Tier II

DraŌ Environmental Impact Statement

SecƟon 4(f) EvaluaƟon

Tier II Dra

Ō Environmental Impact Statement

Sec

Ɵon 4(f) Evalua

Ɵon

Volume 1
SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL 

WASHINGTON, DC TO RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

AND 

DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

Submitted Pursuant To: 

 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) 

By: 

U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Railroad Administration 

and 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

Cooperating Agencies: 

 Federal Highway Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Coast Guard 

 Virginia Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

 

 Date of Approval Director 

 Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation 

 

 Date of Approval Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

This Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement defines existing and future transportation conditions and needs 

within the 123-mile railroad corridor from Washington, DC to Richmond, Virginia; identifies a range of alternative 

improvements that would address those needs; and evaluates the potential effects of the alternatives on the natural 

and human environments. The corridor is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor which 

extends from Washington, DC to Charlotte, North Carolina. A Tier I evaluation of the SEHSR Corridor was 

completed in 2002. 

FRA intends to issue a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision document 

pursuant to Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat.405, Section 1319(b) unless FRA determines statutory criteria or 

practicability considerations preclude issuance of the combined document pursuant to Section 1319. 

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: 

John Winkle, Transportation Analyst 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 493-6067 

john.winkle@dot.gov

Emily Stock, Project Manager 

Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation 

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102 

Richmond VA 23219 

Phone: (804) 786-4440 

emily.stock@drpt.virginia.gov

Comments on this Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement are due by November 7, 2017 and should be sent 

to Ms. Stock at the above address or submitted using the online comment form at www.DC2RVArail.com. 
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. ES-1 

2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... ES-10 

3 PROJECT EFFECTS & MITIGATION ...................................................................................... ES-38

4 DRPT RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................................... ES-55 

5 NEXT STEPS & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ ES-65 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... xvii 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ xxiii 

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

This chapter describes the Purpose and Need of the action, Project description, and Project 

background. The Purpose and Need drives the development of the range of alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. 

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 1-4 

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1-6 

1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE .................................................................................................................. 1-7 

1.5 PROJECT NEED ......................................................................................................................... 1-8 

1.5.1 SEHSR Program Need .................................................................................................. 1-8

1.5.2 DC2RVA Project Need ................................................................................................. 1-9

1.5.2.1 Population Growth ....................................................................................... 1-9 

1.5.2.2 Freight Growth ............................................................................................ 1-11 

1.5.2.3 Congestion in the I-95 Corridor ................................................................ 1-11 

1.5.2.4 Air Travel Congestion ................................................................................ 1-13 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 ii 

1.5.2.5 Rail Capacity in the Corridor .................................................................... 1-16 

1.5.2.6 Providing Options for Reliable and Convenient Movement 

of Goods and People .................................................................................. 1-22 

1.5.2.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................... 1-24 

1.5.3 Public Comments on Need ........................................................................................ 1-26 

1.6 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RELATED STUDIES ..................................................... 1-27 

1.6.1 National High Speed Rail Program .......................................................................... 1-27 

1.6.2 SEHSR Program .......................................................................................................... 1-29 

1.6.2.1 Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Project from Washington, D.C. 

to Charlotte, NC .......................................................................................... 1-30 

1.6.2.2 Washington, D.C. to Richmond SEHSR Corridor Segment ................. 1-31 

1.6.2.3 Richmond to Raleigh SEHSR Corridor Segment ................................... 1-34 

1.6.2.4 Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Segment .................... 1-35 

1.6.3 Virginia Avenue Tunnel ............................................................................................ 1-35 

1.6.4 Long Bridge ................................................................................................................. 1-35 

1.6.5 Washington Union Station Master Plan .................................................................. 1-36 

1.7 PROJECT BENEFITS ............................................................................................................... 1-36 

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the process that was used to develop, evaluate, and eliminate potential 

alternatives based on the purpose and need of the Project. The chapter discusses how alternatives 

were selected for detailed study, the reasons why some alternatives were eliminated from 

consideration and describes how the alternatives meet the need for the project and avoid or 

minimize environmental harm. All reasonable alternatives are discussed at a comparable level of 

detail. The No Build Alternative is also included as a benchmark against which the impacts of the 

other alternatives are compared. 

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 SEHSR Tier I EIS Alternatives Summary .................................................................. 2-1 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates ............................................................................................ 2-5 

2.2 SERVICE PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 2-5 

2.2.1 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service ................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.1.1 Types of Service ............................................................................................ 2-6 

2.2.1.2 Frequency of Service .................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.2 Future Intercity Passenger Rail Service ..................................................................... 2-7 

2.2.2.1 No Build Alternative .................................................................................... 2-7 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternative .......................................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.3 Service Plan Development ........................................................................................... 2-9 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 iii 

2.2.3.1 Sources Used to Determine Future Passenger Train Frequencies ......... 2-9 

2.2.3.2 Service Patterns for DC2RVA Corridor Passenger Trains .................... 2-10 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS ................................ 2-13 

2.3.1 Project Alternative Areas and Segments ................................................................. 2-13 

2.3.2 Considerations for Alternatives Development ....................................................... 2-17 

2.3.2.1 Technical Criteria ........................................................................................ 2-17 

2.3.2.2 DC2RVA Purpose and Need ..................................................................... 2-19 

2.3.2.3 Crossing Infrastructure Considerations .................................................. 2-19 

2.3.3 Alternatives Development ......................................................................................... 2-21 

2.3.3.1 Rail Alignment Alternatives ..................................................................... 2-22 

2.3.3.2 Station Location Alternatives .................................................................... 2-26 

2.3.3.3 Richmond Area Rail Alignment–Station Service Options .................... 2-27 

2.4 OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED ...................................................................... 2-29 

2.4.1 Screening Process ........................................................................................................ 2-29 

2.4.1.1 Rail Alignment Screening Process ............................................................ 2-29 

2.4.1.2 Station Location Screening Process .......................................................... 2-30 

2.4.2 Screening Results for Northern Virginia (Build Alternative Areas 1, 2, 

and 3) and Central Virginia (Build Alternative Areas 4 and 5) ............................ 2-31 

2.4.2.1 Rail Alignments .......................................................................................... 2-31 

2.4.2.2 Station Locations ......................................................................................... 2-33 

2.4.3 Screening Results for Richmond (Build Alternative Area 6) ................................ 2-34 

2.4.3.1 Rail Alignment—Station Service Options ............................................... 2-34 

2.4.3.2 Station Locations ......................................................................................... 2-38 

2.4.4 Screening Results for Fredericksburg (Build Alternative Area 3, 

Segment 21) .................................................................................................................. 2-40 

2.4.5 Screening Results for Ashland (Build Alternative Area 5, Segment 22) ............. 2-40 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE TIER II DRAFT EIS .......................................... 2-43 

2.5.1 No Build Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-43 

2.5.1.1 Infrastructure Improvements in the No Build Alternative ................... 2-44 

2.5.1.2 Rail Service Growth in the No Build Alternative ................................... 2-48 

2.5.2 Build Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-50 

2.5.2.1 Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Build Alternatives ........... 2-52 

2.5.2.2 Area 2: Northern Virginia Build Alternative .......................................... 2-55 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 iv 

2.5.2.3 Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) Build 

Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-61 

2.5.2.4 Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

Build Alternative ........................................................................................ 2-70 

2.5.2.5 Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) Build Alternatives ......................... 2-73 

2.5.2.6 Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) Build Alternatives .................... 2-90 

2.6 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS AND RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES ........................................... 2-116 

2.6.1 Operations Analysis ................................................................................................. 2-116 

2.6.1.1 Preliminary Ashland and Fredericksburg Simulation Modeling ...... 2-117 

2.6.1.2 Additional Ashland Simulation Modeling ........................................... 2-117 

2.6.1.3 Richmond Area Simulation Modeling ................................................... 2-118 

2.6.2 Ridership .................................................................................................................... 2-119 

2.6.3 Travel Time and Reliability ..................................................................................... 2-121 

2.7 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ................................................................................ 2-122 

2.7.1 Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 2-122 

2.7.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................... 2-124 

2.8 CONSTRUCTION PLAN...................................................................................................... 2-125 

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter provides information on the existing resources and condition of the environment. 

Generally, it focuses on the important issues in order to provide an understanding of the Project 

area relative to the impacts of the alternatives. The affected environment includes discussions, 

commensurate with the importance of the potential impacts, the existing social, economic, and 

environmental settings surrounding the Project. It also identifies environmentally sensitive 

features in the project corridor. 

3.1 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 3-4 

3.1.1 Drainage Basins ............................................................................................................. 3-5 

3.1.2 Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams .......................................................................... 3-7 

3.1.3 Designated Waters ........................................................................................................ 3-9 

3.1.3.1 Navigable Waters ....................................................................................... 3-10 

3.1.3.2 State Scenic Rivers ...................................................................................... 3-10 

3.1.3.3 Nationwide Rivers Inventory ................................................................... 3-17 

3.1.3.4 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas ........................................................ 3-17 

3.1.3.5 Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area ............................................... 3-18 

3.1.4 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 3-18 

3.1.5 Floodplains and Floodways ...................................................................................... 3-19 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 v 

3.1.6 Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 3-20 

3.1.7 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply ............................................................... 3-23 

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ........................................................................... 3-23 

3.2.1 Topography ................................................................................................................. 3-24 

3.2.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 3-24 

3.2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................... 3-24 

3.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS ..................................................................................................... 3-26 

3.3.1 Farmland Soils ............................................................................................................. 3-27 

3.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts ........................................................................... 3-27 

3.4 MINERAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 3-29 

3.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................... 3-33 

3.5.1 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................................... 3-34 

3.5.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 3-34 

3.5.3 Hazardous Materials Sites within Study Area ....................................................... 3-37 

3.6 AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................... 3-38 

3.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................... 3-38 

3.6.2 Clean Air Act Conformity .......................................................................................... 3-40 

3.6.3 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule ................................................................................ 3-40 

3.6.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule .................................................................................. 3-41 

3.6.5 Ambient Air Quality Conditions in the DC2RVA Corridor ................................. 3-41 

3.6.5.1 Attainment/Nonattainment/Maintenance Designations .................... 3-41 

3.6.5.2 Ambient Air Quality .................................................................................. 3-42 

3.6.5.3 Air Quality Index ........................................................................................ 3-44 

3.6.6 Greenhouse Gas .......................................................................................................... 3-45 

3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................................................... 3-45 

3.7.1 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 3-45 

3.7.1.1 Noise Descriptors ....................................................................................... 3-45 

3.7.1.2 Existing Noise Measurements .................................................................. 3-47 

3.7.1.3 Existing Noise Levels ................................................................................. 3-47 

3.7.2 Vibration ....................................................................................................................... 3-49 

3.7.2.1 Vibration Descriptors ................................................................................. 3-52 

3.8 ENERGY .................................................................................................................................... 3-53 

3.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. 3-54 

3.9.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology .................................................................... 3-54 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 vi 

3.9.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 3-55 

3.9.2.1 Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) ............................................ 3-57 

3.9.2.2 Area 2: Northern Virginia .......................................................................... 3-58 

3.9.2.3 Area 3: Fredericksburg ............................................................................... 3-62 

3.9.2.4 Area 4: Central Virginia ............................................................................. 3-64 

3.9.2.5 Area 5: Ashland .......................................................................................... 3-65 

3.9.2.6 Area 6: Richmond ....................................................................................... 3-67 

3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 3-73 

3.10.1 Regulated Natural Communities .............................................................................. 3-75 

3.10.1.1 National Wildlife Refuges ........................................................................ 3-75 

3.10.1.2 State Wildlife Lands .................................................................................. 3-79 

3.10.1.3 County Wildlife Lands .............................................................................. 3-79 

3.10.1.4 Private Wildlife Lands .............................................................................. 3-79 

3.10.1.5 Priority Conservation Areas..................................................................... 3-80 

3.10.2 Invasive Species........................................................................................................... 3-83 

3.10.3 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 3-84 

3.10.3.1 Colonial Waterbirds ................................................................................... 3-85 

3.10.3.2 Migratory Birds ........................................................................................... 3-85 

3.10.4 Aquatic and Marine Life ............................................................................................ 3-86 

3.10.4.1 Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters .................................... 3-86 

3.10.4.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................ 3-88 

3.10.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 3-90 

3.10.5.1 Federally Endangered Species ................................................................. 3-92 

3.10.5.2 Federally Threatened Species .................................................................. 3-92 

3.10.5.3 State Threatened Species ........................................................................... 3-93 

3.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 3-94 

3.11.1 Population Characteristics ......................................................................................... 3-94 

3.11.2 Employment and Income ........................................................................................... 3-95 

3.11.2.1 Economic Base/Employment Patterns ...................................................... 3-95 

3.11.3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 3-97 

3.11.3.1 Existing Land Use ....................................................................................... 3-97 

3.11.3.2 Status of Local and Regional Planning/Development Trends ............ 3-99 

3.11.4 Neighborhoods and Communities ......................................................................... 3-105 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 vii 

3.11.4.1 Communities along the DC2RVA Corridor ............................................ 3-105 

3.11.5 Community Facilities and Services ........................................................................ 3-107 

3.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................. 3-108 

3.12.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 3-108 

3.12.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations .................................................. 3-109 

3.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVEGROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 3-120 

3.13.1 Archaeological Resources ........................................................................................ 3-120 

3.13.2 Aboveground Resources .......................................................................................... 3-131 

3.13.2.1 Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects ......................................... 3-132 

3.13.2.2 Battlefields ................................................................................................. 3-153 

3.13.2.3 Tribal Land ................................................................................................ 3-154 

3.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES ........................................... 3-157 

3.14.1 Federal Parklands ..................................................................................................... 3-157 

3.14.2 State and Regional Parklands and Recreation Areas ........................................... 3-173 

3.14.3 County/City and Other Local Parklands .............................................................. 3-174 

3.14.4 Wildlife Refuges ........................................................................................................ 3-180 

3.14.5 Trails ........................................................................................................................... 3-181 

3.14.6 Section 6(f) Resources ............................................................................................... 3-183 

3.14.7 Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................................................... 3-184 

3.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ...................................................................................... 3-187 

3.15.1 Regional Scale ............................................................................................................ 3-189 

3.15.1.1 Regional Roadway Network ................................................................... 3-189 

3.15.1.2 Regional Rail Network ............................................................................ 3-191 

3.15.1.3 Stations and Other Regional Transportation Facilities ....................... 3-193 

3.15.1.4 Regional Highway–Rail Crossing Accident Data ............................... 3-197 

3.15.2 Corridor Scale ............................................................................................................ 3-198 

3.15.2.1 Transportation Corridor Network (by City/County) ........................ 3-198 

3.15.2.2 Roadway Network–Corridor Crossings ............................................... 3-204 

3.16 UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES .............................................................................. 3-216 

3.17 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................................................................... 3-216 

3.17.1 Community Safety and Access ............................................................................... 3-216 

3.17.2 At-Grade Crossing Safety ........................................................................................ 3-216 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 viii 

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes the impacts of Project alternatives on the environment and documents the 

methodologies used in evaluating these impacts. Information is provided to compare Project 

alternatives and their impacts as well as measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts. Mitigation 

measures have been considered for all impacts, regardless of their significance. Environmental 

impacts are described in terms of their context and intensity. 

4.1 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.1.1 Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Floodplains ................................................... 4-3 

4.1.1.1 Designated Waters ........................................................................................ 4-5 

4.1.1.2 Floodplains and Floodways ........................................................................ 4-6 

4.1.1.3 Stormwater/Drainage .................................................................................. 4-7 

4.1.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 4-8 

4.1.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 4-11 

4.1.3.1 Temporary Effects ...................................................................................... 4-11 

4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects ...................................................................................... 4-11 

4.1.3.3 Impaired Waters ......................................................................................... 4-11 

4.1.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply ............................................................... 4-12 

4.1.5 Permits .......................................................................................................................... 4-12 

4.1.5.1 Section 401– Certification (Water Quality Certification [WQC]) ......... 4-14 

4.1.5.2 Section 402–-National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) ......................................................................................... 4-15 

4.1.5.3 Section 404–Dredge and Fill Materials .................................................... 4-15 

4.1.5.4 Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom .............................................................. 4-15 

4.1.5.5 Section 9–United States Coast Guard ...................................................... 4-15 

4.1.5.6 Section 10–USACE ...................................................................................... 4-15 

4.1.5.7 Virginia Water Protection Permit ............................................................. 4-15 

4.1.5.8 MS4 Permit–Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems ............ 4-15 

4.1.5.9 Joint Permit Application–USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, Local 

Wetlands Board ........................................................................................... 4-16 

4.1.5.10 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act ............................................................ 4-16 

4.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .......................................... 4-16 

4.1.6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Resources ............................................... 4-16 

4.1.6.2 Floodplains and Stormwater/Drainage .................................................. 4-17 

4.1.6.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 4-18 

4.1.6.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply ............................................... 4-19 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 ix 

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ........................................................................... 4-19 

4.2.1 Topography ................................................................................................................. 4-19 

4.2.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 4-19 

4.2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................... 4-20 

4.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .......................................... 4-21 

4.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS ..................................................................................................... 4-22 

4.3.1 Farmland Soils ............................................................................................................. 4-22 

4.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts ........................................................................... 4-24 

4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 4-26 

4.4.1 Effects ............................................................................................................................ 4-26 

4.4.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .......................................... 4-26 

4.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ........................................................... 4-26 

4.5.1 Effects ............................................................................................................................ 4-26 

4.5.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .......................................... 4-33 

4.6 AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................... 4-34 

4.6.1 Locomotive Operations–NOx, VOC, and PM ......................................................... 4-34 

4.6.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics ........................................................................................... 4-35 

4.6.2.1 Regional MSAT Effects .............................................................................. 4-35 

4.6.2.2 Local MSAT Effects .................................................................................... 4-36 

4.6.3 Highway Vehicle Operations–CO ............................................................................ 4-37 

4.6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 4-38 

4.6.5 Construction Effects .................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.6.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.6.7 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 4-40 

4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................................................... 4-40 

4.7.1 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 4-40 

4.7.1.1 Noise Impact Criteria ................................................................................. 4-40 

4.7.1.2 Noise Prediction Methodology ................................................................. 4-42 

4.7.1.3 Predicted Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4-44 

4.7.1.4 Noise Impact Assessment .......................................................................... 4-45 

4.7.1.5 Noise Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 4-50 

4.7.2 Vibration ....................................................................................................................... 4-51 

4.7.2.1 Vibration Impact Criteria .......................................................................... 4-51 

4.7.2.2 Vibration Prediction Methodology .......................................................... 4-52 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 x 

4.7.2.3 Predicted Vibration Levels ........................................................................ 4-56 

4.7.2.4 Vibration Impact Assessment ................................................................... 4-56 

4.7.2.5 Vibration Mitigation ................................................................................... 4-59 

4.8 ENERGY .................................................................................................................................... 4-59 

4.8.1 Energy Consumption during Operation ................................................................. 4-59 

4.8.2 Energy Consumption during Construction ............................................................ 4-61 

4.9 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 4-62 

4.9.1 Effects ............................................................................................................................ 4-62 

4.9.1.1 Arlington: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C ........................................ 4-63 

4.9.1.2 Northern Virginia: Build Alternative 2A ................................................ 4-63 

4.9.1.3 Fredericksburg: Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C ............................... 4-63 

4.9.1.4 Central Virginia: Build Alternative 4A .................................................... 4-64 

4.9.1.5 Ashland: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake .......................................................... 4-64 

4.9.1.6 Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 

6E, 6F, and 6G .............................................................................................. 4-65 

4.9.2 Mitigation Evaluation ................................................................................................. 4-68 

4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 4-68 

4.10.1 Habitat and Natural Communities ........................................................................... 4-68 

4.10.1.1 Conservation Areas ................................................................................... 4-71 

4.10.1.2 Invasive Species .......................................................................................... 4-73 

4.10.1.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ................................................................ 4-73 

4.10.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation ......................... 4-74 

4.10.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 4-79 

4.10.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds ................................................................................... 4-79 

4.10.2.2 Migratory Birds ........................................................................................... 4-79 

4.10.2.3 Aquatic and Marine Life ............................................................................ 4-80 

4.10.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation ......................... 4-82 

4.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 4-83 

4.10.3.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act .......................................... 4-86 

4.10.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation ......................... 4-95 

4.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 4-96 

4.11.1 Economic Effects ......................................................................................................... 4-96 

4.11.2 Neighborhood and Community Effects .................................................................. 4-97 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xi 

4.11.2.1 Community Effects ..................................................................................... 4-97 

4.11.2.2 Effects from Changes to the Transportation Network .......................... 4-99 

4.11.3 Community Facilities and Services ........................................................................ 4-101 

4.11.4 Right-of-Way and Relocations ................................................................................ 4-102 

4.11.5 Land Use Planning .................................................................................................... 4-105 

4.11.5.1 Changes in Land Use ............................................................................... 4-105 

4.11.5.2 Compatibility with Future Land Use ..................................................... 4-107 

4.11.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal Transportation Planning ................. 4-108 

4.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................. 4-108 

4.12.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-109

4.12.2 Community-Level Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-109 

4.12.2.1 Relocations and Displacements .............................................................. 4-109 

4.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................. 4-110 

4.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVEGROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-127 

4.13.1 Archaeological Resources ........................................................................................ 4-130 

4.13.2 Historical Resources ................................................................................................. 4-133 

4.13.3 Battlefields .................................................................................................................. 4-153 

4.13.4 Summary and Mitigation ......................................................................................... 4-155 

4.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES ........................................... 4-155 

4.14.1 Effects .......................................................................................................................... 4-155 

4.14.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4-156 

4.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ...................................................................................... 4-166 

4.15.1 Regional Scale ............................................................................................................ 4-167 

4.15.1.1 DC2RVA Train Service and Ridership .................................................. 4-167 

4.15.1.2 Ridership Effects on Regional Roadways ............................................. 4-169 

4.15.1.3 Ridership Effects on Roadway Network at Amtrak Stations ............. 4-170 

4.15.1.4 Ridership Effects on Parking Needs at Stations ................................... 4-171 

4.15.2 Corridor Scale ............................................................................................................ 4-174 

4.15.2.1 DC2RVA Build Alternative Crossing Improvements ......................... 4-174 

4.15.2.2 DC2RVA Crossing Improvement Effects on Connectivity 

and Accessibility ....................................................................................... 4-196 

4.15.2.3 DC2RVA Crossing Closure Diversion Analysis 

(Traffic Operations) .................................................................................. 4-199 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xii 

4.15.2.4 DC2RVA Crossing Improvement Effects on Total Daily 

Vehicle Delay ............................................................................................. 4-204 

4.16 UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 4-209 

4.17 SAFETY AND SECURITY .................................................................................................... 4-209 

4.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................................................................... 4-212 

4.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 4-212

4.19.1 Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 4-213 

4.19.1.1 Rail .............................................................................................................. 4-213 

4.19.1.2 Land Use and Access................................................................................ 4-213 

4.19.1.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 4-213 

4.19.1.4 Noise ........................................................................................................... 4-213 

4.19.1.5 Water Resources ....................................................................................... 4-213 

4.19.1.6 Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................. 4-214 

4.19.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4-214 

4.19.2.1 Rail .............................................................................................................. 4-214 

4.19.2.2 Land Use and Access................................................................................ 4-214 

4.19.2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 4-215 

4.19.2.4 Noise ........................................................................................................... 4-215 

4.19.2.5 Water Resources ....................................................................................... 4-215 

4.19.2.6 Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................. 4-216 

4.20 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................... 4-216 

4.20.1 Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................... 4-216 

4.20.1.1 Step 1: Scoping .......................................................................................... 4-217 

4.20.1.2 Step 2: Identify Study Area Direction and Goals ................................. 4-217 

4.20.1.3 Step 3: Inventory Notable Features in the Study Area ........................ 4-219 

4.20.1.4 Step 4: Identify Impact-Causing Activities of the 

Proposed Alternatives .............................................................................. 4-219 

4.20.1.5 Step 5: Identify Indirect Effects for Analysis ........................................ 4-220 

4.20.1.6 Step 6: Analyze Indirect Effects and Evaluate Analysis Results ........ 4-221 

4.20.1.7 Step 7: Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation ....................... 4-226 

4.20.2 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................... 4-226 

4.20.2.1 Geographic Area and Time Span ........................................................... 4-227 

4.20.2.2 Affected Resources ................................................................................... 4-227 

4.20.2.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................ 4-227 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xiii 

4.20.2.4 Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4-229 

4.20.2.5 Overall Cumulative Effects ..................................................................... 4-235 

4.21 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND 

LONG-TERM BENEFITS ...................................................................................................... 4-235

4.22 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ............... 4-236 

4.23 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 4-237 

CHAPTER 5 - SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

This chapter provides a Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with the U.S. DOT Act of 1966. 

The evaluation will specifically address potential use of resources including parks, recreation 

areas, wildlife refuges and historic properties (on or eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places). 

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.1 Introduction to Section 4(f) .......................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project ............................................................................... 5-2 

5.1.3 Project Description and Approach ............................................................................. 5-3 

5.1.4 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.2 TYPES OF SECTION 4(f) USE ................................................................................................ 5-57 

5.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(f) RESOURCES .......................................................................... 5-58 

5.3.1 Parks and Recreation Areas ....................................................................................... 5-58 

5.3.2 Wildlife Refuges .......................................................................................................... 5-60 

5.3.3 Historic Properties ...................................................................................................... 5-60 

5.4 SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY IMPACTS ................................................................................... 5-67 

5.4.1 Parks and Recreation Areas ....................................................................................... 5-67 

5.4.2 Wildlife Refuges .......................................................................................................... 5-72 

5.4.3 Historic Properties ...................................................................................................... 5-82 

5.5 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 5-105 

5.5.1 Summary of Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations ................................. 5-106 

5.5.2 Entire DC2RVA Corridor ......................................................................................... 5-107 

5.5.3 Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C .......................................................................... 5-107 

5.5.4 Build Alternative 2A ................................................................................................. 5-107 

5.5.5 Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C .......................................................................... 5-107 

5.5.6 Build Alternative 4A ................................................................................................. 5-108 

5.5.7 Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake ........................................................................................................ 5-109 

5.5.8 Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G ............. 5-109 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xiv 

5.6 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ................................................................................... 5-110 

5.6.1 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080) ........................................................... 5-111 

5.6.2 Site 44SP0187 (Stone Piers) ...................................................................................... 5-111 

5.6.3 Doswell Historic District (042-5448) ....................................................................... 5-111 

5.6.4 Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470) ............................................................... 5-112 

5.6.5 Site 44HE1098 (Main Street Station Parking) and Site 44HE1097 

(Railroad, Warehouse) .............................................................................................. 5-112 

5.6.6 Main Street Station Trainshed (127-0172) .............................................................. 5-112 

5.6.7 Site 44HE1095 (Storage Facility) ............................................................................. 5-113 

5.6.8 Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad (076-0301) .......................... 5-113 

5.6.9 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) Corridor (127-6251) .................................... 5-113 

5.6.10 Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) Corridor (127-6271) ...................................... 5-114 

5.7 COORDINATION .................................................................................................................. 5-114 

5.7.1 Consulting Parties ..................................................................................................... 5-114 

5.7.2 Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 5-116 

5.7.3 Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 5-116 

5.8 FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION ................................................................................ 5-118 

CHAPTER 6 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

This chapter summarizes the agency coordination and public involvement activities conducted 

during the development of the Draft EIS. 

6.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1.1 Project Launch ............................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1.2 Newspaper and Online Advertising .......................................................................... 6-2 

6.1.3 Targeted Title VI outreach ........................................................................................... 6-4 

6.1.4 Scoping ........................................................................................................................... 6-4 

6.1.5 Public Meetings ............................................................................................................. 6-8 

6.1.5.1 Public Meetings Hosted by Outside Organizations .............................. 6-10 

6.1.6 Project Contact Mailing List ...................................................................................... 6-11 

6.1.7 Property Owner Notifications ................................................................................... 6-12 

6.1.8 E-Newsletters............................................................................................................... 6-13 

6.1.9 Project Website ............................................................................................................ 6-13 

6.1.10 Project Press Releases ................................................................................................. 6-14 

6.1.11 Small Group Informational Meetings ...................................................................... 6-14 

6.1.12 Project Brochure .......................................................................................................... 6-16 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xv 

6.1.13 Social Media ................................................................................................................. 6-17 

6.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................................................. 6-17 

6.2.1 Agency Meetings ......................................................................................................... 6-19 

6.2.2 Task Force Meetings ................................................................................................... 6-20 

6.2.3 Local Officials Coordination ..................................................................................... 6-22 

6.2.4 Ashland Community Advisory Committee ............................................................ 6-25 

6.3 SECTION 106 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION .............................................. 6-25 

6.3.1 Consulting Parties ....................................................................................................... 6-25 

6.3.2 Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 6-26 

6.3.3 Correspondence .......................................................................................................... 6-27 

CHAPTER 7 – DRPT RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

This chapter describes DRPT’s recommendation for a Preferred Alternative. The non-binding 

recommendation is made as part of the Draft EIS in order to provide the public with a clear 

understanding of DRPT’s recommendation at this Project milestone. 

7.1 ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON LONG BRIDGE APPROACH—CFP 110 TO 

CFP 109.3 ..................................................................................................................................... 7-3 

7.2 ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA CFP 109.3 TO CFP 62 ....................... 7-4 

7.3 ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG DAHLGREN SPUR TO 

CROSSROADS—CFP 62 TO CFP 48 ....................................................................................... 7-6 

7.4 ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA CROSSROADS TO DOSWELL— 

CFP 48 TO CFP 19 ...................................................................................................................... 7-9 

7.5 ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND DOSWELL TO I-295—CFP 19 TO CFP 9 .......... 7-11 

7.6 ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND I-295 TO CENTRALIA—CFP 9 TO A011 ...... 7-12 

7.7 FINAL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................. 7-18 

CHAPTER 8 – DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

This chapter provides a detailed listing of the federal, state and local agencies, elected officials, 

organizations, and special interest groups that were provided with a copy of the Draft EIS. 

8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES .............................................................................................................. 8-1 

8.2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AGENCIES ................................................................. 8-2 

8.3 OTHER STATE AGENCIES ..................................................................................................... 8-3 

8.4 REGIONAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................. 8-3 

8.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS .................................... 8-3 

8.6 RAIL AND TRANSIT OPERATORS ....................................................................................... 8-4 

8.7 ELECTED OFFICIALS ............................................................................................................... 8-4 

8.7.1 Federal Elected Officials ............................................................................................... 8-4 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xvi 

8.7.2 Commonwealth of Virginia Elected Officials ........................................................... 8-4 

8.7.3 Local Elected Officials .................................................................................................. 8-5 

8.8 POTENTIALLY IMPACTED SECTION 4(f) RESOURCE PROPERTY OWNERS ............ 8-6 

8.9 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS .............................................................................................. 8-6 

8.9.1 Libraries .......................................................................................................................... 8-7 

8.9.2 Department of Rail and Public Transportation Offices ......................................... 8-10 

8.9.3 Government Centers .................................................................................................. 8-10 

CHAPTER 9 - LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 9-1 

This chapter provides a listing of the individuals primarily responsible for preparing the EIS or 

technical reports. Preparers are identified by name, qualifications, expertise, experience, and 

professional discipline. 

CHAPTER 10 – ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................. 10-1 

CHAPTER 11 – GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS ................................................. 11-1 

CHAPTER 12 – REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 12-1 

CHAPTER 13 – INDEX ....................................................................................................................... 13-1 

APPENDICES 

A ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT .................................................................................. A-1 

B BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT ........................................................................................................ B-1 

C BUILD ALTERNATIVES AREA 1–ARLINGTON .................................................................... C-1 

D BUILD ALTERNATIVES AREA 2–NORTHERN VIRGINIA .................................................. D-1 

E BUILD ALTERNATIVES AREA 3–FREDERICKSBURG ......................................................... E-1 

F BUILD ALTERNATIVES AREA 4–CENTRAL VIRGINIA ...................................................... F-1 

G BUILD ALTERNATIVES AREA 5–ASHLAND ........................................................................ G-1 

H BUILD ALTERNATIVES AREA 6–RICHMOND .................................................................... H-1 

I OPERATIONS MODELING .......................................................................................................... I-1 

J RIDERSHIP ...................................................................................................................................... J-1 

K CAPITAL COSTS ........................................................................................................................... K-1 

L CONSTRUCTABILITY .................................................................................................................. L-1 

M NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT ................................................................... M-1 

N USDA-NRCS FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS .......................................................... N-1 

O HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITE INFORMATION ................................................................ O-1 

P NOISE AND VIBRATION TECHNICAL REPORT .................................................................. P-1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xvii 

Q COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT .......................................... Q-1 

R CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTS ......................................................................................... R-1 

S TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT ............................................................................ S-1 

T MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS INFORMATION ................................................................... T-1 

U SECTION 106 AND SECTION 4(f) COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ......................... U-1 

V SCOPING AND OUTREACH MATERIALS ............................................................................. V-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.5-1: Modal Comparison of Travel Times ........................................................................ 1-13 

Table 1.5-2: Typical Air Travel Time ............................................................................................. 1-16 

Table 1.5-3: Passenger Travel and Energy (2013) ........................................................................ 1-25 

Table 2.3-1: Project Alternative Areas and Segments ................................................................. 2-14 

Table 2.3-2: Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor by Area ... 2-15 

Table 2.3-3: Factors Considered to Develop Alternatives .......................................................... 2-20 

Table 2.3-4: Potential Locations for New Passenger Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor ....... 2-28 

Table 2.4-1: Rail Alignment Screening Process ............................................................................ 2-30

Table 2.4-2: Summary of Stages I, II, and III Screening by Segment 

(Northern and Central Virginia) ............................................................................... 2-32 

Table 2.4-3: Station Screening Summary, Northern and Central Virginia ............................... 2-33 

Table 2.4-4: Summary of Screening by Station Location (Richmond) ...................................... 2-37 

Table 2.4-5: Station Screening Summary, Richmond .................................................................. 2-39 

Table 2.4-6: Summary of Stages I, II, and III Screening of Bypass Options 

for Fredericksburg ...................................................................................................... 2-41 

Table 2.4-7: Summary Screening results of Bypass Options for Ashland ................................ 2-43 

Table 2.5-1: No Build Infrastructure Assumptions ..................................................................... 2-44 

Table 2.5-2: Existing and No Build Service along DC2RVA Corridor 

(Daily 1-Way Trips) .................................................................................................... 2-49 

Table 2.5-3: Summary of Build Alternatives Carried Forward ................................................. 2-50 

Table 2.5-4: Summary of Stations DRPT Recommends for Evaluation in the Tier II EIS ...... 2-51 

Table 2.5-5: Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Build Alternatives ........................... 2-53 

Table 2.5-6: Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia) — General Improvements ................ 2-55 

Table 2.5-7: Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia) — Specific Infrastructure 

Improvements ............................................................................................................. 2-56

Table 2.5-8: Area 3: Fredericksburg Build Alternatives .............................................................. 2-61 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xviii 

Table 2.5-9: Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia)—General Improvements ...................... 2-70 

Table 2.5-10: Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia)—Specific Infrastructure 

Improvements ............................................................................................................. 2-71

Table 2.5-11: Area 5: Ashland Build Alternatives.......................................................................... 2-73

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives ...................................................................... 2-91 

Table 2.6-1: Annual Rail Trips to/from/within DC2RVA Corridor (Millions) by Year 

and Alternative .......................................................................................................... 2-120 

Table 2.6-2: DC2RVA Corridor Travel Times (hours:minutes) by Richmond Station 

Option, Washington Union Station to Richmond, VA ........................................ 2-121 

Table 2.7-1: Capital Costs Per Build Alternative ....................................................................... 2-123 

Table 2.7-2: Estimated O&M Costs for Each Alternative ......................................................... 2-124 

Table 3.0-1: Study Area by Resource ............................................................................................... 3-3 

Table 3.1-1: Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams .......................................................................... 3-8

Table 3.1-2: Special Stream Designations ....................................................................................... 3-9 

Table 3.1-3: State Scenic Rivers Crossed by the Project .............................................................. 3-10 

Table 3.1-4: Designated Nationwide River Reaches ................................................................... 3-17 

Table 3.1-5: Wetlands (acres) .......................................................................................................... 3-19 

Table 3.1-6: Floodplains .................................................................................................................. 3-20 

Table 3.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils ...................................................................................... 3-26 

Table 3.3-1: Farmland Soils ............................................................................................................. 3-27 

Table 3.3-2: Agricultural and Forestal Districts ........................................................................... 3-29 

Table 3.4-1: Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-33 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases ................................................................................. 3-34 

Table 3.5-2: Hazardous Waste and Special Waste Screening Criteria ...................................... 3-36 

Table 3.5-3: Hazardous Materials Sites within the Study Area ................................................. 3-37 

Table 3.6-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................... 3-39 

Table 3.6-2: Attainment Status ....................................................................................................... 3-42 

Table 3.6-3: Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data ................................................................... 3-42 

Table 3.6-4: 2014 Air Quality Index Summary ............................................................................. 3-44 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites ................................................................. 3-47 

Table 3.8-1: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel and Energy Consumption .............. 3-54 

Table 3.10-1: General Habitat Types (acres) ................................................................................... 3-76 

Table 3.10-2: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas ..................................................................... 3-80 

Table 3.10-3: Wildlife Corridors ....................................................................................................... 3-82 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xix 

Table 3.10-4: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area ........................................................ 3-83 

Table 3.10-5: Colonial Waterbird Colonies ..................................................................................... 3-85 

Table 3.10-6: Confirmed and Potential Anadromous Fish Use Waters ...................................... 3-87 

Table 3.10-7: Mapped Existing SAV Beds ....................................................................................... 3-90 

Table 3.10-8: Federally and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that 

May Occur within the Vicinity of the Study Area .................................................. 3-91 

Table 3.11-1: Total Population Over Time ...................................................................................... 3-96 

Table 3.11-2: Projected Population Over Time ............................................................................... 3-96 

Table 3.11-3: Employment Patterns ................................................................................................. 3-97 

Table 3.11-4: Land Use Acreage (Percent) ...................................................................................... 3-98 

Table 3.11-5: Community Facilities ............................................................................................... 3-107 

Table 3.12-1: City/County Demographic Data in 2013 .............................................................. 3-110 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013............................................................... 3-111 

Table 3.13-1: Summary of Eligible Archaeological Sites............................................................. 3-126 

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites ......................................................... 3-127 

Table 3.13-3: Summary of Buildings, Districts, Structures and Objects ................................... 3-132 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects ................. 3-133 

Table 3.13-5: Summary of Battlefields ........................................................................................... 3-153 

Table 3.13-6: Description of Battlefields ........................................................................................ 3-155 

Table 3.14-1: Federal Parklands ..................................................................................................... 3-157 

Table 3.14-2: State and Regional Parklands and Recreation Areas ........................................... 3-173 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands .............................................................. 3-174 

Table 3.14-4: Wildlife Refuges ........................................................................................................ 3-180 

Table 3.14-5: Trails ........................................................................................................................... 3-181 

Table 3.14-6: Section 6(f) Resources ............................................................................................... 3-184 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................................................... 3-185 

Table 3.15-1: Regional Roadway Network—Existing Conditions Daily Traffic ..................... 3-190 

Table 3.15-2: Amtrak and VRE Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor ........................................... 3-194 

Table 3.15-3: Existing Parking Inventory by Amtrak Station .................................................... 3-196 

Table 3.15-4: Highway–Rail Accidents at Public Crossings in Virginia ................................... 3-199 

Table 3.15-5: Highway–Rail Accidents at Public Crossings in DC2RVA Corridor ................ 3-199 

Table 3.15-6: Existing Highway–Rail Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor ............................. 3-204 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) .......................................... 3-209 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xx 

Table 4.1-1: Stream Resource Effects ............................................................................................. 4-4 

Table 4.1-2: Wetland Effects (acres) ............................................................................................... 4-9 

Table 4.1-3: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones .................................. 4-13 

Table 4.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils within Build Alternatives (acres) .......................... 4-20 

Table 4.3-1: Farmland Soils Converted within Build Alternatives and Farmland 

Corridor Assessment Score ...................................................................................... 4-23 

Table 4.5-1: Hazardous Materials Sites within Build Alternatives .......................................... 4-28 

Table 4.6-1: Predicted Build Alternative Project-Generated Locomotive Emissions ............ 4-35 

Table 4.6-2: Predicted CO Concentrations (including background) ....................................... 4-38 

Table 4.6-3: Change in Projected CO2 Emissions in the DC2RVA Corridor by Mode 

Compared to the No Build Alternative (tons per year)–Year 2045 .................... 4-39 

Table 4.7-1: Intercity Passenger Train Characteristics used in the Noise Assessment ......... 4-42 

Table 4.7-2: Characteristics of Existing Trains Analyzed in the Noise Assessment ............. 4-43 

Table 4.7-3: Operational Noise Impact Summary by Alternative ........................................... 4-46 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................ 4-47 

Table 4.7-5: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) 

Impact Criteria for General Assessment ................................................................ 4-52 

Table 4.7-6: Vibration Analysis Modeling Assumptions .......................................................... 4-55 

Table 4.7-7: Vibration Impact Summary by Alternative ........................................................... 4-56 

Table 4.7-8: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ............................................................... 4-58 

Table 4.7-9: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria–Vibration-Sensitive Equipment ...... 4-58 

Table 4.7-10: Construction Equipment PPV ................................................................................. 4-58

Table 4.8-1: Change in Annual Passenger Miles of Travel Compared to the No Build 

Alternative (millions)–Year 2045 ............................................................................. 4-60 

Table 4.8-2: Change in Annual Energy Consumption Compared to the 

No Build Alternative (billions of BTUs)–Year 2045 .............................................. 4-61 

Table 4.9-1: Visual Impact Rating by Visual Assessment Unit ................................................ 4-67 

Table 4.10-1: Habitat Impacts (acres) ............................................................................................. 4-69 

Table 4.10-2: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) ......................................................................... 4-72 

Table 4.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts (acres) ................................................... 4-74 

Table 4.10-4: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters ............................................................. 4-80 

Table 4.10-5: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project ........................ 4-83 

Table 4.10-6: Potential for State-Listed Species to be Affected by Project ................................ 4-85 

Table 4.10-7: Number of Bald Eagle Nests within Buffer Zones ............................................... 4-87 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xxi 

Table 4.10-8: Listed Time-of-Year Restrictions for Threatened and Endangered Species 

with Potential to Occur in the DC2RVA Corridor ................................................ 4-87 

Table 4.10-9: Bald Eagle Management Guidelines ....................................................................... 4-95 

Table 4.11-1: Commercial Relocations by Build Alternative ...................................................... 4-96 

Table 4.11-2: Residential Relocations by Build Alternative ...................................................... 4-104 

Table 4.11-3: Land Use Acreage within Build Alternatives ...................................................... 4-106 

Table 4.12-1: Residential Relocations by Environmental Justice Census Tracts .................... 4-111 

Table 4.13-1: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Archaeological Sites ...... 4-131 

Table 4.13-2: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Archaeological Sites ........................... 4-132 

Table 4.13-3: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Buildings, Districts, 

Structures, and Objects ........................................................................................... 4-133 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, 

and Districts ............................................................................................................. 4-136 

Table 4.13-5: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Battlefields ...................... 4-153 

Table 4.13-6: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Battlefields ........................................... 4-154 

Table 4.14-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Parkland Resources by 

Build Alternative acres) .......................................................................................... 4-157 

Table 4.15-1: Annual DC2RVA Ridership at Station in Project Area 

(boardings and alightings) ..................................................................................... 4-168 

Table 4.15-2: Regional Roadway Network, No Build Conditions ........................................... 4-169 

Table 4.15-3: Summary of Ridership Impacts on Station Roadways, % Change in Traffic 

on Adjacent Roadways due to DC2RVA Intercity Passenger Trains .............. 4-172 

Table 4-15.4: Summary of Daily Parking Space Demand by Station ...................................... 4-173 

Table 4.15-5: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements, 

Summary by Build Alternative ............................................................................. 4-178 

Table 4.15-6: Private At-Grade Crossing Improvements, 

 Summary by Build Alternative ............................................................................ 4-179 

Table 4.15-7: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in 

Fredericksburg Area ............................................................................................... 4-194 

Table 4.15-8: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Ashland Area ............... 4-195 

Table 4.15-9: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Richmond Area ............ 4-196 

Table 4.15-10: Existing and 2025 No Build Data for Closure Diversion Analysis ................... 4-200 

Table 4.15-11: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Closure .......................... 4-202 

Table 4.15-12: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Build Alternative ......... 4-205 

Table 4.15-13: Summary of Total Daily Delay Results, 2025 Build Conditions, By Build 

Alternative ................................................................................................................ 4-210 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xxii 

Table 4.16-1: Estimated Utility Relocations and Costs .............................................................. 4-211 

Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-239 

Table 5.1-1: Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 5-7 

Table 5.1-2: Arlington Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C ........................................................... 5-7 

Table 5.1-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A .................................................................... 5-8 

Table 5.1-4: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3A ......................................................................... 5-9 

Table 5.1-5: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3B.......................................................................... 5-9 

Table 5.1-6: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3C ....................................................................... 5-10 

Table 5.1-7: Central Virginia Build Alternative: 4A .................................................................... 5-10 

Table 5.1-8: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake ................................................. 5-11 

Table 5.1-9: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake................................................... 5-11 

Table 5.1-10: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake .................................................. 5-12 

Table 5.1-11: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake ............................................................... 5-12 

Table 5.1-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A ..................................................... 5-14 

Table 5.1-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line ........................................ 5-14 

Table 5.1-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line ......................................... 5-14 

Table 5.1-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C ..................................................... 5-15 

Table 5.1-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D ..................................................... 5-15 

Table 5.1-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E ......................................................... 5-16 

Table 5.1-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F ......................................................... 5-16 

Table 5.1-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G ........................................................ 5-16 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect .......................... 5-60 

Table 5.4-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Park Resources by 

Build Alternative (Acres) ........................................................................................... 5-73 

Table 5.4-2: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Wildlife Refuges by Build Alternative 

(Acres) ........................................................................................................................... 5-74 

Table 5.4-3: Summary of Preliminary Section 4(f) Recommendations for All Historic 

Properties ..................................................................................................................... 5-82 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations 

of Historic Properties .................................................................................................. 5-83 

Table 5.7-1: List of Invited Consulting Parties ........................................................................... 5-115 

Table 5.7-2: Section 106 and Section 4(f) Meetings .................................................................... 5-116 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence ........................................................................................... 5-116 

Table 6.1-1: Newspaper Advertising ............................................................................................... 6-3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xxiii 

Table 6.1-2: Public Scoping Meetings .............................................................................................. 6-5 

Table 6.1-3: Scoping Comments ....................................................................................................... 6-7 

Table 6.1-4: Public Information Meetings ....................................................................................... 6-9 

Table 6.1-5: Outside Organization Hosted Meetings .................................................................. 6-11 

Table 6.1-6: Electronic Notifications and Project Updates ......................................................... 6-12 

Table 6.1-7: E-Newsletters............................................................................................................... 6-13 

Table 6.1-8: Press Releases and Media Advisories ...................................................................... 6-14 

Table 6.1-9: Small Group Informational Meetings ...................................................................... 6-15 

Table 6.2-1: Cooperating Agency Meetings.................................................................................. 6-19

Table 6.2-2: Agency-Specific Coordination Meetings ................................................................. 6-20 

Table 6.2-3: Task Force Meetings ................................................................................................... 6-21 

Table 6.2-4: Local Official Meetings............................................................................................... 6-22 

Table 6.2-5: Elected Official Targeted Outreach .......................................................................... 6-24

Table 6.3-1: Consulting Parties ....................................................................................................... 6-25 

Table 6.3-2: Section 106 Meetings .................................................................................................. 6-27 

Table 6.3-3: Section 106 Correspondence ...................................................................................... 6-28 

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

and Need and Its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment .................... 7-5 

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

and Need and their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment ................ 7-7 

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 .................. 7-10 

Table 7.6-1: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need 

and Their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment ................................ 7-14 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1-1: SEHSR Corridor ........................................................................................................... 1-2 

Figure 1.2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor .......................................................................................... 1-5 

Figure 1.5-1: Virginia Population Trends by Region ................................................................... 1-10 

Figure 1.5-2: Travel Time by Mode – Washington, D.C. – New York ...................................... 1-14 

Figure 1.5-3: Number of Daily Trains by Segment in 2015 ........................................................ 1-18 

Figure 1.5-4: Richmond Area Corridor ......................................................................................... 1-20 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xxiv 

Figure 1.5-5: Washington, D.C. to Richmond Main Street Station – Travel Time 

and On-Time Performance (January 2014-January 2015) ................................... 1-23 

Figure 1.5-6: On-Time Performance for DC2RVA Northeast Regional Trains to/from 

Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk .............................................................. 1-23 

Figure 1.6-1: U.S. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Network Map .................................... 1-28 

Figure 2.1-1: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor – Tier I EIS .................................................... 2-2 

Figure 2.1-2: SEHSR Tier I EIS Build Alternatives 

(Reproduced from the 2002 Tier 1 EIS) .................................................................... 2-3 

Figure 2.1-3: SEHSR Tier I EIS Selected Alternative ..................................................................... 2-4 

Figure 2.2-1: Existing Passenger Train Frequencies in the DC2RVA Corridor ......................... 2-7 

Figure 2.2-2: No Build Alternative Passenger Train Frequencies in the 

DC2RVA Corridor ....................................................................................................... 2-8 

Figure 2.2-3: Proposed Passenger Train Frequencies in the DC2RVA Corridor ....................... 2-9 

Figure 2.2-4: Service Patterns of Proposed Passenger Trains in the DC2RVA Corridor ....... 2-12 

Figure 2.3-1: Alternative Areas ...................................................................................................... 2-16 

Figure 2.3-2: Typical Track Section ................................................................................................ 2-17 

Figure 2.3-3: Typical Rail Alignment Elements ........................................................................... 2-18 

Figure 2.3-4: DC2RVA Alternatives Development Process ....................................................... 2-22 

Figure 2.3-5: DC2RVA Preliminary Rail Alignment Options .................................................... 2-23 

Figure 2.4-1: Richmond Area Station Options ............................................................................. 2-36 

Figure 2.5-1: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C .................................................................................. 2-54 

Figure 2.5-2: Build Alternative 2A–Add One Track / Improve Existing Track ...................... 2-58 

Figure 2.5-3: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A .............................. 2-59 

Figure 2.5-4: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ........................... 2-60 

Figure 2.5-5: Build Alternative 3A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town ............................ 2-65 

Figure 2.5-6: Build Alternative 3B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing .......... 2-66 

Figure 2.5-7: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C ........ 2-67 

Figure 2.5-8: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B ........................ 2-68 

Figure 2.5-9: Build Alternative 3C – Add Two-Track Bypass East ........................................... 2-69 

Figure 2.5-10: Build Alternative 4A – Add One Track / Improve Existing Track .................... 2-72 

Figure 2.5-11: Build Alternative 5A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town ............................ 2-78 

Figure 2.5-12A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................ 2-79 

Figure 2.5-12B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................ 2-80 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xxv 

Figure 2.5-13: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) .................................................................................. 2-81 

Figure 2.5-14: Build Alternative 5B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing .......... 2-82 

Figure 2.5-15: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake – Add One Track Through Town 

East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) ...................................................... 2-83 

Figure 2.5-16: Build Alternative 5C – Add Two-Track West Bypass .......................................... 2-84 

Figure 2.5-17: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake – Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) .................................................................................. 2-85 

Figure 2.5-18: Build Alternative 5D – Three Tracks Centered Through Town 

(Add Single Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) .................................................. 2-86 

Figure 2.5-19A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) .......................................................................... 2-87 

Figure 2.5-19B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms) .......................................................................... 2-88 

Figure 2.5-20: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake ........................................................ 2-89 

Figure 2.5-21: Build Alternative 6A – Staples Mill Road Station Only ....................................... 2-98 

Figure 2.5-22: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line – Boulevard Station Only, A-Line ........................ 2-99 

Figure 2.5-23: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line – Boulevard Station Only, S-Line ........................ 2-100 

Figure 2.5-24: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A ................. 2-101 

Figure 2.5-25: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line 

and 6B–S-Line .......................................................................................................... 2-102 

Figure 2.5-26: Build Alternative 6C – Broad Street Station Only .............................................. 2-103 

Figure 2.5-27: Build Alternative 6D – Main Street Station Only ................................................ 2-104 

Figure 2.5-28: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C .......................... 2-105 

Figure 2.5-29: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D ........................... 2-106 

Figure 2.5-30: Build Alternative 6E – Split Service, Staples Mill Road / 

Main Street Stations ................................................................................................ 2-107 

Figure 2.5-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ................. 2-108 

Figure 2.5-32: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ............................ 2-109 

Figure 2.5-33: Build Alternative 6F – Full Service, Staples Mill Road / 

Main Street Stations ................................................................................................ 2-110 

Figure 2.5-34: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F .................. 2-111 

Figure 2.5-35: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F ............................ 2-112 

Figure 2.5-36: Build Alternative 6G – Shared Service, Staples Mill Road / 

Main Street Stations ................................................................................................ 2-113 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xxvi 

Figure 2.5-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ................. 2-114 

Figure 2.5-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ........................... 2-115 

Figure 2.8-1: General Construction Approach ........................................................................... 2-125 

Figure 3.0-1: Alternative Areas ........................................................................................................ 3-2 

Figure 3.1-1: Watershed Boundaries................................................................................................ 3-6 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands ................................................... 3-11 

Figure 3.1-3: Floodpains and Impaired Waters ........................................................................... 3-21 

Figure 3.2-1: Physiographic Provinces (Virginia) ........................................................................ 3-25 

Figure 3.3-1: Agricultural/Forestal Districts ................................................................................ 3-28 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... 3-30 

Figure 3.6-1: NAAQS Nonattainment Areas ................................................................................ 3-43 

Figure 3.7-1: Typical Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 3-46 

Figure 3.7-2: Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................ 3-50

Figure 3.7-3: Example Vibration Velocity Levels ......................................................................... 3-52 

Figure 3.9-1: Visual Assessment Units .......................................................................................... 3-56 

Figure 3.10-1: EcoRegions ................................................................................................................. 3-74 

Figure 3.10-2: Designated Wildlife Areas ....................................................................................... 3-77 

Figure 3.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .............................................................................. 3-89

Figure 3.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tracts ................................................................... 3-118 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 3-121 

Figure 3.13-2: Archaeological Sites in the General Vicinity of Main Street Station ................ 3-130 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-158 

Figure 3.15-1: Transportation Analysis Scales ............................................................................. 3-188 

Figure 3.15-2: Airports and Train Stations in Project Corridor ................................................. 3-195 

Figure 3.15-3: Roadway Rail Crossings in Project Corridor ....................................................... 3-205 

Figure 4.3-1: Agricultural/Forestal Districts Impacts – Build Alternatives 5C, 

5C–Ashcake ................................................................................................................ 4-25 

Figure 4.4-1: Mineral Resource Impact – Build Alternative 3C ................................................. 4-27 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternative 3A ........................... 4-29 

Figure 4.7-1: FTA/FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects .......................................... 4-41 

Figure 4.7-2: FRA Sample Train Noise Contour .......................................................................... 4-44 

Figure 4.7-3: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves ........................................... 4-53 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xxvii 

Figure 4.7-4: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Suitable for 

Assessing Transit and Freight Trains ..................................................................... 4-54 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts ............................................................... 4-75 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-88 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts ...................................................... 4-112 

Figure 4.13-1: Historic Properties with Potential Adverse Effects ............................................ 4-134 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-158 

Figure 4.15-1: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 2A ................... 4-181 

Figure 4.15-2: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3A ................... 4-182 

Figure 4.15-3: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3B ................... 4-183 

Figure 4.15-4: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3C ................... 4-184 

Figure 4.15-5: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 4A ................... 4-185 

Figure 4.15-6: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5A, 5B ............ 4-186 

Figure 4.15-7: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 

5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake .............................................................. 4-187 

Figure 4.15-8: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5C ................... 4-188 

Figure 4.15-9: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 

5C–Ashcake .............................................................................................................. 4-189

Figure 4.15-10: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6E ........................................................................................................... 4-190

Figure 4.15-11: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 6B–S-Line ...... 4-191 

Figure 4.15-12: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 6C ................... 4-192 

Figure 4.15-13: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, 6G .... 4-193 

Figure 5.1-1: Alternative Areas ........................................................................................................ 5-5 

Figure 5.1-2: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C .................................................................................. 5-17 

Figure 5.1-3: Build Alternative 2A – Add One Track/Improve Existing Track ...................... 5-18 

Figure 5.1-4: Build Alternative 3A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town ............................ 5-19 

Figure 5.1-5: Build Alternative 3B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing .......... 5-20 

Figure 5.1-6: Build Alternative 3C – Add Two-Track Bypass East ........................................... 5-21 

Figure 5.1-7: Build Alternative 4A – Add One Track/Improve Existing Track ...................... 5-22 

Figure 5.1-8: Build Alternative 5A – Maintain Two Track Through Town ............................. 5-23 

Figure 5.1-9: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake – Maintain Two Track Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) .................................................................................. 5-24 

Figure 5.1-10: Build Alternative 5B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing .......... 5-25 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 xxviii 

Figure 5.1-11: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake – Add One Track Through Town 

East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) ...................................................... 5-26 

Figure 5.1-12: Build Alternative 5C – Add Two-Track West Bypass .......................................... 5-27 

Figure 5.1-13: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake – Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) .................................................................................. 5-28 

Figure 5.1-14: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake – Three Tracks Centered 

Through Town (Add Single Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) ...................... 5-29 

Figure 5.1-15: Build Alternative 6A – Staples Mill Road Station Only ....................................... 5-30 

Figure 5.1-16: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line – Boulevard Station Only, A-Line ........................ 5-31 

Figure 5.1-17: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line – Boulevard Station Only, S-Line .......................... 5-32 

Figure 5.1-18: Build Alternative 6C – Broad Street Station Only ................................................ 5-33 

Figure 5.1-19: Build Alternative 6D – Main Street Station Only .................................................. 5-34 

Figure 5.1-20: Build Alternative 6E – Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations .................................................................................................. 5-35 

Figure 5.1-21: Build Alternative 6F – Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations .................................................................................................. 5-36 

Figure 5.1-22: Build Alternative 6G – Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations .................................................................................................. 5-37 

Figure 5.1-23: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A .............................. 5-38 

Figure 5.1-24: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ........................... 5-39 

Figure 5.1-25: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C ........ 5-40 

Figure 5.1-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B ........................ 5-41 

Figure 5.1-27A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................ 5-42 

Figure 5.1-27B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................ 5-43 

Figure 5.1-28: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake ......................................................... 5-44 

Figure 5.1-29A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) .......................................................................... 5-45 

Figure 5.1-29B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms) .......................................................................... 5-46 

Figure 5.1-30: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A ................... 5-47 

Figure 5.1-31: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 

 6B–S-Line ................................................................................................................... 5-48 

Figure 5.1-32: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C ............................ 5-49 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 xxix 

Figure 5.1-33: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D ............................. 5-50 

Figure 5.1-34: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ................... 5-51 

Figure 5.1-35: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E .............................. 5-52 

Figure 5.1-36: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F .................... 5-53 

Figure 5.1-37: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F .............................. 5-54 

Figure 5.1-38: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ................... 5-55 

Figure 5.1-39: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ............................. 5-56 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts .......................................................................................... 5-75 

Figure 5.4-2: Historical Properties with Potential Section 4(f) Use ........................................... 5-95 

Figure 6.1-1: Top Ten Scoping Comment Topics ........................................................................... 6-7 

Figure 7.0-1: DRPT Recommended Build Alternative .................................................................. 7-2 

Figure 7.1-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Arlington Area) ............................ 7-3 

Figure 7.2-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Northern Virginia Area) .............. 7-4 

Figure 7.3-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Fredericksburg Area) ................... 7-6 

Figure 7.4-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Central Virginia Area) ................. 7-9 

Figure 7.6-1: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Richmond Area) ......................... 7-13 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

PURPOSE AND NEED 1FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
 1-1 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in the 

north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger rail 

service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Project (DC2RVA Project). The Project will increase capacity 

to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight 

rail service, in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. While there is overlap in how 

intercity passenger rail and commuter rail services are defined, typically intercity passenger rail 

facilitates business and leisure travel between central business districts. Intercity passenger rail 

includes both regional and long-distance services; long-distance passenger rail covers distances 

longer than 750 miles and does not receive financial support from the states it serves. Regional 

passenger rail includes routes less than 750 miles and receive funding support from states. Typically, 

the termini for regional passenger rail service fall within geographic areas that share similar 

characteristics, such as economic, environmental, infrastructure, and historical/cultural ties. 

Commuter rail service can travel through multiple central business districts but generally provides 

short-haul rail service with morning and evening peaks in ridership and service levels that facilitates 

travel to work. The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability and 

travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic, 

thereby providing a door-to-door time-competitive option for travelers between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond and those traveling to and from adjacent connecting corridors. The Project is part of 

the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor (Figure 1.1-1), which extends from 

Washington, D.C. through Richmond, and continues east to Hampton Roads (Norfolk), VA, and 

south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues west to Atlanta, GA and south to Florida. 

The Project connects to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Northeast Corridor 

(NEC) at Union Station in Washington, D.C. 

As sponsoring agencies for the Project, FRA and DRPT have maintained close coordination with 

the major stakeholders in the corridor, including rail operators Amtrak, Virginia Railway Express 

(VRE), and CSX Transportation (CSXT). FRA and DRPT have engaged federal and state agencies 

that have jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise to serve as Cooperating Agencies, including 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). FRA and DRPT have also 

coordinated Project development with the Washington, D.C. District Department of 

Transportation (DDOT), the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and 

affected Virginia localities. 

1 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-2 

Figure 1.1-1: SEHSR Corridor 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-3 

This chapter presents the purpose of and need for the 123-mile DC2RVA Project and builds on 

the purpose and need defined for the full SEHSR corridor in the Tier I Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), articulating and addressing the specific needs in the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond segment of the SEHSR corridor. The following sections in this chapter introduce the 

background of the Project; describe its location; provide a synopsis of the DC2RVA Project; 

discuss the purpose and need identified for both the overall SEHSR corridor and the DC2RVA 

Project specifically; provide background information and highlight related studies; and identify 

the benefits of the Project. 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA Public Law 120-240, Section 

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

States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) designated the SEHSR corridor, from 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, as one of five original national high speed rail corridors. The 

SEHSR corridor is made up of a number of segments covering the south Atlantic states with 

passenger rail service to and from the NEC, including Amtrak’s service north to New York and 

Boston. U.S. DOT administratively designated an extension of the SEHSR corridor from 

Richmond to Hampton Roads in 1996. In 1998, U.S. DOT extended the SEHSR corridor into South 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Further extensions in 2000 added additional corridor connections 

in Georgia and Florida. System linkages through Atlanta would also connect passengers to 

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. 

In October 2002, DRPT and NCDOT, together with FHWA and FRA, completed a service-level 

Tier I EIS1 for the SEHSR corridor between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC. This Tier I EIS 

established the SEHSR program-level Purpose and Need, established the preferred modal 

alternative (rail) and selected a preferred rail corridor. It also provided a programmatic-level 

environmental analysis of the various alternatives in the selection of the preferred. Note that a 

Tier I program level document is not a “Build” document, and requires one or more follow-on 

Tier II documents (such as this DC2RVA EIS process) before construction. The purpose of the 

SEHSR program, as stated in the Tier I EIS, is to provide a door-to-door time-competitive 

transportation choice to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. The 

Tier I EIS stated that implementation of improved passenger rail service in the Washington, D.C. 

to Charlotte SEHSR corridor could: 

 Divert trips from air and highway travel modes within the corridor, thereby relieving 

pressure on these congested modes. 

 Provide a more balanced and energy-efficient use of the corridor’s transportation 

infrastructure. 

 

1 The Tier I EIS evaluated the SEHSR program pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using a 

tiered approach as described in 23CFR 777.111(g) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 1502.20 

and 1508.28. This tiered approach is composed of a first level document (Tier I) that is general in nature and provides 

a program-level or corridor-level overview of study area alternatives and potential effects. Following completion of 

the Tier I evaluation, a second level of documents can be developed (Tier II) that is more detailed in the level of analysis. 

Generally, the Tier I document evaluates what is to be done at the program level, and the Tier II document(s) evaluates 

the specific actions necessary to accomplish the preferred Tier I alternative. A public Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

Tier I and Tier II NEPA evaluations provides a concise record of the NEPA decision-making process, identifies the 

selected alternative, presents the basis for the decision, identifies alternatives considered but not selected, specifies the 

“environmentally preferable alternative,” and provides information on the adopted means to avoid, minimize, and 

compensate for environmental impacts.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-4 

 Increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system within the travel corridor. 

 Serve long-distance travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina, including 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, which extends from Washington, D.C. to Boston, MA. 

The 2002 Tier I Record of Decision (ROD) for the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR program 

selected an incremental approach to develop the SEHSR program. 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. Subsequently, the 

SEHSR corridor was separated into discrete sections (Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Richmond 

to Raleigh, and Raleigh to Charlotte) for further detailed (Tier II) “build” studies. Later studies 

added additional segments to the SEHSR corridor, including Richmond to Hampton Roads, and 

segments extending south and west of Charlotte. 

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION 

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

owned by CSXT between Control Point2 Rosslyn (RO) at milepost (MP) CFP 110 in Arlington 

County, VA to the junction of the CSXT North End Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the ALine) between West Acca Yard in Richmond and Centralia, VA, and the CSXT Bellwood 

Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the S-Line) between Control Point Hermitage in Richmond 

and Centralia, VA (CE) at MP A-11 in Chesterfield County, VA (Figure 1.2-1). At the northern 

terminus in Arlington County, the Project limit is marked by the southern approach to Long 

Bridge, a double-track rail bridge connecting the rail corridor over the Potomac River3 to 

Washington, D.C. The Project corridor follows the CSXT Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac 

(RF&P) Subdivision from the Potomac River to Richmond. The southern terminus in Centralia is 

the junction of two CSXT routes (the A-Line and the S-Line) that begin in Richmond and rejoin 

approximately 11 miles south of the city. The theoretical study area for ridership and revenue 

estimation, and capacity modeling extends beyond the physical Project limits north to Union 

Station in Washington, D.C. (which is owned by Amtrak) and the NEC, and south to Norfolk and 

Newport News, VA and to cities in North Carolina and beyond to Florida. 

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

Subdivision CA-Line from Beulah Road (MP CA-76.1) in Henrico County, VA east of Richmond to 

AM Junction in downtown Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile Buckingham Branch Railroad 

(BBR) from AM Junction to the RF&P Crossing (MP CA-111.8) north of Richmond in Doswell, VA. 

 

2 A control point is an interlocking (a switch or crossing between two tracks), location of a signal, or other designated 

point used by dispatchers in identifying and controlling train movements. 

3 A separate NEPA study of alternatives to replace and/or expand Long Bridge began in 2015. The study is funded 

under a 2014 TIGER Grant to the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) (see Section 1.6.4 for additional 

details). 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-5 

Figure 1.2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-6 

In Arlington, the Project connects to existing CSXT track extending across the Potomac River on 

the Long Bridge into Washington, D.C. and Union Station, the southern terminus of Amtrak’s 

NEC. In downtown Richmond and at Centralia, the Project connects to both the Richmond to 

Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor and the Richmond to Hampton Roads segment of the 

SEHSR corridor.4 The Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment is an integral part of the overall 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR corridor and provides a critical link between high speed 

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

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and service upgrades to deliver 

higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail 

service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. The increased capacity will improve 

passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and door-to-door competitive travel time in a 

corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic. Specific 

improvements to the existing rail infrastructure between Arlington, VA, and Centralia, VA, 

include: 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to accommodate efficient 

operation of passenger, commuter, and freight rail service with increased frequency, 

reliability, and speed, including an additional main track along most of the corridor, 

additional sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity and reliability 

improvements at certain locations. 

 Corridor-wide upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating 

speeds, including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing 

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 

 Station and platform improvements for Amtrak and VRE stations to improve the 

efficiency of railroad operations, improve quality of service, and accommodate increased 

ridership. 

The environmental impacts of these improvements and measures to avoid, minimize, or 

otherwise mitigate such impacts are described in Chapter 4. 

The Project will include locations for new or replacement passenger stations on the Project 

corridor. Additionally, the Project will include rail capacity improvements to address congestion 

in the Richmond area, including on the CSXT Peninsula Subdivision from AM Junction in 

downtown Richmond east to Beulah Road in Henrico County, and on the Buckingham Branch 

Railroad from AM Junction north of Richmond to Doswell, VA. 

Studies in support of the Project addressed passenger and freight rail operations and service 

between Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond, but the Project will not 

include physical improvements to the Long Bridge across the Potomac River or to rail 

 

4 The Tier II Final EIS (September 2015) and ROD (anticipated in 2016) for the Richmond to Raleigh SEHSR segment 

and the Tier I Final EIS (August 2012) and ROD (December 2012) for the Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR segment 

identify the Richmond terminus as Main Street Station with rail access from the south along the CSXT S-Line. The 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond project’s southern terminus of Centralia overlaps with these prior NEPA evaluations 

to provide additional detailed study of potential passenger and freight rail improvements in the Richmond area that 

support the Project’s Purpose and Need. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-7 

infrastructure within Washington, D.C. Other projects will address these improvements as well 

as improvements to the rail infrastructure north of Arlington and south of Centralia along the 

SEHSR corridor. 

1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE 

The 2002 Tier I EIS established the overall purpose for the SEHSR program, which, as stated in 

the Tier I EIS, is to provide a competitive transportation choice to travelers within the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte travel corridor. The current DC2RVA 

project carries forward the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond segment of the larger SEHSR corridor by identifying the infrastructure improvements 

necessary to provide a competitive transportation choice for current and future conditions. As 

detailed below, the Purpose of the DC2RVA project is to increase railroad capacity between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, 

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

corridor. This Project will enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation choice for 

intercity travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond. DRPT anticipates that 

the Project will provide multiple benefits to the traveling public and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, including: 

 Providing an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond and beyond 

 Increasing the capacity of the multimodal rail system between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond 

 Improving the frequency, reliability, and travel time of passenger rail operations in 

Virginia and beyond, and providing a competitive alternative to highway and air travel 

 Accommodating VRE commuter rail service operations 

 Accommodating freight rail movement through the corridor, including to and from 

Virginia’s ports 

 Improving modal connectivity with other public transportation systems within the 

corridor to further expand travel options for passengers within Virginia and beyond 

 Improving multimodal rail operations safety in the corridor 

 Improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting 

passenger trips by automobile and movement of freight by trucks to more 

environmentally sustainable rail transportation 

Higher speed passenger rail service would also encourage economic development in the 

Commonwealth and along the Eastern Seaboard travel corridors by expanding competitive travel 

options in the corridor for business and leisure travelers. Additionally, because the Project 

corridor is a multimodal corridor shared with freight, intercity passenger and commuter service, 

the proposed improvements would also enhance the efficiency of freight rail movements within 

the corridor. Improvements to freight rail operations in the corridor would encourage economic 

development by increasing freight traffic through Virginia’s ports, and present an opportunity 

for greater diversion of freight transport from congested highways to rail. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-8 

1.5 PROJECT NEED 

The Project is a key component of the SEHSR program. The need for the SEHSR program was 

established in the Tier I EIS and is further supported by current conditions in the corridor, 

described below. 

1.5.1 SEHSR Program Need 

The Tier I Final EIS and ROD for the SEHSR corridor between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte 

established the needs for the overall SEHSR program, including this Project. The following needs 

for the SEHSR program were identified in the Tier I EIS, and remain current for the SEHSR corridor: 

 Growth. Population growth and economic growth in the SEHSR corridor have burdened 

airport and highway networks, which are experiencing capacity problems that are 

projected to worsen over the next several decades, despite planned improvements. If the 

region’s transportation systems do not provide options for reliable and convenient 

movement of goods and people, its economy may suffer. 

 Congestion. Population growth and economic development have caused a severe 

increase in traffic congestion on interstates and major highways. Daily traffic volumes 

regularly exceed the design capacity of I-95 in the corridor, causing delays and safety 

concerns. Average highway speeds, particularly during rush hours, are declining, while 

concerns about air quality are rising. Virginia is planning or implementing improvements 

to I-95 and other major highways in the corridor to provide additional vehicle capacity; 

however, experience has shown that traffic volumes quickly reach or exceed the capacity 

of highway improvements. The increasing cost and potential environmental impacts of 

continual highway expansion make it less desirable to implement further improvements. 

 Air Travel. Demand for air travel is increasing nationwide and within the corridor. The 

expansion of air travel has outpaced the growth in airport capacity, resulting in delays. 

Air travel delays increase airline-operating costs and generate additional noise and 

emissions. Delays affect the traveling public due to missed time at work, on vacation, or 

at home, and missed business opportunities. 

 Travel Time. Travel time and service reliability are key factors affecting the traveling 

public’s choice of transportation mode. The Tier I EIS found that conventional rail travel 

times were not competitive with travel by air or auto within the SEHSR corridor. Rail 

passenger service competitiveness will not increase without reductions in travel time and 

improvements in service frequency and reliability. 

 Air Quality. Several localities within the Northern Virginia portion of the SEHSR corridor 

experience air quality impacts from mobile source emissions. Moving passengers and 

freight by rail produces substantially less pollution per mile than automobile or truck 

travel; therefore, diverting some of the passenger and freight movements from auto and 

truck to rail would help reduce GHG emissions through the corridor. 

 Safety. The Tier I EIS concluded that passenger rail is one of the safest ways to travel 

nationally and that railroad safety in the U.S. steadily improved over the several decades 

prior to the Tier I EIS. The Tier I EIS also noted the most common type of rail-related 

accidents do not occur as a result of unsafe railroad operations or equipment, but from 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-9 

incursions onto the railroad right-of-way by highway vehicles, most often as trains are 

approaching locations where roadways cross railroads at grade. 

 Energy Efficiency. Diverting passenger and freight movements from highway vehicles 

to rail would reduce energy consumption, as well as GHG emissions within the corridor. 

1.5.2 DC2RVA Project Need 

Current conditions experienced in the Project corridor support the Tier I EIS purpose and need and are 

the foundation for the Project today. These conditions are detailed in the sections below and include: 

 Population Growth. Population in the corridor and adjacent urban regions continues to 

grow, increasing demand for reliable and safe travel options for passengers. In addition 

to overall population growth, changing demographics in the corridor and adjacent urban 

regions are increasing the demand for passenger rail service. 

 Freight Growth. Demand for freight movement through and within the corridor is growing 

as economic activity and population increase. Ongoing expansion of Virginia’s deep water 

ports and intermodal facilities further increases the need for efficient shipment of freight. 

 Congestion in the I-95 Corridor. The I-95 corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond remains congested, despite ongoing and planned improvements. As a result, 

trip times by highway vehicle are not reliable. 

 Air Travel Congestion. Travel by air is increasingly at capacity at airports, resulting in 

frequent delays and causing commercial carriers to reduce flights and increase fares, 

which limits the transportation options between Washington, D.C., Richmond and 

adjacent corridors, and generates detrimental economic effects such as lost productivity 

for travelers and excessive fuel consumption. 

 Rail Capacity in the Corridor. The shared freight and passenger rail corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond is nearing capacity and requires improvements to 

effectively and efficiently meet existing and future demands for passenger service, 

commuter passenger service, and freight service. 

 Providing Options for Reliable and Convenient Movement of Goods and People. The 

transportation network must provide options for reliable and convenient movement of 

goods and people for the Commonwealth and the southeast region’s economy to remain 

strong and grow. 

 Air Quality. There is a need to reduce growth of transportation-related mobile source 

emissions and the resultant impacts to air quality. Travel or freight movement by train 

provides a safe and efficient travel mode, and it uses less energy and produces fewer 

emissions per passenger or ton of freight moved per mile. 

1.5.2.1 Population Growth 

Population growth is recognized as a critical driver of passenger and freight rail needs by the 

2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan. The plan notes: 

 Most of the nation’s population growth and its economic expansion is expected to occur in 10 

or more emerging mega-regions—large networks of metropolitan regions. Virginia is part of 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-10 

the Northeast mega-region and abuts the Piedmont Atlantic mega-region to the south. The 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor is a key link between these two mega-regions. 

Virginia’s population increased 13 percent between 2000 and 2010, significantly faster 

than the national growth rate (10 percent) (Tippet, 2011). Most of this growth—more than 

80 percent—occurred in the Urban Crescent5 of Northern Virginia, the Richmond region, 

and Hampton Roads, as shown in Figure 1.5-1. Two-thirds of Virginia’s current 

population is within the Urban Crescent. The Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor 

parallels the I-95 corridor and connects to the Richmond to Hampton Roads rail corridor, 

forming an integrated passenger and freight rail corridor within the Urban Crescent. 

 Between 2010 and 2040, Virginia’s population is expected to increase from 8 million to 

close to 11 million residents; a 37 percent increase occurring largely in the Urban Crescent 

(Virginia Statewide Rail Plan, 2013). 

 One in eight Virginians is 65 or older, and this group of the population is increasing in 

greater proportions as the “Baby Boom” generation turns 65. The largest concentration of 

Virginia’s aging population lives in the Urban Crescent. 

Figure 1.5-1: Virginia Population Trends by Region 

 

5 The Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads regions are highly urbanized and densely populated 

compared to the rest of the state. These regions are connected by the I-64 and I-95 transportation corridors, which 

intersect to form a “crescent”; hence, this section of the state has been named the Urban Crescent. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-11 

Much of the projected population growth in the Urban Crescent, and particularly Northern 

Virginia, is young professionals, typically defined as people under 40. The increasing number of 

young professionals and the increasing proportion of those over 65 within urban areas affect the 

need for public transportation choices. Both the young and the elderly are driving less, and they 

are even declining car ownership in favor of using public transportation options in the urban areas. 

1.5.2.2 Freight Growth 

Freight coming into and through Virginia is a key driver for rail services and for economic 

development. The Virginia Port Authority (VPA), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, owns and operates three marine terminals—Norfolk International Terminals (NIT), 

Portsmouth Marine Terminal (PMT), and Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT)—and an inland 

intermodal facility, the Virginia Inland Port (VIP) located in Front Royal. VPA also leases two 

additional general cargo marine terminals—the Virginia International Gateway (VIG) and the Port of 

Richmond. These six facilities are collectively known as the Port of Virginia. The Port of Virginia 

currently offers 50-foot-deep harbor channels and berths, and it is the only United States East Coast 

port authorized by Congress for 55-foot deep channels. The Port had 2.22 million TEUs6 in 2013. Of 

these, 34 percent arrived or departed by rail, the largest percentage for rail movement of cargo of any 

East Coast port. CSXT and Norfolk Southern (NS) rail lines link the Port facilities with 16 Midwest 

and Southeast inland terminals, plus many distribution facilities and other private customers. 

Overall, the Port of Virginia is a major source of economic growth for the Commonwealth. 

Over the next 20 years, containerized cargo volume coming into the United States is expected to triple, 

far surpassing the capacity of existing United States ports. In addition, container ships are growing 

larger and requiring deeper harbors. The Panama Canal improvements, completed in 2016, are 

anticipated to increase the demand for deep water ports on the East Coast. The Port of Virginia is the 

eighth largest port by tonnage in the United States and is one of the fastest growing ports on the East 

Coast (American Shipper, 2015). The Port has averaged 6.5 percent growth in volume since 2010 and 

has exceeded 200,000 standard shipping units in six of the last seven months of 2014. The Port’s TEU 

growth in containerized cargo is expected to increase by 330 percent between 2013 and 2040. VPA 

plans to construct a fifth terminal—Craney Island Marine Terminal—which is scheduled to open its 

first phase in 2026 and its second phase in 2038, doubling the terminal’s 2026 capacity. This new 

facility, coupled with expansions and renovations at existing facilities, such as NIT, would allow the 

Port of Virginia to accommodate more than 9.5 million TEUs per year by 2038. With the completion 

of ongoing maritime and rail improvements, including the double stack clearance of CSXT's National 

Gateway Corridor, DRPT expects that rail freight will remain a competitive choice and that a similar 

percentage of the cargo entering the Port of Virginia in the future would be shipped by rail, including 

along the important north-south CSXT rail line (the RF&P Subdivision identified as the Project 

corridor) between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. 

1.5.2.3 Congestion in the I-95 Corridor 

Population and economic growth have led to increasing vehicle use on the I-95 corridor, causing 

congestion and adversely affecting travel time. I-95 facilitates the movement of people and freight 

along the entire eastern seaboard, including serving as the primary roadway linking Washington, 

 

6 TEU stands for 20-foot equivalent unit and represents the volume of cargo that fits within a 20-foot-long intermodal 

shipping container. A 40-foot intermodal shipping container, commonly used in international trade, equals two TEUs. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-12 

D.C. and Richmond. I-95 is also a regional route for commuters to the Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond metropolitan areas, and it is a local route for traffic in northern Virginia, the City of 

Fredericksburg and City of Richmond. I-95 has become so congested in recent years that the 

general-purpose lanes, and oftentimes the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, cannot provide 

reliable travel times during the peak periods. 

The Commonwealth’s Secretary of Transportation’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 report to the General 

Assembly summarized efforts to leverage the state’s investment in passenger rail and other 

transit programs to address highway congestion. The Secretary’s report stated: 

“As Virginia’s population grows, so too, will traffic congestion. Our culture’s dependency 

on the car as the primary means of travel, in general, and single occupancy vehicle travel 

(SOV) auto travel, in particular, translates into increasing levels of congestion. 

Recognizing the correlation between an increasing population and vehicles on the road is 

key to understanding the congestion equation. Despite our all-out push to increase 

Virginia’s roadway supply, the Commonwealth cannot keep pace with demand, 

especially in the urban areas. The lack of funding and lack of space for more roadways 

creates an imbalance. The result: an increasing level of congestion and a decreasing level 

of access and mobility. Over the next 25 years, two thirds of Virginia’s I-95 infrastructure 

will be at or above capacity, resulting in an increase in travel times of as high as 40 

percent.” (Commonwealth of Virginia Report Document No 316, 2013)7

Recurring daily congestion resulting from travel demand exceeding available highway capacity on I-95 

results in slower travel speeds and increased travel times, and it predictably occurs during morning and 

evening rush hours. Average travel time along the I-95 corridor is increasing, and the variability of travel 

time is also increasing. As traffic flows approach and exceed capacity, the higher traffic densities result 

in abrupt stop-and-go traffic movements, creating nonrecurring congestion (nonrecurring because it 

happens at different times and places every day). Because of the unstable nature of the traffic flow, the 

onset, severity, and frequency of congested conditions are difficult to predict. Actual travel times may 

vary considerably from the average from one day to the next, especially when crashes or breakdowns 

result in lane restrictions or closures. Such nonrecurring congestion increases the unreliability of travel 

times in the corridor. Because of the unreliable travel times, interstate travelers must allow extra time to 

be sure that they will arrive at their destinations on time. 

VDOT has implemented or initiated several improvement projects to address congestion on 

I-95, including the recently opened I-95 Express Lanes, a 29-mile express system using dynamic 

tolling that adjusts tolls based on real-time traffic conditions, designed to alleviate some of the 

traffic bottlenecks between Stafford County and Fairfax County. However, FHWA’s 2011 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project concluded that while the I-95 Express Lanes 

would improve the overall traffic situation, several road segments would remain at failing service 

levels, and after completion of the Express Lanes, the merge areas at the northern and southern 

ends of the Express Lanes would operate at failing levels. The EA also concluded traditional 

highway capacity expansion—adding general purpose travel lanes—was not an option to meet 

the growing interstate travel demand. Such expansion has become increasingly expensive, and 

 

7 The Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation FY 2013 report to the General Assembly is compiled from 

data/documentation provided by VDOT, DRPT, and others. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-13 

the human impacts and physical constraints in the highly-urbanized areas in the northern section 

of the I-95 project corridor make highway capacity expansion exceedingly difficult to implement. 

Table 1.5-1 compares train, bus, and auto travel times between Washington, D.C. and a selection 

of Virginia cities. As shown in table, in the absence of roadway congestion, the current intercity 

passenger rail travel service in Virginia is typically slower than highway travel; however, once 

roadway congestion is considered, passenger rail can be the faster option, even when travel time 

to the train station is included. This suggests that even modest improvements in passenger rail 

travel time could result in substantial ridership growth. 

Table 1.5-1: Modal Comparison of Travel Times 

Origin/Destination Train1 Bus Drive2

Washington D.C. (Union Station) to 

Richmond (Staples Mill Road Station) 

2 hr, 2 min to 2 hr 22 min 2 hr 5 min to 2 hr 45 min 

(Greyhound4) 

1 hr 50 min to 3 hr 10 

min (107 miles) 

Washington D.C. (Union Station) to 

Richmond (Main Street Station) 

2 hr 40 min to 2 hr 45 min 2 hr 33 min to 2 hr 43 min 

(Megabus3) 

1 hr 50 min to 3 hr 10 

min (109 miles) 

Washington D.C. (Union Station) to 

Petersburg (Ettrick Train Station) 

2 hr 46 min to 3 hr 3 min 5 hr 15 min to 5 hr 30 min 

(Greyhound7) 

2 hr 30 min to 3 hr 40 

min (132 miles) 

Washington D.C. (Union Station) to 

Newport News Train Station 

4 hr 15 min to 4 hr 22 min 4 hr 5 min to 4 hr 28 min 

(Megabus6) 

2 hr 50 min to 4 hr 20 

min (177 miles) 

Washington D.C. (Union Station) to 

Norfolk Train Station 

4 hr 43 min to 5 hr 7 min 4 hr 54 minutes (Megabus) to 

5 hr 40 min (Greyhound8) 

(3 hr 10 min to 4 hr 40 

min (195 miles) 

Washington D.C. (Union Station) to 

Lynchburg Train Station 

3 hr 30 min to 3 hr 46 min 5 hr 5 min to 5 hr 50 min 

(Greyhound5) 

3 hr 20 min to 5 hr 

(183 miles) 

Notes: 1. Train trip times are from Amtrak’s web-based schedule (www.amtrak.com); 2. Estimated drive time along I-95 and I-64 assuming 

weekday pm peak travel. Range represents free flow and congested flow, and it was provided by Google Maps (https://maps.google.com); 

3. Megabus runs directly between Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Richmond’s Main Street Station. Megabus trip times are from Google 

Maps estimates based on routes and verified by the Megabus website (us.megabus.com); 4. Greyhound stops at 1300 North Boulevard, Richmond, 

VA, which is 5 miles from Staples Mill Station (Greater Richmond Transit Commission [GRTC] local bus service connects the Greyhound Station 

with Amtrak’s Staples Mill Road Station). Greyhound trip times are from Greyhound’s website (www.greyhound.com); 5. Greyhound stops at 

the Lynchburg Amtrak Station; 6. Megabus stops 9 miles from the Newport News Train Station. Hampton Roads Transit provides bus service 

between the Newport News Megabus stop (2 W Pembroke Avenue) and the Newport News Train Station. Trip time includes the Hampton Roads 

Transit bus travel, but it does not include wait time between buses. The estimated Megabus trip time alone, from the Megabus website 

(us.megabus.com) is 3 hours and 30 minutes; 7. Greyhound stops 2.2 miles away from the Petersburg Amtrak Station; 8. The Greyhound Station 

in Norfolk is 1.5 miles from the Norfolk Amtrak Station. 

1.5.2.4 Air Travel Congestion 

Increasingly, air travel is becoming congested throughout the major airports of the United States, with 

travelers experiencing frequent delays. Since 2008, airlines have experienced greater travel demand, 

reducing capacity and resulting in flights becoming more crowded and load factors8 reaching recordhigh levels (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2014). A recent article by the U.S. Travel Association, 

citing a study by Cambridge Systematics of the nation’s top 30 airports, projected that as travel levels 

 

8 Passenger load factor is a standard measure for capacity utilization of public transport services, including airlines, 

passenger trains, and bus service. It is typically used to assess how efficiently a transport system “fills seats” and 

generates fare revenue. Load factor is calculated by dividing the total revenue passenger miles by available seat miles. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-14 

grow, the average day of air travel in the United States will increasingly resemble its busiest day—

the Wednesday before Thanksgiving—unless there is substantial investment in new airport 

infrastructure (Cambridge Systematics, 2014). Overall, the analysis found that the outlook for efficient 

and on-time air travel is becoming bleaker as air traffic congestion increases. The article concluded: 

 Almost half (13) of the top 30 airports in the United States are already experiencing 

Thanksgiving-like congestion levels at least one day every week. 

 Within the next six years, all of the top 30 airports will reach their Thanksgiving-peak on 

an average of one day per week. 

 Within the next decade, 27 of the nation’s top 30 airports will experience the same 

congestion as the Wednesday before Thanksgiving two days each week; for 20 of these 

airports, this will happen in the next five years. 

Within the next 20 years, two-thirds of the nation’s top 30 airports will feel like the Wednesday 

before Thanksgiving on the average day. 

As noted in a recent article in the Transport Policy Journal, Amtrak’s rail service in the NEC 

between Washington, D.C. and New York, NY, travels on a designated passenger corridor and 

provides a reliable and competitive travel choice in the corridor compared to air and motor 

vehicle travel modes (Kamga, 2014). The article compared intercity travel times between 

Washington, D.C. and New York, NY for air, rail, and bus, and it found that while actual invehicle travel time is much less for air versus train or bus travel, total door-to-door travel time for 

train travel is competitive with air travel (Figure 1.5-2) (Kamga, 2014). 

Figure 1.5-2: Travel Time by Mode – Washington, D.C. – New York 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-15 

Airports are typically located away from city centers due to the large land area required, airplane 

operational requirements, and concerns over noise and safety. Intercity (downtown-todowntown) travelers experience longer ground travel and waiting times just going to and from 

the airport compared to rail and bus stations located in the city centers. Door-to-door travel times 

from Washington, D.C. to New York City for passengers on Amtrak’s trains are only slightly 

greater than for air travelers. Kamga notes that although air takes less time door-to-door, rail 

provides an advantage because it is more reliable within the NEC, conveniently accessible, and 

the travel time can be more productive for business travelers. Train travel is frequently considered 

more desirable for travel within the NEC. Kamga’s study shows that reliable passenger rail 

service with reasonable travel time can be competitive with air travel for intercity travel. 

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2014), in 2012, 18.1 percent (more than 1.1 

million) of scheduled flights were delayed, canceled, or diverted. The Bureau’s data show flight 

cancellations are more likely to occur in winter (February in particular) than other times of the 

year due to the effects of snow and ice on airport operations. Trains, while not immune to extreme 

weather, are typically not as affected by winter weather. Amtrak9 states that, “in general, trains 

are more resistant to bad weather than either planes or cars.” High winds, foggy conditions, 

snow, and ice, which can cause trouble for planes, do not normally cause problems for trains, 

although these conditions may affect travel to the train station. 

The north and south termini of the DC2RVA corridor are served by two airports, Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport in Arlington County, alongside the rail corridor, and Richmond 

International Airport in Henrico County, just east of the rail corridor. Table 1.5-2 gives the typical 

travel time (not including the time required for advance check-in at each departure, estimated at 

1 hour 30 minutes), connections, and costs for flights originating in Richmond or Washington, 

D.C., terminating in cities served by passenger trains traveling the DC2RVA corridor. Other than 

a few selected cities, there are few direct flights, so airline travelers must first fly to a hub airport 

and then continue to their destination by a connecting flight. In addition to the air travel time, 

there is time spent at the airport for check-in and security screening (1 hour 30 minutes), 

connections within an airport (1 hour or more), exiting the airport to ground transportation (15 

to 30 minutes), and then ground transportation to the destination city center. This has led 

passenger rail to be an increasingly competitive choice for medium-distance destinations, 

especially in terms of door-to-door travel time and cost. 

Due to airport congestion, travel time and competitive pricing, air travel is neither a convenient nor 

affordable transportation option between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. Although frequent service is 

available between Richmond and cities along both the Northeast and SEHSR corridors, the high fare and 

collective travel time limit the accessibility of air as an option for the Richmond population and cities along 

the SEHSR corridor. Improved passenger rail service along the DC2RVA corridor, as part of the SEHSR 

corridor, will provide an additional travel alternative to the limited availability and accessibility of air 

service between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and to destinations both south and north. 

