D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

RECOMMENDED PREFERRED 7 ALTERNATIVE
 7-1 

DRPT RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

In this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), the Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation (DRPT) has identified its Recommended Preferred Alternative for 

improvements within four of six alternative areas along the DC2RVA corridor based on the 

Purpose and Need for the Project and with consideration for potential environmental impacts 

within the respective areas. DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative is non-binding and is 

made available for public review and comment in this Draft EIS. FRA will fully consider 

comments received on DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative from the Draft EIS, or any 

subsequent additional analysis if required, and will confirm a selected Preferred Alternative for 

the full DC2RVA corridor in the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD). 

DRPT fully considered the Project’s Purpose and Need and all of the information and analysis 

contained in this Draft EIS in determining its Recommended Preferred Alternative. DRPT also 

evaluated impacts to the natural and human environment and assessed information on intercity 

passenger rail ridership, rail operations, cost, and constructability for each alternative. Finally, 

DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative was informed by extensive outreach and 

communications undertaken with the public, stakeholders, and elected officials in the DC2RVA 

corridor, plus prior corridor studies, including the 2002 Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Tier 

I EIS and Record of Decision. 

DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative includes a service plan that would add nine 

additional daily intercity passenger round trips (18 trains per day). Five of these new round trips 

would provide regional service from Norfolk and Newport News through Richmond to Amtrak’s 

Northeast Corridor, with one round trip originating at Richmond’s Main Street Station. Four of 

these new round trips would provide interstate service from North Carolina through Virginia 

and continuing on to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. From Washington D.C., all of these new trains 

would continue on to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. The new service would be 

incorporated into Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail network. DRPT’s service plan also proposes 

a maximum authorized speed for the corridor of 90 mph (where practicable), and improved 

reliability of the intercity passenger train service. 

As described in Chapter 2, DRPT evaluated rail alignment Build Alternatives in six alternative areas 

along the DC2RVA corridor, as well as the No Build Alternative, which was determined during the 

SESHR Tier 1 EIS to not meet Purpose and Need. Each alternative area contains one or more Build 

Alternatives that include rail alignment and associated roadway and station work. The 

Recommended Preferred Alternative is a combination of one Build Alternative from each of the six 

alternative areas to form a contiguous “best-fit” alternative for the DC2RVA corridor, with the 

exception of two areas where further consideration is required: Area 1 (Arlington) and Area 5 

(Ashland). 

7 7 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 7-2 

Figure 7.0-1 presents the DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative and includes a brief summary 

for each alternative area. A more detailed discussion of DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative 

for each alternative area is provided in the following sections. 

Figure 7.0-1: DRPT Recommended Build Alternative 
 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E 

 7-3 

7.1 ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON 

LONG BRIDGE APPROACH—CFP 110 TO CFP 109.3 

This less than one-mile-long section of the 

DC2RVA corridor provides the transition 

between the DC2RVA corridor and the 

approach to the Long Bridge across the 

Potomac River. DRPT is working with the 

District of Columbia Department of 

Transportation (DDOT) and FRA to evaluate 

possible alternatives for increasing the rail 

corridor’s capacity across the Potomac River 

via the Long Bridge as part of a separate EIS 

(Long Bridge Rail Capacity Study, 

anticipated to be completed in 2019). The 

DC2RVA Project assumes that expanded 

capacity across the Potomac River will be 

required to accommodate both the future 

year No Build and Build service plans 

expanded service south of Washington, D.C. 

In this Draft EIS, DRPT is evaluating three 

different configurations for the short section 

of track south of the Potomac River, which 

will become the connection between the Long 

Bridge preferred alternative and the 

DC2RVA corridor. The maximum authorized 

speed in this section is designed for 45 mph. 

DRPT considered the environmental, social, 

and economic impacts of each of the three 

Build Alternatives, in addition to each 

alternative’s ability to meet the Project 

Purpose and Need. DRPT determined that 

each of the three Build Alternatives (1A, 1B, 

and 1C, as shown in Figure 7.1-1) are very 

similar in their impacts, and there are no 

overriding issues that would drive DRPT to 

select one over the other. Therefore, to avoid 

unnecessarily limiting the options that could 

be considered as part of the separate DDOT 

Long Bridge study, DRPT determined that 

any of the three Build Alternatives would be 

acceptable and recommends retaining all 

three Build Alternatives in order to support a 

deferred selection of a preferred alternative 

to physically align with the preferred alignment of the Long Bridge EIS study. DRPT is 

participating as a cooperating agency in the Long Bridge Study and will more fully discuss the 

selection of a preferred alternative for Area 1 in the DC2RVA Final EIS. 

