 90 on the
Southside/NS route).

. Alternative 2a: This alternative provided for an increase in the frequency and speed of the current
passenger rail service along the existing Peninsula/CSXT route with the addition of four (4) daily
round trips (for a total of six (6) daily round trips) at a MAS of either 90 mph or 110 mph, and the
establishment of a new conventional passenger rail service south of the James River to Norfolk along
the Southside/NS route. The new conventional passenger rail service provided three (3) daily round
trips at a MAS of 79 mph. It assumed the continued use of the existing Richmond Main Street Station
and Williamsburg Station, with a new station in Newport News on the Peninsula/CSXT route. The
Southside/NS route would serve new stations in the Petersburg area, Bowers Hill and Norfolk.

. Alternative 2b: This alternative provided for an increase in the frequency and speed of the current
passenger rail service along the existing Peninsula/CSXT route with the addition of seven (7) daily

Page 2


Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project

to Richmond, VA, combining both projects is not necessary and would delay studies for the Richmond to
Washington, D.C. corridor.

5.0 Next Steps

With issuance of this ROD, the environmental process for the Tier | EIS will be complete. Timing for the next
steps of this Project is uncertain and based primarily on the identification of funding sources to advance the
Project. Moving forward, DRPT, or other identified Project sponsors, will prepare Tier !I project-level
environmental documents that examine impacts related to potential route alignments of the Selected
Alternative. For future actions that may involve federal funding, FRA and DRPT will work together to
determine the type of Tier II NEPA environmental document(s) to be prepared. The Tier Ii environmental
documents could include any of the following based upon the proposed federal action involved:

¢ Categorical Exclusions (CE) for actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
environmental effect.

¢ Environmental Assessments (EA) for actions in which the significance of the environmental
impact is not readily apparent. An EA can lead to the development of an EIS or a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).

¢ Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects where it is known or likely that the action will
have significant environmental effect.

Other future related actions may be carried out using non-federal funding sources and therefore may not be
subject to NEPA, but may require state or local environmental reviews, documentation, or permitting. The
Project-level studies will be more detailed in nature, as appropriate to the action, and will continue the public
involvement and agency coordination effort already begun in the Tier 1 ElS. These detailed environmental
analyses will assess the environmental impacts of each action and identify ways to avoid, minimize and
mitigate impacts. FRA, DRPT, and cooperating federal agencies would use the Tier Il study process to
determine the exact location and magnitude of each action, such as number of tracks, types of structures,
potential station locations as informed by local decisions and configuration, including routing within existing
right-of-way, bypasses, and etcetera. As project-level documents are completed, the permitting process (as
appropriate) may be initiated and completed, and the construction process could proceed based on funding
availability.

Upon approval of this ROD, DRPT intends to advance the Project into Tier If evaluations and analysis,
dependent upon funding. The Tier II analysis will include site specific planning and detailed evaluations of the
Selected Alternative. During Tier II analysis, all data presented in the Final Tier | EIS will be updated and
expanded to address site specific impacts to identified resources. Project commitments include:

e Conduct field surveys to identify specific impacts to identified resources;

« Update data sources;

e Continue agency coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,
and the Virginia Department of Transportation;

¢ Continue coordination with local jurisdictions along the Peninsula/CSXT route and Southside/NS
route;

¢ Continue coordination with Amtrak, NS, and CSXT;

e Continue coordination with the development of the SEHSR Corridor from Washington, D.C. to
Richmond, VA, Raleigh and Charlotte, NC;

e Continue public outreach on Project advancement;
e Develop specific mitigation measures for identified environmental impacts; and
e Develop funding strategies.

Page 14