 

9 www.railpassenger.org/Amtrak/Frequently Asked Questions; response to “Does weather delay trains?” March 5, 

2015. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-16 

Table 1.5-2: Typical Air Travel Time 

Departure 

Direct 

Flight 

Available1 Destination 

Cost One-Way 

(Per Person)2

Air 

Travel 

Time3

Distance to 

City Center 

(Train Station)4

Drive Time 

(free flow)5

Richmond No Baltimore, MD 

Richmond Yes Boston, MA $270 1 hr 28 min 4.2 mi 15 min 

Richmond Yes Charlotte, NC $450 1 hr 14 min 11 mi 18 min 

Richmond Yes New York, NY (JFK) $370 1 hr 20 min 15.9 mi 41 min 

Richmond Yes New York, NY 

(LaGuardia) 

$390 1 hr 17 min 9.7 mi 23 min 

Richmond Yes Newark, NJ $370 1 hr 15 min 4.9 mi 14 min 

Richmond Yes Philadelphia, PA $420 56 min 9.1 mi 21 min 

Richmond No Raleigh, NC 

Richmond No Washington D.C. 

Richmond Yes Washington D.C. 

(Dulles) 

$390 50 min 31.1 mi 43 min 

Richmond No Newport News, VA 

Richmond No Norfolk, VA 

Washington D.C. Yes Baltimore, MD $1,200 

(Linear Air Taxi) 

27 min 12.8 mi 26 min 

Washington D.C. Yes Boston, MA $80 1 hr 22 min 4.2 mi 15 min 

Washington D.C. Yes Charlotte, NC $350 1 hr 28 min 11 mi 18 min 

Washington D.C. Yes New York, NY (JFK) $80 1 hr 21 min 15.9 mi 41 min 

Washington D.C. Yes New York, NY 

(LaGuardia) 

$280 1 hr 6 min 9.7 mi 23 min 

Washington D.C. Yes Newark, NJ $150 1 hr 8 min 4.9 mi 14 min 

Washington D.C. Yes Philadelphia, PA $350 59 min 9.1 mi 21 min 

Washington D.C. Yes Raleigh, NC $100 1 hr 5 min 17.8 mi 23 min 

Washington D.C. No Newport News, VA 

Washington D.C. Yes Norfolk, VA $120 1 hr 10.4 mi 15 min 

Source: Airfare costs and air travel times were determined using orbitz.com and kayak.com. Non-stop flight availability was verified using 

Richmond International Airport’s website (www.flyrichmond.com) and Reagan National Airport’s website (www.flyreagan.com). Google Maps 

(www.maps.google.com) was then used to determine the driving distances and travel time estimates between the airport and the city center.

Notes: 1. To compare air travel with other travel modes, only non-stop flights from the specified destinations were reviewed. Destinations from 

Richmond or Washington, D.C. that did not have direct flights are shaded in the table; 2. Cost is for single ticket, one way. The cost information 

was estimated from mid-week travel day costs (Tuesdays – Thursdays); 3. Air travel time is gate to gate and does not include time required for checkin and security screening (recommended at 1.5 hours) or departure (93 percent of flights leave the ground within 30 minutes of gate departure according 

to the U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics in May 2008); 4. Airports are typically located some distance from the city center, requiring 

additional trip time for comparison to passenger rail station-to-station travel. Distance is from airport to city’s downtown passenger rail station; 

5. Additional trip time required by auto to connect from airport to city center (e.g., passenger rail station). 

1.5.2.5 Rail Capacity in the Corridor 

The Project’s rail corridor from Washington, D.C. to Richmond is owned by CSXT, a freight 

railroad, which shares the corridor with other rail service providers through a series of negotiated 

agreements. This arrangement is unlike the NEC between Boston and Washington, D.C., which 

largely operates on a dedicated passenger service corridor. All passenger trains operating within 

Washington, D.C. between Union Station and CP Virginia, just north of the VRE commuter rail 

station at L’Enfant, are on Amtrak-owned track. At CP Virginia and to the south, the passenger 

trains operate on CSXT-owned tracks leading across the Potomac River on the Long Bridge, 

continuing on the CSXT-owned RF&P Subdivision to Richmond. Passenger rail service also 

operates on the CSXT-owned property in Richmond, on the S-Line through downtown and to the 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-17 

east, and on the A-Line to the west of downtown. The Project’s corridor is one of the most heavily 

used rail corridors in the nation, with four providers of rail service operating in the corridor: 

 CSXT, the owner of the corridor, operates approximately 30 through and local freight trains per 

day along the length of the corridor. Additional local freight trains and related train movements 

are also operated along the corridor depending on location and customer demand. 

 Amtrak operates an average of 20 passenger trains per day between Washington and Richmond 

(10 round trips), including 8 long distance trains (4 round trips), 10 Northeast Regional (VA) 

state supported regional trains (5 round trip trains supported by Virginia), 2 interstate corridor 

(NC) state supported trains (1 round trip train supported by North Carolina), and Amtrak’s 

Auto Train (1 round trip) which operates between Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL. 

 In the northernmost end of the corridor, between Washington, D.C. and Alexandria, VA, 

Amtrak operates an additional 5 passenger trains per day, including 2 daily long distance 

trains (1 round trip) to Atlanta and New Orleans, LA and 2 long distance trains (1 round 

trip) to Chicago 3 times each week (counted as 1⁄2 train per day), and 2 daily Northeast 

Regional (VA) trains (1 round trip) to Lynchburg, VA. 

 VRE operates 16 daily commuter trains (8 round trips) between Washington, D.C. and 

Crossroads in Spotsylvania County, VA, and an additional 16 daily commuter trains (8 

round trips) between Washington, D.C. and Manassas, VA, for a total of 32 daily 

commuter trains (16 round trips) on the corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Alexandria during the work week (Monday – Friday). In addition, VRE operates 2 trains 

on non-revenue trips between Washington, D.C. and Alexandria. 

 On the northern end of the corridor, NS has trackage rights on CSXT lines to access freight 

customers in Alexandria and to access the Northeast Corridor, and it operates up to two 

trains per day. 

Based on these train services, daily peak volumes of trains10 on various portions of the corridor, 

shown graphically in Figure 1.5-3, are approximately: 

 Washington to Alexandria: 23 Amtrak trains + 34 VRE trains + 30 CSXT trains + 2 NS 

trains = 89 trains per day 

 Alexandria to Crossroads (end of VRE operations): 20 Amtrak trains + 16 VRE trains + 30 

CSXT trains = 66 trains per day 

 Crossroads to Acca Yard: 20 Amtrak trains + 30 CSXT trains = 50 trains per day 

The Arlington to Alexandria portion of the corridor is largely triple track, while the remainder of 

the corridor between Alexandria and Richmond is double track. Most of the existing capacity of 

the rail corridor north of VRE’s Spotsylvania Station is taken up by existing passenger and 

commuter trains. 

Several major studies of rail capacity improvements in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

corridor have been conducted (see Section 1.6.2), all of which identified the need for additional 

track capacity to provide fast, frequent, and reliable passenger rail service. 

 

10 The daily peak volumes of trains shown are conservative estimates of current train traffic along the corridor during 

the peak travel period of Monday – Friday. Train volumes are less on the weekend because VRE commuter trains are 

not operating. CSXT and NS daily train volumes may fluctuate based on customer demands, rail system capacity, and 

the need to accommodate passenger and commuter train schedules. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-18 

Figure 1.5-3: Number of Daily Trains by Segment in 2015 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-19 

When Amtrak was created in 1970, there were few commuter trains providing corridor services 

and substantially less freight rail traffic nationally; however, since the early 1990s, average freight 

rail density has increased substantially, resulting in a scarcity of available capacity on major rail 

corridors. This is particularly true of the Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor. CSXT’s A-Line 

and RF&P corridor in Virginia are part of the greater National Gateway Corridor, which extends 

from inland ports in the Midwest through Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Virginia to ocean 

ports in Hampton Roads and Wilmington, NC. The National Gateway Corridor is the primary 

intermodal train corridor for CSXT connecting the Port of Virginia to national markets and is 

currently being improved to accommodate double-stack intermodal freight trains.11 The Virginia 

Avenue Tunnel project in Washington, D.C. is currently addressing the last remaining bottleneck 

for double-stack freight trains on the National Gateway Corridor.12 In addition, CSXT’s A-Line 

and RF&P corridor through Virginia is also part of the railroad’s I-95 Corridor between New York 

and Jacksonville, FL, which plays a vital role in moving food products, consumer products, and 

other rail freight for shippers in Virginia and along the entire eastern seaboard. 

Ridership demand for Virginia’s passenger rail services is growing rapidly, setting records over the past 

five years. In 2012, Amtrak operated 24 daily passenger trains (12 round trips) and 2 tri-weekly trains (1 

round trip) in the Commonwealth with 1,466,965 passengers either boarding or alighting within Virginia 

and another 5,013,991 boarding or alighting in Washington, D.C. The 2013 State Rail Plan (DRPT, 2013) 

notes that Amtrak ridership in Virginia has grown 77 percent between FY 2004 and FY 2012, which is 

much more than the 24 percent ridership increase Amtrak has seen on the National System during that 

period. Virginia’s efforts to bring expanded Northeast Regional rail service into the Commonwealth are 

largely responsible for the ridership growth experienced on routes serving Virginia. 

VRE operates commuter rail service along a portion of the Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor, 

from Union Station in Washington, D.C. south to its terminus in Spotsylvania County, just south of 

Fredericksburg.13 VRE service currently operates at or near capacity along the corridor and 

provides commuter capacity that is the equivalent of a full interstate lane in the peak direction in 

the I-95 corridor, with less pollution, energy consumption, and accident cost than highway 

operations (Virginia Railway Express System Plan 2040 Study, 2014). Growth in ridership and demand 

for commuter service has continued to fill available seats on many trains, and parking at VRE 

stations often exceeds capacity at peak travel times. The capital projects contained in the VRE FY 

2015-2020 Capital Improvement Plan and planned service expansion are expected to increase VRE’s 

passenger-carrying capacity from 20,000 to approximately 25,000 daily passengers. 

In addition to general corridor capacity issues, unique capacity constraints and operational issues 

affect rail operations in Richmond. CSXT has two north-south mainlines that operate through 

Richmond, the A-Line’s Florence North End Subdivision and the S-Line’s Bellwood Subdivision, 

and one east-west line along the James River (Rivanna and Peninsula Subdivisions) that passes 

through the City of Richmond along with the BBR’s westerly connection (Figure 1.5-4), making 

 

11 A double-stack freight train carries intermodal containers stacked two high, allowing a train of a given length to 

carry twice as many containers. Double-stack is common in the United States for intermodal freight movements on rail 

lines that have sufficient vertical clearance. 

12 http://www.virginiaavenuetunnel.com/index.php

13 VRE currently provides commuter rail service to Spotsylvania County, just south of Fredericksburg, with VRE trains 

continuing south a short distance to the VRE yard at Crossroads for service and storage. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-20 

Figure 1.5-4: Richmond Area Corridor 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-21 

the city a crossroads for north-south and east-west rail traffic. There is enough grade separation 

between the one east-west and two north-south main lines that, for the most part, east-west trains 

passing through the city have little impact on north-south movements passing through the city, 

and vice-versa. However, when trains have to change their primary direction, from east-west to 

north-south, the process is slow and cumbersome due to the nature of the low-speed track along 

the S-Line, the uphill grade between Main Street Station and Acca Yard, and switch arrangements 

that dictate less-than-ideal operating solutions and have the potential to introduce delays. 

Acca Yard is located at the junction of the two CSXT north-south mainlines through Richmond 

and the RF&P Subdivision and is the hub of local freight operations serving both the east-west 

and north-south lines. It is a 20-track yard that is flat-switched.14 Additionally, all through freight 

trains passing through Richmond must stop for a change of crews. On the north-south A-Line, 

this crew change typically occurs at Acca Yard, further straining the yard’s limited capacity. 

Amtrak long distance, Interstate Corridor (NC), and Northeast Regional (VA) trains operating 

into or through Richmond use one of three typical train movements: 

 North-south long-distance, Interstate Corridor (NC), and Northeast Regional (VA) trains 

passing through Richmond between the NEC and points in Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, or Norfolk, VA. These trains stop at Staples Mills Road Station in Richmond’s 

northern suburbs and continue north-south on the primary freight line, using the CSXT 

A-line between Acca Yard and Centralia to bypass downtown Richmond. Currently, there 

are six daily round trips that operate north-south through Richmond. 

 North-south Northeast Regional (VA) trains terminating or beginning their journeys at 

Richmond. These trains operate between Richmond and the NEC, and lay overnight at 

the Staples Mill Road Station. After arriving in Richmond from the north, these trains 

must continue south through CSXT’s Acca Yard to a wye15 where they can be turned to 

face back north, then move north through the yard to reach the Staples Mill Road Station 

for the overnight layover. Currently, two daily round trips originate in Richmond and 

operate between Richmond and the Northeast. 

 Northeast Regional (VA) trains operating between Boston, MA and Newport News, VA, 

which change their primary direction of travel at Richmond from north-south to eastwest, or vice versa. These trains must use the same low-speed S-Line connecting tracks 

that freight trains use from Acca Yard to AM Junction, just north of Main Street Station. 

From AM Junction, these trains move along the east side of Main Street Station and pass 

through Fulton Yard onto the Peninsula Subdivision towards Newport News. Use of these 

low-speed connecting tracks from Acca Yard to AM Junction and AM Junction to Fulton 

Yard permits these trains to serve Main Street Station in downtown Richmond. These 

trains also stop at Staples Mill Road Station north of the city. Currently, there are two daily 

round trips that operate between Boston and Newport News along this route. 

Some of the bottlenecks that affect Amtrak operations in Richmond are: 

 

14 In a flat-switched yard (also called a flat-shunted yard), freight cars are pushed by a locomotive and coast to their 

required location between the different classification tracks. 

15 A “wye” is a triangular-shaped rail junction that allows a train to change direction. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-22 

 The AY Junction at Acca Yard, where the S-Line/Bellwood Subdivision diverges from the 

double-track north-south A-Line and RF&P subdivision, requires Northeast Regional 

(VA) trains to and from Newport News to cross all main tracks at the southern throat of 

Acca Yard. Two daily pairs of Northeast Regional (VA) trains use the S-Line/Bellwood 

Subdivision (trains 66/67 and 94/95), en route between Boston and Newport News. These 

trains face several operating constraints that contribute to a slow average speed as they 

make their way through Richmond between Staples Mill Road and Main Street Station, 

beginning with the configuration of the junction at AY. 

 Southbound Northeast Regional (VA) trains originating from Boston and New York City 

call at Staples Mill Road Station, whose platforms are on the west side of CSXT’s mainline. 

This makes it fairly easy to access the bypass track around the west side of Acca Yard on 

the A-Line. However, at the south end of Acca Yard, where the bypass track ends, trains 

to Newport News must cross over the double-track A-Line mainline at AY Junction to 

enter the S-Line/Bellwood Subdivision and continue on to Main Street Station on a single 

mainline track. This cross-over move may often be delayed if there is switching within 

Acca Yard or if a freight train on the S-Line/Bellwood Subdivision is stopped to cut off a 

helper16 or change operating direction. 

 The S-Line/Bellwood Subdivision is single-track, with a maximum operating speed of 30 

miles per hour (mph) for passenger trains. At AM Junction, Northeast Regional (VA) trains 

traveling to/from Newport News use the same connecting track used by unit coal, grain, 

sulfur and general merchandise trains transferring between the east-west 

(Rivanna/Peninsula Subdivisions) and north-south CSXT A-Line/S-Line routes through the 

city. The station stop at Main Street Station is in the middle of this single connecting track. 

1.5.2.6 Providing Options for Reliable and Convenient Movement of Goods and People 

Passenger service in the Commonwealth is provided on rail lines owned and operated by freight 

railroads; shorter, faster passenger trains must share the rail infrastructure with longer and 

slower freight trains. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 that created Amtrak guaranteed 

Amtrak access (“trackage”) rights to use railroad lines owned by other railroads to operate 

passenger trains. Amtrak currently owns no track in Virginia and pays CSXT and NS for the 

incremental use of their tracks17. Amtrak’s on-time performance is impacted by delays such as 

rail traffic congestion, speed restrictions imposed by the host railroad due to weather or 

maintenance issues, and available capacity—even with modern signals and train dispatch 

models, only a limited number of trains can use a specific segment of track per day. 

Passenger train travel in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor does not demonstrate consistent, 

reliable, on-time performance. Travelers not only want reduced travel times but also reliable travel 

times and schedules. Recent Amtrak on-time performance statistics (average travel times and on-time 

performance of Amtrak trains in the corridor) are shown in Figures 1.5-5 and 1.5-6. 

 

16 A “helper” is an additional locomotive added to a train temporarily to assist the train moving up a steep gradient. 

17 Amtrak is required by Title 49 of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA) to compensate freight railroads for 

the incremental costs associated with accommodating passenger service over their tracks. The RPSA allows the 

incremental costs to include payment for incremental maintenance costs from Amtrak’s use of freight railroad tracks, 

incremental services provided by the freight railroads such as developing and maintaining tracks and other facilities 

for Amtrak’s exclusive use, and incentive payments for higher quality service. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-23 

Figure 1.5-5: Washington, D.C. to Richmond Main Street Station – Travel Time and 

On-Time Performance (January 2014-January 2015) 

Figure 1.5-6: On-Time Performance for DC2RVA Northeast Regional Trains to/from 

Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-24 

FRA defines the standard for percent on-time performance as 90 percent for NEC Regional and 

state-supported passenger services, and 85 percent for long-distance routes, operating outside of 

the NEC18. Amtrak’s own on-time performance standards reflect this standard and require most 

of its trains to run on schedule 85 to 95 percent of the time. 

Likewise, maintaining the efficient and reliable movement of goods on the corridor through 

adequate freight rail capacity directly benefits area automobile travelers by keeping trucks off the 

interstate. Freight traffic that cannot be reliably moved by rail will end up on area roads, 

compounding the increase in road congestion caused by the growth of the area's population. As 

noted in the 2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan, average annual daily truck traffic on I-95 is projected 

to increase 78 percent over the next several decades, from 15,448 in 2011 to 27,420 in 2040 (DRPT, 

2013). Increasing freight rail capacity in the corridor could help mitigate this impact, improving 

travel in the corridor for both people and goods. 

1.5.2.7 Air Quality 

The U.S. transportation sector is one of the largest contributors of GHG emissions, including carbon 

dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and various hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).19

Transportation is the largest end-use sector emitting CO2, the most prevalent GHG. CO2, CH4, and 

N2O are emitted from the combustion of fuels, while HFCs are by-products from air conditioners. 

EPA’s Fast Facts, U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990 – 2013 states: 

“According to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2013 (the 

Inventory), the national inventory that the U.S. prepares annually under the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), transportation represented 27% of 

total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013. Cars, trucks, commercial aircraft, and railroads, among 

other sources, all contribute to transportation end-use sector emissions. Within the sector, 

light-duty vehicles (including passenger cars and light-duty trucks) were by far the largest 

category, with 60% of GHG emissions, while medium- and heavy-duty trucks made up the 

second largest category, with 23% of emissions. Between 1990 and 2013, GHG emissions in 

the transportation sector increased more in absolute terms than any other sector (i.e., 

electricity generation, industry, agriculture, residential, or commercial).” 

EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS )20 for six criteria pollutants: 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns 

and PM2.5 with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon 

monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). EPA designates areas as meeting (attainment) or not 

meeting (nonattainment) the standards. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop a 

general plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Additional planning, subject to EPA approval, is 

 

18 Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Division B of Pub. L. 110-432) (PRIIA) 

charged FRA and Amtrak jointly and in consultation with other parties, with developing new or improving existing 

metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train 

operations. In compliance with the statute, FRA and Amtrak jointly issued Final Metrics and Standards under Section 

207 of PRIIA, effective May 12, 2010. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02875. 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fast Facts, U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990 – 2013, 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-15-032. October 2015 

20 NAAQS are based on the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to protect the health and 

welfare of the public from the adverse effects of air pollution. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-25 

required for areas not meeting the standards. In the congested Northern Virginia region traversed 

by the DC2RVA corridor, nine jurisdictions are in nonattainment status for ozone, triggering certain 

general conformity requirements. The cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas and 

Manassas Park, and the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William are currently 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

The greater fuel efficiency of moving people and goods by rail offers a simple and relatively 

immediate way to reduce emissions of GHG and NAAQS pollutants. Diverting passengers and 

freight from passenger cars and trucks to rail means less fuel is burned and GHG and NAAQS 

emissions are reduced on a per mile basis. In the 2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan, Amtrak is 

recognized as the most efficient form of motorized passenger transport. As shown in Table 1.5-3, 

Amtrak is approximately 12 percent more efficient than domestic airline travel and 33 percent more 

efficient than auto travel on a per passenger-mile basis, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. 

Table 1.5-3: Passenger Travel and Energy (2013) 

Mode 

Passenger-miles 

(millions) BTU21 per passenger-mile 

Energy use 

(trillion BTU) 

Cars 2,241,300 3,144 7,046.6 

Personal trucks 1,899,899 3,503 6,655.4 

Motorcycles 23,625 2,475 58.5 

Demand response1 2,171 12,182 26.4 

Buses 2 2 204.1 

 Transit 22,306 4,071 90.8 

 Intercity3 2 2 32.8 

 School3 2 2 80.5 

Air 2 2 1,599.1 

 Certificated route4 579,944 2,406 1,395.5 

 General aviation 2 2 203.6 

Recreational boats 2 2 245.0 

Rail 39,053 2,455 95.9 

 Intercity (Amtrak) 6,810 2,118 14.4 

 Transit 20,381 2,404 49.0 

 Commuter 11,862 2,737 32.5 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2015 

Notes: 1. Includes passenger cars, vans, and small buses operating in response to calls from passengers to the transit operator who dispatches 

the vehicles. 2. Data are not available. 3. Energy use is estimated. 4. Only domestic service and domestic energy use are shown in this table. These 

energy intensities may be inflated because all energy use is attributed to passengers–cargo energy use is not taken into account. 

 

21 A British Thermal Unit (BTU) is the approximate amount of energy required to heat 1 pound of water from 39 to 40 

degrees Fahrenheit and is used to compare the efficiency of different fuel types accomplishing the same task. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-26 

The 2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan found that freight railroads were 12 times more fuel-efficient 

than trucks (291 BTUs per ton-mile versus 3,717 BTUs per ton-mile). Double-stack freight trains are 

even more efficient. The Plan notes that every ton-mile of freight moved by rail instead of truck 

emits 67 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. In 2014, according to the Association of American 

Railroads, freight railroads moved a ton of freight an average of 479 miles per gallon of fuel. If just 

5 percent of the freight moved by truck was diverted to rail, fuel savings would be approximately 

800 million gallons per year, and GHG emissions would fall by approximately 9 million tons—

equivalent to taking 1.8 million cars off the road or planting more than 200 million trees22. 

1.5.3 Public Comments on Need 

FRA and DRPT solicited public comment as part of the scoping process to guide development of 

the Project’s Tier II EIS. During the scoping process, FRA and DRPT invited comments from 

interested agencies and the public to ensure the full range of issues related to the Project would 

be addressed, that all reasonable alternatives would be considered, and that significant issues 

would be identified. To provide an early and open scoping process, FRA and DRPT employed 

many forms of outreach to engage diverse audiences, inform them of the Project, and enable them 

to contribute their input. These initial efforts culminated in fall 2014 with one agency scoping 

meeting, four in-person public scoping meetings, and one self-guided online meeting. In total, 

3,307 parties participated in the scoping process, providing 1,625 comments. The results of the 

scoping process are summarized in the Scoping Summary Report.23

During scoping, 428 members of Virginians for High Speed Rail (VHSR), which advocates for 

improved rail service in the Commonwealth, submitted a form letter that provided the following 

suggestions for the Project: 

 The travel time from Washington, D.C. to Richmond should be shorter than a trip in an 

automobile. 

 Reliability of the service is vital to the corridor’s success, thus reaching a threshold of 90 

percent on-time performance is important. 

 Improvements to the level of service on the corridor should take into account future 

expansions of service to Newport News, Norfolk, and Roanoke/Lynchburg, as well as 

Raleigh/Charlotte. 

 The study should put a priority on stations/stops that serve a greater density of citizens, 

transit-oriented development communities, and central business districts. 

 The service quality should capture the choice passenger (i.e., the traveler that has a choice 

of more than one mode for their trip) while also providing safe, reliable, and convenient 

transportation options to all of the corridor’s citizens. 

In addition, individuals offered statements of general support of (38 comments) or opposition to (9 

comments) the Project. Several commenters offered specific alignment and/or station alternatives, 

either through Richmond or for the full corridor; DRPT evaluated all of these proposals as part of the 

Project’s alternatives identification and screening process described in Chapter 2 of this Tier II EIS. 

 

22 Association of American Railroads, The Environmental Benefits of Moving Freight by Rail, August 2015. 

23 Scoping Summary Report is available on the Project website at www.DC2RVArail.com. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-27 

1.6 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RELATED STUDIES 

The following sections provide an overview of the Project’s history and background, including a 

summary of previous rail planning studies in the corridor and adjacent segments of the SEHSR corridor. 

1.6.1 National High Speed Rail Program 

The High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Act of 1965 is considered the first act establishing 

federal interest in high speed rail in the United States. Initially authorized at $90 million, this act started 

the federal government effort to develop and demonstrate modern and advanced HSGT technologies 

in the United States. Using the HSGT Act funding, FRA deployed modern HSGT technologies such as 

the self-propelled Metroliner cars and the Turbotrain in the NEC between Boston and Washington, 

D.C., in 1969 (FRA, 1997). 

In 1970, Congress passed the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA), which led to the creation of 

Amtrak to ensure continued operation of an intercity rail passenger network in the United States. 

By 1975, appropriations from the HSGT Act of 1965 ended, which led to congressional efforts 

shifting towards upgrading the railroad infrastructure in the Northeast Corridor. In 1976, 

Congress passed the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act that included funding 

for the Northeast Corridor Improvements. These improvements included engineering and 

construction work to improve performance and reliability of the Northeast Corridor, which 

provided the foundation for a reliable high speed intercity service in the Northeast. 

In 1980, Congress set aside $4 million in the Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act of 1980 for HSGT 

corridor studies. In late 1980s, Congress requested that FRA assess the feasibility of maglev 

technology for high speed rail in the United States. The preliminary findings of this report were 

submitted to Congress by FRA in 1990 (FRA, 2015). Soon afterward in 1991, the National Maglev 

Initiative (NMI) was launched among the U.S. DOT, USACE, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 

and other agencies to further research and evaluate maglev technology in the United States. In 1991, 

Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), a six-year 

transportation authorization bill, which authorized a $725 million Maglev prototype development 

program and requested selection of five corridors to be designated as high speed rail corridors. 

However, no funding was appropriated pending the results of the NMI (FRA, 1993). The five 

corridors designated by FRA were: 

 Midwest corridor linking Chicago, IL with Detroit, MI, St. Louis, MO, and Milwaukee, WI 

 Florida corridor linking Miami with Orlando and Tampa 

 California corridor linking San Diego and Los Angeles with the Bay Area and Sacramento 

via the San Joaquin Valley 

 Southeast corridor connecting Charlotte, NC, Richmond, VA, and Washington, D.C. 

 Pacific Northwest corridor linking Eugene and Portland, OR, with Seattle, WA, and 

Vancouver, BC, Canada 

In 1997, FRA completed and submitted a report to Congress called High Speed Ground 

Transportation for United States, which analyzed the economics aspects of developing high speed 

ground transportation for high-population cities in the United States. The Transportation 

authorization bill passed in 1998, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-28 

authorized 6 additional corridor designations, for a total of 11, as well as the extension of other 

previously designated corridors: 

 Gulf Coast corridor 

 Keystone corridor from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, PA 

 Empire State corridor from New York, NY, to Albany, NY, to Buffalo, NY 

 Extension of the Southeast corridor from Charlotte to Greenville, SC, to Atlanta, GA, to 

Macon, GA; and from Raleigh to Columbia, SC, and to Savannah, GA, and Jacksonville, FL 

 Extension of the Midwest corridor (now called the Chicago Hub corridor) from 

Milwaukee, WI, to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN 

 Extension of the Chicago Hub corridor to Indianapolis, IN and Cincinnati, OH 

In 2008, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), establishing 

the initial framework for the development of the high speed rail corridors. In 2009, Congress passed 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which allocated $8 billion to be granted to 

states for intercity rail projects, giving priority to projects that support the development of high 

speed intercity rail24. In 2009, FRA released the High Speed Rail Strategic Plan. Figure 1.6-1 shows 

the high speed rail network map proposed in the plan. 

Figure 1.6-1: U.S. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Network Map 

 

24 Congress continued to build upon the Recovery Act by making available an additional $2.1 billion through annual 

appropriations for FY 2009 and 2010, using the framework initially established by PRIIA, bringing the total program 

funding to $10.1 billion. 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-29 

Shortly after the publication of the High Speed Rail Strategic Plan, FRA launched the High Speed 

Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program with the following objectives: 

 Build new high speed rail corridors that expand and fundamentally improve passenger 

transportation in the geographic regions they serve. 

 Upgrade existing intercity passenger rail corridors to improve reliability, speed, and 

frequency of existing services. 

 Lay the groundwork for future high speed rail services through corridor and state 

planning efforts. 

The same year, U.S. DOT announced the extension of the California High Speed Rail Corridor to 

Las Vegas, NV. In 2011, U.S. DOT designated the NEC as the eleventh high speed rail corridor, 

which includes the existing NEC main rail line and any alternative routings for intercity 

passenger train service between the metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New 

York, and Boston. 

The High Speed Rail Strategic Plan recommended the tiered strategy currently being used by FRA. 

The Plan also defined various levels of high speed rail and conventional intercity passenger rail. 

The DC2RVA corridor would be considered an “emerging” HSR corridor according to the FRA 

definition below (FRA, 2009): 

 Core Express: Frequent service between major population centers. Top speeds of at least 

125 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way (with the possible 

exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway 

capacity constraints. 

 Regional: Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers. 

Top speeds of 90 to 125 mph, grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared 

track (using positive train control [PTC] technology). Intended to relieve highway and, to 

some extent, air capacity constraints. 

 Emerging: Developing corridors with strong potential for future HSR Regional and/or 

Express service. Top speeds of up to 90 mph on primarily shared track (eventually using 

PTC technology), with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to 

develop the passenger rail market and provide some relief to other modes. 

 Conventional Rail: Traditional intercity passenger rail services with as little as 1 to as 

many as 7 to 12 daily frequencies; may or may not have strong potential for future high 

speed rail service. Top speeds of up to 79 mph generally on shared track. Intended to 

provide travel options and to develop the passenger rail market for further development 

in the future. 

1.6.2 SEHSR Program 

SEHSR is an important element of the national high speed rail program. The SEHSR corridor was 

one of the five originally designated high speed rail corridors identified by FRA in 1991. The 

SEHSR corridor extends from Washington, D.C. to Jacksonville, FL. This corridor connects with 

the NEC in the northand extends southwest to Atlanta. In coordination with FRA, Virginia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida have joined together with the business 

communities in each state to form a Southeast Rail Coalition to plan, develop, and implement 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-30 

high speed rail in the Southeast. The SEHSR corridor will be developed incrementally, upgrading 

existing rail rights-of-way where feasible. The components of the SEHSR corridor, shown in 

Figure 1.1-1, are in different stages of the planning process due to need and funding. Below is an 

outline of the status of major components of the SESHR corridor: 

 Washington, D.C. to Charlotte 

- Tier I Final EIS and ROD completed in 2002 

- Richmond to Raleigh Tier II Final EIS completed in September 2015; ROD issued in 

March 2017 

- Washington, D.C. to Richmond Tier II Final EIS and ROD anticipated in 2017 

 Richmond to Hampton Roads 

- Tier I Final EIS and ROD completed in 2012 

 Charlotte to Atlanta to Jacksonville 

- The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is leading a study to extend 

development of the SEHSR into Georgia. The Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail 

Corridor Investment Plan will be conducted in tiers. The Tier I EIS will analyze 

passenger service between Atlanta and Charlotte on a broad scale and is anticipated to 

be complete in 2018. 

Since the corridor was identified, DRPT and NCDOT have been working with their federal 

partners, FRA and FHWA, to improve rail transportation options in this key area of the national 

high speed rail program that joins to Amtrak’s NEC. Several studies have been conducted in this 

corridor since 1991, which include the 1996 DRPT feasibility study for fast passenger rail service 

from Washington, D.C. to Richmond; the 1997 SEHSR Market and Demand Study; the 1999 FRA 

and Amtrak operational analysis and preliminary engineering study; and the 2002 SEHSR 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC Tier I EIS and ROD. Later studies added additional sections 

to the SEHSR corridor, including Richmond to Hampton Roads, and the sections extending 

southwest of Charlotte. Figure 1.1-1 shows different sections of the SEHSR program and status of 

projects in the corridor. 

1.6.2.1 Tier I EIS for the SEHSR Project from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC 

In October 2002, DRPT and NCDOT, together with FHWA and FRA, completed a service-level 

Tier I EIS for the SEHSR corridor between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte. This Tier I EIS 

established the SEHSR program purpose and selected preferred rail corridors, and it provided a 

programmatic-level environmental analysis. The purpose of the SEHSR program, as stated in the 

Tier I EIS, is to provide a competitive transportation choice to travelers within the Washington, 

D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. Implementation of improved passenger rail service in the 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR corridor could: 

 Divert trips from air and highway travel modes within the corridor 

 Provide a more balanced and energy-efficient use of the corridor’s transportation 

infrastructure 

 Increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system within the travel corridor 

 Serve long-distance travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina, including 

Amtrak’s NEC, which extends from Washington, D.C. to Boston 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-31 

The Tier I ROD for the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR selected an incremental (step-bystep) approach to develop the SEHSR program. 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. Subsequently, the 

SEHSR corridor was divided into discrete sections (Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Richmond to 

Raleigh, and Raleigh to Charlotte) for further detailed (Tier II) studies. 

The Tier I EIS also considered maglev as an option for the SEHSR program. The Tier I EIS 

determined that the high costs, lack of currently operating systems, and character of the 

proprietary maglev guideway, make its implementation an unlikely economical solution to the 

transportation problems in the Southeast Corridor; therefore, FRA and FHWA, together with 

DRPT and NCDOT, eliminated this implementation option from further consideration. 

1.6.2.2 Washington, D.C. to Richmond SEHSR Corridor Segment 

Over the past two decades, various passenger and freight rail studies and improvement projects 

have been completed for the Virginia segments of the SEHSR corridor. These have addressed 

rebuilding aging infrastructure; accommodating demand; increasing connectivity and capacity; 

and improving service to provide a better and more reliable passenger and freight rail system. A 

timeline of the previous corridor studies and other actions which included the Washington, D.C. 

to Richmond rail segment is as follows: 

 1994—Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia formed a four-state coalition 

(Southeast Rail Coalition) to facilitate development of the SEHSR corridor. 

 1996—DRPT conducted an initial study addressing the feasibility of implementing fast, 

frequent, and reliable passenger rail service in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

segment of the SEHSR corridor. 

 1998—DRPT, NCDOT, FHWA, and FRA signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) to jointly develop environmental documentation (Tier I EIS) for the SEHSR in 

Virginia and North Carolina. 

 1999—FRA and Amtrak conducted an operational analysis and preliminary engineering 

study, which was submitted to Congress in May 1999. The operational analysis evaluated 

then current facilities, services, and operating conditions, and it simulated the 

performance of future services over multiple configurations of infrastructure 

improvements. The result of the study was a set of recommended necessary 

improvements that would enable the Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor to reliably 

accommodate the mix and volume of higher speed passenger, commuter, and freight 

services that the line’s operators (CSX, Amtrak, and VRE) and public partners (FRA and 

DRPT) envisioned for 2015. 

 2002—Completion of SEHSR Washington, D.C. to Charlotte Tier I EIS and ROD. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-32 

 2003—DRPT completed the Richmond Area Rail Master Plan—Phase I document in which 

near-term improvements were identified supporting the redirection of passenger trains 

terminating at Staples Mill Road Station to a refurbished Main Street Station in downtown 

Richmond. This document was based on several earlier studies, including the range of 

proposed improvements that was identified by FRA in the May 1999 Report to Congress 

titled Potential Improvements to the Washington—Richmond Railroad Corridor, and 

considered to be a living document that would continue to evolve over time. At about the 

same time, the Interim Phase Improvements—Staples Mill Rd. Station to Main Street Station

and Final Phase Improvements—Staples Mill Rd. Station to Centralia reports were prepared 

by FRA. Both of these reports identified potential improvements required to support 

various levels of future passenger and freight traffic in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

rail corridor, and more specifically, within the metro Richmond area. 

 2004—DRPT conducted a Third Track Conceptual Location Study in which a third mainline 

track was proposed for the 92.7-mile-long corridor between the Richmond Staples Mill 

Road Station and the Ravensworth Interlocking, a crossover between mainline tracks that 

is located south of Franconia in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. 

Additionally, DRPT released the Virginia Statewide Rail Plan. 

 2005—The General Assembly created the Rail Enhancement Fund and dedicated 3 percent 

of the 10 percent tax on car rentals to finance rail infrastructure and Amtrak operations 

that expand service within Virginia. Since then, Virginia has invested public funds to 

upgrade privately owned rail lines to increase the competitive status of its ports, to reduce 

truck traffic on state highways, and to increase passenger rail service capacity. All Rail 

Enhancement Fund investments must meet a public benefit test showing a return on the 

investment of public funds. 

 2006—DRPT conducted a more detailed Third Track Feasibility Study in which an 8.1-milelong rail corridor connecting Richmond’s Main Street Station to Staples Mill Road Station 

via Acca Yard was studied in conjunction with the 92.7-mile-long corridor of the previous 

(2004) study. This study, like the 2004 Third Track Conceptual Location Study, did not 

include parts of the corridor through Fredericksburg and Ashland, VA. 

 2008—On May 3, FRA issued a Finding of Infeasibility from the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) and U.S. DOT that allowed for level boarding at Main Street Station 

to be provided with a low-level platform and alternate means of access. 

 2008—PRIIA established the initial guidance for the high speed rail corridors throughout 

the United States. In January 2008, Amtrak published its short-term action plan, Part I for 

Advancing Passenger Rail in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Additionally, DRPT released the 

updated rail plan Virginia Statewide Rail Plan and a Rail Resource Allocation Plan in July 

2008. 

 2009—On May 29, FRA issued a letter to DRPT stating that it had considered but 

dismissed the Buckingham Branch Route between Doswell, VA and Main Street Station 

from further consideration in the SEHSR corridor. 

 2009—Virginia and Amtrak partnered to provide state-subsidized passenger rail service 

under the name “Amtrak Virginia,” later rebranded as “Northeast Regional” service. 

Amtrak Virginia assumed responsibility for four regional trains traveling the Project 

corridor from Washington, D.C. to Richmond (Staples Mill Road Station). Two of these 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-33 

Northeast Regional (VA) trains terminated in Richmond (Staples Mill Road Station), and 

two continued to Richmond’s Main Street Station and then on to Newport News. In 2010, 

this partnership introduced three new Amtrak NEC service expansions in Virginia by 

extending trains that had previously terminated in Washington, D.C.: 

- A new round trip extending to Richmond (Staples Mill Road Station) for a fifth daily 

Northeast Regional (VA) train between Washington, D.C. and Richmond 

- A future extension of one Northeast Regional (VA) round-trip train from Richmond 

(Staples Mill Road Station) to Norfolk (implemented in 2012) 

- One round-trip Northeast Regional (VA) extending to Lynchburg, VA 

 2009—As part of the SEHSR program, DRPT conducted a comprehensive study of the 

Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor and formulated a Service Development Plan. 

 2010—Amtrak completed the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan that identified investment 

needed to maintain the current Amtrak NEC system so that it could be easily integrated 

into future freight/passenger service plans. 

 2010—Amtrak presented a high speed rail concept for the NEC - A Vision of High-Speed 

Rail in the Northeast Corridor (the 2010 HSR Vision). 

 2010—The Virginia-North Carolina High Speed Rail Compact held their first meeting. 

The purpose of the Compact is to examine and discuss strategies to advance multi-state 

high speed rail initiatives. The SEHSR project is the primary multi-state high speed rail 

initiative advanced by the Compact. Congress authorized the creation of interstate 

compacts in 1997, and the Virginia and North Carolina legislatures formally established 

this compact in 2004. 

 2011—Virginia’s General Assembly established the Intercity Passenger Rail Operating 

and Capital Fund, providing a mechanism for the Commonwealth Transportation Board 

(CTB) and General Assembly to allocate transportation funds to passenger rail operations 

and development projects. 

 2011—On September 23, FRA and DRPT executed Grant/Cooperative Agreement No. FRHSR-0093-11-01-00, which allotted $44,308,000 in federal funding to develop a Tier II EIS 

and conduct preliminary engineering for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment of 

the SEHSR corridor. This grant was supplemented by $11,077,000 in funding from DRPT 

and CSXT. 

 2012—FRA initiated a Northeast Corridor comprehensive planning effort to study, assess, 

and prioritize the investments in the NEC from Washington, D.C. to Boston. The NEC 

FUTURE Tier I EIS and Service Development Plan will be completed in 2016. In July 2012, 

Amtrak also released its plans for the NEC, The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor—

2012 Update Report. 

 2012—DRPT joined with CSXT in a Joint Corridor Planning and Investment Agreement 

to promote planning for high speed passenger rail in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

corridor. The Agreement calls for CSXT to invest no less than $15 million in projects that 

benefit high speed passenger rail in the corridor, including improvements to track, signals 

and communications, and other infrastructure. The Agreement stands in addition to 

various other agreements between CSXT and the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding 

state-funded freight and passenger rail improvements and commitments, and among 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-34 

CSXT, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Potomac and Rappahannock 

Transportation Commission and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission 

pertaining to VRE’s commuter operations. 

 2013—DRPT updated Virginia’s Statewide Rail Plan that identified passenger and freight 

rail improvements within this corridor along with various other corridors. An 

accompanying Virginia Rail Resource Allocation Plan was also released. 

DRPT maintains a framework agreement with CSXT that defines respective roles and 

responsibilities in developing and improving the efficiency of CSXT-owned rail lines in Virginia. 

Through various state rail improvement programs, such as Virginia’s Rail Enhancement Fund, 

DRPT and CSXT continue to advance incremental capacity improvements along the Project 

corridor and other CSXT-owned rail lines to improve both passenger and freight service. Under 

the agreement, DRPT and CSXT are reconfiguring the Acca switching yard in Richmond to allow 

a western bypass of the yard to relieve the current bottleneck. The $132 million reconfiguration 

of the yard began in November 2015 and is scheduled to be finished in spring 2018. The bypass 

will allow passenger trains to avoid freight involvement and increase from current speeds of 25 

mph to an estimated 40 mph. 

DRPT, working with FRA, CSXT, NS, VRE, Amtrak, and others, has also initiated and/or 

completed several track and system upgrades along the corridor in recent years, including: 

 A new rail bridge over Quantico Creek. 

 Adding a third track between Virginia Avenue to 10th Street in Washington, D.C. and 

between rail points SRO (Crystal City) to RO (Rosslyn), AF (Alexandria) to RW 

(Ravensworth), and FB (Fredericksburg) to XR (Crossroads) in Virginia. 

 Crossovers at Arkendale (AR) and Elmont (EL) in Virginia. 

In addition, FRA awarded Virginia a $74.8 million grant to build up to 11 miles of third track and 

related improvements from Arkendale in Stafford County to Powell’s Creek in Prince William 

County as well as final design and improvements to the station at the Quantico Marine Base in 

Quantico. This third track project is currently under construction. 

DRPT, in cooperation with VDOT, has been working to improve safety at crossings by 

constructing highway and pedestrian bridges over rail lines; expanding the use of protection 

devices at private crossings; and installing constant warning time protection devices. Section 

1103(c) of TEA-21 provides funds to improve highway-rail crossings and accommodate high 

speed rail in designated high speed rail corridors, including the SEHSR corridor. 

1.6.2.3 Richmond to Raleigh SEHSR Corridor Segment 

In 2017, FRA in partnership with DRPT and NCDOT completed a Tier II EIS for the Richmond to 

Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor. The Final EIS was completed in September 2015, and 

FRA issued a ROD in March 2017. The EIS/ROD identified specific improvements to the 

Richmond to Raleigh corridor in support of the earlier SEHSR Tier I EIS. The corridor studied in 

the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II EIS overlaps slightly with that of the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond Tier II EIS, specifically along the CSXT S-line from Centralia in Chesterfield County 

north to Main Street Station in Richmond, which is the designated northern terminus for the 

Richmond to Raleigh study. The Richmond to Raleigh segment will achieve maximum operating 

speeds up to 110 miles per hour with up to 8 trains per day (4 round trips) between Petersburg, 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-35 

VA, and Norlina, NC, on dedicated right-of-way. The DC2RVA project includes capacity to 

extend the Richmond to Raleigh SEHSR service—Interstate Corridor (NC)—trains from 

Richmond to Washington, D.C. 

1.6.2.4 Richmond to Hampton Roads SEHSR Corridor Segment 

In 2012, FRA, in partnership with DRPT, completed a Tier I EIS and ROD for the Richmond to 

Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project, defining the route and service for the extension of the 

SEHSR corridor from Richmond Main Street Station south and east to Hampton Roads. The 

preferred alternative endorsed by DRPT, CTB, and FRA would provide higher-speed passenger 

rail service from Richmond Main Street Station to the south side of Hampton Roads (Richmond 

to Norfolk) while improving conventional speed passenger rail service on the Peninsula 

(Richmond to Newport News). The Richmond to Norfolk higher speed service would utilize the 

S-line from the west side of Main Street Station south to Petersburg, and then access the east-west 

NS line to Norfolk. The Richmond to Norfolk segment will achieve maximum operating speeds 

up to 90 miles per hour with up to 12 trains per day (6 round trips). The Richmond to Newport 

News conventional service would follow the existing route for Amtrak’s service to Newport 

News, which utilizes CSXT tracks (Peninsula Subdivision) from the east side of Main Street 

Station through Fulton Yard to Newport News with up to 6 trains per day (3 round trips). 

In 2012, Amtrak Virginia initiated conventional speed passenger service from Richmond to 

Norfolk, which runs from Staples Mill Road Station south through Acca Yard and then along 

CSXT’s A-line to Centralia and on to Petersburg, and then east along the NS line from Petersburg 

to Norfolk. The DC2RVA project includes capacity to extend the Richmond to Hampton Roads 

SEHSR service—Northeast Regional (VA)—trains from Richmond to Washington, D.C. 

1.6.3 Virginia Avenue Tunnel 

In 2014, DDOT and FHWA completed an EIS and issued a ROD for reconstruction of the CSXT 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel in southeast Washington, D.C. The purpose of the project is two-fold: 

first, to 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 existing tunnel is approximately 4,000 feet long, contains a 

single railroad track, lacks sufficient vertical clearance for double-stack freight, and is more than 

100 years old. The project will also re-establish a second set of tracks (the tunnel was originally 

constructed with two tracks), eliminating a chokepoint that currently delays all trains traveling 

through the Washington, D.C. region, including passenger trains on the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond corridor. CSXT opened the first of two tracks for double-stack operation in 2016, with 

completion of both tracks planned for 2017. 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. 

1.6.4 Long Bridge 

DDOT is currently studying expanding capacity across Long Bridge, the double-track rail bridge 

that carries the Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor track across the Potomac River from 

Washington, D.C. into Arlington. The Long Bridge Study is considering improvements to rail 

infrastructure from L’Enfant Interlocking across the Potomac River to RO Interlocking in 

Arlington. In early 2015, DDOT and FRA completed a feasibility report on project alternatives, 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1-36 

and a subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation of project alternatives 

is being led by DDOT in conjunction with FRA, DRPT, VRE, CSXT, and other stakeholders. The 

DC2RVA project assumes the Long Bridge study will be complete and an expanded bridge 

constructed prior to implementation of the 2025 DC2RVA service plan and includes the bridge in 

the No-Build alternative. 

1.6.5 Washington Union Station Master Plan 

In July 2012, Amtrak and other stakeholders, including the Union Station Redevelopment 

Corporation (USRC), U.S. DOT, Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), DRPT, and the 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), developed a master plan that 

served as a visioning document to address existing deficiencies and future growth. Since that 

time, Amtrak and USRC have incorporated initial planning efforts into an ongoing “Washington 

Union Station’s 2nd Century” Master Planning process, which is a series of coordinated near- and 

long-term projects that seek to triple passenger capacity and double train capacity by 

modernizing and expanding station facilities over the next 20 years. The series of projects 

includes: 

 Claytor Concourse Modernization Project: Led by Amtrak, the near-term Concourse 

Modernization will be the first set of improvements as part of the 2nd Century Plan with 

early construction tasks starting fall 2016. The environmental clearance process for this 

project is likely to be a categorical exclusion. 

 Station Operational Improvement Projects: Led by Amtrak, these near-term 

improvements are immediate projects that are needed to create redundancy and 

additional capacity in today’s intercity and commuter operations, as well as provide better 

phasing of the reconstruction in the future. The environmental clearance process for this 

project is likely to be a categorical exclusion. 

 Washington Union Station Expansion Project: led by USRC and Amtrak, this project will 

provide improved multi-modal transportation infrastructure and passenger/user 

facilities to meet future demand and operational requirements. An EIS is being prepared 

to evaluate environmental impacts and select a preferred action; a Master Development 

Plan is being prepared to create a feasible, long-term, cohesive implementable project. 

 Burnham Place Project: A 3-million-square-foot mixed-use development, envisioned over 

the rail yard, will be developed by Akridge, a private company that owns the air rights 

above the terminal infrastructure. The development will be a vital economic driver for 

Washington, D.C. because it will reconnect the urban fabric of the station’s adjacent 

neighborhoods. 

1.7 PROJECT BENEFITS 

Fast, efficient passenger rail service is important for Virginia, as evidenced by the body of work 

described in Section 1.6, dating back to 1996. The Commonwealth participates in multi-state 

coalitions such as the Southeast Rail Coalition and the Virginia-North Carolina High Speed Rail 

Compact, to improve passenger rail services in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Commonwealth also 

participates in multiple state-based funding programs, including the Rail Enhancement Fund and 

Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund, for rail enhancement. Virginia is also an active 

member in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 
 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 1-37 

Standing Committee on Rail Transportation (SCORT). SCORT works with its members to address 

policy, regulatory, safety, and enforcement issues affecting the ability of states to develop and 

maintain the freight and passenger rail transportation network within their borders. 

The Commonwealth has initiated environmental studies and preliminary design associated with 

high speed rail corridors passing through Virginia using its own funds and in partnership with 

FRA and other agencies. Because of the high capital cost associated with high speed rail systems, 

the Commonwealth has been following an incremental approach to plan for and construct rail 

improvements that eliminate key rail chokepoints and to increase rail speeds and on-time 

performance on existing passenger rail corridors. 

The SEHSR corridor, originally designated in ISTEA and TEA-21, would extend high speed rail 

service south from the NEC in Washington, D.C. to Richmond and on to Raleigh and Charlotte. 

The SEHSR corridor would later expand farther south to Jacksonville via Charlotte and Atlanta 

or via Raleigh and Columbia, SC, and east from Richmond to Hampton Roads. 

Implementing the Washington, D.C. to Richmond DC2RVA project would address the purpose 

described in Section 1.4, providing the following benefits: 

 Providing an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond and beyond 

 Increasing the capacity of the multimodal rail system between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond 

 Improving the frequency, reliability and travel time of passenger rail operations in 

Virginia and beyond, and providing a competitive alternative to highway and air travel 

 Accommodating VRE commuter rail service operations 

 Accommodating the movement of freight by rail through the corridor, including to and 

from Virginia’s ports 

 Improving modal connectivity with other public transportation systems within the 

corridor to further expand travel options for passengers within Virginia and beyond 

 Improving rail operational safety in the corridor 

 Improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions by diverting passenger trips by 

automobile and movement of freight by trucks to more environmentally sustainable rail 

transportation 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

ALTERNATIVES 2
 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the process used by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) to develop the alternatives evaluated in the Tier II Draft Environmental 

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

(DC2RVA) Project. The following sections summarize the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) 

Tier I EIS alternatives and the Tier II Draft EIS planning dates. 

The remainder of Chapter 2 summarizes the Tier II Draft EIS alternatives development and 

evaluation process, including alternatives considered but dismissed and descriptions of the Build 

Alternatives evaluated in detail in the Tier II Draft EIS. Further details on the development and 

screening of the Tier II Draft EIS alternatives are in the Alternatives Technical Report in Appendix A. 

2.1.1 SEHSR Tier I EIS Alternatives Summary 

The DC2RVA Tier II EIS builds on the decisions the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) made as part of the SEHSR Tier I EIS and Record 

of Decision, completed in 2002 (Figure 2.1-1). The SEHSR Tier I EIS addressed the development, 

implementation, and operation of higher speed passenger rail service in the approximately 500-

mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC to Charlotte, 

NC1. The SEHSR Tier I EIS considered the no build option and nine alternatives utilizing 

combinations of existing track sections. The study area for each SEHSR Tier I alternative was a 

six-mile wide corridor, centered on existing rail rights-of-way, between Washington, D.C. and 

Charlotte, NC. Proposed improvements for these alternatives generally included track upgrades, 

adding an additional main track to single-track lines, additional sidings, curve straightening, 

signal improvements, and grade crossing safety. 

The 2002 SEHSR Tier I EIS evaluated and dismissed advanced high speed rail (trains with average 

operating speeds of 185 to 200 mph) because it would require the construction of an entirely new 

and separate passenger-only railroad system, which would not meet the need of the project to 

connect major urban centers. Building a new, separate rail system would involve substantially 

higher costs and longer implementation time and result in substantially greater community and 

environmental impacts. Electrified systems also were dismissed in the SEHSR Tier I EIS because 

they have substantial initial costs (both monetary and environmental) that made them infeasible 

 

1 The SEHSR Tier I EIS and 2002 Record of Decision addressed high speed passenger rail service in the Washington, 

D.C. to Charlotte, NC corridor. Subsequent studies have extended the bounds of the SEHSR program from Richmond, 

VA to Hampton Roads, VA, and from Charlotte, NC to Atlanta, GA and south to Florida. 

2 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-2 

Figure 2.1-1: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor – Tier I EIS

at the time, relative to the ridership/revenue projections for the SEHSR corridor. The door-todoor travel time needed to attract positive ridership/revenue was determined in the SEHSR Tier 

I EIS to be met by conventional fossil-fuel powered trainsets. 

In the SEHSR Tier I EIS, NCDOT and DRPT conducted a comparative evaluation of the nine 

SEHSR Tier I alternatives (Figure 2.1-2) and recommended a preferred alternative based on the 

physical and operational characteristics of each alternative and the potential for environmental 

impacts. This evaluation specifically considered public and agency comments on the proposed 

SEHSR and evaluative criteria based on the SEHSR project’s Purpose and Need. Each SEHSR Tier 

I alternative was ranked based on these criteria that are explained in further detail in the SEHSR 

Tier I EIS. The criteria included: 

 Annual Ridership/Revenue 

 Annual Diversions in 2025 for air and auto 

 Net Energy Reduction (fuel gallons/year) 

 Number of At-Grade Crossings 

 Air Quality – Reduction in Nitrogen Oxides 

 Average Total Travel Time 

 Net Operating Contribution 

 Capital Cost Efficiency Factor 

 Environmental Complexity Index 

 Engineering and Operations Complexity Index 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-3 

Alternative A ranked the highest of the nine alternatives for five of the ten assessment criteria, 

namely annual ridership, annual air to rail diversions in 2025, net operating contribution, capital 

cost efficiency, and areas of engineering complexity. 

The SEHSR project’s “business case” required the preferred alternative to be economically viable. 

In order to determine relative economic viability among the different alternatives, the SEHSR Tier 

I comparative evaluation examined alternatives based on their potential net operating 

contribution and their conceptual capital cost. Alternative A and Alternative B showed the 

strongest potential for economic vitality. 

Figure 2.1-2: SEHSR Tier I EIS Build Alternatives (Reproduced from the 2002 Tier 1 EIS)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-4 

The comparative evaluation of the SEHSR Tier I alternatives also reviewed which alternative 

would cause the least potential environmental and social impacts. NCDOT and DRPT found that 

Alternative A and Alternative B minimized potential wetland impacts. Given the complexity of 

avoiding and/or mitigating impacts to significant wetland acreage, substantial numbers of 

protected species, and prime farmlands, Alternatives A and B were the least environmentally 

damaging among those candidate alternatives, which satisfied the Purpose and Need criteria and 

economic viability requirements. 

The SEHSR Tier I no Build Alternative, which encompasses the travel corridor’s existing 

transportation network and planned infrastructure improvements for the network, was also 

evaluated and compared to the nine Build Alternatives. NCDOT and DRPT found the impacts of 

the no Build Alternative to be similar to the impacts for Build Alternatives due to the projected 

growth of freight and passenger rail expected in the corridor over time. The difference, however, 

is that without SEHSR program improvements, freight and passenger services along the corridor 

from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC were projected to experience greater delays and 

congestion over time. The no Build Alternative lacked the positive benefits of improved air 

quality and net energy reduction per passenger mile traveled in the corridor. It also failed to meet 

the other Purpose and Need factors such as offering additional transportation choices, easing 

congestion, improving overall transportation system safety, and minimizing environmental 

impacts. Due to the factors listed above, FRA and FHWA concluded that the no Build Alternative 

did not meet the SEHSR project’s Purpose and Need. 

In the ROD, FRA and FHWA determined that the alternative that best satisfied the stated Purpose 

and Need, met the business model requirements, and minimized environmental impacts was a 

combination of Alternatives A and B. 

The preferred alternative identified in the 

SEHSR Tier I EIS consists of Alternative A 

(utilizing the S-line and the North Carolina 

Railroad rights-of-ways) modified to include 

passenger-connectivity to Winston-Salem, NC 

plus Alternative B via the Winston Salem South 

Bound (WSSB) and the K-line railroad rightsof-ways (Figure 2.1-3). 

The combination of Alternatives A and B best 

satisfied the SEHSR project’s Purpose and 

Need while minimizing environmental 

impacts, and received the highest level of 

public and agency support. The combination of 

Alternative A and Alternative B has: 

 Minimum potential impacts to wetlands and threatened and endangered species 

 Moderate levels of potential environmental complexity 

 Strongest agency support 

 Highest level of service 

 Highest projected annual ridership 

Figure 2.1-3: SEHSR Tier I EIS Selected 

Alternative
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-5 

 Largest combined trip diversions from auto and air to rail, with competitive total 

travel time 

 Second best net reduction in NOx emissions and overall net energy use reduction 

 Best potential operating cost recovery 

 Highest level of public support 

The preferred alternative selected as part of the SEHSR Tier I EIS process forms the basis of the 

alternatives developed and evaluated for the DC2RVA Project. 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates 

For this EIS, FRA and DRPT established two important planning dates. The first planning date 

is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA 

infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed in operation. 

FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening day” is dependent on many factors, 

not the least of which is finalizing the EIS and Record of Decision. The date also assumes that 

federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be available at the level required to build 

all of the proposed infrastructure improvements and acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. DRPT based this date on an aggressive but potentially achievable schedule assumption that 

all necessary permits, approvals, agreements, and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design 

would take one year (2021), right-of-way acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and 

construction would take three years (2023 – 2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the date 

when the physical impacts associated with DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, 

all of the physical impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are 

estimated for 2025, and compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new rail service in 2025. Both the Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and FRA guidance require that DRPT demonstrate that 

the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger rail benefits and an efficient 

and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon following the completion of the 

passenger project. DRPT uses operational simulations analysis, as discussed in Section 2.6, to test 

the proposed alternatives to determine if the rail capacity is adequate for both the opening day 

(2025) levels of projected freight, commuter and passenger rail traffic and to determine if the 

infrastructure remains adequate over the 20 year planning horizon or until 2045. DRPT also used 

the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate some of the longer term effects of the proposed service 

such as ridership, energy use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects. 

2.2 SERVICE PLAN 

Alternatives developed as part of the DC2RVA Project include two elements: physical 

improvements along the rail alignment (see Section 2.3), and the proposed train service that 

would run throughout the corridor. This section summarizes the latter, describing the service 

plan inputs that DRPT will use to prepare the Service Development Plan, which will occur at the 

conclusion of the NEPA process. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-6 

2.2.1 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2.2.1.1 Types of Service 

Amtrak trains operating in the DC2RVA corridor can be divided into the following four types: 

 Northeast Regional (Virginia). Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains provide a travel 

alternative to driving I-95. Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains are southward extensions 

of Amtrak regional trains operating on the Northeast Corridor between Boston, New 

York, and Washington to endpoint stations in Virginia. The trains’ trips are extended 

south of Washington, D.C. on four different routes through Virginia that terminate at 

Norfolk, Newport News, Richmond, and Lynchburg, providing passengers with a oneseat ride to destinations throughout the Northeast. Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains 

serve all Amtrak passenger rail stations located in the DC2RVA corridor with the 

exception of the Auto Train terminal at Lorton, VA. The Commonwealth of Virginia funds 

the operation of Northeast Regional (Virginia) passenger trains as required under Section 

209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). 

 Interstate Corridor (Carolinian). The Carolinian operates one daily round trip between 

New York, NY and Charlotte, NC. Carolinian Service is similar to Northeast Regional 

(Virginia) Service, in that it operates as an extension of Northeast Corridor service south of 

Washington, but in this case to an endpoint station in North Carolina and with funding 

provided solely by the state of North Carolina. The Carolinian serves Alexandria, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, Richmond Staples Mill Road, and Petersburg stations in Virginia. 

 Long Distance. Long Distance trains are trains that operate on routes greater than 750 miles. 

States are not required to provide operating support for Long Distance trains. As of 2015, 

Amtrak operated five Long Distance round-trip trains in the DC2RVA corridor: three roundtrip trains use the full length of the DC2RVA corridor continuing through Virginia to Georgia 

and Florida, and two round-trip trains use only the portion of the DC2RVA corridor between 

Washington and Alexandria. Long Distance trains in the DC2RVA corridor serve Washington 

Union Station, Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Staples Mill Road Station. All but one of these 

trains operates nonstop between Alexandria and Richmond. 

 Auto Train. Amtrak’s Auto Train is a separate Long Distance service that is unique both 

among trains in the DC2RVA corridor and the entire Amtrak system. It exclusively serves 

passengers with an accompanying motor vehicle and operates as a daily nonstop, 

overnight train between dedicated station facilities in Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL. 

2.2.1.2 Frequency of Service 

In 2015, Amtrak operated 24 daily trains and 2 tri-weekly trains in the DC2RVA corridor north of 

Alexandria. Of those trains, four daily trains and two tri-weekly trains only operate on the corridor 

north of Alexandria where Amtrak passenger trains, using an NS rail line from Lynchburg and 

Manassas, VA, join the DC2RVA corridor for trips north to Washington Union Station. 

South of Alexandria, Amtrak operates an average of 20 passenger trains per day between Washington 

and Richmond (10 round trips), including 8 long distance trains (4 round trips), 10 Northeast Regional 

(VA) state supported regional trains (5 round-trip trains supported by Virginia), 2 interstate corridor 

(NC) state supported trains (1 round-trip train supported by North Carolina), and Amtrak’s Auto 

Train (1 round trip) which operates between Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-7 

Figure 2.2-1: Existing Passenger Train Frequencies in the DC2RVA Corridor

Figure 2.2-1 (above) illustrates the type and frequencies of current Amtrak intercity passenger rail 

services operating in the DC2RVA corridor. 

2.2.2 Future Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2.2.2.1 No Build Alternative 

Section 2.5.1 describes the 2025 passenger-rail service assumptions for the No Build Alternative. In 

the northern section of the DC2RVA corridor, between Arlington and Alexandria, planned 

infrastructure improvements will support the operation of one additional Amtrak Northeast 

Regional (Virginia) round-trip passenger train, operating between Washington, D.C. and 

Lynchburg, VA via Alexandria, VA. In the southern section of the corridor, south of Richmond, 

planned infrastructure improvements will support the extension of two Amtrak Northeast 

Regional (Virginia) round-trip passenger trains from Richmond to Norfolk, VA via Petersburg, VA. 

Figure 2.2-2 illustrates the type and frequencies of Amtrak intercity passenger rail services 

operating in the DC2RVA corridor in the No Build Alternative. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-8 

Figure 2.2-2: No Build Alternative Passenger Train Frequencies in the DC2RVA Corridor

2.2.2.2 Build Alternative 

The DC2RVA Project proposes to add rail infrastructure to support the following proposed intercity 

passenger rail service increases between Washington, D.C., Richmond, VA, and Centralia, VA: 

 Four new Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) round-trip passenger trains operating between 

New York and Raleigh or Charlotte, NC. 

 Five new Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round-trip passenger trains operating between 

Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C. and destinations in Virginia. Three of the new 

round-trip passenger trains will operate to Norfolk. One new round-trip passenger train 

will operate to Newport News, and one to Richmond. 

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

corridor, with the exception of the Auto Train, will be increased from 70 mph today to 90 mph. 

Figure 2.2-3 illustrates the type and frequencies of proposed intercity passenger rail services 

operating in the DC2RVA corridor in the Build Alternative. It is important to note that the 

implementation of the proposed intercity passenger rail service increases described above are not 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-9 

Figure 2.2-3: Proposed Passenger Train Frequencies in the DC2RVA Corridor

solely dependent on rail infrastructure improvements made within the DC2RVA corridor, but also 

depend on additional rail improvements made in adjoining rail corridors to accommodate these 

service increases. (Improvements made in adjoining rail corridors are outside the scope of the 

DC2RVA Project.) 

2.2.3 Service Plan Development 

2.2.3.1 Sources Used to Determine Future Passenger Train Frequencies 

The additional passenger train frequencies proposed in the DC2RVA Project are determined 

primarily by previously signed federal Records of Decision governing the development of highspeed intercity passenger rail service in the federally designated SEHSR corridor. The proposed 

DC2RVA Project service frequency increases would add 9 new round trips (18 passenger trains) 

to the DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA as follows: 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-10 

 The four proposed Washington-North Carolina Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) round trips 

are planned to operate between the NEC and Washington, D.C. through the DC2RVA 

corridor to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC as defined in the Richmond to Raleigh Tier II EIS. 

The Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains do not exist today, and would be new passenger 

frequencies implemented under the DC2RVA Project. This new Interstate Corridor 

passenger service would add eight new trains per day under the DC2RVA Project. These 

new trains would supplement, not replace, the one Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) round 

trip that currently operates daily between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC. 

 One proposed new Northeast Regional (SEHSR) daily round trip (two trains) would be 

added between Washington, D.C. and Newport News, VA under the DC2RVA Project, 

supplementing the two daily Northeast Regional (Virginia) round trips (four trains) 

between Washington, D.C. and Newport News that currently operate. The DC2RVA 

Project will support the expansion of service between Washington. D.C. and Newport 

News from two round trips (four trains per day) to three round trips (six trains per day). 

This additional Northeast Regional (SEHSR) train to Newport News was defined in the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I EIS in 2012. 

 Three proposed new Northeast Regional (SEHSR) daily round trips (six trains) would be 

added between Washington, D.C. and Norfolk, VA under the DC2RVA Project. This 

would supplement the one daily Northeast Regional (Virginia) round trip between 

Washington and Norfolk that operates today, and the two daily Northeast Regional 

(Virginia) round trips that currently operate between Washington and Richmond and are 

planned to be extended to Norfolk with the completion of capacity projects currently 

underway. The DC2RVA Project will support the expansion of service between 

Washington and Norfolk from three round trips (six trains) to six round trips (12 trains). 

The additional Northeast Regional (SEHSR) trains to Norfolk were defined in the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I EIS in 2012. 

 One proposed new Northeast Regional (SEHSR) daily round trip (two trains) would be added 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. This train would provide for a 6 a.m. 

northbound Richmond origination and a late-evening southbound arrival back in Richmond. 

This would allow the other trains from Newport News and Norfolk to operate at more travelerfriendly times to improve the attractiveness of the passenger rail service to those cities. 

2.2.3.2 Service Patterns for DC2RVA Corridor Passenger Trains 

The following general service patterns were established by DRPT for the train types proposed to 

operate in the DC2RVA corridor: 

 New Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains to/from Charlotte and Raleigh make the 

following station stops in the DC2RVA corridor: Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and 

Richmond. These trains operate via the S-Line between Petersburg and Raleigh. 

 The daily Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) between New York and Charlotte makes the 

same stops in the DC2RVA corridor as it does today: Alexandria, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, and Richmond. The Carolinian continues to operate via the A-Line 

between Petersburg and Raleigh. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-11 

 New Northeast Regional (SEHSR) trains, as well as existing Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

trains make the following station stops in the DC2RVA corridor: L’Enfant (limited peakhour departures), Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, Ashland, and Richmond. 

 Long Distance trains and Auto Train frequencies and stopping patterns do not change, 

except for the following: 

- The Silver Star (trains 91 and 92) is rerouted onto the restored S-Line between 

Petersburg and Raleigh. 

- The Cardinal, which uses the DC2RVA corridor between Washington and Alexandra 

and is currently on a tri-weekly schedule, is projected to operate as a daily train by the 

proposed DC2RVA 2025 implementation year. 

 All trains (including Long Distance trains but not Auto Train) are scheduled to operate at 

a higher maximum authorized speed between Arlington and Richmond up to 90 mph 

where authorized. 

 All new Northeast Regional (Virginia and SEHSR), Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and 

Amtrak Long Distance trains are planned to operate north of Washington, D.C., with the 

exception of one which may terminate in Washington, D.C. 

Specific station stop patterns within the DC2RVA corridor, as well as north and south of the 

corridor are subject to future refinement based on ridership analyses, future operating conditions, 

and stakeholder and public input. 

Figure 2.2-4 illustrates potential service patterns of the proposed intercity passenger rail services 

operating in the DC2RVA corridor in the Build Alternative by identifying the specific station stop 

patterns for the different passenger train types. DRPT will finalize service patterns as part of the 

Service Development Plan. 

Amtrak Silver Star Crossing Powells Creek 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-12 

Figure 2.2-4: Service Patterns of Proposed Passenger Trains in the DC2RVA Corridor
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-13 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS 

In this section is an overview of the alternatives development and screening process for the 

DC2RVA Project. The process established a range of alternatives for consideration and then 

systematically evaluated and screened the range of alternatives down to only the most reasonable 

alternatives for detailed analysis in the Draft EIS. Reasonable alternatives are those that meet the 

established Purpose and Need, are buildable and cost-effective, and are anticipated to have 

acceptable levels of impact to the human and natural environments. 

2.3.1 Project Alternative Areas and Segments 

For the development and evaluation of alternatives in the Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT initially categorized 

the DC2RVA Project corridor, which extends from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, into three general 

areas based on common rail operation characteristics and environmental conditions: Northern 

Virginia, Central Virginia, and Richmond. DRPT collected and evaluated data for 22 functional 

segments within these three areas, which were then grouped into six alternative areas that are more 

specific to the types of Build Alternatives that would be developed as part of the DC2RVA Project. 

The six alternative areas are shown in Figure 2.3-1 and the relationship between the three general 

areas, the six alternative areas, and the 22 segments is identified by milepost in Table 2.3-1. In addition, 

existing intercity passenger rail stations in the Project corridor are listed in Table 2.3-2. Note that the 

Build Alternatives developed in each of the six alternative areas will be linked to form a single 

corridor preferred alternative (see Chapter 7). 

Rail Bridge Over Neabsco Creek 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-14 

Table 2.3-1: Project Alternative Areas and Segments 

General 

Area Alternative Area Mileposts Segments Reason for Grouping Northern Virginia 

Area 1: 

Arlington 

CFP 110–

CFP 109.3 

01: Arlington to Alexandria (ROAF) Alternative bridge approach 

alignments developed 

pending decision on location 

of Long Bridge capacity 

expansion 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3–

CFP 62 

02: Alexandria to Franconia (AFFR) 

03: Franconia to Lorton (FRLO) 

04: Lorton to Powells Creek (LOPC) 

05: Powells Creek to Arkendale (PCAR) 

06: Arkendale to Dahlgren Junction 

(ARDJ) 

Relatively similar alignment 

throughout this area 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

CFP 62–

CFP 48 

06: Arkendale to Dahlgren Junction 

(ARDJ) 

07: Dahlgren Junction to Fredericksburg 

(DJFB) 

08: Fredericksburg to Hamilton (FBHA) 

09: Hamilton to Crossroads (HAXR) 

10: Crossroads to Guinea (XRGU) 

21: Fredericksburg Bypass (FBBP) 

Consideration of multiple 

alignments through or 

around (bypass option) 

Fredericksburg 

Central Virginia 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

CFP 48–

CFP 19 

10: Crossroads to Guinea (XRGU) 

11: Guinea to Milford (GUMD) 

12: Milford to North Doswell (MDND) 

13: North Doswell to Elmont (NDEL) 

Relatively similar alignment 

throughout this area 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

CFP 19–

CFP 9 

13: North Doswell to Elmont (NDEL) 

14: Elmont to Greendale (ELGN) 

22: Ashland Bypass (ASBP) 

Consideration of multiple 

alignments through or 

around (bypass option) 

Ashland 

Richmond 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

CFP 9–A 

011 

14: Elmont to Greendale (ELGN) 

15: Greendale to South Acca Yard/west 

Acca Yard (GNSA) 

16: SAY/WAY to AM Junction (Hermitage 

Lead) (SAAM) 

17: AM Junction to Centralia- S-Line 

(AMCE) 

18: West Acca Yard to Centralia –A Line 

(WACE) 

19: AM Junction to Fulton Yard (Peninsula 

Subdivision) (AMFY)* 

20: Buckingham Branch/Hospital Wye 

(BBHW)**

Multiple station options for 

Richmond on separate 

alignments 

*Prior to the Alternatives Development Process as described in this chapter, DRPT truncated the longer AM Junction to Beulah (AMBE) and

Buckingham Branch to Doswell (BBRR) segments to the limits indicated herein. Additional information can be found in the Alternatives Technical 

Report in Appendix A. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-15 

Table 2.3-2: Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor by Area 

General 

Area 

Alternative 

Area Station Location 

Existing Amtrak 

Passenger Services1

Other Rail 

Services 

N/A 

Washington Union 

Station2

Washington, D.C. Long Distance 

Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

VRE, Maryland 

Area Regional 

Commuter 

(MARC), Metrorail 

Northern Virginia 

Area 1: 

Arlington 

No stations 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

Alexandria Union 

Station3

City of Alexandria Long Distance 

Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

VRE, Metrorail 

Lorton Auto Train Lorton 

(Fairfax County) 

Auto Train None 

Woodbridge Woodbridge 

(Prince William 

County) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) VRE 

Quantico Town of Quantico 

(Prince William 

County) 

Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

VRE 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg City of Fredericksburg Long Distance 

Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

VRE 

Central 

Virginia 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

Ashland Town of Ashland 

(Hanover County) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) None 

Richmond 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Staples Mill Road Henrico County Long Distance 

Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) 

None 

Main Street Station City of Richmond Northeast Regional 

(Virginia)—Newport News 

Services only 

None 

Notes: 

1) See Section 2.2.1 for description of existing Amtrak passenger service train types 

2) Washington Union Station is the northern terminus of the DC2RVA corridor for purposes of evaluating ridership and train operations but 

is not considered part of the corridor for purposes of station evaluation or rail improvements. 

3) Alexandria Union Station is typically referred to as “Alexandria Station” so as not to be confused with Washington Union Station. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-16 

Figure 2.3-1: Alternative Areas
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-17 

2.3.2 Considerations for Alternatives Development 

The alternatives development process for DC2RVA began with the development of technical 

criteria as the basis for Project Build Alternatives. Additional considerations that guided the 

development of alternatives included their ability to meet the Project Purpose and Need and the 

presence of physical constraints, i.e., crossing infrastructure, along existing and potential rail 

alignments. Each of these three considerations are described below. 

2.3.2.1 Technical Criteria 

The engineering Basis of Design (BOD) Report (Appendix B) presents the technical criteria that 

were followed for conceptual and preliminary engineering on the DC2RVA Project. The BOD was 

developed in coordination with the major Project stakeholders: FRA, DRPT, Virginia Department 

of Transportation (VDOT), CSXT, Amtrak, and Virginia Railway Express (VRE). 

The BOD for rail components of the Project emphasizes safety and follows accepted engineering 

practices used by CSXT, Amtrak, and VRE and comports with FRA track safety standards and 

the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual for 

Railway Engineering. The BOD for roadway components follows VDOT standards. 

Key features of the BOD are incorporated into the alternatives described in this chapter and 

include the following: 

 Both new and existing main line track will be designed for a maximum authorized 

passenger train speed of 90 mph, where practicable. 

 Both new and existing main line tracks shall be designed for interoperability between all 

passenger and freight service. 

 Track centers (distance between the centerlines of two adjacent tracks) for new main line, 

lead tracks, tangent tracks2, and tracks parallel to main line tracks shall be a minimum of 

15 feet between an existing track and a proposed track or between two or more proposed 

tracks (Figure 2.3-2). 

Figure 2.3-2: Typical Track Section 

 

2 Main line track is the primary track used for through train movements. Lead tracks connect yards or other facilities 

to the main line track. Tangent track are tracks that follow a straight line. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-18 

 Passenger station improvements shall include low-level side or center island platforms 

serving all main line tracks in accordance with FRA, Amtrak, and VRE standards3. Platform 

length should be 850 feet for platforms serving Northeast Regional and Interstate Corridor 

trains and VRE commuter trains, and 1,200 feet for platforms serving Long Distance trains. 

 Utilization to the extent feasible and practicable of ongoing and previously completed 

studies, concept development, and rail improvement designs in the corridor. 

The BOD and key features discussed above are applicable only to areas where new construction 

or major remodeling might occur. Existing tracks where improvements are not required are 

exempt from the design criteria as well as the approvals and design variance process in the BOD. 

DRPT anticipates that portions of the existing track may need to be modified or upgraded for 

improved rail geometrics as well as included in modifications to the signal system. 

Rail alignment options include common elements such as signals, crossovers, sidings, turnouts, 

etc. These elements are defined and shown in Figure 2.3-3. 

Figure 2.3-3: Typical Rail Alignment Elements 

 

3 Platforms are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and those located on tracks used 

solely for passenger trains must have high platforms allowing level boarding with Amtrak’s passenger cars. FRA 

waives this requirement for platforms on tracks where freight trains are commingled with passenger trains, and instead 

allows a low-level platform (top of platform is 8 inches from top of rail). Where low-level platforms are used, the station 

must have alternate means of providing level access to Amtrak’s passenger cars for those with disabilities. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-19 

2.3.2.2 DC2RVA Purpose and Need 

In the 2002 SEHSR Tier I EIS, FRA and FHWA established the overall purpose for the SEHSR 

program, which is to provide a door-to-door time-competitive transportation choice to travelers 

within the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte travel corridor. The SEHSR Tier 

I EIS concluded that adding a third track between Alexandria and Richmond was necessary to 

accommodate the freight and passenger growth needs of all users and institute high speed 

passenger service. The current DC2RVA Project carries forward the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I 

EIS within the Washington, D.C. to Richmond section of the larger SEHSR corridor. The purpose 

of the DC2RVA Project (as stated in Chapter 1) is to increase rail capacity between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and 

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

DC2RVA Project will enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation choice for intercity 

travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and destinations beyond the corridor. 

The DC2RVA section of SEHSR is critical to the success of the other SEHSR sections to the south. 

It is the “gateway” for those future corridors to the south to access the Northeast Corridor (NEC), 

and their ridership/revenue is dependent upon that access. Without improvements to DC2RVA, 

any trains travelling north would be affected by congestion. 

Current conditions experienced in the Project corridor confirm the SEHSR Tier I EIS Purpose and 

Need and are the foundation for the Project today. These conditions, described in detail in 

Chapter 1, include: 

 Population growth 

 Freight growth 

 Congestion in the I-95 corridor 

 Air travel congestion 

 Limited rail capacity in the corridor 

 Options for reliable and convenient movement of goods and people 

 Air quality 

Accordingly, in this Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT developed Project alternatives to meet the Project’s 

Purpose and Need by considering the factors listed in Table 2.3-3. 

2.3.2.3 Crossing Infrastructure Considerations 

The DC2RVA corridor crosses public and private roads, pedestrian paths, other rail corridors, and 

major and minor waterways. Corridor crossings include both at-grade crossings of the railroad by 

other railroads, roads, or pedestrian paths, as well as grade-separated crossings with other railroads, 

roads, or pedestrian paths going over (overpasses) or under (underpasses) the railroad. DRPT’s 

evaluation of these existing crossings identified potential constraints on rail alignment options for the 

Project. The evaluation of existing crossings assumed an additional main track is added along the 

DC2RVA corridor and addressed the following existing at-grade and grade-separated crossings:

 Roadway crossings (public and private crossings) 

 Pedestrian crossings 

 Rail crossings

 Waterway crossings
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-20 

Table 2.3-3: Factors Considered to Develop Alternatives 

DC2RVA Purpose and 

Need Elements 

Factors Considered in the Development of Alternatives 

(i.e., Does the alternative...?) 

Provide an efficient and 

reliable multimodal rail 

corridor 

 Avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts to sensitive human, natural, and physical environmental 

resources 

 Avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts to property owners 

 Optimize capital and operation costs, including: 

- Ridership and revenue 

- Social and economic benefits 

- Infrastructure costs 

- Operations and maintenance costs 

 Provide infrastructure and service improvements that are practicable and constructible 

Increase the capacity of 

the multimodal rail system 

 Provide additional main track, sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity 

and reliability improvements sufficient to accommodate future volumes of passenger, 

commuter, and freight train traffic 

Improve the frequency of 

passenger rail operations 

 Increase passenger train frequency by up to nine round trips per day 

 Provide a passenger train schedule suitable to ridership demand within the corridor and 

beyond 

Improve the reliability of 

passenger rail operations 

 Improve on-time performance by reducing the likelihood of passenger train delays within the 

corridor 

Improve the travel time of 

passenger rail operations 

 Reduce the current passenger train trip time between Washington, D.C. and Richmond 

 Provide a passenger train trip time competitive with auto travel between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond based on ridership demand 

Accommodate VRE 

commuter rail service 

operations 

 Accommodate VRE future growth 

 Accommodate VRE commuter train schedules 

 Accommodate VRE non-revenue train movements and yard access 

 Accommodate VRE platform designs, including alignment, length, and number of platform 

edges served 

 Accommodate existing and planned VRE station locations, including sharing platform space and 

other facilities at Amtrak passenger stations 

Accommodate freight rail 

service operations 

 Reduce freight train delays from passenger and commuter train operations 

 Improve average freight train running time based on track design speed 

 Accommodate rail freight future growth 

 Accommodate yard operations 

 Accommodate access to local customers 

 Accommodate sidings for crew changes and layovers 

Improve modal 

connectivity with other 

public transportation 

systems 

 Develop an intercity passenger train schedule meeting ridership demand 

 Accommodate a commuter train schedule suitable to ridership demand 

 Provide passenger stations that accommodate commuter trains and other transit providers 

 Provide station locations consistent with FRA guidelines 

 Enhance station accessibility 

- Primary road access 

- Other public transit connections/access 

- Pedestrian/bicycle access/facilities 

- Parking facilities 

 Provide station facilities consistent with Amtrak station guidelines 

 Provide station locations consistent with state and local plans 

Improve multimodal rail 

operations safety 

 Improve road at-grade crossing safety warning systems 

 Grade separate or close crossings with unacceptable safety risks 

 Provide platform and station improvements 

 Provide upgrades to signals and communication systems 

Improve air quality and 

reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions 

 Divert passenger trips by automobile and air to passenger train 

 Divert movement of freight by trucks to rail 

 Reduce fuel usage 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-21 

DRPT’s assessment of constraints on rail alignments for each crossing depended on the location 

and the specific type of crossing. The evaluation of existing overpasses addressed spatial 

limitations that could constrain the ability to add an additional main track beneath the overpass. 

The evaluation of underpasses addressed existing geometry and the configuration of the rail 

structure for potential constraints on the rail alignment. The evaluation of at-grade crossings 

addressed physical impacts to the public and private road infrastructure with the addition of a 

single track either to the east or west of the existing track(s). Finally, the locations of rail bridges 

over roads, rails, and waterways were evaluated for constraints that could limit where an 

additional bridge to carry the proposed new track could be constructed. 

DRPT identified proposed crossing improvements for each at-grade roadway crossing in 

accordance with FHWA grade crossing guidance and the site-specific conditions for each 

crossing. The proposed improvements for the DC2RVA Project include crossing elimination 

(grade separation or closure) or safety improvements (including four quadrant gates or center 

median treatment with gates), and were identified to enhance the safety and operations of both 

roadway and rail traffic through the at-grade crossings. Refer to Chapter 4.15 for details. 

2.3.3 Alternatives Development 

The SEHSR Tier I EIS and 2002 Record of Decision (ROD) recognized the need for an additional 

main track on the corridor to provide capacity for more passenger trains, improve reliability of 

passenger train service, and improve travel time. The alternatives development process for 

DC2RVA therefore began with DRPT developing preliminary rail alignments. These preliminary 

rail alignments defined the general location and configuration of existing and additional main 

line tracks required to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. DRPT developed these preliminary 

rail alignments, including improving existing track and any new track, in accordance with the 

Project’s BOD, described above in Section 2.3.2.1. The BOD was developed to incorporate 

applicable engineering elements and design criteria supporting the Purpose and Need into the 

Project’s track and roadway designs. 

Preliminary rail alignments are the initial basis for Project Build Alternatives, recognizing that 

adding a main line track and/or the potential realignment of the existing main line tracks is the 

driver for many of the other Project-related improvements and potential impacts. The rail 

alignments developed for the DC2RVA Project, described below, generally include the addition 

of a main track following the existing CSXT Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Subdivision 

(RF&P) corridor and improvements to existing track to increase potential speed, accommodate 

platform improvements, improve roadway crossings, or make room for additional track: 

 DRPT developed preliminary rail alignments, including the addition of a new main track, 

from approximately 250 feet south of the Potomac River in Arlington, VA to the Staples 

Mill Road Amtrak station in Richmond. 

 From Staples Mill Road Station south through Richmond to Centralia, VA, DRPT also 

developed preliminary rail alignment options; however, these Richmond area rail 

alignment options were based on multiple station location options along the primary 

existing rail corridors (the A- and S-Lines) through the city. 

In addition, DRPT identified three specific areas along the corridor where additional 

consideration was warranted—Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond. In Fredericksburg and 

Ashland, there are challenges due to limited space within the existing CSXT right-of-way for 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-22 

additional track, adjacent population density and land use, station/platform location options, 

and sensitive historical and cultural resources. In Richmond, two potential alignments through 

the city and multiple station location options were identified during Project scoping. Preliminary 

rail alignments developed for Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond were focused less on 

improving passenger train speed and more on improving capacity and reliability of the passenger 

service. 

Developing potential rail alignments was an iterative process and considered options for rail 

alignments, station options, and physical constraints, as shown in Figure 2.3-4. 

Figure 2.3-4: DC2RVA Alternatives Development Process 

2.3.3.1 Rail Alignment Alternatives 

DRPT developed three initial alignments to represent the range of potential Additional Track 

Alignments along the existing DC2RVA corridor, as shown in Figure 2.3-5 and described further 

below: 

 Maximum Speed (Unconstrained) Alignment—adds one new track and realigns existing 

track to achieve the maximum authorized speed of 90 mph unconstrained by existing 

right-of-way. 

 Improved Speed (Constrained) Alignment —adds one new track and realigns existing 

track to improve speed up to 90 mph to the extent possible while constrained to stay 

within the right-of-way. A variation on this alignment was also developed that optimizes 

use of existing rail infrastructure while also seeking to achieve the maximum possible 

speed up to 90 mph— called the Improved Speed Alignment (Hold Bridges/Tangents) 

Alignment. 

 Existing Speed (West/East Track) Alignment —adds one new track to either side of the 

existing track while maintaining existing speed. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-23 

DRPT recognizes there is a trade-off between meeting the Project’s Purpose and Need and 

impacts to human and natural resources. Adding a main track to the existing rail corridor adds 

capacity to the system, which removes or reduces system bottlenecks and improves passenger 

train performance and reliability. Improving travel time requires some combination of faster train 

operating speeds and/or fewer stops or delays. Designing an alignment for faster train speeds 

typically means straightening curves and reducing grade changes. Straightening the curves 

while adding new track can require additional right of way and create impacts to human and 

natural resources - while not improving the rail corridor or not adding track would have less 

impacts, but provide less improvement to the existing passenger rail system and may not satisfy 

the Project’s Purpose and Need. Generally, where two or more alignment options exist with 

comparative levels of impacts, DRPT has advanced the alignment option that maximizes speed 

and capacity. 

Figure 2.3-5: DC2RVA Preliminary Rail Alignment Options

In addition, a fourth alternative was developed for segments and areas where no additional track 

was warranted but minor improvements would be necessary to upgrade the existing rail system 

to meet Purpose and Need, and be compatible with alternatives north and south of the specific 

segment/area. For example, some segments already have three main tracks and may not require 

an additional main track. This fourth alternative is the No Additional Track, or Minor 

Improvements, Alignment. 

Maximum Speed (Unconstrained) Alignment 

The Maximum Speed Alignment was designed by DRPT to show what the rail alignment would 

look like if the primary criterion was to design track capable of the maximum allowable speed of 

90 mph for passenger trains along the entire corridor, without being constrained by the limits of 

the existing right-of-way. Track alignment would generally follow the line of the existing rail 

corridor, but would include areas outside of the existing right-of-way where required to achieve 

a 90 mph track design speed. While optimizing track design speed, the unconstrained alignment 

would require substantial acquisition of new right-of-way and would generally have greater 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-24 

impacts to environmental resources and infrastructure. The Maximum Speed Alignment includes 

the following characteristics: 

 Addition of a main track designed to allow 90 mph for passenger trains. 

 Reconfiguration of existing main line tracks to allow 90 mph for passenger trains. 

 Replacing most, if not all, of the existing rail bridges over roads and waterways; existing 

rail bridges would not be used unless they fit the design alignment for 90 mph. 

 Replacing most, if not all, of the existing road overpasses; existing road overpasses would 

not be used unless the design alignment for 90 mph fit underneath them. 

Improved Speed (Constrained) Alignment 

The Improved Speed Alignment was designed by DRPT to maximize passenger train speed up 

to 90 mph where possible while keeping all tracks (new and reconfigured) within the limits of the 

existing right-of-way. A track design to reach 90 mph is not achievable within all sections of 

existing right-of-way due to existing curves and limited distances of straight (tangent) track 

between curves. The Improved Speed Alignment includes the following characteristics: 

 Addition of a main track within the existing right-of-way designed to allow the maximum 

possible speed up to 90 mph for passenger trains where possible. 

 Reconfiguration of existing main line tracks to allow the maximum possible speed up to 

90 mph for passenger trains where possible. 

 Track alignment for the redesigned tracks is constrained to fit within the existing right-ofway. 

This constrained option would increase track design speed for many segments and partial 

segments on the corridor, while limiting impacts and property acquisition outside of the right-ofway. 

A variation on this constrained alignment was developed to optimize use of existing rail 

infrastructure while also seeking to achieve the maximum possible speed up to 90 mph—called 

the Improved Speed Alignment (Hold Bridges/Tangents). This design variation maintains 

existing tangent (e.g., straight) tracks and continues to use the existing rail bridges and alignment 

over roads and waterways. New bridges would be required alongside the existing rail bridges to 

carry the additional main track, and the existing track would be realigned through some curves 

to increase track design speed. Where the potential environmental effects of the two improved 

speed alignments are comparable, the Improved Speed Alignment (Hold Bridges/Tangents) 

would be preferred due to lower infrastructure impacts and anticipated cost savings from 

continuing use of existing rail bridges and tangent track alignments. 

Existing Speed (West/East Track) Alignment 

The Existing Speed Alignment adds one additional main line track to the existing alignment and 

matches the existing track alignment’s curvature and operating speed. The Existing Speed 

Alignment would add capacity to the system but would minimally increase design speed using 

track superelevation. This alignment includes the following characteristics: 

 Addition of a main track that matches the existing track alignment’s curvature and design 

speed. 

 No change to existing main line track alignment. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-25 

 Addition of a main track could require additional right-of-way. 

 Existing track would continue use of existing rail bridges over roads or waterways; new 

rail bridges would be added to carry the additional main track. 

The addition of a new main track and associated track bed would generally fit within the existing 

right-of-way. There may be some areas, however, where the slope of the track bed and associated 

cut/fill line, utility relocations, replacement of existing access roads, or other related 

improvement extend outside the existing right-of-way. 

There are two versions of the Existing Speed Alignment option: 

1) West Track Addition adds one new track to west side of existing main line, leaving 

existing tracks as is. 

2) East Track Addition adds one new track to east side of existing main line, leaving existing 

tracks as is. 

The Existing Speed Alignment would add track capacity but does not attempt to achieve a track 

design capable of supporting passenger trains at 90 mph Maximum Authorized Speed (MAS). 