Figure 7.1-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Arlington Area) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 7-4 

7.2 ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA 

CFP 109.3 TO CFP 62 

DRPT determined that additional rail capacity 

is required in the Northern Virginia area to 

increase train service and improve reliability. 

This Draft EIS evaluates the impacts of a single 

alternative (Build Alternative 2A: Add One 

Track/Improve Existing Track, as shown in 

Figure 7.2-1): constructing one additional main 

line track adjacent to the existing tracks in 

some sections and no additional track in some 

sections to create a corridor with four 

interoperable main tracks north of Alexandria 

and three interoperable main tracks from 

Alexandria to Fredericksburg. Due to 

constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed in 

this section is designed for 79 mph. 

DRPT determined that because this alternative 

would generally be located within the existing 

CSXT right-of-way, it avoids impacts to the 

natural and human resources to the extent 

practicable. This alternative does have some 

unavoidable impacts, including those 

associated with several new bridge crossings 

of major waterways. Table 7.2-1 summarizes 

the performance of Build Alternative 2A 

against the Purpose and Need evaluation 

criteria and its impact on the human and 

natural environment. 

Occoquan River Bridge 

Figure 7.2-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Northern Virginia Area) 
 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E 

 7-5 

Table 7.2-1: Evaluation of Northern Virginia Area Alternative Against the Purpose and Need 

and Its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors Considered1 2A. Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources (detailed list of impacts is in Chapter 4): 

Wetland impacts 5.19 acres 

Section 4(f) park impacts 0.04 acres 

Historic properties impacts 1 property affected 

Right-of-way acquisition 33 acres 

Residential relocations 2 residences relocated 

Commercial relocations 0 

Optimizes cost: 

Construction costs (2025)2 $1,652.6 million 

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements 

Increases multimodal rail capacity Yes 

Improve the frequency of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Supports ridership demand within the corridor and beyond Yes 

Increases passenger train frequency by up to 9 round trips per day Yes 

Improve the reliability of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Passenger Train On-Time Performance (2045 OTP) Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan for ontime performance 

Improve the travel time of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Travel time DC-Richmond Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan for 

reduced travel time 

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations 

Accommodates VRE commuter rail service operations Incorporates VRE planned infrastructure improvements 

at VRE stations and integrates VRE schedules. 

Accommodate freight rail service operations 

Freight time delay (2045) Does not increase impacts to freight time delay 

Accommodates rail freight future growth, yard operations, access to 

local customers, and sidings for crew changes and layovers 

Yes 

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems 

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for station facilities, and 

state and local plans 

Yes 

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% change from No Build) 1% decrease 

Changes in roadway travel patterns (% change in traffic, adjacent 

roadways at stations) 

<1% 

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of public at-grade crossings 0 

Closure of public at-grade crossings 1 

Safety improvements of public at-grade crossings (four quadrant 

gates and/or median treatment) 

2 

New public crossings 0 

Provides platform and station improvements Yes 

Provides upgrades to signals and communication systems Yes 

Improve Air Quality & Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes 

Supports decreases in energy consumption Yes 

Notes: 1) Refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS for complete list of factors evaluated and the evaluation results for each Build 

Alternative. 2) Does not include rolling stock.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 7-6 

7.3 ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG 

DAHLGREN SPUR TO CROSSROADS—CFP 62 TO CFP 48 

DRPT evaluated three Build Alternatives in the Fredericksburg area. The Recommended 

Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative 3B: Add One Track East of Existing, as shown in Figure 

7.3-1) would add a new third main line adjacent to the existing tracks on the east, which would 

provide the capacity needed to increase train service and improve reliability. Due to constraints 

of the geography through this location, the maximum authorized speed in this section is designed 

for 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3A would maintain the existing two tracks through Fredericksburg. DRPT 

concludes that Build Alternative 3A would not provide the capacity needed to meet the DC2RVA 

service plan objectives. Build Alternative 3C would construct a two-track bypass to the east of 

Fredericksburg. While a new bypass would provide the capacity required to meet the DC2RVA 

service plan objectives, DRPT concludes that, compared with adding a new third main line 

through Fredericksburg, the bypass alternative would have greater cost and greater impacts to 

natural and human resources and would result in more residential relocations. 