Alignment Options Based on Prior Studies 

In addition to the rail alignments described above, several rail alignments were identified in prior 

corridor studies and were considered by DRPT in the alternatives development process (previous 

studies are further described in the Alternatives Technical Report in Appendix A). These 

alignments included those from studies by DRPT and CSXT for the addition of a main track 

and/or third track for portions of the DC2RVA corridor. The rail alignments developed in prior 

studies used varying design criteria; therefore, these alignment options were reconfigured by 

DRPT at the conceptual sketch level following the DC2RVA BOD. Once reconfigured to match 

the DC2RVA BOD, DRPT realized that the prior rail alignment options generally overlapped the 

East Addition or West Addition versions of the Existing Speed Alignment and in many segments 

were indistinguishable from the Existing Speed Alignments. 

Considerations from Scoping/Public Input 

Agency and public input during the scoping process also identified several alternatives for 

consideration (see Chapter 6 for more information on the scoping process). Comments that were 

potentially consistent with the Project’s Purpose and Need were considered and incorporated 

into the development of Project alternatives. Others that were inconsistent with the Project’s 

Purpose and Need were considered but not carried further for evaluation. 

Suggested alternatives and infrastructure options that were potentially consistent with the 

Project’s Purpose and Need included: 

 New track alignments along the corridor (including a bypass at Ashland and a bypass at 

Fredericksburg) 

 Various operating modes or service levels (to be addressed as part of the service planning 

effort for the Project) 

 The concept that the Richmond area be served by only one rail station 

 The potential for a new station in the vicinity of the former Broad Street Union Station 

(now housing the Science Museum of Virginia) in Richmond 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-26 

Additional alternatives that were suggested during Project scoping and determined by DRPT to 

be inconsistent with the Project’s Purpose and Need included extending passenger rail service to 

Bristol, VA, or developing a bicycle trail or greenway along the corridor. DRPT, along with 

Amtrak and Norfolk Southern, is exploring the possibility of new passenger service between 

Bristol, Roanoke, and Washington, D.C. along the Norfolk Southern Heartland Corridor. 

However, this service would exist largely outside the DC2RVA corridor and was therefore 

considered inconsistent with the Project’s Purpose and Need to provide improved passenger rail 

service between Washington, D.C. and Richmond on the existing CSXT alignment. Public 

comment received in support of establishing a bicycle/walking path or greenway alongside the 

DC2RVA corridor also was considered but likewise determined to be inconsistent with the 

Project’s Purpose and Need. CSXT does not allow recreational use of its right-of-way; therefore, 

any greenway would require additional right-of-way to be acquired outside of the existing CSXT 

right-of-way along the 123-mile corridor. Developing a greenway on new right-of-way would 

create impacts to historical resources, wetlands and waterways, neighborhoods, road crossings, 

and other natural and man-made resources. Providing a greenway does not support or enhance 

passenger rail service, nor does it provide a reasonable transportation choice for corridor travel, 

and therefore this suggestion was not evaluated further. 

Alternatives Development in Fredericksburg (Build Alternative Area 3) and Ashland 

(Build Alternative Area 5) 

DRPT, based on prior corridor studies and in coordination with FRA, has assumed an additional 

main track is necessary in the corridor to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. DRPT evaluated 

the Maximum Speed, Improved Speed, and Existing Speed additional track alignments in 

Fredericksburg and Ashland; however, all of the alignments that add a main track would affect 

historic or other resources in the areas. DRPT therefore considered two additional options within 

each of these areas: 

 No Additional Track—This option would not add any additional track through 

Fredericksburg or Ashland. There would be minor improvements to existing crossings 

and upgrades to signals and communications systems. Future train traffic, including all 

passenger, commuter, and freight trains, would continue on the existing corridor. 

 Two-track Bypass—This option would add a two-track bypass, either east or west of 

Ashland or Fredericksburg. DRPT anticipated these bypass alignments would be used 

primarily by freight trains, the Auto Train, and possibly some long-distance passenger 

trains; regional passenger trains and VRE commuter trains (Fredericksburg only) would 

continue to utilize the existing tracks and pass through the existing station. 

2.3.3.2 Station Location Alternatives 

DRPT evaluated both existing and potential passenger rail stations in the DC2RVA corridor. The 

DC2RVA Project proposes to generally maintain existing intercity passenger rail service patterns 

while increasing the frequency and reliability of service on the corridor. DRPT anticipates that the 

existing intercity passenger rail stations in the corridor (see Table 2.3-2), if not replaced by a new 

station, would continue to receive some level of intercity passenger rail service via Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian and SEHSR) and/or Northeast Regional (Virginia and SEHSR) trains. The Project may 

modify existing train schedules to accommodate the proposed new passenger services provided by 

DC2RVA. The Project does not preclude future changes to service patterns and intercity passenger 

rail station locations, nor does it preclude development of new stations in the future. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-27 

Intercity passenger rail stations may be affected by the Project as follows: 

 Existing intercity passenger stations may be improved or expanded in accordance with 

Amtrak’s station facility guidelines and ridership service requirements, including new station 

buildings, parking, and other facilities to meet ridership demand and increased service 

frequency. 

 New passenger stations may be established and existing stations re-located or closed to 

meet ridership demand and/or to improve passenger service and rail operational 

efficiency. 

 Amtrak station platforms may be reconfigured and new island platforms added to meet 

new track alignments and the Project’s BOD. Track alignments at VRE stations will 

accommodate expanded platforms and new island platforms in accordance with the 

Project’s BOD. The Project does not include construction of new platforms for stations that 

will only be served by VRE4, although it does not preclude VRE from pursuing such 

improvements. 

 Future passenger service frequency and schedules may change; stations may receive more 

or less Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (SEHSR), or Northeast Regional (SEHSR) train 

services than they do now; or stations may receive more or less funding for improvements 

from public or private sources. 

Several locations for potential new or replacement intercity passenger stations were identified 

during Project scoping and from prior corridor studies. These potential new station locations, 

which include some VRE stations and new station locations, are identified in Table 2.3-4. 

2.3.3.3 Richmond Area Rail Alignment–Station Service Options 

While rail improvements and even additional track can be added within the existing right-of-way 

in many segments in Richmond, the dense urban environment and potential impacts precluded 

a focus on higher speed. Instead, station locations were identified and used as the basis for 

identifying sets of rail improvements in Richmond for increased capacity to form alternatives. 

Station location alternatives in Richmond were developed using the following FRA station 

location guidance, and associated rail improvements were identified to serve both intercity 

passenger rail needs and to alleviate freight rail movements and bottlenecks that could adversely 

affect passenger service: 

 Intercity passenger rail stations should be located in or near the central business district. 

 For larger metro areas, there should be one or more suburban stations. 

 Stations should be readily accessible and cater to business and leisure travel. 

Refer to Section 2.4.3 below for details. 

 

4 DRPT evaluated the existing and planned VRE stations and VRE’s planned platform expansions to ensure the 

Project’s track alignments at the VRE stations accommodated 850 feet long platforms and island platforms where 

possible. Descriptions of these VRE stations/locations and their existing facilities and attributes are provided in the 

Alternatives Technical Report. VRE existing commuter rail stations and those under construction or planned were also 

evaluated to ensure DC2RVA track alignments could accommodate expanded commuter platforms and new island 

platforms in accordance with the Project’s BOD. The Project does not include construction of new platforms for stations 

that will only be served by VRE.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-28 

Table 2.3-4: Potential Locations for New Passenger Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Station 

Location/DC2RVA 

Build Alternative Area Status/Origination 

Potential Other 

Passenger Rail Service 

Crystal City/National 

Airport 

Arlington County/Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Potential new station location 

identified during public scoping 

VRE, Metrorail 

Spotsylvania Spotsylvania County/Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Potential new station combined with 

existing VRE station 

VRE 

Carmel Church Caroline County/Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Potential new station location 

identified from prior studies and 

public scoping 

None 

Vaughan Road Town of Ashland/Area 5: 

Ashland 

Potential new station location to 

replace existing Ashland Station 

identified during public scoping 

None 

Patrick Road Town of Ashland/Area 5: 

Ashland 

Potential new station location to 

replace existing Ashland Station 

identified during public scoping 

None 

Ashcake Road Hanover County/Area 5: 

Ashland 

Potential new station location to 

replace existing Ashland Station 

identified during public scoping. 

None 

Cedar Lane Glen Allen, Henrico 

County/Area 6: Richmond 

Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 

Greenwood Road Glen Allen, Henrico 

County/Area 6: Richmond 

Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 

Mountain Road Glen Allen, Henrico 

County/Area 6: Richmond 

Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 

Parham Road Henrico County/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new station location 

identified from prior studies 

None 

Boulevard City of Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new station location 

identified during public scoping 

None 

Broad Street City of Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential redevelopment of historic 

train station (currently Science 

Museum of Virginia) identified during 

public scoping 

None 

Hull Street Road South Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 

Warwick/Bells Road South Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 

Walmsley Boulevard South Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 

Chester Road Chester/Area 6: Richmond Potential new station location based 

on DRPT review of rail alignment 

None 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-29 

2.4 OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED 

DRPT’s determination of which alternatives were considered and dismissed versus those carried 

forward for further evaluation and/or inclusion in the Draft EIS was the outcome of a systematic 

evaluation and screening process. Accordingly, this section begins with a description of the 

screening process, followed by a summary of the outcome of the application of that process. 

2.4.1 Screening Process 

2.4.1.1 Rail Alignment Screening Process 

The rail alignment screening process evaluated potential rail alignments for effectiveness in 

meeting the Project’s Purpose and Need. The overall rail alignment screening process is 

summarized in Table 2.4-1 and includes the following: 

 Stage I. Evaluation of rail alignments outside the existing right-of-way for potential 

impacts to key environmental resources. 

 Stage II. Evaluation of rail alignments for order-of-magnitude impacts on additional 

environmental resources, within and outside the existing right-of-way. During this stage, 

DRPT eliminated alignment options with greater impacts and carried forward alignment 

options with fewer impacts. Where there are two or more alignment options with similar 

levels of impacts, DRPT has carried forward the option that provides the higher train 

design speed 

 Stage III. Evaluation of rail alignments for effects on existing infrastructure, including atgrade crossings, roadway overpasses, and rail bridges over roads or waterways. 

 Stage IV. Evaluation of additional rail alignments, including bypasses, in areas of special 

concern (Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond). Options that were identified in each 

area during Stage IV were also evaluated against the Stage I, II, and III screening elements. 

At the northern end of the DC2RVA corridor in Arlington, the CSXT tracks continue across the 

Potomac River on a two-track rail bridge, known as the Long Bridge. The Washington, D.C. 

District Department of Transportation (DDOT), in coordination with FRA, DRPT, VRE and CSXT, 

is completing a comprehensive study for the replacement of the Long Bridge to increase the rail 

capacity across the Potomac River.5 

The DDOT Long Bridge study is separate from the DC2RVA Project and addresses a critical 

bottleneck to rail operations where the DC2RVA corridor connects to the NEC. DRPT developed 

multiple alignments for the southern approach to the bridge in coordination with the Long Bridge 

study and subjected those options to the same Stage I, II, and III screening as described above for 

the corridor rail alignments. The development of multiple alignments ensures that a DC2RVA 

alignment would be available to coordinate with any of the three alternatives being considered 

in the study of the potential Long Bridge improvements. 

 

5 The DDOT Long Bridge Study project website is: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/long-bridge-study-phases-i-and-ii 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-30 

Table 2.4-1: Rail Alignment Screening Process 

Screening Stage Screening Criteria Evaluation Factors 

Stage I 

Direct effects on key 

environmental resources 

Direct effects to: 

 Historic resources listed on or eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places 

 Federal, state, or local parks and recreation areas 

 Federal or state wildlife and waterfowl refuges 

 Military bases 

Alignment options eliminated if adding 

a new main track would have direct 

effects to key resources outside of 

existing right-of-way. 

Stage II 

Order of magnitude 

impacts on readily 

identifiable environmental 

characteristics not 

addressed in the first stage 

screening 

Direct effects to: 

 Area outside of right-of-way 

- Urban/developed land use 

- Agricultural land use 

 Registered hazardous material or waste site(s) under 

Superfund 

 Registered hazardous material or waste site(s) 

 Conservation lands/easements 

 State-listed agricultural or forestal districts 

 Areas on the National Wetlands Inventory or other 

mapped wetland areas 

 Cemeteries 

Alignment option(s) eliminated if 

adding a new main track would have 

direct impacts on environmental 

characteristics that are substantively 

greater than options with comparable 

design speed. 

Stage III 

Infrastructure constraints 

on rail operations and 

track design 

Direct effects to: 

 Existing rail bridges over roads, railroads, and 

waterways 

 New rail bridges over roads, railroads, and 

waterways 

 Existing and new roadway overpasses 

 Existing roadway at-grade crossings 

 Existing station platforms 

 Track design speed/capacity 

Alignment option(s) eliminated if 

adding a new main track would have 

direct impacts on existing 

infrastructure or require new 

infrastructure substantively greater 

than options with comparable or 

improved track design speed/capacity. 

Stage IV 

Evaluation of bypass 

alignments and areas of 

special concern 

(Fredericksburg, Ashland, 

and Richmond) 

Direct effects to: 

 Stage I criteria 

 Stage II criteria 

 Stage III criteria 

Alignment option(s) eliminated in 

accordance with Stage I, II and III 

evaluation factors described above. 

2.4.1.2 Station Location Screening Process 

DRPT developed functional criteria for station evaluations by identifying key characteristics of 

stations that support demand for intercity passenger rail service, including station location, existing 

site conditions, surrounding population density and commercial activity, multimodal connectivity,6

and distance between station stops. These criteria are based on guidelines from the FRA and 

standards developed by Amtrak, AREMA, and other local and national rail station studies.

Screening of existing and potential stations considered: station location; potential 

ridership/revenue; station type; multimodal service; station configuration; station access; and 

parking. DRPT anticipates that the existing intercity passenger rail stations in the corridor, if not 

replaced by a new station, would continue to receive some level of intercity passenger rail service 

via Interstate Corridor and/or Northeast Regional (Virginia and SEHSR) trains. Potential new 

 

6 Multimodal connectivity refers to the ability for passengers to transfer between multiple modes of transportation, 

such as passenger rail, commuter rail, subway or streetcar service, bus service, private vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian 

modes. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-31 

stations that are less able to meet the criteria will not be considered further as part of the DC2RVA 

Project; however, this does not preclude these or other station locations from being developed in 

the future, independent of DC2RVA. 

2.4.2 Screening Results for Northern Virginia (Build Alternative Areas 1, 2, and 3) 

and Central Virginia (Build Alternative Areas 4 and 5) 

2.4.2.1 Rail Alignments 

DRPT identified Northern Virginia and Central Virginia rail alignment options based on the 

opportunity to improve track design speed. 

The cumulative results of Stage I, II, and III screening of rail alignments in Northern and Central 

Virginia are shown in Table 2.4-2. The options that are carried forward by DRPT are indicated in the 

tables with an open circle (); those that DRPT are not carrying through for further evaluation are 

represented by a closed circle (). Refer to the Alternatives Technical Report (Appendix A) for detailed 

screening tables for each stage by segment. Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements for 

segments within Northern Virginia and Central Virginia are in Appendix D and F, respectively. 

Northern Virginia Screening Outcome 

In Segment 01: Rosslyn to Alexandria (ROAF), DRPT considered the following alignments, none 

of which were dismissed: 

 Add two tracks east of existing corridor 

 Add two tracks west of existing corridor 

 Add one track east and one track west of existing corridor 

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 

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 alternatives are very similar in their impacts, and that lacking 

overriding issues, DRPT would not select one alternative over the other at this time. 

In the remainder of Northern Virginia, DRPT eliminated the Maximum Speed Alignment options 

during screening due to their relatively high levels of impacts to the human and natural environment. 

The Improved Speed Alignment option (Hold Bridges/Hold Tangents) was advanced by DRPT 

as the reasonable and feasible track alignment for most segments in the Northern Virginia area. 

The objective of the Improved Speed Alignment is to attain a track design speed of 90 mph where 

practical within the existing right-of-way. However, there are portions of many segments in the 

Northern Virginia area where it is not practical to design track for 90 mph, due to limited rightof-way, site constraints, or rail operational constraints.7 In these portions of track, the Improved 

Speed Alignment seeks to improve speed up to the limiting speed on either end. 

 

7 For example, a section of track with multiple curves and limited tangent track between curves may not be capable of 

supporting 90 mph train operations, particularly if the limiting speed in the curves is less than 90 mph and there is 

insufficient distance between curves for a passenger train to accelerate to 90 mph and then decelerate to the limiting 

speed without wasting fuel. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-32 

Table 2.4-2: Summary of Stages I, II, and III Screening by Segment 

(Northern and Central Virginia) 

Segment 

Max 

Speed 

Improved Speed Existing Speed 

No 

Additional 

Constrained Track 

Hold 

BR 

Hold 

BR/Tan East West 2006 

Northern Virginia 

01: Rosslyn to 

Alexandria (ROAF)       n/a n/a 

02: Alexandria to 

Franconia (AFFR) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

03: Franconia to Lorton 

(FRLO)        n/a 

04: Lorton to Powells 

Creek (LOPC)        n/a 

05: Powells Creek to 

Arkendale (PCAR) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

06: Arkendale to 

Dahlgren Junction 

(ARDJ) 

       n/a 

07: Dahlgren Junction 

to Fredericksburg 

(DJFB) 

      n/a n/a 

08: Fredericksburg to 

Hamilton (FBHA) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

09: Hamilton to 

Crossroads (HAXR) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Central Virginia 

10: Crossroads to 

Guinea (XRGU)        n/a 

11: Guinea to Milford 

(GUMD)        n/a 

12: Milford to North 

Doswell (MDND)        n/a 

13: North Doswell to 

Elmont (NDEL)        n/a 

14: Elmont to 

Greendale (ELGN)        n/a 

Notes: Alignment eliminated from further evaluation during screening. Alignment carried forward for further evaluation 

Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements for segments within Northern Virginia and Central Virginia are in Appendix D and F, 

respectively. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-33 

In some segments in the Northern Virginia area, a third main track is already available or under 

construction, and an additional main track may not be needed. In these segments, a No 

Additional Track Option was advanced. The No Additional Track Option includes shifting track 

in some curves to improve speed. 

Taking into consideration the Improved Speed (Hold Bridges/Hold Tangents) Alignment and 

No Additional Track Option, most of the Northern Virginia area would have track improved for 

speeds of 79 mph, with some sections designed for up to 90 mph (current track speeds top out at 

69 mph.) The Existing Speed (West/East Track) Alignment options one segment on each side that 

advanced through these screenings. However, the Existing Speed Alignments do not 

accommodate improving speed on the curves in the corridor. 

Based on the results of the Stage I, II, and III screening, DRPT advanced the Improved Speed 

Alignment options with modifications to the curves where possible within the existing right-ofway to improve rail operating speed. 

Central Virginia Screening Outcome 

DRPT eliminated the Maximum Speed Alignment options during the screening due to their 

relatively high levels of impacts to the human and natural environment outside the right-of-way. 

The Improved Speed Alignment option was advanced as the reasonable and feasible track 

alignment for the Central Virginia area. 

The Existing Speed (West/East) Alignments were eliminated from further consideration because 

they did not accommodate improving speed.

2.4.2.2 Station Locations 

As indicated above, DRPT anticipates that the existing intercity passenger rail stations in the 

corridor (see Table 2.3-2), if not replaced by a new station, would continue to receive some level 

of intercity passenger rail service. DRPT evaluated possible new or replacement station locations 

for their suitability to serve as intercity passenger rail stations, as shown in Table 2.4-3, but 

ultimately determined that no new stations are needed in the Northern and Central Virginia areas 

to meet the Purpose and Need for service. This, however, does not preclude future stations along 

the corridor. 

 Table 2.4-3: Station Screening Summary, Northern and Central Virginia 

Station 

Location/DC2RVA 

Build Alternative 

Area Status Station Notes 

Crystal City/ 

National Airport 

Arlington 

County/Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Potential new location. 

Dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Platform configuration constraints, parking 

constraints, and proximity to Alexandria 

Station. 

Spotsylvania Spotsylvania 

County/Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Potential new location. 

Dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Proximity to Fredericksburg Station, and 

interference with VRE operations. 

Carmel Church Spotsylvania 

County/Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Potential new location. 

Dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Access to I-95 and US-1. Lack of 

development and relatively low population 

and ridership in the area. 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-34 

 Table 2.4-3: Station Screening Summary, Northern and Central Virginia 

Station 

Location/DC2RVA 

Build Alternative 

Area Status Station Notes 

Vaughan Road Caroline 

County/Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Potential new location. 

Dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Limited connectivity to east-west primary 

roadways, possible conflicts with local land 

use, and distance from Ashland’s central 

urban area. 

Patrick Road Town of 

Ashland/Area 5: 

Ashland 

Potential new location. 

Dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Land acquisition and occupying space 

currently designated for use by the College 

for expansion. 

Ashcake Road Town of 

Ashland/Area 5: 

Ashland 

Potential new location. Carried 

forward based on potential 

conflicts of existing station 

location in the Town of Ashland 

with DC2RVA improvements. 

South of Ashcake Road, on the eastern side 

of tracks. 

2.4.3 Screening Results for Richmond (Build Alternative Area 6) 

In Richmond, the existing dense urban development, grade changes, and historic rail ROW 

configuration limit opportunities to improve travel time. Additionally, there are multiple rail 

lines, including two CSXT-owned north-south lines (A-Line and S-Line, see below), to consider. 

Because of these factors, DRPT developed preliminary rail alignments and other improvements 

for the Richmond area primarily based on the ability to serve passenger train routes and potential 

station locations. Rail Lines through Richmond. In Richmond, the A-Line and S-Line railroads 

diverge at the south end of Acca Yard forming two routes through the city. The westward of the 

two routes is the A-Line, which arcs around Richmond as the double-track North End 

Subdivision, CSXT’s principal freight route between Richmond and points south toward North 

Carolina. The eastward of the two routes is the S-Line, which passes through the center of 

Richmond as the Bellwood Subdivision, used primarily by local freights to serve industries and 

passenger train service to Newport News. The double-track A-Line runs through the median of 

I-195 south of Acca Yard and has limitations for expanding capacity. The single-track S-Line has 

limited vertical and horizontal clearance in the vicinity of Main Street Station caused by I-95 

bridge pillars and the Triple Crossing of three railroad lines, of which the S-Line is the middlelevel track in the crossing. 

2.4.3.1 Rail Alignment—Station Service Options 

Rail alignment options in Richmond were driven by station service options. DRPT identified a 

range of existing and possible station locations, developed a set of track and rail infrastructure 

improvements specific to each station location option, and then screened the rail infrastructure 

improvements following the screening process described in this chapter. 

As described in Section 2.4.3.2, DRPT’s evaluation of potential new station locations in Richmond 

identified two station locations for further consideration. Together with the two existing stations 

in the Richmond area, the following four stations were carried forward as part of either a singlestation or two-station option: 

 Staples Mill Road Station—existing Amtrak station in Henrico County 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-35 

 Boulevard Station—new station location adjacent to the Boulevard Street overpass and 

northeast of the CSXT track in Richmond 

 Broad Street Station—new station location near the historic Broad Street Station building 

(now the Science Museum of Virginia) in Richmond 

 Main Street Station—existing Amtrak station in downtown Richmond 

DRPT identified multiple options based on combinations of the existing rail alignments through 

the city (the A-line and the S-Line) and existing and potential station locations, as shown in Figure 

2.4-1. Options based on station service were developed by DRPT for single-station options and 

two-station options at the four station locations. Each station location option includes a 

corresponding set of rail alignments and improvements. 

The single-station options include rail service along either the S-Line or A-Line to existing and 

proposed stations in Richmond: 

 Staples Mill Road Station Only (via A-Line) 

 Boulevard Station Only (via A-Line) 

 Boulevard Station Only (via S-Line) 

 Broad Street Station Only (via A-Line) 

 Main Street Station Only (via S-Line) 

- Via S-Line/Peninsula Subdivision 

- Via S-Line/Peninsula Subdivision + Freight Connector Bypass 

The two-station options include varying rail services to both Main Street Station and Staples Mill 

Road Station: 

 Full Service (via S-Line)— Long Distance (Amtrak), Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) passenger trains moving 

north-south through Richmond route through Staples Mill Road Station to the west side 

of Main Street Station and then to Centralia using the S-Line; all Northeast Regional 

service to Newport News continues from the east side of Main Street Station on the 

Peninsula Subdivision. 

 Full Service (via S-Line) + Freight Connector Bypass—Similar to full service, but a freight 

connector bypass would be built across the James River as a means to facilitate freight 

movements within the Richmond area, which, in turn would facilitate passenger train 

movements from the Peninsula Subdivision, and between Main Street Station and Acca Yard. 

 Split Service (via A-Line)—Similar to the existing service pattern, all Long Distance, 

Interstate Corridor, and Northeast Regional passenger trains moving north-south through 

Richmond route through Staples Mill Road Station to Centralia using the A-Line, 

bypassing Main Street Station; northeast regional service to Newport News continues 

from the east side of Main Street Station on the Peninsula Subdivision. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-36 

Figure 2.4-1: Richmond Area Station Options
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-37 

 Shared Service (via A-line and S-Line)—All Long Distance, Interstate Corridor, and 

Northeast Regional passenger trains moving north-south through Richmond route 

through Staples Mill Road Station and then either: (a) to the west side of Main Street 

Station and then to Centralia using the S-Line; or (b) to Centralia using the A-Line. 

Northeast regional service to Newport News continues from the east side of Main Street 

Station on the Peninsula Subdivision. 

 Shared Service (via A-Line and S-Line) + Freight Connector—Similar to shared service 

with the addition that a freight connector bypass would be built across the James River to 

facilitate freight movements within the Richmond area, which, in turn would facilitate 

passenger train movements from the Peninsula Subdivision, and between Main Street 

Station and Acca Yard. 

DRPT further considered the potential for sharing service between a new Broad Street station and 

either the Main Street or Staples Mill Road stations, or between a new Boulevard Street Station 

and either the Main Street or Staples Mill Road stations. These options were dismissed due to the 

proximity between the stations—they are too close (within 4 miles of each other) for efficient rail 

operations and intercity passenger service. 

All other options were moved forward into screening, which is summarized in Table 2.4-4. The 

station options that are carried forward by DRPT are indicated in the tables with an open circle 

(); those that DRPT are not carrying through for further evaluation are represented by a closed 

circle (). 

Table 2.4-4: Summary of Screening by Station Location (Richmond) 

Station Location Options 

Stage I 

Screening 

Stage II 

Screening 

Stage III 

Screening Summary 

Staples Mill Road Station Only    

Boulevard Station Only (via A-Line)    

Boulevard Station Only (via S-Line)    

Broad Street Station Only    

Main Street Station Only    

Main Street Station Only + Freight Connector Bypass    

Split Service—Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (via A-line)    

Full Service—Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (via S-line)    

Full Service—Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (via S-line) + 

Freight Connector Bypass    

Shared Service—Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (via A-line and 

S-line)    

Shared Service—Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (via A-line and 

S-line) + Freight Connector Bypass    

Notes: Alignment eliminated by DRPT during screening. Alignment carried forward for further evaluation 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-38 

The screening of Richmond station alignment options defined the rail infrastructure 

improvements determined to be reasonable for evaluation within the Draft EIS. Numerous 

options for the Richmond Freight Connector were considered but all were eliminated from 

consideration due to impacts to wetlands, historic resources, and/or public parks and recreations 

areas. 

2.4.3.2 Station Locations 

DRPT anticipates that the existing Amtrak stations in Richmond (see Table 2.3-2), if not replaced 

by a new station, would continue to receive some level of intercity passenger rail service. DRPT 

evaluated possible new or replacement station locations for their suitability to serve as intercity 

passenger rail stations, as shown in Table 2.4-5. In addition, DRPT reviewed rail alignments in 

the Richmond area to identify stations that had sufficient tangent track for 1,200 feet long 

platforms to determine if other areas not identified during scoping could be suitable for a 

combined Richmond station. While DRPT did identify areas with sufficient tangent track, these 

locations were dismissed from further consideration due to potential incompatibility with 

existing land uses, lack of accessibility to local primary roads and/or transit, potential historic 

and natural resources effects, and distance from the city center.

Main Street Station 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-39 

Table 2.4-5: Station Screening Summary, Richmond 

Station 

Location/Build 

Alternative Area Status Reason for Elimination 

Cedar Lane Glen Allen, Henrico 

County/Area 6” 

Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Land acquisition required for the new 

station, ancillary facilities and parking, 

and upgrades to area roads. 

Greenwood Road Glen Allen, Henrico 

County/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Land acquisition required for the new 

station, ancillary facilities and parking, 

and upgrades to area roads. 

Mountain Road Glen Allen, Henrico 

County/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Land acquisition required for the new 

station, ancillary facilities and parking, 

and upgrades to area roads. 

Parham Road Henrico County/Area 

6: Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Proximity to existing station 

infrastructure just south at Staples Mill 

Road station and Henrico County’s 

statement that a rail station at Parham 

Road was not in keeping with the 

County’s plans for the area. 

Boulevard City of 

Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new location. Carried 

forward. 

 -- 

Broad Street City of 

Richmond/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new location. Carried 

forward. 

 -- 

Hull Street Road South Richmond/Area 

6: Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Lower population density in the 

southern part of the Richmond region, 

potential land use conflicts, limited 

access to primary roads, and train 

operational concerns. 

Warwick/Bells Road South Richmond/Area 

6: Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Lower population density in the 

southern part of the Richmond region, 

limited access to primary roads, and 

train operational concerns. 

Walmsley Boulevard South Richmond/Area 

6: Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Lower population density in the 

southern part of the Richmond region 

and concerns about train operations. 

Chester Road Chester/Area 6: 

Richmond 

Potential new location. Dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Low population density in the 

surrounding area, distance from regional 

population centers, and train 

operational concerns. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-40 

2.4.4 Screening Results for Fredericksburg (Build Alternative Area 3, Segment 21) 

In Fredericksburg, adding an additional main track at grade through the city and over the 

Rappahannock River along the existing corridor could impact historic resources. As a possible 

alternative, DRPT considered multiple bypass configurations using one track, two tracks, or three 

tracks along multiple routes. 

Options that DRPT identified and considered during Stage IV but dismissed before evaluating 

them against Stage I, II, or III screening criteria because they were not feasible or practical include 

the following (refer to the Alternatives Technical Report in Appendix A for full details): 

 Maximum Speed Alignment 

 Improved Speed Alignment 

 Existing Speed Alignment, West Side 

 Elevated Track Concept 

 Below-ground Track Concept 

 Single Track Bypass 

 Three-Track Bypass 

 All West Bypass Alignments 

 East Bypass Alignments along the Deep Run (Bowman) Spur 

 East Bypass Alignments along the Massaponax Spur 

The following options moved forward to Stage I, II, and III Screening: 

 No Additional Track 

 Existing Speed Alignment, East Side 

 East Bypass Alignments that joined south of VRE Crossroads facility 

 East Bypass Alignments that were developed after December 2015 public meeting, 

seeking to reduce impacts to potential conservation lands, developed lands, and/or 

historic and cultural resources 

Based on the screening results, DRPT carried forward the option for No Additional Track through 

Fredericksburg, as well as the option of adding a track on the east side. 

DRPT also identified and screened 11 two-track bypass alignments east of Fredericksburg, and 

the results of the screening are summarized in Table 2.4-6. The bypass options that are carried 

forward by DRPT are indicated in the tables with an open circle (); those that DRPT are not 

carrying through for further evaluation are represented by a closed circle (). As the table 

indicates, DRPT dismissed all but one bypass alignment option from further consideration. 

2.4.5 Screening Results for Ashland (Build Alternative Area 5, Segment 22) 

In Ashland, adding an additional main track through the town along the existing corridor could 

impact historic resources, affect local roads and traffic, land use, and other aspects of the human 

environment. As a possible alternative, DRPT considered multiple options for adding a track 

through town, including: 

 Adding a track east or west of the existing two tracks at-grade 

 Adding a track at-grade and shifting the existing tracks to center the alignment of all three 

tracks along the street axis 

 Elevating one or more tracks through town 

 Placing one or more tracks below grade in a cut-and-cover or deep bore tunnel 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-41 

Table 2.4-6: Summary of Stages I, II, and III Screening of Bypass Options for Fredericksburg 

Bypass Option Stage I Stage II Stage III Eliminating Factor(s) 

FEB 1A    Impacts to Existing Infrastructure, inefficient rail 

operations, possible conflicts with VRE operations 

FEB 1B    Impacts to Existing Infrastructure, inefficient rail 

operations, possible conflicts with VRE operations

FEB 2    Impacts to Historic Resources, inefficient rail operations, 

possible conflicts with VRE operations

FEB 2A    Impacts to Historic Resources, inefficient rail operations, 

possible conflicts with VRE operations

FEB 4C    Impacts to Historic Resources, inefficient rail operations, 

possible conflicts with VRE operations

FEB 5    Impacts to Parks & Public Recreation Areas 

FEB 5A    Impacts to Parks & Public Recreation Areas

FEB 5B    Impacts to Parks & Public Recreation Areas

FEB 6A    Impacts to Parks & Public Recreation Areas

FEB 6B    Impacts to Parks & Public Recreation Areas

FEB 6C    Option carried forward for further evaluation in the 

Draft EIS 

FEB 6D    Impacts to Existing Infrastructure

Notes: Alignment eliminated by DRPT during screening. Alignment carried forward for further evaluation 

DRPT also considered multiple bypass configurations using one track, two tracks, or three tracks 

along multiple routes east and west of the town. 

Options that DRPT identified and considered during Stage IV but dismissed before evaluating 

them against Stage I, II, or III screening criteria because they were not feasible or practical include 

the following (refer to the Alternatives Technical Report in Appendix A for full details): 

 Maximum Speed Alignment 

 Improved Speed Alignment, and Existing Speed, Add Track on West 

 Elevated Tracks (of any number) through Ashland 

 Three-track Tunnel, cut-and-cover or deep bore, through Ashland 

 Single-track Tunnel, deep bore through unconsolidated material 

 Single-track Bypass, either east or west 

 Three-track Bypass, either east or west 

DRPT evaluated the following options against Stage I, II, and III screening criteria: 

 No Additional Track (Minor Improvements). This option does not include the 

construction of an additional mainline track through the Town, but incorporates a third 

track north and south of town. The existing two tracks through Ashland are used by 

freight and passenger trains similar to current conditions, and are connected to three 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-42 

tracks north of Vaughan Road and south of Ashcake Road. DRPT determined to carry this 

alternative forward to the Draft EIS. 

 Adding a Track At-grade. This option adds a third main track parallel to the existing two 

tracks using one of the following configurations: 

- Add a track on the east of existing tracks. DRPT determined to carry this alternative 

forward to the Draft EIS. 

- Add a track and center all three tracks. DRPT determined to carry this alternative 

forward to the Draft EIS. 

 Adding a Track Below Grade (Tunnel). DRPT evaluated two options: 

- Add a track on the east of existing tracks using a cut and cover tunnel. 

- Add a track on the west of the existing tracks using a deep bore tunnel in the bedrock. 

- Both tunnel options would have some permanent impacts to historic resources in the 

town of Ashland, primarily from the multiple ventilation and emergency access 

structures or pop-up doors. Additional information on these and other tunnel 

elements can be found in the Alternatives Technical Report in Appendix A. Both 

tunnel options have impacts on wetlands, primarily from the areas occupied by the 

tunnel portals and ramps to the surface south of Ashcake. The cut-and-cover tunnel 

option and the north and south cut-and-cover sections of the deep bore tunnel would 

likely have substantive, albeit temporary, impacts on existing infrastructure in 

Ashland during construction. Constructing the cut-and-cover tunnels while 

maintaining rail operations and ensuring road access through Ashland would be 

problematic. Overall, the tunnels themselves would be expensive to build and operate 

compared to developing a new track(s) on the surface. Each tunnel would require 

multiple surface structures for ventilation systems and emergency access along Center 

Street, adversely affecting historic resources. Therefore, DRPT dismissed the tunnel 

options from further consideration. 

 Adding a Two-Track Bypass. The results of the screening process for the bypass 

alignments evaluated by DRPT for five options east of town and four options west of town 

are summarized in Table 2.4-7. As indicated in the table, DRPT dismissed all but one 

bypass option from further evaluation. Additionally, DRPT dismissed all Doswell “wye” 

bypass options due to impacts to wetlands and/or infrastructure, and because a new wye 

at Doswell is not necessary with a west bypass. 

 Buckingham Branch Freight Diversion. DRPT evaluated the option of diverting through 

freight trains onto the Buckingham Branch Railroad (BBRR) between Doswell and AM 

Junction in Richmond to open capacity on existing track through Ashland. DRPT 

dismissed this option from further evaluation due to substantial impacts to wetlands 

along the BBRR alignment, and the incompatibility with existing infrastructure and 

freight and passenger operations in Richmond. 

As indicated in each of the options described above, the screening results for the Ashland area 

were used to develop the Build Alternatives that are presented in Section 2.5.2.5. In addition, 

DRPT also met with the Town of Ashland, Hanover County, the public, and other stakeholders, 

which provided input into the development of the Build Alternatives as presented in that section. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-43 

Table 2.4-7: Summary Screening results of Bypass Options for Ashland 

Bypass Option Stage I Stage II Stage III Eliminating Factor(s) 

AEB1 (Ashland East Bypass)    Impacts to parks & public recreation areas 

AEB 2 (Ashland East Bypass to 

Buckingham Brand Railroad)    Impacts to parks & public recreation areas; impacts to I-95 infrastructure 

AEB 3 (Ashland East Bypass 

that does not Cross I-95)    Impacts to wetlands, acquisition of urban/developed lands

AEB 4 (Ashland East Bypass in 

the I-95 Median)    Impacts to wetlands, impacts to I-95 infrastructure

AEB 5 (Ashland East Bypass 

White Paper)  

 Impacts to wetlands, potential acquisition of 

urban/developed lands, impacts to I-95 

infrastructure

AWB 1 (Ashland West Bypass)    Impacts to wetlands, acquisition of 

urban/developed lands 

AWB 2 (Ashland West Bypass 

Revision #1 per Public 

Comment) 

  

Impacts to wetlands and acquisition of 

agricultural lands and community (church)

AWB 3 (West Ashland Bypass)    Impacts to wetlands and l acquisition of 

agricultural lands and community (church)

AWB 4 (West Ashland Bypass)    Option carried forward for further evaluation in 

the Draft EIS

BBRR Freight Diversion    Impacts to wetlands and incompatibility with 

passenger and freight movements in Richmond 

Notes: Alignment eliminated by DRPT during screening. Alignment carried forward for further evaluation 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE TIER II DRAFT EIS 

2.5.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative defines the future (2025) infrastructure and service levels that will result from 

planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. The No Build Alternative provides a basis for comparing 

and contrasting the potential impacts of different DC2RVA Build Alternatives. 

Information about planned physical improvements and rail service additions in the corridor was 

gathered from fiscally constrained Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning 

documents, Commonwealth multi-year improvement programs, and from transit agency planning 

documents. If a project was under construction, fully funded, or was the focus of advanced 

collaborative planning (evidenced by partial funding, board-level commitments, or interagency 

agreements), it was assumed by DRPT to be complete by 2025 for the purposes of this evaluation. 

This includes, for example, projects in the VRE 2040 System Plan, which was adopted by the VRE 

Operations Board in 2014, and has received support from VDOT and other state agencies. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-44 

2.5.1.1 Infrastructure Improvements in the No Build Alternative 

Table 2.5-1 summarizes the infrastructure improvements that are assumed by DRPT to be in place 

by 2025 that are already programmed, and is followed by a detailed description of each 

infrastructure improvement project included in DC2RVA’s No Build Alternative. 

Table 2.5-1: No Build Infrastructure Assumptions 

Mode Project Source for Inclusion 

Rail Washington Union Station Capacity upgrade Amtrak Washington Union Station Master Plan 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel expansion CSXT National Gateway Program 

VRE 4th Track: CP Virginia–CP L’Enfant VRE 2040 System Plan 

Long Bridge Expansion FRA/DDOT Pre-NEPA Study 

RF&P Franconia–Featherstone improvements 

(CSXT “Fast Track agreement”) 

DRPT FY2016 Six Year Improvement Program 

RF&P Powells Creek–Arkendale improvements DRPT FY2016 Six Year Improvement Program 

Main Line Relocation Project at Acca Yard and 

Crossovers South of the James River 

DRPT FY2016 Six Year Improvement Program 

Richmond-Petersburg segment improvements for 

service expansion to Norfolk 

DRPT FY2016 Six Year Improvement Program 

Franconia to Occoquan third mainline track 

improvements 

DRPT FASTLANE Grant 

VRE Broad Run/Crossroads Yard expansion VRE 2040 System Plan 

VRE Gainesville/Haymarket Extension VRE 2040 System Plan 

VRE Station Platform Expansion Program VRE 2040 System Plan 

VRE Potomac Shores Station VRE 2040 System Plan 

Transit GRTC Broad Street Bus Rapid Transit 

Implementation (The Pulse BRT) 

Greater Richmond Transit Company 

WMATA Silver Line Phase II Implementation Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation 

Authority/Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority 

DDOT DC Streetcar District Department of Transportation 

Crystal City BRT (Metroway)/Streetcar Corridor Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority 

No Build Infrastructure Improvements: Rail 

Washington Union Station Capacity Upgrade—Union Station has two track levels. The upper 

level consists of mostly high-level platforms serving stub-end tracks and is utilized by MARC 

and Amtrak trains terminating in Washington, D.C. The lower level consists of four low-level 

platforms located along eight through-running tracks that lead to the First Street Tunnel, which 

serves VRE and Amtrak trains that continue south to Virginia. The Union Station Master Plan has 

identified improvements to the lower track level that will proceed in the first phase of the master 

plan project. A new low-level side platform will be added on the easternmost track, for a total of 

five platforms serving the eight lower tracks. Two of the existing lower level platforms will be 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-45 

upgraded as high-level platforms to provide level boarding on four tracks for faster boarding and 

alighting of Amtrak trains. The new side and other two existing platforms will remain low-level 

providing four tracks to accommodate VRE’s rolling stock, which is incompatible with high-level 

platforms. Construction began January of 2017 with completion in 2021.

Virginia Avenue Tunnel Expansion—CSXT began construction on an expansion of the Virginia 

Avenue Tunnel in Washington, D.C. in 2015. CSXT uses the current single-track Virginia Avenue 

Tunnel to bypass Union Station as freight trains travel through Washington, D.C. between 

Virginia and Maryland. The single-track tunnel is a bottleneck for CSXT, as freight trains must 

wait for authorization to travel through the tunnel at slow speeds, causing delays for freight 

movements along the DC2RVA corridor. When freight delays occur, freight trains may be held 

along the DC2RVA corridor, causing passenger trains to wait behind freight trains, or operate in 

both directions on the remaining free track. The expansion will add a second track to the tunnel 

and increase its height to provide clearance for double-stack8 freight trains to travel through the 

tunnel. CSXT opened the first of two tracks for double-stack operation in 2016, with completion 

of both tracks planned for 2017. 

VRE 4th Track CP Virginia–CP L’Enfant—VRE has allocated funding under its capital program to 

construct a 4th track between Control Point (CP) Virginia and CP L’Enfant in Washington, D.C. 

The track extension, identified in the 2040 System Plan adopted by the VRE Board in 2014, will 

provide four tracks through the VRE L’Enfant Plaza station and generally separate intercity 

passenger and commuter traffic from CSXT freight traffic in southwest Washington, D.C.. The CP 

Virginia–CP L’Enfant section is outside the limits of the DC2RVA Project, but affects the operation 

of intercity passenger, commuter and freight operations continuing south to Virginia. 

Long Bridge Expansion—DDOT and FRA are preparing a separate EIS for the expansion of rail 

capacity from CP Virginia in Washington, DC across the Potomac River to CP RO in Alexandria, 

VA through an expansion of the Long Bridge. The existing Long Bridge is a two-track bridge 

completed in 1903 and owned and operated by CSXT. The Long Bridge is a bottleneck for train 

traffic capacity between Virginia and Washington, D.C. DDOT is considering alternatives that 

would add additional capacity to the bridge to accommodate planned growth in intercity 

passenger, commuter and freight train traffic travelling across the river. As part of the Atlantic 

Gateway Program, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in cooperation with VRE and the FRA, has 

begun program development to advance engineering, stakeholder agreements, and outreach in 

support of the construction of a new bridge. VRE is in the process of identifying funding in its 

capital program to support the Long Bridge Expansion program. 

RF&P Subdivision, Franconia–Featherstone Improvements—DRPT is advancing improvements 

to the DC2RVA corridor in Northern Virginia between Franconia and Featherstone, south of 

Woodbridge, VA. The improvements are focused around the Auto Train station in Lorton, VA, 

where the daily Auto Train service originates and runs non-stop to Sanford, FL. The Auto Train 

station is located on a spur from the DC2RVA corridor. The improvements will provide improved 

switches to support faster train movements through Lorton. Construction began in the spring of 

2016 and is planned for completion in 2020. 

 

8 “Double-stack freight trains” are trains in which containers are stacked two high on railroad cars. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-46 

Franconia to Occoquan Third Mainline Track Improvements—As part of the Atlantic Gateway 

Project, DRPT is advancing 8 miles of new third main-line track from the Franconia-Springfield 

Station south to a location just north of the Occoquan River. The additional third track would 

connect with the existing third main-line track constructed between Alexandria and Franconia in 

2009, to provide approximately 20 miles of continuous three main-line track railroad from 

Arlington, VA to the Occoquan River. DRPT will prepare a draft Categorical Exclusion (CE) 

worksheet for FRA review and approval prior to construction of this project. Construction is 

planned to begin in the spring of 2017 with completion in early 2020.

RF&P Subdivision, Arkendale–Powells Creek Improvements—Construction is underway on 

approximately 9 miles of third track constructed adjacent to existing tracks in the CSXT right-ofway. Construction encompasses additional track, siding, turnouts, a new platform at Quantico 

station, and the Bauer Road Bridge near Marine Corps Base Quantico. This capacity project was 

pursued by DRPT as the first part of SEHSR corridor to begin construction. Construction began 

in 2014 and is planned for completion in 2020. 

Main Line Relocation Project at Acca Yard—Acca Yard, CSXT’s major freight yard in the Richmond 

area, creates freight-passenger rail conflicts for trains traveling south of Richmond’s Staples Mill 

Road station. The activities in the yard require passenger trains to travel at slow speeds and often 

require passenger and/or freight trains to wait as freight trains clear the active tracks. Construction 

is underway on a project that will remove all main-line tracks from inside the yard and relocate 

them to the western edge of the yard and signal them, enabling through passenger and freight 

trains to bypass yard operations and move through the terminal area more smoothly and at a higher 

speed. The project will also add a fourth main-line track between Staples Mill Road station and the 

north throat of Acca Yard, and rebuild interlockings at the south throat of the yard so through trains 

can pass by at a higher operating speed. This will reduce passenger train delays and reduce trip 

time through Acca Yard. In exchange for these improvements, CSXT has provided DRPT with the 

right to operate an additional round trip of Amtrak’s Northeast Regional service between 

Washington, D.C. and Lynchburg, VA, and extend the two Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains 

currently terminating in Richmond to Norfolk, VA. Construction began in late 2015 and is planned 

for completion in 2020. 

Richmond–Petersburg Segment Improvements for Service Expansion to Norfolk—DRPT restored 

Amtrak service to Norfolk in 2012 after improvements were made to Norfolk Southern and CSXT 

tracks south of Petersburg. Additional improvements are to be constructed on the CSXT A-Line 

between Richmond and Petersburg to support the extension of the two Northeast Regional 

(Virginia) trains that currently terminate in Richmond to Norfolk for a total of three daily 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains to Norfolk. Construction began in 2015 and is planned for 

completion in 2018. 

VRE Broad Run/Crossroads Yard Expansion—VRE is expanding two rail yards (the Broad Run Yard 

serves the Manassas Line, the Crossroads Yard serves the Fredericksburg Line) to store additional 

train sets needed for VRE’s planned future service expansion. Each yard will be able to store eight 8-

car train sets overnight. Construction began in 2015 and is planned for completion in 2018. 

VRE Gainesville/Haymarket Extension—The VRE 2040 System Plan identified a VRE service 

expansion to serve population and job centers in Gainesville and Haymarket, Prince William County, 

VA. The 11-mile extension would include three stops along an existing railroad right-of-way. The 

service would join the Manassas Line west of Manassas station, and would join the DC2RVA corridor 

at AF interlocking south of Alexandria Station. VRE has identified funding in its current capital plan to 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-47 

support the planning of service to Gainesville and Haymarket. On March 17, 2017 VRE canceled plans 

to extend service to Gainesville/Haymarket in favor of expanding and relocating the Broad Run station. 

The cancellation of this project, however, does not affect the modeling that was conducted for the 

DC2RVA Project as VRE is still increasing the number of trains on their Manassas Line as anticipated. 

VRE Station Platform Expansion Program—Most VRE stations in the DC2RVA corridor consist 

of a single low-level platform on the east side of the tracks south of Alexandria and on the west 

side of the tracks between Alexandria and Washington, D.C. At these stations, all VRE trains, 

regardless of direction, must use the eastern track for boarding and alighting south of Alexandria, 

then switch to the west side north of Alexandria. This requires all other traffic passing in both 

directions to utilize the opposite track. Additionally, many VRE stations have platforms that can 

only accommodate five to six rail cars. As VRE expands to longer train consists (up to ten rail 

cars), the shorter platforms currently deprive VRE of the ability for simultaneous boarding and 

alighting passengers of all rail cars, which lengthens station dwell time. In preparation for VRE’s 

planned fleet expansion, and to improve operational flexibility along the DC2RVA corridor, VRE 

is planning or implementing improvements at the stations listed below. Construction is planned 

to begin in 2018 with completion by 2021 or earlier. 

 VRE L’Enfant Station—VRE will create an island platform serving the two westernmost tracks. 

 VRE Crystal City Station—VRE will build a new island platform serving the two 

westernmost tracks. 

 VRE Alexandria Station—VRE will lengthen and widen the existing island platform so 

that it can also serve Track 1. VRE will also improve the tunnel connecting the island 

platform to the main station for ADA accessibility. 

 VRE Franconia-Springfield Station—VRE will lengthen the existing platforms and widen 

the east platform. 

 VRE Lorton Station—VRE will lengthen the existing eastern platform, and add a side 

platform on the western side of the right-of-way. 

 VRE Woodbridge Station—VRE will lengthen the existing eastern platform. 

 VRE Rippon Station—VRE will lengthen the existing eastern platform, and add a side 

platform on the western side of the right-of-way. 

 VRE Quantico Station—VRE is lengthening both existing platforms to accommodate 

longer trains, and is converting the west side platform into an island platform for 

operational flexibility. 

 VRE Brooke Station—VRE will lengthen the existing eastern platform, and add a side 

platform on the western side of the right-of-way. 

 VRE Leeland Road Station—VRE will lengthen the existing eastern platform, and add a 

side platform on the western side of the right-of-way. 

 VRE Potomac Shores Station—VRE is constructing a new station at Potomac Shores, with 

two side platforms that accommodate eight car trains. 

The track improvements through the VRE stations that are planned as part of the DC2RVA Project 

will accommodate the additional platforms and modifications outlined in this section. 

No Build Infrastructure Improvements: Transit 

GRTC Broad Street BRT (The Pulse)—The GRTC Transit System (GRTC) is implementing a bus 

rapid transit (BRT) system along Broad Street in Richmond and western Henrico County. The BRT 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-48 

line, branded “The Pulse,” completed an Environmental Assessment in 2014. GRTC received a 

TIGER grant award of $24.9 million for the construction of The Pulse, and has received additional 

funding from VDOT and DRPT to implement the project. The Pulse would connect major 

employment centers in Henrico and downtown Richmond Main Street Station. GRTC is presently 

completing the final design and beginning construction for the facilities to support the BRT line. 

Construction began in the summer of 2016 and is planned for completion in the fall of 2017. 

WMATA Silver Line Phase II—The Washington, D.C. Metro opened the first phase of the Silver Line 

in 2014, connecting Tysons, VA to the wider Metro system serving the Greater Washington area. The 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), in partnership with Metropolitan 

Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), is presently constructing an additional 11.5-mile extension 

with six stations, including one planned to serve Washington Dulles International Airport. The Silver 

Line will provide important transit connection for area and regional population to access intercity 

passenger rail. Phase II of the Silver Line is expected to be complete by 2020. 

DDOT DC Streetcar—In February 2016, DDOT opened the 2.4-mile H Street/Benning Road 

Streetcar Line. The streetcar line connects Union Station with neighborhoods in Northeast 

Washington, D.C., providing a transit connection for area and regional populations to access 

intercity passenger rail. Plans exist to extend the current line toward downtown Washington, and 

construct a larger system of streetcar lines to serve areas without access to the Washington Metro. 

Crystal City BRT (Metroway)—In August 2014, WMATA launched Metroway, a bus rapid transit 

line connecting Crystal City in Arlington, with Potomac Yards and Braddock Road in Alexandria, 

VA. The line parallels U.S. Route 1, and consists of significant sections of separated busways to 

speed bus travel and reduce congestion. The separated busways were designed with provisions 

for conversion to a light rail or streetcar right-of-way in the future. Although Metroway does not 

directly serve the DC2RVA corridor, it provides important transit connection for area and 

regional population to access intercity passenger rail. 

2.5.1.2 Rail Service Growth in the No Build Alternative 

Rail service levels vary along the length of the DC2RVA corridor, and not all passenger service is 

continuous through the entire DC2RVA corridor (see Figure 2.2-2). The DC2RVA corridor hosts 

all VRE commuter rail service and Amtrak passenger rail service to points south of Washington, 

D.C. between CP Virginia in Washington, D.C. and AF interlocking in Alexandria. At AF 

Interlocking, VRE and Amtrak trains heading toward Manassas, Charlottesville and Lynchburg 

leave the DC2RVA corridor (presently two to three daily Amtrak round trips and nine weekday 

VRE round trips, including one non-revenue VRE round trip). The remaining VRE service 

(currently, eight weekday round trips) continues on the DC2RVA corridor south of Alexandria 

to Crossroads Yard south of the VRE Spotsylvania station. Approximately 20 to 30 freight trains 

operate on the DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, along with five daily 

round-trip Amtrak Northeast Regional (Virginia) intercity passenger trains and five daily roundtrip Amtrak long-distance and interstate corridor (Carolina) passenger trains. 

Table 2.5-2 summarizes existing service along the DC2RVA corridor and provides the estimated 

2025 and 2045 service assumptions for the No Build condition. The table is a summary of all 

activity on the corridor, excluding local freight trains and yard assignments. Existing service 

along the DC2VA corridor is an estimated 79 to 89 daily trains (depending on the volume of 

freight trains). Planned rail infrastructure improvements described in Section 2.5.1.1 above would 

support the operation of one additional Amtrak Northeast Regional (Virginia) round-trip 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-49 

passenger train to Lynchburg and two additional VRE commuter train round trips, along with an 

estimated 2.3 percent annual growth in freight service. Additionally, Amtrak intends to increase 

the operations of the Cardinal (a long distance passenger train that operates via Charlottesville 

and Alexandria) through the corridor from three trips per week to one round trip daily. To 

forecast freight train growth in the corridor from existing (2015) levels, CSXT provided freight 

volumes for the future years 2025 and 2045 using the U.S. DOT Freight Analysis Framework 

projected growth rates for rail. CSXT freight growth is independent of the DC2RVA Project and 

will occur regardless of whether or not the DC2RVA Project is implemented. CSXT actual freight 

growth may be greater or less than the projected growth rates based on market demands. DRPT 

estimates that the total number of trains in the No Build condition in 2025 to be between 91 and 

103 daily trains, and in the No Build condition in 2045 to be between 106 and 121 daily trains. 

Table 2.5-2: Existing and No Build Service along DC2RVA Corridor (Daily 1-Way Trips) 

Service Type Existing Service 

2025 No 

Build 

Proposed Change 

in Service from 

Existing 

2045 No 

Build 

Proposed Change 

in Service from 

Existing 

Freight 20-30 trains 25-37 trains 

(est.) 

Increase of 5-7 trains 40-55 trains 

(est.) 

Increase of 20-25 

trains 

Amtrak Long 

Distance 

11 trains (1 train 3x a 

week) 

12 trains Increase of 1 train 12 trains Increase of 1 train 

Interstate 

Corridor (NC) 

2 trains 2 trains No change 2 trains No change 

Northeast 

Regional (VA) 

12 trains 14 trains Increase of 2 trains 14 trains Increase of 2 trains 

VRE 34 trains (including 

nonrevenue movements) 

38 trains Increase of 4 trains 38 trains Increase of 4 trains 

Total Daily 

Trains (est.) 

79-89 trains 91-103 trains Increase of 12-14 

trains 

106-121 trains Increase of 27-32 

trains 

Notes: 

• VRE train counts in 2015 include nonrevenue movements. Future train counts assume that nonrevenue movements are converted to revenue 

movements, based on data provided by VRE 

• The 2 additional Northeast Regional (VA) trains in 2025 and 2044 operate between Washington and Lynchburg, and use the DC2RVA 

corridor only between Washington and Alexandria. 

• The 4 additional VRE trains in 2025 and 2045 are comprised of 2 additional Fredericksburg Line trains operating on the DC2RVA corridor 

between Washington and Spotsylvania, and 2 additional Manassas Line trains that operate on the DC2RVA corridor only between Washington 

and Alexandria. 

Intercity Rail Service Growth Outside the DC2RVA Corridor in the No Build 

Alternative 

Intercity service levels outside the physical boundaries of the DC2RVA corridor are relevant to 

travel demand estimates within the DC2RVA corridor because mobility improvements that are 

created by potential transportation improvements would affect total travel both within and 

outside the DC2RVA corridor. The No Build Alternative includes two additional round-trip 

intercity passenger trains within North Carolina between Raleigh and Charlotte that will be 

introduced as a result of the state’s Piedmont Improvement Program. The No Build Alternative 

also incorporates Amtrak’s plans for future Northeast Corridor service, including planned 

changes to Northeast Regional services north of Washington, D.C., as additional NEC 

infrastructure and additional high-speed-train services are introduced. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-50 

2.5.2 Build Alternatives 

From a wide range of options that were considered during the alternatives development process, 

twenty-one Build Alternatives, which vary in each of the six alternative areas, were carried 

forward for evaluation; these Build Alternatives are summarized in Table 2.5-3. All alternatives 

include build-alternative-specific improvements to features such as stations and crossings. 

Detailed descriptions of the Build Alternatives within each area are provided in the subsequent 

sections. Within the descriptions, east side or west side is relative to the existing north-south 

CSXT track alignment. 

Table 2.5-3: Summary of Build Alternatives Carried Forward 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: 

Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

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

Ashcake) 

5B Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track Through Town East of Existing (Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, 

Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

Area 6: 

Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

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 

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 Stations 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-51 

In addition, DRPT evaluated several stations in the Tier II EIS for potential rail service changes, 

including stations at Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, Fredericksburg, Ashland, Ashcake 

Road, Staples Mill Road, Boulevard, Broad Street, and Main Street. A summary of station 

locations is provided in Table 2.5-4. 

Table 2.5-4: Summary of Stations DRPT Recommends for Evaluation in the Tier II EIS 

Alternative 

Area Station Location 

Current 

Passenger 

Rail Service 

Potential Rail Service Changes 

No 

Service, 

Close 

Station1

Shift 

Long 

Distance 

Service2

Add 

Interstate 

Corridor 

Service 

(SEHSR) 

Add 

Northeast 

Regional 

Service 

(SEHSR) 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

Alexandria City of 

Alexandria 

Long Distance 

(all) 

Interstate 

Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia) 

 

Woodbridge Woodbridge 

(Prince William 

County) 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia) 

Quantico Town of 

Quantico 

(Prince William 

County) 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia) 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren 

Spur to 

Crossroads) 

Fredericksburg City of 

Fredericksburg 

Long Distance 

(Silver Meteor) 

Interstate 

Corridor 

(Carolinian) 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia) 

 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

(Doswell to 

I-295) 

Ashland Town of 

Ashland 

(Hanover 

County) 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia)  

Ashcake Road Town of 

Ashland 

(Hanover 

County) 

None, possible 

new station 

replacing Ashland 

station 

 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-52 

Table 2.5-4: Summary of Stations DRPT Recommends for Evaluation in the Tier II EIS 

Alternative 

Area Station Location 

Current 

Passenger 

Rail Service 

Potential Rail Service Changes 

No 

Service, 

Close 

Station1

Shift 

Long 

Distance 

Service2

Add 

Interstate 

Corridor 

Service 

(SEHSR) 

Add 

Northeast 

Regional 

Service 

(SEHSR) 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

Staples Mill 

Road 

 Henrico 

County 

Long Distance 

(all) 

Interstate 

Corridor 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia) 

  

Boulevard City of 

Richmond 

None, possible 

new station 

replacing both 

Staples Mill and 

Main Street 

stations 

  

Broad Street City of 

Richmond 

None, possible 

new station 

replacing both 

Staples Mill and 

Main Street 

stations 

  

Main Street City of 

Richmond 

Northeast 

Regional 

(Virginia) 

   

Notes: 

1. In some station/service options, a current station may be closed (e.g., Ashland, Staples Mill Road, Main Street Station) or a new station not 

created (Boulevard, Broad Street). 

2. The DC2RVA Project does not include any new trains providing long distance passenger service. However, some station/service options in the 

Richmond area include potentially shifting existing long distance service from Staples Mill Road station to other Richmond station options. 

2.5.2.1 Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Build Alternatives 

The Arlington area (CFP 110 to CFP 109.3) includes the area at the southern approach of Long 

Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. and Virginia. Two tracks 

currently exist in this roughly one-mile-long section before crossing Long Bridge, located north 

of the DC2RVA corridor. DDOT, in coordination with FRA, DRPT, CSXT, and VRE, is completing 

a separate study for the rehabilitation or replacement of the Long Bridge over the Potomac River. 

The previous feasibility study for the bridge recommended expanding the crossing to 

accommodate two additional tracks. DRPT, as part of the DC2RVA Project, is evaluating three 

rail alignment options to the southern approach of Long Bridge, which will become the 

connection between the Long Bridge Study alternative and the DC2RVA corridor. Each DC2RVA 

option includes two additional tracks that provide flexibility to physically align with the Long 

Bridge alternatives. The improvements for the Arlington area Build Alternatives are described in 

Table 2.5-5 and Figure 2.5-1. Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements are in 

Appendix C. 
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-53 

Table 2.5-5: Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

1A: Add Two Tracks on the East. The east 

alignment would add two additional tracks east of the 

existing tracks between CFP 110.0 to 109.3, within 

existing right-of-way. 

Track

 Add two tracks south of George Washington Memorial Parkway 

(CFP 110.05) for approximately 1,300 feet. 

 Shift all tracks to the east to increase speeds through the curve 

at CFP 109.8 to 109.4. 

 Install additional 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for 

drainage, under the rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities, as required. 

 Install additional signal and communication facilities, as required. 

No station or structure modifications. 

1B: Add Two Tracks on the West. The west 

alignment would add two additional tracks west of the 

existing tracks between CFP 110.0 to 109.3, within 

existing right-of-way. 

Track

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

Memorial Parkway (CFP 110.05) for approximately 1,100 feet. 

 Shift tracks to the east to increase speeds through the curve at 

CFP 109.8 to 109.4. 

 Install additional 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for 

drainage, under the rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities, as required. 

 Install additional signal and communication facilities, as required. 

No station or structure modifications. 

1C: Add One Track East and One Track West. 

The east and west alignment would add one additional 

track to the east and one to the west of the existing 

tracks between CFP 110.0 to 109.37, within existing 

right-of-way. 

Track

 Add one track to the east side and one track to the west side 

south of George Washington Memorial Parkway (CFP 110.05) 

for approximately 1,300 and 1,100 feet, respectively. 

 Shift tracks to the east to increase speeds through the curve at 

CFP 109.8 to 109.4. 

 Install additional 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for 

drainage, under the rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities, as required. 

 Install additional signal and communication facilities, as required. 

No station or structure modifications. 

Long Bridge Over the Potomac River 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-54 

Figure 2.5-1: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-55 

2.5.2.2 Area 2: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 

The Northern Virginia Alternative Area (CFP 109.3 to CFP 62) extends from the Crystal City 

station in Arlington County to Harrell Road (Route 623) north of the Dahlgren Spur near 

Fredericksburg (Figure 2.5-2). There is one Build Alternative in the Northern Virginia Alternative 

Area (Alternative 2A: Add One Track/Improve Existing Track), which is composed of sections 

of additional track and no additional track to provide a corridor with at least three main tracks. 

The build improvements to the Alexandria Station and Woodbridge Station, which are located 

within Area 2, are shown in Figures 2.5-3 and Figure 2.5-4, respectively. 

Table 2.5-6 describes the general improvements to Build Alternative 2A. Segment-specific track, 

station, and structure improvements associated with Build Alternative 2A are described by 

segment and milepost in Table 2.5-7. Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements are 

in Appendix D. Service improvements are described in Section 2.2.2. 

Table 2.5-6: Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia) — General Improvements 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

2A: Add One Track/Improve 

Existing Track 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-2 

Stations: Figure 2.5-3 and 

Figure 2.5-4. 

This alternative would add one 

additional main line track and 

realigns existing tracks in some 

curves to improve speed. The 

additional track would result in a 

fourth track from Crystal City to 

Alexandria, and a third track 

from Alexandria to Spotsylvania. 

The additional track would be 

located on either the east or 

west side of the existing tracks, 

based on rail operation 

considerations, site constraints, 

and potential impacts. Rail 

improvements are generally 

within existing right-of-way. 

Track Improvements Common to all Segments in the Northern Virginia Area. Site-specific 

and station improvements are described in Table 2.5-7. 

 Add one main line track and realign existing tracks in some curves to improve speed in 

the Northern Virginia area. 

 Extend the existing culverts along the alignment to accommodate the new third main 

line track. 

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

alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Five segments within the Northern Virginia area do not require an additional main track 

because either the required capacity has been added or an additional main track is under 

construction through an independent action. Improvements in these five segments would 

be limited to re-aligning existing track through the curves to improve speed. These five 

segments are (Figure D, Appendix D): 

 Alexandria to Franconia (AFFR) currently has three tracks from the AF interlocking at 

CFP 104.5 south to CFP 98 just north of the Franconia-Springfield VRE station. 

 Franconia to Occoquan is currently two tracks but is being designed for three tracks as 

part of a separate project. 

 Powells Creek to Arkendale (PCAR) is currently under construction to add a third 

track. The third track construction at PCAR includes adding a track to match existing 

speed. Track realignment recommended to improve speed in this segment of the 

DC2RVA Project would require widening the roadbed in selected areas to allow for 

the realignment. 

Station improvements are included for Alexandria Station and Woodbridge Station. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-56 

Table 2.5-7: Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia) — Specific Infrastructure Improvements 

Segment and 

Milepost (MP) Figure Proposed Improvements 

Arlington to 

Alexandria (ROAF) 

CFP 109.3-103.7 

Appendix D 

Figure D-1 

Track 

 Add one track to the east side between the Crystal City VRE Station (CFP 108.60) 

and Norfolk Southern rail yard (CFP 103.9). 

 Shift tracks to the east to increase speeds through the curves at CFP 109.1 to 

109.05, 109.0 to 108.9, 108.55 to 108.5, 108.3 to 108.25, 107.7 to 107.5, and 106.9 

to 106.5. 

 Shift tracks to the west to increase speeds through the curves at CFP 109.05 to 

109.0, 108.9 to 108.8, 108.6 to 108.55, 108.5 to 108.3, 108.25 to 108.2, 107.8 to 

107.7, 107.5 to 107.4, and 105.4 to 105.3. 

 Shift western two tracks east and eastern track west CFP 109.1 to 108.8 to 

increase speeds through the curve. 

Stations 

 Crystal City VRE Station (CFP 108.60) – align tracks to accommodate VRE 

platform updates. 

 Alexandria Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 105.30) – additional surface parking to 

accommodate approximately 150 parking spaces adjacent to the existing station 

building. 

Structures 

 Add one track on the east side of the existing bridge over Four Mile Run Creek 

(CFP 107.86). 

Alexandria to 

Franconia (AFFR) 

CFP 103.7-99.0 

Appendix D 

Figure D-1 

Track 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves at CFP 103.7 to 103.4 and 

103.2 to 102.7. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFP 102.6 to 101.8 and 

100.5 to 99.7. 

No stations occur in this segment. 

No structures modifications. 

Lorton to Powells 

Creek (LOPC) 

CFP 92.6-83.4 

Appendix D 

Figure D-2 

Track 

 Add one track to the east side between Furnace Road (CFP 90.0) and Rippon VRE 

Station (CFP 85.30). 

 Add one track to the west side south of Rippon VRE Station (CFP 85.30) to 

Powells Creek (CFP 83.70). 

 Modify at-grade crossing at Featherstone Road (CFP 86.85). 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFP 89.6 to 89.3. 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from east to west at CFP 85.6 to 85.5. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from east to west at CFP 85.5 to 85.4. 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves at CFP 84.5 to 83.9. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from west to east at CFP 83.6 to 83.4. 

Stations 

 Woodbridge Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 89.10) – lengthen and widen east platform 

to become the center platform, and extend the pedestrian bridge to accommodate 

the additional track and provide vertical access to the pedestrian bridge. 

 Rippon VRE Station (CFP 85.30) – align track to accommodate platform and 

extend the pedestrian bridge to accommodate the additional track and provide 

access to the east platform. 

 Continued.
ALTERNATIVES 

 2-57 

Table 2.5-7: Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia) — Specific Infrastructure Improvements 

Segment and 

Milepost (MP) Figure Proposed Improvements 

 Structures 

 Add crash wall to accommodate the third track at the Pedestrian Bridge to 

Veterans Memorial Park (CFP 87.8). 

 Construct new single-track rail bridges on the east side of the existing structures 

over Farm Creek (CFP 86.6) and Unnamed Creek (CFP 86.1). 

 Plan for construction of a new two-track rail bridge (includes construction of one 

track on bridge plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing 

bridges over Neabsco Creek (CFP 84.8) and Powells Creek (CFP 83.70). 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge over Furnace Road (CFP 90.0). 

 Replace the Dawson Beach Road bridge (CFP 88.80) over the tracks to 

accommodate the additional third track. 

Powells Creek to 

Arkendale (PCAR) 

CFP 83.4-72.9 

Appendix D 

Figure D-2 

and D-3 

Track 

 Add one track to the east side from near Powell’s Creek (CFP 83.50) to Potomac 

Shores Station (CFP 82.95). 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from west to east at CFP 83.4 to 83.1. 

No station or structure modifications. 

Arkendale to Dahlgren 

Junction (ARDJ) 

CFP 72.9-62.0 

Appendix D 

Figure D-3 

Track 

 Add one track to the east side between Brent Point Road (CFP 72.34) and north 

of Courthouse Road (CFP 69.09), and between Claiborne Run (CFP 62.60) and 

White Oak Road (CFP 60.81). 

 Add one track to the west side between Courthouse Road (CFP 69.09) and 

Andrew Chapel Road (CFP 68.01), between Mt Hope Church Road (CFP 67.57) 

and Claiborne Run (CFP 62.60), and between Potomac Creek (CFP 65.65) and 

Leeland Road Station (CFP 63.47). 

 Add one track to the east side past the Brooke Station (CFP 67.91). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at Brent Point Road (CFP 72.34) to accommodate the 

additional third track. 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves at CFP 72.9 to 72.8, 65.0 to 

64.4, and 63.3 to 62.4. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFP 70.6 to 70.0 and 67.1 

to 66.7. 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from east to west at CFP 69.7 to 69.4. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from east to west to access platform at CFP 67.9 to 67.4. 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves and transition additional 

track from west to east at CFP 68.5 to 68.1, 68.1 to 68.0, and 66.0 to 65.7. 

Stations 

 Brooke VRE Station (CFP 67.91) – align track to accommodate platforms. 

 Leeland VRE Station (CFP 63.47) – align track to accommodate platforms. 

Structures 

 Plan for construction of a new two-track rail bridge (includes construction of one 

track on bridge plus space for a second track) on the east side of the existing 

structure over Aquia Creek (CFP 70.9), Potomac Creek (CFP 65.3), and Claiborne 

Run (CFP 62.5). 

 Replace Eskimo Hill Road (CFP 66.77), Leeland Road (CFP 63.47), and Primmer 

House Road (CFP 63.02) over the tracks to accommodate the additional third 

track. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge over Andrew Chapel Road (CFP 68.01). 

 Close Mt. Hope Church Road (CFP 67.57) and provide alternative route. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-58 

Figure 2.5-2: Build Alternative 2A–Add One Track / Improve Existing Track
Figure 2.5-3: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-60 

Figure 2.5-4: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-61 

2.5.2.3 Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) Build Alternatives 

The Fredericksburg area (CFP 62 to CFP 48) extends from Harrell Road (Route 623) north of the 

Dahlgren Spur through the town of Fredericksburg to Claiborne Crossing Road (Route 660). The 

Fredericksburg area consists of a segment of two main tracks on an elevated structure in a relatively 

narrow CSXT right-of-way through a historic urban area. DRPT evaluated several alternatives to 

provide the required rail capacity in this area, including the evaluation of a possible bypass. These 

options are summarized in Table 2.5-8. Build Alternative 3A, 3B, and 3C are shown in Figure 2.5-5, 

Figure 2.5-6, and Figure 2.5-9, respectively. The Fredericksburg Station improvements associated with 

the Build Alternatives 3A and 3C, which are identical, are shown in Figure 2.5-7; the Fredericksburg 

Station improvements associated with Build Alternative 3B are shown in Figure 2.5-8. Detailed 

graphics illustrating the specific improvements are in Appendix E. 

Table 2.5-8: Area 3: Fredericksburg Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

3A: Maintain Two Tracks 

Through Town 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-5 

Station: Figure 2.5-7 

This alternative would maintain 

the existing two tracks (i.e., no 

construction of new track) 

through Fredericksburg, which 

is used by freight, commuter, 

and passenger trains similar to 

current conditions. One new 

track would be constructed 

north and south of the city, 

and there are some shifts of 

existing tracks to improve 

speed throughout the area. Rail 

improvements are generally 

within existing right-of-way. 

Track 

 Construct turnout to tie-in new third track at Dahlgren Junction (CFP 61.1). 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves at CFP 60.4 to 59.6. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFP 61.7 to 61.3, 59.4 to 58.9, 

58.7 to 58.5, 57.9 to 57.6, and 56.8 to 56.5. 

 Construct crossovers at Hamilton (CFP 55.7). 

 Add one track on the east side between VRE Spotsylvania Station (CFP 53.3) to the VRE 

Crossroad Layover Yard (CFP 52.5). 

 Add one track on west side between north of Summit Crossing Road (CFP 52.5) to 

north of Stonewall Jackson Road (CFP 48). 

 Add three tracks on west side and removal of existing tracks between CFP 51.3 to 51.1. 

 Add one track on west side between MP 51.1 and 50.8. Add one track on west side 

between CFP 50.3 to south of Stonewall Jackson Road. 

 Add one track to the east side between Claiborne Run (CFP 62.60) and White Oak Road 

(CFP 60.81). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at Summit Crossing Road (Route 668) (CFP 51.41) and 

Claiborne Crossing Road (Route 660) (CFP 48.63) to accommodate the additional third 

track. 

 Shift tracks to the east and reconstruct a portion of the track to increase speeds through 

the curves at CFP 50.6, 49.6, and 48.8. 

Stations

 Fredericksburg Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 59.38) 

- Lengthen and widen east and west side platforms to 850 feet. 

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

tracks at the intersection of Caroline Street and Lafayette Boulevard. 

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

structure. 

- Construct a three-level parking garage for approximately 225 parking spaces and 

modify the existing surface parking to accommodate approximately 20 parking spaces. 

The new parking garage and surface parking would be located east of the tracks 

opposite the new station where the current surface parking lot is located. 

Approximately nine ADA parking spaces would be installed adjacent to the new station 

building. 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge over Harrell Road (CFP 61.8) and Naomi Road 

(CFP 60.0). 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-62 

Table 2.5-8: Area 3: Fredericksburg Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

3B: Add One Track East of 

Existing 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-6 

Station: Figure 2.5-8 

This alternative would add one 

additional main line track in 

most areas and realigns 

existing tracks to improve 

speed. Through the city, the 

additional track would be 

constructed east of the existing 

two tracks. No improvements 

would be required between 

Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania Stations, where a 

third track already exists. Rail 

improvements are generally 

within existing right-of-way. 

Track 

 Add one track to east side between White Oak Road (CFP 60.81) and south of Charles 

Street (CFP 59.28). 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curves at CFP 60.4 to 59.6 and 59.4 to 

58.9. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFP 58.7 to 58.5. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFP 61.7 to 61.3, 57.9 to 57.6 

and 56.8 to 56.5. 

 Add one track on the east side between VRE Spotsylvania Station (CFP 53.3) to the VRE 

Crossroad Layover Yard (CFP 52.5). 

 Add one track on west side between north of Summit Crossing Road (CFP 52.5) to 

north of Stonewall Jackson Road (CFP 48). 

 Add three tracks on west side and removal of existing tracks between CFP 51.3 to 51.1. 

 Add one track on west side between CFP 51.1 and 50.8. Add one track on west side 

between CFP 50.3 to south of Stonewall Jackson Road. 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at Summit Crossing Road (Route 668) (CFP 51.41) and 

Claiborne Crossing Road (Route 660) (CFP 48.63) to accommodate the additional third 

track. 

 Shift tracks to the east and reconstruct a portion of the track to increase speeds through 

the curves at CFP 50.6, 49.6, and 48.8. 

 Add one track to the east side between Claiborne Run (CFP 62.60) and White Oak Road 

(CFP 60.81). 

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

alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Two segments within the Fredericksburg area do not require an additional main track because 

the segments already have a comparable number of main tracks. Improvements in these two 

segments would be limited to re-aligning existing track through the curves to improve speed. 

These two segments are (Figure E-1, Appendix E): 

 Fredericksburg to Hamilton (FBHA) currently has three main line tracks from CFP 58.5 

to CFP 56. 

 Hamilton to Crossroads (HAXR) currently has three main line tracks along with the new 

VRE Spotsylvania Station (CFP 53.3). 

Stations 

 Fredericksburg Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 59.38) 

- Lengthen and widen east platform to become a center platform. Length and widen the 

west platform. Both platforms would be lengthened to 850 feet. 

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

tracks at the intersection of Caroline Street and Lafayette Boulevard. 

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

structure. 

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

- Construct a three level parking garage for approximately 225 parking spaces and 

modify the existing surface parking to accommodate approximately 20 parking spaces. 

The new parking garage and surface parking would be located east of the tracks 

opposite the new station where the current surface parking lot is located. 

Approximately nine ADA parking spaces would be installed adjacent to the new station 

building. 

 Continued. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-63 

Table 2.5-8: Area 3: Fredericksburg Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the east side of the existing structure over 

the Rappahannock River (CFP 59.45). 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the east side of the existing structure over 

Claiborne Run (CFP 62.5). 

 Replace the Butler/White Oak Road (CFP 60.81) and Kings Highway (CFP 60.04) bridges 

over the tracks. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge at Harrell Road (CFP 61.8), Naomi Road (CFP 

60.0), Sophia Street (CFP 59.40), Caroline Street (CFP 59.39), Princess Anne Street (CFP 

59.35), and Charles Street (CFP 59.28). 

3C: Add Two-Track Bypass 

East 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-9 

Station: Figure 2.5-7 

The existing two-track 

corridor and station in 

downtown Fredericksburg 

would continue to serve both 

regional passenger and 

commuter rail. An 11.8-mile, 

two-track bypass would be 

constructed east of the city 

and would serve both freight 

rail and possibly long distance 

passenger rail trains. One new 

track would be added north 

and south of the bypass, with 

some track shifts to improve 

speed. 

Track 

 Add one track to south side between CFP Dahlgren spur junction (CFP 61.1) with CSXT 

main line and CFQ 4.8 and between CFQ 6.0 to 6.6 where it connects to the proposed 

bypass. 

 Relocate track to northeast to increase speed from CFQ 4.8 to 6.0. 

 Add Wye connection to existing track to the east at CFQ 6.6. 

 Shift tracks east to increase speed through the curves at CFQ 61.7 to 61.3, 0.2 to 0.6 and 

CFQ 4.1 to 4.5. 

 Shift tracks west to increase speed through the curve at CFQ 0.6 to 1.4. 

 Add 7.1 mile two-track bypass from Dahlgren Spur 6.6 miles east of Dahlgren Junction 

(CFP 61.1) to CSXT main line north of Summit Crossing Road (CFP 51.41). 

 Add wye connection to CFP 52.0 to CSXT mainline. 

 Add one track on west side between north of Summit Crossing Road (CFP 52.5) to 

north of Stonewall Jackson Road (CFP 48.0). 

 Add one track to the east side between CFP 51.53 to CFP 48 including new crossovers 

to accommodate the Fredericksburg bypass track and tie into existing CSXT mainline. 

 Add four tracks on west side and removal of existing tracks between CFP 51.3 to 51.1. 

 Add one track on west side between CFP 51.1 and 50.8. Add one track on west side 

between CFP 50.3 to south of Stonewall Jackson Road. 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at Summit Crossing Road (Route 668) (CFP 51.41) and 

Claiborne Crossing Road (Route 660) (CFP 48.63) to accommodate the additional third 

track and Fredericksburg bypass tie in track. 

 Shift tracks to the east and reconstruct a portion of the track to increase speeds through 

the curves at CFP 50.6, 49.6, and 48.8. 

 Add one track to the east side between Claiborne Run (CFP 62.60) and White Oak Road 

(CFP 60.81). 

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

alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Fredericksburg Amtrak/VRE Station (CFP 59.38) 

- Lengthen and widen east and west side platforms to 850 feet. 

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

tracks at the intersection of Caroline Street and Lafayette Boulevard. 

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

structure. 

- Construct a three-level parking garage for approximately 225 parking spaces and 

modify the existing surface parking to accommodate approximately 20 parking spaces. 

The new parking garage and surface parking would be located east of the tracks 

opposite the new station where the current surface parking lot is located. 

Approximately nine ADA parking spaces would be installed adjacent to the new station 

building. 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-64 

Table 2.5-8: Area 3: Fredericksburg Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge at Harrell Road (CFP 61.8). 

 Replace the Cool Springs Road bridge (CFQ 0.0) over the tracks. 

 Modify the at-grade crossings at Debruen Lane (CFQ 0.4), Hot Top Road (CFQ1.1), 

Ferry Road (CFQ 1.6), Federal Drive (CFQ 2.9), Cleek Lane (CFQ 3.36), Private 

Driveways (2) (CFQ 3.7), Little Falls Road (CFQ 3.8), Forest Lane Road (CFQ 4.7) to 

accommodate the additional second track. 

 Construct new two-track rail bridge (includes construction of two tracks on bridge) over 

Rappahannock River (FBP 1.58). 

 Roads along the existing Dahlgren Spur cross the proposed tracks at-grade and the roads 

crossing the tracks in the new greenfield section would be grade-separated. 

 Close private driveway east of Federal Drive (CFQ 2.9). 

 Close Patriot Lane (FBP 6.3) at the wye connection. 

 Construct a new two-track rail bridge over Mills Drive/Tidewater Trail (FBP 1.95), and 

Unnamed Pond (FBP 3.72). 

 Construct new bridge over tracks at Kings Highway (FBP 0.8), Fredericksburg Turnpike 

(FBP 4.75), and Thornton Rolling Road (FBP 5.70). 

Rappahannock River Bridge 

Original Fredericksburg Railroad Station 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-65 

Figure 2.5-5: Build Alternative 3A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-66 

Figure 2.5-6: Build Alternative 3B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing
Figure 2.5-7: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-68 

Figure 2.5-8: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-69 

Figure 2.5-9: Build Alternative 3C – Add Two-Track Bypass East
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-70 

2.5.2.4 Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) Build Alternative 

The Central Virginia area (CFP 48 to CFP 19) extends from Claiborne Crossing Road (Route 660) 

south of Fredericksburg to the South Anna River in Henrico County (Figure 2.5-10). There is one 

Build Alternative in the Central Virginia area (Alternative 4A: Add One Track/Improve Existing 

Track) composed of sections of additional track and no additional track. Table 2.5-9 describes the 

general improvements to the Central Virginia alternative area. Segment specific track and 

structure improvements associated with the Central Virginia area Build Alternative are described 

by segment and milepost in Table 2.5-10. Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements 

are in Appendix F. Service improvements are described in Section 2.2.2. 

Table 2.5-9: Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia)—General Improvements 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

4A: Add One Track/Improve Existing 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-10 

Station: None 

This alternative would add one additional main line track and realign 

existing tracks in some curves to improve speed. The additional track 

would be located on either the east or west side of the existing 

tracks based on rail operation considerations, site constraints, and 

potential impacts. 

Track Improvements Common to all Segments in the 

Central Virginia Area. Site-specific improvements are 

described in Table 2.5-9. 

 Add one main line track and realign existing tracks 

in some curves to improve speed in the Central 

Virginia area. 

 Install 36- to 48-inch culverts, as required for 

drainage, under the rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Existing Corridor in Area 4: Central Virginia 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-71 

Table 2.5-10: Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia)—Specific Infrastructure Improvements 

Segment and 

Milepost (MP) Figure Proposed Improvements 

Crossroads to Guinea 

(XRGU) 

MP 48.0-47.0 

Appendix F 

Figure F-1 

Track

 Add one track to west side between CFP 48.0 and 47.0. Modify the atgrade crossing at Stonewall Jackson Road (Route 606) (CFP 47.24) to 

accommodate the additional third track. 

No stations occur in this segment. 

No structure modifications. 

Guinea to Milford 

(GUMD) 

MP 47.0-38.0 

Appendix F 

Figure F-1 

Track

 Add one track to west side between south of Stonewall Jackson Road 

(CFP 47.24) and north of Nelson Hill Road (CFP 37.8). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at Jones Crossing (CFP 45.77), Woodford 

Road (CFP 44.50), Woodslane Road (CFP 43.50), Rixey Road (CFP 41.70), 

Paige Road (CFP 40.43), and Roes Crossing (CFP 38.99) to accommodate 

the additional third track. 

 Shift tracks to the east to increase speeds through the curve at CFP 39.1 to 38.8. 

 Shift tracks to the west to increase speeds through the curve at CFP 45.7 

to 45.4, 41.9 to 41.5, 40.9 to 40.6, and 40.3 to 40.0. 

No stations occur in this segment. 

Structures 

 Add crash walls to accommodate the third track at Rogers Clark 

Boulevard (CFP 38.50). 

Milford to North Doswell 

(MDND) 

MP 38.0-23.0 

Appendix F 

Figure F-1 and 

F-2 

Track

 Add one track to west side between north of Nelson Hill Road (CFP 

37.80) and south of the North Anna River (CFP 23.82). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing of multiple private road crossings; and Penola 

Road (CFP 33.0) and close the crossing of Colemans Mill Road (CFP 29.72) 

to accommodate the additional third track. 

 Shift tracks to the east to increase speeds through the curve at CFP 36.4 

to 36.0, 30.6 to 30.2, 30.0 to 29.5, 29.4 to 28.2, 26.9 to 26.6, 26.4 to 25.5, 

26.0, 26.8, 28.3, 29.1, 29.8, 30.4, and 36.2. 

 Shift tracks to the west to increase speeds through the curve at CFP 35.0 

to 34.8, 31.7 to 31.1, 27.7 to 27.1, 27.4, 31.4, and 34.9. 

 Transition track from west to east through curve at CFP 23.5 to 23.2. 

No stations occur in this segment. 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge over Mattaponi River (CFP 34.8) and 

North Anna River (CFP 23.9) on the west side of the existing structure. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing 

structure over Polecat Creek (CFP 32.1). 

 Add crash walls to accommodate the third track at Dry Bridge Road (CFP 

28.37), Ruther Glen Road (CFP 26.96), and I-95 (CFP 26.54). 

North Doswell to Elmont 

(NDEL) 

MP 23.0-19.0 

Appendix F 

Figure F-2 

Track

 Add one track to the east side south of North Anna River (CFP 23.82) to 

north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81). 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 

20.81) to Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Modify the at-grade crossings at Doswell Road (CFP 21.87) and Private 

Crossing (Excelsior Mill) (CFP 21.66) to accommodate the additional third track. 

 Shift tracks to the west to increase speeds through the curve at CFP 20.5 to 19.9. 

No stations occur in this segment. 

Structures 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing 

structure over Taylorsville Road (Route 689) (CFP 19.58). 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge over Little River (CFP 19.5). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-72 

Figure 2.5-10: Build Alternative 4A – Add One Track / Improve Existing Track
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-73 

2.5.2.5 Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) Build Alternatives 

The Ashland area (CFP 19 to CFP 9) extends from the South Anna River through the Town of 

Ashland to I-295. The corridor through the Town of Ashland consists of an approximately 9,500-

foot-long segment of two main tracks in the median of Center Street/Railroad Avenue that passes 

through the downtown commercial area, as well as the campus of Randolph-Macon College and 

residential areas north and south of the commercial district. The vehicular lanes of Center 

Street/Railroad Avenue are operated one-way on either side of the rail line, with southbound 

traffic to the west of the tracks and northbound traffic to the east. CSXT’s right-of-way has 

sufficient room for an additional main track through most of the Ashland area, except through 

downtown Ashland where the right-of-way is limited to the existing tracks. DRPT evaluated 

several options to provide the required rail capacity in this area, including a bypass option. These 

options are listed in Table 2.5-11 and shown in Figures 2.5-11 through 2.5-20; the figures include 

both maps of the Build Alternative rail alignments as well as the station build improvements. 

Station options considered include improving the existing downtown Ashland station (with 850-

foot platforms or 350-foot platforms) or constructing a new station just south of Ashcake Road 

(with 850-foot platforms). For the purposes of assessing the effects of the Ashland Area Build 

Alternatives that retain the existing downtown Ashland station, DRPT assumed that 850-foot 

platforms would be constructed, which is the worst-case (i.e., greatest impact) platform option 

and follows the DC2RVA BOD. If shorter 350-foot platforms were constructed instead, the 

impacts to the surrounding station area described in Chapter 4 would be reduced, with a minor 

impact on the efficiency of trains stopping at the station. 

Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements are in Appendix G. 

Table 2.5-11: Area 5: Ashland Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

5A: Maintain Two Tracks 

Through Town 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-11 

Station: Figure 2.5-12 A & B 

This alternative would maintain 

the existing two tracks (i.e., no 

construction of new track) 

through Ashland, which would 

be used by freight and passenger 

trains similar to current 

conditions. A new station would 

be constructed in town. 

One new track would be 

constructed north and south of 

town, and there are some shifts 

of existing tracks to improve 

speed throughout the area. Rail 

improvements are generally 

within existing right-of-way. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Add one track to the east side between Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) and Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 12.95). 

 Add one track to the west side between Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95) and 

Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15). 

 Modify the at-grade crossings at Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95), Elmont Road 

(CFP 11.55) and Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15) to accommodate the additional third track. 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) 

- Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface 

parking for approximately 45 spaces at the intersection of Henry Clay Road and 

Center Street. 

- Construct two new platforms to service the Amtrak trains; these platforms would be 

850 feet in length, and eight inches above top of rail. (An option for this alternative is 

to construct 350-foot-long platforms.) 

- A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including 

an elevator to provide ADA access. Note: these improvements would not apply if 350-

foot-long platforms were constructed.

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-74 

Table 2.5-11: Area 5: Ashland Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

Structures 

 Add crash walls to accommodate the third track at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) 

overpass. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing structure over 

Elletts Crossing Road (Route 641) (CFP 17.70). 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Realign and provide grade separation at Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Realign and provide grade separation at Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) with new connector 

road from Ashcake Road to Center Street. 

5A–Ashcake: Maintain Two 

Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to 

Ashcake) 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-13 

Station: Figure 2.5-20 

This alternative would maintain 

the existing two tracks (i.e., no 

construction of new track) 

through Ashland, which would 

be used by freight and passenger 

trains similar to current 

conditions. A new station would 

be constructed just south of 

Ashcake Road and the existing 

station location in town would 

be closed. 

One new track would be 

constructed north and south of 

town, with some track shifts to 

improve speed, which would 

generally be within existing rightof-way. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Add one track to the east side between Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) and Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 12.95). 

 Add one track to the west side between Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95) and 

Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15). 

 Modify the at-grade crossings at Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95) and Elmont Road 

(CFP 11.55) and Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15) to accommodate the additional third track. 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) – existing station platforms removed and service 

relocated to a new station near Ashcake Road. 

 Ashcake Road Amtrak Station 

- Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface 

parking for approximately 45 spaces would be constructed just south of Ashcake 

Road 

- A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including 

an elevator to provide ADA access 

- Two new platforms, 850 feet in length and 8 inches above top of rail, would be 

constructed to service the Amtrak trains. 

Structures 

 Add crash walls to accommodate the third track at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) 

overpass. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing structure over 

Elletts Crossing Road (Route 641) (CFP 17.70). 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Realign and provide grade separation at Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Realign and provide grade separation at Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) with new connector 

road from Ashcake Road to Center Street. 

5B: Add One Track East of 

Existing 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-14 

Station: Figure 2.5-19 A & B 

Through downtown Ashland, one 

additional track is added to the 

east side of the existing two 

tracks, which would new right-ofway to construct. A new station 

would be constructed in town. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Add one track to the east side between Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62) and Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 12.95). 

 Add one track to the west side between Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95) and 

Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at West Patrick Street (CFP 15.16), England Street (CFP 

14.72), Myrtle Street (CFP 14.64), Francis Street (CFP 14.20), Ashcake Road (CFP 

13.85), Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95), Elmont Road (CFP 11.55) and Cedar 

Lane (CFP 11.15) to accommodate the additional third track. 

 Continued. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-75 

Table 2.5-11: Area 5: Ashland Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

One new track would be 

constructed north and south of 

town, with some track shifts to 

improve speed, on the west side 

of the existing track. These rail 

improvements would generally 

be within existing right-of-way.

 Modify/reconstruct North Center Street between Smith Street and England Street, and 

South Center Street between England Street and Ashcake Road to accommodate the 

additional third track. 

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

alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) 

- Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface parking for 

approximately 45 spaces at the intersection of Henry Clay Road and Center Street. 

- Two new platforms would be constructed to service the Amtrak trains; these 

platforms would be 850 feet in length, and eight inches above top of rail. (An option 

for this alternative is to construct 350-foot-long platforms.) 

- A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including 

an elevator to provide ADA access. Note: these improvements would not apply if 350-

foot-long platforms were constructed.

Structures 

 Add crash walls to accommodate the third track at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) 

overpass. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing structure over 

Elletts Crossing Road (Route 641) (CFP 17.70). 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Realign and provide grade separation at Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) with new connector 

road from Ashcake Road to Center Street. 

5B–Ashcake: Add One Track 

East of Existing (Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-15 

Station: Figure 2.5-20 

Through downtown Ashland, 

one additional track is added to 

the east side of the existing two 

tracks, which would new rightof-way to construct. A new 

station would be constructed 

just south of Ashcake Road and 

the existing station location in 

town would be closed. 

One new track would be 

constructed north and south of 

town, with some track shifts to 

improve speed, on the west side 

of the existing tracks. These rail 

improvements would generally 

be within existing right-of-way. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 

 Add one track to the east side between Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62) and Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 12.95). 

 Add one track to the west side between Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95) and 

Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at West Patrick Street (CFP 15.16), England Street (CFP 

14.72), Myrtle Street (CFP 14.64), Francis Street (CFP 14.20), Ashcake Road (CFP 

13.85), Gwathmey Church Road (CFP 12.95), Elmont Road (CFP 11.55) and Cedar 

Lane (CFP 11.15) to accommodate the additional third track. 

 Modify/reconstruct North Center Street between Smith Street and England Street, and 

South Center Street between England Street and Ashcake Road to accommodate the 

additional third track. 

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

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) – existing station platforms removed and service 

relocated to a new station near Ashcake Road. 

 Ashcake Amtrak Station 

- Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface parking 

for approximately 45 spaces would be constructed just south of Ashcake Road 

- A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including 

an elevator to provide ADA access 

- Two new platforms, 850 feet in length and 8-inches above top of rail, would be 

constructed to service the Amtrak trains. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-76 

Table 2.5-11: Area 5: Ashland Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

Structures 

 Add crash walls at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) overpass. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing structure over 

Elletts Crossing Road (Route 641) (CFP 17.70). 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Realign and provide grade separation at Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) with new connector 

road from Ashcake Road to Center Street. 

5C: Add Two-Track West 

Bypass 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-16 

Station: Figure 2.5-12 A & B 

The existing two-track corridor 

and a new station in downtown 

Ashland would continue to serve 

regional passenger rail. An 8.75-

mile, two-track bypass would be 

constructed on new right-of way 

west of the town and would 

serve both freight rail and 

possibly long distance passenger 

rail trains, which do not serve 

the Ashland station. 

One new track would be added 

north and south of the bypass in 

the area, with some track shifts 

to improve speed, which would 

generally be within existing rightof-way. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

south of the South Anna River (CFP 18.52)

 Construct a two-track bypass on a greenfield alignment west of Ashland from south of the 

South Anna River (CFP 18.52 = ABP 8.32) to north of Elmont Road (CFP 11.61 = ABP 0.00) 

 Add one track to the west side north of Elmont Road (CFP 11.55) to Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15) 

 Construct a new culvert over Falling Creek 

 Install culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line along the alignment 

 Install stormwater management facilities 

 Install signal and communication facilities 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) 

 Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface parking 

for approximately 45 spaces would be constructed at the intersection of Henry Clay 

Road and Center Street. 

 Two new platforms would be constructed to service the Amtrak trains; these platforms 

would be 850 feet in length, and eight inches above top of rail. (An option for this 

alternative is to construct 350-foot-long platforms.) 

 A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including an 

elevator to provide ADA access. Note: these improvements would not apply if 350-foot-long 

platforms were constructed.

Structures 

 Add crash walls at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) overpass. 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Grade separate crossings at Washington Highway (ABP 7.0), Blunts Bridge Road (ABP 

5.83), West Patrick Henry Road (ABP 4.29), Yowell Road (ABP 3.25), Elmont Road 

(ABP 1.11) (including realignment of the road) and Ashcake Road (ABP 2.59). 

 Close the crossing at Independence Road, Farmers Inn Lane, and Quailwood Lane. 

Alternative driveway access to be provided for Quailwood Lane. 

5C–Ashcake: Add Two-Track 

West Bypass (Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-17 

Station: Figure 2.5-20 

The existing two-track corridor 

in downtown Ashland and a new 

station just south of Ashcake 

Road would continue to serve 

regional passenger rail, and the 

existing station location would 

be closed. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

south of the South Anna River (CFP 18.52)

 Construct a two-track bypass on a greenfield alignment west of Ashland from south of the 

South Anna River (CFP 18.52 = ABP 8.32) to north of Elmont Road (CFP 11.61 = ABP 0.00) 

 Add one track to the west side north of Elmont Road (CFP 11.55) to Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15) 

 Construct a new culvert over Falling Creek 

 Install culverts, as required for drainage, under the rail line along the alignment 

 Install stormwater management facilities 

 Install signal and communication facilities 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) – existing station platforms removed and service 

relocated to a new station near Ashcake Road. 

 Continued.
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-77 

Table 2.5-11: Area 5: Ashland Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

An 8.75-mile, two-track bypass 

would be constructed on new 

right-of-way west of the town 

and would serve both freight rail 

and possibly long distance 

passenger rail trains, which do 

not serve the Ashland station. 

One new track would be added 

north and south of the bypass in 

the area, with some track shifts 

to improve speed, which would 

generally be within existing rightof-way. 

 Ashcake Amtrak Station 

- Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface parking 

for approximately 45 spaces would be constructed just south of Ashcake Road 

- A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including 

an elevator to provide ADA access 

- Two new platforms, 850 feet in length and 8-inches above top of rail, would be 

constructed to service the Amtrak trains. 

Structures 

 Add crash walls at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) overpass. 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Grade separate crossings at Washington Highway (ABP 7.0), Blunts Bridge Road (ABP 

5.83), West Patrick Henry Road (ABP 4.29), Yowell Road (ABP 3.25), Elmont Road 

(ABP 1.11) (including realignment of the road) and Ashcake Road (ABP 2.59). 

 Close the crossing at Independence Road, Farmers Inn Lane, and Quailwood Lane. 

Alternative driveway access to be provided for Quailwood Lane. 

5D–Ashcake: Three Tracks 

Centered Through Town 

(Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-18 

Station: Figure 2.5-20 

One additional track is added to 

the existing two-track corridor, 

with the centering of all tracks 

on the existing alignment. This 

rail alignment would preclude 

use of the existing station 

location, which would be closed 

and the platforms would be 

removed. A new station would 

be constructed just south of 

Ashcake Road. 

Rail improvements generally 

require new right-of-way, 

especially within the town of 

Ashland. 

Track 

 Add one track to the west side north of Kings Dominion Boulevard (CFP 20.81) to 

Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62) 

 Shift existing tracks east up to 9 feet from Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62) to Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 12.95). 

 Add one track to the west side between Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62) to Gwathmey 

Church Road (CFP 12.95). 

 Modify the at-grade crossing at West Patrick Street (CFP 15.16), England Street (CFP 

14.72), Myrtle Street (CFP 14.64), Francis Street (CFP 14.20), Gwathmey Church Road 

(CFP 12.95), Elmont Road (CFP 11.55) and Cedar Lane (CFP 11.15) to accommodate 

the additional third track. 

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

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Ashland Amtrak Station (CFP 14.71) –existing station platforms removed and service 

relocated to a new station near Ashcake Road. 

 Ashcake Amtrak Station 

- Construct a new station building (approximately 2,300 square feet) and surface 

parking for approximately 45 spaces just south of Ashcake Road. 

- A pedestrian access bridge would connect the station to the two platforms, including 

an elevator to provide ADA access. 

- Two new platforms, 850 feet in length and 8-inches above top of rail, would be 

constructed to service the Amtrak trains. 

Structures 

 Add crash walls at Old Ridge Road (CFP 18.95) overpass. 

 Construct a new single-track rail bridge on the west side of the existing structure over 

Elletts Crossing Road (Route 641) (CFP 17.70). 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge (includes construction of one track on bridge 

plus space for a second track) on the west side of the existing structure over the South 

Anna River (CFP 18.70). 

 Grade separate crossings at Ashcake Road (CFP 13.85) and Vaughan Road (CFP 15.62). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-78 

Figure 2.5-11: Build Alternative 5A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town
Figure 2.5-12A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/850-Foot Platf
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-80 

Figure 2.5-12B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/350-Foot Platf
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-81 

Figure 2.5-13: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-82 

Figure 2.5-14: Build Alternative 5B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-83 

Figure 2.5-15: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-84 

Figure 2.5-16: Build Alternative 5C – Add Two-Track West Bypass
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-85 

Figure 2.5-17: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake – Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-86 

Figure 2.5-18: Build Alternative 5D – Three Tracks Centered Through Town 

(Add Single Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake)
Figure 2.5-19A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-88 

Figure 2.5-19B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
Figure 2.5-20: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake

and 5D–Ashcake
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-90 

2.5.2.6 Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) Build Alternatives 

The Richmond area (CFP 9 to A11) encompasses the area from I-295 through Richmond to 

Centralia. In Richmond, the A-Line and S-Line railroads diverge at the south end of Acca Yard 

forming two routes through the city. The westward of the two routes is the A-Line, which arcs 

around Richmond as the double-track North End Subdivision, CSXT’s principal freight route 

between Richmond and points south toward North Carolina. The eastward of the two routes is 

the S-Line, which passes through the center of Richmond as the Bellwood Subdivision, used 

primarily by local freights to serve industries and Amtrak service to Newport News. The A-Line 

and the S-Line reconnect at Centralia, approximately 14 miles south of the south Acca Yard wye. 

DRPT developed alternatives for the Richmond area based on passenger train routes and 

potential station locations, with the majority of potential improvements largely within existing 

railroad right-of-way. Alternatives vary on whether they use the A-Line or S-Line, based 

primarily on the ability to service both passenger train and freight service routes and potential 

station locations. DRPT identified eight Build Alternatives, to include four single station 

alternatives that would consolidate service to one station, and three potential two-station 

alternatives that offer combinations of services and rail lines using the existing Main Street Station 

and Staples Mill Road Station. 

Each Build Alternative is described further below in Table 2.5-12 and shown in Figure 2.5-21 

through Figure 2.5-38, which include maps of the Build Alternative rail alignments as well as 

station build improvements. 

Table 2.5-12 includes descriptions of which passenger train types serve which stations for each 

Build Alternative. For the single station alternatives, all alternatives provide Interstate Corridor 

(SEHSR and Carolinian), Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia), and Amtrak Long Distance 

service to one station. Service to the two-station alternatives vary by Build Alternative; however, 

all alternatives do provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service 

to at least one station; which station, as well as Long Distance (Amtrak), Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, varies by Build Alternative. The Auto 

Train (Amtrak) does not stop in Richmond. 

For reference, passenger trains serve Richmond in existing and No Build conditions as follows: 

 Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains currently terminating at Richmond terminate at the 

Staples Mill Road Station; however, under No Build conditions, those trains are extended 

to Norfolk. 

 Northeast Regional (Virginia) trains terminating at Newport News stop at Staples Mill 

Road Station, are routed on the S-Line to the east side of Main Street Station where they 

stop, and then continue on the Peninsula Subdivision. 

There are no changes to CSXT freight service routes on the A-Line or S-Line as a result of 

proposed changes to passenger train routes through Richmond as part of the DC2RVA Project. 

Detailed graphics illustrating the specific improvements are in Appendix H. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-91 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-21 

Station: Figure 2.5-24 

This alternative includes infrastructure and station 

improvements associated with service consolidated 

to Staples Mill Road Station. Main Street Station 

would be closed to passenger rail service. One main 

track would be added along portions of RF&P (north 

of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed. Freight and passenger 

rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) 

service to Norfolk, and Long Distance (Amtrak) 

passenger trains moving north-south through 

Richmond would be routed through Staples Mill 

Road Station to Centralia using the A-Line. One 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip would 

terminate at Staples Mill Road Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service to 

Newport News would continue from Staples Mill 

Road Station past Main Street Station (closed) on the 

S-Line, then on the Peninsula Subdivision. 

Track 

 Add a third main line track on the A-Line from Meadows (A 1.0) 

(south of the James River) to Centralia (A 10.7). The added track is 

on the east side of the existing track north of the Clopton Lead (A 

5.5) and transitions to the west side south of Clopton to the 

junction with the S-Line at Centralia (A 10.7). 

 Shift tracks on the A-Line east to improve speed between MP 1.2 

and 1.4. 

 Add a third main track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to Staples Mill 

Road Station (CFP 4.6). 

 Improve the existing two main tracks from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to 

AM Junction (CA 85.5). 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

the east side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from AM Junction 

(CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5). 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) 

- Modify existing platforms to one low-level island boarding 

platform and one level island platform. 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

- Replace the existing station building with a two-story building. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 340 spaces and 

parking garage for approximately 300 spaces to replace the 

existing surface parking lot. 

 Close Main Street Station to intercity passenger rail service. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Midlothian Turnpike (A 1.55) 

- State Route 288 (A 10.35) 

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

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-22 

Station: Figure 2.5-25 

This alternative includes infrastructure and station 

improvements associated with service consolidated 

to a new station at Boulevard, which would include 

an elevated loop track. Staples Mill Road Station and 

Main Street Station would be closed to passenger rail 

service. One main track would be added along 

portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and 

A-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts to 

improve speed. Freight and passenger rail service 

operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal 

freight corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay. 

Track 

 Add a third main line track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to former 

Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) and add a fifth main line track 

from Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) to north Acca Yard (CFP 

3.4). 

 Add a two-track bypass on the east side of Acca Yard (CFP 1.7). 

 Add a third main track from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to the proposed 

Boulevard Station. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

the east side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from AM Junction 

(CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5). 

 Add a third main line track on the A-Line from Meadows (A 1.0) 

(south of the James River) to Centralia (A10.7). The added track is 

on the east side of the existing track north of the Clopton Lead (A 

5.5) and transitions to the west side south of Clopton to the 

junction with the S-Line at Centralia (A 10.7). 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-92 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

Passenger Service: Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) 

service to Norfolk, and Long Distance (Amtrak) 

passenger trains moving north-south through 

Richmond would be routed through a new Boulevard 

Station and then to Centralia using the A-Line. One 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip would 

terminate at the new Boulevard Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) passenger 

service to Newport News would continue from the 

new Boulevard Station past Main Street Station 

(closed) on the S-Line, then on the Peninsula 

Subdivision.

 Shift tracks on the A-Line east to improve speed between MP 1.2 

and 1.4. 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Boulevard Station 

- Construct a new two-story station building adjacent to the main 

line tracks. 

- Construct one low-level island boarding platform and one level 

island platform; both 1,200 feet in length. 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 30 spaces and 

parking garage for approximately 600 spaces adjacent to the new 

station building. 

 Close Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road Station to intercity 

passenger rail service. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Dumbarton Road (CFP 3.71) 

- North Boulevard (SRN 3.90) 

- Midlothian Turnpike (A 1.55) 

- State Route 288 (A 10.35) 

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

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-23 

Station: Figure 2.5-25 

This alternative includes infrastructure and station 

improvements associated with service consolidated 

to a new station at Boulevard Road. Staples Mill 

Road Station and Main Street Station would be 

closed to passenger rail service. One main track 

would be added along portions of existing RF&P 

(north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), 

with track shifts to improve speed. Locating all 

passenger train service (except Auto Train, which 

does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from 

CSXT’s principal freight corridor through Richmond 

(i.e., the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: All Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) 

to Norfolk, and Long Distance (Amtrak) passenger 

trains moving north-south through Richmond would 

be routed through a new Boulevard Station and then 

to Centralia using the S-Line. One Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) round trip would terminate at the 

new Boulevard Station. 

Track 

 Add a third main line track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to former 

Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) and add a fifth main line track 

from Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) to north Acca Yard (CFP 

3.4). 

 Add a two-track bypass on the east side of Acca Yard (CFP 1.7). 

 Add a third main track from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to AM Junction 

(CA 85.5). 

 Add a new wye track near Hospital Street (SRN 1.23) to turn 

passenger trains. 

 Add a new passenger layover/servicing facility near Brown Street 

Yard (SRN 0.4) with three tracks. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

both the east and west side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from 

AM Junction (CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5) with the west 

track extending from AM Junction (CA 85.5) to the Triple Rail 

Crossing. 

 Add a second main track on the S-Line from the Triple Rail 

Crossing to Centralia (S 10.9) where only a single track currently 

exists. 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

 Continued. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-93 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) passenger 

service to Newport News would continue from the 

new Boulevard Station past Main Street Station 

(closed) on the S-Line, then on the Peninsula 

Subdivision.

Stations 

 Boulevard Station 

- Construct a new two-story station building adjacent to the main 

line tracks. 

- Construct one low-level island boarding platform and one level 

island platform; both 1,200 feet in length. 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 30 spaces and 

parking garage for approximately 600 spaces adjacent to the new 

station building. 

 Close Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road Station to intercity 

passenger rail service. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Dumbarton Road (CFP 3.71) 

- North Boulevard (SRN 3.90) 

- Elliham Avenue (S 7.83) 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge on the S-Line across the 

James River from the Triple Rail Crossing (includes construction of 

one track on bridge plus space for a second track). 

6C: Broad Street Station Only 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-26 

Station: Figure 2.5-28 

This alternative includes infrastructure and station 

improvements associated with service consolidated 

to a new Broad Street Station, which includes an atgrade loop track. Staples Mill Road Station and Main 

Street Station would be closed to passenger rail 

service. One main track would be added along 

portions of existing RF&P (north Richmond) and ALine (through Richmond), with track shifts to 

improve speed. Freight and passenger rail service 

operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal 

freight corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) 

to Norfolk, and Long Distance (Amtrak) passenger 

trains moving north-south through Richmond would 

be routed through a new Broad Street station on a 

loop track and then to Centralia using the A-Line. 

One Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip would 

terminate at Broad Street. Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR and Virginia) passenger service to Newport 

News would continue from the new Broad Street 

Station loop track past Main Street Station (closed) 

on the S-Line, then on the Peninsula Subdivision. 

Track 

 Add a third main line track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to Staples Mill 

Road Station (CFP 4.6). 

 Add a loop track, similar to the historic loop track that once served 

the Broad Street station. The loop track would enclose the area 

currently used for the Washington Redskins Football Team summer 

training camp, and require demolition of several existing buildings. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

the east side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from AM Junction 

(CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5). 

 Add a third main line track on the A-Line from Meadows (A 1.0) 

(south of the James River) to Centralia (A 10.7). The added track is 

on the east side of the existing track north of the Clopton Lead (A 

5.5) and transitions to the west side south of Clopton to the 

junction with the S-Line at Centralia (A 10.7). 

 Shift tracks on the A-Line east to improve speed between MP 1.2 

and 1.4. 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Broad Street Station 

- Construct a new two-story station building adjacent to the old 

Broad Street Station building (now the Virginia Science Museum). 

- Construct two level island platforms 1,000 feet in length. 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-94 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 300 spaces and 

parking garage for approximately 300 spaces adjacent to the new 

station building. 

 Close Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road Station to intercity 

passenger rail service. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track including: 

- Midlothian Turnpike (A 1.55) 

- State Route 288 (A 10.37) 

6D: Main Street Station Only 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-27 

Station: Figure 2.5-29 

This alternative includes infrastructure and station 

improvements associated with service consolidated 

to Main Street Station. Staples Mill Road Station 

would be closed. One main track would be added 

along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) 

and S-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts to 

improve speed. Locating all passenger train service 

(except Auto Train, which does not stop in 

Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s principal 

freight corridor through Richmond (i.e., the A-Line), 

would reduce rail congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: All Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and 

Carolinian), Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) 

to Norfolk, and Long Distance (Amtrak) passenger 

trains moving north-south through Richmond would 

be routed to the west side of Main Street Station and 

then to Centralia using the S-Line. One Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) round trip would terminate at 

Main Street Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) passenger 

service to Newport News would be routed to the 

east side of Main Street Station and then on the 

Peninsula Subdivision. 

Track 

 Add a third main line track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to former 

Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) and add a fifth main line track from 

Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) to north Acca Yard (CFP 3.4). 

 Add a two-track bypass on the east side of Acca Yard (CFP 1.7). 

 Add a third main track from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to AM Junction 

(CA 85.5). 

 Add a new wye track near Hospital Street (SRN 1.23) to turn 

passenger trains. 

 Add a new passenger layover/servicing facility near Brown Street 

Yard (SRN 0.4) with three tracks. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

both the east and west side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from AM 

Junction (CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5) with the west track 

extending from AM Junction (CA 85.5) to the Triple Rail Crossing. 

 Add a second main track on the S-Line from the James River to 

Centralia (S 10.9) where only a single track currently exists. 

 Add a new 12,000-foot staging track extending south from the 

South Yard (S 1.7). 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) 

 Construct new station facilities (approximately 6,800 square feet) 

within the existing station building and renovated train shed. 

 Construct two low-level boarding platforms (850 feet in length) east 

of the existing station and two low-level boarding platforms (1,200 

feet in length) west of the existing station. 

 Construct surface parking and two parking garages for 

approximately 600 spaces east of the existing station building. 

 Close Staples Mill Road Station to intercity passenger rail service. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Dumbarton Road (CFP 3.71) 

- Elliham Avenue (CFP 7.83) 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge on the S-Line across the 

James River from the Triple Rail Crossing (includes construction of 

one track on bridge plus space for a second track). 

 Continued. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-95 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-30 

Stations: Figure 2.5-31 and Figure 2.4-32 

This alternative includes infrastructure improvements 

associated with station and service improvements at 

both Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road 

Station-Split Service; both stations would remain 

operational. One main track would be added along 

portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and 

A-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts to 

improve speed. Freight and passenger rail service 

operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal 

freight corridor, would increase rail congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: As described further below, all 

passenger trains that stop in Richmond serve Staples 

Mill Road Station; trains to and from Newport News 

additionally serve Main Street Station. 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and Carolinian), 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) to Norfolk, 

and Long Distance (Amtrak) passenger trains moving 

north-south through Richmond would be routed 

through Staples Mill Road Station to Centralia using 

the A-Line, bypassing Main Street Station. One 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip would 

terminate at Main Street Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) passenger 

service to Newport News would continue from 

Staples Mill Road station to the east side of Main 

Street Station on the S-Line, then continue on the 

Peninsula Subdivision. 

Track

 Add a third main track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to Acca Yard 

(CFP 1.7). 

 Improve the two main line tracks from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to AM 

Junction (CA 85.5). 

 Add a new wye near Hospital Street (SRN 1.23) to turn passenger 

trains. 

 Add a new passenger layover/servicing facility near Brown Street 

Yard (SRN 0.4) with three tracks. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

the east side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from AM Junction 

(CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5). 

 Add a third main line track on the A-Line from Meadows (A 1.0) 

(south of the James River) to Centralia (A 10.7). The added track is 

on the east side of the existing track north of the Clopton Lead (A 

5.5) and transitions to the west side south of Clopton to the 

junction with the S-Line at Centralia (A 10.7). 

 Shift tracks on the A-Line east to improve speed between MP 1.2 

and 1.4. 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) 

- Construct new platforms, to include one low-level island boarding 

platform east of all new tracks and one level island platform 

between the new tracks. 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

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

square foot two-story building. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 300 spaces and 

parking garage for approximately 300 spaces to replace the 

existing surface parking lot. 

 Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) 

- Construct station facilities within the approximately 6,800 square 

foot existing station building and renovated train shed. 

- Construct two low-level island boarding platform (850 feet in 

length) east of the existing station. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 80 spaces east of the 

existing station building. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Midlothian Turnpike (A 1.55) 

- State Route 288 (A 10.35) 

 Continued. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-96 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

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

Stations 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-33 

Stations: Figure 2.5-34 and Figure 2.4-35 

This alternative includes infrastructure improvements 

associated with station and service improvements at 

Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road Station-Full 

Service; both stations would remain operational. 

One main track would be added along portions of 

existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line 

(through Richmond), with track shifts to improve 

speed. Locating all passenger train service (except 

Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to SLine, separate from CSXT’s principal freight corridor 

through Richmond (i.e., the A-Line), would reduce 

rail congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: As described further below, all 

passenger trains that stop in Richmond serve both 

stations. 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR and Carolinian), 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) to Norfolk, 

and Long Distance (Amtrak) 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 SLine. One Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip 

would terminate at Main Street Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) passenger 

service to Newport News would continue from the 

east side of Main Street Station on the Peninsula 

Subdivision. 

Track

 Add a third main line track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to Staples Mill 

Road Station (CFP 4.6) and add a fifth main line track from Staples 

Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) to north Acca Yard (CFP 3.4). 

 Add a two-track bypass on the east side of Acca Yard (CFP 1.7). 

 Add a third main track from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to AM Junction 

(CA 85.5). 

 Add a new wye track near Hospital Street (SRN 1.23) to turn 

passenger trains. 

 Add a new passenger layover/servicing facility near Brown Street 

Yard (SRN 0.4) with three tracks. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

both the east and west side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0), with 

the east track extending from AM Junction (CA 85.5) to Rivanna 

Junction (CA 84.5) and the west track extending from AM Junction 

(CA 85.5) to the Triple Rail Crossing. 

 Add a second main track on the S-Line from the James River to 

Centralia (S 10.9) where only a single track currently exists. 

 Add a new 12,000-foot staging track from the South Yard. 

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

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) 

- Remove existing platforms and construct one low-level island 

boarding platform and one level island platform; both 1,200 feet in 

length on east side of main tracks 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

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

square foot two-story building. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 400 spaces to 

replace the existing surface parking lot. 

 Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) 

- Construct station facilities within the approximately 6,800 square 

foot existing station building and renovated train shed. 

- Construct two low-level boarding platforms (850 feet in length) 

east of the existing station and two low level platforms (850 feet 

in length) west of the existing station. Long distance passenger 

trains would be served by the new 850-foot platforms as there is 

no baggage service nor are crew changes required at the Main 

Street Station under this Build Alternative. 

- Construct parking garage for approximately 300 spaces east of 

the existing station building. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Dumbarton Road (CFP 3.71) 

- Elliham Avenue (S 7.83) 

 Plan for construction of a new rail bridge on the S-Line across the 

James River (includes construction of one track on bridge plus space 

for a second track). 

 Continued. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-97 

Table 2.5-12: Area 6: Richmond Build Alternatives 

Build Alternative Proposed Improvements 

6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations 

Rail Alignment: Figure 2.5-36 

Stations: Figure 2.5-37 and Figure 2.4-38 

This alternative includes infrastructure improvements 

associated with station and service improvements at 

Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road StationShared Service; both stations would remain 

operational. One main track would be added along 

portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and 

the S-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts to 

improve speed; while the A-Line is used for service 

as part of this alternative, it does not require 

proposed new track. Freight and passenger rail 

service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay. 

Passenger Service: As described further below, all 

new proposed SEHSR service (Interstate Corridor 

and Northeast Regional) serve both stations, while 

other Amtrak passenger trains that stop in Richmond 

serve either one or both stations. 

Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR and Virginia) to Norfolk passenger trains 

moving north-south through Richmond would be 

routed from Staples Mill Road Station to the west 

side of Main Street Station and then to Centralia 

using the S-Line. 

Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) and Long Distance 

(Amtrak) passenger trains moving north-south 

through Richmond would be routed through Staples 

Mill Road Station to Centralia using the A-Line, 

bypassing Main Street Station. 

One Northeast Regional (SEHSR) round trip would 

terminate at Main Street Station. 

Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service to 

Newport News would be routed from Staples Mill 

Road Station to the east side of Main Street Station 

on the S-Line, then continue on the Peninsula 

Subdivision. 

Track 

 Add a third main line track from Greendale (CFP 4.8) to former 

Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) and add a fifth main line track 

from Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) to north Acca Yard (CFP 

3.4). 

 Add a two-track bypass on the east side of Acca Yard (CFP 1.7). 

 Add a third main track from Acca Yard (CFP 1.7) to AM Junction 

(CA 85.5). 

 Add a new wye track near Hospital Street (SRN 1.23) to turn 

passenger trains. 

 Add new passenger layover/servicing facility near Brown Street Yard 

(SRN 0.4) with three tracks. 

 Add a second main track on the existing elevated rail structure on 

both the east and west side of Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) from 

AM Junction (CA 85.5) to Rivanna Junction (CA 84.5) with the west 

track extended to the Triple Rail Crossing. 

 Add a second main track on the S-Line from the James River to 

Centralia (S 10.9) where only a single track currently exists. 

 Add a new 12,000-foot staging track extending south from the 

South Yard. 

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

rail line along the alignment. 

 Install stormwater management facilities. 

 Install signal and communication facilities. 

Stations 

 Staples Mill Road Station (CFP 4.6) 

- Remove existing platforms and construct four level island 

platforms all 1,200 feet in length (two platforms on the east side 

of the tracks and two platforms on the west side of the tracks). 

- Construct a pedestrian bridge with an elevator and stairs to 

access the platforms. 

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

square feet two-story building. 

- Construct surface parking for approximately 475 spaces to 

replace the existing surface parking lot. 

 Main Street Station (SRN 0.0) 

- Construct station facilities within the approximately 6,800 square 

foot existing station building and renovated train shed. 

- Construct two low-level boarding platforms (850 feet in length) 

east of the existing station and two low-level platforms (850 feet 

in length) west of the existing station. Long distance passenger 

trains would be served by the new 850-foot platforms as there is 

no baggage service nor are crew changes required at the Main 

Street Station under this Build Alternative. 

- Construct parking garage for approximately 200 spaces east of 

the existing station building. 

Structures 

 Replace deficient road overpasses with new structures providing 

sufficient vertical and horizontal clearance for the new track 

including: 

- Dumbarton Road (CFP 3.71) 

- Elliham Avenue (S 7.83) 

 Add a new rail bridge on the S-Line across the James River (with 

one track on the bridge)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-98 

Figure 2.5-21: Build Alternative 6A – Staples Mill Road Station Only
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-99 

Figure 2.5-22: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line – Boulevard Station Only, A-Line
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-100 

Figure 2.5-23: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line – Boulevard Station Only, S-Line
Figure 2.5-24: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-102 

Figure 2.5-25: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-103 

Figure 2.5-26: Build Alternative 6C – Broad Street Station Only
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-104 

Figure 2.5-27: Build Alternative 6D – Main Street Station Only
Figure 2.5-28: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-106 

Figure 2.5-29: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-107 

Figure 2.5-30: Build Alternative 6E – Split Service, Staples Mill Road / Main Street Stations
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-108 

Figure 2.5-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
Figure 2.5-32: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-110 

Figure 2.5-33: Build Alternative 6F – Full Service, Staples Mill Road / Main Street Stations
Figure 2.5-34: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-112 

Figure 2.5-35: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-113 

Figure 2.5-36: Build Alternative 6G – Shared Service, Staples Mill Road / Main Street Stations
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-114 

Figure 2.5-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
Figure 2.5-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-116 

2.6 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS AND RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES 

2.6.1 Operations Analysis 

DRPT has conducted preliminary operations simulation modeling to estimate rail performance 

in the corridor and inform DRPT’s evaluation of alternatives. Operations simulation modeling is 

an iterative process that is ongoing, and additional operations simulation analyses will be 

conducted through the Final EIS and SDP phases of the Project. Appendix I provides additional 

details of this operations analysis, which is summarized in this section. 

DRPT’s preliminary operations simulation modeling focused on evaluating whether suggested 

infrastructure is sufficient to meet the DC2RVA Project’s Purpose and Need, and specifically to 

meet intercity passenger train and freight service performance goals established by the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), also known as Public Law 110-432, and 

published as the Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service Under Section 207 of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, in the Federal Register on May 12, 2010. 

PRIIA’s performance goals for intercity passenger trains are for all passenger trains to be on-time 

at each station and at corridor endpoints at least 90% of the time. On-time, as defined by PRIIA, 

means arriving at a station at the scheduled time or within a set “late tolerance” period following 

the scheduled time. The length of the late tolerance period varies by the type of intercity 

passenger service and the total distance between the train’s scheduled endpoints. PRIIA’s 

performance goal for freight service is for intercity passenger rail service to not materially delay 

the movement of freight. The performance of freight trains is compared for different alternatives 

by estimating future freight train delay and comparing against existing freight train performance. 

Freight train delay is measured as minutes of delay per train, per 100 train-miles. This metric 

compares the simulated time a freight train took to cover its route inclusive of interactions with 

other trains, passenger and freight, compared to the time the freight train would have taken to 

cover its route had it encountered no delays en route. 

The operations simulation analyses evaluate a schedule of planned train movements 

(encompassing all intercity passenger, commuter, and freight trains moving through the corridor) 

in combination with a set of existing or proposed infrastructure. The results of the analyses 

estimate whether the combined schedule of operations and infrastructure performs sufficiently 

to meet the PRIIA goals. The operations simulation analyses include the proposed intercity 

passenger trains described in Section 2.2.1, as well as CSXT freight trains and VRE commuter trains. 

DRPT assumed the new DC2RVA service (18 additional intercity passenger trains per day) would 

be in place in 2025, and that no additional changes in intercity passenger trains would occur 

between 2025 and the horizon year of 2045. VRE commuter train frequencies were assumed to 

increase from 34 weekday trains in 2015 to a projected 38 weekday trains for the years 2025 through 

2045. To forecast freight train growth from existing (2015) levels, CSXT provided freight volumes 

for the future years 2025 and 2045 using the U.S. DOT Freight Analysis Framework projected 

growth rates for rail. CSXT freight growth is independent of the DC2RVA Project and will occur by 

itself regardless of whether or not the DC2RVA Project is implemented. CSXT actual freight growth 

will be driven by market forces and may be greater or less than the projected growth rates. 

Intercity passenger train and freight train performance estimates from the different Build Alternatives 

simulated in 2025 are compared against performance estimates for a 2025 No Build Alternative 

consisting of the No Build infrastructure and service levels described in Sections 2.2 and 2.5.1. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-117 

DRPT has completed three preliminary phases of operations simulation modeling that assess the 

performance of trains operating in the DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Centralia, VA. These three phases have assumed ideal operating conditions – that all tracks are 

fully operational, with no outages for maintenance, repairs, or other restrictions on operations. 

These preliminary operations simulations also apply an intercity passenger train schedule 

developed by DRPT to reduce travel time through the corridor to the maximum extent practical 

by assuming intercity passenger trains will operate at the maximum practical speed allowed by 

track design and geometry between station stops. The operations simulations incorporate VRE’s 

operating schedule, and projected movements of CSXT freight trains. The three preliminary 

phases of operations simulation modeling completed to date are: 

1. Preliminary Ashland and Fredericksburg Simulations Modeling - performed to estimate 

whether two main tracks through Ashland and/or Fredericksburg would be sufficient in 

the Build Alternative. See Section 2.6.1.1.

2. Additional Ashland Simulation Modeling - performed to estimate the operational impacts 

of 11 potential infrastructure and service options in the Ashland/Hanover area that, if 

proven operationally feasible, would not require the addition of a third main track 

through the Town of Ashland, VA. See Section 2.6.1.2.

3. Richmond Area Simulation Modeling - performed to compare passenger train and freight 

train operating performance among the Richmond‐area alternatives carried forward into 

the Draft EIS. See Section 2.6.1.3.

2.6.1.1 Preliminary Ashland and Fredericksburg Simulation Modeling 

This first phase of the preliminary operations modeling was performed to estimate whether two 

main tracks through Ashland and/or Fredericksburg would be sufficient to consider in a Build 

Alternative. Based on previous studies, such as the 2002 SEHSR Tier 1 document, DRPT assumed 

three main tracks in the corridor from Arlington to Richmond, and then evaluated the effects on 

train performance of having only two main tracks through Fredericksburg and/or Ashland. The 

operations simulation for year 2025 estimated that having only two main tracks in Fredericksburg 

and/or Ashland could potentially meet the PRIIA on-time performance goal for the corridor. 

However, operations simulation for year 2045 estimated that having only two main tracks in 

Fredericksburg and/or Ashland failed to dispatch (i.e., the operations simulation concluded that 

the infrastructure had insufficient capacity for the number of trains projected to operate in the 

corridor in the year 2045). DRPT’s preliminary conclusion, based on the schedule, infrastructure, 

and operating parameters evaluated in this initial phase of operations simulation, was that three 

main tracks through Fredericksburg, or a two-track bypass around Fredericksburg in lieu of a 

third main track through the city and town, would be required by year 2045 to accommodate the 

projected future levels of passenger, freight, and commuter service. DRPT also concluded that 

additional operations simulation modeling should be undertaken in the Ashland Area to test a 

broader range of infrastructure and service options that might not require the addition of a third 

main track through the Town of Ashland. 

2.6.1.2 Additional Ashland Simulation Modeling 

DRPT’s second phase of preliminary operations simulation modeling was performed to estimate 

the operational impacts of additional potential infrastructure and service options in the 

Ashland/Hanover area that, if proven operationally feasible, would not require the addition of a 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-118 

third main track through the Town of Ashland. DRPT evaluated the effects of a tunnel beneath 

the Town in lieu of a third track at grade, effects of operating trains at a maximum speed of 70 

mph instead of 90 mph, and modifying or eliminating station service, including relocation of the 

station to south of Ashcake Road. DRPT also evaluated the effects of routing some northbound 

freight trains onto the Buckingham Branch Railroad between Richmond and Doswell. (Not all 

northbound freight trains are feasible to be rerouted onto the Buckingham Branch owing to 

operational requirements and clearance restrictions.) The train performance estimates derived 

from this second phase of DRPT’s preliminary operations simulation suggested that in order to 

accommodate the additional 18 intercity passenger trains per day , accommodate CSXT’s 

projected freight growth, and meet PRIIA’s passenger and freight train on-time performance 

goals through 2045, either a third main track through Ashland or a two-track bypass around 

Ashland would provide the highest likelihood that trains would meet their performance goals 

under the service level and schedule projected. DRPT’s preliminary conclusion, based on the 

schedule, infrastructure, and operating parameters evaluated in this second phase of operations 

simulation was that, while a third main track through Ashland or a two-track bypass around 

Ashland would accommodate the Project’s service and performance goals through 2045, other 

alternatives should be considered, perhaps in concert with service and schedule modifications, 

that could also achieve the Project’s service and performance goals. 

2.6.1.3 Richmond Area Simulation Modeling 

Preliminary operations simulation modeling was also performed by DRPT to compare passenger 

train and freight train operating performance among the Richmond-area alternatives carried 

forward into the Draft EIS. Like the earlier preliminary operations simulation modeling, DRPT 

applied a preliminary intercity passenger train schedule based on maximum practical reductions 

to travel time, assumed an additional 18 intercity passenger trains plus CSXT’s projected growth 

for 2025 and 2045, and assumed ideal operating conditions. The seven Richmond-area 

Alternatives modeled are listed below: 

 6A. Staples Mill Road Station (all trains via A-Line and West Acca bypass) 

 6B. Broad Street Station (all trains via A-Line and East Acca bypass) 

 6C. Boulevard Station (all trains via A-Line and East Acca bypass). A Boulevard Station 

S-Line option (all trains via S-Line and East Acca bypass) was not modeled, but is assumed 

by DRPT to have similar operating parameters as Alternative 6D Main Street Station. 

 6D. Main Street Station (all trains via S-Line and East Acca bypass) 

 6E. Main Street / Staples Mill – Split Service (only Newport News trains make both stops; 

all other via trains via A-Line with a Staples Mill only stop; West Acca bypass) 

 6F. Main Street / Staples Mill – Full Service (all trains make both stops, operate via S-Line 

and East Acca bypass) 

 6G. Main Street / Staples Mill – Shared Service (all Regional and Interstate Corridor trains 

make both stops, operate via S-Line and East Acca bypass; long distance trains operate 

via A-Line and stop at Staples Mill Only) 

DRPT’s third phase of preliminary operations simulation modeling estimated that alternatives 

relying on the A-Line to carry both passenger and freight trains through 2045 (Alternatives 6A, 6B, 

6C, 6E and 6G) failed to meet the PRIIA performance goals. Factors that contributed to the inability 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-119 

of the A-Line options to accommodate the projected passenger and freight train service levels at the 

performance thresholds required under PRIIA include the lack of a third main track from Acca 

Yard south within the existing median of I-195 and across the James River and the operating 

complexities associated with freight trains entering and exiting the Acca Yard terminal area. The 

third phase also estimated that the two Richmond-area alternatives (6C Boulevard Station S-Line 

and 6F Main Street/Staples Mill Road – Full Service) that keep most freight trains and the Amtrak 

Auto Train on the A-Line while using the S-Line through Richmond for the regular intercity 

passenger trains could potentially meet the PRIIA performance goals through 2045. 

2.6.2 Ridership 

DRPT prepared ridership forecasts using a travel demand forecasting model derived from a 

survey of rail and other travel in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor. Appendix J 

provides additional details of the ridership forecasting process, which is summarized in this 

section. 

DRPT combined information from this survey with ridership forecasting procedures developed 

for connecting corridors north and south of the DC2RVA Project corridor to estimate ridership 

within the areas of DC2RVA, the SEHSR corridor, and the Northeast Corridor. Key elements of 

the forecasting process include: 

 The size and geographic distribution of the overall demand for long-distance travel in the 

corridor. 

 Estimating total travel for 2015 and 2045 by assuming that growth from 2008 is 

proportional to zone-level projections of population and employment growth obtained 

from corridor Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 

 The size and geographic distribution of rail travel demand was obtained from 2015 

Amtrak station-level actual ridership. 

 Characteristics of existing rail travelers and their sensitivity to potential service 

improvements (e.g., faster running times, more service, easier access and egress, and 

greater on-time performance). 

 The structure of the demand forecasting models was adapted by DRPT from those 

developed for the NEC FUTURE project. Parameters were adjusted to match traveler 

sensitivity to service attributes obtained from the corridor surveys. 

 Modeling parameters were refined so that the model replicates existing observed Amtrak 

station-level ridership and revenue when the model is tested with the current rail schedules. 

 Future year ridership for each alternative is forecasted by combining the calibrated model, 

projections of future overall travel, and rail schedules representing each DC2RVA 

alternative. 

Using this methodology, DRPT projects population growth and employment in the corridor 

together with planned service enhancements included in the No Build Alternative will increase 

corridor ridership from approximately 1.4 million annual trips in 2015 to 2.2 million annual trips 

in 2045, an increase of approximately 57 percent. DRPT projects that the various Build 

Alternatives will result in between 2.9 million and 3.0 million annual rail trips traveling to, from, 

and within the corridor. This represents a growth of approximately 40 percent over the ridership 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-120 

expected with the No Build service plan and an increase of approximately 110 percent over 

existing ridership. 

The principal drivers of this increase are: 

 A reduction in train travel times between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. 

 An increase in frequency from 9 round trips (in the No Build Alternative) to 18 round trips 

per day (in the Build Alternative) between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. 

 Increased service to Norfolk, which will grow from one daily round trip per day with the 

current schedule and three daily round trips per day in the No Build Alternative, up to 

six round trips per day with the Build Alternatives. 

 Improved reliability of the passenger rail service from an on-time perspective from 66 

percent today to 90 percent in the Build Alternatives. 

Table 2.6-1 summarizes the ridership associated with each of the 2045 build service conditions. 

As this table indicates, ridership is highest for the Staples Mill Road Only Build Alternative due 

to a slightly faster trip time for trains passing through Richmond from the south. The different 

Staples Mill Road and Main Street station combination alternatives follow closely behind due to 

accessibility to the market for Downtown Richmond. 

Table 2.6-1: Annual Rail Trips to/from/within DC2RVA Corridor (Millions) by Year and Alternative 

Year Build Alternative Annual Rail Trips 

2015 Existing Schedule (66% OTP) 1.388 

2045 Existing Schedule (66% OTP) 2.018 

2045 No Build Alternative1 (66% OTP) 2.180 

2045 6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only (90% OTP) 3.295 

2045 6B: Boulevard Station Only, A-Line2 (90% OTP) 3.203 

2045 6C: Broad Street Station Only (90% OTP) 3.160 

2045 6D: Main Street Station Only (90% OTP) 3.213 

2045 6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (90% OTP) 3.218 

2045 6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (90% OTP) 3.258 

2045 6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (90% OTP) 3.261 

Notes: 

1) No Build Alternative includes ridership associated with the extension of two Northeast Regional (VA) round trips from Richmond to 

Norfolk and the addition of one new Northeast Regional (VA) round trip between Washington, D.C. and Lynchburg. 

2) A single 6B ridership is reported because 6B–A-Line ridership and 6B–S-Line ridership are anticipated to be similar. 

Although the ridership varies among the alternatives, the standard deviation among all station alternatives was approximately 1%, which is within 

the margin of error for the analysis performed. 

The ridership model used by DRPT also provides a high-level estimate of the revenue generated by the 

new service for each of the Richmond alternatives. DRPT has included the revenue estimates in 

Appendix J for another point of reference; Section 4.5 of Appendix J includes tables that show estimates 

for 2025 and Section 5.0 of Appendix J shows revenue estimates for 2045. 

DRPT developed revenue forecasts based on current average station-to-station passenger fares. The 

resulting estimates of revenue represent the entire trip from the originating to the destination station. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-121 

Portions of some trips extend outside of the DC2RVA corridor, such as trips to North Carolina, New 

York, or Boston. DRPT made no attempt to show any allocation of the estimated revenue to the specific 

parties, such as Amtrak, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or other NEC states, or to specific geographic 

areas. 

It should be noted that these revenue forecasts are not comparable to the operating costs provided in 

Section 2.7, which account only for costs accrued inside the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT did not include 

revenue estimates as a factor in its consideration of recommended preferred alternatives described in 

Chapter 7. 

2.6.3 Travel Time and Reliability 

To aid in preliminary ridership forecasting, DRPT developed conceptual timetables incorporating 

the train frequency and train speed for each of the Richmond Build Alternatives described in 

Section 2.5.2.6. Table 2.6-2 summarizes the estimated travel times, inclusive of station stops, 

between Washington and Richmond based on the conceptual timetables developed for each 

Richmond Build Alternative. 

Table 2.6-2: DC2RVA Corridor Travel Times (hours:minutes) by Richmond Station Option, 

Washington Union Station to Richmond, VA 

Service Type Interstate Corridor Northeast Regional Long Distance 

Direction South North South North South North 

No Build (to Staples Mill Road) 2:06 2:16 2:16 2:20 2:02 2:22

No Build (to Main Street Station) No Service No Service 2:40 2:50 No Service No Service 

6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only 1:50 1:50 1:58 1:57 1:49 2:10 

6B–A-Line: Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 1:56 1:58 2:04 2:05 1:55 2:14 

6B–S-Line: Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 1:56 1:58 2:04 2:05 1:55 2:14 

6C: Broad Station Street Only 2:01 2:02 2:09 2:09 2:00 1:58 

6D: Main Street Station Only 2:06 2:06 2:14 2:13 2:05 2:23 

6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations (travel time to Staples Mill) 

1:50 1:50 1:58 1:57 1:49 2:10 

6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations (travel time to Main Street) 

2:15 2:13 2:21 2:18 2:20 2:37 

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

Stations (travel time to Staples Mill) 

1:50 1:50 1:58 1:57 1:49 2:10 

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

Stations (travel time to Main Street) 

No Service No Service 2:29 2:25 No Service No Service 

6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations (travel time to Staples Mill Road) 

1:50 1:50 1:58 1:57 1:49 2:10 

6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main 

Street Stations (travel time to Main Street) 

2:15 2:13 2:21 2:18 No Service No Service 

Currently, intercity passenger trains traveling between Washington, D.C. and Richmond reach 

the end of their trip segment on the DC2RVA corridor on time approximately 66% of the time – 

meaning that 34% of the trains are late. Given that the definition of “on-time” includes a potential 

delay interval – i.e., a train may be several minutes past its scheduled arrival into a station and 

still be classified as “on-time” – this makes it difficult for many train travelers to rely on the train 

schedules, and forces passengers to allot additional time to their trips to compensate for the 

potential delays. The DC2RVA Project, by increasing capacity and interoperability of the main 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-122 

tracks, would improve the reliability of intercity passenger trains within the corridor. For 

example, a recent (June 9, 2017) train trip on Northeast Regional Train #95 from Washington 

Union Station to Richmond’s Staples Mill Road Station, illustrates how the limited track capacity 

on this busy shared-use corridor can cause delays. Train #95, traveling south from Boston on the 

Northeast Corridor, arrived in Washington Union Station late. After an engine change, crew 

change, and passenger loading and unloading, train #95 departed Washington Union Station 

approximately 20 minutes behind schedule. Because it was late leaving Union Station, and owing 

to heavy passenger and freight train volume on the corridor south of Washington, D.C., Train 

#95 was positioned behind a slower freight train. Passenger and freight traffic moving in the 

opposite direction used the adjacent second main track to pass Train #95, leaving no opportunity 

for Train #95 to cross to the adjacent track and overtake the slower freight train until well south 

of Fredericksburg, more than an hour after departing Washington. As a result, Train #95 was 61 

minutes late arriving into Staples Mill Road Station – an additional 41 minutes of delay caused 

by congestion on the corridor. 

The DC2RVA Project would not be able to improve the on-time performance of trains arriving 

into Union Station from the Northeast Corridor – however, the added track capacity and 

additional crossovers of the DC2RVA Project would provide additional opportunities for higherspeed passenger trains to pass slower-speed freight trains and commuter trains making frequent 

station stops. The additional infrastructure planned by the DC2RVA Project would allow intercity 

passenger trains to closely adhere to their scheduled travel time between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond without incurring delays in that segment of their total trip. The DC2RVA Project shares 

PRIIA’s performance goals for intercity passenger trains for all passenger trains to be on-time at 

each station and corridor endpoints at least 90% of the time. 

2.7 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 

This section presents a summary of the estimated capital cost to design and construct and the estimated 

annual cost to operate and maintain the various DC2RVA alternatives under consideration. This section 

discusses the estimated costs for building, operating, and maintaining the DC2RVA Project. 

2.7.1 Capital Costs 

Capital costs represent the total cost associated with the design, management, land acquisition, 

and construction of the DC2RVA Project. All material quantities are estimated based on a 

conceptual (10 percent) level of design for the DC2RVA Project and are based on 2025 unit costs. 

Table 2.7-1 shows the capital cost estimates for each Build Alternative for the DC2RVA Project. 

Detailed estimates are provided in Appendix K. 

Table 2.7-1: Capital Costs Per Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Build Alternative 

Capital Cost 

(2025 $ - millions) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A: Add Two Tracks on the East $35.6 

1B: Add Two Tracks on the West $46.6 

1C: Add One Track East and One Track West $42.3 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A: Add One Track/Improve Existing Track $1,652.6 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town $240.2 

3B: Add One Track East of Existing $506.9 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-123 

Table 2.7-1: Capital Costs Per Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Build Alternative 

Capital Cost 

(2025 $ - millions) 

3C: Add Two-Track Bypass East $977.5 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A: Add One Track/Improve Existing Track $643.2 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (850-Foot Platforms) $349.5 

5A–Ashcake: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) $350.3 

5B: Add One Track Through Town East of Existing (850-Foot 

Platforms) $388.3 

5B–Ashcake: Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake) $388.8 

5C: Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(850-Foot Platforms) $599.2 

5C–Ashcake: Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station 

to Ashcake) $600.0 

5D–Ashcake: Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add 

One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) $398.8 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only $1,087.7 

6B–A-Line: Boulevard Station Only, A-Line $1,524.1 

6B–S-Line: Boulevard Station Only, S-Line $1,451.2 

6C: Broad Street Station Only $1,488.7 

6D: Main Street Station Only $1.323.5 

6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations $1.266.5 

6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations $1,482.9 

6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations $1,599.1 

The 2025 capital costs represent the infrastructure required for a potential Build Alternative. 

Operational modeling, ridership, and revenue are factors that impact the level of infrastructure 

required. Build Alternative 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only), which does not include a third 

mainline track across the James River on the CSXT A-Line and stays within the median of Powhite 

Parkway, has the lowest overall estimated capital costs. However, train performance estimates 

calculated using computer-based operations simulation modeling indicate that this alternative 

does not meet the Project’s passenger train on-time performance requirements or freight train 

delay requirements, because of the lack of additional track capacity to accommodate the increases 

in passenger train service. Adding a third main line track and new bridge across the James River 

on the CSXT A-Line and the third track in the median of the Powhite Parkway would increase 

the capital cost of Build Alternative 6A to $1,887.0 million, and may require additional 

environmental impacts. Other Build Alternatives that also primarily use the A-Line for freight 

and passenger service (6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G) would have similar increases in capital 

costs. Build Alternative 6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) has the 

highest overall estimated capital costs because it uses both the CSXT A-Line and S-Line corridors 

in Richmond, requiring the maximum amount of additional improvements. 

2.7.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs 

The estimate of long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) costs include both train operations 

and infrastructure maintenance. Operations consists of labor costs, electrical power, and other 

factors required to keep the DC2RVA Project in service, whereas maintenance includes routine 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-124 

servicing of vehicles, maintenance of the tracks, signals, communications, and other systems 

needed to keep the system safe and reliable. This section presents a summary of the estimated 

annual cost to operate and maintain the DC2RVA passenger rail service. These costs are 

calculated based on the passenger rail service for the full DC2RVA corridor and are presented 

relative to the suite of alternatives that result in changes in passenger rail service: the No Build 

Alternative and the Richmond Area Build Alternatives. 

Table 2.7-2 shows the resultant total costs by alternative. Costs are shown in 2015 constant dollars. 

Table 2.7-2: Estimated O&M Costs for Each Alternative 

Year Build Alternative 

Total O&M Cost 

(2015 $) 

2015 Existing $46,837,206 

2045 No Build Alternative $54,767,392 

2045 6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only $97,499,879 

2045 6B: Boulevard Station Only (A- and S-Line alternatives) $99,449,483 

2045 6C: Broad Street Station Only $99,253,709 

2045 6D: Main Street Station Only $99,910,050 

2045 6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations $97,795,859 

2045 6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations $100,331,049 

2045 6G: Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations $99,646,766 

Notes: 

Although the O&M cost varies among the alternatives, the standard deviation among all 2045 Richmond Build Alternatives was approximately 

1%, which is within the margin of error for the analysis performed. 

The 2045 build service conditions represent approximately a doubling of intercity passenger 

service and ridership. Because service and ridership are the key drivers of cost, the O&M costs 

for the Build Alternatives are also approximately double the costs of today’s service (2015). Build 

Alternative 6A (Staples Mill Road Stations Only) has the lowest overall estimated O&M costs 

because it has the lowest estimated number of annual revenue miles (tied with Build Alternative 

6E: Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations), the lowest estimated number of annual 

revenue hours, and a high number of overall station boardings/alightings. Build Alternative 6F 

(Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) has the highest overall estimated O&M 

costs. That alternative has the highest estimated station boardings/alightings and the secondhighest revenue hours compared with the other Build Alternatives. 

2.8 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 

The approach to constructing infrastructure improvements for the DC2RVA Project, described 

below, would be common to all of the Build Alternatives. Construction would not begin until a 

final design is approved, additional permanent and temporary right-of-way is acquired, and all 

necessary permits and approvals are in place. 
 ALTERNATIVES 

 2-125 

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

modification to control points, new station infrastructure with additional platforms, and track shifts 

requires a phased construction approach. During construction, at least one main track would remain 

in operation while under construction. Station improvements for platform additions and pedestrian 

access would be constructed early to support the new track when placed in operation. Additional 

early construction activities include major bridges having an extended lead time, earthwork, and 

retaining walls. Figure 2.8-1 provides a general construction approach for the DC2RVA Project. 

Figure 2.8-1: General Construction Approach

Four major construction activities would comprise the majority of the construction efforts: rail, 

bridge, road, and station construction. Appendix L provides a general description of each of the 

major construction activities, which are summarized below. 

Rail Construction. The proposed track structure is ballasted track to be constructed on a prepared 

track bed. As the earthwork is completed, a sub-ballast layer would be constructed with 

aggregates hauled from the local quarries and from contractor’s stockpiles. The sub-ballast would 

be graded, rolled, and compacted to establish a solid base. Following placement of the sub-ballast, 

an 8-inch layer of ballast would be placed as the final layer. This new surface is called a track bed. 

Once the track bed is in place, railroad ties (wood or concrete) would be placed and the 

continuous welded rail (CWR) fastened and anchored in place. As placement of the ties and CWR 

can disturb the ballast, tamping and lining track would be done to finish the installation. 

In addition to new main track construction, construction would also involve shifting the existing 

track alignment. The track shifts would utilize existing rail and track bed if possible. In areas 

where existing rail and track bed are not feasible to use, additional grading and installation of 

new track bed would occur, followed by tamping and lining the track to finish. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 2-126 

The addition of the new main line track and speed improvements would require upgrades and 

reconfiguration of the existing control points, and the addition of new control points on the 

DC2RVA corridor. 

Bridge Construction. Bridge construction along the corridor would include rail and road 

structures. New structures would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of existing 

structures. The structure type (concrete, steel, or timber types) proposed varies according to 

function, and design requirements at each respected location. Foundations also vary from spread 

footings to deep foundations (e.g., pipe piles, pre-stressed concrete piles, or drilled shafts). Pile 

driving would be required for the deep foundations. Local ordinances may limit work activities 

to avoid night time work. During construction, existing roads would be temporarily closed or 

temporary detours would be used. 

Road Construction. Due to the alignment of the corridor, roads are proposed to be lowered, 

elevated, realigned, or reconstructed. The roadways would be designed and constructed to VDOT 

standards. After the earthwork operations and utilities relocations are constructed, the roadway 

subgrade, base and final pavement sections would be constructed. Since roadway closures and 

detours during the construction process are anticipated, close coordination between the 

contractor and the relevant local agencies will be essential to scheduling temporary road closures 

and obtaining approval of detour routes. 

Station Construction. The existing railway passenger stations on the DC2RVA corridor require 

facilities infrastructure improvements. The site preparation for station construction may include 

clearing and grubbing; building demolition and relocation; grading for the platform and third track; 

utility service installation and relocations; and drainage installations. Other infrastructure 

improvements proposed at the Richmond area stations include intermodal connectivity for local 

transit, passenger pickup and drop offs, and parking as either parking decks or paved parking areas. 

The additional main line track would require construction of new platforms at the stations. The 

platform work consists of a poured concrete structure with, utilities, elevators, and pedestrian 

overpasses for ingress and egress to the station. The overhead pedestrian structures include 

stairways and elevators to be constructed on the platforms and station for access. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3
 3-1 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions present in the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) corridor to provide an understanding 

of the Project area relative to the effects of the alternatives evaluated in this Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). It also identifies environmentally sensitive features in the Project corridor. 

As described in Chapter 2, the DC2RVA corridor has been subdivided into six alternative areas⎯

Arlington (Long Bridge Approach), Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads), 

Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell), Ashland (Doswell to I-295), and Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia)⎯that correspond with proposed improvements and alternatives (Figure 3.0-1). At the 

northern terminus in Arlington, VA, the Project starts at the southern approach to Long Bridge, a 

double-track rail bridge that carries the rail corridor over the Potomac River and into Washington, D.C., 

where it connects to the southern terminus of the Northeast 

Corridor (NEC) at Union Station. Long Bridge and the tracks 

continuing north of the bridge into Union Station are not a part 

of the DC2RVA project for environmental clearance purposes. 

The southern terminus in Centralia is the junction of two CSX 

Transportation (CSXT) routes that begin in Richmond and rejoin 

approximately 11 miles south of Richmond. At Centralia, the 

Project connects to both the Richmond to Raleigh section of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor and the Richmond 

to Hampton Roads section of the SEHSR corridor. 

Additional sections of the Project include approximately 8.3 

miles of the CSXT Peninsula Subdivision CA-Line from 

Beulah Road in Henrico County, VA, to AM Junction in the 

City of Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile-long 

Buckingham Branch Railroad (BBR) from AM Junction to the 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad Railway 

(RF&P) crossing in Doswell, VA. 

For each resource inventoried in this chapter, the Virigina Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) defined a study area. The study areas differ from the alterantive areas 

described above, vary in size depending on the resource, and are typically centered about the 

existing rail or potential bypass alignment. The study areas for the human environment, noise, 

and air quality are larger than the natural environment boundaries. The larger study areas are 

defined by regions of influence in which a resource may potentially have noticeable projectrelated impacts. Regions of influence for human resources account for factors such as community 

sizes, geographical and political boundaries, and census boundaries. These human resources 

 

3 

From north to south, the Project 

travels through the following 

towns, cities, and counties: 

 Arlington County 

 City of Alexandria 

 Fairfax County 

 Prince William County 

 Town of Dumfries 

 Town of Quantico 

 Stafford County 

 City of Fredericksburg 

 Spotsylvania County 

 Caroline County 

 Hanover County 

 Town of Ashland 

 Henrico County 

 City of Richmond 

 Chesterfield County
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-2 

Figure 3.0-1: Alternative Areas
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-3 

include social and economic issues, community resources, and land use planning. The air quality 

study area is influenced by local and regional atmospheric conditions. The noise study area is 

determined by the limit of noise intrusions associated with the Project. The extent of the study 

areas for the other natural resources described in this chapter were defined through coordination 

with federal and state regulatory agencies, and the anticipated limits of disturbance to the 

resource from Project construction and operation. The study areas were defined to extend well 

past the expected limits of disturbance to ensure that all potentially affected resources were 

identified and were generally established as a minimum of 500 feet (Table 3.0-1) 

Table 3.0-1: Study Area by Resource 

Resource Study Area1 Comment 

Water Resources Varies 500-foot study area for review of maps, photographs, databases, etc. 

Wetland and stream delineations were performed within a 100-foot study 

area. 

Topography, Geology, Soils 600 feet Wider study area because soils in disturbed areas such as the existing 

railroad corridor are not rated, so a wider study area provides a better 

understanding of the soil profile along the corridor. 

Agricultural Lands 1,000 feet Study area established to include larger farms and Agricultural/Forestal 

Districts within rural areas. 

Mineral Resources Varies Resources identified for both a 2,000-foot wide study area and a 2-mile 

study area. Wider study area used since the resources, regardless of size, 

are identified as points on a map. 

Solid Wastes and Hazardous 

Materials 

1,000 feet Wider study area to account for potential for contamination to travel 

from adjacent properties that may be affected and to include properties 

that might be considered for acquisition or easements. 

Air Quality All counties the 

Project is located 

within 

Study area is larger than for other resources because much of the 

available data regarding regional air quality is provided at the county level 

and not at a smaller scale. 

Noise and Vibration Varies Study area for the noise and vibration analysis varies in size throughout 

the corridor to account for potential impacts and is as wide as 

approximately 3 miles through some sections. 

Energy Not applicable Analysis covers energy use from intercity travel to, from, within, and 

through the DC2RVA corridor. 

Aesthetics and Visual 

Environment 

Varies Study area includes areas from which the Project would be visible as well 

as areas visible from the rail. 

Biological Resources 500 feet Minimum study area width. Considered conservative to capture any 

potential impacts. 

Community Resources 1,000 feet Study area of 1000 feet set for consistency with Title VI and 

Environmental Justice study area and for inclusion of smaller communities 

within rural areas. Counties discussed for comprehensive planning. 

Title VI and Environmental 

Justice 

1,000 feet Includes census tracts with any portion within the 1,000-foot study area. 

Archaeological and 

Aboveground Historic and 

Cultural Resources 

Varies Study area is the Area of Potential Effect which is the limits of disturbance 

for archaeological resources and 1000 feet for aboveground resources, 

which is expanded to 2000 feet in areas of overpass recommendations. 

Parklands, Recreational 

Areas, and Refuges 

1,000 feet Wider study area to ensure inclusion of all additional right-of-way impacts 

including those related to roadway improvements. 

Transportation Facilities Varies Two study areas established. Regional study area focuses on the broader 

transportation network and transportation modes that provide the overall 

context for the existing railroad service, as well as the proposed DC2RVA 

service. It includes portions of every county and city that the proposed service 

will traverse, and its extents include I-95 and U.S. Route 1, which run roughly 

parallel to the DC2RVA corridor. The second study area is 1-mile-wide and 

was used for more-detailed analysis of the affected transportation network. 

Note: 1. Study area is centered along the corridor. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-4 

3.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Water resources are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) according to the Water Pollution Control Act of 

1972 (Clean Water Act [CWA]) and the Water Quality Act of 1987. Section 404 of the CWA regulates 

activities affecting Waters of the United States (WOUS). WOUS can be generally defined as all 

navigable waters and waters that have been or can be used for interstate or foreign commerce, their 

tributaries, and any waters that, if impacted, could affect the former. WOUS include surface waters 

(e.g., streams, lakes, bays) and their associated wetlands (i.e., inundated or saturated areas that 

support vegetation adapted for life in wet soils). EPA, USACE, the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG), the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission (VMRC) all issue permits for various activities in, under, and over WOUS. 

Virginia DEQ administers the Virginia Water Protection Permit program (9 VAC 25-210), Section 

401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the State Water Control Law for activities affecting 

jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other water bodies. In July 2000, Virginia DEQ authority 

was modified by the Virginia General Assembly to develop a non-tidal wetlands program and to 

provide regulations to protect fish and wildlife resources. While waters that are considered 

“isolated” do not fall under federal CWA permitting, they are regulated by Virginia DEQ. 

VMRC is authorized to permit activities in, on or over state-owned subaqueous lands in Virginia 

(Code of Virginia Chapter 2, Title 62.1). In addition, VMRC is responsible for managing and 

regulating the use of Virginia’s tidal wetlands and coastal primary sand dunes in conjunction with 

Virginia’s local wetlands boards, where established. VMRC also protects and regulates those areas 

designated as non-vegetated and vegetated tidal wetlands and state-owned subaqueous bottom land. 

Virginia’s WOUS, including wetlands, are also regulated under the Virginia Wetlands Act and 

through Subtitle III of Title 28.2 of the Code of Virginia. These laws include oversight of areas and 

activities, such as isolated wetlands or Tulloch ditching, that are not covered by the Federal 

wetland program. Through this framework, each County’s Local Wetlands Board regulates 

activities in tidal wetlands within their Counties. 

Streams, wetlands, and floodplains within a 500-foot-wide study area centered on the DC2RVA 

corridor were identified by reviewing aerial photographs and topographic maps, Virginia 

Wetlands Catalog maps from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

(VDCR)−Division of Natural Heritage, wetlands digitized by the City of Richmond, National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD) maps from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), National 

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) “Comprehensive Environmental Data and 

Reporting System” (CEDAR) Geographic Information System (GIS) data (VDOT, no date), VDOT 

mitigation sites, and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

DRPT conducted field surveys in September 2015 through September 2016 to verify the existence 

of potential ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams and wetlands within 100 feet of the 

existing rail on the side of the track where improvements are proposed. The field survey findings 

augmented and updated the NHD and NWI mapping. These water resources are discussed in 

greater detail in the sections below. Streams and wetlands mapped within the study areas are 

shown in Appendix M. Lengths of streams and areas of wetlands within the study corridor were 

calculated using GIS. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-5 

Due to the DC2RVA corridor being located in two geographic regions, DRPT confirmed with 

USACE at a meeting held prior to fieldwork that two different regional supplements of the USACE 

delineation manual and its forms would be used for the delineation of wetlands along the corridor. 

The Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0 would be used for all wetlands delineated west 

of I-95, and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plane Region – Version 2.0 would be used for all wetlands 

delineated east of I-95. All stream channels with the potential to be impacted by the DC2RVA 

project were assessed using the Unified Stream Methodology (USM) form. In Virginia, the USM is 

the approved assessment methodology for existing stream condition and the necessary mitigation 

requirements for stream impacts. Field reviews by USACE and Virginia DEQ, spot checks with the 

field crews at several intervals during the field survey, ensured methods were conducted according 

to agency expectations. Additional information was obtained through the scoping process, 

participating agency meetings, and consultation with regulatory agencies. 

3.1.1 Drainage Basins 

For permitting purposes, regulatory agencies prefer that mitigation take place within the same 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 watershed as the project. The DC2RVA corridor crosses seven 

USGS Subbasins or HUC 8 watersheds: 

 Middle Potomac−Anacostia−Occoquan 

 Lower Potomac River 

 Lower Rappahannock 

 Mattaponi 

 Pamunkey 

 Middle James−Willis 

 Lower James 

Figure 3.1-1 shows these watersheds. 

Middle Potomac−Anacostia−Occoquan Watershed 

This watershed encompasses approximately 831,483 acres in Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, 

Prince William, Loudoun, Fauquier, and Stafford counties. It is one of the most polluted 

watersheds in Virginia with approximately 27 percent of the surface waters reporting reduced 

water quality, even though roughly 45 percent of the watershed is forested. 

Lower Potomac River Watershed 

Prince William, Westmoreland, King George, Northumberland, Richmond, Fauquier, and 

Stafford counties contain a portion of this watershed. Most of the 1,160,160 acres is forested (i.e., 

deciduous, evergreen, and mixed). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-6 

Figure 3.1-1: Watershed Boundaries
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-7 

Lower Rappahannock Watershed 

This watershed drains directly to the Chesapeake Bay and supplies important coastal habitat to 

waterfowl and migratory birds along the Eastern Flyway (USDA, 2004). The Lower 

Rappahannock Watershed encompasses approximately 738,446 acres in Stafford, Spotsylvania, 

Caroline, King George, Richmond, Westmoreland, Lancaster, Essex, and Middlesex counties. 

Half of the area is forested with a mixture of hardwood and pines. Of the remaining area, 

agriculture makes up approximately 21 percent of the land use, producing mainly soybeans, corn, 

and hay; 14 percent has been developed. 

Mattaponi Watershed 

This watershed encompasses approximately 582,426 acres in Orange, Spotsylvania, Caroline, 

King and Queen, and King William counties. Most of the land (approximately 70 percent) in this 

watershed is forested with a mixture of hardwood and pines. Roughly 14 percent of the land is 

used for agriculture, and 10 percent of the land has been developed. This watershed drains to the 

York River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. 

Pamunkey Watershed 

This watershed is located in Hanover, Louisa, King William, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and New 

Kent counties. Approximately 941,032 acres drain to the York River and eventually to the 

Chesapeake Bay. The area is predominantly wooded with irregular plains and low, rolling hills. 

Elevations downstream are very low, stream flow is slow, and stained water is common. Land 

use in the drainage area is mostly forested (approximately 64 percent), pasture and crop land 

account for approximately 13 percent of the area, and approximately 4 percent is developed or 

barren. 

Middle James−Willis Watershed 

This watershed contains approximately 615,449 acres in a portion of 6 counties⎯Buckingham, 

Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Henrico, and Powhatan⎯and the city of Richmond. 

Lower James Watershed 

Land use in this approximately 1,135,000-acre watershed is mostly urban and suburban (48 

percent), with only 31 percent forested and 12 percent agricultural. It is known for its large 

military installations, port facilities, and manufacturing. The watershed covers part or all of 

Hanover, Henrico, Prince George, New Kent, Surry, Isle of Wight, and York counties. 

3.1.2 Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams 

The 500-foot-wide study area along the DC2RVA corridor includes more than 350 rivers, streams, 

and other surface waters (Figure 3.1-2), including approximately 204,563 linear feet of surface 

waters, including rivers and streams (Table 3.1-1). Most of the surface waters are small perennial 

or intermittent streams. Eight of the waters are classified as navigable. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-8 

Table 3.1-1: Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams 

Alternative 

Area Water Bodies 

Number of 

Streams 

Delineated 

Linear Feet 

in Study 

Area1

Area 1: 

Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

 Roaches Run 1 214 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

 Roaches Run Marumsco Creek

 Four Mile Run Marumsco Acres Creek/Lake 

 Timber Branch (piped underground) Farm Creek 

 Taylor Run Neabsco Creek 

 Cameron Run Powells Creek 

 Long Branch Boars Creek 

 Accotink Creek Aquia Creek 

 Pohick Creek Accokeek Creek 

 Giles Run Potomac Creek 

 Occoquan River Claiborne Run 

112 49,147 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

 Claiborne Run 

 Rappahannock River 

 Hazel Run 

 Deep Run 

 Little Falls Run 

 Snow Creek 

 Meadow Creek 

67 46,778 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

 Mattaponi River

 Campbell Creek 

 Polecat Creek 

 Reedy Creek 

 North Anna River 

 Bull Run 

 Little River 

60 25,734 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

(Doswell to 

I-295) 

 South Anna River

 Falling Creek 

 Stony Run 

 Chickahominy River 

45 31,129 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

 North Run 

 Hungry Creek 

 Rocky Branch 

 Horsepen Branch 

 Jordans Branch 

 Cannon Branch & Shockoe Creek (piped underground in some 

locations) 

 Goode Creek 

 Grindall Creek 

 Falling Creek 

 James River 

 Kingsland Creek 

 Proctors Creek 

 Reedy Creek 

 Broad Rock Creek 

69 51,561 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

Notes: 1. Lengthwise measurement of streams and rivers (i.e., the width of the study area across larger river crossings) 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-9 

3.1.3 Designated Waters 

Table 3.1-2 identifies special status streams and other special waterway designations in the 

DC2RVA corridor. Figure 3.1-2 shows these designated waters. 

Table 3.1-2: Special Stream Designations 

Designation Organization Water Body 

Alternative 

Area 

Navigable Waters USACE/USCG Occoquan River 

Neabsco Creek 

Powells Creek 

Aquia Creek 

Rappahannock River 

Hazel Run 

Mattaponi River 

James River 

Northern Virginia 

Northern Virginia 

Northern Virginia 

Northern Virginia 

Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg 

Central Virginia 

Richmond 

State Scenic River VDCR Occoquan River1

Rappahannock River 

North Anna River1 

South Anna River1 

James River 

Northern Virginia 

Fredericksburg 

Central Virginia 

Ashland 

Richmond 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), National Park Service 

(NPS), USFWS, United States 

Forest Service (USFS) 

There are no federally listed Wild or Scenic 

Rivers in Virginia. 

n/a 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory2 

NPS North Anna River 

South Anna River

Central Virginia 

Ashland 

Exceptional State 

Waters3

Virginia DEQ No Exceptional State Waters are located in 

the study area. 

n/a 

Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Areas 

VDCR The study area includes 2,986 acres of 

Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas 

(RPA). The remainder of the land located 

within the study area is considered to be 

Resource Management Area (RMA). 

All 

Virginia Coastal 

Zone Management 

Areas 

Virginia DEQ The entire study area is located within 

Virginia’s coastal zone. 

All 

Fisheries 

Management Areas 

VMRC No Fisheries Management Areas are located in 

the study area. 

n/a 

Shellfish Areas VMRC No commercial shellfish sites, Baylor Grounds 

(public oyster grounds), private oyster 

grounds, or state-constructed oyster reef 

areas are located in the study area. 

n/a 

Source: USACE, 2016, VDCR, 2011, VDCR, 2013, DOI, et al., 2014, NPS, 2009, Virginia DEQ, 2014, VMRC, 2012, USCG, no date. 

Notes: 1. Identified as worthy of future study (not yet a legislatively designated river); 2. More than 3,400 free-flowing river segments determined 

to possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance; 3. Waters 

with outstanding qualities in which activities such as discharge and the temporary lowering of water quality are regulated to protect and maintain 

their exceptional status. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-10 

3.1.3.1 Navigable Waters 

According to USACE and USCG, the following waters crossed by the existing rail line are 

navigable:

 Four Mile Run  Chopawamsic Creek 

 Accotink Creek  Aquia Creek 

 Occoquan River  Rappahannock River 

 Neabsco Creek  Hazel Run 

 Powells Creek  Mattaponi River 

 Quantico Creek  James River 

USCG has jurisdiction over navigable waters. Navigable waters are defined by 33 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 2.05-25 as waters subject to the ebb and flow of tide; or any water that is 

presently used, was previously used, or is susceptible to use in its natural condition, or by 

reasonable improvement, as a means to transport substantial interstate or foreign commerce. 

Work in or near such a water may require consultation with or permits from USCG. Figure 3.1-2 

identifies the navigable waters. 

3.1.3.2 State Scenic Rivers 

The Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970, §10.1-400 requires state and federal agencies to take into 

consideration how projects and programs affect state scenic rivers. The DC2RVA corridor crosses 

five scenic rivers (Table 3.1-3 and Figure 3.1-2). 

Table 3.1-3: State Scenic Rivers Crossed by the Project 

River Designated Reach 

Alternative 

Area Status 

Occoquan River Entire River Northern Virginia Potential Components—Identified as 

worthy of future study 

Rappahannock River Headwaters to Route 3 at Ferry 

Farm 

Fredericksburg Scenic River—Legislatively designated 

component 

North Anna River Route 1 at Chandler Crossing to 

Pamunkey River 

Central Virginia Potential Components—Identified as 

worthy of future study 

South Anna River Route 686 to Pamunkey River Ashland Potential Components—Identified as 

worthy of future study 

James River West limits of Richmond to 

Orleans Street (extended) 

Richmond Scenic River—Legislatively designated 

component 

Source: VDCR, 2011. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-11 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-12 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-13 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-14 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-15 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-16 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-17 

3.1.3.3 Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments 

in the United States, maintained by the National Park Service, that are believed to possess one or 

more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values (ORVs) judged to be of more than 

local or regional significance. ORVs include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, 

cultural, or other. Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would 

adversely affect one or more NRI reaches. Table 3.1-4 lists the resources within the DC2RVA 

corridor that are listed on the NRI. 

Table 3.1-4: Designated Nationwide River Reaches 

River Designated Reach ORVs 

North Anna River 1.5 miles above Morris Bridge 

to Lake Anna 

Historic—Historic mill sites and ruins, Civil War Battlefields and 

breastworks, Indian artifact sites 

Recreational—Popular whitewater canoe run, noted for smallmouth 

bass fishing 

South Anna River North Anna River to Gouldin Historic—Historic mill sites and ruins, Civil War Battlefields and 

breastworks, Indian artifact sites 

Recreational—Unique proximity to Richmond and Fredericksburg, 

noted for smallmouth bass fishing 

Source: NPS, 2009. 

3.1.3.4 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas 

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) was enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988 

to protect and manage Virginia's “coastal zone.” The CBPA requires local governments to include 

water quality protection measures in their zoning and subdivision ordinances and in their 

comprehensive plans. Executive Order (EO) 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, 

issued in 2009, requires DRPT to consider goals for restoring clean water by reducing nitrogen, 

phosphorus, sediment, and other pollutants; recovering habitat by restoring a network of land 

and water habitats to support priority species and other public benefits; sustaining fish and 

wildlife; and conserving land and increasing public access. 

The entire DC2RVA corridor is located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Resource 

Protection Areas (RPAs) include tidal wetlands; tidal shores; non-tidal wetlands connected by 

surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or perennial water bodies; and highly erodible 

soils, as well as a 100-foot-wide vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these 

features and along both sides of any water body with perennial flow within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. When preserved in their natural condition, RPAs protect water quality; filter and 

reduce the volume of runoff; prevent erosion; and perform other important biological and 

ecological functions. These areas are subject to local CBPA requirements to minimize land 

disturbance, preserve indigenous vegetation, minimize impervious surfaces, control stormwater 

runoff, and implement erosion and sediment control plans for land disturbances. The DC2RVA 

project is conditionally exempt from additional avoidance or minimization of impacts to RPAs 

provided it is constructed in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et 

seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code 

of Virginia). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-18 

DRPT mapped RPAs by including a 100-foot-wide buffer to the edge of perennial streams and 

adjacent wetlands. Approximately 1,760 acres of RPAs are associated with delineated wetlands 

and streams. All additional land within the DC2RVA corridor is considered a Resource 

Management Area (RMA). The RMA includes all land outside the RPA that, if improperly used 

or developed, has the potential to degrade water quality or diminish functions of the RPA. 

3.1.3.5 Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area 

Pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency Regulations (15 

CFR Part 930), federal agency projects occurring within, or with reasonably foreseeable likelihood 

to affect, Virginia’s coastal uses or resources must be conducted in a manner that is consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) 

and require a consistency determination. 

Virginia DEQ administers the Virginia CZMP through a network of state agencies and local 

governments, which share responsibility for administering the enforceable policies as follows: 

Fisheries Management (VMRC and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

[VDGIF]), Subaqueous Lands Management (VMRC), Wetlands Management (VMRC and 

Virginia DEQ), Dunes Management (VMRC), Non-point Source Pollution Control (Virginia 

DEQ), Point Source Pollution Control (Virginia DEQ, State Water Control Board), Shoreline 

Sanitation (VDH), Air Pollution Control (Virginia DEQ, Air Pollution Control Board), and Coastal 

Lands Management (Virginia DEQ). 

According to Virginia DEQ, Virginia’s coastal zone “encompasses the 29 counties, 17 cities, and 

42 incorporated towns in ‘Tidewater Virginia,’ as defined in the Code of Virginia 28.2‐100” 

(Virginia DEQ, no date) (Figure 3.1-2). The entire DC2RVA corridor is located within Virginia’s 

coastal zone. Any development within this area must be consistent with the applicable 

Enforceable Regulatory Programs that comprise Virginia’s CZMP. 

3.1.4 Wetlands 

Wetlands provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife; improve water quality; perform 

important hydrologic functions, such as regulating storm flow; maintain food chain and nutrient 

cycling functions; serve socioeconomic roles; and may support rare and endangered species. EO 

11990, Protection of Wetlands, mandates that each federal agency take action to minimize the 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance their natural values. 

Wetlands are currently defined by USACE (33 CFR 328.3[b]) and EPA (40 CFR 230.3[t]) as: 

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 

Wetlands observed in the study area were generally associated with freshwater riparian 

corridors, railway ditches, and some tidal waterways along riparian corridors in the north. Their 

functions include groundwater discharge, groundwater recharge, nutrient removal, sediment/ 

toxin retention, and wildlife habitat. Most of the emergent wetlands are railside ditches and 

include vegetation such as Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Asian spiderwort 

(Murdannia keisak), cat tails (Typha latifolia and angustifolia), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides),
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-19 

deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), several species of Carex, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus),

and panic grass (Dichanthelium dichotomum), with a large variety of other non-dominant species. 

The most common tree species found in the palustrine forested wetlands set back from the 

railroad in rural areas include red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 

willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and river birch (Betula nigra).

This Draft EIS uses an abbreviated version of the classification system developed by USFWS, also 

known as the Cowardin System (Cowardin, et al., 1979), for identifying wetlands. The study area 

includes palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM), palustrine scrub−shrub wetlands (PSS), and 

palustrine forested wetlands (PFO) (Table 3.1-5 and Figure 3.1-2). 

Table 3.1-5: Wetlands (acres) 

Alternative Area PEM PEM/PSS PEM/PFO PEM/PSS/PFO PSS PSS/PFO PFO Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

– – – – 9.0 – – 9.0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 13.4 1.2 23.4 15.3 0.8 – 18.7 72.8 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

9.6 1.8 19.5 – 8.6 0.0 93.2 132.7 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

14.6 4.5 106.0 13.1 2.2 11.4 36.6 188.4 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

10.3 0.1 13.6 – 0.0 1.9 24.3 50.2 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

14.7 0.5 3.8 0.8 1.7 0.2 15.4 37.1 

Total 62.6 8.1 166.3 29.2 22.3 13.5 188.2 490.2 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

3.1.5 Floodplains and Floodways 

A floodplain is an area of low-lying ground near waterways subject to flooding. Floodplains have 

many natural and beneficial values, including flood flow moderation, water quality maintenance, 

and wildlife habitat. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood 

Insurance Program, under which FEMA maps the nation’s flood-prone areas on the FIRM. The 

FIRM identifies the 100- and 500-year flood boundaries. The 100-year flood boundary is the area 

that will be inundated by a flood event having a 1.0 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded 

in any given year. The 500-year flood boundary is the area that will be inundated by a flood event 

having a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the 

long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains. In accomplishing this objective, “each agency shall provide leadership and shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains 

in carrying out its responsibilities.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-20 

According to the FIRM produced by FEMA, approximately 3,574 acres of 100-year floodplains 

are within a 500-foot-wide study area along the DC2RVA corridor, as shown in Figure 3.1-3. 

Mapped floodplains include those associated with 51 waterways in the study area. Table 3.1-6 

summarizes the acres of floodplain by alternative area. DRPT also learned of localized flooding 

in Stafford County at the Brooke Fire Station and at Claiborne Run during the scoping process. 

Table 3.1-6: Floodplains 

Alternative Area Acres 

Percent of 

Study Area 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 47 1% 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 954 27% 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 251 7% 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 1,171 33% 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 386 11% 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 765 21% 

Total 3,574 100% 

3.1.6 Water Quality 

In compliance with Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the federal CWA and the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, Virginia DEQ has developed a prioritized list of water bodies that currently do not 

meet water quality standards. Virginia DEQ monitors streams for a variety of water quality 

parameters, including temperature; dissolved oxygen; pH; fecal coliform; Escherichia coli; 

Enterococci; total phosphorus; chlorophyll a; benthic invertebrates; metals and toxins in the water 

column; suspended sediments; and fish tissues. 

Water quality standards designate uses for waters. In Virginia, the six designated uses include 

aquatic life, fish consumption (i.e., the ability of humans to eat fish from that water body), public 

water supplies (where applicable), recreation (swimming), shell fishing, and wildlife, with some 

additional subcategories in aquatic life adopted for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. If a 

water body contains more contamination than allowed to support one or more of its designated 

uses, the waters are labeled “impaired.” A cleanup plan to restore waters to their intended uses 

is developed for these impaired waters. The maximum amount of pollutant a water body can 

receive and still meet its intended use is known as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 

The Section 303(d) list includes those water bodies and watersheds that exhibit levels of 

impairment requiring investigation and restoration. Not all parameters are monitored at each 

ambient water quality monitoring station. Citizen groups and federal agencies also monitor some 

streams and provide their data to Virginia DEQ for compilation. The DC2RVA corridor crosses 

62 assessed water bodies included on the Section 303(d) list, 51 of which are impaired (see Table 

3-9 in Appendix M). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-21 

Figure 3.1-3: Floodpains and Impaired Waters
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-22 

Figure 3.1-3: Floodpains and Impaired Waters 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-23 

3.1.7 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress to regulate the public 

drinking water supply. Amendments in 1986 and 1996 further protect the water supply by 

requiring actions that protect drinking water and its sources. The 1996 Amendments mandate 

that states assess, delineate, and map protection areas for their public drinking water sources and 

determine potential risks to those sources. Source water protection is not specifically mandated 

by the SDWA; however, states, tribes, and communities are encouraged to use this information 

to protect the sources from pollution of major concern and may pass local regulations. 

This Project is located in the Coastal Plain province, which is composed of mostly unconsolidated 

deposits/layers of sand, gravel, shell rock, silt, and clay. These pervious unconsolidated layers 

store more groundwater than Virginia’s other provinces in two separate groundwater 

systems⎯one shallow and one deep. The shallow groundwater system sits on top of a relatively 

impermeable clay layer and provides water for many domestic and smaller capacity wells. Due 

to the permeability of the soil above these shallow systems, they have a high potential for 

contamination (Virginia Tech, 2011). Release of chemicals during construction; release of 

transported chemicals; salts and chemicals used for snow and ice removal; and chemicals used 

for the removal of vegetation are the main sources of contamination to public water supplies 

along rail lines. 

As a result of the 1996 SDWA amendments, Virginia adopted a 1-mile wellhead protection zone 

around all groundwater public sources (Zone 2). Zone 1 includes a 1,000-foot radius in which 

land use activities should be assessed for their potential to contaminate water supplies (Virginia 

DEQ, 2005). Seven public wellheads are located within Zone 1 of the existing rail corridor, and 

an additional six are located outside Zone 1 but within Zone 2. This does not include private 

wells, which also have the potential to be affected by this Project. 

CEDAR GIS mapping from VDOT and mapping of wells from the Virginia Department of Mines, 

Minerals, and Energy (DMME) indicates two public and eight private water wells located within 

100 feet of the DC2RVA corridor. 

Reservoir Protection Overlay Districts are areas of zoning restricting use and require best 

management practices (BMPs) and other protective measures in areas critical to the integrity of 

public water supplies, rivers, streams, and other sensitive features. The existing rail corridor does 

not cross near any Reservoir Protection Overlay Districts (VDOT, no date). 

The Project falls within SDWA Zone 1 (5-mile radius) of three public surface water supply 

intakes⎯Fairfax County Water Authority, Hanover Suburban Water System, and City of 

Richmond. Fairfax County Water Authority and City of Richmond water supplies are located 

upstream of the existing rail corridor. 

No sole source aquifers (EPA, no date), source protection areas, or water supply reservoirs are 

located near the DC2RVA corridor. 

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Topography, geology, and soil characteristics affect development and land use, and they impact 

planning, design, and construction of roads and rail infrastructure. Topography may create 

engineering obstacles, and soil types can determine stability, durability, and choice of 

construction materials. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-24 

Information was gathered through research of USGS maps and atlases for geology and 

topography, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), under the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), for soils. 

Additional information was obtained from websites, local and regional plans, and personal 

communications with representatives from various federal, state, and local agencies and VDOT’s 

CEDAR database, which includes database records collected from Virginia regulatory agencies. 

The study area for geology and topography includes the overall landscape along the Project corridor. 

DRPT assessed soils information within a 600-foot-wide study area centered on the DC2RVA corridor, 

300 feet to each side of the existing rail and proposed alignment. A wider study area (i.e., 600 feet versus 

500 feet) was chosen because soils in disturbed areas such as the existing railroad corridor are not rated, 

so a wider study area provides a better understanding of the soil profile along the corridor. 

3.2.1 Topography 

In this region, most of the landscape is dominated by low rolling hills. Some sharper changes in 

topography exist along streams and rivers where erosion has taken away the topsoil and bedrock 

is exposed. In the north, most of the Project is located near the Potomac River on low flat plains. 

Topography in the southern stretches contains more variability. 

3.2.2 Geology 

The DC2RVA corridor crosses between two physiographic provinces⎯the Piedmont province 

and the Coastal Plain province (Figure 3.2-1). The dividing line between the provinces is the fall 

line with the Piedmont province to the west and the Coastal Plain province paralleling the coast 

to the east. The fall line (or fall zone) is the geomorphologic break between an upland region of 

relatively hard crystalline basement rock and a coastal plain of softer sedimentary rock. In 

Virginia, I-95 runs roughly along this line. 

The Coastal Plain province contains Pliocene and Miocene sedimentary rocks formed from 

former shorelines and cut into terraces by historic emergent bay and river bottoms. These 

sedimentary rocks are relatively soft, unconsolidated layers of Cretaceous and younger clay, 

sand, and gravel. West of the Coastal Plain province, the Piedmont province is made up of late 

Proterozoic and Paleozoic igneous rock (formed by molten rock that has come to the surface and 

cooled) and metamorphic rock (physically and/or chemically changed due to heat and pressure) 

that has been strongly weathered and is buried under 6 to 65 feet of soil. The metamorphic rock 

is very complex due to the number of times it has been altered and often contains mineral 

deposits, including gold, talc, kyanite, slate, and feldspar (W&M, 2016). 

3.2.3 Soils 

NRCS rates soils for suitability for building site development. These ratings are based on many 

different soil properties. Suitability for construction of railroads is not rated; however, suitability 

for building local roads and streets is rated. Some of the same properties considered in building 

local roads and streets apply to building railroads, such as frost action; flooding potential; 

ponding; amount of large stones; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; hardness of bedrock or a 

cemented pan; low strength; depth to saturation; shrink-swell potential; and slope. These 

properties affect ease of excavation and grading and traffic-supporting capacity. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-25 

Figure 3.2-1: Physiographic Provinces (Virginia)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-26 

Table 3.2-1 below shows an analysis of soil mapped within the study area. Ratings indicate the 

extent to which the soils are limited by all soil features that affect the ability to build local roads 

and streets and should be considered for construction of railroad lines and roadway crossings. 