While the Recommended Preferred 

Alternative’s impacts to historic 

resources would be greater than 

those of the two other 

Fredericksburg area Build 

Alternatives, it remains primarily 

within the existing CSXT right-ofway, and its impacts to wetlands and 

residential and commercial 

properties would be substantially 

lower than the bypass alternative 

(3C). Both Build Alternatives with 

additional track include new bridge 

crossings of the Rappahannock 

River, a parallel single-track bridge 

for Build Alternative 3B, and a new 

double-track bridge for Build 

Alternative 3C. The construction 

costs for Build Alternative 3B would 

be less than the bypass, and Build 

Alternative 3B is included in the 

Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan. In 

summary, DRPT prefers Build 

Alternative 3B, adding one track in the existing alignment through the city, because it remains 

primarily within the existing CSXT right-of-way and minimizes overall impacts and costs while 

still providing improved operations for the DC2RVA corridor. Table 7.3-1 summarizes the 

performance of the Fredericksburg area Build Alternatives against the Purpose and Need 

evaluation criteria and their impact on the human and natural environment. 

Figure 7.3-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Fredericksburg Area) 
 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E 

 7-7 

Table 7.3-1: Evaluation of Fredericksburg Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need 

and their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives 

3A. Maintain Two 

Tracks Through 

Town 

3B. Add One Track 

East of Existing 

3C. Add Two-Track 

Bypass East 

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources (detailed list of impacts is in Chapter 4): 

Wetland impacts 5.24 acres 5.29 acres 23.82 acres 

Section 4(f) park impacts 0 0 0 

Historic properties impacts (parks and 

historic properties) 

1 property 5 properties 1 property 

Right-of-way acquisition 2.2 acres 19.8 acres 140.5 acres 

Residential relocations 0 0 19 residential 

relocations 

Commercial relocations 0 1 commercial relocation 1 commercial relocation 

Optimizes cost: 

Construction costs (2025 $) (millions)1 $240.2 $506.9 $977.5 

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity No Yes Yes 

Improve the frequency of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Supports ridership demand within the 

corridor and beyond 

Would not support the 

DC2RVA proposed 

service plan of 9 

additional round trips 

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

of 9 additional round 

trips 

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan of 

9 additional round trips 

Increases passenger train frequency by up to 

9 round trips per day 

Yes Yes Yes 

Improve the reliability of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Passenger Train On-Time Performance (2045 

OTP) 

Does not meet 

DC2RVA service plan 

objectives for OTP 

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

for on-time 

performance 

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

for on-time 

performance) 

Improve the travel time of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Travel time DC-Richmond Would not support 

DC2RVA service plan 

objectives for improved 

travel time 

 Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

objectives for improved 

travel time 

 Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

objectives for improved 

travel time 

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations

Accommodates VRE commuter rail service 

operations

No Yes Yes 

Accommodate freight rail service operations

Freight time delay (2045) Increases freight delay Meets DC2RVA 

objectives for freight 

impacts 

Increases freight traffic 

travel time and distance 

Accommodates rail freight future growth, 

yard operations, access to local customers, 

and sidings for crew changes and layovers 

No Yes Yes 

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for 

station facilities, and state and local plans 

Yes Yes Yes 

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% change 

from No Build) 

6% increase 60% decrease 10% decrease 

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

 7-8 

Table 7.3-1: Evaluation of Fredericksburg Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need 

and their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives 

3A. Maintain Two 

Tracks Through 

Town 

3B. Add One Track 

East of Existing 

3C. Add Two-Track 

Bypass East 

Changes in roadway travel patterns (% change 

in traffic, adjacent roadways at stations) 

7-8% 7-8% 7-8% 

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of public at-grade crossings 0 1 0 

Closure of public at-grade crossings 0 0 0 

Safety improvements of public at-grade 

crossings (four quadrant gates and/or median 

treatment) 

4 3 9 

New grade-separated public crossings 0 0 5 

Provides platform and station improvements Yes Yes Yes 

Provides upgrades to signals and 

communication systems 

Yes Yes Yes 

Improve Air Quality & Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes Yes Yes 

Supports decreases in energy consumption Yes Yes Yes 

Notes: 1. Refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS for complete list of factors evaluated and the evaluation results for each Build 

Alternative. 2. Does not include rolling stock. 