Most of the areas where construction is expected to occur were previously disturbed and are 

considered urban or cut/fill land. These locations are not rated for characteristics of concern for 

sensitive soil types. 

Table 3.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils 

Alternative Area 

Suitability for Building Local 

Roads and Streets (Acres) Hydric Soils (Acres) Not Rated Not Limited1 Somewhat Limited2 

Very Limited3 Unknown Not HydricPartially Hydric Hydric 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 55 – – – 55 – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 1,149 37 459 1,763 1,151 1,583 385 289 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 146 175 657 1,220 105 1,179 573 341 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 54 234 768 1,058 19 690 620 785 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 7 142 565 543 2 393 721 141 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 502 74 456 2,347 113 2,136 702 428 

Corridor Total 1,913 662 2,905 6,931 1,445 5,981 3,001 1,984 

% of Study Area 15.4 5.3 23.4 55.9 11.6 48.2 24.2 16.0 

Table Source: USDA, 2015. 

Notes: 1. Not Limited—Soil works well for specified use; good performance/low maintenance required. 2. Limitations can be overcome/ 

minimized through planning, design, and installation; fair performance/moderate maintenance. 3. Limitations may require major soil reclamation, 

special design, or expensive installation procedures to be overcome; poor performance/high maintenance. 

The rating for the Project corridor soils for building roads and railbeds is approximately 33 

percent “very limited” and 19 percent “somewhat limited.” Appendix M includes figures that 

show the soils with potential construction limitations. These ratings indicate one or more factors 

that should be taken into consideration when used for that specified purpose. The limitations can 

be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and 

moderate maintenance of the soil can be expected if these steps are taken (USDA, 2014). 

3.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

The following discussion of agricultural lands is organized into two components: farmland soils and 

agricultural/forestal districts. The farmland soils data are based on mapping and data available from 

NRCS (Appendix N). Agricultural and forestal districts are based on mapping and data available 

from local jurisdictions and VDOT. Figure 3.3-1 shows the agricultural lands in the study area. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-27 

3.3.1 Farmland Soils 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) (7 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4201 et seq.)

established regulations to “minimize the extent to which Federal programs ... contribute to ... 

conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses, encourage alternative actions ... that 

could lessen adverse effects on farmland, and assure that Federal programs are ... compatible” 

with state, local, and private programs that protect farmland (7 CFR 658). NRCS has jurisdiction 

over the farmland program. 

Farmland, as defined by 7 U.S.C. 4201, includes: 

 Prime Farmland: The best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops. 

 Unique farmland: Land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific 

high-value food and fiber crops. 

 Farmland of statewide or local importance: Farmland that is important for the production 

of food feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops, as determined by the appropriate state or local 

agency. 

 Pastureland, cropland, forestland, and other land that is not urban land or water. 

 All farmland and forestland meeting the criteria for farmland soils, even if zoned for 

development. 

These farmlands are based on individual soil types as determined by NRCS. Table 3.3-1 includes 

the acreage of farmland soils within 500 feet of either side of the the existing CSXT rail line and 

the centerlines of potential new alignments. 

Table 3.3-1: Farmland Soils 

Farmland Soil Type Acreage within 1,000-Foot Study Area Percent of Total 

Prime and Unique Farmland Soils 3,979 21.5% 

Statewide and Locally Important Soils 2,362 12.8% 

Not Farmland Soils 12,163 65.7% 

Source: VDOT, no date. 

3.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, agricultural and forested lands are regulated under the Local 

Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. The purpose of this act is to “encourage the development 

and improvement of the Commonwealth’s agricultural and forestal lands for the production of 

food and other agricultural and forestal products ... and to conserve and protect agricultural and 

forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for 

clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes” (Code of 

Virginia 15.2-4300 to 4314 and 15.2-4400 to 4407). The lands are formed into districts within 

individual localities, and the provisions for the districts state that “no parcel within” or “added 

to an already created district shall be developed to a more intensive use than its existing use at 

the time of adoption/addition to the district for eight years from the date of adoption of the 

original district ordinance.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-28 

Figure 3.3-1: Agricultural/Forestal Districts
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-29 

Along the Project corridor, Fairfax County, Hanover County, Prince William County, and 

Spotsylvania County have agricultural and forestal district programs. Table 3.3-2 includes the 

acreage of agricultural/forestal districts within 500 feet of the existing rail or the bypass 

alignment alternatives. One agricultural/forestal district is located within the study area: the 

Stanley District in Hanover County. The Stanley District is along the Ashland Bypass section in 

Alternative Area 5. The 1,000-foot-wide study area centered on the bypass section covers 

approximately 15 percent of the Stanley District. 

Table 3.3-2: Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

Location Acreage within 1,000-Foot Study Area 

Fairfax County 0 

Hanover County 95.7 acres (all within the Stanley District) 

Prince William County 0 

Spotsylvania County 0 

Source: VDOT, no date. 

3.4 MINERAL RESOURCES 

The location of mineral deposits affects development and land use, and it impacts planning, 

design, and construction of roads and rail. Mineral resource economic opportunities can influence 

the need for transportation. Information was gathered from the DMME ArcGIS service for 

mineral resources. Mineral resources were identified within 1 mile of the existing rail or proposed 

bypass alignment to comprise a 2-mile-wide study area (Figure 3.4-1). A wider study area (i.e., 2 

miles versus 500-feet) was chosen to account for the size of mine lands that are only represented 

by a point on a map, and to account for the potential impacts to mines from road closures. 

More than 400 minerals are in Virginia. The value of non-fuel minerals produced in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia in 2012 was estimated at approximately $1.24 billion. Industrial 

minerals include kyanite; feldspar; fuller’s earth; amazonite and other semi-precious gemstones; 

iron-oxide pigments; feldspar; salt; high-purity silica sand; heavy mineral sands (titanium and 

zirconium concentrates); chemical and agricultural carbonates; dimension stone; and vermiculite. 

DMME has interactive ArcGIS maps for eight resource categories: Abandoned Coal Mine 

Reclamation Lands, Wind Energy Study Locations, Oil and Gas Wells, Active and Abandoned 

Underground Mines, Reclaimed Mines, Mineral Mines, Mineral Resources, and Gas and Oil 

Wells. Of these categories, only Mineral Mines and Mineral Resources had locations mapped 

within 1 mile of the DC2RVA corridor. The mines and resources identified are listed by 

alternative area in Table 3.4-1. To avoid double counting resources, each resource was only 

counted once even if it was within 1 mile of two different areas. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-30 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-31 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-32 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-33 

Table 3.4-1: Mineral Resources 

Alternative Area 

Mineral Mine Mineral Resources 

Within 

1 mile Within 1,000 feet 

Within 

1 mile Within 1,000 feet 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

– – – –

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

– – 35 5 gravel resource areas (204C-908, 204C-906, 

204C-913, 204C-804, 204C-805) 

1 clay resource (194D-901) 

1 sand and gravel resource (182B-901) 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

 8 2 active sand and gravel 

mines (90385AA, 06100AA) 

2 orphaned sand mines 

(DMM10104, DMM10108) 

 34 5 sand and gravel resources (182C-501, 182C-502, 

182C-808, 169A-101, 182C-802) 

3 sand and gravel resources (169B-210, 169B-205, 

182C-501) 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

 2 1 orphaned granite mine 

(DMM06028) 

 16 3 sand and gravel resources (169C-602, 169C-905, 

169D-703) 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

 8 1 orphaned gravel mine 

(DMM8951) 

 6 2 clay resources (149B-703, 149B-702) 

1 sand and gravel resource (149C-403) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

 25 1 orphaned sand and gravel 

mine (DMM13007) 

2 sand and gravel mines 

(DMM12094, DMM13016) 

5 orphaned granite mines 

(DMM12070, DMM13009, 

DMM13010, DMM12075, 

DMM13025) 

 56 18 sand and gravel resources (126C-104, 

126C-101, 126C-505, 126C-404, 126C-403, 126C708, 126C-701, 126C-501, 126C-503, 126C-502, 

126C-915, 126C-914, 126C-913, 126C-912, 

126C-911, 126C-908, 126C-907, 126D-709) 

1 granite resource (099B-206) 

4 clay resources (099B-202, 099B-203, 099B-501, 

126C-401) 

Note: To avoid double counting resources, each resource was only counted once even if it was within one mile of two different areas 

3.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials are substances that are ignitable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic. Concerns 

associated with them include health hazards, environmental damages, liability issues, and 

potentially high costs of cleanup. Hazardous material sites can include gas stations; industrial 

sites; businesses that use hazardous materials in commercial operations; aboveground storage 

tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs); disposal sites; spill sites; and others. 

Solid wastes refer to wastes produced as a result of construction-related activities such as debris 

produced from clearing and grubbing, excess materials, and removal of old materials. Disposal and 

reuse issues have been recognized in the construction industry, and an effort is being made to 

reduce volumes of waste produced by construction and demolition that are disposed of in landfills. 

The study area for hazardous materials and solid wastes extends 500 feet to each side of the 

existing or proposed rail in the bypass areas, to comprise a 1,000-foot-wide study area. A wider 

study area (i.e., 1,000 feet versus 500 feet) was chosen to account for potential for contamination 

to travel from adjacent properties that may be affected, and to include properties that might be 

considered for purchase or easements for the construction of the DC2RVA project. Further 

investigation of hazardous sites/facilities that could potentially be affected by the Project would 

be completed in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that would occur prior to construction. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-34 

3.5.1 Regulatory Context 

The federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia, primarily through EPA and Virginia 

DEQ, respectively, regulate hazardous materials under multiple statutes. The two main statutes 

that regulate materials of primary concern include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) and their respective amendments. The RCRA regulates generators, transporters, and 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities of hazardous materials. RCRA defines these materials 

as those that have ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. The CERCLA was passed to 

provide an avenue to correct those sites already contaminated with hazardous substances. EPA 

and Virginia DEQ maintain databases of regulated sites and facilities. 

3.5.2 Data Collection 

DRPT conducted an environmental records review to identify hazardous material (hazmat) 

database records along the Project corridor from Environmental Risk Information Service (ERIS), 

a commercial database search and environmental risk information provider. Records within 500 

feet of the existing track or potential bypass track were reviewed to identify sites with the known 

or potential presence of contamination. Additional information was obtained on potential 

hazardous materials sites from VDOT’s CEDAR database, which includes database records 

collected from Virginia regulatory agencies. This information was compiled and compared with 

the results of the ERIS database search. Table 3.5-1 lists the databases that were searched. 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases 

Database Definition 

FEDERAL RECORDS (databases marked with an asterisk had no records within the search area) 

BROWNFIELDS The Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) Brownfield Database and 

EPA Listing of Brownfields⎯Property on which use or development activities may be complicated 

by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. 

Generally, these consist of abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities that may be 

available for reuse or redevelopment. 

CERCLIS/National 

Priorities List (NPL)/ 

Superfund Sites 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System⎯

Superfund is a program administered by EPA to locate, investigate, and cleanup the worst hazardous 

waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed 

hazardous waste sites at which the EPA Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites 

that are either proposed to be or are on the NPL, as well as sites that are in the screening and 

assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. EPA administers the Superfund program in 

cooperation with individual states and tribal governments. EPA is transitioning to the Superfund 

Enterprise Management System (SEMS). SEMS includes the same data fields and content as 

CERCLIS. This database is made available by EPA and includes: 

 Sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status 

indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and EPA 

has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the NPL. This decision does not 

necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based on 

available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. 

 Sites on which liens can exist by operation of law where EPA has spent Superfund monies. 

 NPL deletions. 

 Property on which EPA has filed liens to recover remedial action expenditures or when the 

property owner received notification of potential liability. 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-35 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases 

Database Definition 

Emergency Response 

Notification System 

(ERNS) 

Records of spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The National Response 

Center serves as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, 

biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its 

territories. 

Engineering Controls Locations maintained by EPA of physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, subsurface venting systems, 

mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent exposure to contamination on a property. 

Facility Registry System 

(FRS) 

Centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental 

regulations or of environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility 

identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate 

information from program national systems, state master facility records, data collected from EPA's 

Central Data Exchange registrations, and data management personnel. 

Hazardous Materials 

Information Reporting 

System (HMIRS) 

Incident reported to and managed by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 

Institutional Controls Sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such

as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and postremediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining onsite. 

Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. 

National Clandestine 

Drug Labs 

Locations where law enforcement agencies report they found chemicals or other items that indicate 

the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. 

RCRA RCRA, including: 

 Large Quantity Generators (more than 1,000 kilograms [kg] of hazardous waste or more than 

1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month). 

 Small Quantity Generators (between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month). 

 Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (less than 100 kg of hazardous waste or less 

than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month). 

 Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. 

 Hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity⎯Owners are required to clean 

up hazardous materials released at these sites. 

 Hazardous waste handlers with no RCRA corrective action activity requirements. 

 Facilities that do not presently generate hazardous waste. 

STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS 

Brownfields SiteSpecific Assessments 

(State) 

Property on which use or development activities may be complicated by the presence or potential 

presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. This list is maintained by Virginia 

DEQ. 

Institutional Controls Legal or contractual restrictions on property use that remain effective after remediation is 

completed and are used to satisfy remediation levels. This list is maintained by Virginia DEQ. 

Landfills and Solid 

Waste Facilities 

Facilities that regulate the disposal and treatment of solid waste (sanitary landfills, construction/ 

demolition debris landfills, transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, energy recovery/ 

incineration facilities, and RMW (Regulated Medical Waste) facilities). Set up by Virginia DEQ, solid 

waste program to encourage the reuse and recycling of solid waste and to ensure that hazardous 

waste is properly managed. 

Petroleum Release 

Sites 

Location of petroleum release sites from USTs and ASTs as collected by Virginia DEQ. 

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

 3-36 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases 

Database Definition 

Spills Records of responses to air, water, and waste pollution incidents to protect human health and the 

environment maintained by the Virginia DEQ Pollution Response Program (PREP). PREP staff often 

assist emergency responders, state agencies, federal agencies, and responsible parties to manage 

pollution incidents. Examples include oil spills, fish kills, and hazardous materials spills. 

Storage Tanks (UST, 

AST) 

USTs (regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA) and ASTs containing hazardous substances and 

petroleum products as collected by Virginia DEQ. 

Voluntary Remediation 

Program 

Sites where owners of contaminated sites have acted to conduct voluntary cleanups that meet state 

environmental standards. These sites are generally open dumps or unpermitted solid waste disposal 

facilities. 

TRIBAL RECORDS 

No Tribal environmental record sources available for this state. 

Source: VDOT, no date; and ERIS, 2014. 

All parcels with database records of known or potential contamination or a hazardous materials 

release were mapped, along with points to indicate facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose 

of hazardous materials or facilities that store petroleum products. The parcels were sorted into 

categories based on the likelihood and potential level of contamination that Project activities 

could affect (Table 3.5-2). Hazardous materials and petroleum facilities with no records of release 

have a low chance of affecting the Project, unless removal of the facility is required. 

Table 3.5-2: Hazardous Waste and Special Waste Screening Criteria 

Category Description 

PARCELS 

Superfund/ 

CERCLA/NPL 

High level of concern. 

These are known contamination sites with a high priority for remediation. Remediation of these sites 

is likely to be extremely costly and would have a high chance of causing Project delays. Even if the site 

is in the process of being remediated or has been remediated, these properties could contain highly 

contaminated soil depending on the level of remediation performed. 

Known Hazmat 

Release 

Medium to high level of concern. 

Purchase of these properties may result in remediation being the responsibility of the owner. 

Remediation may be costly and cause Project delays. 

Potential Hazmat 

Contamination 

Medium level of concern. 

Although a record of release may exist for a property, it may be difficult to determine where the 

release occurred. Should contaminated soil be discovered, remediation may be required. 

Potential Petroleum 

Contamination 

Lower level of concern. 

If petroleum-contaminated soil is encountered, the soil will need to be taken to a facility that deals 

with petroleum-contaminated soil. Removal of petroleum-contaminated soil is not as costly as other 

hazardous contaminants, and local facilities can be found. 

POINTS 

Hazmat Facility Low level of concern, if there are no reported leaks or spills. 

Consideration should be made if the facility requires removal. 

Petroleum Facility Low level of concern, if there are no reported leaks or spills. 

Consideration should be made if the facility requires removal. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-37 

3.5.3 Hazardous Materials Sites within Study Area 

All hazardous materials sites within the study area are shown in Figure O-1 in Appendix O. A 

summary of the types of sites is provided in Table 3.5-3. There are 1,034 mapped hazardous 

materials sites/facilities within the study area. Most of the sites are either Petroleum Registered 

Facilities or Petroleum Release Sites (702). 

Table 3.5-3: Hazardous Materials Sites within the Study Area 

Alternative Area 

Superfund/ 

CERCLA/NPL* 

Known 

Hazmat 

Release1

Potential 

Hazmat 

Contamination2

Petroleum 

Release3

Hazmat 

Facility4

Petroleum 

Storage 

Tanks5

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1 – 5 3 2 5 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia 

2 1 54 78 59 80 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

2 1 20 15 20 35 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

1 – 3 3 4 9 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

– – 2 15 3 14 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

9 1 63 205 79 240 

Total Sites Counted 15 3 147 319 167 383 

Source: VDOT GIS database, 2014. 

Notes: *Includes those sites that have or are being remediated 1. Area known to be contaminated by hazmat or has had a toxic release of unlisted 

chemicals. 2. Area with history of use for hazmat or has had a release. 3. Area where a petroleum product is known to have been released. The 

case may be closed; however, there is the potential for uncovering petroleum-contaminated soil through construction/soil disturbance. 4. Facilities 

that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. 5. Facilities with ASTs and USTs that store petroleum or hazardous 

substances; most store petroleum products. 

Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

Asbestos occurs naturally in some rocks and soils as a result of natural geological processes. 

Construction activities in areas where asbestos occurs have the potential of releasing mineral 

fibers into the air, which may pose a risk for human exposure through inhalation. According to 

mapping available through USGS, no known locations of naturally occurring asbestos occur in 

the study area (Van Gosen, 2006). 

Orphan Sites 

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard database reports listed 

approximately 2,500 additional sites in the Project vicinity that did not have accurate location 

information to place on a map (Orphan Sites). Most of these sites are petroleum spills, and many 

of the sites listed are repeats. The location of Orphan Sites that could potentially be affected by 

the Project would be further researched in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that would 

occur before acquisition of new right-of-way. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-38 

3.6 AIR QUALITY 

Transportation sources generate varying amounts of ozone (O3) and its precursors; nitrogen 

oxides (NOX); hydrocarbons (HC) (specifically volatile organic compounds [VOCs]); particulate 

matter (PM); and/or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, all of which are concerns for human and 

environmental health. 

O3 is a highly reactive pollutant that damages lung tissue, causes congestion, reduces vital lung capacity, 

and can also damage vegetation. From 1980 to 2013, there was a 33 percent decrease in the 8-hour design 

value O3 concentrations in the United States. A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality 

status of a given area relative to the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor to O3 and acid rain and may affect terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. The major mechanism for the formation of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the 

atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO). NOX plays a major 

role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOX forms when fuel is 

burned at high temperatures. The two major emissions sources are transportation and stationary 

fuel combustion sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. NOX can also contribute 

to the formation of secondary PM, which can cause headaches, eye and nasal irritation, chest pain, 

and lung inflammation. From 1980 to 2013, was a 58 percent decrease in the annual NO2 average 

(i.e., arithmetic mean) in the United States. 

PM is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. 

Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) pose a health concern because they can be inhaled 

into and accumulate in the respiratory system. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) 

are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the largest health risks. From 1990 to 2013, 

there was a 34 percent decrease in the design value PM10 concentration averages. From 2000 to 2013, 

there was a 34 percent decrease in the design value PM2.5 concentration averages in the United States. 

CO is a colorless, odorless, and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. 

Exposure to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning 

ability, and performance of complex tasks (Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS], 1990). From 1980 to 

2013, there was an 84 percent decrease in the 8-hour design value CO concentrations in the United States. 

The counties that the DC2RVA corridor is located within form the air quality study area. The study area 

for this resource is larger than for other resources because much of the available data regarding regional 

air quality is provided at the county level and not at a smaller scale. 

3.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required EPA to 

establish NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The 

NAAQS are implemented by EPA under 40 CFR Part 50. The CAA established two types of national 

air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of 

“sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set 

limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to 

animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Table 3.6-1 lists the primary and secondary standards. 

Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) of air, and micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air. With the exception of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), the secondary standards for all pollutants are the same as the primary standards. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-39 

Table 3.6-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

Primary/ 

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form 

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

1-hour 35 ppm 

Lead (Pb) Primary and 

Secondary 

Rolling 3-month 

average 

0.15 μg/m3(1) Not to be exceeded 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Annual 53 ppb(2) Annual Mean 

Ozone (O3) Primary and 

Secondary 

8-hour 0.070 ppm(3) Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged 

over 3 years 

Particle 

Pollution 

PM2.5 Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years 

PM10 Primary and 

Secondary 

24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year on 

average over 3 years 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary 1-hour 75 ppb(4) 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Notes: 1. In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards before promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 

μg/m3

 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. 2. The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of 

parts per billion (ppb) for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level. 3. Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and became 

effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) 

O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards. 4. The 

previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not 

yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which implementation plans providing 

for attainment of the current (2010) standard have not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous 

SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). 

A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its SIP to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-40 

Title I of the CAAA addresses nonattainment issues related to O3, CO, and PM10. Nonattainment areas 

are progressively ranked according to the severity and type of their air pollution problems. Each 

category of nonattainment has a label, such as severe or moderate, and a date for meeting the NAAQS. 

Title II of the CAAA addresses mobile sources and stipulates more-stringent emission standards 

for cars, trucks, and buses. This title also regulates fuel quality (e.g., gasoline volatility and diesel 

sulfur content); requires reformulated gasoline in the highest O3 areas and oxygenated fuels in the 

highest CO areas; and requires clean-fueled vehicles for certain fleets and other pilot programs. 

3.6.2 Clean Air Act Conformity 

The CAAA require federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the appropriate State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). States are required to develop SIPs that explain how they will meet the 

requirements of the CAA. The SIP is a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

the NAAQS, and it includes emission limitations and control measures to attain the standards. 

States must involve the public in development of the SIP through hearings and opportunities to 

comment. In Virginia, the state Air Pollution Control Board administers the SIP. In the District of 

Columbia, the Air Quality Division of the District Department of Energy and Environment 

administers the SIP. Conformity to a SIP, as defined in the CAAA, means conformity to a SIP’s 

purpose of reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS to achieve attainment of 

such standards. The federal agency responsible for the action is required to determine if its action 

conforms to the applicable SIP. EPA has developed two sets of conformity regulations: 

 Transportation projects developed or approved under the Federal Aid Highway Program 

or Federal Transit Act are governed by the “transportation conformity” regulation (40 

CFR Part 3, Subpart A). 

 Other projects, which include the federal action planned for the DC2RVA project, are 

governed by the “general conformity” regulations. The regulations for Determining 

Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans were published 

in the Federal Register on November 30, 1993. The general conformity regulation (40 CFR 

Part 93, Subpart B) became effective January 31, 1994. On March 24, 2010, EPA revised the 

general conformity regulations to improve the process federal entities use to demonstrate 

that their actions will not contribute to a violation of an NAAQS. In Virginia, general 

conformity criteria and procedures are set forth in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5-

10-20. In the District of Columbia, these criteria and procedures are set forth in 57 DCR 527. 

The conformity regulations apply to federal actions occurring in air basins designated as 

nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants or in attainment areas subject to maintenance plans 

(maintenance areas). Federal actions occurring in air basins that are in attainment with criteria 

pollutants are not subject to the conformity rule. 

3.6.3 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule 

In June 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA finalized new requirements for 

nonroad diesel fuel that will decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 

99 percent. Because sulfur damages exhaust emission control devices, these fuel improvements 

will reduce PM from existing engines. Diesel fuel currently has a sulfur content of approximately 

3,000 ppm. The new rule cut that amount to 500 ppm in 2007 and to 15 ppm in 2010. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-41 

3.6.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 

Effective April 27, 2007, EPA adopted controls on mobile source air toxics (MSATs). MSATs are 

emitted by motor vehicles, nonroad engines (e.g., lawn and garden equipment, farming and 

construction equipment, locomotives, and ships), aircraft, and their fuels. Also in 2007, EPA 

proposed more-stringent standards for large diesel engines used in locomotives, as well as certain 

marine diesel engines. In June 2008, EPA published the final rule adopting a comprehensive 

program to dramatically reduce pollution from locomotives, applying to all types of locomotives. 

This final rule completes an important step in EPA's ongoing National Clean Diesel Campaign 

(NCDC) by adding new programs for locomotives and marine diesel engines to the clean diesel 

initiatives that have already been undertaken for highway, other nonroad, and stationary diesel 

engines in 2004. It significantly strengthens the locomotive and marine diesel programs, 

especially in controlling emissions during the critical early years through the early introduction 

of advanced technologies and the more complete coverage of existing engines. When fully 

implemented, this coordinated set of new programs will reduce harmful diesel engine emissions 

to a small fraction of their previous levels. 

Locomotives and marine diesel engines account for approximately 20 percent of mobile source 

NOX emissions and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions in the United States. 

Absent this final action, by 2030 the relative contributions of NOX and PM2.5 from these engines 

would have grown to 35 and 65 percent, respectively. 

On a nationwide annual basis, these reductions will amount to 800,000 tons of NOX and 27,000 

tons of PM by the year 2030. For locomotives, the reduction from existing standards in PM range 

from 60 to 90 percent depending on the date of manufacture. The reduction in NOX range from 

20 to 80 percent. Locomotive idle emissions are predicted to be reduced by 50 percent for PM and 

NOX. 

3.6.5 Ambient Air Quality Conditions in the DC2RVA Corridor 

In this section, existing ambient air quality conditions and emissions in the DC2RVA corridor and 

at specific locations are identified. 

3.6.5.1 Attainment/Nonattainment/Maintenance Designations 

EPA publishes a list of all geographic areas in compliance with the NAAQS, as well as those areas 

not in attainment of the NAAQS. The designation of an area is made on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. Areas classified as “attainment areas” comply with the applicable NAAQS. Areas once 

classified as nonattainment that have since demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS are classified 

as “maintenance areas.” Areas not in compliance with the NAAQS are classified as 

“nonattainment areas.” 

The current attainment status in the DC2RVA project area is listed in Table 3.6-2. The 

nonattainment areas are also identified in Figure 3.6-1. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-42 

Table 3.6-2: Attainment Status 

City/County 

Pollutant and Attainment Status in the Project Area 

CO Pb NO2 O3 PM2.5 PM10 SO2 

Arlington County Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Alexandria Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Fairfax County Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Prince William County Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Stafford County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Fredericksburg Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Spotsylvania County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Caroline County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Hanover County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Henrico County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Richmond Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Chesterfield County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

3.6.5.2 Ambient Air Quality 

Air quality monitors are located throughout the study corridor. Table 3.6-3 shows data for criteria 

pollutants of greatest concern within the study corridor⎯those for which one or more counties 

through which the DC2RVA corridor passes are nonattainment areas. Table 3.6-3 provides 

statistical pollutant concentration values relevant to assessing NAAQS compliance. These values 

are provided for each county or area where the indicated pollutant is of concern. For these 

pollutants, Table 3.6-3 then indicates whether the applicable NAAQS was exceeded. 

Data are provided for the most recent 5 years for which comprehensive and official monitoring 

data are available. Determination of attainment status for O3 is based on a multiyear evaluation, 

whereas any violations indicated in Table 3.6-3 are based only on a single year of data. 

Table 3.6-3: Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period Parameter City/County 

Value 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Ozone 8-hour 

Maximum Concentration 

(ppm) for 4th-Highest Day 

Arlington County 0.087 0.087 0.084 0.067 0.071 

Alexandria 0.081 0.084 0.086 0.063 n/a 

Fairfax County 0.089 0.087 0.084 0.067 0.065 

Prince William County 0.073 0.071 0.072 0.066 0.062 

> 2015 NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 

Arlington County Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Alexandria Yes Yes Yes No n/a 

Fairfax County Yes Yes Yes No No 

Prince William County Yes Yes Yes No No 

Source: EPA Air Data www.epa.gov/airdata. 2010-2014. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-43 

Figure 3.6-1: NAAQS Nonattainment Areas
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-44 

3.6.5.3 Air Quality Index 

EPA created the Air Quality Index (AQI) to enhance the public's understanding of air pollution 

across the nation. Previously known as the Pollutant Standards Index, this uniform air quality 

index is used by state and local agencies for reporting on daily air quality to the public. The AQI 

provides general information to the public about air quality and associated health effects. It 

provides information on pollutant concentrations for ground-level O3, PM, CO, SO2, and NOX. 

The AQI is “normalized” across pollutants so that a value of 100 represents the level of health 

protection associated with the health-based standard for each pollutant, and a value of 500 

represents the significant harm level. 

An AQI value between zero and 50 is considered “good.” Air quality is considered satisfactory, 

and air pollution poses little or no risk. Values between 51 and 100 are considered “moderate.” 

Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern 

for a very small number of people. For example, people who are unusually sensitive to O3 may 

experience respiratory symptoms. AQI values between 101 and 150 are considered “unhealthy 

for sensitive groups.” This means they are likely to be affected at lower levels than the general 

public. For example, people with lung disease are at greater risk from exposure to O3, while 

people with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from exposure to particle 

pollution. The general public is not likely to be affected when the AQI is in this range. 

AQI values greater than 150 are considered “unhealthy.” This includes the AQI categories 

unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. In general, very few locations across the United States 

ever have days in the very unhealthy or hazardous categories. 

The 2014 AQI through the DC2RVA corridor is presented in Table 3.6-4. With the exception of 

Arlington County, air quality was either good or moderate 100 percent of the days measured in 

the counties in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 3.6-4: 2014 Air Quality Index Summary 

City/County 

Percent of Days 

Good Moderate 

Unhealthy for 

Sensitive 

Groups Unhealthy 

Very 

Unhealthy 

Arlington County 90% 9% 1% 0% 0% 

Alexandria 98% 2% 0% 0% 0% 

Fairfax County 84% 16% 0% 0% 0% 

Prince William County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Stafford County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Fredericksburg 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Spotsylvania County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Caroline County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Hanover County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Henrico County 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 

Richmond 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Chesterfield County 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 

Source: EPA Air Data www.epa.gov/airdata. 2014. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-45 

3.6.6 Greenhouse Gas 

In December 2009, the EPA Administrator issued findings under the federal CAA that the current 

and projected greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere threaten the health and 

welfare of current and future generations. In response, EPA has introduced a series of policies 

designed to slow the growth of GHG emissions, invest in science and technology, and enhance 

international cooperation. 

These policies include a Renewable Fuel Standard Program that mandates a minimum volume of 

renewable fuel in all transportation fuel sold in the United States. EPA partnered with the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to enable the production of a new generation of 

clean vehicles with improved fuel economy and reduced emissions of GHGs (EPA, 2015). Lastly, EPA 

introduced the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Through this program, EPA tracks GHG data 

from large emission sources across a range of industry sectors (EPA, 2015). EPA has also established 

multiple incentive-based programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions. These programs 

include “ENERGY STAR,” “Climate Leaders,” and Methane Voluntary Programs (EPA, 2015). 

3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the Project are subject to 

review by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA has noise and vibration impact 

assessment methods (FRA, 2012) that are appropriate to evaluate noise and vibration from trains 

that travel at speeds of 90 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For train speeds lower than 90 mph, 

FRA endorses use of noise and vibration impact assessment methodologies published by the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA, 2006). The Maximum Authorized Speed for 

passenger trains for the DC2RVA corridor is 90 mph, and actual train speeds with the proposed 

improvements will generally be lower than 90 mph through much of the DC2RVA corridor; 

therefore, Project-related noise and vibration levels were determined using FTA and FRA 

methods. Additionally, certain aspects of the FRA locomotive horn noise model were adapted for 

use on this Project. The study area for the noise and vibration analysis varies in size throughout 

the corridor to account for potential impacts and is as wide as approximately 3 miles through 

some sections. Detailed information on the noise and vibration analyses conducted for the Project 

can be found in Appendix P, Noise and Vibration Technical Report. 

3.7.1 Noise 

Noise is usually defined as sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech 

communication and hearing, or it is otherwise annoying. Under certain conditions, noise may 

cause hearing loss, interfere with human activities, and, in various ways, may affect people’s 

health and well-being. Noise along a railroad corridor typically consists of noise from 

locomotives, noise from steel wheels operating over rails, and noise from train horns. 

3.7.1.1 Noise Descriptors 

The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude of sound because it 

accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude. When describing sound and its 

effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound pressure levels are typically used to 

account for the response of the human ear to different frequencies. The term “A-weighted” refers 

to a filtering of the noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-46 

sound. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of 

the noisiness of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community 

noise. Figure 3.7-1 illustrates typical A-weighted sound pressure levels for various noise sources. 

Figure 3.7-1: Typical Noise Levels 

Community noise levels usually change continuously during the day. The equivalent continuous 

A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq) is normally used to describe community noise. The Leq is 

the equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound pressure level that would contain the same 

acoustical energy as the time-varying A-weighted sound pressure level during the same time 

interval. The maximum sound pressure level (Lmax) is the greatest instantaneous sound pressure 

level observed during a single noise measurement interval. 

Another descriptor, the day-night average sound pressure level (Ldn), was developed to evaluate 

the total daily community noise environment. The Ldn is a 24-hour average sound pressure level 

with a 10-dB time-of-day weighting added to sound pressure levels that occur during the nine 

nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This nighttime 10-dB adjustment is an effort to 

account for the increased sensitivity to nighttime noise events. FRA uses Ldn and Leq to evaluate 

train noise effects at the surrounding communities (FRA, 2012). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-47 

3.7.1.2 Existing Noise Measurements 

In accordance with FRA and FTA noise assessment methodologies, existing noise levels were 

measured throughout the Project area. Existing noise levels were measured for a continuous 24-

hour period at 29 residential locations. Noise levels were also measured for 1-hour durations at 8 

institutional locations. 

3.7.1.3 Existing Noise Levels 

Table 3.7-1 presents the results of the 24-hour and 1-hour noise measurements. The table shows 

the measured Ldn at each residential measurement location (ML) and the Leq at each institutional 

measurement location. Figure 3.7-2 shows the noise measurement sites. 

Land use adjacent to the railroad right-of-way varies throughout the DC2RVA corridor and can 

be broadly described as ranging from urban to suburban and rural. Ambient noise levels among 

those three categories of land use are typically highest in urban areas, where population density 

and the density of roadways and vehicular traffic are also highest among these three broad land 

use categories. In urban areas, human activities and traffic noise typically dominate the ambient 

soundscape. That is also true in suburban areas; however, the density of population and traffic 

is usually lower and that corresponds to noise levels generally being lower in suburban areas. 

Rural areas have the lowest population density of these three land use categories. The density 

of roadways and vehicular traffic is also lowest, and ambient noise levels are also generally 

lower than urban and suburban areas. Rural areas also exhibit noise from traffic and human 

activities; however, noise from agricultural activities is also common. Trains are a noise source 

that all three of these broad land use categories also have in common. Noise measurement 

results presented in Table 3.7-1 generally indicate higher noise levels in urban areas and lower 

noise levels in rural areas; however, the proximity between the measurement locations and the 

rail line or local roadways also influenced noise measurement results in urban, suburban, and 

even rural areas. 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address 

Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML01 1801 Crystal Drive, Arlington 24-hour 66 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML02 301 Mt. Vernon, Alexandria 24-hour 68 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML03 DC Metro Church, 1100 N. Fayette Street, 

Alexandria 

1-hour 61 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML04 Summers Grove Homeowners Association, 

Alexandria 

24-hour 65 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML05 6261 Franconia Station Court, Franconia 24-hour 63 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML06 6701 Jerome Street, Springfield 24-hour 75 

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

 3-48 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address 

Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML07 8923 Milford Haven Court, Lorton 24-hour 69 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML08 Lorton Station Elem School, 9298 Lewis 

Chapel, Lorton 

1-hour 64 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML09 10526 Old Colchester Road, Lorton 24-hour 62 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML10 14726 Featherstone Road, Woodbridge 24-hour 69 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML11 333 3rd Avenue, Quantico 24-hour 68 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML12 945 Widewater Road, Stafford 24-hour 62 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML13 71 Mt. Hope Church Road, Stafford 24-hour 77 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML14 Andrew Chapel, Andrew Chapel Road, 

Stafford 

1-hour 62 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML15 7 Fairfax Circle, Falmouth 24-hour 63 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML16 432 Summit Street, Fredericksburg 24-hour 68 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML17 10235 Sunset Hill Lane, Fredericksburg 24-hour 77 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML18 9015 McAlister Street, Fredericksburg 24-hour 64 

Area 4: Central Virginia ML19 Jackson Shrine, 12023 Stonewall Jackson 

Road, Woodford 1-hour 60 

Area 4: Central Virginia ML20 15503 Nelson Hill Road, Milford 24-hour 69 

Area 4: Central Virginia ML21 11491 Chesterfield Road, Ruther Glen 24-hour 71 

Area 5: Ashland ML22 14158 Independence Road, Ashland 24-hour 49 

Area 5: Ashland ML23 Randolph Macon, 204 Henry Street, Ashland 1-hour 60 

Area 5: Ashland ML24 403 S. Center Street, Ashland 24-hour 74 

Area 5: Ashland ML25 15503 Ashcake Road, Ashland 24-hour 60 

Area 5: Ashland ML26 Gwathmey Church, Ashland 1-hour 68 

Area 5: Ashland ML27 Glen Allen Freewill Baptist Church, 

11101 Old Washington Highway, Glen Allen 1-hour 61 

Area 6: Richmond ML28 2912 Allen's Crossing, Glen Allen 24-hour 69 

Area 6: Richmond ML29 2733 Hungary Road, Richmond 24-hour 73 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-49 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address 

Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 6: Richmond ML30 1415 Chamberlayne Parkway, Richmond 24-hour 61 

Area 6: Richmond ML31 1901 5th Avenue, Richmond 24-hour 77 

Area 6: Richmond ML32 Hebrew Cemetery, N. 4th & Hospital Street, 

Richmond 

1-hour 59 

Area 6: Richmond ML33 5516 Parker Street, Richmond 24-hour 77 

Area 6: Richmond ML34 912 Hill Top Drive, Richmond 24-hour 75 

Area 6: Richmond ML35 2290 Ruffin Road, Richmond 24-hour 75 

Area 6: Richmond ML36 4405 Atlantic Avenue, Richmond 24-hour 71 

Area 6: Richmond ML37 2900 Kingsland Road, Richmond 24-hour 73 

Note: *ML refers to “measurement location.” 

3.7.2 Vibration 

Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or 

acceleration. Displacement, in the case of a vibrating floor, is simply the distance that a point on 

the floor moves away from its static position. The velocity represents the instantaneous speed of 

the floor movement, and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. The response of humans, 

buildings, and equipment to vibration is normally described using velocity or acceleration. 

Velocity will be used in describing ground-borne vibration. 

Ground-borne vibration (GBV) can be a serious concern for residents or at facilities that are 

vibration-sensitive, such as laboratories or recording studios. The effects of GBV include 

perceptible movement of building floors, interference with vibration-sensitive instruments, 

rattling of windows, and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. Additionally, GBV can 

cause the vibration of room surfaces resulting in ground-borne noise (GBN). GBN is typically 

perceived as a low-frequency rumbling sound. 

Existing vibration levels in areas adjacent to the rail line are dominated by train-induced groundborne vibration during train pass-by events. In the study area, the duration of train pass-by events 

varies between less than a minute (for faster passenger trains) to more than a minute (for long 

freight trains). In general, heavier rail cars produce higher ground-borne vibration levels than 

lighter cars. According to FTA and FRA vibration assessment guidance, diesel-electric 

locomotives typically produce some of the higher levels of train-induced ground-borne vibration 

levels. In the absence of trains, existing vibration levels in the study area are usually low. Heavy 

trucks and buses on local roadways likely produce the highest levels of ground-borne vibration 

in the absence of trains. Ground-borne vibration from roadway traffic is usually much lower than 

from trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-50 

Figure 3.7-2: Noise Measurement Locations
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-51 

Figure 3.7-2: Noise Measurement Locations 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-52 

3.7.2.1 Vibration Descriptors 

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean 

square (RMS) velocity. PPV is used to evaluate the potential for building damage. It is defined as 

the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is not considered the appropriate 

measurement for evaluating the human response to vibration. RMS is used to evaluate human 

response because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. The RMS 

of a signal is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. For sources 

such as trucks or motor vehicles, PPV levels are typically 6 to 14 dB higher than RMS levels. FRA 

and FTA use the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration dBs for RMS and PPV to reduce the potential 

for confusion with sound dBs (FRA, 2012). 

Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required in measuring vibration. Similar 

to the noise descriptors, Leq and Lmax can be used to describe the equivalent vibration and the 

maximum vibration levels observed during a single vibration measurement interval. 

Figure 3.7-3 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to 

ground-borne vibration. As shown in Figure 3.7-3, the threshold of perception for human 

response is approximately 65 VdB; however, human response to vibration is not usually 

significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. 

Figure 3.7-3: Example Vibration Velocity Levels 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-53 

In contrast to airborne noise, neither GBV nor GBN is an everyday experience for most people. 

The background vibration level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower⎯well below the 

threshold of perception for humans. Levels at which vibration interferes with sensitive 

instrumentation can be much lower than the threshold of human perception, such as for medical 

imaging equipment or extremely high-precision manufacturing. Most perceptible indoor 

vibration is caused by sources within a building, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, 

movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible GBV are 

construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads; though in most soils, 

GBV dissipates very rapidly, and it is not a common environmental concern. 

Soil types and other subsurface conditions affect GBV. For example GBV can propagate more 

efficiently in areas where the soil is characterized by stiff shallow clay, or where there is shallow 

bedrock. This assessment briefly reviewed publicly available and reasonably obtainable soils and 

geologic data for the purpose of evaluating where GBV might propagate very efficiently. Based 

on this limited review, most of the soils in the corridor consist of coarse-grained unconsolidated 

deposits; soils of this type generally propagate GBV less efficiently than highly efficient soils such 

as stiff clay. 

3.8 ENERGY 

Current energy consumption by the four basic transportation modes⎯rail, automobile, bus, and 

air⎯used for intercity travel in the study corridor was calculated for this Project. Because 

different types of fuel are used by these modes, comparison of the energy consumed by each 

required conversion to a common base unit. The British Thermal Unit (BTU) was the measure 

used to compare the total annual energy consumed. 

The following energy consumption rates were used to calculate annual consumption for the four 

transportation modes. 

 Rail: 1,629 BTUs per passenger mile 

 Automobile: 3,877 BTUs per passenger mile 

 Bus: 823 BTUs per passenger mile 

 Air: 2,329 BTUs per passenger mile 

These rates were taken from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics (2016) website and are 

based on year 2014 data, which is the last year that data were available. These consumption rates 

indicate that rail travel is the most energy-efficient mode of transportation. 

To determine the total BTUs consumed for each mode, the BTU rates were calculated by the 

corresponding annual passenger miles from the year 2015 (Table 3.8-1). As shown in the table, 

the rail system consumes approximately 1 percent of all energy used for intercity passenger 

service in the study corridor while serving 2 percent of all passenger miles of travel. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-54 

Table 3.8-1: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel and Energy Consumption 

Mode 

Passenger Miles 

(millions) 

Percent of All Four 

Modes 

Energy 

Consumption 

(billions of BTUs) 

Percent of All Four 

Modes 

Rail 750 2 1,222 1 

Automobile 24,909 81 96,571 90 

Bus 1,620 5 1,333 1 

Air 3,819 12 8,895 8 

Total 31,098 100 108,021 100 

3.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

Visual resources are those physical features that make up the visual landscape, including land, 

water, vegetation, and man-made elements. These elements are the stimuli on which one’s visual 

experience is based. Substantial visual and aesthetic resources within the study area include historic 

structures, parklands, waterways, and undeveloped open space/natural areas. Potential sensitive 

visual receptors include people affected by negative changes in the visual and aesthetic character 

of the study area. The study area for visual resources is variable and includes areas from which the 

Project would be visible and potentially have an effect on visual quality, as well as areas visible 

from the rail. In general, the study area will be narrower in developed areas where adjacent 

buildings limit the viewshed and wider in rural areas where large expanses can be viewed. 

3.9.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology 

NEPA and CEQ regulations address visual effects under the heading of aesthetics. These 

regulations identify aesthetics as one of the elements or factors in the human environment that 

must be considered in determining the effects of a project. Furthermore, 23 U.S.C. 109(h) cites 

“aesthetic values” as a matter that must be fully considered in developing a project. FRA’s 

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that an EIS should identify any significant 

changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed environment and any 

aesthetic and design quality impacts (FRA, 1999). 

Aerial photography and field reconnaissance were used to identify natural landforms, 

topography, vegetation, water resources, and man-made developments. VDOT’s CEDAR 

database was also consulted and a literature search conducted to identify any specific scenic or 

visually sensitive resources such as designated scenic rivers or byways, scenic vistas, or historic 

landscapes. Visually sensitive resources are those locations where there are viewers of the 

landscape and where a certain type of visual landscape is anticipated. Viewers in visually 

sensitive resource areas are typically involved in outdoor activities where their sensitivity to the 

surrounding visual environment may be heightened; therefore, visually sensitive resources 

typically include parklands and outdoor recreation areas, such as school playgrounds. Visually 

sensitive historic resources are identified in Section 3.13. 

The DC2RVA corridor was characterized in terms of visual assessment units (VAU) based on the 

data collection discussed above. A VAU is an area with a distinct uniformity of landscape character. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-55 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

The rail corridor predates much of the surrounding development and has become a major 

component of the landscape. This established linear landform and corridor defined by the 

clearing of trees and absence of buildings characterizes the right-of-way. The rail corridor is 

divided into six alternative areas. For the visual assessment, these areas may be further divided 

into VAUs based on similar visual characteristics. Figure 3.9-1 depicts the VAUs. In the sections 

below, the visual environs of the rail corridor are initially described for each VAU. The visual 

environs include the typical viewsheds encountered within that VAU. These are the general 

views that may be experienced by residents, road users, or train passengers within the area. 

Representative photographs of these typical environs are included for each VAU. Visually 

sensitive resources and scenic views were also identified within each VAU. 

Additionally, each VAU is described in terms of more-specific rail features, such as number of 

tracks, notable bridge structures, and visual features of the railroad itself. Photographs of notable 

rail visual features are included for each VAU as appropriate. 

Diverse visual environs along the corridor. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-56 

Figure 3.9-1: Visual Assessment Units
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-57 

3.9.2.1 Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

VAU 1-1 – CFP 110 to CFP 109.3 

This VAU is urban in nature but is 

dominated by parklands adjacent to 

the existing tracks. Long Bridge Park 

is located to the west of the tracks, 

and Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary 

and the George Washington 

Memorial Parkway are located to the 

east of the existing tracks. 

Within this VAU, the railroad 

transitions from two tracks at the 

north end, where it leaves the Long 

Bridge, to four tracks (three mainline 

tracks and one siding track) adjacent 

to Long Bridge Park. The tracks are 

an integral part of the landscape with 

numerous views of the trains 

available from Long Bridge Park. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. George Washington Memorial Parkway 

2. Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary 

3. Long Bridge Park 

Visual Environs: Parkland – Long Bridge Park 

View of Railroad from Long Bridge Park 

Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-58 

3.9.2.2 Area 2: Northern Virginia 

VAU 2-1 – CFP 109.3 to CFP 100 

This VAU consists of urban to 

suburban development. Crystal City, 

located at the north end of this VAU, 

is almost exclusively populated by 

high-rise apartment buildings, offices, 

hotels, shops and restaurants. Farther 

south in Alexandria, development is 

primarily residential. Several urban 

parks occur in this unit. WMATA’s 

rapid transit route shares the corridor. 

The existing railroad tracks pre-date 

much of the development and are an 

integral part of the community fabric. 

The southern portion includes the 

Norfolk Southern (NS) Rail Yard and 

WMATA rail yards. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Crystal Park North 

2. Crystal City Water Park 

3. Crystal City Courtyard Green 

4. Crystal City Children’s Park 

5. Four Mile Run 

6. George Washington Memorial Parkway 

7. Potomac Greens Park 

8. Potomac Yard Park 

9. Daingerfield Island Park 

10. Metro Linear Park 

11. Hooff’s Run Park and Greenway 

12. Sunset Mini Park 

13. Dog Run Park at Carlyle 

14. Cameron Run Regional Park 

15. Clermont Natural Park 

16. Hensley Park 

17. Backlick Stream Valley Park 

Visual Environs: Urban Greenspace – Crystal City 

Courtyard Green 

View of Tracks from Dog Run Park at Carlyle 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-59 

VAU 2-2 – CFP 100 to CFP 92 

This VAU is primarily industrial 

with large expanses of parks, and 

conservation lands as well as 

extensive wetlands. Some residential 

areas are located at the north end of 

this unit, but they are not directly 

adjacent to the tracks. There are also 

scattered institutional land uses. 

The rail corridor in the northern half 

of this VAU consists primarily of 

three tracks with another two tracks 

located immediately to the west. The 

southern half transitions down to 

two tracks. WMATA rapid transit 

continues to share the alignment in 

this VAU. The view of the tracks is 

limited due to adjacent tree lines 

throughout much of this VAU. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Accotink Stream Valley Park 

2. Pohick Stream Valley Park 

3. Lorton Station Elementary School 

Visual Environs: Institutional Land Use – Lorton Station 

Elementary School 

Source: Bing Map 

View of tree-lined tracks north of Lorton Station 

Commercial Land Uses 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-60 

VAU 2-3 – CFP 92 to CFP 85 

This VAU includes a mix of residential, 

commercial, and industrial uses. In the 

northern half of this unit, the tracks 

parallel I-95. The land between the 

interstate and the tracks is primarily 

vacant/wooded, or industrial uses. 

Numerous parks and conservation 

lands are in this VAU, with the 

southern end of the VAU dominated 

by Featherstone National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

The rail corridor consists of two 

tracks through most of this VAU. 

Where there is adjacent 

development, bands of tree shelter 

the tracks from open view. The 

Occoquan River Railroad Bridge is 

the most notable rail visual feature. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Mason Neck West Park 

2. Old Colchester Preserve and Park 

3. Occoquan River 

4. Veterans Memorial Park 

5. Marumsco Acre Lake Park 

6. Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

Visual Environs: Parklands – Mason Neck West Park 

Occoquan River Railroad Bridge 

Pedestrian Crossing over Tracks near 

Veterans Memorial Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-61 

VAU 2-4 – CFP 85 to CFP 62 

This VAU is largely undeveloped. The 

rail corridor generally parallels the 

shore of the Potomac River and crosses 

several large creeks. Some industrial 

land use pockets are located near the 

Potomac River. This unit includes large 

expanses of vacant forested lands, 

parks, scattered low-density 

residential, and some small agricultural 

areas. Most notably, this VAU traverses 

the Quantico Marine Corps Base. 

The rail corridor includes two tracks 

throughout most of this VAU. As part 

of a separate project, a third track is 

under construction through the 

Arkendale to Powells Creek section of 

this VAU. Notable rail features are the 

numerous bridges, including Neabsco 

Creek, Powells Creek, Quantico Creek, 

and Aquia Creek. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Neabsco Creek 

2. Leesylvania State Park 

3. Powells Creek 

4. Cockpit Point Battlefield Heritage Park 

5. Quantico Creek 

6. Quantico Unnamed Recreation Area 

7. Widewater State Park 

8. Aquia Creek 

Visual Environs: Vacant Land – Potomac Shores Area 

Neabsco Creek 

Source: Bing Map 

Powells Creek 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-62 

3.9.2.3 Area 3: Fredericksburg 

VAU 3-1 – CFP 62 to CFP 48 

This VAU follows the existing rail 

corridor and consists of a variety of 

land uses. The northern part is 

primarily residential. The middle part 

consists of low-density commercial 

and industrial land uses. The 

southern portion of the unit is largely 

undeveloped and includes forested 

lands, parks, scattered agricultural 

lands, and low-density residential. 

This section of the railroad corridor 

primarily consists of two tracks, 

though it broadens out to three and 

more on the south side of 

Fredericksburg. The most notable 

visible feature of the rail corridor is 

the Rappahannock River Bridge. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Embry Farm 

2. Rappahannock River 

3. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Park 

4. Cobblestone Park 

5. Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm 

6. Mary Lee Carter Park 

Visual Environs: Historic Battlefields – Pierson/Slaughter 

Pen Farm 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 

Mary Lee Carter Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-63 

VAU 3-2 – CFP 62 to CFP 48 (Bypass) 

The northern end of this VAU consists 

primarily of suburban residential and 

commercial land uses. Continuing 

east and south within this VAU, the 

land transitions to a mix of forests and 

agricultural lands and includes a new 

crossing of the Rappahannock River. 

The southern end of this unit consists 

of forested lands, scattered 

agricultural lands, and low-density 

residential. 

This VAU shares common areas on 

the north and south end with VAU 3-

1. Near CFP 61, it follows the existing 

single track. Most of this VAU is 

along new alignment, and there are 

no notable existing rail features. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Embry Farm 

2. George Washington’s Ferry Farm 

3. Rappahannock River 

4. Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary 

Visual Environs: Forested Land – Alexander Berger 

Memorial Sanctuary 

George Washington’s Ferry Farm 

View of Corridor Looking Northeast from Kings Highway 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-64 

3.9.2.4 Area 4: Central Virginia 

VAU 4-1 – CFP 48 to CFP 19 

This VAU is largely undeveloped. It 

consists primarily of forested lands 

with some agricultural lands 

interspersed. Wetlands are also 

extensive within this VAU. The 

Mattaponi River, the North Anna 

River, and several smaller creeks are 

crossed and the tracks are adjacent to 

portions of the Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National Park and the 

Mattaponi State Wildlife 

Management Area. Residences are 

scattered and rural in nature. 

There are primarily two tracks within 

this VAU. Notable rail features 

include minor bridges crossing the 

North Anna and Mattaponi Rivers. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Park 

2. Mattaponi River 

3. Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area 

4. North Anna River 

Visual Environs: Forested Land – Mattaponi State 

Wildlife Management Area 

View of Tracks 

Agricultural Lands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-65 

3.9.2.5 Area 5: Ashland 

VAU 5-1 – CFP 19 to CFP 9 

The northern portion of this VAU is 

primarily vacant forested land. The 

middle portion consists of the town of 

Ashland, which includes a 

concentration of commercial and 

residential land uses. South of town, 

land uses are vacant and agricultural. 

There are primarily two existing 

tracks throughout this VAU. The 

tracks are located in the middle of 

downtown Ashland along Center 

Street/Railroad Avenue and are a 

dominant feature of the landscape, 

with the town buildings directly 

abutting the tracks. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. North Ashland Park 

2. Railside Park 

3. Carter Park 

4. Downtown Ashland 

Visual Environs: Commercial Land Uses – 

Downtown Ashland 

Ashland Station / Visitor Center 

View of Tracks through Downtown Ashland 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-66 

VAU 5-2 – CFP 19 to CFP 9 (Bypass) 

This VAU is generally rural with a 

mix of forested and agricultural 

lands and scattered low-density 

residential units. Residential density 

increases at the south end of the unit 

approaching Henrico County. No 

sensitive visual resources are 

identified within this unit. Large 

open expanses of agricultural land 

and older farmhouses dominate the 

landscape. 

This VAU shares a northern terminus 

and southern terminus with VAU 5-

1. The remainder of this VAU is along 

new alignment and includes no 

notable existing rail visual features. 

Sensitive Resources 

None identified 

Visual Environs: Agricultural Land – West of Ashland 

Agricultural Lands 

Agricultural Lands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-67 

3.9.2.6 Area 6: Richmond 

VAU 6-1 – CFP 9 to CFP 2 

This VAU is primarily residential 

land uses. There are also some 

commercial and industrial land use 

areas, as well as parks and recreation 

areas, dispersed throughout this unit. 

Several small creeks are crossed with 

minor bridges and culverts. The 

floodplains of those creeks include 

extensive wetlands and remain 

largely undeveloped. 

This VAU consists of two existing 

tracks on the north end with an 

increasing number of tracks 

approaching the large CSXT Acca 

Yard. There are no notable existing 

rail visual features located within this 

unit. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. RF&P Park 

2. Laurel Recreation Area 

3. Joseph Bryan Park 

Visual Environs: Mixed Land Uses – North of Richmond 

Source: Bing Map 

Acca Yard 

RF&P Park 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-68 

VAU 6-2 – CFP 2 to SRN 0 

This VAU is an urban mix of 

residential, commercial, and 

industrial land uses. Redevelopment 

efforts have recently resulted in the 

conversion of some industrial land 

uses to residential loft apartments in 

the downtown area. 

This VAU begins in the Acca Yard 

area with a large expanse of tracks. It 

tapers down to two existing tracks at 

the southern terminus. The most 

notable rail visual feature within this 

VAU is the historic Main Street 

Station. Main Street Station was 

originally opened in 1901. It is one of 

Richmond’s most visible landmarks. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 

2. Main Street Station 

Visual Environs: Redevelopment Areas – Residential and 

Industrial Development 

View of Tracks beyond Maggie Walker Governor’s School 

Fields 

Main Street Station 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-69 

VAU 6-3 – SRN 0 to A 11 (via S-Line) 

This VAU consists of a mix of 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

land uses. Near the James River, many 

of the industrial buildings have been 

converted into commercial spaces and 

loft apartments. Extensive walking 

trails are located along the banks of the 

river. 

The historic rail viaduct is an integral 

part of the downtown scenic views. 

Most of this VAU south of the James 

River consists of two tracks with some 

areas with as many as eight tracks. 

The most notable rail visual features 

in this VAU are the James River 

crossing which is a single track 

crossing and the unique Triple 

Crossing. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Triple Crossing 

2. Canal Walk 

3. James River 

4. Walkers Creek Retention Basin Park 

5. Falling Creek Park 

Visual Environs: Redevelopment Area – Canal Walk 

Source: Bing Map 

James River Railroad Bridge via S-Line 

Triple Crossing 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-70 

VAU 6-4 – CFP 2 to A 11 (via A-Line) 

This VAU consists primarily of 

single-family residential with 

scattered commercial and industrial 

land uses. The Bellwood Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot occupies a 

large expanse of land at the south end 

of this unit. 

This VAU consists primarily of two 

existing tracks. The most notable 

feature in this VAU is the scenic 

railroad bridge over the James River 

on the A-Line. This aesthetically 

pleasing bridge is visible from many 

nearby roads, parks, and residential 

areas, as well as from the river itself, 

which is highly used for recreational 

purposes. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. James River 

2. James River Park 

3. Gates Mill Park 

4. Falling Creek Park 

Visual Environs: Residential Land Uses along 

Monument Avenue 

James River Railroad Bridge via A-Line 

Falling Creek Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-71 

VAU 6-5 – SRN 0 to CA 87 

This VAU is a small section that 

consists of urban residential land 

uses at the north end transitioning to 

industrial land uses within the south 

end of the unit. The tracks are located 

between the interstate and an area of 

forested lands. Valley Road parallels 

the tracks for a short distance. The 

Richmond Juvenile Detention Center 

and City Sherriff’s Office are located 

to the immediate east of the tracks. 

No sensitive rail visual resources are 

in the DC2RVA corridor within this 

VAU. There is a single track within 

this VAU. 

Sensitive Resources 

None identified 

Visual Environs: Industrial Area – Near Hospital Street 

Juvenile Detention Center 

Sherriff’s Office 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-72 

VAU 6-6 – SRN 0 to CA 80 

This VAU consists of commercial, 

residential, and parkland land uses. 

Similar to other locations in the 

downtown Richmond area, 

numerous former industrial land 

uses have been converted into 

residential units. Steep elevation 

changes exist in this area with much 

of the residential development on a 

hill with views of the James River. 

This VAU includes 2 existing tracks 

where it parallels the James River, 

expanding to more than 10 tracks to 

the east of Richmond. The most 

notable rail feature is the raised rail 

bridge that is parallel to the James 

River and highly visible to 

surrounding areas. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. James River 

2. Great Shiplock Park 

3. Libby Hill Park 

Visual Environs: Vacant Industrial/Potential 

Redevelopment – Williamsburg Avenue in Richmond 

Raised Rail Bridge 

Steep Slopes at Libby Hill Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-73 

3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

EPA defines ecoregions as areas where ecosystems (and the type, quality, and quantity of 

environmental resources) are generally similar. Ecoregions serve as a spatial framework for the 

research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and their components. There 

are four different hierarchical levels of ecoregions, ranging from general regions to more detailed: 

 Level I—12 ecoregions in the continental United States 

 Level II—25 ecoregions in the continental United States 

 Level III—105 ecoregions in the continental United States 

 Level IV—967 ecoregions in the conterminous United States 

Most of the DC2RVA corridor is located in EPA Level III Ecoregion 65–Southern Plains (Figure 

3.10-1). This ecoregion is composed of irregular plains covered by cropland, forest, and pasture. 

Natural vegetation consists of mostly Oak−Hickory−Pine Forest (dominants: hickory [Carya], 

longleaf pine [Pinus palustris], shortleaf pine [Pinus echinata], loblolly pine, white oak [Quercus 

alba], and post oak [Quercus stellata]) and, in the northeast, Appalachian Oak Forest (dominated 

by white oak and red oak [Quercus rubra]). The Southern Plains area crossed by the Project is split 

further into two level IV ecoregions: Chesapeake Rolling Coastal Plain (65n) (north of Occoquan 

River) and Rolling Coastal Plain (65m) (from Occoquan River south). 

The Chesapeake Rolling Coastal Plain is a hilly upland, with local relief ranging from 25 to 225 

feet in elevation, narrow stream divides, incised streams, and well-drained loamy soils. Stream 

margins can be swampy, and it is common for water to be stained by tannic acid from decaying 

vegetation. Soils are low in nutrients and require amendments to be productive for agriculture. 

Urbanization is extensive along corridors connecting Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Wilmington, 

and Annapolis. In other areas, less-intensive agriculture, general farming, or part-time agriculture 

occurs. 

The Rolling Coastal Plain is more forested than the Chesapeake Rolling Coastal Plain and is 

comprised of a mosaic of woodland and farmland with elevations ranging from 30 to 250 feet. 

Soils in this area tend to have good drainage. Stream margins can be swampy, and stained water 

can occur. The westernmost portion includes parts of the Fall Zone, where aquatic habitats 

include islands, pools, swampy streams, and cascades. The Fall Zone or Fall Line is the 

geomorphologic break between an upland region of relatively hard rock and a coastal plain of 

softer sedimentary rock. 

The existing track occasionally crosses into EPA Ecoregion 45−Piedmont to the west, which is 

separated from the Southern Plains by the fall line (generally along I-95). This transitional area 

between the mountains and the coast is a mostly wooded area of irregular plains, low hills and 

ridges, shallow valleys, and scattered monadnocks (isolated hills of bedrock). This area 

traditionally supported Oak−Hickory−Pine forest (dominants: hickory, shortleaf pine, loblolly 

pine, white oak, and post oak); however, it has since been cultivated and is now a mixture of 

farmland and fields that are reverting to pine and hardwoods. The Piedmont area crossed by the 

Project is split further into one level IV ecoregion: Northern Inner Piedmont (45e) (north of 

Fredericksburg). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-74 

Figure 3.10-1: EcoRegions
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-75 

The Northern Inner Piedmont ranges in elevation from 200 to 1,000 feet, including landforms 

such as hills, irregular plains, and isolated ridges and mountains, and monadnocks far more 

common than in the Northern Outer Piedmont. Streams have silt, sand, gravel, and rubble 

bottoms with low to moderate gradients. The landscape is comprised of forests of 

loblolly⎯shortleaf pine, agricultural activity, and in the northeast, urban and suburban areas. 

A general map of habitats within a 500-foot-wide study area along the DC2RVA corridor was 

developed by reviewing the aerial photographs and topographic maps; Virginia Wetlands 

Catalog maps from the VDCR−Division of Natural Heritage; Wetlands digitized by the City of 

Richmond; field verified wetlands and streams; Northeast Terrestrial Habitat Map (TNC, 2014); 

Urban Tree Canopy Land Cover (VGEP, 2008); Municipality land cover data; NHD maps from 

USGS, VDOT GIS data (VDOT, 2014); and VDOT mitigation sites. A more-detailed display of the 

streams and wetlands mapping within the study area is provided in Appendix M. 

Table 3.10-1 summarizes the general habitat types along the Project in a 500-foot-wide study area. 

3.10.1 Regulated Natural Communities 

The communities described below are areas intended for the preservation of habitat, plants, or 

wildlife. They are maintained to different degrees by regulatory agencies. These communities can 

be publically or privately owned. Figure 3.10-2 shows these communities. 

3.10.1.1 National Wildlife Refuges 

A requirement of the Secretary of the Interior is to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of National Wildlife Refuges, which are managed by the USFWS for the 

protection and conservation of our nation's wildlife resources. This network of diverse and 

strategically located habitats is protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (see also Chapter 5). 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. This sanctuary is part of the George Washington 

Memorial Parkway. It is located near the northern terminus of the DC2RVA corridor. The 

sanctuary consists of a tidal open water wetland that provides important wintering habitat for 

waterfowl. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), green heron (Butorides virescens), red-winged blackbird 

(Agelaius phoeniceus), and mallards (Anas plathyrhynchos) are all common during the summer, 

along with other wetland wildlife. 

Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Located on the south side of the Occoquan River 

where it meets Belmont Bay, this refuge offers important grassland and wetland habitats in a 

highly urbanized area. The purpose of this refuge is to provide a sanctuary and breeding area for 

migratory birds and endangered species; provide a wildlife education center to the public; and 

support other recreational uses, where possible. One square mile of a variety of habitat types is 

accessible by trails offering visitors the opportunity to view the many types of wildlife. 

Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. Established with the purpose of protecting 

contiguous wetland habitat, this refuge contains 325 acres of upland woodland and freshwater 

tidal marsh along the mouth of Neabsco Creek and Occoquan Bay. This area provides important 

habitat for migrating birds, wintering waterfowl, and many other wildlife species. Access to the 

refuge is limited to a nonmotorized boat ramp; however, it is open to the public. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-76 

Table 3.10-1: General Habitat Types (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Aqueous 

Habitat 

(wetlands/ 

streams/ 

open water) 

Agriculture 

(pasture/ 

row crop/ 

grassland) 

Shrub 

Area/Old 

Field 

Upland 

Forest 

Riparian/ 

Bottomland 

Forest/PFO 

Urban/ 

Developed 

Lands Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

32 

28% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

1% 

81 

71% 

114 

100% 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

488 

8% 

196 

3% 

9 

0% 

1,890 

32% 

228 

4% 

3,059 

52% 

5,870 

100% 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

191 

5% 

666 

19% 

0 

0% 

1,527 

43% 

359 

10% 

765 

22% 

3,508 

100% 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

342 

10% 

619 

17% 

144 

4% 

1,360 

38% 

651 

18% 

451 

13% 

3,567 

100% 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

26 

1% 

279 

14% 

72 

4% 

1,014 

49% 

91 

4% 

577 

28% 

2,059 

100% 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

103 

2% 

62 

1% 

22 

0% 

950 

17% 

316 

6% 

4,083 

74% 

5,536 

100% 

Total 1,182 

6% 

1,822 

9% 

247 

1% 

6,741 

32% 

1,646 

8% 

9,016 

44% 

20,654 

100% 

Source: VDCR, 2014, TNC, 2014, VGEP, 2008, USGS, 2014, and VDOT, 2014. 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Refuge 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-77 

Figure 3.10-2: Designated Wildlife Areas
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-78 

Figure 3.10-2: Designated Wildlife Areas 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-79 

3.10.1.2 State Wildlife Lands 

This network of diverse and strategically located habitats is also protected by Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (see also Chapter 5). 

Crow's Nest Natural Area Preserve. Located northeast of Fredericksburg, Crow’s Nest preserves 

2,872 acres of natural area and habitat managed by VDCR. This resource consists of approximately 

750 acres of tidal and nontidal wetlands; 21 miles of stream, riparian, and wetland buffer; and 2,200 

acres of mature hardwood forest, including two forest types that are recognized as globally rare by 

VDCR's Natural Heritage Program. This habitat supports bald eagles (Haliaeetus heucocephalus); 

federally listed shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); 22 plant species that are significant for the 

Coastal Plain of Virginia; approximately 60 species of neotropical migratory songbirds; spawning, 

nursery, and/or feeding habitat for 49 species of interjurisdictional (involving more than 1 political 

or management unit) fish; and 7 species of mussels and commercially valuable shellfish. This site has 

a biodiversity ranking from the VDCR of B2–very high significance. 

Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area. Nestled between nearly 6.5 miles of the Mattaponi 

and South rivers, this area conserves important upper coastal plain wildlife habitat managed by 

VDGIF. Diverse natural communities provide important habitat, including mature upland hardwood 

and mixed forests, managed loblolly pine stands, wetlands, and rivers. Wildlife-related recreation is 

allowed on this land, including hunting, trapping, primitive camping, fishing, hiking, and birding. 

3.10.1.3 County Wildlife Lands 

Pohick Seeps Conservation Site. Located adjacent the east side of the tracks and south side of 

Pohick Creek in Area 2, parcels owned by Fairfax County are set aside in a permanent wildlife 

conservation easement. The site contains a Northern Coastal Plain Terrace Gravel Bog, a saturated 

woodland known to occur in fewer than 10 places in the world, all of which are located just east 

of the fall line in Maryland and Northern Virginia. The site has been given a Biodiversity Ranking 

of B2–Very High Significance by VDCR and a Global Status of G1–Critically Imperiled due to its 

limited distribution in the Mid-Atlantic fall-line zone existing in fewer than 20 sites rangewide 

occurring in very small patches subject to multiple disturbances. 

3.10.1.4 Private Wildlife Lands 

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary. Approximately 10 miles south of Fredericksburg 

along the proposed Fredericksburg Bypass alignment, the DC2RVA corridor bisects the larger of 

two areas encompassed by this approximately 868-acre preserve owned and managed by The 

Nature Conservancy. The sanctuary consists of mature, second-growth forest that has remained 

relatively undisturbed since 1864, when it was used by the Confederate army as an encampment. 

The two wooded parcels that were donated in 1963 were originally part of the historic Belvedere 

Peony Farm. The area contains trails that are open to the public year-round. 

Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). VOF open-space easements restrict property use to 

protect certain conservation values including, but not limited to, productive agricultural or 

timberlands, scenic vistas, rare species, caves, unique geologic features, rivers or streams, 

wetlands, wildlife habitat and corridors, and/or historic resources. For a property to be 

considered for a VOF easement, it must also have significant public benefits, which may include 

protection of water quality, retaining productive farm and timber land, and protecting scenic 

views enjoyed by travelers along public roads, rivers, or from parks. The proposed 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-80 

Fredericksburg Bypass alignment bisects two VOF properties (CLN-VOF-3804, CLN-VOF-03850) 

totaling approximately 894 acres and comes within 1,000 feet of a third property (SPT-VOF-1597). 

All areas are privately owned, managed with conservation easements, and closed to the public. 

3.10.1.5 Priority Conservation Areas 

Priority Conservation Areas are lands identified by VDGIF as a priority for preservation, 

protection, or specific management action for conservation of Virginia’s wildlife, plants, and 

natural communities. 

VDGIF–Priority Wildlife Diversity Conservation Areas. VDGIF created the Priority Wildlife 

Diversity Conservation Areas (PWDCA) dataset to identify habitat for conservation that is important 

for nongame wildlife. These areas are based on recommendations from VDGIF biologists, Virginia’s 

Wildlife Action Plan, and other sources. Areas include mapped species’ habitats and recommended 

conservation actions to conserve riparian buffers, large blocks of habitat and forest, and wetland 

buffers. This mapping is part of an effort between VDGIF, VDCR–Division of Natural Heritage 

(DNH), and Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Environmental Studies. 

The South Anna River in the vicinity of the DC2RVA corridor is a PWDCA and has been designated 

a “Threatened and Endangered Water” for the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). 

VDCR-DNH–Natural Heritage Plan Conservation Sites and Stream Conservation Units.

Conservation sites represent landscape worthy of protection and stewardship action because of 

natural heritage resources, such as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal 

species; unique or exemplary natural communities; and significant geologic formations. 

Terrestrial conservation sites are designed to include one or more rare plant, animal, or natural 

community and, where possible, its associated habitat and buffer or other adjacent land needed 

for the element's conservation. Stream Conservation Units (SCUs) include stream reaches and 

tributaries that contain aquatic natural heritage resources, including upstream and downstream 

buffer. Conservation sites and SCUs are given a biodiversity significance ranking based on the 

rarity, quality, and number of natural heritage resources they contain. The Natural Heritage Plan 

Conservation Sites and SCUs are listed in Table 3.10-2. 

Table 3.10-2: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas 

Conservation 

Site/SCU Alternative Area/Location 

VDCR 

Biodiversity 

Ranking* Description 

Pohick Seeps 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

East side of the tracks and south side 

of Pohick Creek 

B2 

Very high 

significance 

Northern Coastal Plain Terrace Gravel 

Bog−A saturated woodland known to 

occur in less than 10 places east of the fall 

line in Maryland and Northern Virginia 

Brent Marsh 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Outside the right-of-way on the east 

side of the tracks; north of and 

including part of Widewater State Park 

B3 

High 

significance 

Association with sensitive joint-vetch, a 

federally listed species 

Arkendale Flatwoods 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Including a portion of the existing 

tracks and to the east, much of the 

area includes a portion of Widewater 

State Park 

B5 

General 

significance 

Coastal Plain Depression Swamp−A 

seasonally flooded forest located in 

depressions of the Chesapeake Bay Region 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-81 

Table 3.10-2: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas 

Conservation 

Site/SCU Alternative Area/Location 

VDCR 

Biodiversity 

Ranking* Description 

Lower Aquia Creek 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Adjacent to the west side of the tracks, 

on the north side of Aquia Creek 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Associated with Parker’s pipewort 

(Eriocaulon parkeri), a rare plant to Virginia 

Claiborne Run SCU Area 2: Northern Virginia and 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Adjacent to and crossed by the 

DC2RVA corridor four times (once in 

the Northern Virginia area and three 

times in the Fredericksburg area) 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Hazel Run SCU Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Route 1 to Route 2, crossed by the 

tracks 

B3 

High 

significance 

Aquatic natural community 

Little Falls Run SCU Area 3: Fredericksburg 

East of the existing tracks; however, 

does not drain the existing track vicinity 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Aquatic natural community 

South Fredericksburg 

Conservation Site 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Including existing tracks along the east 

side of the conservation site, site 

located mostly within the 

Fredericksburg Battlefield 

B2 

Very high 

significance 

Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 

(Northern Coastal Plain Type)−Contains 

seasonally to nearly permanently saturated 

forest located in ancient floodplains on 

wide flat terraces 

White Oak Run SCU Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Crossed by the proposed bypass 

B3 

High 

significance 

Snow Creek Ravine 

Conservation Site 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Crossed by the proposed bypass, site 

includes Snow Creek just south of its 

confluence with Rappahannock River 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Summit Railroad 

Tracks Conservation 

Site 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Just south of Summit Crossing Road, 

adjacent to the east side of and 

including the existing tracks 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Polecat Creek−

Penola SCU 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

Crossed by existing tracks, west of 

Penola Road 

B5 

General 

significance 

Association with the fine-lined emerald 

(Somatochlora filose), a state rare dragonfly 

South Anna River−

Falling Creek SCU 

Area 5: Ashland 

Crossed by existing tracks three times 

and the proposed bypass alignment 

two times 

B3 

High 

significance 

Aquatic natural community and association 

of the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), a 

freshwater mussel 

Centralia 

Conservation Site 

Area 6: Richmond 

Adjacent to the west side of the tracks 

south of Old Lane at the southern 

terminus of the Project 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

* Rating of the significance of the conservation site based on presence and number of natural heritage resources 

Source: VDCR, 2014a and CEDAR. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-82 

VDCR-DNH–Ecological Cores. The Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment (VaNLA) is a 

landscape-scale GIS analysis tool developed to identify unfragmented natural habitats called 

Ecological Cores. Ecological Cores are prioritized according to their ecological value, notably 

their value as habitat for interior-dependent species. The habitat is ranked from Outstanding (C1) 

to General (C5). Most forested areas in Virginia are rated with this tool, including most of the 

areas along the DC2RVA corridor. This tool was used to locate core habitat and the corridors that 

connect them in the Project vicinity. 

Wildlife Corridors. Wildlife corridors are corridors of habitat connecting larger similar areas of 

core habitat (i.e., large areas of similar habitat not broken up by other habitat types or urbanization) 

that facilitate the movement of species and genetic material between habitats. Corridors have the 

potential to reduce the negative genetic effects of habitat fragmentation (i.e., the breaking up of core 

habitat into smaller patches), such as reduced population and genetic diversity. In Virginia, core 

habitat and wildlife corridors generally refer to intact forested areas, many times along riparian 

corridors, that tend to have had fewer human alterations. These areas facilitate the movement of 

less common wildlife species that do not do well in areas of human alteration and species that prefer 

interior forested habitat away from edge dwelling predators. Wildlife corridors were located using 

a combination of VDCR-DNH ecological core mapping and aerial photographs of the Project 

vicinity. Table 3.10-3 lists the wildlife corridors identified within the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 3.10-3: Wildlife Corridors 

Corridor 

Alternative 

Area Corridor Description 

Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (MCBQ) to 

Widewater State Park 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

The rail line in this location crosses a corridor approximately 8 miles long, 

generally over 1 mile wide and a minimum 0.5 mile wide, connecting C2 ecological 

core habitat on MCBQ to C3 to C4 habitat at Widewater State Park. 

I-95/Route 17 to C1 

Habitat east of Route 2 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

The corridor is a minimum of 2,000 feet wide and connects C5 ecological core 

habitat southeast of I-95/Route 17 to C3 habitat to a very large area of C1 

(outstanding) ecological core habitat east of Route 2. 

Fort A. P. Hill Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

The proposed Fredericksburg Bypass alignment and connection to main tracks 

crosses a large wildlife corridor consisting of a minimum of 1,000 feet connecting 

C1 habitat at Fort A. P. Hill to C2 and C3 habitat cores through C4 and C5 

habitat areas. 

I-95 to Milford Area 4: 

Central 

Virginia 

This wildlife corridor connects patches of C4-C2 habitat roughly following the 

Mattaponi River and one of its tributaries from I-95 northeast of Thornburg to 

north of Milford. The corridor width varies from 1,500 feet to over 1 mile in 

some places and remains on the west side of existing tracks. East of the tracks and 

Route 2 is a large patch of C1 (outstanding) ecological core habitat. 

South Anna River Area 5: 

Ashland 

The riparian corridor along the South Anna River could also serve as a wildlife 

corridor. The forested area narrows to 500 feet in many places; however, it does 

provide a lengthy corridor that connects several larger habitat areas. 

Source: VDCR-DNH, 2015. Google Maps, 2015. 

Notes: 1. C1: Outstanding, C2: Very High, C3: High, C4: Moderate, C5: General 

Forest Legacy Program. To protect environmentally important private forests that are 

threatened by conversion into non-forest uses, USDA Forest Service, in partnership with the 

states, created the Forest Legacy Program (FLP). FLP is a voluntary program that uses federal 

grant funds to purchase land, or conservation easements, to conserve lands that provide public 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-83 

benefits, including sustainable forest resources, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and 

forested scenic views, as well as protecting sensitive sites and habitats used by threatened and 

endangered species. As of January 2012, 9,750 acres have been protected in Virginia through this 

program. No FLP land is located in the Project vicinity. 

3.10.2 Invasive Species 

EO 13112, Invasive Species, defines invasive species as non-native plant, animal, or microbial 

species that cause, or have the potential to cause, economic or ecological harm or harm to human 

health. State and local governments have also set up several laws and regulations to prevent the 

spread of noxious weeds and plants deemed to be detrimental to crops; surface waters, including 

lakes; or other desirable plants, livestock, land, or other property or to be injurious to public 

health or the economy. Furthermore, noxious weeds are plants designated by federal, state, or 

county government as detrimental to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, economy, or 

property. The Project corridor crosses suburban and urban areas where disturbed ground 

depends on colonization by invasive species. 

Table 3.10-4 lists the invasive species observed in the DC2RVA corridor while conducting field 

investigations. The table includes the VDCR ranking for invasiveness. VDCR ranks invasive 

species to reflect the level of threat to forests and other natural communities and native species. 

The ranks used are high, medium, and low, where species ranked high pose a substantial threat 

to native species, natural communities, or the economy. 

Table 3.10-4: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank 

Lonicera maackii Amur Honeysuckle High 

Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet High 

Dioscorea polystachya Cinnamon Vine High 

Phragmites australis ssp. australis Common Reed High 

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Water-milfoil High 

Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard High 

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla High 

Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle High 

Reynoutria japonica Japanese knotweed High 

Microstegium vimineum Japanese Stiltgrass High 

Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass High 

Pueraria montana var. lobata Kudzu High 

Murdannia keisak Marsh dewflower High 

Persicaria perfoliata Mile-a-minute High 

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

 3-84 

Table 3.10-4: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank 

Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose High 

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental Bittersweet High 

Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Porcelain-berry High 

Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife High 

Lespedeza cuneate Sericea Lespedeza High 

Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Spotted Knapweed High 

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven High 

Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag High 

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Medium 

Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear Medium 

Agrostis capillaris Colonial bent-grass Medium 

Hedera helix English ivy Medium 

Akebia quinata Five-leaf Akebia Medium 

Glechoma hederacea Gill-over-the-ground Medium 

Persicaria longiseta Long-bristled Smartweed Medium 

Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Medium 

Paulownia tomentosa Royal Paulowina Medium 

Euonymus fortune Winter Creeper Medium 

Commelina communis Asiatic Dayflower Low 

Perilla frutescens Beefsteak Plant Low 

Securigera varia Crown-vetch Low 

Phleum pratense Timothy Low 

Morus alba White Mulberry Low 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

3.10.3 Wildlife 

Sensitive wildlife populations can be found throughout Virginia. These populations were taken 

into consideration in addition to important natural communities to ensure the least disruption 

practicable with the implementation of proposed improvements. Sensitive wildlife populations 

located in the Project vicinity are discussed below. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-85 

3.10.3.1 Colonial Waterbirds 

Colonial waterbirds are birds that nest in large groups during the nesting season. These groups are 

called rookeries or colonies. Coordination with VDGIF is required for waterbird colonies documented 

in the Project vicinity. Several great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colonies are located within 3 miles of 

the project corridor (Table 3.10-5); no other waterbird colonies are known to be present. 

Table 3.10-5: Colonial Waterbird Colonies 

Location 

Distance 

from 

Existing 

Tracks Closest Area Species 

Year 

Observed 

South of Mason Neck Park on Occoquan Bay ~ 3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

South of Mason Neck Park on Occoquan Bay < 3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

South of Mason Neck Park on Occoquan Bay < 3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

1984 

South side of Chopawamsic Creek upstream of 

tracks 

~2.5 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, north 

side of creek 

~1.25 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

1993 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, north 

side of creek 

~ 1.3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, south 

side of creek 

~2.2 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

1988 

East of James River on the north side between 

Cornelius Creek and Coles Run (Henrico 

County) 

~1.3 miles Area 6: 

Richmond 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

Source: CEDAR-VDGIF, 2014. 

3.10.3.2 Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds are birds that fly long distances annually, often north-south, between breeding 

(summer) and wintering habitat, often driven by food. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

(MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, 

barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such 

a bird except under the terms of a valid permit. This includes disturbances to trees and structures 

used for nesting at the time they are occupied, or to cause a disturbance resulting in an adult 

abandoning its nest. The protection does not extend to preventing birds from building nests in 

structures. EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires federal 

agencies to take action to implement the MBTA. Such actions include evaluating and identifying 

the potential measureable negative effects a project may have on migratory bird populations. If 

any such effects could occur, the federal agency must consult with USFWS before the action and 

mitigate the effects. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-86 

Migratory species are generally funneled into specific routes by natural barriers, causing migration 

patterns called fly-ways. The Project is located along the landward edge of the Atlantic Flyway, 

which stretches from the northeastern side of Canada, Iceland, and the western side of Greenland, 

along the Atlantic Coast, and down to South America. Many migratory bird species pass through 

the study area; however, some reside in Virginia either seasonally or year round. Coastal Virginia 

is an important area for Neotropical birds that breed in North America and spend winter in the 

Caribbean, Mexico, and Central and South America (tanagers, warblers, hummingbirds, and 

vireos), as well as temperate migrants (American robin, kinglests, sparrows, finches), and the birds 

of prey or raptors that follow them (bald eagle, peregrine falcon, merlin, hawks, American kestrel). 

3.10.4 Aquatic and Marine Life 

3.10.4.1 Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) established a mandate for federal agencies to identify and protect 

important marine and anadromous fish habitat. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C. 1802 [10]). EFH regulations apply largely to marine 

fisheries but are also applicable to freshwater spawning waters for anadromous species. Any 

action funded, permitted, or carried out by federal agencies that may adversely impact EFH are 

required to consult with NOAA–National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and respond in 

writing to NMFS or regional fishery management councils. 

Fisheries. EFH waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and 

biological properties; substrates (natural and unnatural bottoms, structures, and biological 

communities); and necessary habitat required to support a sustainable fishery. No EFH waters 

are mapped by NOAA within the DC2RVA corridor (NOAA, 2015). 

According to the Virginia Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System (GEMS) and the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), no fisheries management areas or aquaculture sites 

are located in the study area, and it is an area of low occurrence for clams, mussels, and crabs. No 

private oyster ground leases are located in the study area. 

Trout. Coordination with VDGIF is required any time a Stocked Trout Water is documented 

within a project area. According to VDGIF mapping of trout waters, only one stocked trout water 

is located in the study area: Cook Lake in Cameron Run Regional Park (VDGIF, 2015b). 

Anadromous Fish. Anadromous Fish Use Areas are migration pathways, spawning grounds, 

or nursery areas identified by VDGIF as having been used or have the potential to be used by 

anadromous fish. Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Areas are those waters known to provide 

migratory and spawning habitats for anadromous fish. Coordination with VDGIF is required for 

projects in the vicinity of these waters. Table 3.10-6 provides a list of confirmed and potential 

Anadromous Fish Use Areas within the study area, which include the following species: 

 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)⎯Alewives are on the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan under 

Tier IV, “Moderate Conservation Need.” Their main food sources are plankton, insects, 

and crustaceans. Many are now landlocked in the Great Lakes region, and several 

landlocked waters in Virginia contain alewives. They have a strong physical resemblance 

to the blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis).
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-87 

Table 3.10-6: Confirmed and Potential Anadromous Fish Use Waters 

Water Upstream Boundary Confirmed Species 

Alternative 

Area 

Four Mile Run Approximately 1,600 feet upstream 

of Arlington Ridge Road 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Cameron Run CSXT railroad crossing in 

Alexandria 

Potential anadromous fish use waters Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Accotink Creek Road crossing 2,600 feet above 

Field Lark Branch 

Alewife, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Pohick Creek At confluence with unnamed 

tributary in Pohick Stream Valley 

Park between Pohick Road and 

Kings Point Court, 300 feet above 

powerline 

Alewife, Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Occoquan River Lower Occoquan Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Neabsco Creek Approximately 2,300 feet below 

Route 1 

Striped Bass Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Powells Creek Approximately 5,600 feet below 

Route 1 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Potomac River Great Falls Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Quantico Creek No upstream boundary listed Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Chopawamsic 

Creek 

Approximately 9,000 feet below 

Route 1 

Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Aquia Creek Aquia Creek Dam, confluence with 

Beaverdam Run 

American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Claiborne Run Raised culvert at Route 218 Potential anadromous fish use waters Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Rappahannock 

River 

Embrey Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Hazel Run Business U.S. Route 1/Route 208 Alewife, Blueback Herring Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Mattaponi River Route 301 American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

North Anna 

River 

Approximately 2.5 miles above 

Route 1 at ‘fall hole’ 

American Shad, Blueback Herring, Hickory Shad, 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Little River Route 685 crossing Yellow Perch Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

South Anna 

River 

Ashland Mill Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

James River Boshers Passage American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Falling Creek Falling Creek Reservoir Dam Potential anadromous fish use waters Area 6: 

Richmond 

Source: CEDAR-VDGIF, 2014. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-88 

 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)⎯American shad are listed on Virginia’s Wildlife Action 

Plan under Tier IV with “Moderate Conservation Need.” They are considered a ‘sport fish’ 

and support sport and commercial fisheries. American shad spawn in tidal freshwater, near 

the mouths of creeks. When not spawning, they appear in schools on the continental shelf. 

Their diet consists of plankton, microcrustaceans, insects, worms, and small fish. 

 Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis)⎯Blueback herring are not endangered or threatened 

or a species of concern in Virginia. They are native to Virginia. Their diet consists of 

plankton, copepods, pelagic shrimp, small fish, and insects. Blueback herring very rarely 

spawn above the tidewater. They have a wide tolerance for different salinity levels. 

 Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris)⎯Hickory shad are sport and commercial fish not listed as 

a species of concern in Virginia. Their diet is made up mostly of small fish. They live in 

marine waters close to land and in tidal rivers and tributaries during spawning. 

 Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)⎯The Chesapeake striped bass are sport and commercial 

fish not listed as a species of concern in Virginia; however, it is “beleaguered” or under 

stress. Their diet consists of fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. They depend heavily on 

water quality within their habitat. 

 Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)⎯Yellow perch are important sport and commercial fish 

that are not a species of concern in Virginia. Younger yellow perches eat insects and 

plankton, and the adults eat mainly fish and can even be cannibalistic. Other food sources 

include crustaceans, copepods, algae, amphipods, and chironomids. They usually live in 

still or slightly turbid lakes, reservoirs, and rivers that are large and cool. 

3.10.4.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) are widely regarded as keystone species and primary 

indicators of water quality conditions in the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. According to 

4 VAC 20‐337‐10 et seq. SAV Transplantation Guidelines, any removal of SAV from state bottom 

would require prior approval by VMRC (VMRC, 2000). 

SAV includes any of a diverse assemblage of underwater plants found in the shoal areas of 

Chesapeake Bay, Virginia coastal bays, and river tributaries, primarily eelgrass (Zostera marina)

and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), and including, but not limited to, redhead grass 

(Potamogeton perfoliatus), wild celery (Vallisneria americana), common elodea (Elodea canadensis), 

water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), water‐weed (Egeria densa), 

muskgrass (Najas minor), pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), and naiads (Najas sp.) (VMRC, 2000). 

VIMS has an online interactive mapper with downloadable GIS files that shows historic SAV beds 

in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries dating back to 1971. Vegetation can change from year 

to year due to environmental factors and annual fluctuations in nutrient levels and water clarity. 

For this Project, SAV documented within 500 feet of the existing rail in any year within the most 

recent 5 consecutive years (2011 to 2015) is considered an existing SAV habitat/bed. Existing SAV 

beds are shown in Figure 3.10-3. Areas that have not had populations mapped in the last 5 years, 

yet have had SAV mapped before 2011, were considered ‘historic beds.’ Historic beds are 

important because they are potential mitigation and restoration sites and have the potential of 

supporting SAV beds naturally in the future. According to SAV mapping provided by the VIMS 

SAV monitoring program, approximately 55.0 acres of existing (2011 to 2015) SAV beds and an 

additional 247.1 acres of historic (1971 to 2009) beds occur within the study area (Table 3.10-7). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-89 

Figure 3.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-90 

Table 3.10-7: Mapped Existing SAV Beds 

Water Body Boundaries 

Alternative 

Area Year(s) 

Acres Within 500 

Feet of Existing Rail 

Roaches Run Adjacent to the existing tracks Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 12.74 

Four Mile Run Downstream from existing 

tracks 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2015 —

Occoquan River From existing tracks continuing 

downstream 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 3.19 

Occoquan Bay Multiple locations along the 

western shore 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

7.52 

Neabsco Creek From 0.75 mile upstream of the 

existing track to Occoquan Bay 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

2.82 

Powells Creek From 1 mile upstream of the 

existing track to the Potomac 

River 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

12.73 

Potomac River Multiple locations along the 

western shore from Occoquan 

Bay continuing downstream 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

118.66 

Quantico Creek From 2.5 miles upstream of the 

existing track to the Potomac 

River 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

55.4 

Chopawamsic 

Creek 

From existing track to 2 miles 

upstream 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

10.58 

Aquia Creek Multiple locations from 3 miles 

upstream of existing track to 

the Potomac River 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

23.44 

Source: VIMS, 1979-2015. 

3.10.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

USFWS and NMFS are responsible for listing, protecting, and managing federally listed 

threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. 

VDCR and VDGIF are responsible for listing, protecting, and managing state-listed threatened 

and endangered species. An endangered species is defined as one that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or in a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Information regarding federally listed threatened and endangered species that may be impacted 

by the Project was obtained from USFWS via the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) 

system. The IPaC system is an online conservation planning tool used by USFWS to streamline 

the environmental review process associated with Section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 is the 

mechanism by which federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or 

authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any federally listed threatened, endangered, or 

candidate species. IPaC provides lists of federally protected species in defined study areas, as 

well as links to information about identified species. 

Seven federally listed threatened or endangered species are reported to occur or potentially occur 

within the study area based on habitat requirements and information gathered from USFWS, 

VDGIF, Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS), and/or VDCR. An additional 

five state-listed threatened or endangered species are listed as occurring in the vicinity of the 

study area. Four additional state endangered species were initially indicated as potentially 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-91 

occurring in the Project vicinity, but based on additional review of habitat in the study area, DRPT 

determined they were not present: Appalachian springsnail (Fontigens bottimeri), brook floater 

(Alasmidonta varicose), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and Virginia Piedmont water 

boatman (Sigara depressa). These species are further discussed in the Natural Resources Technical 

Report (Appendix M). Table 3.10-8 indicates which areas each of the 13 federally and state-listed 

species have the potential of occurring in based on this research and coordination with regulatory 

agencies. Brief, general descriptions of the species that may occur within the study area and their 

habitat requirements are provided following the table. No critical habitat is present within the 

study area. 

Table 3.10-8: Federally and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that May Occur 

within the Vicinity of the Study Area 

Species/Resource 

Name Status* 

Alternative Area 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Aera 2: Northern Virginia Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) FE – – Y Y Y – 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) FE – – – – – – 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) FE – – Y Y – – 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) FT – Y Y Y Y Y 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) FT/ST – Y – – – Y 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) FT/SE – – Y – – – 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) FT/SE – – – Y – – 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) ST Y 

Green Floater

(Lasmigona subviridis) ST – – Y – – – 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis) ST – – Y Y – – 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) ST – Y – – – Y 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) ST – Y – – – – 

Source: USFWS, 2015 and 2016. 

* FE=Federal Endangered; PFE=Proposed Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened 

Note: “Y” in cells above indicates the presence of the species in the specified alternative area. Blank cells indicate that no species location data 

were identified from referenced sources. 

References: (CEDAR-VDGIF; 12-2014 CCB – VaEagle Nest Locator; 12-2014 USFWS Bald Eagle Concentration Areas- Virginia; 11-2014 VDCRNHD Subwatershed Search; 2016 USFWS – Official Species List). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-92 

3.10.5.1 Federally Endangered Species 

Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is a small freshwater mussel, generally less than 2 

inches and yellowish brown in color. They require oxygen-rich, low silt, pollution-free rivers with 

slow to moderate flow. This species is sensitive to pollution. They prefer sand, firm muddy sand, 

and gravel bottoms found in shallow riffle and shoal areas. Channelization, removal of shoreline 

vegetation, development, and road and dam construction threaten some populations. 

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) is an annual herbaceous plant occurring in rocky/gravelly 

shoals or cracks in bedrock outcrops beneath the water surface in clear, swift-flowing streams; 

edges of intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows on the Coastal Plain; and 

granite outcrop seeps. It is always found on saturated substrates and tolerates moderate flooding. 

Broad clusters of small white flowers generally bloom in July and August (USFWS, 1991a). This 

species is listed as federally endangered in the United States, critically imperiled in Virginia, and 

globally imperiled. 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is a small bat with dark-brown to black fur and small mouse-like ears. 

In the winter, these bats hibernate in humid caves with cool, stable temperatures under 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F), but above freezing (USFWS, 2015). During summer, they prefer loose bark on 

dead or dying trees near streams in mature forests with 50 to 100 percent canopy cover. Shagbark 

hickory (Carya ovate) and large white oaks are known preferred tree species for roosting (VDGIF, 

2014b). The males roost alone in summer, while the females roost in groups of 100 bats or more. 

3.10.5.2 Federally Threatened Species 

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium-sized (3 to 3.7 inches) bat generally 

associated with old-growth forests composed of trees 100 years old or older. It relies on intact 

interior forest habitat, with low edge-to-interior ratios (NatureServe, 2014); however, it has been 

found within city limits. They are frequently found between the shrub layer and the canopy. 

Males and nonreproductive females tend to prefer caves, while reproductive females roost under 

tree bark in spring and summer (VDGIF, 2014b). This species prefers to hibernate in very high 

humidity caves with little or no air flow (USFWS, 2014). Potential bat habitat was noted in Carter 

Park in the Ashland area while conducting wetland delineations. 

Sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), an annual herbaceous plant in the pea family, 

generally grows 3 to 6 feet tall and produces yellow flowers streaked with red July through 

September and a fruit pod that turns dark brown when ripe (USFWS, 2014a). It is found in fresh 

to slightly brackish tidal river shores and estuarine-river marsh borders. It usually grows within 

2 meters of low water mark on raised banks, and in peaty, sandy, or gravelly substrates. Sensitive 

joint-vetch typically grows in the intertidal zone of coastal marshes where plants are flooded 

twice daily. The species seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of 

tidal fluctuation. It is usually found in areas where plant diversity is high (50 species per acre) 

and annual species predominate. Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a habitat 

feature of critical importance to this plant (USFWS, 2011). In Virginia, populations are found 

along the Potomac, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Rappahannock, Chickahominy, and James rivers and 

their tributaries. It is sensitive to pollution (USFWS, 2014a). This species is also listed as 

threatened in Virginia and imperiled globally. Potential habitat was noted in several locations in 

the Northern Virginia area while conducting wetland delineations, and the Brent Marsh 

Conservation Site north of and including part of Widewater State Park is noted for its association 

with sensitive joint-vetch.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-93 

Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a small (up to 12 inches tall) orchid, with five to six 

leaves in a whorl near the top of the stem, under greenish-yellow flowers that bloom from May, 

in the southern part of its range, to mid-June in the northern part of its range. It requires damp 

woods and is generally found on acidic, sloping, fragipan soils in ‘second growth’ or successional 

forest communities. This species can be found in deciduous and evergreen forests. Small whorled 

pogonia is listed as federally threatened, endangered in Virginia, and imperiled globally 

(NatureServe, 2014). The small whorled pogonia occurs on upland sites in mixed-deciduous or 

mixed deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third-growth successional 

stages. Characteristics common to small whorled pogonia sites include sparse to moderate 

groundcover in the species’ microhabitat, a relatively open understory canopy, and proximity to 

features that create long persisting breaks in the forest canopy. Soils at most sites are highly acidic 

and nutrient poor, with moderately high soil moisture values. Light availability could be a 

limiting factor for this species (USFWS, 1992). Potential habitat was noted in several locations in 

the Northern Virginia area and the Fredericksburg area while conducting wetland delineations.

Swamp-pink (Helonias bullata) is an obligate wetland species restricted to forested wetlands that 

are groundwater influenced and are perennially water-saturated with a low frequency of 

inundation. These habitats include emergent portions of hummocks in and along stream channels 

in Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) swamps, headwater seepage wetlands, red maple 

(Acer rubrum) swamps, mixed hardwood/evergreen swamps, and (rarely) black spruce-tamarack 

(Picea mariana-Larix laricina) bogs. The species appears to be somewhat shade tolerant and needs 

enough canopy to minimize competition with other more aggressive species and herbivory by 

deer. It is often found at stream sources. Swamp-pink is listed as federally threatened, endangered 

in Virginia, and vulnerable globally (NatureServe, 2014). The major threat to the species is loss 

and degradation of its wetland habitat due to encroaching development, sedimentation, 

pollution, succession, and wetland drainage. The species also exhibits extremely low seedling 

establishment, which appears to be a significant limitation to the colonization of new sites. Other 

threats include plant collection and trampling (USFWS, 1991b). 

3.10.5.3 State Threatened Species 

Barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa) is the United States’ largest native tree frog, ranging from 2 to 2.8 

inches in length. They can vary in color, including bright or dull green, brown, yellowish, or gray 

with dark round markings on its back. As indicated by its name, it is distinguishable by its loud 

barking call. This species is associated with Oak−Hickory−Pine forests, preferring sandy areas in 

pine savannas and low wet woods and swamps. It is state-listed as threatened due to the 

conversion of native pine habitat to monocultures of loblolly pine. It does not hold a federal 

designation and is ranked globally as “secure.” 

Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) is a species of freshwater mussel that is usually found in fastflowing, clean water in substrates that contain relatively firm rubble, gravel, and sand substrates 

swept free from siltation. The green floater is able to occupy very small creeks and streams, where 

other mussels are not generally found. This species is not federally listed; however, it is state 

threatened and globally ranked as “vulnerable.” 

New Jersey rush (Juncus caesariensis) is a perennial rush growing 2 to 3 feet tall in very acidic 

wetland habitats such as pine barrens and cedar swamps. The largest populations of New Jersey 

rush are found in the pine barrens of New Jersey; in Virginia, it can be found in sphagnous 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-94 

seepages along the coastal plain (NatureServe, 2014). New Jersey rush is not federally listed; 

however, it is state threatened and globally ranked as “imperiled.” 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is not federally listed and is ranked globally as “apparently 

secure;” however, they are listed on Tier I of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan for “Critical 

Conservation Need.” They generally nest on rocky cliffs near river gorges; however, they can also 

be found on manmade structures such as bridges/underpasses, bridge piers, utility poles, and 

skyscrapers. Reintroduction efforts have succeeded in establishing breeding at several coastal 

sites, and now efforts are focused on reintroducing breeding populations to mountains in 

Virginia. It is believed to breed between late May and early August (VDGIF, 2014b). Peregrine 

falcons generally mate for life and return to the same nest year after year. 

Peregrine falcons lay three to four eggs in March or April, and the eggs incubate for 33 days. They 

nest on rocky cliffs near river gorges and will occasionally nest in trees. Their usual prey is 

pigeons and small birds such as blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), flickers, and meadowlarks 

(Sturnella). Coastal and aquatic areas are their main habitats. They winter in coastal estuaries or 

intertidal mudflats along the Pacific coast, Gulf coast, and southern Florida. 

Wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) is a primarily terrestrial species during the warm part of the 

year, making it easily accessible and a collection concern. This species has been seriously 

impacted by illegal collection (NatureServe, 2014). It is generally found in woodland habitat near 

clean ponds, streams, and bogs; it is intolerant of water pollution. Although they are highly 

terrestrial, they must remain near a water source, as they can easily dry out (VDGIF, 2014b). Wood 

turtles are approximately 5.5 to 8 inches long and have a distinct ringed pyramidal pattern on its 

upper shell. This species is ranked globally as vulnerable (NatureServe, 2014). 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed under Tier II of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan for 

“Very High Conservation Need.” The Bald eagle is no longer listed as threatened, but this 

discussion was left in this section since it is still protected under some laws. The James, 

Rappahannock, and Potomac rivers are where they are most commonly found in Virginia. Bald 

eagles build their nests in tall hardwood trees with open canopies near water bodies where they 

forage. They prefer undeveloped areas with little human activity. In Virginia, eggs are laid from 

January to March and incubated for 34 to 38 days. Bald eagles prey primarily on fish, but they 

may also eat carrion, waterfowl, rabbits, and some turtles. Their eggs are preyed on by bobcats, 

owls, and raccoons. Twenty-five (25) known bald eagle nest locations are near the DC2RVA 

corridor. 

3.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

Data and information on demographics, community facilities, emergency services, community 

characteristics, employment, income, and the local economy provide a baseline for analysis of 

potential effects. These were compiled from aerial photos, local comprehensive and land use 

plans, the United States Census website (including the American Community Survey [ACS]), GIS 

databases, city/county tax parcel databases, conceptual drawings/engineering, and field 

inspections. 

3.11.1 Population Characteristics 

Data products from the United States Census Bureau were used for demographic information, 

primarily the 2009-2013 ACS. The study area traverses parts of 150 census tracts in Arlington 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-95 

County (2), the City of Alexandria (10), Fairfax County (13), Prince William County (11), Stafford 

County (10), the City of Fredericksburg (3), Spotsylvania County (4), Caroline County (6), Hanover 

County (12), Henrico County (17), the City of Richmond (51), and Chesterfield County (11). One 

tract contains no population data due to its location at Reagan National Airport. The demographic 

data of census tracts in the study area were examined to determine the presence of any potential 

Title VI populations, environmental justice populations, and any persons with Limited English 

Proficiency (LEP). The census data for each census tract were compared to the census data for the 

city/county of that particular tract. The population of minorities, persons with low income, or 

persons with LEP within a particular census tract is identified as having a potential environmental 

justice population if it is greater than the value in its city/county. If a particular census tract has a 

percentage of the population of any of these groups above 50 percent, this has also been identified. 

The total population in most of these jurisdictions has been increasing steadily for many years 

(Table 3.11-1). The City of Richmond is the only jurisdiction that has not experienced population 

growth in excess of 20 percent since 1990. Fairfax County is the most populous jurisdiction in the 

Commonwealth, and the jurisdictions in the study area, in total, represented more than 39 percent 

of the Commonwealth’s population in 2015. The jurisdictions’ populations are projected to 

experience a wide range of change, from a loss in Arlington County, to increases of more than 

100 percent in Spotsylvania and Stafford counties (Table 3.11-2). Overall, the jurisdictions are 

projected to grow in population by more than 36 percent. 

3.11.2 Employment and Income 

Economic data, including employment, income, the industrial base, and the location of existing 

rail station locations, provide a baseline for analysis of potential impacts; these were compiled 

from local, regional, and national economic studies and databases, the Virginia Employment 

Commission (VEC), and preliminary design drawings. In particular, station locations and the 

potential economic effects to localities in the study area have been assessed. 

3.11.2.1 Economic Base/Employment Patterns 

The jurisdictions in the study area are all part of either the Washington−Arlington−Alexandria 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or the Richmond MSA. Both MSAs are large regional 

employment centers. The Washington−Arlington−Alexandria MSA has an economy based 

primarily on the location of the nation’s capital. The top 10 employers in late 2014 included federal 

agencies, individual jurisdictions and their respective school systems, and health care systems 

(VEC, 2015). The Richmond MSA has an economy based on the location of the state capital. The 

top 10 employers in late 2014 included Virginia Commonwealth University, federal agencies, 

health care agencies/systems, and individual jurisdictions (VEC, 2015). 

Total employment, as reported by VEC, in Table 3.11-3, is the number of employees working within 

a particular local jurisdiction. This number varies widely within the study area. The Total Workers, 

as reported by the United States Census, is the number of people living in a particular local 

jurisdiction that are working. The workers do not necessarily work within their local jurisdiction of 

residence. The difference between the two numbers, employment, and workers is the workers incommuting and out-commuting. Localities with more employment than workers (e.g., Arlington 

and Henrico counties, the city of Richmond) have a net gain of employees traveling to work within 

their limits. The unemployment rate in the jurisdictions in the study corridor ranges from a low of 

2.7 percent in Arlington County to a high of 5.1 percent in the city of Fredericksburg. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-96 

Table 3.11-1: Total Population Over Time 

City/County 1990 2000 2010 2015 

Percent Change 

1990-2015 

Arlington County 170,936 189,453 207,627 234,678 37.29%

City of Alexandria 111,183 128,283 139,966 159,571 43.52%

Fairfax County 818,584 969,749 1,081,699 1,129,330 37.96%

Prince William County 215,686 280,813 402,002 443,463 105.61%

Stafford County 61,236 92,446 128,961 140,176 128.91%

City of Fredericksburg 19,027 19,279 24,286 26,969 41.74%

Spotsylvania County 57,403 90,395 122,397 128,998 124.72%

Caroline County 19,217 22,121 28,545 29,792 55.03%

Hanover County 63,306 86,320 99,863 104,013 64.30%

Henrico County 217,881 262,300 306,935 320,717 47.20%

City of Richmond 203,056 197,790 204,214 217,938 7.33%

Chesterfield County 209,274 259,903 316,236 333,450 59.34%

Study Area Total 2,166,789 2,598,852 3,062,731 3,269,095 50.87%

Sources: United States Census Bureau: 1990, STF1; 2000, SF3; 2010, SF1; 2015, Weldon Cooper, 2016. 

Table 3.11-2: Projected Population Over Time 

City/County 2015 2020 2030 2040 

Percent Change 

2015-2040 

Arlington County 234,678 206,896 201,699 197,065 -16.03% 

City of Alexandria 159,571 145,116 147,706 149,195 -6.50% 

Fairfax County 1,129,330 1,182,609 1,271,995 1,350,245 19.56% 

Prince William County 443,463 487,768 573,535 659,301 48.67% 

Stafford County 140,176 178,152 244,410 333,654 138.03% 

City of Fredericksburg 26,969 26,647 28,383 29,917 10.93% 

Spotsylvania County 128,998 166,236 223,917 299,632 132.28% 

Caroline County 29,792 31,400 33,447 35,259 18.35% 

Hanover County 104,013 118,135 139,000 162,475 56.21% 

Henrico County 320,717 352,577 400,396 450,630 40.51% 

City of Richmond 217,938 206,674 208,665 210,368 -3.47% 

Chesterfield County 333,450 388,894 473,842 572,693 71.75% 

Study Area Total 3,269,095 3,491,104 3,946,995 4,450,434 36.14% 

Sources: 2015, Weldon Cooper, 2016; 2020-2040, Weldon Cooper, 2012. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-97 

Table 3.11-3: Employment Patterns 

City/County Total Employment 2Q, 2015 Unemployment Rate January 2016 

Arlington County 169,387 2.7% 

City of Alexandria 96,300 3.2% 

Fairfax County 587,782 3.4% 

Prince William County 122,810 3.9% 

Stafford County 41,358 4.2% 

City of Fredericksburg 23,456 5.1% 

Spotsylvania County 34,221 4.5% 

Caroline County 5,585 4.9% 

Hanover County 50,265 3.7% 

Henrico County 184,823 4.0% 

City of Richmond 149,147 4.9% 

Chesterfield County 129,117 4.1% 

Sources: Community Profiles, VEC, March 2016. 

3.11.3 Land Use 

The existing and projected future land use and land cover data in the study area are based on 

available planning documents from local jurisdictions and regional entities, GIS mapping from 

the jurisdictions, aerial photography, and any additional information received from local and 

regional officials. 

3.11.3.1 Existing Land Use 

The land uses (built environment) and land covers (natural environment) surrounding the 

DC2RVA corridor are typical of a densely developed urban and suburban setting. The population 

and employment growth of the two metropolitan regions, greater Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, has directly influenced the land use/land cover and development of the local 

jurisdictions along the Project corridor. The counties and cities traversed by the DC2RVA corridor 

include a wide variety of land uses/land covers: residential, commercial, industrial, 

recreation/open space, and public uses (Table 3.11-4). The highest proportion of land use within 

500 feet of the DC2RVA rail line is agricultural; however, within and adjacent to the Project 

corridor, office, retail, and industrial development are more prevalent within the urban areas and 

at the interchanges with I-95. Even though some areas of each jurisdiction are densely developed, 

each has been able to maintain parks/open space, preservation/ environmental resources, 

and/or recreational areas. More detailed discussions of land use and the status of local planning 

for each jurisdiction are in the next section. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-98 

Table 3.11-4: Land Use Acreage (Percent) 

City/County Agricultural 

Commercial/ Office Industrial Institutional Transportation Preserved Open Space Residential Vacant 

Arlington County 

0 68.8 

24.6% 

3.36 

1.2% 

0 38.0 

13.6% 

95.4 

34.0 

29.6 

10.6% 

44.8 

16.0% 

City of Alexandria 

0 122.1 

19.4% 

105.8 

16.8% 

67.2 

10.6% 

101.2 

16.0% 

63.2 

10.0% 

95.8 

15.2% 

75.8 

12.0% 

Fairfax County 

0 159.9 

13.4% 

603.52 

50.5% 

13.7 

1.1% 

0 43.1 

3.6% 

134.6 

11.3% 

237.6 

19.9% 

Prince William County 

23.1 

1.52% 

319.6 

21.1% 

126.9 

8.4% 

220.1 

14.5% 

0 682.1 

45.1% 

131.1 

8.7% 

0 

Stafford County 

1,468.9 

45.7% 

240.2 

7.5% 

56.38 

1.8% 

170.3 

5.3% 

0 540.8 

16.8% 

735.8 

22.9% 

0 

City of Fredericksburg 

0 21.0 

11.8% 

89.0 

50.2% 

27.8 

15.7% 

0 0 39.6 

22.3% 

0 

Spotsylvania County 

695.3 

64.0% 

185.6 

17.1% 

0 9.4 

0.87% 

0 177.9 

16.4% 

18.3 

1.7% 

0 

Caroline County 

2,321.2 

74.4% 

128.2 

4.1% 

220.0 

7.1% 

42.0 

1.4% 

0 0.8 

0.03% 

407.2 

13.1% 

0 

Hanover County 

1,448.5 

65.9% 

17.9 

0.81% 

392.9 

17.9% 

42.6 

1.9% 

0 0 252.8 

11.5% 

0.2 

0.01% 

Henrico County 

0 180.8 

12.9% 

635.3 

45.3% 

6.35 

0.45% 

0 29.3 

2.1% 

256.0 

18.2% 

295.9 

21.1% 

City of Richmond 

0 231.6 

10.2% 

886.7 

39.1% 

45.2 

2.0% 

0 55.8 

2.5% 

499.6 

22.0% 

550.9 

24.3% 

Chesterfield County 

0 48.9 

3.6% 

645.8 

47.5% 

0 0 4.1 

0.30% 

659.3 

48.5% 

0.9 

0.06% 

Total 

5957.0 

32.3% 

1,724.6 

9.4% 

3,765.6 

20.4% 

644.5 

3.5% 

38.1 

0.21% 

1,692.5 

9.2% 

3,259.7 

17.7% 

1,205.9 

6.5% 

Source: City and County Land Use GIS databases. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-99 

3.11.3.2 Status of Local and Regional Planning/Development Trends 

The expected future land use and planned growth and development as presented by local 

jurisdictions and regional planning organizations are discussed below. This information has been 

compiled by a review of existing planning documents, comprehensive plans, and future land use 

maps. Transportation visions and policies, particularly as they relate to rail, are also detailed. 

Local Planning Jurisdictions 

Arlington County. Existing land use in Arlington County is primarily residential As stated in 

the most recent comprehensive plan review, one of the goals is to continue with the residential 

character of county (Arlington County, 2011). Arlington is intensely developed, and the primary 

land uses, other than residential, are commercial/office and institutional (e.g., Arlington National 

Cemetery, the Pentagon, Reagan National Airport). 

Arlington County expects that land use and transportation changes and policies will continue to 

mesh as the county focuses on “development around Metrorail stations and corridors with 

extensive transit service” and “expanding the availability of transportation options, serving more 

travelers as the region continues to grow and further improving transportation facilities to 

promote connectivity throughout the County and the region” (Arlington County, 2007). 

Although there is no mention of intercity passenger rail in the Arlington Master Transportation 

Plan or the Summary Report on Amendments to Arlington County’s Comprehensive Plan: A Five - Year 

Review July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2015 (with updates from July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016), the County does 

wish to “integrate local transportation facilities and transit services with those of neighboring 

jurisdictions to enhance regional connections” (Arlington County, 2007). There is already a 

Virginia Railway Express (VRE) station in Arlington County in Crystal City. 

City of Alexandria. The city of Alexandria is similar to the other urban areas along the Project 

corridor; it is intensely developed, and the land use is primarily residential and commercial/ 

office. The city is divided into different areas for planning purposes, with Master Plans in place 

for the individual areas. 

Due to its urban nature, the City is focused more on priorities and needs for transit, bicycle, and 

pedestrian modes. The city has an existing VRE station co-located with the King Street Metro 

Station and Amtrak’s Alexandria Union Station. Intercity passenger rail is not specifically 

mentioned in the Alexandria City Council’s Strategic Plan or the City of Alexandria Comprehensive 

Transportation Master Plan; however, the City’s transportation vision is of a “system that 

encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation, reducing dependence on the private 

automobile” (City of Alexandria, 2008). The City also wishes to provide transit service levels that 

”connect with existing local and regional services including WMATA [Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority] Metrorail, commuter rail, other rail-based transit services, and major 

highway portals” (City of Alexandria, 2008). 

Fairfax County. The most predominant land use in Fairfax County is residential (Fairfax 

County, 2014). Existing land use in the Project corridor is residential, institutional (Ft. Belvoir), 

and commercial (office and retail). The Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan notes that the County 

“should have a land use pattern which increases transportation efficiency, encourages transit use, 

and decreases automobile dependency” (Fairfax County, 2014). The County also wishes to 

“concentrate most future development in mixed-use Centers and Transit Station Areas” and 

“concentrate the highest level of development intensity in areas of transportation advantage (i.e., 

the Tysons Corner Urban Center, cores of Suburban Centers, and Transit Station Areas)” (Fairfax 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-100 

County, 2014). One of these areas is the existing VRE and Amtrak Auto Station co-located in 

Lorton. The Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan also notes that due to rapid growth over the past 

decades, the amount of available vacant land is diminishing, and redevelopment in the identified 

areas (mixed-use centers, transit station areas, suburban centers) will be more prevalent in the 

future. Some of these areas are along the I-95 and CSXT corridors, and development could 

intensify in these areas in the future. 

In regard to transportation, the County supports “a multi-modal transportation system that 

provides transportation choices, reduces single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) use, and improves air 

quality” (Fairfax County, 2014). The plan also notes that “regional and local efforts to achieve a 

balanced transportation system through the development of rapid rail, commuter rail, expanded 

bus service, and the reduction of excessive reliance upon the automobile should be the keystone 

policy for future planning and facilities” (Fairfax County, 2014). The plan’s objectives also link 

transportation and land use to present and future economic development within the County. 

Prince William County. The county is broken up into two general land use areas: the 

“Development Area,” where development has already happened or is expected to occur at 

residential densities greater than the rest of the county; and the “Rural Area,” which contains 

agricultural, open space, forestry, large-lot residential uses, and federal and state parks. The 

current Prince William County Comprehensive Plan (2012) encourages infill development of the 

Development Area instead of more intense development occurring within the Rural Area. The 

land use along the Project corridor ranges from intensely developed residential, commercial, and 

industrial to open space/parks and recreation. 

The County acknowledges that growth will continue to occur, but it is positioning itself to include 

county-specific “Smart Growth” strategies to channel and shape growth into designated growth 

areas within the Development Area. The County will “direct new development to areas served 

by transit corridors; particularly designated centers of commerce, centers of community, and 

Mass Transit Nodes” (Prince William County, 2012). The County also proposes “centers of 

commerce at appropriate locations that promote high-density, mixed-use development near 

existing and planned multi-modal transit centers” (Prince William County, 2012). The County 

has focused specific plans on several sectors (i.e., geographic areas), including several along I-95 

and U.S. 1 and the Project corridor, including the Government Center, the Parkway Employment 

Center, and the Potomac Communities. 

The concept for the Government Center is to concentrate a town center, with more dense 

commerce and employment opportunities south of Prince William Parkway, west of I-95 (several 

miles west of the Project corridor) and north of Dale City, and a County Center north of Prince 

William Parkway, and to include access to mass transit options. The Parkway Employment Center 

is north of Potomac Mills Mall and west of I-95 and is currently wooded, but it is intended to 

provide a transition between the intensely developed Potomac Mill area and residential areas to 

the north and west, while providing significant employment opportunities in the area. The 

Potomac Communities surround the Project corridor, and the sector plan is a refocusing on the 

comprehensive planning surrounding U.S. 1 and its relationship to the surrounding communities. 

The sector plan discusses the existing VRE stations: Quantico (also an Amtrak station), Rippon, 

and Woodbridge (also an Amtrak station). The Potomac Shores Station is under construction in 

Cherry Hill, with a planned opening in 2017. The sector plan has several action strategies that 

encourage “expanding existing mass transit services in Potomac Communities” (Prince William 

County, 2012). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-101 

Stafford County. The most predominant land use in Stafford County is residential (including 

three different densities of use), followed by vacant land and then military uses (institutional) 

(Stafford County, 2014). Existing land use along the Project corridor includes parks and 

recreation, residential of various densities, vacant land, and agriculture and forestry. Future land 

uses in the Project corridor have been identified as suburban, agricultural/rural, and 

business/industry (Stafford County, 2014). 

The Project corridor passes through two areas that have been designated as Urban Development 

Areas⎯Leeland Town Station and Brook Station⎯both of which have existing VRE rail stations. 

The Stafford County Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030 includes a sustainability goal to “direct 

growth into the Urban Services Area,” like the Leeland Town Station and Brook Station areas and 

to “promote infill development” and to “discourage growth in the Rural areas outside the Urban 

Services Area” (Stafford County, 2014). The plan also states that “[t]he majority of future 

residential and commercial development is being recommended along the I-95 and U.S. Route 1 

corridors” and that the Urban Development Areas are “located in the vicinity of primary road 

networks, transportation hubs, and along the rail corridor to maximize the use of public 

transportation” (Stafford County, 2014). 

The comprehensive plan specifically discusses commuter rail due to its current existence in the 

county. The plan supports commuter rail and expansions to it “including: mid-day and reverse 

commuters, geographic extension of rail service, weekends, late evening connections to other transit 

programs, and additional rush hour trains” (Stafford County, 2014). The comprehensive plan also 

includes a transportation objective to “provide and maintain a multi-modal public transit system” 

including “where practical, transit systems should provide access from residential areas to 

commuter rail stations” (Stafford County, 2014). Even though intercity passenger rail is not 

specifically included in the transportation goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, it 

would be supported by the modal system currently in place in the county and planned for within 

the county. 

City of Fredericksburg. The predominant land use within the city of Fredericksburg is 

residential use. Within the Project corridor, land uses include industrial, residential, open space, 

commercial/business, and mixed-use. For planning purposes, Fredericksburg is divided into 

planning areas, with different goals and objectives to achieve an overall vision for the entire city. 

Even within the relatively limited area of the city limits, a wide variety of land uses exist, 

including residential, institutional (the city fairgrounds, water treatment plant, and City-owned 

riparian lands for water protection), as well as industrial use (Battlefield Industrial Park), 

agricultural use (Braehead Farm), and the intensely developed Downtown district of the city (City 

of Fredericksburg, 2014, 2007). 

Fredericksburg Station, which is served by VRE and Amtrak, served as VRE’s southern terminus 

until Spotsylvania Station opened in November 2015. The City plans to “work with VRE and 

FRED (Fredericksburg Regional Transit) to establish the railway station areas as a multi-modal 

center” (City of Fredericksburg, 2007). 

The transportation analysis for the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan discusses “how to 

accommodate a high speed intercity rail service” and improvements that would be needed, such 

as “high-speed crossovers, improved signaling, and strategically located sections of a third track” 

(City of Fredericksburg, 2007). The intercity passenger rail corridor is mentioned in the 2014 draft 

comprehensive plan, which notes that “The DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Petersburg is very crowded and proposed improvements consist of a third track, within the 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-102 

existing rail corridor” (City of Fredericksburg, 2014). The plan also has an over-arching 

transportation goal to “encourage the use of alternative modes of travel, to enhance mobility and 

accessibility, and to minimize automobile congestion” (City of Fredericksburg, 2014). 

Spotsylvania County. Most of the land use in Spotsylvania County is rural residential and 

agricultural/forestal. Within the Project corridor, the existing/future land uses include rural 

residential, agricultural/forestal, employment center, mixed land use, and open space 

(Spotsylvania County, 2013). 

The County has identified a primary development area that can be adjusted, where public water 

and sewer will be provided and, therefore, where additional development is provided 

(Spotsylvania County, 2013). The land use objectives to meet the goal of providing for this 

development include to plan for the orderly development of the county; to accommodate projected 

residential growth in a manner that is fiscally responsible; and to ensure land use policies 

recognize and accommodate anticipated population increases (Spotsylvania County, 2013). 

There is no mention of the DC2RVA corridor within the Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan, 

but I-95 and the CSXT rail line are both identified as part of a Virginia Corridor of Statewide 

Significance. 

Caroline County. Most land use in Caroline County is classified as rural in the Caroline County 

Comprehensive Plan 2030 (Caroline County, 2010). This includes agricultural and rural 

preservation. Along the Project corridor, the land use is classified as planned development, 

agricultural preservation, and floodplains. More detailed land use has been identified within 

Carmel Church, including planned mixed use, heavy industrial, and office/industrial. The 

comprehensive plan also identifies a plan for an Amtrak station within Carmel Church. 

In regard to future land use and transportation, the County wishes to “promote alternatives to 

improve travel to and from the county” and “combine the advantages of rail, geographic location, 

land availability, and road access to create a transit oriented development” in Carmel Church. As 

a jurisdiction on the outer edges of the metropolitan DC region with significant open space/rural 

residential land uses, the County acknowledges that “The costs to the County of not managing 

growth will be extremely high, thus, future development should locate in those areas of the 

county in which public services and facilities are planned and can most efficiently and 

economically be provided” (Caroline County, 2010). Nevertheless, the comprehensive plan also 

identifies goals and strategies to “identify and preserve high quality sites for industrial and 

commercial use” and that “prime industrial sites should be preserved and encouraged to develop 

in planned industrial parks” (Caroline County, 2010). There is land use classified as industrial 

within the Project corridor. 

The comprehensive plan has several transportation goals regarding high speed rail and passenger 

rail. The County needs to “monitor and participate in the high speed rail study of the I-95 corridor 

between Washington, D.C., and Raleigh, NC, as well as the D.C. to Richmond Rail Study” and to 

“identify and preserve sites for future commuter/high speed rail stations within the County” 

(Caroline County, 2010). The comprehensive plan also notes that high speed passenger service 

would provide “options not presently available and should be monitored for potential impacts 

to the County” (Caroline County, 2010). 

Hanover County. Land use in Hanover County is primarily agricultural with more intense land 

uses such as industrial, commercial, business-industrial, and suburban residential on the border 

with Henrico County and along I-95. Land use within the Project corridor is predominantly 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-103 

industrial, business-industrial, commercial, and planned business. Comprehensive Plan Hanover 

County 2012-2032 states that the land use strategy is to exemplify “orderly growth and 

development of both residential and non-residential uses to accommodate existing and future 

residents while encouraging and promoting commerce” (Hanover County, 2012). The County 

also wishes to “maximize the use of existing infrastructure, facilities, and services, to ensure 

economically and financially responsible service delivery” (Hanover County, 2012). 

The comprehensive plan does not specifically mention intercity passenger rail service, but it does 

wish to “take into consideration the existing and planned development of its regional neighbors 

in formulating land use and transportation policies” (Hanover County, 2012). The County has a 

transportation goal to have “convenient and accessible multimodal networks that allow the 

movement of people and goods efficiently” (Hanover County, 2012). The current multi-modal 

network includes an Amtrak station at Ashland. 

Town of Ashland. The Town of Ashland is undergoing a comprehensive planning update. The 

existing Town of Ashland Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2011. The town plan is based around 

guiding principles that represent the basic beliefs of the town residents, encouraging the continued 

small town character and unique features, while acknowledging that change and/or growth will 

happen. The plan states that land use is “a balancing act: encouraging new development while 

diminishing impacts on existing areas” (Town of Ashland, 2011). The plan also acknowledges 

that an “efficient transportation system enhances the livability of the whole community” and that 

“promoting safe and efficient travel by all modes of transportation” is important. The town 

identity is based on many aspects, including “our transportation links to the wider region and 

the nation: the train, Interstate 95, and Route 1 all run right through town” (Town of Ashland, 

2011). One of the Town fundamentals is to “manage our transportation network to minimize 

congestion, and make every effort to ensure that our community continues to be walkable, 

bicycle-friendly, and accessible to passenger rail.” The presence of this rail service “contributes 

to the unique character of the Town, enhances the local economy, and provides a service to the 

citizens of the Town and Hanover County” and the tracks and station’s location in the center of 

town is one of the town’s “unique features” that must be safeguarded and supported (Town of 

Ashland, 2011). The plan specifically states that the Town “supports the Southeast High Speed 

Rail Corridor initiatives” and “shall work with federal, state, and regional partners to ensure the 

success and development of this initiative” (Town of Ashland, 2011). 

Randolph-Macon College, a private undergraduate institution, is located within the town of 

Ashland and is currently bisected by the existing railroad tracks. The college’s master plan, 

identified within the Town’s 2011 Plan, has identified areas on both sides of and adjacent to the 

existing rail line for new/realigned baseball and football fields, dormitories, and other facilities. 

Other areas slated for improvement are on Henry Street, approximately 600 feet east of the 

existing tracks. The College’s website encourages visitors to use the Ashland Amtrak station 

across Railroad Avenue from the College’s quad. 

Henrico County. Henrico County has a wide range of land uses within its boundaries. 

Development intensifies closer to the city of Richmond. The greatest amount of land use acreage in 

the county is vacant, followed by residential uses. In the Project corridor, the most acres of land 

are dedicated to industrial uses, followed by residential and vacant land. The future land use is 

projected to stay the same, with vacant lands replaced with residential uses at various densities 

(Henrico County, 2009). One of the overall land use goals for the County is to respect “the unique 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-104 

environment, landscape, and character in the currently rural portions of the county” while 

balancing a “mixture of residential and non-residential uses” (Henrico County, 2009). 

Staples Mill Rail Station is an existing Amtrak station located in Henrico County. The Henrico 

County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan does has a transportation objective to “participate in 

regional efforts to monitor and evaluate the potential demand for passenger train service” 

(Henrico County, 2009). 

City of Richmond. The city of Richmond is densely developed and, as stated in the 

comprehensive plan, “is essentially built-out with very limited vacant and developable land” 

(City of Richmond, 2000). Along the Project corridor, the land uses in the city are primarily 

industrial and commercial, with some residential uses occurring in limited locations. Land use 

goals as identified in Master Plan Richmond include accommodating “the continuation of most 

land uses and patterns in Richmond as they currently exist.” The only expected future changes 

in land use are “redevelopment and infill−as appropriate” (City of Richmond, 2000). 

One of four main transportation goals identified in the comprehensive plan is “[t]he City will 

have access to national and international markets and metropolitan areas through a 

comprehensive system of efficient and modern transportation.” The plan also states that “[b]oth 

passenger and freight rail operate in the City and they are predicted to play a more significant 

role in the movement of people both regionally and nationally” (City of Richmond, 2000). The 

existing Amtrak rail line, with a stop at Main Street Station, is recognized as the high speed rail 

route in the City’s comprehensive plan. One of the specific transportation policies/strategies 

identified in the plan is to “promote the development of high-speed passenger rail service 

connecting Richmond to other areas in Virginia and along the East Coast.” 

Chesterfield County. Chesterfield County lies between two urban areas, Richmond and 

Petersburg. The areas of the county near these cities are therefore more intensely developed. The 

land use in the county is primarily residential, with dense commercial development along major 

roadways; however, according to Moving Forward: The Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield County, 

44 percent of the acreage in the county is vacant (Chesterfield County, 2012). Existing land use 

along the Project corridor is predominantly residential, commercial, and industrial. 

The County has planned for rail improvements, and the comprehensive plan specifically 

mentions the high speed rail corridor under study in several sections of its comprehensive plan, 

most particularly as it relates to the existing Amtrak station at Ettrick. More specifically, the plan 

has, as a goal, to “[p]romote the economic development advantages of conventional and high 

speed rail through the county and develop specific strategies to take advantage of rail services 

for economic development promotion” (Chesterfield County, 2012). The plan also recognizes the 

link between the County’s economy and transportation options in the goal to “[e]ncourage a 

range of multimodal transportation options that link businesses to their labor force, customers, 

and adjacent communities” (Chesterfield County, 2012). 

Regional Planning Agencies 

Comprehensive planning and strategy is also carried out at the regional level. The Project corridor 

includes three planning regions⎯the Washington, D.C. Metro area, the Fredericksburg area, and 

the Richmond region. These carry out planning at the regional level and, in some cases, aid the 

individual jurisdictions with comprehensive planning. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-105 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. The Metropolitan Washington Council 

of Governments (MWCOG) is a regional planning entity that encompasses local jurisdictions in 

Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. As part of the transportation planning process 

for the region, MWCOG identifies Regional Activity Centers. These centers range across the entire 

region. Along or adjacent to the Project corridor are 13 such areas: the Pentagon, Pentagon City, 

Crystal City, Potomac Yard, Braddock Road Metro Area, King Street/Old Town, 

Carlyle/Eisenhower East, Huntington/Penn Daw, Landmark/Van Dorn, Springfield, Fort 

Belvoir North Area, North Woodbridge, and Potomac Shores. The region wishes to pursue 

“transportation projects that aim to better connect Regional Activity Centers” (MWCOG, 2014). 

In addition, one of the regional goals is to “support inter-regional and international travel and 

commerce” (MWCOG, 2014). 

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Fredericksburg Area 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) is the regional transportation planning entity for 

Fredericksburg and the urbanized areas of Spotsylvania and Stafford counties. The 2040 Long 

Range Transportation Plan specifically mentions high speed rail from Washington to Richmond and 

from Richmond to Raleigh and discusses the Project process, including the current environmental 

studies (FAMPO, 2013). The plan also notes that it “is logical that the Fredericksburg station could 

be a stop along this proposed high speed corridor” (FAMPO, 2013). The FAMPO Policy 

Committee voted in July 2016 to oppose an eastern rail bypass of the city of Fredericksburg. 

Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Richmond Area Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (RAMPO) is the regional transportation planning entity for the Richmond 

metropolitan region. Plan2035, the most recent long-range transportation plan for the RAMPO, 

specifically mentions high speed rail from Washington to Richmond and from Richmond to 

Raleigh as currently under development (RAMPO, 2012). The plan discusses in detail the national 

and state rail plans and the role of this Project in those plans. 

3.11.4 Neighborhoods and Communities 

Communities vary from those in older, well-established cities and towns to high-growth 

suburban areas in the counties surrounding the Washington, D.C. and Richmond metropolitan 

areas. The existing CSXT rail line has been part of the counties, cities, and individual communities 

since the early 1800s, and it has been a stimulus to community growth and development. The 

RF&P Railroad Company was chartered in 1834 and included most of the existing CSXT corridor 

between Richmond and Washington, D.C. The communities have grown and developed around 

these rail lines. 

3.11.4.1 Communities along the DC2RVA Corridor 

Crystal City is the primary community adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor in Arlington County. It 

is a retail and residential community based partially on its excellent access to the transportation 

network, including the rail modes in the vicinity (Metro and VRE) and to the roadway network. 

In the city of Alexandria, several communities line the DC2RVA corridor, including Braddock, 

Rosemont, and Old Town Alexandria. The DC2RVA corridor turns to the west and travels 

through more commercial and industrial development before crossing into Fairfax County. 

In Fairfax County, the area surrounding the DC2RVA corridor is primarily residential 

communities, including Mount Hebron Park, Monticello Woods, Maple Grove Estates, Franconia, 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-106 

Springfield Forest, Windsor Estates, Beverly Forest, Pohick Estates, Lorton, Harbor View, and 

Colchester. For most of these communities, the study area is either along an outer edge of 

residential development or part of commercial development within the community. In the case 

of Harbor View and Colchester, primary access is via Furnace Road. Furnace Road crosses under 

the DC2RVA corridor using a one-lane tunnel. 

In Prince William County, the DC2RVA corridor is along the edge of residential neighborhoods, 

as well as within Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ). Communities along the DC2RVA 

corridor include Belmont Bay, Marumsco Acres, Potomac View, Marumsco Woods, Featherstone 

Shores, Dawson Landing, Riverside Station, and Potomac Shores. Within MCBQ, the DC2RVA 

corridor is in forested areas, and the central base itself is at the mouth of Chopawamsic Creek. 

This creek is also the county line between Prince William and Stafford counties. 

In Stafford County, primarily forested areas are along the DC2RVA corridor in the northern part 

of the county. Once south of Aquia Creek, communities that have extended toward the DC2RVA 

corridor include Aquia Beach, Aquia Bay Estates, Brittany Estates, and Potomac Run Farm. 

Between the existing VRE stations at Brooke and Leeland Road, the DC2RVA corridor continues 

to travel along the edges of residential development on local roads. South of the Leeland Road 

Station, development intensifies, and communities along the DC2RVA corridor include 

Northridge, Leeland Station, Mount Pleasant Estates, Heather Hills, Woodland, Bel Air, 

Lynwood, Clearview Heights, Dahlgren Junction, Debruyn, East Chatham Heights, Cedar Bluff, 

Ferry Farm, Argyle Heights, Tylerton, Little Falls, and Grandview. 

In the city of Fredericksburg, the DC2RVA corridor passes through downtown and Hazel Hill at 

the existing Fredericksburg VRE station. South of Virginia Route 3, the DC2RVA corridor is along 

the western edge of Mayfield. The neighborhood abuts the CSXT main line track and 

Fredericksburg rail yard. The community is primarily single-family residential units. The DC2RVA 

corridor then passes through light industrial areas until it crosses into Spotsylvania County. 

In Spotsylvania County, the communities that are along the DC2RVA corridor are characterized 

by sparse rural residential development within rural communities and forested areas. The 

communities include Hamilton Crossing at the intersection of Mine Road and Benchmark Road 

and Summit, where the existing CSXT rail line crosses Summit Crossing Road. 

In Caroline County, the communities are very similar to those in Spotsylvania County⎯sparse 

rural residential development within rural communities and forested areas. These communities 

include Guinea, Woodford, Milford, Penola, and the southern end of Carmel Church along 

Jefferson Davis Highway. 

In Hanover County, Doswell is along the DC2RVA corridor in the northern part of the county. 

Through the remainder of Hanover County, the communities include Ashland, where the rail 

corridor currently divides both the Town and Randolph-Macon College, Gwathmey, Kenwood, 

and Elmont. 

In Henrico County, along the Elmont to Greendale and Greendale to South Acca Yard 

(SAY)/West Acca Yard (WAY) sections, the communities are typically major residential 

developments and include Hunton, Glen Allen, Laurel Park, Boudar, Lakeside, and Dumbarton. 

Along the Rivanna Junction to Beulah-Peninsula subsection, the north side of the community of 

Oakland is separated from the section by Almond Creek and Bickerstaff Road. East of Oakland, 

the area along the section is either forested or industrial. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-107 

Within the city of Richmond, there are four separate Project sections. The communities along these 

sections are established urban residential areas. Along the WAY to Centralia⎯A-Line section, 

communities include Sauer’s Gardens, Scott’s Addition, Malvern Gardens, the Museum District, Colonial 

Place, Windsor Farms, Carillon, Westover Hills, Cedarhurst, Forest View, Westover, Woodhaven, 

Southwood, McGuire, Hickory Hill, Deerbourne, Cherry Gardens, Broad Rock, and Walmsley. Along the 

SAY/WAY to AM Junction (Hermitage Lead) section, communities include Scott’s Addition, Newtowne 

West, Virginia Union University, Carver, Southern Barton Heights, and Gilpin. Along the AM Junction to 

Centralia⎯S-Line section, communities include Mosby, Union Hill, Downtown, Tobacco Row, 

Manchester, Blackwell, Oak Grove, Bellemeade, Windsor, Cullenwood, Davee Gardens, and Broad Rock. 

Along the Rivanna Junction to Beulah-Peninsula subseection, communities include Union Hill, 

Downtown, Tobacco Row, Shockoe Bottom, Chimborazo, Fulton, and Fulton Hill. 

In Chesterfield County, the WAY to Centralia⎯A-Line section is along Ampthill Heights, the 

western side of the community of Ampt Hill, Drewrys Bluff, Beulah Village, and Centralia. Along 

the AM Junction to Centralia⎯S-Line section, the community of Ampt Hill is separated from the 

section by forested areas. The section is then along the eastern side of the communities of Bensley 

Village and Bellwood before turning and is on the western side of the community of Chimney 

Corner. The section then travels along the edge of Bellwood Manor until crossing VA Route 288 

and terminates at the community of Centralia. 

3.11.5 Community Facilities and Services 

There is a wide range of community facilities located along the DC2RVA corridor, including 

schools, religious facilities, community centers, cemeteries, police and fire stations, libraries, post 

offices, and medical facilities, as shown in Appendix Q. A tabulation of community facilities within 

500 feet of the DC2RVA rail line is provided in Table 3.11-5. 

Table 3.11-5: Community Facilities 

City/ County 

Cemetery Fire Station Medical Facility LibraryPolice Station Post Office Religious Facility School/ University Community Center/ Museum 

Arlington County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

City of Alexandria 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 4 1 

Fairfax County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Prince William County 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 

Stafford County 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 

City of Fredericksburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 

Spotsylvania County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Caroline County 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

Hanover County 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 

Henrico County 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

City of Richmond 3 1 3 1 2 0 13 10 5 

Chesterfield County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Totals 8 7 4 3 3 5 32 21 8 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-108 

3.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits 

of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.” Title VI bars intentional discrimination, as well as disparate impact discrimination 

(i.e., a neutral policy or practice that has an unequal impact on protected groups). Data collection 

to determine the presence of any Title VI groups has occurred as part of this Project. 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires that each federal agency “shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations.” Minority persons include citizens or lawful permanent residents of the 

United States who are African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian-American, American Indian, or 

Native Alaskan. Low-income persons are defined as those whose median household income is below 

the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. 

EO 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, mandates that 

federal agencies “examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with 

limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services 

so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them” and “to ensure that the programs and 

activities that they [federal agencies] normally provide in English are accessible to LEP persons 

and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its implementing regulations” (EO 13166). As part of EO 

13166, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for all federal agencies and 

departments on implementing the LEP regulations because of the connection between Title VI 

barring of discrimination based on national origin and EO 13166. The CEQ has compliance 

oversight regarding LEP regulations as part of NEPA compliance. 

3.12.1 Methodology 

Demographic data for the jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor were compiled to identify 

Title VI and low-income populations. As defined by Title VI and in the guidance for 

implementing EO 12898, minority populations include citizens or lawful permanent residents of 

the United States who, as defined by U.S. DOT Order 5610.2a, are: 

 Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; 

 Hispanic or Latino: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central, or South 

American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race; 

 Asian American: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; 

 American Indian and Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original 

people of North America or South America (including Central America) and who 

maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition; or 

 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original 

peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-109 

The U.S. DOT defines low-income as “a person whose median household income is at or below 

the [United States] Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines” (U.S. 

DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of a low-income population is “any readily identifiable group of lowincome persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, 

geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) 

who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]).

The U.S. DOT definition of a minority population is “any readily identifiable groups of 

minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, 

geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) 

who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of Adverse Effects is “the totality of significant individual or 

cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and 

economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to bodily impairment, infirmity, 

illness, or death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or 

disruption of man-made or natural resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; 

destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; 

destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; 

vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or 

nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of 

minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader 

community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of 

DOT programs, policies, or activities” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations is an Adverse Effect that: 

 “(1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 

 (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered 

by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

3.12.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations 

The jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor have a wide range of demographic data (Table 3.12-

1). Two jurisdictions⎯Prince William County and the City of Richmond⎯contain minority 

populations that are more than 50 percent of the population. Low-income populations within the 

jurisdictions range from 5 to 25 percent. Persons with LEP range from a low of 1 percent in 

Caroline and Hanover counties to a high of more than 14 percent in Fairfax County. Persons with 

a disability range from 5 to 15 percent of the population. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-110 

Table 3.12-1: City/County Demographic Data in 2013 

City/County Minorities (%) Low-Income (%) Total LEP (%)* Disabled (%)** 

Arlington County 78,231 (36.41%) 16,899 (7.97%) 17,092 (8.44%) 10,939 (5.20%) 

City of Alexandria 67,406 (46.91%) 11,980 (8.42%) 15,747 (11.82%) 9,013 (6.41%) 

Fairfax County 507,651 (46.11%) 64,274 (5.89%) 150,041 (14.61%) 69,834 (6.42%) 

Prince William County 217,574 (52.22%) 26,045 (6.34%) 45,533 (11.90%) 27,867 (6.84%) 

Stafford County 43,431 (32.93%) 6,549 (5.12%) 5,051 (4.10%) 9,619 (7.67%) 

City of Fredericksburg 10,331 (39.84%) 4,342 (18.57%) 1,145 (4.75%) 2,388 (9.30%) 

Spotsylvania County 35,153 (28.28%) 9,383 (7.59%) 3,868 (3.33%) 12,901 (10.46%) 

Caroline County 10,482 (36.45%) 3,444 (12.66%) 391 (1.45%) 3,831 (14.01%) 

Hanover County 15,064 (15.01%) 5,019 (5.12%) 1,209 (1.27%) 10,187 (10.26%) 

Henrico County 135,489 (43.52%) 32,877 (10.69%) 16,709 (5.74%) 30,749 (9.96%) 

City of Richmond 125,893 (60.56%) 50,681 (25.61%) 8,834 (4.54%) 31,613 (15.40%) 

Chesterfield County 112,981 (35.26%) 21,240 (6.74%) 12,601 (4.19%) 30,605 (9.64%) 

Totals 1,359,686 (43.48%) 252,733 (8.21%) 278,221 (9.54%) 249,546 (8.11%) 

Source: United States Census Bureau: 2009-2013 American Community Survey. 

Note: *LEP is based on the population aged 5 years and over. **Census disability is based on the civilian noninstitutionalized population with a 

self-identified disability. 

Individual census tracts (Table 3.12-2) were compared to the jurisdiction in which they are 

situated. Those census tracts with any groups greater than 50 percent of the population are 

highlighted in orange. Those tracts with groups greater than their respective city/county are 

highlighted in yellow. Any group with less than 50 persons is not displayed in accordance with 

United States Census Bureau guidance on privacy. The predominant language spoken by those 

persons who speak English less than very well is identified in Table 3.12-2. There is a wide 

spectrum of each demographic group. Minorities predominate in census tracts in Fairfax County, 

Prince William County, Henrico County, the city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Lowincome persons predominate in Prince William County, Caroline County, Hanover County, the 

city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Persons with LEP predominate in Fairfax County, 

Prince William County, and Chesterfield County. Persons with a disability predominate in 

Henrico County, the city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Figure 3.12-1 also identifies the 

census tracts that are highlighted in Table 3.12-2. 

Census tracts can have data that vary widely from other tracts based on their unique geographies. 

High populations in group quarters such as college dormitories, retirement communities, and 

correctional facilities, can affect data. For example, Census Tract 102.01 in Stafford County is 

MCBQ. Census Tract 2007.01 in Alexandria is predominantly a rail yard and commercial 

properties. Some of the census tract boundaries are also along existing roadways (i.e., sides of the 

same street are in separate census tracts); therefore, they may not give the most accurate picture 

of a community. In several jurisdictions, the CSXT rail line is the boundary between census tracts. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-111 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 1034.02, 

Arlington County 4,981 34.07% 4.60% 3.97% 5.11% 

Census Tract 2004.03, 

Alexandria 1,401 46.18% – 8.40% 7.56% 

Census Tract 2006, 

Alexandria 5,092 63.06% 8.70% 

18.93% 

Spanish (625) 

Chinese (138) 

11.40% 

Census Tract 2007.01, 

Alexandria 708 24.72% – – – 

Census Tract 2007.02, 

Alexandria 4,258 28.96% 4.65% 5.30% 3.99% 

Census Tract 2008.02, 

Alexandria 3,015 40.73% 12.44% 5.78% 7.56% 

Census Tract 2013, 

Alexandria 3,360 29.05% 8.66% 7.55% 7.79% 

Census Tract 2015, 

Alexandria 3,744 13.46% 1.75% 1.57% 3.54% 

Census Tract 2016, 

Alexandria 4,774 44.57% 22.46% – 5.75% 

Census Tract 2018.01, 

Alexandria 5,351 27.02% 4.26% 3.17% 4.06% 

Census Tract 2019, 

Alexandria 1,576 15.80% 4.44% – 6.84% 

Census Tract 4201, 

Fairfax County 4,206 69.78% 18.35% 

32.22% 

Spanish (513) 

Vietnamese 

(220) 

7.50% 

Census Tract 4202.01, 

Fairfax County 3,682 49.35% 2.81% 12.01% 6.43% 

Census Tract 4202.02, 

Fairfax County 2,115 50.26% 5.11% 7.56% 4.65% 

Census Tract 4202.03, 

Fairfax County 2,615 41.76% 7.00% 7.48% 7.43% 

Census Tract 4203, 

Fairfax County 5,593 42.00% 2.13% 13.31% 6.87% 

Census Tract 4210.01, 

Fairfax County 3,097 58.35% 4.75% 23.92% Spanish 6.61% 

Census Tract 4210.02, 

Fairfax County 5,210 60.83% 7.74% 

23.60% 

Spanish (409) 

Vietnamese 

(104) 

6.86% 

Census Tract 4211.01, 

Fairfax County 5,950 57.23% 1.22% 13.21% 3.24% 

Census Tract 4211.03, 

Fairfax County 5,004 34.49% – 9.30% 3.72% 

Census Tract 4220, 

Fairfax County 3,881 57.43% 5.15% 17.83% Spanish 9.72% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-112 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 4221.01, 

Fairfax County 6,516 67.03% 3.63% 

17.20% 

Spanish(360) 

Vietnamese (175) 

4.72% 

Census Tract 4221.02, 

Fairfax County 6,676 81.97% 2.47% 

24.07% 

Spanish (518) 

Tagalog (202) 

6.52% 

Census Tract 4526, 

Fairfax County 5,849 60.39% 6.90% 23.83% 

Spanish 6.50% 

Census Tract 9001, 

Prince William County 3,449 41.58% 5.16% 5.58% 7.51% 

Census Tract 9002.01, 

Prince William County 1,922 69.15% 14.76% 28.40% 

Spanish 9.65% 

Census Tract 9002.02, 

Prince William County 4,493 71.47% 12.82% 32.16% Spanish 9.48% 

Census Tract 9002.03, 

Prince William County 4,431 82.40% 15.08% 21.06% Spanish 7.86% 

Census Tract 9006, 

Prince William County 7,511 76.63% 26.11% 35.04% Spanish 4.93% 

Census Tract 9007.01, 

Prince William County 5,553 72.86% 5.92% 9.57% 9.75% 

Census Tract 9007.02, 

Prince William County 8,022 55.92% 6.67% 

22.23% 

Spanish (1,226) 

Korean (118) 

3.80% 

Census Tract 9008.01, 

Prince William County 5,484 59.96% 2.90% 2.87% 5.63% 

Census Tract 9008.02, 

Prince William County 6,773 84.60% 10.62% 10.22% 8.09% 

Census Tract 9009.04, 

Prince William County 5,328 72.60% 7.87% 9.98% 5.37% 

Census Tract 9011, 

Prince William County 6,994 35.69% 5.12% 4.94% 4.24% 

Census Tract 101.05, 

Stafford County 7,507 37.82% 5.87% 9.22% Spanish 7.02% 

Census Tract 101.06, 

Stafford County 3,178 7.55% 2.56% – 9.77% 

Census Tract 101.07, 

Stafford County 3,017 17.40% 3.31% – 9.26% 

Census Tract 102.01, 

Stafford County 2,315 38.14% – – – 

Census Tract 104.03, 

Stafford County 2,899 24.39% 4.02% 3.96% 9.11% 

Census Tract 104.04, 

Stafford County 6,289 28.72% 5.57% 1.55% 8.75% 

Census Tract 104.05, 

Stafford County 6,350 27.12% 1.59% 1.08% 7.65% 

Census Tract 104.06, 

Stafford County 3,086 33.38% 12.42% 1.89% 9.62% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-113 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 105.02, 

Stafford County 4,381 14.29% 2.93% 1.38% 8.21% 

Census Tract 105.04, 

Stafford County 1,584 8.96% 9.83% – 15.78% 

Census Tract 1, 

Fredericksburg City 2,948 21.78% 11.70% – 10.53% 

Census Tract 3.02, 

Fredericksburg City 4,849 33.37% 17.34% 3.48% 7.75% 

Census Tract 4, 

Fredericksburg City 2,935 62.62% 17.43% – 16.70% 

Census Tract 202.01, 

Spotsylvania County 5,640 37.75% 9.22% 6.11% 

Spanish 5.99% 

Census Tract 202.02, 

Spotsylvania County 5,045 33.89% 4.33% 

5.07% 

Spanish (112) 

Chinese (94) 

10.42% 

Census Tract 202.03, 

Spotsylvania County 4,882 34.97% 7.56% 

3.58% 

Laotian (46) 

Korean(28) 

12.45% 

Census Tract 202.05, 

Spotsylvania County 4,297 35.86% 8.73% 3.15% 14.22% 

Census Tract 301, 

Caroline County 4,617 36.45% 13.97% 

3.36% 

Polish (62) 

Korean (55) 

16.34% 

Census Tract 302.01, 

Caroline County 2,447 33.67% 5.96% – 13.23% 

Census Tract 303, 

Caroline County 2,952 41.23% 13.87% – 12.38% 

Census Tract 304, 

Caroline County 1,654 20.50% 19.35% – 20.80% 

Census Tract 305, 

Caroline County 12,182 34.53% 12.70% 1.24% 11.98% 

Census Tract 306, 

Caroline County 3,097 54.89% 11.26% 2.34% Persian 15.57% 

Census Tract 3201, 

Hanover County 5,677 12.45% 11.04% – 10.94% 

Census Tract 3204, 

Hanover County 4,507 16.86% 10.12% 1.46% Spanish 11.54% 

Census Tract 3205, 

Hanover County 3,200 6.50% 2.36% – 10.95% 

Census Tract 3206.01, 

Hanover County 4,258 38.00% 9.81% 4.31% 

Korean 17.73% 

Census Tract 3206.02, 

Hanover County 3,024 13.16% 7.47% – 11.30% 

Census Tract 3207.01, 

Hanover County 2,828 11.88% 2.77% – 9.60% 

Census Tract 3208.01, 

Hanover County 2,503 17.86% 9.46% – 7.03% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-114 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 3208.03, 

Hanover County 5,342 13.44% 3.31% – 3.10% 

Census Tract 3208.04, 

Hanover County 5,340 12.00% – – 6.49% 

Census Tract 3208.05, 

Hanover County 2,912 9.17% 4.61% – 9.06% 

Census Tract 3209, 

Hanover County 7,863 13.98% 3.45% 2.14% Spanish 9.61% 

Census Tract 3211, 

Hanover County 5,660 11.82% 4.77% 3.55% Spanish 10.28% 

Census Tract 2004.06, 

Henrico County 9,236 28.80% 6.59% 4.09% 8.43% 

Census Tract 2005.02, 

Henrico County 2,062 23.96% 10.09% 3.96% 11.87% 

Census Tract 2005.03, 

Henrico County 3,919 19.80% 10.49% 1.77% 10.14% 

Census Tract 2006, 

Henrico County 4,792 33.41% 16.96% 9.48% Spanish 9.91% 

Census Tract 2007, 

Henrico County 3,911 33.80% 23.97% – 24.39% 

Census Tract 2008.01, 

Henrico County 2,983 43.51% 13.81% 5.48% 18.30% 

Census Tract 2008.02, 

Henrico County 2,127 46.83% 9.40% 5.20% 11.38% 

Census Tract 2008.04, 

Henrico County 5,828 87.54% 17.71% 6.52% 

Spanish 11.41% 

Census Tract 2008.05, 

Henrico County 4,640 97.41% 48.66% 

8.21% 

African (140) 

Native North 

American (134) 

14.14% 

Census Tract 2009.03, 

Henrico County 7,195 41.72% 5.23% 3.58% 8.36% 

Census Tract 2009.04, 

Henrico County 6,820 69.09% 5.43% 4.40% 10.27% 

Census Tract 2009.05, 

Henrico County 4,912 62.48% 15.77% 3.69% 15.85% 

Census Tract 2009.06, 

Henrico County 4,422 24.81% 6.31% 3.52% 10.65% 

Census Tract 2010.01, 

Henrico County 6,151 89.06% 10.17% 1.70% 7.62% 

Census Tract 2010.02, 

Henrico County 2,986 86.47% 14.07% – 8.71% 

Census Tract 2015.01, 

Henrico County 10,616 81.56% 17.16% 1.26% 8.89% 

Census Tract 2016.02, 

Henrico County 4,727 43.11% 5.36% – 13.48% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-115 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 102, 

Richmond 4,283 26.69% 11.20% 1.51% 20.40% 

Census Tract 103, 

Richmond 1,771 97.52% 24.90% – 11.07% 

Census Tract 104.01, 

Richmond 3,207 35.52% 15.96% – 17.42% 

Census Tract 104.02, 

Richmond 2,917 38.60% 15.37% 4.06% 12.93% 

Census Tract 105, 

Richmond 1,309 79.37% 12.76% – 10.16% 

Census Tract 106, 

Richmond 2,098 84.80% 9.76% – 16.37% 

Census Tract 107, 

Richmond 2,708 97.78% 22.45% – 19.98% 

Census Tract 108, 

Richmond 3,979 93.77% 23.97% – 19.34% 

Census Tract 109, 

Richmond 2,545 88.49% 21.34% – 25.34% 

Census Tract 110, 

Richmond 2,198 93.63% 24.45% – 30.42% 

Census Tract 111, 

Richmond 3,047 79.72% 34.19% – 14.76% 

Census Tract 201, 

Richmond 1,627 97.11% 68.22% – 22.15% 

Census Tract 204, 

Richmond 4,679 98.01% 49.52% – 18.64% 

Census Tract 205, 

Richmond 3,695 44.28% 30.18% – 8.67% 

Census Tract 208, 

Richmond 1,368 44.81% 10.38% – 12.57% 

Census Tract 211, 

Richmond 1,382 86.54% 22.10% – 20.69% 

Census Tract 212, 

Richmond 1,767 88.00% 12.85% – 13.87% 

Census Tract 301, 

Richmond 2,898 98.41% 71.77% – 25.28% 

Census Tract 302, 

Richmond 2,512 48.53% 37.80% – 12.66% 

Census Tract 305, 

Richmond 3,295 53.90% 43.32% 6.68% Chinese 5.60% 

Census Tract 402, 

Richmond 3,296 50.39% 45.70% 2.55% 9.13% 

Census Tract 403, 

Richmond 3,509 46.34% 62.97% 1.99% 3.13% 

Census Tract 404, 

Richmond 3,717 28.11% 56.77% – 11.14% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-116 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 405, 

Richmond 3,367 15.09% 16.48% – 10.92% 

Census Tract 406, 

Richmond 1,756 14.75% 25.00% – 13.27% 

Census Tract 407, 

Richmond 2,687 24.64% 11.44% 5.33% 5.78% 

Census Tract 408, 

Richmond 1,679 18.46% 17.03% 10.51% Spanish 10.48% 

Census Tract 409, 

Richmond 2,708 17.80% 17.35% 1.95% 14.93% 

Census Tract 410, 

Richmond 2,776 8.47% 9.55% – 7.12% 

Census Tract 411, 

Richmond 4,339 24.98% 34.48% 2.00% 7.26% 

Census Tract 412, 

Richmond 1,309 19.17% 39.04% – 6.57% 

Census Tract 413, 

Richmond 2,952 78.66% 35.37% 3.80% 22.02% 

Census Tract 414, 

Richmond 2,062 60.09% 20.24% – 16.41% 

Census Tract 416, 

Richmond 1,482 48.79% 12.19% – 8.97% 

Census Tract 501, 

Richmond 2,806 13.33% 10.36% – 12.05% 

Census Tract 502, 

Richmond 2,844 6.58% 4.54% – 2.43% 

Census Tract 503, 

Richmond 1,247 12.91% 6.90% – 8.87% 

Census Tract 506, 

Richmond 2,474 4.77% 2.55% – 6.83% 

Census Tract 602, 

Richmond 2,194 91.34% 28.58% – 29.67% 

Census Tract 604, 

Richmond 5,292 84.79% 37.85% 2.18% 25.25% 

Census Tract 605, 

Richmond 6,328 54.58% 15.58% 1.85% 22.40% 

Census Tract 606, 

Richmond 2,374 14.57% 3.50% 2.68% 6.02% 

Census Tract 607, 

Richmond 5,110 93.11% 49.99% – 20.16% 

Census Tract 608, 

Richmond 3,266 88.73% 30.36% 24.38% Spanish 16.39% 

Census Tract 609, 

Richmond 1,633 78.93% 36.13% 23.27% 

Spanish 12.05% 

Census Tract 610, 

Richmond 3,360 71.28% 34.40% – 9.47% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-117 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 706.01, 

Richmond 6,367 93.01% 37.64% 43.32% 

Spanish 15.65% 

Census Tract 706.02, 

Richmond 2,432 83.63% 14.22% 5.65% 

Spanish 20.39% 

Census Tract 709, 

Richmond 6,834 81.64% 30.65% 4.70% 

Spanish 21.08% 

Census Tract 710.02, 

Richmond 3,390 82.74% 20.50% 

13.33% 

Spanish (206) 

Korean (114) 

18.41% 

Census Tract 711, 

Richmond 4,866 51.95% 7.41% 2.73% 16.12% 

Census Tract 1003, 

Chesterfield County 1,844 53.74% 16.38% 5.69% 

Spanish 18.28% 

Census Tract 1004.04, 

Chesterfield County 2,500 69.04% 23.28% 38.66% 

Spanish 12.60% 

Census Tract 1004.05, 

Chesterfield County 2,373 68.44% 30.97% 32.74% Spanish 10.85% 

Census Tract 1004.06, 

Chesterfield County 1,301 77.09% 31.59% – 11.22% 

Census Tract 1004.07, 

Chesterfield County 2,731 40.31% 12.23% 4.09% 21.38% 

Census Tract 1004.09, 

Chesterfield County 6,174 22.40% 9.59% 2.88% 7.76% 

Census Tract 1008.04, 

Chesterfield County 4,413 64.58% 9.73% 

7.92% 

Gujarati (119) 

Vietnamese (116) 

11.21% 

Census Tract 1008.06, 

Chesterfield County 3,525 72.85% 15.95% 9.81% 

Spanish 14.21% 

Census Tract 1008.07, 

Chesterfield County 1,818 58.97% 4.31% 5.96% Spanish 12.32% 

Census Tract 1008.15, 

Chesterfield County 4,098 36.21% 6.50% 3.46% 7.63% 

Census Tract 1008.16, 

Chesterfield County 4,919 35.41% 4.56% 7.92% 

Spanish 12.50% 

Sources: United States Census Bureau: 2009-2013 American Community Survey. 

Notes: Data for each demographic group are not mutually exclusive and do not total 100 percent. *Based on the population aged 5 years and

over. In most census tracts, more than one LEP language is spoken. Where applicable, the most common LEP language(s) is listed. For census 

tracts where two LEP languages are common, both languages are listed with their respective number of speakers. **Census disability is based 

on the civilian noninstitutionalized population with a self-identified disability. –Totals less than 50 persons not shown. Above 50%; 

 Greater than respective jurisdiction. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-118 

Figure 3.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tracts
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-119 

Figure 3.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tracts 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-120 

3.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVEGROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The DC2RVA project depends on the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 306108), and implementing regulations 

(see 36 CFR Part 800), which require federal agencies to consider the effects of federally funded, 

licensed, or permitted actions on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 also gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such actions. The cultural resource surveys were also 

done pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which provides 

additional protection for listed or eligible historic resources (see Chapter 5). 

The following section identifies archaeological and aboveground resources located within the 

DC2RVA corridor and describes the methods used to identify them. See Appendix R for technical 

reports and mapping related to cultural resource studies and historic properties. 

The NRHP is a list of the nation’s cultural resources that are considered worthy of preservation. 

Listed and eligible resources must meet at least one of the four NRHP key criteria: 

 Criterion A−Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; or 

 Criterion B−Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

 Criterion C−Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, 

or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 

 Criterion D−Have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. 

They must also retain their integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and association. 

Section 106 coordination for the Project was conducted with the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (DHR) and Section 106 consulting parties (Table 5.7-1 in Chapter 5). The National Park 

Service (NPS) was also consulted regarding Civil War battlefields. 

Figure 3.13-1 identifies the location of the historic properties identified in the DC2RVA corridor. 

3.13.1 Archaeological Resources 

Per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach was developed to determine the eligibility of 

archaeological sites within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project. The APE is the 

geographic area within which the seven aspects of integrity of a resource (i.e., location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) and/or its use may be diminished as a 

result of the Project. The current APE extends 50 feet on either side of the proposed railroad 

centerline in areas where the proposed rail alignment is within the existing rail right-of-way, 100 

feet for areas where construction is outside of the rail right-of-way, 50 feet beyond the limits of 

disturbance for new overpasses, and equal to the limits of disturbance for road modification 

areas. The limits of disturbance cover the extent of construction activities and associated 

earthwork. The DHR concurred with this APE in February 2015 (see Appendix R for DHR 

coordination documents and cultural resource reports). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-121 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-122 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-123 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-124 

The DC2RVA corridor has been the subject of previous archaeological investigations. In 2010, 

McCormick Taylor conducted Phase I cultural resource investigations within a portion of the 

Northern Virginia area between Powells Creek and Arkendale (McCormick Taylor 2010a, 2010b). 

During this work, no intact archaeological sites were recorded within the APE, and the DHR 

concurred that no additional archaeological field work was warranted. One abandoned cemetery, 

a small family interment area that was not eligible for the NRHP, was noted and was avoided 

during construction. The architectural APE included five above-ground properties listed in or 

eligible for the NRHP: the Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac (RF&P) Railroad (076-0301, later 

renumbered 500-0001 for the current survey), Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (297-

0010), Richland (089-0019), Town of Quantico (287-5147), and Cockpit Point (076-0302). DHR 

concurred that the undertaking would have No Effect on Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic 

District (297-0010), Richland (089-0019), Town of Quantico (287-5147), and Cockpit Point (076-0302). 

It was further determined that the project would have No Adverse Effect on the RF&P Railroad. 

In addition, the eastern and southern sections of the Richmond area (AM Junction to 

Centralia−S-Line) section of the DC2RVA corridor overlaps the Richmond to Raleigh section of 

the SEHSR. The DC2RVA corridor between Richmond and Raleigh has been the subject of several 

cultural resource investigations over the past decade. This includes the APE surrounding the rail 

corridor itself as well as the APE of all road modification areas associated with the rail line. Work 

was conducted between 2004 and 2012 by Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc.; Legacy 

Research Associates, Inc.; Louis Berger Group, Inc.; and Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 

(Dovetail). Per DHR guidance presented in November 2014 and March 2016, these sections were 

not the subject of additional archaeological field study, though the results are included in this 

analysis. Any sites determined to be eligible for or listed in the NRHP as part of this work, or any 

other previous surveys, are included in the current evaluation. 

The archaeological field studies used one methodology along the main line corridor and associated 

alternatives and a separate methodology for the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypass alignments. The 

different methodologies were used for several reasons. The main line and the majority of the 

alternatives were the subject of a full Phase IB survey due to their relative limited geographic coverage 

and the ensuing scope of work required to complete the studies. In these instances, extant rail and 

road segments facilitated the survey. Moreover, the presence of these areas along extant lines 

suggested a higher potential for cultural resource impacts that required immediate evaluation, as 

avoidance would be challenging since options to shift off alignment from the existing rail are limited. 

Along the bypass alignments, the corridor traverses primarily open land with a much smaller degree 

of development. Exact placement of the rail components would be more fluid here due to the 

geographic setting. As such, historic properties had a much higher potential to be avoided during 

alternative design in these areas, rendering full knowledge of resources, especially below-ground 

sites, less of a fatal flaw during design. Due to these conditions and an evaluation on other preliminary 

environmental data on these two alternatives, the standard multi-alignment survey protocol was 

followed as established by the DRPT and VDOT wherein only preliminary data was gathered to 

avoid unneeded disturbances to subsurface resources and undue project delays. DHR concurred with 

both methodologies. The DHR concurred with this methodology in February 2016. 

The archaeological studies along the main line of the Project included two phases of work: a Phase IA 

predictive model/reconnaissance study and a Phase IB identification survey. In 2015, DRPT 

examined the entire DC2RVA corridor through an archaeological background review and predictive 

model (Klein et al., 2015), the purpose of which was to guide the Phase IB archaeological study. 

Previous studies throughout the region provided a basis for projection of relative probability of 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-125 

discovering terrestrial archaeological sites using standard Phase I survey techniques in the DC2RVA 

project corridor. Information gathered from a variety of sources allowed the characterization of the 

settings by a high, moderate, or low probability of discovering archaeological sites, as well as 

identifying areas where previous disturbance, development, previous archaeological survey, or soil 

attributes indicate that archaeological sites would not be discovered. 

DRPT submitted the report to DHR for review on July 17, 2015, with a recommendation that all 

high and moderate probability areas and a 10 percent sample of the low probability areas should 

be the subject of systematic and judgmental shovel test pit and metal detector survey, where 

appropriate. In a letter dated August 28, 2015, DHR concurred with this approach. Feedback on 

the model was also received from several Project consulting parties, notably the City of 

Alexandria, Arlington County, Prince William County, and the City of Fredericksburg. Their 

comments were also incorporated into the ensuing Phase IB Project methodology. 

The 2016 Phase IB survey of the main line corridor included a pedestrian survey of the entire APE 

and systematic shovel testing in 100 percent of the areas determined to have a high or moderate 

potential for archaeological sites and 10 percent of the areas determined to have a low potential 

for sites. (See Klein et al., 2015 in Appendix R for a full discussion of model development and 

probability criteria). All previously recorded sites were revisited to determine eligibility and, as 

appropriate, assure that the characteristics that rendered them eligible for the NRHP remain. The 

results were coordinated with DHR, and they concurred with the mapping and proposed Phase 

IB approach in a letter dated August 28, 2015. 

For the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, the survey work included a Phase IA reconnaissance 

study. The work involved a pedestrian and vehicular study of the DC2RVA corridor to document 

current conditions and note areas that would require future survey. No subsurface investigations 

were completed during this work. Archaeological sites listed in this Draft EIS include previously 

recorded resources and those noted during the pedestrian study only. 

Based on the archaeological studies completed on the Project to date, 15 archaeological sites in 

the Project APE are recorded as eligible for or listed on the NRHP. All of these sites are located in 

Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Area 6 (Richmond) along the existing main line. Two sites (089-

0016/44ST0084, Ferry Farm, and 111-0147, Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military 

Park, are also within the APE of the Fredericksburg Bypass, both located near the intersection of 

the existing main line and the potential bypass alignment. There are no previously recorded sites 

only within the APE of the Fredericksburg Bypass or the Ashland Bypass alignments. Given the 

paucity of recorded sites within the bypass areas, all sites are described together in this section. 

Table 3.13-1 summarizes the archaeological sites by location. Table 3.13-2 provides site 

descriptions and eligibility criteria. The information has been organized by area and then by site 

number within each area. 

The Project corridor winds through several urban areas with dense development. Since development 

of the DC2RVA corridor in the early 1830s, the use of the parcels surrounding the tracks has been 

modified over the years. During the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, these lots were the sites 

of warehouses, industrial buildings, and rail-related structures. In the age of the automobile, 

especially in the mid-twentieth century, many of these buildings were destroyed to make way for 

parking lots and roads. The archaeological remains of these once-extant buildings exist under several 

of these paved surfaces. The APE for archaeological resources only includes the limits of disturbance. 

In urban areas, proposed improvements are limited to extending existing rail platforms, installation 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-126 

of new pier supports for superstructures, creation of stations where existing buildings or other extant 

development is located, or other minor modifications. As such, the archaeological APE along the 

entire corridor is narrow, resulting in relatively few archaeological resources that are listed as historic 

properties falling within the APE. This accounts for the general absence of archaeological historic 

properties in the APE in places such as Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Ashland. 

Table 3.13-1: Summary of Eligible Archaeological Sites

Alternative Area NRHP Listed Sites NRHP Eligible Sites Total Sites 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3 2 5 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

2 8 10 

In Richmond, several sites have been recorded in the general vicinity of Main Street Station—

what was the downtown core of the city for centuries. Four archaeological sites are located within 

the APE in this area: 44HE1092, 44HE1094, 44HE1097, and 44HE1098. All four sites were recorded 

based on the mapped projections of historic warehouses. Two significant sites in the general 

area—Lumpkins Jail (44HE1053) and Burial Ground for Negroes (44HE1089)—are located 

outside of the APE, well to the west of the Project footprint (Figure 3.13-2). The Project would not 

impact these two sites or any associated resources. As such, these two resources, and similarly 

placed sites in other urban areas, are not on the list of historic properties. Should the limits of 

disturbance be expanded, the list will be revisited. 

Archaeological and Aboveground Resources 
AFFECTE

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line and bypass) 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm Stafford County 1738 This site is the location of George 

Washington's boyhood home. Archaeologicexcavations have uncovered the foundation the dwelling, as well as numerous other features related to the Washington occupatlater family tenancy, and the Civil War. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line only) 

44SP0187 Bridge Spotsylvania 

County 

19th Century Includes cut stone piers that are now locate

under the waters of the Rappahannock RiveThey may be associated with earlier railroad structures or nearby mills that are no longeextant. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line only) 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun 

Manufactory 

City of Fredericksburg 

ca. 1775 The Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory is an 

archaeological site that is at least 75 percenintact. The remains of the manufacturing facare located beneath a paved asphalt parking for a public school. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line and bypass) 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive 

City of Fredericksburg 

1862 The resource is a Civil War battlefield park 

composed of earthworks, cannons, and informational markers in addition to 429 nonarchaeological cultural resources, 350 owhich are considered contributing to its significance. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line only) 

44SP0468-extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

Spotsylvania County 

1861 This resource includes a set of earthworks 

within a larger archaeological site. The area almost totally enclosed by lines of military shelter trenches constructed before or following the First Battle of Fredericksburg. 

Area 6: Richmond 020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, 

Auburn Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Chesterfield County 

1804 This resource is significant as a representati

of an early-nineteenth century antebellum plantation that has evolved into a modern, twentieth century farm and dairying operatiThe main house is an excellent example of vernacular interpretation of the Early ClassiRevival style in the piedmont area constructin an I-form. Numerous archaeological resources are located on the parcel. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-128 

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond 020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

Chesterfield County 

1619 The Falling Creek Ironworks archaeological sit

was originally recorded as the location of the Virginia Company Ironworks. Subsequent investigation suggests that it could also be CaIronworks, destroyed in 1781 during the AmerRevolution. 

Area 6: Richmond 020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, United States Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District 

Chesterfield County 

post-1942 The district is a group of residential, industr

and military buildings dating from the construction Sheffield/Bellwood Manor (0200007), circa 1804, to development of the Korean Conflict-era buildings in 1952. 

Area 6: Richmond 127-6245/ 

44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory, 700 East 4th

Street 

City of Richmond 

1919 Built in 1919 to assist with World War I wa

efforts; also used by the United States government during World War II; eligible boundary contains main factory and apartmstructures used to house workers during boworld wars. 

Area 6: Richmond 44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

Chesterfield County 

1861-1865 The battlefield includes the area of fighting, 

well as associated landscape features. The mnotable feature is a series of earthworks, portions of which are still visible on the surface. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1092 Warehouse Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1094 Warehouse Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

 Continued.
AFFECTE

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1095 Storage facility Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1098 Main Street Station 

Parking Lot/ Railroad 

City of Richmond 

19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-130 

Figure 3.13-2: Archaeological Sites in the General Vicinity of Main Street Station
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-131 

3.13.2 Aboveground Resources 

As with the archaeological studies, a phased approach was used to identify and evaluate 

aboveground resources within the Project APE. The APE for potential historical resources in the 

study area extends 500 feet on either side of the DC2RVA corridor centerline in those areas where 

the proposed corridor would remain within existing rail right-of-way; however, in town or urban 

settings, the APE was reduced to one city block because dense modern development would often 

limit the effect of the proposed railroad on any historic resources. The APE was expanded to 1,000 

feet in areas where any overpasses were recommended by DRPT and also expanded as needed 

in areas of new roadways to capture viewshed and any potential visual impacts (areas where 

alterations to a resource’s setting and feeling could occur). This APE was approved by DHR in 

March 2015. 

Architectural studies for the Project corridor incorporated the previous studies by McCormick 

Taylor in the Northern Virginia Area/Powells Creek to Arkendale section of Area 2 and by the 

Richmond to Raleigh High Speed Rail Project (R2R) team in the Richmond Area/AM Junction to 

Centralia−S-Line section of Area 6. Similar to archaeology, different methodologies were used on 

the main line corridor and the bypasses due to the limited footprint and flexibility of the main 

line alternatives versus the bypass areas. For the main line corridor and associated alternatives, a 

background literature and records review was completed by DRPT to identify all properties 

within the APE that were previously determined by DHR to be listed on or eligible for the NRHP. 

Investigators for DRPT then performed an identification-level field study on all previously 

recorded resources that had not received an eligibility determination and on any unrecorded 

resources in the Project APE greater than 48 years in age (the age limit was developed to 

correspond to the anticipated 2017 architectural study completion date). All properties that had 

been previously determined to be eligible for or are listed on the NRHP were also briefly revisited 

as part of this effort to assure that the resources retained the characteristics that rendered them 

eligible for the NRHP. The APE was visually inspected through a vehicular and pedestrian 

reconnaissance to identify buildings, objects, and districts. Once identified, each resource was 

preliminarily evaluated for architectural significance and historic and physical integrity and 

documented through photographs, written notes, and maps. 

Any resource determined to be potentially eligible for the NRHP and/or require additional data 

to render an NRHP determination was then the subject of an intensive-level evaluation. This 

included archival research, in-depth fieldwork, and development of a statement of significance. 

For the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, a different methodology was used. The survey 

work included a Phase IA reconnaissance study per approval by DHR in March 2016. The work 

involved a background review to note resources that were previously recorded with DHR, a 

pedestrian and vehicular study of the DC2RVA corridor to visit the previously recorded 

resources to assure they were extant, and creation of a list of properties to be recorded at the 

identification level should this alternative be selected. No formal identification or evaluation 

studies were completed during this work. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-132 

3.13.2.1 Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects 

Based on the architectural studies completed on the Project to date, 138 buildings, districts, 

structures, and objects eligible for or listed on the NRHP are in the APE as recorded (see 

Appendix R for DHR coordination documents and cultural resource reports). This number 

includes Civil War-related resources such as individually eligible earthworks and 

buildings/structures that are eligible for their Civil War association, but it does not include 

battlefields (see Section 13.3.2.2 for details on battlefields). Table 3.13-3 summarizes the 138 

buildings, districts, structures, and objects by location. Table 3.13-4 provides resource 

descriptions and eligibility criteria. The information has been organized by area and then by 

resource number within each area. 

Table 3.13-3: Summary of Buildings, Districts, Structures and Objects 

Alternative Area NRHP Listed Resources NRHP Eligible Resources Total Resources 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

2 0 2 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 6 8 14 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

4 11 15 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

0 18 18 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

2 17 19 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

30 39 69 

Located in all areas 0 1 1 

Total 44 94 138 

Note: One resource listed in the Central Virginia area also extends into the Ashland area. 