Existing Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 
 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E 

 7-9 

7.4 ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA 

CROSSROADS TO DOSWELL—CFP 48 TO CFP 19 

DRPT determined that additional rail capacity is 

required in the Central Virginia area to increase 

train service and improve reliability. This Draft 

EIS evaluates the impacts of constructing one 

additional main line track adjacent to the existing 

tracks, identified as Build Alternative 4A: Add 

One Track/Improve Existing Track (as shown in 

Figure 7.4-1). DRPT prefers this alternative 

because it would generally be located within the 

existing CSXT right-of-way, avoids impacts to 

natural and human resources to the extent 

practicable, and provides the greatest contiguous 

section along the DC2RVA corridor with a 

maximum authorized speed up to 90 mph. Table 

7.4-1 summarizes the performance of Build 

Alternative 4A against the Purpose and Need 

evaluation criteria and its impact on the human 

and natural environment. 

Original Fredericksburg Station Figure 7.4-1: DRPT Recommended 

Preferred Alternative 

(Central Virginia Area) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 7-10 

Table 7.4-1: Evaluation of the Central Virginia Area Alternative against the 

Purpose and Need and Its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors Considered1 4A. Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources (detailed list of impacts is in Chapter 4): 

Wetland impacts 8.39 acres 

Section 4(f) park impacts 0 acres 

Historic properties impacts (parks and historic properties) 3 properties 

Right-of-way acquisition 2.4 acres 

Residential relocations 0 

Commercial relocations 0 

Optimizes cost: 

Construction costs (2025 $, millions)1 $643.2 million 

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity Yes 

Improve the frequency of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Supports ridership demand within the corridor and beyond Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan of 9 

additional round trips 

Increases passenger train frequency by up to 9 round trips per day Yes 

Improve the reliability of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Passenger Train On-Time Performance (2045 OTP) Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan for on-time 

performance 

Improve the travel time of passenger rail operations (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Travel time DC-Richmond Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan objectives 

for improved travel time 

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations

Accommodates VRE commuter rail service operations No VRE stations present 

Accommodate freight rail service operations

Freight time delay (2045) Does not increase impacts to freight time delay 

Accommodates rail freight future growth, yard operations, access 

to local customers, and sidings for crew changes and layovers 

Yes 

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for station facilities, and 

state and local plans

No stations in the Central Virginia area 

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% change from No Build) 6% decrease 

Changes in roadway travel patterns (% change in traffic, adjacent 

roadways at stations) 

n/a 

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of public at-grade crossings 0 

Closure of public at-grade crossings 1 

Safety improvements of public at-grade crossings (four quadrant 

gates and/or median treatment) 

6 

New public crossings 0 

Provides platform and station improvements No stations in the Central Virginia area 

Provides upgrades to signals and communication systems Yes 

Improve Air Quality & Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Refer to Area 6 Richmond for values)

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes 

Supports decreases in energy consumption Yes 

Notes: 1) Refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS for complete list of factors evaluated and the evaluation results for each Build 

Alternative. 2) Does not include rolling stock.
 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E 

 7-11 

7.5 ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND 

DOSWELL TO I-295—CFP 19 TO CFP 9 

DRPT considered more than 26 different options and alternatives for adding rail capacity in 

Ashland and evaluated 7 Build Alternatives in this Draft EIS. During the course of preparing this 

Draft EIS, DRPT met with the Town of Ashland, Hanover County, the public, and other 

stakeholders, and conducted a tour of the Ashland area with the Commonwealth Transportation 

Board (CTB). In addition, DRPT received numerous comments and input from stakeholders in 

the Town of Ashland and Hanover County communities, as well as Randolph-Macon College. 

Based on analysis to-date, DRPT has concluded the following: 

 The existing railroad ROW through Ashland is limited and any alternative which adds a 

new track or new infrastructure will require additional ROW. 

 The Town of Ashland, Hanover County, and other community stakeholders have 

requested additional opportunities to be engaged in evaluating alternatives and 

developing possible mitigation strategies for the Ashland / Hanover County area. 

 All seven Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS (Section 2.5.2.5) provide a 

reasonable range of alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

 Additional stakeholder input would benefit DRPT’s analysis and inform their 

Recommended Preferred Alternative meeting the DC2RVA Purpose and Need through 

the Ashland Area. 

 DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for the Central Virginia and Richmond 

Areas are neither contingent on nor do they limit any one specific alternative for the 

Ashland Area. 

DRPT has not identified a Recommended Preferred Alternative for the Ashland area of the 

DC2RVA corridor in this Draft EIS. DRPT recognizes that each of the proposed Build Alternatives 

would have adverse consequences on the citizens and resources of the Town of Ashland or 

Hanover County, and there is no local consensus or preference for a Build Alternative. DRPT has 

determined that expanded community involvement would inform decision-making. 

Based on these conclusions, DRPT has deferred the selection of a Recommended Preferred 

Alternative in the Ashland area until the Final EIS for the DC2RVA Project. To provide the 

community and stakeholders a greater opportunity for input into the recommendation for a 

Preferred Alternative DRPT has established the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Community 

Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC will take a fresh look at alternatives on the rail corridor 

through Ashland, including review of all 

previously considered alternatives and any 

new alternatives identified by the CAC. To 

provide transparency, DRPT will make the 

CAC meetings open to the public and will 

document the CAC results and all meeting 

minutes and other decision-documents as 

part of the public record for the Final EIS. At 

the conclusion of the CAC process, DRPT will 

recommend a Preferred Alternative for the 

Ashland area in the Final EIS. Downtown Ashland 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 7-12 

7.6 ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND 

I-295 TO CENTRALIA—CFP 9 TO A011 

DRPT evaluated two primary route alignment alternatives for the Richmond area, with one 

passing west of downtown on the CSXT A-Line and another passing through downtown via the 

CSXT S-Line, to determine which route was best capable of providing the capacity required to 

support the DC2RVA Purpose and Need. In addition to the routing options, DRPT evaluated 

four unique station locations with eight different station service alternatives in the Richmond area 

serving multiple route and station combinations. The eight station service alternatives included 

four single-station alternatives that would consolidate passenger service to one station, and three 

two-station alternatives that offer combinations of services and rail line routes using Main Street 

Station and Staples Mill Road Station: 

 Single Station Build Alternatives: 

- 6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only 

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

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

- 6C: Broad Street Station Only 

- 6D Main Street Station Only 

 Two Station Build Alternatives: 

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

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

- 6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Station 

To develop the most viable alternatives, DRPT engaged in discussions with CSXT, the City of 

Richmond, Henrico County, and Chesterfield County, as well as the Richmond Transportation 

Planning Organization. In addition, DRPT held three public meetings in Richmond. 

DRPT recognizes that a major advantage of passenger rail is the capability to provide the 

traveling public with a connection to Richmond’s downtown. Both FRA and Amtrak also 

recognize the importance of a connection to the urban core. FRA’s Corridor Planning Guidance 

Manual states that “(each) city should have a station located in or near the central business 

district.” DRPT is committed to maximizing the value of intercity passenger rail by connecting 

the DC2RVA corridor to the governmental, commercial, and residential population in downtown 

Richmond. However, DRPT also recognizes that Richmond’s Staples Mill Road Station currently 

has the highest ridership volumes of any passenger rail station in Virginia, in part due to the 

higher level of train service at the station. Based on the cost estimates, level of impacts, and 

ridership projections, DRPT determined that having both a downtown station and a suburban 

station would provide the Commonwealth and the Richmond region with a service that provides 

the most convenient travel options for passengers, a high level of performance reliability, and the 

ability to accommodate all of the service increases proposed by the Project. 

DRPT determined that Build Alternative 6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street 

Stations provides the most optimal solution for providing downtown Richmond rail service at 

Main Street Station and convenient connections to Richmond’s transit system, including multiple 

bus routes and the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system under construction along Broad Street. 