Historic Structures in Doswell Historic District 
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

000-0045 Washington National 

Airport (Reagan National Airport) 

Arlington County 1941 The primary/historic building is a four-story

bay, airline passenger terminal constructed Moderne style. Property also includes six c airplane hangars and associated runways and landscape elements. 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

029-0218 Mount Vernon 

Memorial Highway (portion of George Washington Memorial Parkway) 

Fairfax, Arlington ca. 1929 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway is an 8.5-

section of George Washington Memorial Pafrom Fairfax County to the southern boundAlexandria. The four-lane-wide highway was constructed with concrete slab construction much of the concrete remains intact. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot, 

110 Callahan Drive 

City of Alexandria 1905 The train depot, known as Alexandria Unio

Station at 110 Callahan Drive, is a one-and-story, multi-bay, passenger depot constructColonial Revival style. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0128 George Washington 

National Masonic Memorial 

City of Alexandria ca. 1922 The resource at 101 Callahan Drive is a nin

multi-bay, memorial and museum sitting on designed knoll constructed in the Classical Rstyle. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown 

City of Alexandria ca. 1810 The district covers more than 45 blocks in 

northwestern quadrant of Old Town Alexaand abuts the Alexandria Historic District. Iconsists mainly of small row houses and townhomes built in the mid-to-late nineteencentury. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic 

District 

City of Alexandria ca. 1900 The district is a planned, residential subdivis

is located northwest of Old Town Alexandrconsists mainly of small, middle-class houses between 1908 and 1940. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0160 George Washington 

Junior High School, 1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue 

City of Alexandria 1935 The resource is a three-story, multi-bay sch

building constructed in the Art Deco style oin a rectangular form. The building is constrlarge, cut, grey sandstone and brick laid in airregular bond. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-134 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over 

Holmes Run in Cameron Run Park 

City of Alexandria 1946 The resource is a single-span railroad bridge 

with concrete abutments, wing walls, and cuAlthough it is made of concrete, it is an arcwith a brick intrados, which is unique to the 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

029-0043 Colchester Arms, 

Fairfax Arms, 10712 Old Colchester Road 

Fairfax County ca. 1756 The building is a one-and-a-half story, four-b

tavern constructed with an irregular four-roplan. The timber-framed structural system ra continuous, raised-basement, stone found

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

029-0953 Old Colchester 

Road, Potomac Path, King's Highway 

Fairfax County ca. 1664 This two-lane asphalt road runs northeast f

Occoquan River for approximately 4 miles tintersection with Route 1 in Lorton. Old Colchester Road played an important role icounty’s early transportation history. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark 

House/Enyedi House, 10605 Furnace Road 

Fairfax County ca. 1876 This resource is a two-story, three-bay dwe

built in a vernacular style. Additionally, in 19artist Janos Enyedi purchased the property aand worked there until his death in 2011. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands; 

945 Widwater Road 

Stafford County ca. 1790 Richlands is a two-and-a-half-story frame dw

with a side gable roof and a widows walk. It association with the Brent and Fitzhugh famRF&P section house is located on the prope

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill, 

3642 Wheeler Avenue 

City of Alexandria ca. 1776 The building is a two-story, three-bay, indus

building. It is purportedly the “sole remaininexample of a mill structure in Alexandria.” 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (Current), Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (NRHP Listing) 

Prince William County post-1918 The district includes more than 100 building

landscape features associated with this early base, including many air-related structures. twentieth century resources also include archaeological sites and cemeteries. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

287-5147 Town of Quantico 

(Historic/Current), Town of Quantico Historic District (Current) 

Prince William County post-1918 Located west of the military base, the distri

includes numerous commercial and other sostructures related to the development of thand increase in area population. Many buildiclustered around the railroad. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over 

Occoquan River 

Prince William County 1915 The resource is a through-truss, camelback 

bridge constructed close to the middle of thof this type of structure, 1870-1930. Althoucommon, few have survived. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

029-5876 Fredericksburg & 

Gordonsville Railroad Bed District (Virginia Central Railroad) 

multiple 1853 The district is a 38-mile-long railroad corrid

extends west from the CSXT railroad (formRF&P) in Fredericksburg to the town of Orencompassing rail-related structures, sites, alandscape features. The 3.5-mile-long eastersection is eligible. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

088-0039 La Vue, 3232 LaVue 

Lane (Prospect View) 

Spotsylvania County ca. 1848 La Vue, also known as Prospect View, is a tw

story, three-bay, single-family dwelling constin the Greek Revival style with an L-plan. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest 

(Historic) 

Stafford County 1810 This resource includes a two-story, five-bay 

plantation home and surrounding outbuildinincluding an intact duplex slave quarter. Thiquarter is one of only a handful of extant quin the county. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm Stafford County 1738 This site is the location of George Washing

boyhood home. Archaeological excavations uncovered the foundation of the dwelling, anumerous other features related to the Waoccupation, later family tenancy, and the Civ

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over 

Potomac Creek at Leland Road 

Stafford County 1872 The resource is comprised of two abutmen

remnants situated approximately 100 feet frsouthern bank of Potomac Creek. The remnotable for their distinct connection to Civiactivities in the area and their association wGeneral Herman Haupt. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over 

Naomi Road 

Stafford County 1931 The bridge is a double-vault arched structur

rumored to be the oldest documented and identified reinforced concrete bridge in the Commonwealth. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-136 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0009 Fredericksburg 

Historic District Extension 

City of Fredericksburg post 1775 The district extension is a large area that in

wide variety of resources immediately surrothe city’s downtown core, including residencommercial buildings, and churches dating tnineteenth and twentieth centuries. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0009-0795 

Pulliam's Service Station, 411 Lafayette Boulevard 

City of Fredericksburg ca. 1935 This resource is a one-story filling station 

constructed in the Spanish Revival style. It sretains its original materials and configuratio

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132 Fredericksburg 

Historic District 

City of Fredericksburg post 1727 The district is a 200-acre area that compris

city’s downtown commercial area, adjacent industrial area, and some of the surrounding residential blocks. This part of Fredericksbuboasts a wide variety of infrastructure that date from the early eighteenth century throlate twentieth century. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0020 

 Purina Tower City of Fredericksburg 1916 The resource is a one-and-one-half story 

commercial building with a tall grain elevatonorthwest corner. The tower has become aimportant landscape landmark within the community. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0025 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 

City of Fredericksburg 1927 This multiple-span, open-spandrel, concrete

bridge is an excellent and rare surviving exaa reinforced-concrete arch railroad bridge wthis region of Virginia. It was erected when station and tracks were elevated for automotraffic pass through in downtown Frederick

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0522 

House, 314

–316 

Frederick Street 

City of Fredericksburg 1851 This is a two-story, four-bay vernacular bric

duplex. Oral history states that the building used as a slave jail in the antebellum period. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0704 

Fredericksburg Train Station, 200 Lafayette Boulevard 

City of Fredericksburg 1910 The depot is a two-story, five-bay building 

constructed in the Neoclassical style designnotable local architect Peck Heflin. The adjatracks were raised in 1927. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive 

City of Fredericksburg 1862 The resource is a Civil War battlefield park 

composed of earthworks, cannons, and informational markers in addition to 429 nonarchaeological cultural resources, 350 oare considered contributing to its significanc

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

44SP0468-extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

Spotsylvania County 1861 This resource includes a set of earthworks within 

archaeological site. The area is almost totally enclines of military shelter trenches constructed befofollowing the First Battle of Fredericksburg. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation 

Office, Jackson Shrine, 12019 Stonewall Jackson Road 

Caroline County ca. 1820 The resource is a one-and-a-half-story fram

building; it once served as the office for the acre Fairfield Plantation and is the only survbuilding. On May 2, 1863, Confederate GenThomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson died site after being wounded at the Battle of Chancellorsville. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0208 House, 

12096 Guinea Drive 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The resource is a one-and-a-half-story vern

dwelling with Queen Anne and Craftsman eThe house was built from a kit purchased frSears & Roebuck Company. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion, 

11146 Woodford Road 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The ornate, two-and-a-half-story, wood-frame

dwelling was designed in the Queen Anne stylClassical detailing. The building represents houconstructed in the area in the early-twentieth when the RF&P and new manufacturing enterpbrought economic prosperity to the local regi

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & 

Passenger Depot, Woodford Road 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The resource is a long, rectangular, one-sto

framed building constructed circa 1900. The building served a combined function as a fredepot and a passenger depot and was one ooriginal stops along the RF&P in Caroline C

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior 

Company Office, Lake Farm Road 

Caroline County ca. 1896 This small frame office building is located 

immediately adjacent to the railroad and is associated with the Woodford Excelsior CoCaroline County’s first excelsior manufactuwas the focal point of the operation. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-138 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0224 Glenwood House, 

11102 Woodford Road 

Caroline County ca. 1925 The resource is a two-story, Colonial Reviv

dwelling. The multi-colored brick building is embellished with brick quoining, fluted colua patio with molded concrete balustrade. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0270 Milford State Bank, 

15461 Antioch Road 

Caroline County ca. 1910 The bank is a two-story brick building const

in the Classical Revival style. The building’s divided into five distinct bays via brick pilastthe only Classical Revival building, as well as only bank, in the village of Milford. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0286 Coleman's Store, 

22275 Penola Road; Penola, 16095 Polecat Lane 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The resource is a two-story, wood-framed 

commercial building. It is the only surviving cobuilding in the largely abandoned village of Penis representative of the small country stores ofound in crossroads communities and railroad throughout the area. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-5129 Woodford Historic 

District 

Caroline County ca. 1890

–1969 The district is a partially abandoned commu

rural Caroline County. The village is centerthe RF&P and was one of five original statioCaroline County. Resources span the heydarail use. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-5136 Milford Historic 

District 

Caroline County ca. 1880

–1960 The district was originally established in the 

eighteenth century as a tobacco trading cen1836, the RF&P Railroad was constructed ththe area, and Milford soon became the largest of the small communities in the counsituated along the railroad. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of 

Caroline County MPD 

Caroline County ca. 1896

–

ca. 1950 

This is a thematic collection of resources constructed between circa 1896 and circa 1are associated with the manufacture of exceCaroline County’s largest industry in the eatwentieth century. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and 

Tower, 10577 Doswell Road 

Hanover County ca. 1928 The current depot is a well-balanced design 

classical-styled architectural features. The ncontemporaneous “HN tower” housed elecsystems managing an interlocking device persafe crossing of trains over both railroads. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, 

Doswell branch (part of Squashapenny Antiques), 10561 Doswell Road 

Hanover County ca. 1920 This building is the only example of an early

twentieth-century, brick commercial buildincommunity of Doswell and is said to have wthree-wythes thick. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0470 House/Squashapenny 

Store, 10570 Doswell Road 

Hanover County ca. 1898 The Squashapenny Junction Store is a two-a

half-story, three-bay, vernacular commerciabuilding. Located adjacent to the tracks, the was a commercial hub for the Doswell com

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little 

River 

Hanover County 1862 The earthworks were constructed by Confe

troops to help protect the RF&P corridor dthe Civil War. The features are in good conas they are located in a wooded area. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-5448 Doswell Historic 

District 

Hanover County ca. 1840–1950 Doswell Historic District encompasses a rural 

community that was once a center of major acalong road and rail networks. Nearly a dozen properties are located within the district’s bou

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

TBD RF&P Bridge over 

Little River 

Hanover County 1923 The resource is a four-span railroad bridge 

three concrete piers with concrete abutmeunique for the area due to the extensive lenthe superstructure for a bridge of that era. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road 

Historic District 

Hanover County ca. 1900–1935 The community was settled in the early–nin

century and has remained active to present Most built features are residential and agricnature within the district and reflect architestyles and construction methods from the lanineteenth to mid-twentieth century. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

042-0392 Montevideo Hanover County 1790 The resource is a two-story Federal-style dw

with notable flemish bond brickwork. It is noits architectural merit and its association with local development of area agricultural econo

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

042-0557 Dry Bridge, 

10411 Old Bridge Road 

Hanover County ca. 1850 Said to have been used as a residence and s

members of the Baker family, the home is a story, three-bay, I-house with excellent histintegrity. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-140 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

042-5048 Elmont Historic 

District 

Hanover County ca. 1870

–1950 The district contains a mix of residential, 

commercial, agricultural, and religious propedating from the late-nineteenth century to ttwentieth century. Architectural styles incluVictorian, Free Classic, Colonial Revival, and commercial vernacular buildings. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

043-0693 Mill Road Historic 

District 

Henrico County ca. 1870

–1950 This historic district spans a portion of Mill 

between Old Washington Highway in the eaMeadow Drive to the west. This area of Miis lined with 28 vernacular buildings construduring the late-nineteenth to the early-twencentury. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

043-0694 Hunton Treasures, 

11701 Greenwood Road 

Henrico County ca. 1930 This resource is a two-story, three-bay com

building constructed with attributes from thSpanish Revival/Eclectic style. It is an outstaexample of the style. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

043-5646 House, 11501 Old 

Washington Highway 

Henrico County ca. 1937 This home is a one-and-one-half-story, Craf

style, single-family dwelling. It was built for tGeneral Station Master for Hunton Station notable architectural characteristics. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001 Ashland Historic 

District 

Hanover County 1850-1950 The Ashland Historic District, with its large co

of late-Victorian and Edwardian frame dwellingbrick commercial core, all set among hundredtrees, survives as a fine example of a railroad astreetcar suburb, preserving much of its turn-ocentury character. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0008 

Ashland Station Depot, 112 N. Railroad Avenue 

Hanover County 1910 The one-story, five-bay, brick depot is said t

been designed by W. P. Lee to replace a precirca-1890 station that had burned. The buiappears little altered and is a good example Colonial Revival-styled depot. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0015 

Business Office, Randolph-Macon, 310 N. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1895 Historically known as the Blackwell House, 

elaborate and outstanding example of Queestyled architecture with Eastlake elements ihistoric community. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0055 

House, 702 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1850 Historically known as the Emily Gray House

one-and-a-half-story, three-bay resource is outstanding example of Second Empire-stylearchitecture. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0060 

House, 708 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1894 Historically known as the Fleming Fox Hous

two-and-a-half-story, four-bay dwelling is an outstanding example of a Colonial Revival-sdwelling with Free Classic elements. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0077 

House, 1005 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1890 This two-and-a-half-story, four-bay, Folk Vic

dwelling possesses characteristics of Queen while its form and orientation suggest an eaconstruction date. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon 

College Historic District 

Hanover County 1872–1950 The district includes the 85-acre college cam

and all associated buildings, structures, and landscape features. This is the oldest Methorelated college in the United States still in operation. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0036 MacMurdo House, 

713 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1858 This two-story, three-bay, Greek Revival, si

family dwelling is one of the few buildings of in Ashland, and it has excellent historic inte

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0037 Hugo House, 

11208 Gwathmey Church Road 

Hanover County ca. 1886 This two-story, three-bay, Queen-Anne, fra

dwelling is an elaborate and outstanding exaQueen Anne-styled architecture in the com

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5041 Priddy House, 

107 Stebbins Street 

Hanover County ca. 1926 This one-and-a-half-story, four-bay, single-fa

dwelling is an outstanding example of Craftsstyled domestic architecture in this commu

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon 

College Historic District Expansion 

Hanover County ca. 1900–1960 The Randolph-Macon College Historic Dist

Expansion highlights a significant part of camdeveloped between the early-twentieth cento the mid-1960s when a substantial buildinoccurred. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5073 Berkleytown 

Historic District 

Hanover County ca. 1900–1965 The district is typical of many small-town, 

twentieth-century, African-American neighborhoods in that it was relatively isolatthe formal downtown core and is dotted by vernacular dwellings. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-142 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5073-0010 

House, Dabney Funeral Home, 600 B Street 

Hanover County 1955 The funeral home is a one-story, masonry 

structure. Its design builds upon that of a vesingle-family dwelling and has grown over tiserve the various needs of a small, AfricanAmerican, family-owned, funeral home. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, 

Auburn Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Chesterfield County 1804 This resource is significant as a representati

early-nineteenth century antebellum plantathas evolved into a modern, twentieth-centuand dairying operation. The main house is aexcellent example of vernacular interpretatthe Early Classical Revival style in the piedmarea constructed in an I-form. Numerous archaeological resources are located on the 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0013 House, 

3619 Thurston Road 

Chesterfield County 1913 This resource is a one-and-a-half-story Colon

Revival dwelling with a gambrel roof and flareIt retains a high degree of architectural integr

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0022/ 44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks Chesterfield County 1861 The earthworks were developed by Confed

troops as part of the Outer Line of defenseDrewry’s Bluff. Although some sections of tearthworks have been destroyed, the extanremain in excellent condition, and the remaelements of the artillery battery, trenches, aemplacements are representative of earthwdeveloped in this area during the Civil War. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0140 Circle Oaks, 

4510 Centralia Road 

Chesterfield County 1840 This resource is a two-story, wood-frame s

family dwelling featuring a two-story, wrap-veranda. Property includes a small tenant ho(perhaps servant’s quarters) and a kitchen. COaks is the oldest and largest building in the community. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office Chesterfield County 1905 The one-story building was the center of th

community of Centralia. It was constructed east onto the rail tracks to accommodate ratravelers through this area during the econoboom of the pre-World War I days. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5336 The BellwoodRichmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, United States Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District 

Chesterfield County post-1942 The district is a group of residential, industr

military buildings dating from construction oSheffield/Bellwood Manor (020-0007), circa to the development of the Korean Conflict-buildings in 1952. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5351 Richmond & 

Petersburg Electric Railway 

Chesterfield County 1902 This resource contains the alignment of the 

trolley system. Creation of this line was the impetus for large-scale modifications to settpatterns in central Virginia. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5378 VEPCo Power 

Transmission Line 

Chesterfield County ca. 1910 The VEPCo Line was built sometime betwe

and 1930, likely between 1925 and 1927, prhigh-voltage electric power service to the pthe area. It is approximately 1 mile long, and the only remaining portion of the line that oextended from Richmond to Petersburg. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance Chesterfield County 1929 The first of several buildings on the DuPont 

Spruance Plant was constructed under the ownership of DuPont Rayon Co. This large has played a significant role in the developmtextiles and plastics in the United States. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial 

School Historic District, Hungary Road 

Henrico County 1892 The district consists of a complex of buildin

were part of a school founded under the paof the Prison Association of Virginia, a grouprivate citizens who sought to reform the spenal system, by establishing a self-supportinmodel industrial reformatory for boys. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0292-0001 

Main Building/Robert Stiles Building/Bluford Office Building, 2900 Hungary Road 

Henrico County 1895 This resource is a two-story, seven-bay, ma

school building constructed in the RomanesRevival style. The resource, now used as an building, acted as the main dormitory, chapeschool, and dining hall for the incarcerated during the school’s tenure. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-144 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0439 Aviation General 

Supply Depot, 508 Bickerstaff Road 

Henrico County 1917 The large U-shaped warehouse at the equip

depot, the focal point of the complex, was constructed as an aviation general supply dethe Aviation Section of the United States ASignal Corps. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0690 Lewis-McLeod 

House, 2945 Mountain Road 

Henrico County ca. 1921 The dwelling is a two-story, three-bay, Colo

Revival-style single-family home. The buildinoutstanding example of the Colonial Revivaand retains integrity of materials and design

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5313 James River Steam 

Brewery Cellars, 4920 Old Main Street 

Henrico County 1866 Resource includes vaulted tunnels with a gr

block façade pierced by round-arched openThey were constructed as the below-grade and fermentation space for the five-story brJames River Steam Brewery building above longer extant). 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5636 Integrated Power 

Sources of VA, 2260 Dabney Road 

Henrico County ca. 1940 This resource is a two-story, two-bay, com

building moved to its current location durin1930s when Fort A.P. Hill was established. Ipurportedly the only surviving building movthis time. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5657 Darling Smokestack, 

Old Washington Highway 

Henrico County ca. 1910 The resource is formed of brick, features a 

corbeled cap, and ‘Darling’ is marked in painwhite bricks, most likely referring to a businname. It is one of only three smokestacks to individually recorded in Virginia. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0119 John Woodward 

House, 3017 Williamsburg Avenue 

City of Richmond pre-1782 This resource is a two-and-a-half-story, sing

dwelling with an older one-story core. It is the city's oldest surviving buildings. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0171 James River and 

Kanawha Canal Historic District 

City of Richmond 1795 Circa 1785, the canal improved navigation o

James River from Richmond to Botetourt Cdistance of approximately 200 miles; Districcomprises the canal and canal towpath. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0172 Main Street Station 

and Trainshed, New Union Station, Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot 

City of Richmond 1901 This multi-story, multi-bay monumental stru

symbolizes the importance of the rail termientrance gateway to Richmond; example of influence of the French Ecole des Beaux ArtAmerican building. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0192 St. John's Church 

Historic District 

City of Richmond 18th Century to 

1940 

Located northeast of the city core, the distrimade up of mostly residences and is said to cthe some of the oldest extant buildings in Ric

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0192-0322 

Libby Hill Park and Park House, 2801 East Franklin Street 

City of Richmond ca. 1873 The park is made up of grassy areas, monum

fountains, walkways, and benches and includone-story, Queen Anne building originally constructed as the Libby Hill Park keeper's 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf 

Storage Warehouse, 1717-1721 East Cary Street 

City of Richmond 1914 Built as a warehouse in the early-twentieth 

this building stands as an excellent example sparingly ornamented yet functionally designcommercial structure of the turn-of-the-centhat served as the forerunner and inspiratiothe International style. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic 

District and Expansions 

City of Richmond 1780 Circa late-nineteenth and early-twentieth ce

erected as wholesale food or tobacco warewith some serving light industry; buildings gare modified Italianate in style. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0226 Science Museum of 

Virginia, 2500 Broad Street West 

City of Richmond 1919 This building is a 3-story, 11-bay, monumental 

Neoclassical style train station that now houses Science Museum of Virginia. This resource was by architect John Russell Pope and is constructedressed ashlar with a large, central, copper dom

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 City of Richmond 1938 This is a three-span, concrete, vehicular brid

is unique as a pre-1950 continuous beam stand for the classical style balustrade. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-146 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0282 Henrico County 

Courthouse, 2127 Main Street East 

City of Richmond 1896 The courthouse is a three-story, three-bay, 

Romanesque Revival-style civic building. It is example of Romanesque Revival civic architin the city and is an important site in the hisHenrico County. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ 

Plateau Historic District 

City of Richmond 1889

–1950 This district is one of Richmond’s early stre

suburbs that features 659 contributing resocomposed mainly of single-family, frame dwconstructed in the Queen Anne, CraftsmanColonial Revival, and Gothic Revival styles. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & 

Tobacco Row Historic District 

City of Richmond post 1737 This district encompasses the area of Richm

earliest residential, commercial, and manufaactivity; architectural styles ranging from Fethrough twentieth-century industrial vernac

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0344-0123 

Railroad Y.M.C.A., 1552 East Main Street 

City of Richmond 1907 The resource is a three-story, three-bay, 

rectangular, French Renaissance Revival-stylcommercial building. It is in good condition originally designed by Wilson, Harris, and Rto provide recreational space for railroad wand their families in the area. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing 

Home, 210 Hospital Street 

City of Richmond 1860 This resource is a three-story, multi-bay, instit

building in the Italianate style. It was built by thRichmond as an almshouse for the poor and represents the social reform movements that prevalent throughout Antebellum America. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0354 Virginia Union 

University Historic District, 1500 North Lombardy Street 

City of Richmond 1899 The district consists of 11 acres of the Virgi

Union University campus that contain the ocollegiate buildings built in a simplified Richardsonian Romanesque style. The univewas originally established to educate newly emancipated freedman following the Civil W

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0414 Governor's School, 

1000 North Lombardy Street 

City of Richmond 1938 The building is a three-story, multi-bay, scho

in the Art Deco style. The school was desigprominent Richmond architects Carneal, JoWright as the first vocational high school in Richmond for African-Americans. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0428 George W. Carver 

Elementary School, 1110 West Leigh Street 

City of Richmond 1887 The resource is a two-and-a-half-story, five-

school built in the Italianate style. The schoopurpose-built as a public school for AfricanAmerican students and saw a notable increause in the early-twentieth century. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0457 Manchester 

Warehouse Historic District 

City of Richmond 1880–1960 The district comprises 42 blocks of industri

development associated with the growth andevelopment of the community of Manchestarea south of the James River that was once separate town but later incorporated within of Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0742 West of Boulevard 

Historic District 

City of Richmond ca. 1895 This district is composed of residences, chu

schools, and commercial buildings that rangfrom around 1895 to 1943. It is an excellenexample of a streetcar suburb. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0822 Carver Residential 

Historic District 

City of Richmond pre-1958 This district is a working class neighborhoo

adjacent to Jackson Ward (127-0237), featucontributing resources composed of mainly family, frame dwellings constructed during tnineteenth and early-twentieth centuries in vernacular form with Greek Revival, ItalianaQueen Anne elements. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0854 Bridge #1850, E. 

Main Street, spanning Southern Railway 

City of Richmond ca. 1913 This is a two-span, concrete, vehicular struc

and is an early Virginia example of the use oreinforced concrete technology for bridges. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5679 Barton Heights 

Cemetery, 1600 Lamb Avenue 

City of Richmond 1814 This area is a 12-acre parcel that contains six 

contiguous, but originally separate, cemeterieout in a grid pattern with hundreds of markediffering materials, sizes, and styles. The cemeare significant because they represent early ethe African-American population in Richmonestablish their own cemeteries. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-148 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, 

South 14th Street; Mayo Bridge South 

City of Richmond 1911 The Mayo Bridge is a closed spandrel reinfo

concrete arch bridge consisting of two sect(127-5808, south sections, and 127-5809, nosection) extending between the north and sbanks of the James River and separated in thmiddle by Mayo Island. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5809 Bridge #1857, 

North 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge North 

City of Richmond 1911 The Mayo Bridge is a closed spandrel reinfo

concrete arch bridge consisting of two sect(127-5808, south section, and 127-5809, nosection) extending between the north and sbanks of the James River and separated in thmiddle by Mayo Island. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5978 Todd Lofts, 

1128 Hermitage Road 

City of Richmond 1892 The structure is a five-story, multi-bay com

building. Originally built as the Richmond Brthe E.M. Todd Company bought the building 1919 and expanded it into a meat productiofacility. Until 1998, this resource housed the county’s oldest meat processor in continuobusiness. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage, 

East Main Street 

City of Richmond ca. 1866 This dwelling is a one-story cottage constru

no discernible style. The cottage was constrfor Emily Winfree by her former owner and to its current location in 2002. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6136 Scott's Addition 

Historic District 

City of Richmond post-1900 This area is a 152-acre industrial and comm

district in Richmond featuring 287 contributresources built primarily between 1900 and the Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, MissiModerne, International, and Art Deco style

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6145 Southern Stove 

Works, 1215 Hermitage Road 

City of Richmond 1905 This resource is an industrial complex of fo

buildings and a water tower built during the rapid industrialization in Richmond. SoutherWorks was one of the two largest and mosimportant stove-making plants in Richmond South. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6165 Cookie Factory 

Lofts, 900 Terminal Place 

City of Richmond 1927 The building, previously known as Southern 

Company, Interbake Foods, and Famous FoVirginia, is a six-story, multi-bay industrial bwith a water tower on the roof that was constructed with Colonial Revival attributes

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery, 

320 Hospital Street 

City of Richmond 1816 Previously known as the Hebrew Burying G

this resource is an 8.4-acre cemetery with approximately 2,600 interments that is still use today. The Hebrew Cemetery is the oldactive Jewish cemetery in continuous use on South, as well as being the oldest cemetery continuous use in Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6171 Richmond and 

Chesapeake Bay Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland Railway Company Car Barn 

City of Richmond 1907 The resource is a utilitarian industrial buildi

a T-plan building, structural steel frame, and Truss roof. It is one of the few surviving buiassociated with the independent electric raithat provided service between the city of Rand the town of Ashland from 1907 to 1938

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6188 Movieland Bowtie 

Cinema, 1331 North Boulevard 

City of Richmond 1887 The building, previously known as the Richm

Locomotive & Machine Works, the AmericaLocomotive Company, and Richmond Worindustrial complex with two buildings, the bfoundry and the iron foundry, that are both framed resources with masonry walls. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf 

Tobacco, Southern Stove Works, 516 Dinwiddie Avenue 

City of Richmond 1920 This resource mirrors other early-twentieth 

century factories in the area: all brick constwith regularly spaced and relatively large wiand sections of light monitor on the pitched apex for allowing natural light for the workewas used as a stove factory and then for tobprocessing. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6213 Davee Gardens 

Historic District 

City of Richmond 1947 This district is a planned, symmetrical subur

Richmond, established in 1947. Homes in thneighborhood retain a high degree of historintegrity, and the street plan is emblematic oWorld War II design. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-150 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6245/ 44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory, 700 East 4th Street 

City of Richmond 1919 Built in 1919 to assist with World War I wa

efforts; also used by the United States goveduring World War II; eligible boundary conmain factory and apartment structures used house workers during both world wars. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company, 

1314 Commerce Street, Transmontaigne 

City of Richmond 1936 This property has been used to refine, store

and process oil extracts for almost 80 yearsfounded in 1928 as Gulf Refinery Company; associated with the history of oil production transport in Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line 

Railroad Corridor, Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 

City of Richmond post 1833 Historic railroad corridor that represents t

origins and growth of the railroad industry Richmond to Petersburg corridor; reflects tCivil War trend of merging smaller operatioprovide better service while being more economical. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works, 

Williamsburg Avenue 

City of Richmond ca. 1925 A notable complex of industrial buildings that 

utilities to Richmond citizens during the first htwentieth century that, despite years of vacancappears to retain its historic integrity. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad Corridor 

City of Richmond 1900 Historic railroad corridor that represents th

origins and growth of the railroad industry Richmond to Petersburg corridor; reflects tCivil War trend of merging smaller operatioprovide better service while being more economical. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6514 Kent Road Village, 

905 Kent Road 

City of Richmond 1942 Kent Road Village is a group of 11 two-stor

garden apartment buildings on a flat, wedge3.4-acre property. The buildings represent tdominance of the Colonial Revival style in Richmond and were designed by Richmond architect E. Tucker Carlton. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6569 Central National 

Bank, 3501 W Broad Street 

City of Richmond 1956 The building is a two-story, seven-bay comm

bank and office building. It is rectangular in fgood condition, and reflects the Internationmodern movements in styling. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6570 West Broad Street 

Industrial and Commercial Historic District 

City of Richmond 1890–1960 The district comprises an area of approxima

acres; it reflects the development of the indcapabilities of Richmond, and the allied development of commercial resources, culmin the embrace of large-scale consumer ecothe middle of the twentieth century. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6629 Cedarhurst 

Neighborhood Historic District 

City of Richmond post-1941 The neighborhood is a planned residential 

neighborhood that is significant for its desigcharacteristics, including its Colonial RevivaMinimal Traditional, Ranch, and Tudor Revivarchitectural styles. Many of the homes in thdevelopment maintain a high level of architeintegrity. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6693 Armitage 

Manufacturing Company, 3200 Williamsburg Avenue 

City of Richmond 1900 The original 2-story, 14-bay section of the b

front (south) wing was designed by the archfirm of Noland & Baskerville. A third story wadded in the 1920s. The warehouse has a noimportance to late-nineteenth and early twecentury local industry. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6730 Hermitage Road 

Warehouse Historic District 

City of Richmond 1930–1958 This industrial district is characterized by ro

dozen medium- to large-scale one-story wabuildings set on a gridded block pattern. Mothe buildings have large footprints that occuof the block on which they sit. The buildings typically one-story, clad in brick, and covereflat roofs. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6756 Carillon 

Neighborhood Historic District 

City of Richmond 1859 The neighborhood encompasses approxima

acres and contains approximately 475 resoumost of which are residential buildings. It represents 2 centuries of suburban growth urban planning. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic 

District 

City of Richmond ca. 1950–1960 Woodstock is a post-World War II-era, sub

neighborhood containing approximately 91 7 of which were inventoried as part of this The dwellings were constructed in the MiniTraditional style. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-152 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6792 Southern Railway City of Richmond ca. 1850 A railroad corridor that dates to the midnineteenth century and was key in Richmon

development for more than a century. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6793 C&O Railroad City of Richmond Pre-1851 The C&O Railroad that is primarily made up 

parallel steel tracks that is notable for its roRichmond's transportation history. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6840 Warehouse, 

2728 Hermitage Road 

City of Richmond ca. 1955 Unknown; No access granted during Phase 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

TBD Broad Run House, 

2011 S. Kinsley Avenue 

City of Richmond ca. 1770 This two-story, Federal-style, frame dwellin

constructed with a central-passage plan. It is and exceptional, surviving example of a lateeighteenth century dwelling in this area of Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

Temp 402 House, 

351 W. 49th Street 

City of Richmond ca. 1958 Unknown; No access granted during Phase 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

TBD Rolando Historic 

District 

City of Richmond ca. 1946

–1950 The district is a post-World War II-era, sub

neighborhood containing approximately 142 parcels. The dwellings were constructed in Minimal Traditional style. The neighborhood contributing dwellings have been generally unchanged since its subdivision in 1946. 

All 076-0301 RF&P Railroad Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria, Fairfax County, Prince William County, Stafford County, City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, Caroline County, Hanover County, Henrico County, City of Richmond 

1836 The RF&P opened in 1836 and eventually sp

from the Potomac River to Richmond. The DC2RVA corridor includes the main rail linand associated elements, such as station hobridges, and other structures. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-153 

3.13.2.2 Battlefields 

Spanning the area between the Union capital in Washington, D.C. and the Confederate capital in 

Richmond, the Project area was the site of numerous Civil War battles, skirmishes, and 

occupations as the two armies fought for control of this important land. Although development 

has consumed many historic landscapes once associated with the war, DHR and the American 

Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) have identified 11 battlefields in the architectural APE. 

Each comprises a unique set of features and represents different aspects of the war between 1861 

and 1865. 

In Virginia, battlefields are recorded as aboveground historic districts. Each encompasses 

hundreds, if not thousands, of acres, and many of these battlefields are now located in areas of 

urban and suburban development. As such, many of the elements and conditions extant at the 

time of the battle are no longer in existence. This is especially notable for archaeological sites, 

where disturbances from development, transportation improvements, and other forms of largescale earth movement have greatly diminished the potential for intact archaeological sites related 

to their period of significance. Because of this, and due to the nature of these vast resources, in 

Virginia, they are evaluated primarily as landscapes for their aboveground integrity and 

significance. Individual buildings, structures, objects, and sites within each battlefield are 

evaluated as both individual resources and for their contribution to the larger landcape. 

However, because of their size, complexity, and quantity, battlefields are regularly separated 

from other aboveground and belowground resources during environmental evaluations to aid 

the discussion. (Note: Archaeological resources recorded as individual sites within the APE have 

been listed in the Archaeological results section above.) 

In light of the above concepts and per DHR guidelines, each battlefield was surveyed in a manner 

similar to other aboveground resources. Because they have already been determined to be eligible 

by DHR prior to the current study (Table 3.13-6), they were briefly revisited through a vehicular 

identification-level survey to photo document their general condition and confirm the previous 

eligibility determinations. 

Battlefields, as recorded in the APE, are enumerated in Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6 and a description 

is provided. The ABPP boundaries for all resources have been used per DHR guidance. 

Table 3.13-5: Summary of Battlefields 

Alternative Area 

NRHP Listed 

Resources 

NRHP Eligible 

Resources Total Resources 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

0 3 3 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

0 1 1 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 0 7 7 

Note: One resource listed in the Richmond area also extends into the Ashland area. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-154 

Historic Battlefields 

3.13.2.3 Tribal Land 

The Pamunkey are the sole federally recognized tribe in Virginia. In addition, 11 state-recognized 

tribes are in the Commonwealth: Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, 

Rappahannock, Upper Mattaponi, Nansemond, Monacan Indian Nation, Cheroenhaka 

(Nottoway), Nottoway of Virginia, and Patawomeck. None of these tribes has established tribal 

lands within or adjacent to the Project area. In addition, no prehistoric sites have been recorded 

in the APE. As such, no recorded tribe-associated properties are within the APE or surrounding 

area. The Pamunkey tribe was invited to be a consulting party to the Section 106 process. 

Outside of the Commonwealth, the Catawba Indian Tribe was also invited to be a consulting 

party as they have a stated interest in projects along the I-95 corridor (see Appendix U for Tribal 

invitation letters). 

Neither invited tribe has elected to participate in the process; however, DRPT is assuming 

consulting party status for the Pamunkey Tribe. Comments have not been submitted by any of 

the tribes on any Project documents to date. Chapter 5 provides full details on the tribal 

coordination efforts completed for this Project.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-6: Description of Battlefields

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

088-5181 Salem Church Battlefield 

(Banks Ford Battlefield) 

Spotsylvania County, City of Fredericksburg 

1863 The battlefield includes the land where 

Hay's and Hoke's brigades attacked the Union Sixth Corps in 1863. It includes Confederate earthworks, Salem Church, and the path of the Plank Road. 

Eligi(Fedeligiduriiniti

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I City of Fredericksburg 1862 The battlefield is the location of a Civil War 

battle that occurred between December 11 and December 15, 1862. Union Major General Ambrose Burnside and his troops battled General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate men, resulting in a Confederate victory. The battlefield continues to retain a high level of integrity. 

EligiCritdeteNPS batt

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II City of Fredericksburg 1863 The Battlefield is a 12,694.2-acre battlefield 

associated with a Civil War battle of the same name, which took place on May 3, 1863. Despite expansive residential, commercial, and industrial development around the battlefield and Fredericksburg, it continues to retain a high level of integrity. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield Hanover County 1864 The North Anna Battlefield was the 

location of one of the most important Civil War campaigns in the state. It was the culminating point of the 1864 Overland Campaign. The battlefield is composed of defensive earthworks and trenches, as well as other elements predating and contemporaneous with the battle. 

Eligi(Fedeligiduriiniti

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield Henrico County 1864 The battlefield is the location of a Civil War 

battle that took place in May 1864 (Dollins, 2014). Major General J.E.B. Stuart was wounded and died, and the battle ended in a Union victory. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-156 

Table 3.13-6: Description of Battlefields

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff Battlefield 

(Fort Darling, Fort Drewry), Fort Darling Road 

Chesterfield County, Henrico County 

1862 Drewry’s Bluff encompasses 42.4 acres of 

land. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp based at Fort Harrison rehabilitated the site in 1935, clearing brush and trees and stabilizing the earthworks. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek 

Battlefield 

Chesterfield County, Colonial Heights 

1864 Currently, the battlefield consists of 

monuments, interpretive markers (state and freeman markers/park service interpretation at Fort Darling unit/county interpretation at Fort Stephens), a cemetery, historic roadbeds, period structures (Wooldridge, Willis, Halfway houses), and trenches/field fortifications. 

EligiCritdeteABPbattdeteSEH

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm 

(New Market Heights Battlefield), New Market Road 

Chesterfield County, Henrico County, Richmond City 

1862 The Battle of New Market Heights is 

nationally significant because of the allimportant role played by Black soldiers in this fight and the recognition of their gallantry by the United States government through the award of 14 Medals of Honor to participants. 

EligiCritof eduriinitia201

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5071 Darbytown & New 

Market Roads Battlefield, Route 5 

Henrico County 1864 The battlefield is the location of this notable 

1864 engagement. Most of the area has been subsumed by development. 

EligiCritof eduriinitia

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II), Bermuda Hundred Road (Alt Route 697) 

Charles City County, Chesterfield County, Colonial Heights City, Hopewell City, Petersburg City, Prince George County 

1865 This resource includes a Civil War battlefield 

that represents part of the Richmond Petersburg campaign in and around Petersburg. Today, the battlefield consists of earthworks, roadways, and other features, as well as interpretive materials. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

Chesterfield County 1861

−1865 The battlefield includes the area of fighting, 

as well as associated landscape features. The most notable feature is a series of earthworks, portions of which are still visible on the surface. 

Eligiand eligiSEH
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-157 

3.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES 

This section describes the parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges within the study 

area. Those parklands with special protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 or Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act are also 

identified. The study area for Section 4(f) resources, Section 6(f) resources, and other parks and 

recreational areas is 500 feet to each side of the existing rail line, comprising a 1,000-foot-wide 

study area. Within the Fredericksburg and Ashland Bypass areas, the study area is a 1,000 feet 

wide surrounding the proposed rail line. Tables 3.14-1 through 3.14-4 describe federally owned 

parkland, state parkland, local county or city parkland, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. For 

each parkland resource, the name, size, ownership and general features are described. Because 

they may span across city and county boundaries and have different levels of ownership, linear 

facilities such as trails are discussed in a separate section, Section 3.14.5. Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

DOT Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138) affords additional protection to public parks, recreation areas, 

and wildlife or waterfowl refuges. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act affords 

additional protection to property acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation 

Funds (LWCF). Sections 3.14.6 and 3.14.7 describe regulations relating to Sections 4(f) and 6(f) in 

more detail and describe those parkland resources that meet those criteria for additional 

protection. Figure 3.14-1 identifies the locations of all parklands, recreational areas and wildlife 

refuges discussed in this section. 

3.14.1 Federal Parklands 

Table 3.14-1 describes the federal parklands within the study area including size, ownership, and 

park features. 

Table 3.14-1: Federal Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

George Washington 

Memorial Parkway 

Northern 

Virginia 

1105 NPS  Transportation and recreational 

driving 

 Walking trails 

Quantico Recreation 

Area (Unnamed) 

Northern 

Virginia 

9 MCBQ  Access is limitied to those with 

military identification 

 Basketball courts 

 Soccer fields 

 Playgrounds 

Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National 

Military Park 

Fredericksburg 

and Central 

Virginia 

8374 NPS  Comprised of several differenct 

sections 

 Encompasses four major Civil 

War battlefields and preserves 

four historic buildings 

 Contains Stonewall Jackson 

Shrine 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-158 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-159 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-160 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-161 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-162 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-163 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-164 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-165 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-166 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-167 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-168 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-169 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-170 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-171 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-172 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-173 

3.14.2 State and Regional Parklands and Recreation Areas 

Table 3.14-2 describes the state and regional parklands and recreation areas including size, 

ownership, and park features. 

Table 3.14-2: State and Regional Parklands and Recreation Areas 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Leesylvania State Park Northern 

Virginia 

553 VDCR  Playgrounds 

 Boat launch and boat storage area 

 Snack bar, store, and visitor center 

 Fitness trail 

 Universally accessible fishing pier 

Widewater State Park Northern 

Virginia 

1042 VDCR  Park is in development 

 Land purchased in 2006 

 Features will be similar to 

Leesylvania State Park 

Cameron Run Regional 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

30 Operated by Northern 

Virginia Regional Park 

Authority (NVRPA) 

Owned by City of Alexandria 

 Waterpark 

 Café 

 Playgrounds 

 Batting cage 

 Mini-golf 

State and Regional Parklands−Cameron Run Regional Park 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-174 

3.14.3 County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Table 3.14-3 describes the County/City and other local parklands including size, ownership, and 

park features. 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Arlington County

Long Bridge Park Arlington 29 Arlington County  Multi-sport, lighted, athletic fields, 

 Walkways 

 Greenspace 

 Playgrounds 

Crystal Park North Northern 

Virginia 

2 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Small urban park 

 Part of Crystal City development 

Crystal City Water 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

2.5 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Urban park 

 Landscaped gardens 

 Large water fountains 

 Seating areas 

 Part of Crystal City development 

Crystal City Courtyard 

Green 

Northern 

Virginia 

4.3 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Urban greenspace 

 Flower gardens 

 Trails and park benches 

 Part of Crystal City development 

Crystal City Children’s 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

4.4 Private ownership – no fee 

for access during nonbusiness hours 

 Facility was built primarily for use 

by the resident day-care facility 

but it is open to use by area 

families during non-business 

hours 

 Playrgrounds 

 Part of Crystal City development 

City of Alexandria

Daingerfield Island Park Northern 

Virginia 

162 City of Alexandria  Located adjacent to the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway 

 Sailing and fishing are available at 

the park 

 Popular destination for fireworks 

viewing on the 4th of July 

Potomac Greens Park Northern 

Virginia 

18 City of Alexandria  Playgrounds 

 Seating areas 

 Wooded trails 

Potomac Yard Park Northern 

Virginia 

13 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Playground equipment 

 Interactive fountain for water play 

 Walking/biking trails 

Old Town Greens 

Recreational Area 

Northern 

Virginia 

1.7 Private ownership – for Old 

Town Greens residents use 

only 

 Tennis courts 

 Greenspace 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-175 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Eugene Simpson 

Stadium Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

18 City of Alexandria  Includes Eugene Simpson Stadium 

 Soccer fields 

Braddock Park Northern 

Virginia 

7.1 City of Alexandria  Baseball/softball fields 

 Football fields 

Metro Linear Park Northern 

Virginia 

3.8 City of Alexandria  Linear pathway that connects the 

Buchanan Street neighborhood 

with the metro stations at 

Braddock Road and King Street 

King Street Gardens Northern 

Virginia 

0.4 City of Alexandria  Consists primarily of gardens for 

the public’s enjoyment 

Traffic Circle Park Northern 

Virginia 

0.1 City of Alexandria  Small greenspace with minimal 

landscaping 

Hooff’s Run Park and 

Greenway 

Northern 

Virginia 

4.5 City of Alexandria  Portion of the park closest to the 

railroad consists of only walking 

trails 

Buchanan Park Northern 

Virginia 

2.8 City of Alexandria  Adjacent to Jefferson Houston 

Elementary School 

 Includes the Olde Town Pool 

 Playground facilities 

Sunset Mini Park Northern 

Virginia 

1.4 City of Alexandria  Playground 

Dog Run Park at 

Carlyle 

Northern 

Virginia 

3.0 City of Alexandria  Fenced dog exercise area 

 Tennis courts 

Witter Fields Northern 

Virginia 

13 City of Alexandria  Obtained by the City as a result 

of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 

Settlement Agreement Record of 

Decision between the City of 

Alexandria and the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

 Includes lighted diamond field, 

two lighted synthetic turf 

rectangular fields, restrooms, 

park pavilions, and pedestrian trail 

Clermon Natural Area Northern 

Virginia 

6.0 City of Alexandria  Consists solely of a wooded area 

Joseph Hensley Park Northern 

Virginia 

22 City of Alexandria  Soccer and softball fields 

 Picnic shelters 

Fairfax County 

Backlick Stream Valley 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

75 Fairfax County Park 

Authority (FCPA) 

 Passive recreation such as hiking 

Franconia Forest Northern 

Virginia 

6.7 FCPA  Hiking/biking trails 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-176 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Loisdale Park Northern 

Virginia 

8.6 FCPA  Playgrounds 

 Tennis courts 

 Multi-use courts 

 Soccer fields 

Accotink Stream Valley 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

475 FCPA  Passive recreation such as hiking 

Pohick Stream Valley 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

323 FCPA  Passive recreation such as hiking 

Mason Neck West Northern 

Virginia 

76 FCPA  In development 

 44 acres are planned for sporting 

facilities 

 32 acres have been acquired but 

future use remains unplanned, 

currently unimproved 

Old Colchester 

Preserve and Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

141 FCPA  Natural preserve with rare 

communities and animal species 

 Includes a variety of 

archaeological resources 

Prince William County 

Jefferson Park Site Northern 

Virginia 

6.9 Prince William County  Identified as a future 

neighborhood park 

 Currently open space 

Veterans Memorial 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

110 Prince William County  Outdoor athletic fields 

 Walking trails and picnic pavilions 

 Skate park 

Marumsco Acre Lake 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

20 Prince William County  Basketball court 

 Picnic pavilion 

 Playground area 

Cockpit Point Northern 

Virginia 

96 Prince William County  In development 

 Not open yet; will be open to 

visitors on a limited basis at first 

 Part of a rezoning agreement with 

the Potomac Shores community 

Stafford County

Embry Farm Fredericksburg 11 Private ownership by the 

George Washington 

Foundation - not open to 

the public 

 Historic preservation 

 Not open to the public 

George Washiongton’s 

Ferry Farm 

Fredericksburg 75 Private ownership by the 

George Washington 

Foundation - open to the 

public for a fee 

 George Washington’s boyhood 

home 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-177 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

City of Fredericksburg

Cobblestone Park Fredericksburg 10 City of Fredericksburg  Wooded area with pedestrian 

trails 

 Adjacent to Hazel Run Creek 

Pierson/Slaughter Pen 

Farm 

Fredericksburg 200 Private ownership by the 

Civil War Preservation 

Trust – open to the public 

without a fee 

 Acquired in 2006 

 Key historic part of the nearby 

Fredericksburg Battlefield 

Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties 

Mary Lee Carter Park Fredericksburg 4.5 Spotsylvanic County  Multi-use athletic fields 

 Walking trails 

 Playground 

 Picnic areas 

Alexander Berger 

Memorial Sanctuary 

Fredericksburg 865 Private ownership by the 

Nature Conservancy – open 

to the public without a fee 

 Includes recreational trails near 

the Rappahannock River 

 Includes remnants of a Civil War 

encampment 

Hanover County

North Ashland Park Ashland 0.2 Town of Ashland  Open greenspace 

 Picnic shelter 

 Under development and is likely 

to expand in size 

 Part of a much larger 29-acre parcel 

owned by the Town that includes a 

sewage treatment facility and 

maintenance/ storage areas 

Railside Park Ashland 1.0 Town of Ashland  Connects to Vaughan Road by a 

1/3-mile-long path along the rail 

tracks 

 Remains largely open space 

 Picnic table and park benches for 

viewing passing trains 

Blincoe Field Ashland 116 Private ownership by 

Randolph Macon College – 

not regularly open to the 

public 

 Athletic stadium at Randolph 

Macon College 

 Open to the public for a fee 

during special events 

 Primarily for use by faculty and 

students 

Carter Park Ashland 13.5 Town of Ashland  Junior Olympic-size swimming 

pool 

 One-half basketball court 

 Picnic shelter 

 Playground 

 Gravel walking trails through the 

wooded areas 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-178 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Ashland Trolley Line Ashland 6.7 Hanover County and Town 

of Ashland 

 0.5 miles in length 

 Walkway and park 

 Part of the historic AshlandRichmond Trolley Line 

 Northern portion includes 

Walder Lane 

Henrico County

Hunton Community 

Center 

Ashland 4.9 Henrico County  Playground 

 Ball fields 

 Pavilion 

RF&P Park Richmond 60 Henrico County  Includes four restored RF&P train 

cars 

 Picnic shelters 

 Athletic fields including The Glen 

Allen Stadium at RF&P Park 

Laurel Recreation Area Richmond 10 Henrico County  Skate park 

 Athletic fields 

 Picnic shelter 

City of Richmond

Joseph Bryan Park Richmond 250 City of Richmond  Extensive open space 

 Walking trails 

 Disc golf course 

 Home to many festivals and 

events 

Maggie Walker 

Governor’s School 

Athletic Fields 

Richmond 4.9 Maggie L Walker Governor’s 

School Regional School 

Board 

 Outdoor athletic fields 

Calhoun Community 

Center 

Richmond 6.6 Richmond Redevelopment 

and Housing Authority 

(RRHA) 

 Basketball courts 

 Football field 

 Baseball field 

 Playground 

Canal Walk Plaza and 

Entrance 

Richmond 3.8 City of Richmond  Recreational trails and walking 

areas near the James River 

Walker’s Creek 

Retention Basin Park 

Richmond 6.4 City of Richmond, Public 

Works 

 Provides access to the walk along 

the floodwall south of the James 

River 

Monument Avenue 

Linear Park 

Richmond 13 City of Richmond  In the median along Monument 

Avenue 

 Well-known Richmond landmark 

punctuated by statues 

memorializing Virginian 

Confederate generals and the 

Richmond native and tennis star 

Arthur Ashe 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-179 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Albert Hill Athletic 

Facility 

Richmond 3.2 City of Richmond  Adjacent to the Humphrey 

Calder Community Center and 

Garden 

 Includes athletic fields 

Humphrey Calder 

Community Center and 

Garden 

Richmond 5.4 City of Richmond  Includes some outdoor 

recreational areas and a 

community garden 

James River Park Richmond 550 City of Richmond  Richmond's largest park 

 System of parks along both sides 

of the James River as it passes 

through the city 

Covington Road 

Properties 

Richmond 6.6 City of Richmond  Currently consists of 

undeveloped land with a mix of 

open space and trees 

 No recreational facilities are 

provided at this location 

Hickory Hill 

Community Center and 

Elementary School 

Richmond 7,2 City of Richmond  Basketball court 

 Playground 

 Ball field 

 Walking trail 

Libby Hill Park Richmond 11 City of Richmond  One of the three original parks in 

Richmond's park system 

 Includes an ornamental fountain 

and small park house 

 Includes a monument erected in 

1894 for Confederate soldiers 

and sailors 

Cannonball Triangle 

Park 

Richmond 0.2 City of Richmond  Central element of the park is a 

stone monument to the 

Confederate Naval Yard in the 

James River just to the south of 

the monument 

Great Shiplock Park Richmond 18 City of Richmond  Located along the northern bank 

of the James River 

 Includes the lowest of the historic 

Kanawha Canal locks as well as an 

interpretive display 

Chesterfield County

Falling Creek Linear 

Park 

Richmond 93 Chesterfield County  In development 

 Ironworks are open for free 

tours by reservation only 

 Remainder of the park is adjacent 

to Falling Creek and is primarily 

wooded 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-180 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Bensley Elementary 

School 

Richmond 3.8 Chesterfield County  Athletic fields 

 Playgrounds 

 Separated from railroad by sliver 

of land belonging to Bellwood 

Supply Depot, which is part of an 

active military installation 

 School playground is fenced with 

no access to Bellwood Supply 

Depot land or the railroad tracks 

Gates Mill Park Richmond 11 Chesterfield County  Hiking trails 

3.14.4 Wildlife Refuges 

Wildlife refuges are lands set aside for conservation, restoration, or management of wildlife or 

waterfowl species and habitats. Refuges may be part of the National Wildlife Refuge System or 

state- or locally owned. Wildlife refuges may or may not allow public access. Wildlife 

management areas are similar but some may allow hunting. Table 3.14-4 describes the wildlife 

refuges and management areas located in the DC2RVA study area. 

Table 3.14-4: Wildlife Refuges 

Resource Name Alternative Area Size (acres) Ownership Features 

Roaches Run Waterfowl 

Sanctuary 

Arlington 59 NPS  Waterfowl protection area 

 Adjacent to the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway 

Featherstone National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Northern Virginia 332 USFWS  National Wildlife Refuge 

Mattaponi State Wildlife 

Management Area 

Central Virginia 2652 VDGIF  State wildlife management area 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-181 

3.14.5 Trails 

Recreational trail facilities are described in Table 3.14-5. Trails that use existing roadway facilities 

or bikeways along existing roads that are used primarily for transportation are not discussed here 

as recreational trails. Trails within the parklands previously discussed are not included in Table 

3.14-5 as they are afforded protection through the parklands within which they are located.. 

fOwnership of trails is typically varied due to their length. Portions may be on public lands or 

roadway rights-of-way and portions may be on private lands. 

Trails−Virginia Central Railway Trail 

Table 3.14-5: Trails 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Length 

(miles) Ownership Features 

Mount Vernon Trail Northern 

Virginia 

18 Various  Connects Theodore Roosevelt Island Park with 

George Washington’s Estate at Mount Vernon 

 Heavy use by bikers and pedestrians 

 Connects with several other local and regional 

trails, including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Trail, 

the Four Mile Run Trail, and the Custis Trail. 

Four Mile Run Trail Northern 

Virginia 

7 Various  Traverses the Four Mile Run stream valley 

 Connects with the Mount Vernon Trail near 

Ronald Reagan Washington Airport at eastern 

end 

 Connects with the Bluemont Junction Trail at 

western end 

Potomac Yard Trail Northern 

Virginia 

1.4 Various  Multi-use trail that begins in Potomac Yard Park 

and connects to the Braddock Road Metro Station 

Holmes Run Trail Northern 

Virginia 

5 Various  Begins near Cameron Run Regional Park, 

parallels Holmes Run stream, and continues 

northwest to end at State Route 244 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-182 

Table 3.14-5: Trails 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Length 

(miles) Ownership Features 

Eisenhower Avenue 

Trail 

Northern 

Virginia 

2 Various  Follows along Eisenhower Avenue and is 

adjacent to Cameron Run for much of its 

length. 

 West end is in Hensley Park 

 East end is near the Eisenhower Metro Station 

Fairfax County Parkway 

Trail 

Northern 

Virginia 

28 Various  Adjacent to Fairfax County Parkway 

 Paved trail connects to other trails, including 

the Washington and Old Dominion Trail and 

the Cross County Trail 

Long Branch Stream 

Valley Trail 

Northern 

Virginia 

0.5 WMATA  Unpaved natural surface trail 

 Connects the Springfield Forest neighborhood 

to the Fairfax County Parkway Trail and the 

Franconia-Springfield Metro Station 

Cross County Trail Northern 

Virginia 

40 Various  Extends from Great Falls National Park on the 

north end south to the Occoquan River 

 Some sections are wheelchair/mobility scooter 

accessible and some are suitable for horseback 

riding 

 Pedestrians and bikers may use the entire 

length 

Potomac Heritage Trail Northern 

Virginia 

Network of 

Trails 

Various  Network of locally managed trails between the 

mouth of the Potomac River and the Allegheny 

Highlands 

Veterans Memorial 

Park Pedestrian 

Overpass 

Northern 

Virginia 

0,03 Within rightof-way  Pedestrian overpass crossing over the railroad 

 Connects the Marumsco Acre Lake Park and 

the Marumsco Acres neighborhood on the 

west side of the railroad to the Veterans 

Memorial Park on the east side 

Bushy Point Trail Northern 

Virginia 

0.1 Within rightof-way  Primarily located within Leesylvania State Park 

 Small section crosses the CSXT right-of-way on 

the south side of Daniel K. Ludwig Drive 

 Crosses under existing bridge 

Belmont-Ferry Farm 

Trail 

Fredericksburg 2 Various  Existing meandering paved trail is approximately 

2 miles in length and connects Belmont and the 

Historic Park of Falmouth to John Lee Pratt 

Park 

 Proposed future phase would extend from the 

eastern terminus to follow along River Road 

and Kings Highway to connect to George 

Washington’s Ferry Farm Park 

Virginia Central Railway 

Trail 

Fredericksburg 5 Private 

ownership – 

open to the 

public without 

a fee 

 Existing section within the study area begins 

west of the tracks near Lafayette Boulevard and 

extends west through the neighborhood of 

Idlewild 

 Continued. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-183 

Table 3.14-5: Trails 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Length 

(miles) Ownership Features 

Virginia Capital Trail Richmond 53 Various  Follows along the James River and State Route 

5 from downtown Richmond to Jamestown and 

Williamsburg to the Southeast 

 The Richmond Riverfront section, which 

parallels Dock Street through Shockoe Bottom, 

begins at the Canal Walk 

Proposed James River 

Heritage Trail 

Richmond Network of 

Trails 

Various  Proposed braided trail system will encompass 

the James River and its banks from the 

headwaters in the Allegheny Mountains to the 

mouth of the river at the Chesapeake Bay 

 Will consist of land and water trails passing 

through rural areas, numerous small towns, and 

urban areas 

 Within the study area, the James River Park 

system, the Canal Walk, and the Virginia Capital 

Trail all contribute to the James River Heritage 

Trail 

James River Water 

Trail Lower Section 

Richmond 20 Water  Mapped water trail that extends west from 

downtown Richmond through Presquille 

Wildlife Refuge 

Captain John Smith 

Historic Trail 

Richmond Network of 

Trails 

Water  Water trail on the James River throughout the 

study area 

East Coast Greenway Richmond Network of 

Trails 

Various  Runs along the Atlantic Coast of the United 

States connecting Maine with Key West, FL 

 In Virginia, the trail goes south from 

Washington, D.C. through Fredericksburg to 

Richmond and then south to Raleigh, NC 

 Currently a loose network of existing trails, 

roadway links, and future trails 

Retention Basin Park 

Walkway 

Richmond 0.9 Various  Retention Basin Park allows access to the 

walkway along the flood wall on the south side 

of the James River 

 Walkway continues west of the park under the 

tracks. 

3.14.6 Section 6(f) Resources 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act prohibits the conversion of property 

acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) to a nonrecreational 

purpose without approval of the Department of the Interior's NPS. State and local governments 

often obtain grants to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas through this 

Act. Section 6(f) directs the United States Department of Interior (DOI) to assure that replacement 

lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. 

Consequently, where conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for transportation projects, 

replacement lands will be necessary. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-184 

Table 3.14-6 lists the parks and wildlife refuges within the study area that have been identified as 

receiving LWCF and are therefore afforded special protection under Section 6(f). 

Table 3.14-6: Section 6(f) Resources 

City/County Alternative Area Resource 

Arlington County, City of 

Alexandria 

Northern Virginia George Washington Memorial Parkway 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Leesylvania State Park 

Stafford County Northern Virginia Widewater State Park 

City of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Pierson Farm/Slaughter Pen Farm 

Spotsylvania County, City of 

Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg and 

Central Virginia 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Calhoun Community Center 

City of Richmond Richmond James River Park 

3.14.7 Section 4(f) Resources 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138) prohibits use of land from a public park, 

recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless it can be 

demonstrated that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the property and the 

Project included all possible planning to minimize impacts. 

 Section 4(f) applies only to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges. Similar resources that are privately owned yet open to the public are 

not considered Section 4(f) resources. 

 Section 4(f) also applies to historic sites listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

regardless of whether the site is in public or private ownership. 

 Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites listed on or eligible for inclusion on the 

NRHP, including those discovered during construction. The exception to this is when 

FRA, in consultation with DHR, determines that the archaeological resource is important 

chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value to 

preservation in place. 

 Section 4(f) applies to protected resources when a “use” occurs. This “use” can be 

permanent, such as the permanent acquisition of a property, or temporary, such as the 

use of the property for construction staging purposes. Section 4(f) also applies when a 

“constructive use” occurs, such as when the noise, vibration, air quality, or visual effects 

of a project are so great that the use of the property is substantially impaired, even though 

it is not physically affected by the Project. 

Table 3.14-7 lists the parkland, recreational, and wildlife refuge facilities that are likely to meet 

the criteria for protection under Section 4(f). Architectural and archaeological resources that may 

fall under Section 4(f) protection are discussed in Section 3.13. Additional information on Section 

4(f) resources can be found in Chapter 5. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-185 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources 

City/County 

Alternative 

Area Resource 

Arlington County Arlington Long Bridge Park 

Arlington County Arlington Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary 

Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria 

Northern Virginia George Washington Memorial Parkway 

Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria 

Northern Virginia Mount Vernon Trail 

Arlington County Northern Virginia Four Mile Run Trail 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Daingerfield Island Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Potomac Greens Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Holmes Run Trail 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Eisenhower Avenue Trail 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Braddock Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Metro Linear Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia King Street Gardens 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Traffic Circle Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Hooff’s Run Park and Greenway 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Cameron Run Regional Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Buchanan Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Sunset Mini Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Dog Run Park at Carlyle 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Witter Fields 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Clermont National Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Joseph Hensley Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Fairfax County Parkway Trail 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Unnamed WMATA Metro Trail near Springfield Forest 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Cross County Trail 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Backlick Stream Valley Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Franconia Forest Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Loisdale Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Accotink Stream Valley Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Pohick Stream Valley Park 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-186 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources 

City/County 

Alternative 

Area Resource 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Mason Neck Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Old Colchester Preserve and Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Leesylvania State Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Jefferson Park Site 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Veteran Memorial Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Marumsco Acre Lake Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Cockpit Point Battlefield Heritage Park 

Stafford County Northern Virginia Widewater State Park 

City of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Cobblestone Park 

City of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Virginia Central Railway Trail 

Spotsylvania County, 

City of Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg and 

Central Virginia 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

Spotsylvania County Fredericksburg Mary Lee Carter Park 

Caroline County Central Virginia Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area 

Hanover County Ashland North Ashland Park 

Hanover County Ashland Railside Park 

Hanover County Ashland Carter Park 

Hanover County and 

Town of Ashland 

Ashland Ashland Trolley Line 

Henrico County Ashland Hunton Community Center and Park 

Henrico County Richmond RF&P Park 

Henrico County Richmond Laurel Recreation Area 

City of Richmond Richmond Joseph Bryan Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 

City of Richmond Richmond Calhoun Community Center 

City of Richmond Richmond Canal Walk Plaza and Entrance 

City of Richmond Richmond Monument Avenue Linear Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Libby Hill Park 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-187 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources 

City/County 

Alternative 

Area Resource 

City of Richmond Richmond Cannonball Triangle Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Great Shiplock Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Albert Hill Athletic Facility 

City of Richmond Richmond Humphrey Calder Community Center and Garden 

City of Richmond Richmond James River Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Hickory Hill Community Center and Elementary School 

City of Richmond Richmond Covington Road Properties 

City of Richmond Richmond Virginia Capital Trail 

City of Richmond Richmond Retention Basin Park Walkway 

Chesterfield County Richmond Falling Creek Linear Park and Iron Works 

Chesterfield County Richmond Bensley Elementary School 

Chesterfield County Richmond Gates Mill Park 

3.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

The existing transportation facilities in the DC2RVA corridor were evaluated at two geographic 

scales, as shown in Figure 3.15-1. The first scale is regional, focusing on the broader transportation 

network and transportation modes that provide the overall context for the existing railroad service, 

as well as the proposed DC2RVA service. It includes portions of every county and city that the 

proposed service will traverse, and its extents include I-95 and U.S. Route 1, which run roughly 

parallel to the corridor, as well as their interchanges with other interstates and U.S. routes and 

primary roadways in the region. The second scale is focused on a 1-mile-wide study area centered on 

the rail line (0.5 mile on either side of the track). The purpose of the two geographic scales is to enable 

the evaluation of potential effects of the DC2RVA project at the appropriate level. For example, the 

regional scale data reflect larger trends due to regional growth or shifts in travel modes. The DC2RVA 

corridor scale data, however, reflect more localized influences on individual roadways; analysis at 

the DC2RVA corridor scale reflects the importance of connections in the transportation network 

across and on both sides of the DC2RVA corridor. The existing transportation environment is 

described in the following pages in the context of these two geographic scales. 

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

colloquially and within federal documentation, to refer to the intersection of a roadway and 

railroad at ground level (i.e., vehicles on the roadway travel across the railroad tracks; trains on 

the railroad tracks travel across the roadway travel lanes). This Draft EIS documentation uses the 

term “at-grade crossing” to ensure a distinct and readily understandable difference from the term 

“grade-separated crossing.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-188 

Figure 3.15-1: Transportation Analysis Scales
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-189 

3.15.1 Regional Scale 

3.15.1.1 Regional Roadway Network 

The DC2RVA corridor passes through nine counties and three cities from Arlington County, VA, 

at the D.C. jurisdictional line to Chesterfield County, VA. Running roughly parallel to the railroad 

tracks over nearly the entire 123-mile stretch are I-95 and/or U.S. Route 1. Through Fairfax 

County, I-95 has eight general purpose lanes, four northbound and four southbound, and three 

express high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. From Prince William County to Aquia Harbour in 

Stafford County, I-95 has six general purpose lanes, three northbound and three southbound, and 

two express (HOV) lanes. From Aquia Harbour through Chesterfield County, I-95 typically has 

six general purpose lanes, three northbound and three southbound. 

In Arlington County, U.S. Route 1 is mainly a six-lane road, three northbound and three 

southbound. As it moves down into Alexandria County, it remains mostly six lanes, and it splits 

to two one-way roads, Henry Street (southbound) and Patrick Street (northbound), and merges 

together again at the Capital Beltway. At Buckman Road in Fairfax County, U.S. Route 1 becomes 

a four-lane road, two northbound and two southbound. It continues as a four-lane road until the 

city of Richmond. In Richmond, when U.S. Route 1 passes over I-64, it becomes a six-lane road, 

three northbound and three southbound. It remains at six lanes until it passes over Chippenham 

Parkway in Chesterfield County, where it becomes a four-lane road. 

Other interstate highways and major U.S. and state routes in each county are summarized below: 

 Arlington County: I-395, George Washington Memorial Parkway 

 City of Alexandria: I-395, I-495, George Washington Memorial Parkway 

 Fairfax County: I-395, I-495, Franconia−Springfield Parkway, Telegraph Road 

 Prince William County: Dumfries Road, Joplin Road 

 Stafford County: U.S. 17, Route 3 

 City of Fredericksburg: U.S. 17, Route 3 

 Spotsylvania County: U.S. 17, Courthouse Road 

 Caroline County: U.S. 301, Route 2, Route 30 

 Hanover County: I-295, U.S. 33, U.S. 360, Route 2 

 Henrico County: I-64, I-195, I-295, U.S. 33, U.S. 60, U.S. 250, U.S. 360 

 City of Richmond: I-64, I-195, U.S. 33, U.S. 60, U.S. 250, U.S. 360 

 Chesterfield County: I-295, U.S. 60, U.S. 360 

Within the regional area, as shown in Figure 3.15-1, approximately 2,000 miles of roadway carry 79 million 

vehicle-miles1 each day in existing conditions. Table 3.15-1 summarizes the roadway system on a countyby-county basis at the regional scale, presenting total length of roadway miles by type of roadway and 

average daily traffic (ADT) on those facilities. The I-95 facility is approximately 280 miles in length 

(including I-395) between Washington, D.C. and Richmond within the DC2RVA corridor regional 

roadway network; I-95 carries approximately 38 million vehicle-miles each day in existing conditions. 

 

1 These estimates of roadway (centerline) miles and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) comprise all Interstate and U.S. 

highways, as well as major state routes. Secondary and urban roads that serve primarily as access to individual 

properties were not included. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-190 

Table 3.15-1: Regional Roadway Network—Existing Conditions Daily Traffic 

City/County 

Directional 

Measure1

Interstate and 

U.S. Routes 

State Primary 

Route 

State 

Secondary 

Route 

Urban 

Routes Total 

Arlington ADT 3,484,932 1,471,860 137,323 – 5,094,115 

Length 17.9 29.9 5.5 – 53.3 

VMT 2,612,262 1,546,065 50,117 – 4,208,444 

City of 

Alexandria 

ADT 4,429,146 2,184,942 3,264 116,484 6,733,836 

Length 31.8 35.8 0.6 9.6 77.8 

VMT 3,948,393 1,079,649 2,017 92,377 5,122,436 

Fairfax ADT 8,925,306 1,220,430 2,287,758 6,732 12,440,226 

Length 79.9 63.8 51.1 0.3 195.1 

VMT 11,739,358 1,927,020 1,127,223 1,833 14,795,434 

Prince William ADT 4,202,502 1,032,138 998,519 734 6,233,893 

Length 66.8 16.2 39.8 1.5 124.3 

VMT 7,066,087 586,450 602,247 1,131 8,255,915 

Stafford ADT 2,707,488 409,836 262,201 – 3,379,525 

Length 63.7 25.1 70.6 – 159.4 

VMT 5,359,030 447,369 295,487 – 6,101,886 

City of 

Fredericksburg 

ADT 804,576 913,104 – 24,072 1,741,752 

Length 19.3 10.0 – 1.6 30.9 

VMT 911,434 351,615 – 9,644 1,272,693 

Spotsylvania ADT 1,916,682 240,006 100,001 − 2,256,689 

Length 58 11 26 – 95.0 

VMT 3,360,737 486,396 107,256 – 3,954,389 

Caroline ADT 753,372 186,762 51,407 – 991,541 

Length 77.1 45.6 80.5 – 203.2 

VMT 3,172,676 348,945 84,603 – 3,606,224 

Hanover ADT 3,368,917 220,912 151,735 21,349 3,762,913 

Length 100.4 26.5 58.9 5.7 191.5 

VMT 5,746,204 174,503 102,633 12,602 6,035,942 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-191 

Table 3.15-1: Regional Roadway Network—Existing Conditions Daily Traffic 

City/County 

Directional 

Measure1

Interstate and 

U.S. Routes 

State Primary 

Route 

State 

Secondary 

Route 

Urban 

Routes Total 

Henrico ADT 8,698,325 1,297,369 1,542,852 – 11,538,546 

Length 222.5 78.5 74.1 – 375.1 

VMT 9,360,405 1,010,272 1,180,790 – 11,551,467 

City of Richmond ADT 6,857,644 2,734,008 – 860,472 10,452,124 

Length 101 82 – 52 235.0 

VMT 4,504,821 1,939,012 – 501,262 6,945,095 

Chesterfield ADT 1,707,990 2,833,631 213,649 – 4,755,270 

Length 55.9 106.1 14.8 – 176.8 

VMT 3,034,399 4,005,856 106,099 – 7,146,354 

Total ADT 47,856,880 14,744,998 5,748,709 1,029,843 69,380,430 

Length 894.3 530.5 421.9 70.7 1,917.4 

VMT 60,815,806 13,903,152 3,658,472 618,849 78,996,279 

Source of ADT and Length Data: VDOT, GIS online database for Annual Average Daily Traffic with Vehicle Classification for 2014. Accessed 

January 2016. 

1. ADT = Average Daily Traffic; VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; calculated for individual roadway sections. VMT is calculated for individual 

roadway sections, which is required due to the range of section ADT and differing section lengths. The VMT shown for each County is the

sum of the products of the individual sections within the County (i.e., not the calculation of County-wide ADT and length). 

3.15.1.2 Regional Rail Network 

The DC2RVA corridor is a shared use corridor, with freight trains (operated by CSXT and NS 

railways), intercity passenger trains (operated by Amtrak), and local commuter trains (operated 

by VRE) commingled on the same tracks. These uses within the DC2RVA corridor and their 

operations are summarized below; refer to Appendix A, Alternatives Technical Report, for full 

details. 

CSX Transportation. CSXT, the principal operating subsidiary of CSX Corporation, is the track 

owner and operator of the DC2RVA corridor. CSXT owns 761 miles of railroad in Virginia 

(roughly 25 percent of Virginia’s total rail network) and has operating rights via lease or trackage 

rights over an additional 293 miles in the state. CSXT’s RF&P Subdivision between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond makes up most of the DC2RVA corridor. 

The DC2RVA project limits include components of three critical rail corridors in the larger CSXT 

freight rail network: 

 I-95 Freight Rail Corridor. The I-95 Freight Rail Corridor is a 1,400-mile-long rail line 

running the length of the eastern seaboard between New York and Miami, FL, that 

roughly parallels I-95 and serves many urban, port, industrial, and rural areas along the 

eastern seaboard and includes the RF&P Subdivision. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-192 

 National Gateway. The National Gateway is a public-private partnership to improve the 

transportation of shipping containers to population centers in the Midwestern United 

States. Projects to upgrade three rail corridors are part of the initiative, including the 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel clearance improvement project in Washington, D.C. 

 Coal Network. In Richmond, the DC2RVA project area includes a small component of the 

CSXT Peninsula Subdivision east to Beulah, which is part of CSXT’s Coal Network that 

connects coal mines in the Appalachian Mountains to electric power generating stations 

and export coal docks. 

Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway. NS operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states 

and Washington, D.C., serves every major container port in the eastern United States, and 

provides connections to other rail carriers. NS owns 1,897 route-miles in Virginia (approximately 

60 percent of the state’s total rail network), including a rail line from Manassas that connects to 

the DC2RVA corridor in Alexandria. Additionally, NS has trackage rights from Alexandria north 

to Washington, D.C. on the DC2RVA corridor. 

Amtrak. Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail service throughout the United States and 

generally operates over the tracks of the private freight railroads. Amtrak operates 24 daily trains 

and 2 tri-weekly trains in Virginia. Operations are more frequent north of Alexandria, where 

Amtrak passenger trains, using an NS rail line from Lynchburg and Manassas, VA, join the 

DC2RVA corridor for trips north to Washington Union Station. The four types of passenger train 

serve that Amtrak operates in the DC2RVA corridor are summarized below (see Chapter 2 for 

full details): 

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

along the length of the Northeast Corridor from Boston and New York and continues 

south to serve routes in Virginia. Trains make local station stops. 

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

(one single daily round trip) through Virginia, making fewer stops in the DC2RVA 

corridor than the Northeast Regional service. 

 Long Distance Amtrak service operates from New York and continues through 

Washington, D.C. and Virginia to other out-of-state locations. Long distance trains serve 

the fewest of Amtrak station stops within the DC2RVA corridor. 

 Auto Train Amtrak service operates as a daily nonstop, overnight train between dedicated 

station facilities in Lorton, VA and Florida, and carries passengers and their automobiles. 

Virginia Railway Express. VRE is a transportation partnership of the Northern Virginia 

Transportation Commission (NVTC) and the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation 

Commission (PRTC) and has been providing commuter rail service to the residents of Northern 

Virginia since 1992. VRE commuter trains operate on two lines⎯the Fredericksburg Line and the 

Manassas Line⎯that join at Alexandria and continue into Washington Union Station. 

VRE trains operate Monday−Friday only, with most trips timed to bring passengers to 

Washington, D.C. for work in the morning and from Washington, D.C. back home in the evening. 

As of 2015, operations on each line are as follows: 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-193 

 Fredericksburg Line: Eight weekday-only revenue2 round trips between Washington, D.C. 

and Spotsylvania (60 miles). 

 Manassas Line: Eight weekday-only revenue round trips and one weekday-only 

nonrevenue round trip between Washington, D.C. and Broad Run/Airport Station (36 

miles), operating in the DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and AF interlocking 

in Alexandria (9 miles). VRE operates one of its Manassas Line daily round trips as a midday train and a second daily round trip as reverse-peak southbound in the morning and 

northbound in the evening. 

3.15.1.3 Stations and Other Regional Transportation Facilities 

Station Location, Service, and Connection. Amtrak and VRE stations that currently serve 

the DC2RVA corridor are summarized in Table 3.15-2 and are included in Figure 3.15-2. Full 

details of these stations are provided in Appendix A, Alternatives Technical Report. 

Existing Passenger Stations 

 

2 A revenue trip is a trip that carries paying passengers. A non-revenue trip is a trip that does not carry paying 

passengers, for example for the purposes of moving crew or empty trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-194 

Table 3.15-2: Amtrak and VRE Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor

City/County 

Station 

Name 

Amtrak 

Service 

VRE 

Service Nearest Major Highway Transit Connections 

Arlington Crystal City X 0.35 mile to U.S. Route 1 

0.5 mile to I-395 

1 mile to George Washington 

Memorial Parkway 

VRE Fredericksburg and Manassas 

Lines 

Metrorail Blue and Yellow Lines 

Metrobus, ART, Fairfax Connector, 

PRTC OmniRide buses 

Alexandria Alexandria X X Less than 2 miles to I-95/I-495 VRE Fredericksburg and Manassas 

Lines 

Metrorail Blue and Yellow Lines 

(nearby) 

Metrobus, Dash, King St. Trolley, 

Richmond Highway Express Buses 

Fairfax FranconiaSpringfield  X 0.75 mile to I-95 

2 miles to U.S. Route 1 

On Franconia-Springfield 

Parkway 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Metrorail Blue Line 

Metrobus, Fairfax Connector, 

PRTC OmniRide buses 

Greyhound intercity bus 

Lorton (VRE) X 1 mile to U.S. Route 1 

1.5 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Fairfax Connector bus 

Vamoose intercity bus 

Lorton Auto 

Train 

X 0.13 mile to I-95 

1 mile to U.S. Route 1 

None 

Prince William Woodbridge X X Adjacent to U.S. Route 1 

Less than 3 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

PRTC OmniRide, OmniLink and 

Prince William Metro Direct buses 

Greyhound intercity bus 

Rippon X 2 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Potomac 

Shores 

 X 3 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4.5 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line (station 

planned to open in 2018; not shown 

in Figure 3.15-2)

Quantico X X 5 miles to I-95 

3 miles to U.S. Route 1 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

PRTC OmniLink bus 

Stafford Brooke X 4 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4.5 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Leeland Road X Less than 2 miles to 

U.S. Route 1 

4 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Fredericksburg Fredericksburg X X 1 mile to VA Route 3 

Less than 2 miles to 

U.S. Route 1 

3 miles from I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Fredericksburg Transit (FRED) bus 

Spotsylvania Spotsylvania X 3.6 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4.3 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Hanover Ashland X 2 miles to I-95 None 

Henrico Staples Mill 

Road 

X 2 miles to I-64 

2.6 miles to U.S. Route 1 

5 miles to I-95 

GRTC bus 

Richmond Main Street 

Station 

X 0.6 mile to I-95 GRTC bus, Megabus intercity bus 

Note: While rail service extends to Union Station and L’Enfant Plaza Station in Washington, D.C., the data in this table are for current (existing 

and under construction) stations that are located within the DC2RVA corridor in Virginia. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-195 

Figure 3.15-2: Airports and Train Stations in Project Corridor
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-196 

Parking at Stations Served by Amtrak. The existing parking that is provided at each station 

in the DC2RVA corridor that is served by Amtrak is summarized in Table 3.15-3 below. Typically, 

long-term parking spaces are daily and/or overnight spaces, and short-term spaces have hourly 

limits. The majority of the provided parking spaces in the corridor are free for riders, unless 

otherwise noted; the exceptions are the long-term parking provided at the Main Street and Staples 

Mill Road stations in Richmond. 

Table 3.15-3: Existing Parking Inventory by Amtrak Station 

Amtrak Station 

Name Number of Spaces1 Facilities Notes 

Alexandria 25 Short-Term 

25 Long-Term 

Surface parking lot. 

General parking available in City of Alexandria (public parking 

garages, street parking, etc.). 

Lorton Auto Train 20 Short-Term 

0 Long-Term 

Surface parking lot. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces available. 

Woodbridge 150 Ground Level Lot 

738 Parking Garage 

Short- and Long-Term spaces are combined. 

Parking facilities estimated at 65% capacity. 

Quantico 210 Short-Term 

60 Long-Term 

Surface parking lot. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces available. 

Parking facilities estimated at 70% capacity. 

Bicycle racks are provided. 

Fredericksburg 810 Total 

684 VRE Only 

124 City Resident Only 

Surface parking lots located near the station. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces and motorcycle 

parking available. 

Parking facilities estimated at 47% capacity. 

Ashland 0 No dedicated parking lot. General parking available throughout the 

Town (parallel parking on streets, etc.). 

Staples Mill Road 20 Short-Term (1-3 hours free) 

288 Long-Term (Paid) 

Pre-paid parking via third party vendor required. 

Parking provided in surface parking lots. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces available. 

DRPT has acquired 4.95 acres for development as additional 

parking accommodations; the project is still in the planning stage, 

and a timeframe for availability of the increased parking is 

unknown. 

Main Street 30 Long-Term (Paid) 

First 30 minutes Free 

Parking provided in surface parking lots. 

1. Inventory as of July 2016 

Other Regional Transportation Facilities. In addition to the stations that specifically serve 

the DC2RVA corridor, various other transportation facilities connect to and through the DC2RVA 

corridor, as summarized below. For full details, refer to Appendix S, Transportation Technical 

Report.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-197 

Public Transit 

 WMATA Metrorail and Metrobus serving Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia 

 Arlington Transit (ART) serving Arlington County, VA 

 Alexandria Transit Company (ATC) DASH system serving connection to Metrobus, 

Metrorail, VRE, and other local bus routes in Alexandria, VA 

 Fairfax Connector Bus serving routes connecting to Fairfax County, VA 

 OmniRide and OmniLink (PRTC) serving Prince William, Stafford, and Spotsylvania 

Counties and the City of Fredericksburg 

 FRED serving the City of Fredericksburg and connecting to Stafford, Spotsylvania, and 

Caroline counties 

 GRTC (Greater Richmond Transit Company) Transit System serving the City of 

Richmond and Henrico County and connecting to Chesterfield County 

Aviation (Airport locations are shown in Figure 3.15-2.) 

 Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (Arlington, VA) 

 Richmond International Airport (Richmond, VA) 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities On and/or Adjacent to Public Roadways 

 Potomac Yard Trail (Alexandria, VA) 

 Mount Vernon Trail (Northern Virginia) 

 Richmond Capital Trail (from Williamsburg, VA, to Richmond, VA) 

 Cannon Creek Greenway (Richmond Henrico Turnpike in Richmond, VA) 

 Bike lanes (various streets in Richmond, VA, and Alexandria, VA) 

 U.S. Bike Routes 1 and 76 

 Ashland Trolley Line Trail 

3.15.1.4 Regional Highway–Rail Crossing Accident Data 

FRA data show that 96 percent of rail-related fatalities, most of which are considered preventable, 

are the result of accidents at highway−rail crossings and by vehicles trespassing onto the tracks3. 

Highway–rail accident data for public crossings from the FRA Office of Safety Analysis (OSA)4 

were reviewed for types of highway−rail crossing accidents5 as well as overall incident trends. 

 

3 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17371

4 Data obtained online reporting databases (accessed February 2017 for the most recently available data for each report 

type). 

5 Train accidents that do not affect the public highway system, the causes of which range from human operation factors 

to mechanical/track and electrical failures. These types of train-only accidents are not included in the data presented 

in this section; however, in the state of Virginia from 2013 to November 2016, there were a total of 33 train (nonhighway) accidents. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-198 

The tables below present the data for total number of accidents for highway−rail incidents (Tables 

3.15-4 and 3.15-5. Refer to Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report for more details. 

As shown in Tables 3.15-4 and 3.15-5, the highway−rail crossing accident data for specific counties 

within the DC2RVA corridor are reported and compared to all other counties within the state. If 

a DC2RVA county is not listed, no documented collisions in that county were reported during 

the reporting dates. All counties that have experienced highway−rail-related accidents but are 

not located in the DC2RVA corridor are grouped together as “Other Counties.” 

Throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia for the four-year period through the end of 2016, 

there were 21 highway–rail accidents. Highway–rail accidents consist of an accident between a 

train and any type of motor vehicle at a public highway–rail crossing. Table 3.15-4 provides the 

county-by-county breakdown of these accidents. 

In the DC2RVA corridor, seven public at-grade crossings had at least one accident in the fouryear period through the end of 2016, as reported in Table 3.15-5. All accidents involved a train 

striking a highway user, six of which were automobile vehicles and one of which was a 

motorcycle; one accident involved pedestrians and resulted in two fatalities. Seven of the eight 

total accidents occurred at crossings that have non-four-quadrant gates. Any discrepancies 

between the data in Tables 3.15-4 and 3.15-5 are due to the use of different FRA OSA data systems 

and their source data reporting time periods that were available. 

3.15.2 Corridor Scale 

The following section describes the transportation network for a 1-mile-wide study area that is 

centered on the existing CSXT rail line within the EIS alternative areas6; the DC2RVA corridor scale 

is shown in Figure 3.15-1. The transportation network is presented as a county-by-county overview 

of general characteristics of land use and facilities, as well as a more-focused description of the 

roadway network that is targeted on the highway–rail crossings and their operations. Refer to 

Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report, for more details on the summaries provided below. 

3.15.2.1 Transportation Corridor Network (by City/County) 

The following paragraphs describe the general transportation characteristics of the DC2RVA 

corridor, including a summary of total highway–rail crossings (both public and private, at grade 

and grade separated) within each County and/or City. Refer to Section 3.15.2.2 for more-detailed 

descriptions and data of the DC2RVA corridor crossings. 

 

6 The extents of the Peninsula Subdivision rail line, which serves passenger trains between Richmond and Newport 

News, that are located within the Draft EIS limits were included in the preliminary identification of roadway crossings. 

It was the intent of the at-grade crossing evaluation methodology (refer to Appendix OO of the Alternatives Technical 

Report) to evaluate all public roadway crossings and any private roadway crossings that could have an impact on the 

public (either through public use of a private crossing or private ownership by a citizen of a parcel that has and/or 

needs crossing access). Within the Draft EIS limits on the Peninsula Subdivision rail line, there is a single at-grade 

roadway crossing that functions as private exclusive railroad access, as well as several existing grade-separated 

crossings. However, the DC2RVA project was not anticipated to have build alternative effects that would affect 

roadway crossings to the same levels as along the RF&P line, A-Line, and S-Line because the Peninsula Subdivision 

rail line is not proposed to have an additional track and does not serve trains to the same level through the entire 

corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. Accordingly, the short segment of the Peninsula Subdivision rail 

line was not included in further transportation affected environment or environmental consequences. This does not, 

however, preclude the addition of any safety measures at the existing crossings in coordination with FRA. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-199 

Table 3.15-4: Highway–Rail Accidents at Public Crossings in Virginia 

County/City 

Total 

Total Calendar Year (CY) 

Accidents % Change over Time 

Accidents Percent of Total CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016* CY 2013 to CY 2015 CY 2014 to CY 2015 Month-toMonth % Change CY 2015 to CY 2016 

Caroline 1 4.8 – – 1 – – – – 

Henrico 1 4.8 – 1 – – – – – 

Richmond 3 14.3 – 1 1 1 – – – 

Chesterfield 3 14.3 – – 3 – – – – 

Other Counties 13 61.8 1 6 3 3 – – – 

State Total 21 100 1 8 8 4 700 – -50.0 

Source: FRA OSA, Query Accident/Incident Trends⎯Highway−Rail Crossings. CY = Calendar Year 

*2016 accident data reported from FRA month-to-month for the CY. 

Table 3.15-5: Highway–Rail Accidents at Public Crossings in DC2RVA Corridor 

Crossing City/County Total Year 

Warning 

Device 

Circumstance 

(User) 

User Injuries 

(Fatalities) 

Featherstone 

Road Prince William 1 2015 

FourQuadrant 

Gates 

Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 1 (0) 

Myrtle Street Hanover 1 2012 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 1 (0) 

Hungary Road Henrico 1 2014 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Broad Rock 

Boulevard Richmond 2 

2015 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Pedestrian) 0 (2) 

2011 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Motorcycle) 1 (0) 

Terminal Avenue Richmond 1 2011 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Hospital 

Street/N. 7th

Street 

Richmond 1 2015 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Bells Road Richmond 1 2014 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Source: FRA OSA, Web Accident Prediction System. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-200 

Arlington County/City of Alexandria (Arlington and Northern Virginia Areas). Starting from 

the northern extent of the DC2RVA corridor at the Long Bridge connecting into Washington, D.C., 

the Project corridor parallels U.S. Route 1 and the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the 

southern edge of the Capital Beltway through Arlington County and the city of Alexandria, a section 

of just greater than 7 rail miles. The rail in this area consists of three main line tracks. The Northern 

Virginia area is one of the most urban in the DC2RVA corridor, with dense development surrounding 

the DC2RVA corridor. All highway–rail crossings (a total of 11 within this section, 10 public and 1 

private) are grade separated with typically less than 1 mile between adjacent crossings. In downtown 

Alexandria, adjacent roadway crossings can be within a few hundred feet of each other. Daily vehicle 

volumes on the crossing roadways range from less than 10,000 vehicles in downtown Alexandria to 

more than 60,000 vehicles on the George Washington Parkway and on Telegraph Road near where it 

interchanges with I-95. Also adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor is Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport, which is served by Metrorail to the Crystal City Station (VRE only) in Arlington County and 

the Alexandria Station (Amtrak and VRE, adjacent to Metrorail station) in the city of Alexandria.

Fairfax County. The DC2RVA corridor in Fairfax County parallels the eastern side of I-95, with U.S. 

Route 1 running farther to the east. The 13 miles of this section consist of either two or three main line 

tracks. Land use transitions in this Fairfax County section from dense urban south of Alexandria into more 

suburban, typically housing-based development, in the southern part of the county; many of the 

commercial land uses are directly adjacent to I-95 and its interchanges with the crossing roadways of the 

DC2RVA corridor. All 12 highway–rail crossings within the County are grade separated and, outside of 

the city of Alexandria, adjacent crossings are typically 1 to 2 miles apart. The highway–rail crossing with 

the highest daily vehicle volume in the entire DC2RVA corridor is the crossing of I-95 in the northern part 

of Fairfax County, just south of the city of Alexandria, with a daily volume of more than 184,000 vehicles. 

Other crossing roadway volumes range from almost 50,000 daily vehicles on those principal arterial 

roadways that connect and interchange with I-95 (Franconia Road and Franconia-Springfield Parkway) 

to less than 5,000 daily vehicles on the smaller two-lane local roadways in the suburban southern parts of 

the County. The Franconia-Springfield and Lorton stations (VRE), as well as the Lorton Auto Train Station 

(Amtrak), are located within the DC2RVA corridor in Fairfax County. 

Prince William County. The 12 miles of DC2RVA corridor in Prince William County run parallel 

to I-95 and consist of either two or three main line tracks. For the southern half of the county, the 

DC2RVA corridor runs within 0.5 mile or less of the west bank of the Potomac River. Much of the 

land use throughout the DC2RVA corridor is suburban housing development. Crossing roadways 

typically provide access to these developments, extending from the Potomac River to I-95 and areas 

to the west. There are 11 crossings in Prince William County. Four of the six public crossings are 

grade separated, with most of the at-grade crossings located in the southern part of the county; all 

private crossings are at grade. The only public at-grade crossing with at least 10,000 daily vehicles 

is Featherstone Road. The smaller local roadway crossings, such as Daniel K. Ludwig Drive and 

Possum Point Road, have less than 500 vehicles per day. The DC2RVA corridor passes through two 

denser urban areas within the county: Woodbridge and MCBQ. Crossings that are located within 

military installations were categorized by DRPT as private crossings for analysis in the DC2RVA 

Project; Potomac Avenue, which is located in the Town of Quantico (and not within the MCBQ 

installation), is a public crossing within Prince William County. Adjacent crossings are within a few 

hundred feet of each other within these urban areas. As the DC2RVA corridor progresses south, 

adjacent crossings are farther apart (up to 3 miles apart). Woodbridge and Quantico Stations 

(Amtrak and VRE) and Rippon Station (VRE) are located within the DC2RVA corridor in Prince 

William County. Potomac Shores Station (VRE) is currently under construction. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-201 

Stafford County. In the Stafford County section of the DC2RVA corridor on the RF&P Line, 

which is approximately 18 miles of either two or three main line tracks, the rail alignment runs 

along the coast of the Potomac River until it reaches Arkendale/Widewater State Park, where it 

then shifts to the west toward U.S. Route 1 and I-95, which run parallel to each other in close 

proximity. Within most of this section, land use is generally rural, with large areas of 

undeveloped, forested land interspersed with relatively small residential communities. The 

public crossing roadways in the rural areas generally connect these communities together and to 

U.S. Route 1 and/or I-95. There are 18 roadway crossings of the DC2RVA corridor; 11 are public 

crossings (most of which are grade separated), and 7 are private crossings. Private crossings 

typically provide access to residential properties. Land use transitions to suburban as the 

DC2RVA corridor approaches the city of Fredericksburg. Volumes on the crossing roadways are 

representative of the adjacent land use densities with the highest volume crossing at Kings 

Highway (grade separated) located just north of the city of Fredericksburg; this road is a 4-lane 

median-separated minor arterial roadway with more than 25,000 daily vehicles. The lowest 

volume roadways typically carry several hundred daily vehicles, often providing sole access into 

small residential communities. In these rural areas, adjacent crossings tend to be located 1 to 3 

miles apart. The Brooke and Leeland Road VRE stations are located in the county. 

The portion of the DC2RVA corridor that bypasses the city of Fredericksburg on the bypass 

alignment splits from the main line track just north of Fredericksburg at Butler Road in Stafford 

County, along a CSXT single-track rail line called the Dahlgren Branch. It continues to the east of 

the city along Kings Highway, then crosses over the Rappahannock River. From there, it heads 

west to meet the main corridor just south of the Spotsylvania VRE Station. This bypass is 

approximately 13 rail miles long, with 6 miles of existing rail corridor along the CSXT Dahlgren 

Branch and 7 miles of new track alignment. At the beginning of the split north of Fredericksburg, 

the area is mostly suburban, but as the DC2RVA corridor moves farther away from the city, it 

becomes more rural. Along the existing Dahlgren Branch track, there are five existing at-grade 

highway–rail crossings. The roadways in this area carry daily traffic volumes ranging from 150 

vehicles on local roadways to 21,000 vehicles on principal arterial roadways. Additionally, the 

Fredericksburg Bypass alignment crosses five public and four private roadways that are not 

existing rail crossings on the portion of the alignment that would be new track. 

City of Fredericksburg. The DC2RVA corridor runs through the eastern part of the city of 

Fredericksburg for approximately 2 rail miles; the line in the city typically consists of either two or 

three main line tracks (with sections of three to four tracks that provide yard access in the southern 

portion of the city) and includes a two-track crossing of the Rappahannock River. This section has 

dense urban development, typical of a city, on both sides of the DC2RVA corridor. In the most 

downtown portion of the DC2RVA corridor, adjacent crossings are located within a few hundred 

feet of each other. Six public roadways cross the DC2RVA corridor, all but one of which are gradeseparated (Landsdowne Road, with almost 9,000 vehicles per day, is at grade). The Fredericksburg 

Station (Amtrak and VRE) is located between Lafayette Boulevard (to the northwest) and Frederick 

Street (to the southeast); these two streets generally parallel the DC2RVA corridor through 

downtown. The Blue and Gray Parkway (U.S. Route 3), a principal arterial roadway that crosses 

the DC2RVA corridor, carries more than 40,000 vehicles per day. Other crossing roadways in the 

City limits generally carry between 2,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. 

Spotsylvania County. The RF&P Line portion of the DC2RVA corridor traverses 8 miles of either 

two or three main line tracks through the eastern corner of Spotsylvania County, with sections of 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-202 

three to four tracks through the area near the US-17 (Mills Drive) crossing to provide yard access. 

This part of the county is generally rural, with large areas of the DC2RVA corridor crossing through 

undeveloped, forested land and farms. Four roadways cross the DC2RVA corridor in the county; 

two are at-grade crossings of local roads and two are grade-separated crossings. The Spotsylvania 

Station (VRE) is located within Spotsylvania County. The Fredericksburg Bypass alignment crosses 

through a portion of the county as it connects back to the RF&P Line; there are no existing highway–

rail crossings on this portion of the bypass alignment as it would be new track. 

Caroline County. The RF&P Line portion of the DC2RVA corridor travels through central Caroline 

County, consisting of 25 rail miles consisting of two main line tracks. The DC2RVA corridor begins 

veering to the east toward Bowling Green and the Richmond Turnpike before making its way back 

toward U.S. Route 1 and I-95 in Ruther Glen and continues to run south between the two roadways. 

Most of the land use in this long section of corridor is rural, with large areas of the DC2RVA corridor 

crossing through undeveloped, forested land and farms. There are 22 roadway crossings in the 

county: 12 public roadway crossings and 10 private crossings, which typically provide access to 

residences and farm lands. Most of the public crossings are at grade, which is typical of a more rural 

area, with adjacent crossings ranging from 1.5 to 5 miles apart. In the southern part of the county, the 

DC2RVA corridor crosses I-95; this grade-separated crossing is one of the highest volume crossings 

in the DC2RVA corridor, with almost 100,000 daily vehicles. 

Additionally, the Fredericksburg Bypass alignment crosses through a portion of the northwestern 

corner of the county as it connects back to the RF&P Line; there are no existing highway–rail 

crossings on this portion of the bypass alignment as it would be new track. 