This two-station Richmond alternative will allow for concentration of baggage, crew change and 
 P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E 

 7-13 

layover activities at the Staples Mill Road 

location, reducing the track and platform 

dwell time for trains serving Main Street 

Station. By nature of the respective 

environments of each location, Main Street 

Station would provide expanded multimodal 

connectivity, while Staples Mills Road Station 

could continue to accommodate the parking 

needs of regional rail passengers who are not 

located in the downtown Richmond area (see 

Figure 7.6-1). 

In this alternative, all Long-Distance, Interstate 

Corridor, and Northeast Regional passenger 

trains moving north-south through Richmond 

would be routed through Staples Mill Road 

Station to the west side of Main Street Station 

and then to Centralia using the S-Line. The 

Northeast Regional service to Newport News 

would continue to use the east side of Main 

Street Station on the Peninsula Subdivision 

line. This alternative includes improvements 

between Greendale and Centralia along the SLine and includes station and service 

improvements at Main Street Station, an 

additional bridge crossing of the James River, an east bypass of Acca Yard, and station and service 

improvements at Staples Mill Road Station. With all intercity passenger trains (with the exception 

of Amtrak’s Auto Train) serving Downtown Richmond via the CSX S-Line, the CSX A-Line will 

become a primarily freight route bypassing downtown and reducing delays for both services. 

Therefore, DRPT has determined that Build Alternative 6F is the Recommended Preferred 

Alternative for the Richmond area. 

Table 7.6-1 summarizes the performance of the Richmond area Build Alternatives against the 

Purpose and Need evaluation criteria and their impact on the human and natural environment. 

Main Street Station Platform 

 

Figure 7.6-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Richmond Area) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

7-14 

Table 7.6-1: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and Their Impact on th

Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need 

Elements & Summary of 

Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives 

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two

6A. Staples Mill Road 

Station Only

6B–A-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only A-Line 

6B–S-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only S-Line 

6C. Broad Street 

Station Only A-Line 

6D. Main Street 

Station Only S-Line 

6E. Split Service– 

Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street 

Stations 

6F. Full Service– 

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridorImpacts to human and natural resources (detailed list of impacts is in Chapter 4): 

Wetland impacts 3.21 acres 2.91 acres 3.47 acres 2.99 acres 3.47 acres 3.31 acres 3.52 Section 4(f) park impacts 0.19 acres 0.19 acres 0.17 acres 0.19 acres 0.17 acres 0.19 acres 0.17 Historic properties impacts 8 properties 16 properties 16 properties 16 properties 10 properties 7 properties 10 prRight-of-way acquisition 76.0 acres 101.0 acres 78.7 acres 128.1 acres 73.7 acres 89.1 acres 83.0 Residential relocations 12 residential 

relocations 

12 residential 

relocations 

7 residential 

relocations 

112 residential 

relocations 

7 residential 

relocations 

12 residential 

relocations 

7 res

relo

Commercial relocations 10 

Commercial 

relocations 

18 

Commercial 

relocations 

10 Commercial 

relocations 

15 Commercial 

relocations 

10 Commercial 

relocations 

10 Commercial 

relocations 

10 Co

relo

Optimizes cost: 

Construction costs (2025)2

(millions) 

$1,087.7 $1,524.1 $1,451.2 $1,488.7 $1,323.5 $1,266.5 $1,

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvementsIncreases multimodal rail capacity

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y

Improve the frequency of passenger rail operationsAnnual Ridership, DCRichmond (2025) (millions) 2.579 2.509 2.509 2.474 2.521 2.519 2Annual Ridership, DCRichmond (2045) (millions) 3.295 3.203 3.203 3.160 3.213 3.218 3

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 P R E F E R R 

Table 7.6-1: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and Their Impact on th

Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need 

Elements & Summary of 

Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives 

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two

6A. Staples Mill Road 

Station Only

6B–A-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only A-Line 

6B–S-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only S-Line 

6C. Broad Street 

Station Only A-Line 

6D. Main Street 

Station Only S-Line 

6E. Split Service– 

Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street 

Stations 

6F. Full Service– 

Increases passenger train frequency by up to 9 round trips per day 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y

Supports ridership demand within the corridor and beyond 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y

Improve the reliability of passenger rail operationsPassenger Train On-Time Performance (2045 OTP) 3,4: 

Meets DC2RVA proposed service plan for on-time performance.

No No Yes No No No Y

Improve the travel time of passenger rail operationsTravel time DC

–Richmond 

(hour:minute)5 

1:50 1:56 1:56 2:01 2:06 1:50 2

Reduces current passenger train trip time DC-Richmond? 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations by incorporating planned infrastructure and operational improvementsAccommodates VRE commuter rail service operations 

N/A (No VRE Stations Present in Richmond Area 6) 

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

7-16 

Table 7.6-1: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and Their Impact on th

Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need 

Elements & Summary of 

Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives 

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two

6A. Staples Mill Road 

Station Only

6B–A-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only A-Line 

6B–S-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only S-Line 

6C. Broad Street 

Station Only A-Line 

6D. Main Street 

Station Only S-Line 

6E. Split Service– 

Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street 

Stations 

6F. Full Service– 

Accommodate freight rail service operationsFreight time delay (2045) (minutes of delay per 100 train-miles) 2,3

11.5 12 9 12 11 12 

Accommodates rail freight future growth, yard operations, access to local customers, and sidings for crew changes and layovers 

No No Yes No Yes No Y

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systemsAligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for station facilities, and state and local plans

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines 

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines 

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines 

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines 

Yes Yes Y

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% change from No Build) 

66% decrease 66% decrease 76% decrease 38% decrease 59% decrease 66% decrease 59% d

Changes in roadway travel patterns (% change in traffic, adjacent roadways at stations) 

2% 5% 5% 5% 4% 1 to 2% 1 t

Improve multimodal rail operations safet

y

Grade-separation of public atgrade crossings 3 3 4 3 3 3 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 P R E F E R R 

Table 7.6-1: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and Their Impact on th

Natural Environment 

Purpose and Need 

Elements & Summary of 

Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives 

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two

6A. Staples Mill Road 

Station Only

6B–A-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only A-Line 

6B–S-Line. Boulevard 

Station Only S-Line 

6C. Broad Street 

Station Only A-Line 

6D. Main Street 

Station Only S-Line 

6E. Split Service– 

Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street 

Stations 

6F. Full Service– 

Closure of public at-grade crossings 

4 4 5 4 5 4 

Safety improvements of public 

at-grade crossings (four quadrant gates and/or median treatment) 

3 3 7 4 8 3 

New public at-grade crossings6 0 0 0 2 0 0 Provides platform and station improvements 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y

Provides upgrades to signals and communication systems 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Y

Improve Air Quality & Reduce Greenhouse Gas EmissionsCO2 Emissions, Change Compared to No Build (tons per year, 2025) 

-6,696 -6,003 -6,003 -5,663 -5,947 -6,051 -6

Energy Consumption, Change Compared to No Build (Billions of BTUs, 2025) 

-307 -277 -277 -265 -280 -286 -

Notes: 1. Refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS for complete list of factors evaluated and the evaluation results for each Build Alternative. 2. Does not include and Ashland operations data assumes use of Richmond Alternative 6F. 4. Richmond operations data assumes construction of the recommended alternatives for each of the main track capacity through Ashland. 5. Travel times are for limited stop southbound Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains only from Washington Union Station to the statioRichmond. Northbound Interstate Corridor trains are about 2 minutes longer. Regional trains, which make more stops, operate 6 to 8 minutes longer. 6. New at-grade crof Virginia State Code and/or coordination with VDOT. DRPT developed operating and maintenance costs (see Chapter 2) and estimates of revenue (see Appendix J), but neither were differentiators between the Build Alternativby DRPT in selecting the Recommended Preferred Alternative. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 7-18 

7.7 FINAL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

DRPT invites the public, elected officials, and agencies to provide comments on the Draft EIS and 

DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative. After reviewing all of the comments received on 

the Draft EIS and DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative, DRPT will finalize the Preferred 

Alternative. In addition, DRPT will provide the CTB with a full summary of the comments 

received. DRPT anticipates that the CTB will formally identify the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 

Preferred Alternative as a recommendation for FRA to consider and confirm in the Final EIS and 

ROD for the DC2RVA Project.