Hanover County. The RF&P Line of the DC2RVA corridor traverses central Hanover County for a 

section of just over approximately 13 miles of two main line tracks. The DC2RVA corridor runs 

between U.S. Route 1 and I-95 until just north of the town of Ashland where it crosses over U.S. Route 

1 and continues on the west side of both of these roadways. Outside the town of Ashland, which 

includes development typical of a small-town business district that extends approximately two blocks 

in either direction, land use in the DC2RVA corridor is generally rural or suburban. There are 17 

roadway crossings of the DC2RVA corridor in the county, 11 of which are at-grade public crossings 

and 5 of which are public grade-separated crossings (there is also one private grade-separated 

crossing in the county). Seven of the public at-grade crossings are within the limits of the town of 

Ashland. Through Ashland, the rail line runs down the median of Center Street through the 

downtown commercial area, as well as the campus of Randolph-Macon College and residential areas 

north and south of the commercial district. Adjacent roadway crossings within the town are less than 

0.5 mile apart, with some located within a few hundred feet of each other. Center Street operates as 

two one-way roadways (one on each side of the rail line). The main roadway in the town is England 

Street/Thompson Street (Route 54), which crosses the DC2RVA corridor adjacent to the Ashland 

Station at a five-way roadway intersection that includes both sides of Center Street and Hanover 

Avenue. This roadway crossing is one of the highest volume (14,000 daily vehicles) at-grade crossings 

in the DC2RVA corridor. There are also 11 at-grade pedestrian crossings of the DC2RVA corridor 

within the town of Ashland. The 11 pedestrian crossings consist of approximately 3-foot-wide wood 

or composite platforms placed between the tracks and rails. The pedestrian crossings do not have 

active warning devices (i.e., flashing lights, bells, and crossing gates activated by approaching trains), 

although many of the pedestrian crossings are located near or adjacent to at-grade roadway crossings 

with approach-activated flashing lights, bells, and gates. Outside of the town of Ashland, the roadway 

crossings generally carry a few hundred to several thousand vehicles per day, depending on the type 

of roadway served, and they are typically located within 1 to 2 miles of each other. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-203 

The Ashland Bypass alignment splits from the RF&P Line after the Old Ridge Road crossing just north 

of the town of Ashland. It runs west of the town toward the intersection of West Patrick Henry Road 

and Independence Road. After passing between Kings Pond and Lucks Pond, the alignment begins 

to veer back to the east toward the main corridor where it merges just before the Elmont Road 

crossing. This section consists of just more than 7 miles of new construction. Most of the roads in this 

area are either minor collector or local roads with daily volumes ranging from 500 to 900 vehicles, or 

major collector or minor arterial roads with daily volumes ranging from 2,000 to 8,000 vehicles. There 

are no existing highway–rail crossings on the Ashland Bypass alignment as the entire alignment 

would be new track; the bypass alignment would cross eight public and seven private roadways. 

Henrico County. The DC2RVA corridor in Henrico County quickly transitions from more rural and 

light suburban land use patterns into denser suburban residential and commercial development as it 

moves toward the city of Richmond. This section, which consists of just more than approximately 8 

miles of either two or three main line tracks, is typified by residential areas and collector-type crossing 

roadways that connect neighborhoods to the major roadway arteries of Staples Mill Road (Route 33), 

U.S. Route 1, and I-95. The DC2RVA corridor generally parallels Route 33 for the southern portion of 

the county and crosses I-295 and I-64. There are 10 public roadway crossings in the county, 6 of which 

are grade separated. Roadway crossings in the county are typically located within 1 mile or less of an 

adjacent crossing. In general, the at-grade crossings are located within the more suburban northern 

areas of the county, transitioning to mostly grade-separated crossings closer to the city of Richmond. 

Henrico County has one of the highest volume at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor (Hungary 

Road with 16,000 daily vehicles), as well as one of the highest volume grade-separated crossings (I64 with 140,000 daily vehicles). The Staples Mill Road Amtrak Station serves Henrico County and is 

located just north of I-64 along Staples Mill Road. The Richmond International Airport is located 

approximately 8 miles east of the DC2RVA corridor in the county. 

City of Richmond. The DC2RVA corridor splits just north of Richmond into two lines, one to 

the east and one to the west of the city. The A-Line runs west of the city along I-195 and Route 76 

until it crosses over the James River, where it runs parallel to Westover Hills Boulevard and Belt 

Boulevard. This line is approximately 9.5 miles long and consists of 2 main line tracks with 23 

public highway–rail crossings (5 at grade and 18 grade separated). The S-Line runs east of the city 

along I-64 and then continues south through downtown Richmond along I-95. The Main Street 

Amtrak Station is located along this line. The S-Line is just more than approximately 10 miles 

long and consists of either 1 or 2 main line tracks with 34 highway–rail crossings (30 public and 

4 private). This jurisdiction consists of the city of Richmond, as well as the more suburban area of 

Richmond south of the James River. In the city, adjacent crossings are generally within 0.3 mile 

of each other and are mostly grade separated; as the two rail lines move away from the city to the 

more suburban areas, adjacent crossings are typically between 0.3 and 1 mile. Of all the at-grade 

crossings in the DC2RVA corridor, Broad Rock Boulevard in Richmond on the A-Line has the 

highest daily volume of 19,000 vehicles. There are two main interstates in Richmond⎯I-95 and I64⎯with multiple crossings that have some of the highest daily vehicle volumes for gradeseparated crossings in the DC2RVA corridor (I-95 carries volumes greater than 130,000 vehicles 

per day and I-64 carries more than 95,000 vehicles per day). 

Chesterfield County. There are two different lines of the DC2RVA corridor in Chesterfield 

County, the A-Line, to the west, and the S-Line, to the east. The A-Line runs west of and parallel 

to U.S. Route 301. This line is approximately 5 rail miles of two main line tracks with nine public 

crossings (three at grade and six grade separated). The northern portion of this line is more 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-204 

suburban with mostly grade-separated crossings that are within 0.3 mile of each other, whereas 

the southern portion is rural and consists of at-grade crossings approximately 0.5 mile from each 

other. The S-Line runs parallel between U.S. Route 301 and I-95. This line is approximately 5.5 

rail miles of either 1 or 2 main line tracks with 11 highway–rail crossings (7 public crossings and 

4 private crossings). The northern portion of this line is more suburban or industrial with private 

crossings or public grade-separated crossings, while the southern portion is rural with at-grade 

crossings. The crossings in Chesterfield County consist of either major freeways/ expressways or 

principal arterial roads with daily volumes greater than 20,000 vehicles, or local roads or major 

collectors with volumes less than 5,000 vehicles per day. The A-Line and S-Line meet between 

Route 288 and Old Lane, which is the southern terminus of the DC2RVA project. 

3.15.2.2 Roadway Network–Corridor Crossings 

This section summarizes the roadway network by highway–rail corridor crossings of all public 

and private facilities. Full details on all crossings, including information on adjacent land uses 

and connectivity to adjacent crossings, are located in Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report. 

Following the summary of the existing crossings, additional details of the at-grade crossings are 

provided. While the proposed DC2RVA project may affect crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that 

are currently grade separated (e.g., by increasing or decreasing roadway traffic on these 

crossings), potential effects are likely to be greater at locations that are currently at-grade because 

some of these locations could become candidates for crossing elimation (i.e., constructing a 

roadway (or rail) bridge to separate the rail traffic from the roadway traffic or crossing closure), 

which could affect existing traffic conditions and/or operations. Accordingly, the discussion in 

this section, therefore, focuses on the at-grade crossings because of the higher potential effects 

compared to grade-separated crossings. 

Summary of Existing Crossings. The highway–rail crossings in the DC2RVA corridor include 

at-grade crossings and grade-separated crossings, with public and private crossings of both types. 

There are 200 existing highway–rail crossings in the DC2RVA corridor, as summarized in Table 

3.15-6. The locations of all existing roadway crossings are shown in Figure 3.15-3. 

Table 3.15-6: Existing Highway–Rail Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Alternative Area 

Public Private 

Totals 

At Grade (By Area) 

Grade 

Separated At Grade 

Grade 

Separated 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 0 1 0 0 1 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 4 29 5 9 47 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 9 11 5 2 27 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 7 7 10 1 25 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 11 4 0 0 15 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 24 53 4 4 85 

Totals (by Crossing Type): 55 105 24 16 200 

Note that the I-295 crossing is located at the boundary between the Ashland area and the Richmond area; it is included in the total for the

Richmond area only in this table. This table includes the existing public crossing(s) in the Franconia to Occoquan Project (which is the subject

of a separate Categorical Exclusion) as well as in the Powell’s Creek to Arkendale section. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-205 

Figure 3.15-3: Roadway Rail Crossings in Project Corridor
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-206 

Figure 3.15-3: Roadway Rail Crossings in Project Corridor 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-207 

In addition to the existing crossings of the DC2RVA corridor, the new track sections of the two 

bypass alignments would cross roadways that are not currently railroad crossings. Note that 

Virginia state code7 restricts the creation of new at-grade crossings, so all new crossings would 

be grade separated, with potential roadway realignment and/or closure. The Fredericksburg 

Bypass alignment would cross five public roadways, and the Ashland Bypass alignment would 

cross eight public roadways that are not currently highway–rail crossings; both bypass 

alignments would additionally cross numerous private roadways that mainly act as driveways 

and access to private property. 

The 160 public at-grade and grade-separated crossings are summarized in Table 3.15-7, which is 

located at the end of this section, in addition to the 13 new public highway–rail crossings that 

would be created as part of the bypass alignments; data includes rail line, crossing type, roadway 

functional classification per VDOT, and daily traffic. 

Public At-Grade Crossings. There are 55 public at-grade crossings within the DC2RVA 

corridor. These public at-grade roadway crossings range from urban, median-separated, multilane facilities that carry more than 15,000 vehicles daily to rural, unstriped local crossings with 

100 daily vehicles (representative examples are shown in Figure 3.15-4). 

Figure 3.15-4. Examples of Public At-Grade Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor

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

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

specified in the Manual of Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD) and include passive and active types. 

“Passive” warning devices are the basic devices used at all highway–rail crossings; they include 

the crossbuck (the X-shaped signs that identify a crossing), signage, and roadway approach 

pavement markings. “Active” control devices are activated by the passage of a train over 

detection circuit in the track and are intended to physically warn and/or impede vehicles from 

the tracks when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. Typical active traffic control 

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

In the DC2RVA corridor, most public at-grade two-lane crossings have active flashing signal 

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

An automatic gate serves as a physical barrier across the roadway travel lanes when a train is 

 

7 The applicable state law can be found at: https://vacode.org/56-363/. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-208 

approaching or occupying a crossing; however, when automatic gates are located on the 

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

around an activated gate with little difficulty. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

automatic gate is activated by disallowing vehicles from using the roadway lane serving 

traffic flowing in the opposite direction. The barrier provided by the median treatment 

also provides an additional measure of safety compared to the two-quadrant gate system. 

Additionally, there are six public at-grade crossings that are currently designated8 as part of a 24-

hour “Quiet Zone,” which is a section of a rail line that contains one or more consecutive public 

crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded: 

 Prince William Quiet Zone: 

- Featherstone Road crossing 

 Ashland Quiet Zone: 

- West Patrick Street crossing 

- College Avenue/Henry Clay Street crossing 

- England Street/Thompson Street crossing 

- Myrtle Street crossing 

- East Francis Street crossing 

FRA’s regulations governing train horn use at grade crossings are found at 49 CFR Part 2229 and 

mandate that a horn be sounded at every public at-grade crossing (i.e., horns are not required to be 

sounded at locations where the crossing is grade separated). 49 CFR Part 222 also establishes the 

procedures necessary for a public authority to establish a Quiet Zone. The Quiet Zone program was 

established so that communities can opt-out of the mandatory horn signaling, excluding emergency 

situations. Even in existing Quiet Zones that are based on the “grandfather” provision in the 

regulation, the locomotive bell must still be rung as a train approaches an at-grade highway–rail 

crossing. Quiet Zones that may be proposed by local governments in the future would be based on 

local needs. They must be designed, however, in accordance with FRA standards and approved by 

FRA. Localities would also fund all improvements, equipment, and signage, and they would 

provide ongoing maintenance for all Quiet Zones within their jurisdictions.

 

8 There are 28 Quiet Zone locations in Virginia per the Quiet Zone FRAWeb Report 

(https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L05204). Individual crossings that are included as part of the Quiet Zone 

designation are verified per the U.S DOT Crossing Inventory Form for each crossing (accessed per 

http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/). 

9 49 CFR; Part 222; Part 229 can be found in its entirety on the FRA website at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02809. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-209 

Private At-Grade Crossings. Private at-grade crossings are defined as highway–rail crossings 

located on roadways that are not intended for use by the public nor maintained by a public 

authority. There are 24 private at-grade crossings that operate within the DC2RVA corridor. 

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

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

to industrial properties (representative examples shown in Figure 3.15-5). 

Figure 3.15-5. Examples of Private At-Grade Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor

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

general, located on narrow or unpaved roadways with minimal warning devices. Most 

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

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

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

Residential and farm crossings typically have signage as the sole passive warning device. Private 

crossings can be controlled by a barrier gate, which is a moveable gate (manual or automatic) that 

is kept in the controlled position (i.e., blocking the travel lanes) and opening only on demand; 

however, none of the private crossings in the DC2RVA corridor currently use barrier gates. 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

Arlington County George Washington 

Parkway 

RF&P CFP 110.07 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

63,240 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Arlington County VA 233/Airport 

Access 

RF&P CFP 108.48 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 23,460 

Alexandria City U.S. Route 1/ 

N. Henry Street 

RF&P CFP 106.44 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

47,940 

Alexandria City E. Braddock Road RF&P CFP 105.84 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 7,344 

Alexandria City Commonwealth 

Avenue/Daingerfield 

Road 

RF&P CFP 105.38 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 6,222 

Alexandria City King Street RF&P CFP 105.33 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

16,320 

Alexandria City Duke Street RF&P CFP 105.10 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

22,440 

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

 3-210 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Alexandria City Telegraph Road RF&P CFP 104.54 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 61,200 

Alexandria City Eisenhower Avenue RF&P CFP 102.55 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 12,240 

Alexandria City Eisenhower Avenue 

Connector 

RF&P CFP 102.37 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 14,280 

Fairfax County S. Van Dorn Street RF&P CFP 101.14 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 48,960 

Fairfax County I-95/ I-495 RF&P CFP 100.04 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 185,640 

Fairfax County Franconia Road RF&P CFP 99.10 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 32,640 

Fairfax County Franconia - 

Springfield Parkway 

RF&P CFP 98.06 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

48,960 

Fairfax County Newington Road RF&P CFP 95.75 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 9,588 

Fairfax County Backlick Road RF&P CFP 95.15 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 2,142 

Fairfax County Fairfax County 

Parkway 

RF&P CFP 95.10 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

37,740 

Fairfax County Pohick Road RF&P CFP 93.85 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 12,240 

Fairfax County Lorton Road RF&P CFP 92.56 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 21,420 

Fairfax County Jefferson Davis 

Highway 

RF&P CFP 90.66 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

37,740 

Fairfax County Furnace Road RF&P CFP 90.04 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Collector 1,326 

Prince William 

County 

Railroad Avenue RF&P CFP 89.23 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 510 

Prince William 

County 

Dawson Beach Road RF&P CFP 88.79 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 7,344 

Prince William 

County 

Featherstone Road RF&P CFP 86.85 At Grade Major Collector 10,200 

Prince William 

County 

Daniel K Ludwig 

Drive/Powells Creek 

RF&P CFP 83.66 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 194 

Prince William 

County 

Possum Point Road RF&P CFP 80.02 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 326 

Prince William 

County 

Potomac Avenue RF&P CFP 78.79 At Grade Local 7,140 

Stafford County Brent Point Road RF&P CFP 72.35 At Grade Local 541 

Stafford County Courthouse Road RF&P CFP 69.09 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 561 

Stafford County Andrew Chapel 

Road 

RF&P CFP 68.01 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 5,406 

Stafford County Mount Hope 

Church Road 

RF&P CFP 67.54 At Grade Local 214 

Stafford County Eskimo Hill Road RF&P CFP 66.77 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,632 

Stafford County Leeland Road RF&P CFP 63.47 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 11,220 

Stafford County Primmer House 

Road 

RF&P CFP 63.02 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 10,200 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-211 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

Stafford County Harrell Road RF&P CFP 61.79 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Collector 3,876 

Stafford County Butler Road/ 

White Oak Road 

RF&P CFP 60.81 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 15,300 

Stafford County Kings Highway RF&P CFP 60.04 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 26,520 

Stafford County Naomi Road RF&P CFP 59.97 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 663 

Fredericksburg City Sophia Street RF&P CFP 59.46 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 5,712 

Fredericksburg City Caroline Street RF&P CFP 59.40 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 2,346 

Fredericksburg City Princess Anne 

Street 

RF&P CFP 59.33 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 2,754 

Fredericksburg City Charles Street RF&P CFP 59.27 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 5,916 

Fredericksburg City Blue and Gray 

Parkway 

RF&P CFP 58.68 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

40,800 

Fredericksburg City Landsdowne Road RF&P CFP 57.51 At Grade Major Collector 8,772 

Spotsylvania County Mine Road RF&P CFP 54.77 At Grade Major Collector 5,202 

Spotsylvania County Mills Drive RF&P CFP 53.45 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

14,280 

Spotsylvania County Summit Crossing 

Road 

RF&P CFP 51.45 At Grade Local 408 

Caroline County Claiborne Crossing 

Road 

RF&P CFP 48.63 At Grade Local 479 

Stafford County Cool Spring Road FBP CFQ 0.37 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 13,260 

Stafford County Debruen Lane FBP CFQ 0.53 At Grade Local 510 

Stafford County Ferry Road FBP CFQ 1.70 At Grade Major Collector 9,180 

Stafford County Federal Drive FBP CFQ 2.89 At Grade Local 1,326 

Stafford County Little Falls Road FBP CFQ 3.80 At Grade Local 153 

Stafford County Forest Lane Road FBP CFQ 4.68 At Grade Local 1,428 

Stafford County Kings Highway−

Route 3 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

21,420 

Spotsylvania County Mills Drive−

Route 17 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

6,324 

Spotsylvania County Fredericksburg 

Turnpike−Route 2 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 5,100 

Spotsylvania County Thorton Rolling 

Road−Route 609 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 2,652 

Spotsylvania County Patriot Lane FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Local 510 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

Caroline County Stonewall Jackson 

Road 

RF&P CFP 47.27 At Grade Major Collector 1,938 

Caroline County Woodford Road RF&P CFP 44.54 At Grade Local 388 

Caroline County Woodslane Road RF&P CFP 43.51 At Grade Local 102 

Caroline County Paige Road RF&P CFP 40.40 At Grade Minor Collector 479 

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

 3-212 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Caroline County Route 207 RF&P CFP 38.49 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

11,220 

Caroline County Nelson Hill Road RF&P CFP 37.60 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,836 

Caroline County Penola Road RF&P CFP 33.00 At Grade Local 428 

Caroline County Colemans Mill Road RF&P CFP 29.70 At Grade Local 449 

Caroline County Dry Bridge Road RF&P CFP 28.38 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 949 

Caroline County Ruther Glen Road RF&P CFP 26.93 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 2,142 

Caroline County I-95 RF&P CFP 26.51 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 99,960 

Hanover County Doswell Road RF&P CFP 21.88 At Grade Local 316 

Hanover County Kings Dominion 

Boulevard 

RF&P CFP 20.81 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 5,100 

Hanover County Taylorsville Road RF&P CFP 19.59 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 184 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

Hanover County Old Ridge Road RF&P CFP 18.96 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,122 

Hanover County Elletts Crossing 

Road 

RF&P CFP 17.51 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Collector 133 

Hanover County U.S. Route 1 RF&P CFP 17.23 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 8,160 

Hanover County W. Vaughan Road/ 

Henry Street 

RF&P CFP 15.64 At Grade Local 1,326 

Hanover County W. Patrick Street RF&P CFP 15.21 At Grade Minor Collector 304 

Hanover County College Avenue/ 

Henry Clay Street 

RF&P CFP 14.90 At Grade Major Collector 1,326 

Hanover County England Street / 

Thompson Street 

RF&P CFP 14.77 At Grade Minor Arterial 14,280 

Hanover County Myrtle Street RF&P CFP 14.66 At Grade Major Collector 1,836 

Hanover County E. Francis Street RF&P CFP 14.22 At Grade Local 1,428 

Hanover County Ashcake Road RF&P CFP 13.85 At Grade Minor Arterial 7,752 

Hanover County Gwathmey Church 

Road 

RF&P CFP 12.94 At Grade Minor Collector 163 

Hanover County Elmont Road RF&P CFP 11.54 At Grade Major Collector 2,142 

Hanover County Cedar Lane RF&P CFP 11.15 At Grade Major Collector 1,938 

Henrico County Greenwood Road RF&P CFP 9.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,530 

Henrico County Mill Road RF&P CFP 9.65 At Grade Major Collector 2,754 

Henrico County I-295 (Northbound 

only) 

RF&P CFP 8.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 62,220 

Hanover County Washington 

Highway−Route 1 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 8,160 

Hanover County Cross Corner 

Road−Route 641 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 530 

Hanover County Blunts Bridge Road ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 551 

Hanover County Independence Road ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 949 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-213 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Hanover County W. Patrick Henry 

Road 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 6,834 

Hanover County Yowell Road ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Local 775 

Hanover County Ashcake Road–

Route 657 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 5,406 

Hanover County Elmont Road−

Route 626 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Major Collector 2,346 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

Henrico County I-295 (Southbound 

only) 

RF&P CFP 8.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 62,220 

Henrico County Mountain Road RF&P CFP 8.15 At Grade Minor Arterial 5,304 

Henrico County Hungary Road RF&P CFP 6.59 At Grade Minor Arterial 16,320 

Henrico County E. Parham Road RF&P CFP 5.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

26,520 

Henrico County Hermitage Road RF&P CFP 5.43 At Grade Major Collector 4,284 

Henrico County Hilliard Road RF&P CFP 4.44 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 16,320 

Henrico County Dumbarton Road RF&P CFP 3.70 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 15,300 

Henrico County I-64 RF&P CFP 3.15 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 140,760 

Richmond I-195 RF&P CFP 1.84 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 77,520 

Richmond Westwood Avenue/ 

Saunders Avenue 

RF&P CFPD 1.73 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 12,240 

Richmond I-195 Northbound A-Line ARN 3.17 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 74,460 

Richmond W. Broad Street A-Line ARN 3.02 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

9,690 

Richmond Monument Avenue A-Line ARN 2.77 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 24,480 

Richmond Patterson Avenue A-Line ARN 2.49 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

8,772 

Richmond Grove Avenue A-Line ARN 2.18 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 11,220 

Richmond W. Cary Street A-Line ARN 1.92 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

15,300 

Richmond I-195 Southbound A-Line ARN 1.79 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 9,078 

Richmond Douglasdale Road A-Line ARN 1.21 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 510 

Richmond Powhite Parkway 

Southbound 

A-Line ARN 1.07 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

26,520 

Richmond Powhite Parkway 

Northbound 

A-Line ARN 1.01 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

94,860 

Richmond Riverside Drive A-Line ARN 0.32 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond Forest Hill Avenue A-Line A 0.31 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 20,400 

Richmond Jahnke Road A-Line A 0.68 At Grade Minor Arterial 12,240 

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

 3-214 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Richmond Bassett Avenue A-Line A 1.01 At Grade Local 1,399 

Richmond Midlothian Turnpike A-Line A 1.54 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

22,440 

Richmond Hull Street Road A-Line A 2.43 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

24,480 

Richmond Broad Rock 

Boulevard 

A-Line A 3.08 At Grade Other Principal 

Arterial 

19,380 

Richmond Hopkins Road A-Line A 3.67 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 8,772 

Richmond Terminal Avenue A-Line A 3.88 At Grade Major Collector 683 

Richmond Warwick Road A-Line A 4.66 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 11,220 

Richmond Walmsley Boulevard A-Line A 5.54 At Grade Minor Arterial 4,998 

Chesterfield County Castlewood Road/ 

Cardwell Road 

A-Line A 5.85 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 1,122 

Chesterfield County Cogbill Road A-Line A 6.37 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 3,876 

Chesterfield County Chippenham 

Parkway 

A-Line A 6.84 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

60,180 

Chesterfield County S. Beulah Road/ 

Dundas Road 

A-Line A 7.13 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 5,100 

Chesterfield County Kingsland Road A-Line A 9.37 At Grade Major Collector 2,142 

Chesterfield County Thurston Road A-Line A 10.00 At Grade Local 459 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Northbound 

A-Line A 10.36 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Southbound 

A-Line A 10.38 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

Chesterfield County Old Lane A- and SLine A 10.74 At Grade Major Collector 4,896 

Richmond N Boulevard S-Line SRNX 3.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

21,420 

Richmond Hermitage Road S-Line SRN 3.37 At Grade Minor Arterial 10,200 

Richmond I-64/I-95 S-Line SRN 2.93 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 138,720 

Richmond N. Lombardy Street S-Line SRN 2.83 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 7,752 

Richmond Brook Road S-Line SRN 2.34 At Grade Minor Arterial 8,262 

Richmond N. Belvidere Street S-Line SRN 2.24 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

22,440 

Richmond Chamberlayne 

Parkway 

S-Line SRN 2.20 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 7,548 

Richmond St James Street S-Line SRN 1.75 At Grade Local 1,000 

Richmond N. 1st Street S-Line SRN 1.64 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 3,774 

Richmond N. 2nd Street/ 

Valley Road 

S-Line SRN 1.60 At Grade Local 2,142 

Richmond N. 5th Street S-Line SRN 1.36 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 3,978 

Richmond I-64 S-Line SRN 1.30 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 95,880 

Richmond Hospital Street/ 

N. 7th Street 

S-Line SRN 1.24 At Grade Minor Arterial 5,814 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-215 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Richmond Leigh Street S-Line CA S 85.7 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 11,220 

Richmond I-95 Off-Ramp to 

17th Street 

S-Line SRN 0.43 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 6,018 

Richmond E. Marshall Street S-Line SRN 0.30 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond E. Broad Street S-Line SRN 0.23 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

26,520 

Richmond E. Main Street S-Line SRN 0.00 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

21,420 

Richmond I-95 S-Line S 0.15 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 130,560 

Richmond E. Cary Street S-Line S 0.08 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond Dock Street S-Line S 0.16 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 510 

Richmond Ramps between 

I-195 and I-95 

S-Line S 0.17 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 24,480 

Richmond Byrd Street S-Line S 0.19 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond Maury Street S-Line S 0.78 At Grade Local 2,589 

Richmond I-95/Maury Street 

Ramp 

S-Line S 0.97 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 19,951 

Richmond Goodes Street S-Line S 1.66 At Grade Local 204 

Richmond E. Commerce Road S-Line S 2.98 At Grade Minor Arterial 4,284 

Richmond Ruffin Road S-Line S 3.98 At Grade Major Collector 1,836 

Richmond Bells Road S-Line S 4.46 At Grade Minor Arterial 8,976 

Richmond Dale Avenue/ 

Trenton Avenue 

S-Line S 4.98 At Grade Local 0 

Chesterfield County Chippenham 

Parkway 

S-Line S 6.47 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

58,140 

Chesterfield County Elliham Avenue S-Line S 7.85 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 520 

Chesterfield County Jefferson Davis 

Highway 

S-Line S 8.8 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

20,400 

Chesterfield County Kingsland Road S-Line S 9.14 At Grade Major Collector 2,040 

Chesterfield County Brinkley Road S-Line S 9.83 At Grade Local 1,836 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Northbound 

S-Line S C 10.60 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Southbound 

S-Line S C 10.62 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

1

: The Rail Line includes the following terminology for purposes of the transportation analyses: 

- “FBP” is the Fredericksburg Bypass alignment and includes the existing crossings on the Dahlgren spur as well as new crossings along the 

proposed new track alignment. 

- “ABP” is the Ashland Bypass and includes the new crossings along the proposed new track alignment (there are no existing crossings of the 

proposed Ashland Bypass.) 

2

: Source of Functional Classification: VDOT 2014 Approved Functional Classification, 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3eca6c9adb6649c988d98734f85baddb (accessed January 2016). 3

: Source of ADT: VDOT, GIS online database for Annual Average Daily Traffic with Vehicle Classification for 2014 (accessed January 2016), 

Grown to 2015 (Refer to Section 4 of the Draft EIS details on growth rates). 

Note that this table includes the existing public crossing(s) in the Franconia to Occoquan Project (which is the subject of a separate Categorical 

Exclusion) as well as in the Powell’s Creek to Arkendale section for reference. The Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue at-grade crossing is not open 

to public vehicles in existing conditions. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-216 

3.16 UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES 

Utilities are, by definition, a commodity or service provided for public use. The DC2RVA corridor 

contains municipal, regional, interstate and private utility systems, including sanitary sewer 

collection and treatment; stormwater collection and discharge; electric power generation and 

distribution; communications facilities and cabling; natural gas storage and distribution; 

petroleum storage and transportation; solid waste collection and management facilities; and 

interstate pipelines. DRPT mapped existing utilities along the DC2RVA corridor based on 

available information from CSXT and other local sources. 

3.17 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

3.17.1 Community Safety and Access 

FRA is the agency primarily responsible for rail safety oversight. FRA promulgates and enforces 

safety regulations (49 CFR 200-299) covering many aspects of rail operations. Public safety is 

assessed based on the safety of passengers and employees on trains, in stations, and along the rail 

line, and construction workers during construction of any approved rail improvements. Safety is 

also considered for any persons or vehicles at any rail facilities, access points to the rail right-ofway, or to the rail system itself (stations). Detailed rail operations safety and security information 

is available in the System Safety Plan and System Security Plan. Detailed grade crossing safety 

assessments are available in Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report. 

Within the individual communities, safety and security along the rail line encompasses physical 

access around the rail right-of-way, as well as the safety of residents and businesses due to rail 

operations (e.g., accidents, hazardous materials transport). As stated previously, the communities 

have grown and developed around the existing railroad right-of-way. This includes the roadway 

network, which has also developed around the railroad right-of-way and is used by residents, 

businesses, school transportation, and emergency services. CSXT has strict safety procedures, 

including extensive safety training and certification, regarding access to the right-of-way. 

Physical barriers are used in those parts of the DC2RVA corridor where those persons other than 

CSXT workers can easily access the right-of-way. 

3.17.2 At-Grade Crossing Safety 

Crossings are divided into categories: public crossings are those on highways under the 

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to the traveling public; private 

crossings are those on roadways privately owned and used only by the landowner or licensee; 

and pedestrian crossings are those used solely by pedestrians. There are 200 crossings with 

roadways in the DC2RVA corridor. Of these crossings, 160 are with public roads and 40 are with 

private roads. Crossings are either at grade (79) or grade separated (121). Private at-grade 

crossings are primarily residential, farm, or industrial. Section 3.15.2.2 provodes additional detail 

on at-grade crossings in the corridor. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4
 4-1 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The discussion on environmental consequences summarizes potential effects on the human, 

physical, and natural environments that may result from construction and operation of the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Project (DC2RVA Project). The 

existing environment within the study area was described in Chapter 3. The effects presented in 

this chapter are based on the conceptual engineering developed for the Build Alternatives. Effects 

are identified for each alternative within the six areas defined for the Project in detail in Chapter 

2 and summarized below in Table 4.0-1. 

Table 4.0-1: Summary of Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

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

5B Add One Track East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station 

to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

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 

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 Stations 

4 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-2 

For this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) established two important 

planning dates. The first planning date is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate 

of when construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA 

service would be placed in operation. FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening 

day” is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is finalizing the EIS and Record of 

Decision. The date also assumes that federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be 

available at the level required to build all of the proposed infrastructure improvements and 

acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. DRPT based this date on an aggressive but 

potentially achievable schedule assumption that all necessary permits, approvals, agreements, 

and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design would take one year (2021), right-of-way 

acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and construction would take three years 

(2023–2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the date when the physical impacts associated with 

DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, all of the physical impact analyses within 

this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are estimated for 2025, and compared to the No 

Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new intercity passenger rail service in 2025. 

Both the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and FRA guidance require 

that DRPT demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger 

rail benefits and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon 

following the completion of the passenger project. DRPT uses operational simulations analysis, 

as discussed in Section 2.6, to test the proposed alternatives to determine if the rail capacity is 

adequate for both the opening day (2025) levels of projected freight, commuter, and passenger 

rail traffic and to determine if the infrastructure remains adequate over the 20-year planning 

horizon or until 2045. DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate some of the 

longer term effects of the proposed service, such as ridership, energy use, and effects on air 

quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects. 

Proposed mitigation is identified throughout this chapter as a way to avoid, minimize, reduce, or 

eliminate potential effects of the Project. As part of the identified mitigation, applicable best 

management practices (BMPs) are also identified. BMPs are existing practices and measures 

required by law, regulation, or policy that reduce the environmental impacts of designated 

activities, functions, or processes. Although BMPs mitigate potential impacts by avoiding, 

minimizing, or reducing/eliminating impacts, BMPs are distinguished from mitigation measures 

because BMPs are inherently part of the Project and are not additional mitigation measures 

proposed because of this environmental review process. Examples of typical BMPs include 

permanent seeding, use of native vegetation, sediment and erosion control, silt fences, check 

dams, and sediment basins. DRPT will refine the mitigation measures during final design and 

ensure that they are incorporated into the DC2RVA Project. 

4.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Several federal laws protect water resources, which include the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). These laws protect water 

resources from pollutants, discharges, fill materials, dredging, and encroachments. Water 

resources are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-3 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Coast Guard (USCG), and state 

departments of environment. 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSX Transportation (CSXT) would continue maintenance and 

repairs of the existing infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned 

for the DC2RVA corridor, as defined in Section 2.5.1.1, would move forward. Anticipated effects 

of the No Build Alternative are discussed below in comparison with the Build Alternatives, 

including potential permits required. Existing factors that affect water quality, such as 

impervious surfaces and pollutants washed from the existing surfaces into receiving water 

bodies, would continue with the No Build Alternative. No changes to floodplains or hydraulic 

conditions are anticipated with the No Build Alternative. 

Due to the linear nature and length of the DC2RVA corridor, each Build Alternative would 

include unavoidable effects to water resources. Effects were calculated in Geographic Information 

System (GIS) based on the limits of disturbance (LOD) developed for each Build Alternative. 

Permanent effects include all areas where infrastructure would physically replace existing 

conditions. Temporary effects are areas required for construction of the Build Alternatives, such 

as for movement, access, or storage of equipment, that would be regraded and seeded with an 

approved seed mixture by the contractor and allowed to renaturalize after completion of the 

Project. Water resources potentially affected by the Build Alternatives are shown in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report (Appendix M). 

4.1.1 Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Floodplains 

Effects to surface waters resulting from construction of the proposed improvements are similar 

between the Build Alternatives. Typical effects would include: 

Temporary 

 Increased erosion from disturbed areas, resulting in increased sedimentation and 

decreased water clarity 

 Disturbance of in-stream habitat and aquatic species from in-stream construction 

Long-Term Temporary 

 Clearing and grubbing of stream banks, resulting in increased erosion, decreased bank 

stabilization, and potential slope failure 

 Removal of riparian canopy, resulting in increased water temperatures 

Permanent 

 Decreased groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces 

 Increased nutrient loading from increased runoff and fertilizer application during the 

replanting process 

 Increased potential for toxic compounds entering the water system from construction 

equipment, increased train traffic, application of snow and ice removal chemicals, and 

application of herbicides to keep tracks clear of vegetation 

 Altered stream locations (including intentional stream relocations), flow patterns, and 

morphology 

 Use of resource (culverted streams and filled wetlands) for infrastructure placement 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-4 

The extent of effects is generally related to the length or area of the resource affected. The extent 

of potentially permanent and temporary encroachments on the water resources identified in 

Chapter 3 are listed in Table 4.1-1. The more severe impacts are associated with new or 

rehabilitated structures spanning major waterways. These types of crossings would require 

several spans and new piers or substructure to be constructed in the waterway itself. For smaller 

waterway crossings, single-span bridges or bottomless or properly embedded culverts are 

recommended. In most cases, the short-term or temporary nature of the effects caused by 

construction would allow renaturalization of the resource. The locations of all water crossings 

and the approximate LOD associated with each are presented in detail the Natural Resources 

Technical Report (Appendix M). Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, between 152 

and 191 streams would be permanently affected by the proposed improvements. Linear and 

parallel encroachments to these streams are estimated between 26,377 and 35,422 linear feet. 

Table 4.1-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach)

1A – – – – – P: 4.0 

T: 1.2 

P: 0.3 

T: 1.0 

1B – – – – – P: 4.8 

T: 1.5 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.3 

1C – – – – – P: 6.0 

T: 0.6 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.4 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur)

2A P: 52 

T: 68 

P: 7,198 

T: 4,022 

P: 205.7 

T: 232.9 

P: 44.4 

T: 50.2 

– P: 67.9 

T: 50.2 

P: 15.1 

T: 18.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads)

3A P: 16 

T: 21 

P: 1,101 

T: 1,771 

– – – P: 36.9 

T: 17.7 

P: 7.7 

T: 5.7 

3B P: 20 

T: 26 

P: 1,506 

T: 1,894 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

– P: 41.0 

T: 17.9 

P: 10.5 

T: 6.4 

3C P: 43 

T: 45 

P: 4,597 

T: 1,693 

P: 44.5 

T: 102.7 

P: 44.5 

T: 102.7 

– P: 57.9 

T: 18.6 

P: 8.0 

T: 3.8 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell)

4A P: 32 

T: 43 

P: 3,627 

T: 2,798 

P: 64.8 

T: 265.9 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 69.7 

T: 31.9 

P:17.2 

T: 17.3 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)

5A P: 23 

T: 25 

P: 6,928 

T: 1,623 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 16.6 

T: 12.9 

P: 5.9 

T: 2.5 

5A–Ashcake P: 22 

T: 25 

P: 6,928 

T: 1,623 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 17.7 

T: 12.8 

P: 7.1 

T: 2.4 

5B P: 24 

T: 27 

P: 9,114 

T: 2,151 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 19.4 

T: 14.4 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-5 

Table 4.1-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5B–Ashcake P: 23 

T: 28 

P: 9,101 

T: 2,132 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 23.4 

T: 14.7 

P: 10.7 

T: 3.8 

5C P: 26 

T: 26 

P: 9,005 

T: 1,410 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 31.6 

T: 13.9 

P: 9.2 

T: 2.4 

5C–Ashcake P: 26 

T: 26 

P: 9,005 

T: 1,410 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 32.6 

T: 13.9 

P: 10.4 

T: 2.4 

5D–Ashcake P: 28 

T: 31 

P: 8,163 

T: 2,958 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 25.7 

T: 15.4 

P: 11.5 

T: 4.0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia)

6A P: 30 

T: 30 

P: 7,523 

T: 3,384 

– – – P: 53.5 

T: 15.5 

P: 8.1 

T: 3.5 

6B–A-Line P: 34 

T: 34 

P: 9,650 

T: 3,609 

– – – P: 59.3 

T: 17.4 

P: 11.3 

T: 6.1 

6B–S-Line P: 36 

T: 30 

P: 8,819 

T: 2,333 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.7 

– P: 55.1 

T: 11.5 

P: 48.6 

T: 12.4 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6C P: 35 

T: 34 

P:10,886 

T: 3,349 

– – – P: 63.3 

T: 17.0 

P: 16.1 

T: 5.8 

6D P: 36 

T: 30 

P: 8,819 

T: 2,333 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

– P: 55.0 

T: 11.5 

P: 51.9 

T: 13.0 

6E P: 30 

T: 30 

P: 7,952 

T: 3,169 

– – – P: 55.3 

T: 15.4 

P: 22.2 

T:20.2 

6F P: 36 

T: 31 

P: 8,869 

T: 2,333 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

– P: 57.2 

T: 11.3 

P: 50.7 

T: 13.1 

6G P: 34 

T: 29 

P: 8,235 

T: 2,288 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.2 

– P: 57.8 

T: 11.1 

P: 48.1 

T: 13.1 

Notes: P = Permanent Effect; T=Temporary Effect. 

4.1.1.1 Designated Waters 

Navigable Waters

Although construction of the proposed project would not have any effect on this designation, 

work in navigable waters requires special consideration under Section 9 and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act (see Permits 4.1.5). Depending on the Build Alternative, the LOD would 

cross five to seven of the eight Coast Guard regulated navigable waters within the study area: 

 Occoquan River 

 Neabsco Creek 

 Powells Creek 

 Aquia Creek 

 Rappahannock River 

 Mattaponi River 

 James River
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-6 

State Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory

The existing rail corridor was in place long before much of the surrounding development in the 

DC2RVA corridor; as such, new construction would be consistent with existing land uses and 

controlling regulations for designated waters. The most notable changes due to the proposed 

improvements would be the construction of new bridges built adjacent to and/or replacing 

existing bridges. However, the new bridges would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of existing structures; therefore, DRPT anticipates that the landscape and viewsheds from 

designated waters will be similar in context to existing conditions. The Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) would require a new bridge over the Rappahannock River in a new 

location; however, the new bridge would not be in an area where the Rappahannock River is 

designated a State Scenic River. The State Scenic River designation ends north of the proposed 

bypass near Ferry Farm. Consistent with the guidelines for protecting designated waters, the use 

of BMPs would ensure the preservation of the ecological resources within the waterways and 

their local watersheds. The DC2RVA Project is not expected to affect river designations.

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) 

Transportation projects, including rail lines, are conditionally exempt from the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. By constructing improvements in 

accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of 

Virginia), the Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), and the terms 

and conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (Virginia DEQ), and Virginia Marines Resources Commission (VMRC), and an erosion and 

sediment control plan and a stormwater management plan approved by Virginia DEQ, all of the 

Build Alternatives would be consistent with the CBPA and its implementing regulations. 

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

Each Build Alternative would be consistent with the established Virginia Coastal Zone 

Enforceable Policies as related to fisheries management, subaqueous lands management, 

wetlands management, dunes management, nonpoint source pollution control, point source 

pollution control, shoreline sanitation, air pollution control, and coastal lands management. The 

FRA would submit a Federal Consistency Determination for the recommended Preferred 

Alternative that analyzes the coastal effects of the Project in light of the enforceable policies of the 

Virginia CZMA program and provides commitment to comply with those policies. The 

recommended Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with the 

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and the terms and conditions of water quality 

permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC, and an erosion and sediment control 

plan and a stormwater management plan approved by Virginia DEQ. Implementation of 

proposed mitigation measures and any required permits would ensure consistency with the 

enforceable policies of the Virginia CZMA program. 

4.1.1.2 Floodplains and Floodways 

As indicated in Table 4.1-1, each Build Alternative would potentially affect Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplains. There is considerable variation in the acres 

of encroachments (both longitudinal and parallel) among the various combinations of the Build 

Alternatives – ranging from 62.4 to 124.8 acres. None of the floodplain encroachments would 

represent a “significant encroachment” (as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

650.105[q]) because of the following reasons: 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-7 

 It would pose no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation 

facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation 

route. These rail lines are not considered the only emergency evacuation route, nor do 

they support emergency vehicles. 

 It would not pose a significant flooding risk. The Build Alternatives would be designed 

consistent with procedures for the location and hydraulic design on floodplains contained 

in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Accordingly, the Build Alternatives are not expected to increase 

flood height elevations, the probability of flooding, or the potential for property loss and 

hazard to life. 

 It would not have significant adverse effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Avoidance and minimization efforts, including spanning floodplains where practicable 

and minimizing wetland impacts, would be made during design to avoid or minimize 

impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Portions of the study area are also vulnerable to tidal flooding from major storms, such as 

hurricanes and northeasters. Both types of storms produce winds that push large volumes of 

water against the shore. Hurricanes, with their high winds and heavy rainfall, are the most severe 

storms to which the study area is subjected and can produce local to widespread flooding in the 

study area. The study area also contains tidally influenced waters that are subject to tidal flooding 

in their lower reaches and fluvial flooding on the upper reaches. 

Each Build Alternative is consistent with the transportation elements of local comprehensive use 

plans and are not projected to either encourage or accelerate any growth or changes in land use 

that are not already expected. The Project would not encourage, induce, allow, serve, support, or 

otherwise facilitate incompatible base floodplain development. 

4.1.1.3 Stormwater/Drainage 

Increased stormwater runoff from construction of the Project improvements can impact receiving 

streams and associated land surfaces in two forms: long-term impacts caused by runoff from 

increased impervious surfaces and short-term impacts caused by land disturbance during 

construction. Stormwater from railroad corridors can potentially carry increased quantities of silt; 

heavy metals; petroleum products from railroad equipment; chemicals associated with snow and 

ice removal; herbicides associated with vegetation maintenance; and other chemicals associated 

with railroad cars and machinery. The proposed Build Alternatives would increase impervious 

surfaces by constructing additional rail bed and track, as well as ancillary facilities associated 

with stations, grade crossings, and bridges. The increase in stormwater runoff could increase 

erosion, silt, and chemicals entering the waterways. These materials can potentially degrade 

water quality and aquatic habitat integrity. The effects on water quality depend on the size of the 

receiving waterways crossed and the number of such crossings (see Table 4.1-1). Streams with 

low flow are more severely affected because they have less volume to dilute the runoff. 

Additional runoff as a result of the Build Alternatives would be minimal because the increases in 

impervious surface are small. Stormwater runoff from railways is generally less pronounced than 

that from roadways because much of the rail bed is permeable to rainfall (i.e., ballast and side 

slopes). Impervious surfaces have a runoff coefficient of 0.80, or about 80 percent runoff and about 

20 percent infiltration. Roadways have runoff coefficients of 0.85 to 0.95, while the runoff 

coefficient for ballasted track is calculated between 0.50 to 0.55. Although ballast is considered to 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-8 

be permeable, some runoff would collect in adjacent drainage ditches and may carry similar 

pollutants to and have similar effects to surface waters as runoff associated with paved roadways. 

Short-term adverse impacts on water quality within the study area may result from soil erosion 

and sedimentation because of land-disturbing activities during construction. Land-disturbing 

activities include construction of the rail bed, tracks, bridges, signal and communication facilities, 

and other related structures and facilities of the railroad, including grade crossings, clearing of 

right-of-way, staging areas, access roads, and borrow/spoil areas. Construction-related effects 

are likely to be similar for road and rail (see Section 4.19 for descriptions of construction 

activities). Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation can affect aquatic algae and submerged 

aquatic vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrate habitat, and fish spawning habitat, and it can 

remove food resources for some stream species. 

The recommended Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), the 

Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), and the terms and 

conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC. By upgrading 

older stormwater facilities along the DC2RVA corridor, the Project could improve drainage in the 

study area. 

4.1.2 Wetlands 

As noted in Chapter 3, various wetland systems are located along extensive stretches throughout 

the 123-mile railroad corridor. Many of these systems pre-date the rail corridor and are bisected 

by the rail line itself. Existing drainage facilities beneath the rail bed have maintained hydraulic 

connections between the systems and, in many cases, allowed the persistence of these systems on 

both sides of the rail line. Preliminary designs to widen the rail bed attempted to minimize 

encroachments on these resources by widening on sides opposite of wetlands when practicable. 

However, complete avoidance could not be achieved, and DRPT anticipates permanent impacts 

to wetlands with any of the Build Alternatives. 

Permanent impacts resulting from such 

encroachments range from 22.14 to 49.64 acres 

depending on the combination of Build 

Alternatives (see Table 4.1-2). Temporary 

impacts during construction would be similar 

between the Build Alternatives, ranging from 

25.25 to 30.86 acres. The most measurable 

difference in effects among the alternatives is 

found in the effects associated with 

construction of the Fredericksburg and 

Ashland bypasses on greenfield alignments 

that cross rural areas less altered by human 

activities (Alternatives 3C and 5C, 

respectively). The approximate limits of 

disturbance and locations of potential 

wetlands effects for each alternative are 

shown in detail in the Natural Resources 

Technical Report (Appendix M). Powells Creek Crossing 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-9 

Table 4.1-2: Wetland Effects (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative PEM1 

PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ PSS/ 

PFO PSS2 

PSS/ 

PFO PFO3 Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach)

1A – – – – P: 0.02 

T: 0.67 

– – P: 0.02 

T: 0.67 

1B – – – – P: ––– 

T:0.01 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

1C – – – – P: 0.01 

T: 0.11 

– – P: 0.01 

T: 0.11 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur)

2A P: 1.36 

T: 0.62 

P: 0.15 

T: 0.19 

P: 1.71 

T: 1.53 

P: 0.67 

T: 0.37 

– – P: 1.31 

T: 0.83 

P: 5.19 

T: 3.54 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 1.57 

T: 1.11 

P: 0.42 

T: 0.21 

P: 2.40 

T: 1.30 

– P: 0.13 

T: 0.34 

P: 0.04 

T: ––– 

P: 0.70 

T: 1.49 

P: 5.24 

T: 4.45 

3B P: 1.61 

T: 1.16 

P: 0.42 

T: 0.21 

P: 2.39 

T: 1.29 

– P: 0.13 

T: 0.34 

P: 0.04 

T: ––– 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.52 

P: 5.29 

T: 4.52 

3C P: 1.92 

T: 0.92 

P: 0.54 

T: 0.10 

P: 3.92 

T: 0.90 

– P: 0.42 

T: 0.36 

– P: 17.03 

T: 4.24 

P: 23.82 

T: 6.53 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell)

4A P: 2.51 

T: 1.66 

P: 0.78 

T: 0.17 

P: 2.67 

T: 7.55 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.15 

P: 0.04 

– 

P: 0.25 

T: 0.90 

P: 1.43 

T: 3.31 

P: 8.39 

T: 14.74 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)Z

5A P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.48 

5A–Ashcake P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.48 

5B P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.51 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.53 

5B–Ashcake P: 0.20 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.51 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.45 

T: 1.50 

5C P: 2.66 

T: 0.78 

– P: 2.10 

T: 0.92 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 3.69 

T: 1.70 

P: 8.44 

T: 3.47 

5C–Ashcake P: 2.70 

T: 0.78 

– P: 2.10 

T: 0.92 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 3.69 

T: 1.70 

P: 8.48 

T: 3.47 

5D–Ashcake P: 0.20 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.93 

P: 0.45 

T: 1.51 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia

6A P: 1.59 

T: 0.29 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 3.21 

T: 1.89 

6B–A-Line P: 1.30 

T: 0.31 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 2.91 

T: 1.91 

6B–S-Line P: 2.48 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.47 

T: 1.03 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-10 

Table 4.1-2: Wetland Effects (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative PEM1 

PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ PSS/ 

PFO PSS2 

PSS/ 

PFO PFO3 Total 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia

6C P: 1.37 

T: 0.30 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 2.99 

T: 1.90 

6D P: 2.48 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.47 

T: 1.03 

6E P: 1.59 

T: 0.29 

– P: 1.18 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 3.31 

T: 1.89 

6F P: 2.53 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.52 

T: 1.03 

6G P: 2.75 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.74 

T: 1.03 

Notes: 1. PEM=Palustrine Emergent (freshwater emergent wetland); 2. PSS=Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (freshwater shrub wetland); 3. PFO = 

Palustrine Forested (freshwater forested wetland); P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect. 

Typical impacts to wetlands from construction projects such as this include: 

Temporary 

 Increased erosion from disturbed areas, resulting in increased sedimentation and 

decreased water filtering abilities 

 Increased nutrient loading from increased runoff and fertilizer application (during the 

replanting process) 

 Disturbance of habitat and aquatic species 

Long-term temporary 

 Clearing and grubbing of vegetated wetland buffers 

 Introduction of invasive species 

 Decreased groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces 

 Increased potential for toxic compounds entering the wetland system from construction 

equipment, increased train traffic, application of snow and ice removal chemicals, and 

application of herbicides to keep tracks clear of vegetation 

 Altered hydrologic patterns 

A small portion of the wetlands in the northern section of the alignment are tidally influenced. 

These wetlands mostly occur along larger waterways. Impacts to these waters would be 

minimized by designing water crossings to span waterways, placing as little infrastructure in the 

waters as practicable. All tidal wetlands crossed in the DC2RVA corridor are along Build 

Alternatives 1 and 2A. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-11 

4.1.3 Water Quality 

Under the CWA, a permit is necessary to discharge any pollutant from a point source into Waters 

of the U.S. through EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, 

including pollutants carried by stormwater discharges. The permits contain industry-specific, 

technology-based, and/or water quality-based limits and establish pollutant monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Water quality-based limits and monitoring and reporting requirements 

could be stricter for those streams that do not meet water quality standards (on the Section 303[d] 

list) and already have regulated total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollutants. Impaired 

waters crossed by the DC2RVA Project are listed in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Table 

3-9 in Appendix M). 

4.1.3.1 Temporary Effects 

Despite protective measures, the Project could potentially result in short-term effects, such as 

increased sedimentation; increase in turbidity from in-stream work; increased likelihood of 

potential spills; and non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface water from 

stormwater runoff. Construction activities that could affect stormwater runoff include excavation 

to widen ‘cut’ sections and to remove unsuitable (organic) material from ‘fill’ sections; filling and 

placing ballast to support new track; relocating access roads; relocating or creating new trackside 

swales; and any substructure work required for the signal and communication equipment 

foundations, bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction-phase staging 

areas and haul roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion and 

sedimentation. 

4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects 

All Build Alternatives cross impaired waters, and DRPT assumes that the Project would have some 

effect on water quality. Minor long-term water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases 

in impervious surfaces and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad surface 

into receiving water bodies; leaking fluids from trains; and an increase in non-point source 

pollutants from infrastructure, grease, oil, metals, maintenance chemicals, vegetation management 

chemicals, and suspended solids and other elements associated with railways. The greatest effect 

would occur with the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, which would convert green space to 

railroad facilities in locations where none currently exist. The remaining alternatives would be 

located adjacent to existing facilities and incorporate BMPs and improved stormwater facilities, 

which would mitigate new conditions and may improve existing conditions. 

4.1.3.3 Impaired Waters 

The DC2RVA corridor includes 51 water crossings that have been assessed and found to have 

more contamination than allowed to support one or more of its designated uses. Most Build 

Alternatives cross the same water bodies; however, the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 

3C) would cross two fewer impaired water bodies than Build Alternatives 3A or 3B which pass 

through town. In the Richmond area, the S-Line crosses two more impaired water bodies than 

the A-Line. The Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M) provides a list of impairments, 

probable causes, and the potential for the DC2RVA Project to add to these impairments. The 

potential for additional contaminants is similar for all waters; however, waters that are already 

impaired may have additional restrictions in the form of TMDLs in an effort to restore designated 

uses. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-12 

4.1.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Contamination of groundwater resources occurs when man-made chemicals such as gasoline, oil, 

and road salts enter aquifers and render their water unsafe and unfit for human use. Some of the 

major sources of these contaminants include storage tanks, septic systems, hazardous waste sites, 

landfills, and the widespread use of road salts and chemicals. Release of chemicals during 

construction, release of transported chemicals, salts and chemicals used for snow and ice removal, 

and chemicals used for the maintenance of vegetation are the main sources of contamination to 

public water supplies along rail lines. These chemicals can leach through the soil and into the 

water table from which public water supplies are drawn. 

In accordance with 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments, Virginia adopted a 

protection zone around all groundwater public sources. Virginia Department of Health (VDH) 

recommends private wells not be located within 100 feet of known contamination sources such 

as, but not limited to, sewage disposal systems, dump stations, abandoned wells, pesticide treated 

soils, underground storage tanks (USTs), and other sources of physical, chemical, or biological 

contamination; and any potential contamination sources within 200 feet should be investigated 

(VDH, 2012). The LOD for the Build Alternatives fall within the following prescribed protection 

zones: 

 Zone 1 (5-mile radius) of 3 public surface water supply intakes: Fairfax County Water 

Authority, Hanover County Suburban Water System, and City of Richmond. Fairfax 

County Water Authority and City of Richmond water supplies are located upstream of 

the existing tracks. 

 Zone 2 (1-mile wellhead protection zone) of 14 public groundwater sources. 

 Zone 1 (1,000-foot radius in which land use activities should be assessed for their potential 

to contaminate water supplies) of three public groundwater sources. 

 Within 100 feet of 14 private wells. 

Although the existing railroad facilities that fall within the wellhead protection zones are exempt, 

work required for the DC2RVA Project would include new permanent and temporary impacts 

within the wellhead protection zones for public and private wells. Construction of the new 

facilities and subsequent operation within these protection zones have the potential to introduce 

contamination to existing wells. Before construction, DRPT will evaluate the potential for 

contamination. The area of each Build Alternative within these drinking water protection zones 

is shown in Table 4.1-3. 

4.1.5 Permits 

Wetland and water quality permits would be required for construction of any of the Build 

Alternatives. The controlling regulations and permits required at the local, state, and federal level 

are addressed below. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-13 

Table 4.1-3: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2Zone 13Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – 

1B – – – – – – – 

1C – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: 32.75 

T: 31.05 

– – – P: 26.37 

T: 15.94 

P: 7,822 

T: 8,726 

P: 72,243 

T: 23,146 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A – – – – P: 16.91 

T: 6.39 

P: 3,343 

T: 6,406 

P: 57,106 

T: 13,279 

3B – – – – P: 16.91 

T: 6.39 

P: 16,365 

T: 8,397 

P:105,610 

T: 16,996 

3C – – – – P: 13.98 

T: 9.72 

P: 279 

T: 414 

P: 41,238 

T: 3,762 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – P: 42.48 

T: 23.36 

– P: 0.81 

T: 1.07 

P: 37.55 

T: 27.73 

P: 4,117 

T: 25,446 

P: 18,088 

T: 45,750 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 9.25 

T: 5.52 

– P: 13,688 

T: ––– 

5A–Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 11.59 

T: 5.32 

– – 

5B – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 9.33 

T: 6.04 

P: 609 

– 

P: 26,018 

T: 138 

5B–Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 15.21 

T: 6.65 

P: 609 

– 

P: 15,411 

T: 2,727 

5C – P: 31.06 

T: 9.59 

– P: 4.70 

T: 1.51 

P: 44.09 

T: 11.24 

P: 4,205 

T: 1,693 

P: 19,098 

T: 2,181 

5C–Ashcake – P: 31.06 

T: 9.59 

– P: 4.70 

T: 1.51 

P: 46.53 

T: 11.24 

P: 4,205 

T: 1,693 

P: 5,410 

T: 2,181 

5D–Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 16.12 

T: 7.07 

– P: 17,321 

T: 251 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-14 

Table 4.1-3: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2Zone 13Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – P: 51.70 

T: 17.53 

– – – P: 21,701 

T: 3,275 

6B–A-Line – – P: 121.10 

T: 46.69 

– – – P: 16,364 

T: 2,932 

6B–S-Line – – P: 125.26 

T: 31.24 

– – P: 3.73 

T: ––– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6C – – P: 153.22 

T: 47.50 

– – P: 23,773 

T: 1,938 

P: 55,761 

T: 7,887 

6D – – P: 119.50 

T: 31.96 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6E – – P: 80.04 

T: 40.18 

– – – P: 21,701 

T: 3,275 

6F – – P: 129.47 

T: 32.53 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6G – – P: 129.84 

T: 30.76 

– – – P: 31,558 

T: 13,595 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2014; DMME, 2016. 

Notes: *These public water supplies are located upstream from the study area; 1. 5-mile radius; 2. Fairfax County Water Authority, Hanover 

Suburban Water System, and City of Richmond; 3. Zone 1 includes a 1,000-foot radius (~72 acres) in which land use activities should be assessed 

for their potential to contaminate water supplies; 4. Zone 2 Virginia adopted a 1-mile wellhead protection zone around all groundwater public 

sources. P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect. 

4.1.5.1 Section 401– Certification (Water Quality Certification [WQC]) 

Section 401 of the CWA states that “any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or 

operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide 

the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the state in which the discharge originates 

or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will 

originate.” Section 401 of the CWA requires any applicant for a federal license or permit for any 

activity that may result in a discharge into waters to obtain a certification that discharge will not 

adversely affect water quality from the state in which the discharge will occur. Section 401 

requires certification by Virginia that prospective permits comply with the state’s applicable 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-15 

effluent limitations and water quality standards. Impacts to water resources would require a Joint 

Permit Application (JPA) to regulatory agencies. The JPA is submitted to VMRC who then 

distributes it to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and Local Wetlands Boards. 

4.1.5.2 Section 402–-National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permits for the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants into navigable waters are 

regulated by Virginia DEQ. 

4.1.5.3 Section 404–Dredge and Fill Materials 

Section 404 of the CWA regulates activities that may affect the chemical, physical, or biological 

integrity of Waters of the U.S. Permits for activities that result in the discharge of dredged 

materials or fill into jurisdictional waters are administered by USACE. Permits issued under 

Section 404 of the CWA must comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines developed by EPA. 

4.1.5.4 Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom 

Subaqueous land is defined in Virginia as ungranted beds of the bays, rivers, creeks, and shores 

of the sea owned by the state. Through this regulatory framework, activities requiring permits 

include building, dumping, or otherwise trespassing upon or over, encroach upon, take or use 

any material from the beds of the bays, oceans, and jurisdictional rivers, streams, or creeks. VMRC 

issues permits for activities in, on, or over subaqueous lands in Virginia (Code of Virginia Chapter 

2, Title 62.1). 

4.1.5.5 Section 9–United States Coast Guard 

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits construction of any dam, dike, bridge, or 

causeway across navigable waters without approval of the USCG. 

4.1.5.6 Section 10–USACE 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates dredging and filling activities related to 

construction of any structure or type of obstruction in navigable waters of the United States. 

Permits for these activities are administrated by USACE. 

4.1.5.7 Virginia Water Protection Permit 

The Virginia Water Protection Permit Program was designed to protect surface waters, including 

tidal and non-tidal water bodies and wetlands. Virginia DEQ has regulatory authority over most 

activities affecting these waters. Virginia’s authority to protect water resources is independent of 

other state and federal regulatory agencies. 

4.1.5.8 MS4 Permit–Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated under the Virginia 

Stormwater Management Act, the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit 

regulations, and the CWA as point source discharges. MS4 programs must be designed and 

implemented to control the discharge of pollutants from their storm sewer system to the 

maximum extent practicable in a manner that protects the water quality in nearby streams, rivers, 

wetlands, and bays. MS4 permits are administrated by Virginia DEQ. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-16 

4.1.5.9 Joint Permit Application–USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, Local Wetlands Board 

In Virginia, for permitting involving water, wetlands, and dune/beach resources where fill, 

flooding, or alteration of flow occurs, USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, and Local Wetlands Boards 

(LWB) use a joint permitting process. Non-tidal resources use a Standard Joint Permit Application 

(JPA) form, while a Tidewater JPA form is used for most projects involving tidal waters, tidal 

wetlands, and coastal primary sand dunes and beaches. 

4.1.5.10 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

Projects located within “Tidewater Virginia” are subject to requirements of the CBPA. Land 

disturbance or vegetation removal in Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) require approval from 

local government and completion of Appendix C in the JPA. Individual localities are responsible 

for enforcing CBPA requirements. Local permits are not issued through the JPA process. 

Transportation projects, including rail lines, are conditionally exempt from the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. 

4.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

4.1.6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Resources 

Efforts have been made throughout the planning and preliminary design process, and they will 

continue to be made in later designs to further avoid and minimize impacts to the extent practicable. 

Avoidance of impacts to water resources will be accomplished by selecting the alternative that best 

avoids such impacts and/or by routing a selected alignment around wetlands or by completely 

spanning streams rather than building through them. These measures will be made while also 

balancing potential impacts to other resources, such as residences and businesses. General 

minimization measures incorporated into the preliminary designs for the Build Alternatives 

include: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Reduction of construction footprint to the extent practicable in areas with water resources 

 Construction of bridges over wetland areas, substantially reducing impacts in comparison 

to causeways with culverts 

 Use of bridges and open bottom culverts designed to the proper hydraulic opening to 

maintain stream morphology and integrity and that are wide enough to carry baseflow 

without altering stream depth, facilitate passage of wildlife and aquatic species, and 

decrease erosion 

 The use of stabilized side slopes and retaining walls to minimize encroachment 

 Temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 

 Use of natural stream design for unavoidable stream relocations, which means that the 

channel would mimic the characteristics of an appropriate reference stream 

 Prompt revegetation of disturbed area, in particular stream banks, immediately after 

construction to stabilize soil and reduce erosion 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-17 

Impacts to water resources would require submittal of a JPA to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and 

VMRC. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts would be developed in coordination with these 

agencies during the permitting process and incorporated into final design for both temporary and 

permanent impacts. Permanent impacts to wetlands and streams from construction activities will 

require compensatory mitigation. Guidance for compensatory mitigation from the regulatory 

agencies can be found in the July 2004 Joint USACE and Virginia DEQ Recommendations for 

Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance 

Criteria, and Monitoring Criteria and associated Mitigation Checklist; the March 2008 Off-Site 

Mitigation Location Guidelines; and the USACE and EPA jointly issued Compensatory 

Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule from June 2008. The mitigation rule 

indicates the agencies’ preferred hierarchy for mitigation options as follows: 

1. Purchase of compensatory mitigation bank credits. 

2. Purchase of an approved in-lieu fee fund’s credits. 

3. Watershed approach-based mitigation by the permittee. 

4. Onsite mitigation/in-kind mitigation by the permittee. 

5. Offsite mitigation/out-of-kind mitigation by the permittee. 

Virginia DEQ has also adopted this preferred sequence. Factors to be considered in deviating 

from the preference for banks include the likelihood for ecological success and sustainability, the 

location of the compensation site(s) relative to the impact site and their significance within the 

watershed, and the costs of the compensatory mitigation project. The final compensatory 

mitigation plan will be determined during the permitting process, in coordination with the 

regulatory agencies, and will likely include a combination of types of mitigation. Wetland 

mitigation requirements vary by wetland type. Typical replacement ratios of area disturbed are 

Palustrine Emergency Wetlands (PEM) (1:1), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS) (1.5:1), and 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO) (2:1). Compensation is approved on a case-by-case basis, and 

requirements may vary. 

Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts would be based on the Unified 

Stream Methodology (USM) form. Impacts greater than 300 linear feet typically require 

compensation; however, for projects with multiple stream impacts, compensation for all 

impacts is often required regardless of the length of individual crossings. Although 

compensatory mitigation is generally not required for impacts to jurisdictional ditches or open 

waters, impacts will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and compensation will be determined 

during the permitting process. 

4.1.6.2 Floodplains and Stormwater/Drainage 

The design of this Project would include the use of stormwater management practices to address 

issues such as post-development storm flows and downstream channel capacity. The Project 

would be constructed in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 11988−Floodplain Management, 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations and include an erosion and sediment control plan and a 

stormwater management plan approved by the Virginia DEQ, or local water quality protection 

criteria at least as stringent as the above state requirements. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-18 

Existing stormwater facilities would be upgraded and new stormwater facilities would be 

implemented to capture and treat run-off. Stormwater management measures, including 

detention basins, would be installed to reduce or detain discharge volumes, to compensate 

for increased impervious surfaces. Major bridge crossings built to accommodate the 

additional rail line are designed to match horizontal clearances of existing bridges and will 

be built in parallel to avoid altering hydraulics. Storm surge protection measures will be taken 

in areas along the Potomac River where practicable. During final design, a detailed hydraulic 

survey and study would evaluate specific impacts on stormwater discharges. This evaluation 

would adhere to the aforementioned specifications ensuring that no substantial increases to 

flooding would occur. 

4.1.6.3 Water Quality 

Minor long‐term water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases in impervious surfaces, 

increases in train traffic, and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad and 

bridges into receiving water bodies. Stormwater management measures, including detention 

basins, vegetative controls, and other measures, would be implemented to minimize water quality 

impacts. These measures would reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus 

avoiding substantial further degradation of impaired water bodies in the study area vicinity. 

Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices would be implemented in accordance with 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soildisturbing projects to be designed to reduce soil erosion during and after construction. 

Implementation of BMPs would minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of 

construction activities. Preconstruction sediment quality assessments and water quality 

monitoring during construction may be conducted to address potential resuspension of 

contaminants and nutrients into overlying water. Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize water 

quality impacts would be made during final design. 

Such efforts to prevent impacts could include: 

 Designing the project to minimize the LOD and subsequent impacts to water resources 

 Silt fencing and measures to prevent soil erosion from earthwork entering water bodies 

 Temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 

 Conducting stream work in the dry 

 Native revegetation of disturbed areas 

 Taking practicable measures to prevent spills of fuels, lubricants, or other pollutants into 

water bodies 

 Elimination of weep hole devices that allow runoff to drip directly into waterways from 

bridges 

 Use of vegetated buffers and vegetated swales to intercept runoff 

 Use of holding basins to reduce pollution content, temperature, and intensity of runoff 

entering the water supply 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-19 

These laws have specifications that also prohibit contractors from discharging any contaminant 

that may impact water quality. If accidental spills occur, the contractor is required to immediately 

notify all appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and to take immediate action to contain 

and remove the contaminant. Additionally, the requirements and special conditions of any 

required permits for work in and around surface waters would be incorporated into construction 

contract documents, so that the contractor would be required to comply with such conditions. 

The number, locations, and abatement capacities of stormwater management facilities will be 

determined during later phases of Project design. Pollutant removal efficiencies will be used as a 

factor in determining the location and design of stormwater management facilities. 

Impaired Waters 

DRPT will ensure that BMPs and other stormwater techniques would be employed to minimize 

further impacts on impaired waters. Construction techniques designed to reduce water quality 

impacts will be employed. Clearing practices should be limited to the greatest extent practicable 

around impaired waters to limit further degradation. The DC2RVA Project will adhere to 

additional restrictions in accordance with any TMDLs developed for impaired waters. 

4.1.6.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Efforts would be made throughout the final design process to avoid and minimize impacts to 

drinking waters to the extent practicable. Minimization measures could involve modifications, 

such as further alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts; the use of BMPs; the use of 

retaining walls; and temporary and permanent stormwater management measures to reduce 

transportation of chemicals by stormwater, and they should include limited or avoidance of snow 

removal and vegetation maintenance chemicals near Source Protection Areas and well locations. 

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

The No Build Alternative would not affect topography, geology, or soils in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Most of the proposed improvements associated with the Build Alternatives are located adjacent 

to existing railroad tracks in areas where the land has already been disturbed. There is little 

difference between the Build Alternatives for these resources, and aside from the proposed 

bypasses, the Build Alternatives are not anticipated to affect local topography or geology. The 

proposed Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses would be new greenfield alignments and would 

involve the use of a greater portion of previously undisturbed areas. 

4.2.1 Topography 

Small localized changes in topography would occur with the Build Alternatives in the form of 

excavation and fill for tracks to have a smooth and gradual change in elevation in areas where 

local topographic changes are sudden. These proposed localized changes are not expected to have 

an effect on area topography. 

4.2.2 Geology 

Geology includes the underlying material (rock) the local earth is composed of and the process 

by which it was created and continues to change. DRPT does not anticipate that the Build 

Alternatives would affect area geology, aside from minor excavation, and would not affect the 

processes exerting change on area geology. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-20 

4.2.3 Soils 

Most of the land within the LOD of the Build Alternatives was previously disturbed with 

construction and maintenance of the existing railroad. Soils with construction-limiting qualities 

within the proposed LOD are listed in Table 4.2-1. The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) provides the soils classifications listed in Table 4.2-1 as defined in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3. 

Table 4.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils within Build Alternatives (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Suitability for Building Local 

Roads and Streets Hydric Soils 

Not Rated Not Limited1 Somewhat Limited2 Very Limited3 Unknown Not HydricPartially Hydric 100% Hydric 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A P: 5.1 

T: 2.2 

– – – P: 5.1 

T: 2.2 

– – – 

1B P: 8.9 

T: 3.2 

– – – P: 8.9 

T: 3.2 

– – – 

1C P: 9.1 

T: 2.1 

– – – P: 9.1 

T: 20.1 

– – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A P:87.2 

T: 73.5 

P: 2.2 

T: 1.6 

P: 37.8 

T: 31.7 

P: 107.4 

T: 111.7 

P: 87.6 

T: 73.9 

P: 120.2 

T: 117.1 

P: 12.9 

T:12.4 

P: 13.8 

T: 15.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 9.1 

T: 10.5 

P: 4.6 

T: 2.3 

P: 22.6 

T: 13.4 

P: 66.9 

T: 32.3 

P: 8.8 

T: 10.3 

P: 45.0 

T: 24.7 

P: 37.2 

T: 19.3 

P: 12.2 

T: 4.3 

3B P: 16.2 

T: 9.3 

P: 6.7 

T: 2.5 

P: 28.3 

T: 14.4 

P: 77.2 

T: 38.1 

P: 15.6 

T: 8.6 

P: 53.2 

T: 27.7 

P: 46.4 

T: 23.7 

P: 13.2 

T: 4.4 

3C P: 9.5 

T: 6.7 

P: 16.1 

T: 5.6 

P: 79.9 

T: 22.8 

P: 146.8 

T: 45.9 

P: 9.5 

T: 6.7 

P: 141.2 

T: 44.6 

P: 73.7 

T: 21.5 

P: 27.9 

T: 8.3 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A P: 3.2 

T: 3.3 

P: 20.7 

T: 10.4 

P: 58.7 

T: 34.6 

P: 75.4 

T: 47.6 

P: 0.7 

T: 0.2 

P: 56.4 

T: 33.0 

P: 51.8 

T: 28.6 

P: 49.2 

T: 34.0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 25.5 

T: 15.5 

P: 24.3 

T: 12.0 

– P: 21.4 

T: 12.8 

P: 25.3 

T: 12.1 

P: 5.0 

T: 4.3 

5A–Ashcake P: 0.5 

T: – 

P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 23.8 

T: 13.3 

P: 25.0 

T: 12.0 

– P: 22.1 

T: 12.7 

P: 25.6 

T: 12.1 

P: 3.5 

T: 4.3 

5B – P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 33.1 

T: 16.6 

P: 27.3 

T: 13.6 

– P: 25.7 

T: 14.2 

P: 30.3 

T: 13.2 

P: 6.3 

T: 4.7 

5B–Ashcake P: 0.5 

T: – 

P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 33.2 

T: 17.3 

P: 30.0 

T: 13.9 

– P: 29.0 

T: 14.6 

P: 30.9 

T: 13.5 

P: 5.7 

T: 5.0 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-21 

Table 4.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils within Build Alternatives (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Suitability for Building Local 

Roads and Streets Hydric Soils 

Not Rated Not Limited1 Somewhat Limited2 Very Limited3 Unknown Not HydricPartially Hydric 100% Hydric 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5C P: 1.5 

T: 0.3 

P: 36.3 

T: 8.2 

P: 58.3 

T: 19.3 

P: 62.8 

T: 20.4 

– P: 33.4 

T: 13.6 

P: 114.4 

T: 28.3 

P: 11.1 

T: 6.3 

5C–Ashcake P: 2.1 

T: 0.3 

P: 36.3 

T: 8.2 

P: 56.7 

T: 19.3 

P: 63.5 

T: 20.4 

– P: 24.1 

T: 13.6 

P: 114.8 

T: 28.3 

P: 9.7 

T: 6.3 

5D–Ashcake P: 0.5 

T: – 

P: 1.9 

T: 1.8 

P: 44.8 

T: 17.4 

P: 32.2 

T: 14.3 

– P: 33.8 

T: 15.0 

P: 37.7 

T: 13.6 

P: 8.0 

T: 4.8 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A P: 9.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.6 

P: 35.2 

T: 17.9 

P: 117.6 

T: 55.8 

P: 5.7 

T: 3.9 

P: 95.8 

T: 45.0 

P: 28.7 

T: 12.5 

P: 37.7 

T: 15.7 

6B–A-Line P: 29.9 

T: 11.3 

P: 7.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 40.5 

T: 19.9 

P: 161.8 

T: 74.5 

P: 8.4 

T: 4.9 

P: 126.8 

T: 60.0 

P: 73.0 

T: 25.8 

P: 31.3 

T: 15.9 

6B–S-Line P: 24.6 

T: 10.5 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.3 

P: 16.5 

T: 3.5 

P: 173.7 

T: 41.8 

P: 0.0 

– 

P: 154.1 

T: 43.5 

P: 44.2 

T: 8.0 

P: 22.4 

T: 5.7 

6C P: 30.8 

T: 10.9 

P: 7.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 41.6 

T: 19.0 

P: 192.0 

T: 75.7 

P: 9.6 

T: 4.4 

P: 131.6 

T: 60.0 

P: 98.8 

T: 27.3 

P: 31.7 

T: 15.8 

6D P: 24.6 

T: 10.5 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.4 

P: 16.5 

T: 3.6 

P: 168.0 

T: 48.9 

P: 0.1 

– 

P: 154.1 

T: 46.8 

P: 38.5 

T: 11.9 

P: 22.4 

T: 5.7 

6E P: 9.3 

T: 1.8 

P: 5.9 

T: 1.6 

P: 35.2 

T: 18.6 

P: 145.9 

T: 77.7 

P: 5.7 

T: 4.6 

P: 121.3 

T: 67.0 

P: 30.7 

T: 12.5 

P: 38.5 

T: 15.6 

6F P: 25.6 

T:10.6 

P: 5.8 

T: 1.5 

P: 16.8 

T: 3.6 

P: 176.7 

T: 49.3 

P: 0.1 

– 

P: 158.3 

T: 47.2 

P: 36.7 

T: 12.0 

P: 29.9 

T: 5.7 

6G P: 26.3 

T: 9.9 

P: 6.0 

T: 1.5 

P: 17.1 

T: 3.7 

P: 175.6 

T: 48.2 

P: 0.1 

– 

P: 160.7 

T: 45.6 

P: 34.3 

T: 12.0 

P: 30.1 

T: 5.6 

Source: CEDAR, 2015. 

Notes: 1. Not Limited–Soil works well for specified use, good performance/low maintenance required; 2. Limitations can be overcome/ minimized 

through planning, design, and installation, fair performance/moderate maintenance; 3. Limitations may require major soil reclamation, special 

design, or expensive installation procedures to be overcome, poor performance/high maintenance. 

P=Permanent Effect; T=Temporary Effect. 

4.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction associated with any of the Build 

Alternatives, thorough site investigations would be conducted to determine if mitigation would 

be required for limiting soil characteristics. A geologic hazard assessment will be made to 

establish potential impacts of soil characteristics to bridges, walls, trackbed, and roadway 

subgrades, and geotechnical engineering parameters will be developed for soil conditions along 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-22 

the corridor. Bridge, wall, trackbed, and roadway recommendations will be developed according 

to the specific conditions of each site. Preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations 

and a more detailed analysis can be found in the DC2RVA Geotechnical Engineering Report. 

Compensation for soil, geologic, and topographic limitations could include: 

 The use of cut or fill to compensate for topographic changes 

 The use of retaining walls to stabilize soils 

 Removal or encapsulation of unsuitable soils 

 Blending neutralizing material into acidic soils 

 Engineering structures to compensate for limiting conditions adjustment of slope ratios, 

design heights, and depth of embedment 

 Use of stabilizing materials 

4.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

4.3.1 Farmland Soils 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no land use 

conversion and has no direct effects to farmland soils. 

The Build Alternatives require permanent right-of-way acquisition that contains prime farmland 

and statewide and locally important soils (Table 4.3-1). The transition of these soils to 

transportation use is a direct effect of the Project. No unique farmland soils occur within the LODs 

of the Build Alternatives. 

Within Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

converts the most prime and the most statewide/locally important soils of the three alternatives. 

Within Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) converts the most prime and the most statewide/locally important soils of the seven 

alternatives. 

Within Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the Build Alternatives along the CSXT A-Line (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) convert similar amounts of prime and statewide/locally 

important soils and almost twice as much of these soils than the Build Alternatives along the 

CSXT S-Line (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G). 

As required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA), Form CPA-106, Farmland 

Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects, is being completed for the DC2RVA 

alternatives, and the first round of submissions to the NRCS is complete. Representatives of 

NRCS completed the required agency portions of the forms. The final corridor assessment for 

each Build Alternative is also complete; the forms appear in Appendix N. The corridor assessment 

is based on the types of farmland soils present in the Build Alternatives, the existing agricultural 

uses in an individual jurisdiction, the existing agricultural uses adjacent to and within the Build 

Alternatives, and other criteria such as farm support services. 

Alternative Area 1 (Arlington): The land affected by Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C has been 

committed to urban use, which results in a Corridor Assessment Score of 0. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-23 

Table 4.3-1: Farmland Soils Converted within Build Alternatives and Farmland Corridor 

Assessment Score 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Prime 

Farmland 

Soils (Acres) 

Statewide and 

Locally 

Important 

Soils (Acres) Total (Acres) 

Corridor 

Assessment 

Score 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 

1B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 

1C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A 53.56 52.37 105.93 66 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 26.84 17.83 44.67 80 

3B 34.01 20.62 54.63 80 

3C 69.05 84.17 153.22 118 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A 99.17 49.91 149.08 93 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 27.18 24.83 52.01 51 

5A–Ashcake 28.04 23.57 51.61 46 

5B 31.20 28.30 59.50 51 

5B–Ashcake 33.82 28.02 61.84 51 

5C 89.83 35.10 124.93 171 

5C–Ashcake 90.88 33.82 124.70 171 

5D–Ashcake 39.38 32.28 71.66 52 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 45.20 7.22 52.42 29 

6B–A-Line 49.04 10.06 59.10 23 

6B–S-Line 30.79 4.59 35.38 22 

6C 49.93 10.62 60.55 22 

6D 30.93 4.59 35.52 22 

6E 45.20 14.22 59.42 24 

6F 31.78 4.65 36.43 19 

6G 32.48 4.81 37.29 19 

Source: VDOT; Forms NRCS-CPA-106. No Unique Farmland Soils occur within the Build Alternatives. 

Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia): There is a wide variety of land uses within and adjacent 

to Build Alternative 2A. There are farmland soils present within the Build Alternative, but the 

score is 66 due to the urban uses of land within the Build Alternative and the amount of 

agricultural activity within the Build Alternative. 

Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg): Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass through 

Fredericksburg have Corridor Assessment Scores of 80. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) has a score of 118 due to the presence of multiple farms within the alternative. 

Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia): Build Alternative 4A has a score of 93. 

Alternative Area 5 (Ashland): Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake has the lowest score of 46, Build 

Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5B–Ashcake have scores of 51, and Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake has a 

score of 52. These are all fairly low scores due to the alternatives’ locations along the existing 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-24 

CSXT rail line. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) has scores of 171 

due to the existing farms and the Stanley Agricultural District within both alternatives. 

Alternative Area 6 (Richmond): The Build Alternatives in Area 6 have lower scores than in other 

areas due to the high amount of land already committed to urban use. The full service and shared 

service Build Alternatives that use both existing Staples Mill and Main Street stations—Build 

Alternative 6F (full service) and Build Alternative 6G (shared service)—have the lowest scores of 

19. The single-station Build Alternatives at Boulevard (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line), Broad 

Street (Build Alternative 6C), and Main Street (Build Alternative 6D) have scores of 22. Similarly, 

the single-station Build Alternative at Boulevard (Build Alternative 6B–A-Line) has a score of 23. 

The two-station alternative serving both Staples Mill and Main Street stations (Build Alternative 

6E) has a slightly higher score of 24. Build Alternative 6A that serves Staples Mill only via the ALine has the highest score of 29. 

Table 4.3-1 lists the Corridor Assessment Scores for each of the Build Alternatives. The NRCS 

recommends selecting the Build Alternatives with the lowest score within each alternative area 

as part of the recommended Preferred Alternative. The alternatives with the lowest scores within 

each alternative area are the Build Alternatives that primarily utilize the existing railroad rightof-way (Build Alternatives 1A/1B/1C, 2A, 3A/3B, 4A, and 5A–Ashcake) and the two-station 

alternatives in Richmond using both the existing Staples Mill and Main Street stations—Build 

Alternative 6F (full service) and Build Alternative 6G (shared service). 

4.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no land use 

conversion and has no direct effects to agricultural and forestal districts. 

There is one agricultural/forestal district, the Stanley District in Hanover County, within a Build 

Alternative. Originally approved in 1978, the Stanley District is made up of seven parcels, owned 

by multiple landowners, and totals 713 acres. The district was renewed by the Hanover County 

Planning Commission in July 2015. The transition of 73.7 acres of this agricultural/ forestal 

district to a transportation use is a direct effect of the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake) (Figure 4.3-1). A previous preliminary design for these Build Alternatives affected 

a greater acreage of the Stanley District. The design was shifted east to minimize the impacts to 

the district. One farm within the Stanley District, White Oak Farm, is also a Century Farm, as 

designated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This designation 

provides no formal protection at the state level but is a recognition of continuous farming for 100 

years at a particular farm. There are two other Century Farms within the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), but they are not within the Stanley Agricultural District. 

The state regulations detail a process for land acquisition or construction within a designated 

district, including coordination with landowners and the locality. Notice to landowners and the 

locality includes a report detailing the proposed action (this Draft EIS). The agricultural/forestal 

district advisory committee, county board of supervisors, and local planning commission 

review the report and the effects the Project would have on an individual district. If the locality 

determines that the Project “might have an unreasonably adverse effect on either state or local 

policy”, the locality can issue an order to direct the DRPT not to take the proposed action for a 

period of 150 days and then hold a public hearing. Before the end of the 150 days, the locality 

must issue a final order on the action, based on a majority vote of the members. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-25 

Figure 4.3-1: Agricultural/Forestal Districts Impacts – Build Alternatives 5C, 5C–Ashcake
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-26 

4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES 

4.4.1 Effects 

According to information available from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 

(DMME), several active and inactive mines and mineral resources are located in the DC2RVA 

corridor. Mines could be affected by direct use of the area for railroad construction or any other 

construction activity associated with the Build Alternatives, such as new grade separations. DRPT 

has determined that no mines located in the study area would be affected by the No Build 

Alternative or Build Alternatives because they are outside of the LOD. 

One known mineral resource is crossed by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). This 

site—Massaponax S. & G. (VA DMM permit 08288AA)—is a former sand and gravel pit. It 

appears to have been subdivided and sold for residential use. One parcel had a residence added 

in 2004 (Figure 4.4-1). 

4.4.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Although the potentially affected mineral resource located along the Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) is no longer in use, DRPT will ensure that additional efforts will be made, 

to the extent practicable, throughout the final design process to avoid and minimize impacts to 

the potential reuse of this resource. Minor alignment shifts or reducing the LOD could minimize 

or avoid impacts to this resource. 

4.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

4.5.1 Effects 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSXT would continue maintenance and repairs of the existing 

infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned for the DC2RVA corridor, 

as defined in Section 2.5.1.1, would move forward. DRPT anticipates that the No Build Alternative 

would not affect hazardous material sites. Anticipated effects of the Build Alternatives are presented 

in Table 4.5-1 and Figure 4.5-1. The estimated number of sites affected by the Build Alternatives is 

based on the number of sites mapped within the LOD (permanent and temporary) that may contain 

hazardous materials or wastes. Contaminated sites may affect the Project by: 

 Affecting the environment during construction 

 Creating significant construction impacts 

 Incurring cleanup liability to Project owners 

Additionally, areas of contaminated soil are likely to exist along the DC2RVA corridor. 

Contamination is generally due to residual contamination that can be found along any part of the 

DC2RVA corridor or contamination associated with adjacent industrial uses. The greatest 

potential of contaminated soils being disturbed is during excavation. Areas requiring fill are 

unlikely to unearth unknown contaminants. Earthwork along the DC2RVA corridor has the 

potential of encountering the following contaminants: 

 Railroad ties, usually treated with chemicals such as creosote 

 Coal ash and cinder containing lead (Pb) and arsenic 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-27 

Figure 4.4-1: Mineral Resource Impact – Build Alternative 3C
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-28 

Table 4.5-1: Hazardous Materials Sites within Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Superfund/ CERCLA/ SEMS/NPL1Known HAZMAT Release2Potential HAZMAT Contamination3Petroleum Release4HAZMAT Facilit

y5

Petroleum Storage Tanks6

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach)

1A – n/a – – – – 

1B – n/a – 2 – – 

1C – n/a – 2 – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur)

2A – – 8 4 2 1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads)

3A 1 – 5 2 – – 

3B – – 7 3 4 3 

3C – – 8 3 1 1 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell)

4A 1 n/a – – – – 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)

5A n/a n/a 1 4 – 1 

5A–Ashcake n/a n/a 1 4 – 1 

5B n/a n/a 1 4 1 3 

5B–Ashcake n/a n/a 1 4 1 3 

5C n/a n/a 2 3 – 2 

5C–Ashcake n/a n/a 2 3 – 2 

5D–Ashcake n/a n/a 1 7 1 5 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia)

6A – – 5 8 4 7 

6B–A-Line – – 8 15 4 14 

6B–S-Line – 1 16 22 7 8 

6C – – 9 18 6 16 

6D 1 1 16 23 6 6 

6E 1 1 6 10 6 7 

6F 1 1 14 23 6 5 

6G 1 1 14 23 6 5 

Source: VDOT GIS database, 2014. 

Notes: 1. Sites proposed or already on the National Priority List. Sites in the United States eligible for long-term remedial action (cleanup) financed 

under the federal Superfund program. 2. Area known to be contaminated by HAZMAT or has had a toxic release of unlisted chemical. 3. Area 

with history of use for HAZMAT or has had a release that has been closed or remediated. These areas may be okay for their current use; 

however, there could be potential for uncovering contamination through construction. 4. Area where a petroleum product is known to have 

been released. The case may be closed; however, there is the potential for uncovering contaminated soil through construction. 5. Facilities that 

generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. 6. Facilities with above ground and underground storage tanks that store 

petroleum or hazardous substances, the vast majority store petroleum products. n/a – No records found in study area. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-29 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternative 3A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-30 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternative 4A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-31 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternatives 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-32 

Figure 4.5-1: Critical Hazardous Materials Impacts – Build Alternatives 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-33 

 Spilled or leaked liquids such as oil, gasoline, and cleaning solvents 

 Herbicides 

 Fossil fuel combustion products (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]) 

 Roofing shingles (asbestos) 

 Transformers and capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

 Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, mercury, iron, cobalt, chromium, and 

molybdenum 

It is the responsibility of the owner to determine if any of the waste created meets the criteria of 

a ‘hazardous waste’ and must be managed as such. All hazardous waste or solid waste should be 

tested and removed in accordance with Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (VSWMR) 

(9 Virginia Administrative Code [VAC] 20 - 60) and or (9 VAC 20 - 80). Asbestos, lead, or 

contaminated residues generated must be handled and disposed of in accordance with VSWMR 

or Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR), as applicable. 

Figure 4.5-1 depicts sites along the corridor that have the greatest chance of requiring costly 

mitigation or causing project delays if a hazardous material is located within the LOD. Appendix 

O includes a list of all recorded sites within the LOD. 

4.5.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction, thorough site investigations would be 

conducted to determine whether any of the sites are actually contaminated, and, if so, the nature 

and extent of that contamination. All solid waste material resulting from clearing and grubbing, 

demolition, or other construction operations will be removed and disposed of according to 

regulations. Any additional hazardous materials discovered during construction of a Build 

Alternative or demolition of existing structures will be removed and disposed of in compliance 

with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All necessary remediation would be 

conducted in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and would 

be coordinated with EPA, Virginia DEQ, and other federal or state agencies as necessary. 

Types of remediation could include: 

 Excavation or dredging–Removal of contamination generally to a regulated landfill, but 

also to be treated (commonly used for petroleum contamination, which is the most likely 

form of contamination to be found in a project such as this) 

 Thermal desorption–Use of a chemical to vaporize contamination which is them collected 

or destroyed in an off-gas treatment system 

 Surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR)–Use of chemicals to decrease water 

surface tension to allow the contamination to de-absorb and be removed from the medium 

 Pump and treat–Pumping out contaminated groundwater and passing it through a 

filtration system designed to absorb contamination from the groundwater 

 Solidification and stabilization–Using a binder and soil to stop, prevent, or reduce the 

mobility of contaminants that are left in place 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-34 

 In situ oxidation–Injection of oxygen or air to promote the growth of aerobic bacteria and 

accelerate natural destruction of organic contaminants 

 Soil vapor extraction–Treatment of the off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

generated after vacuum removal of air and vapors (and VOCs) from the subsurface 

 Nanoremediation–Use of nano-sized reactive agents to degrade or immobilize 

contaminants 

 Bioremediation–Use of biological methods, such as seeding the site with specific plants, 

fungus (mycelia), or bacteria, to remove contamination 

4.6 AIR QUALITY 

This section analyzes criteria pollutant air emissions associated with the proposed Project. 

Additionally, while mobile source air toxics (MSATs) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are not criteria 

pollutants nor subject to conformity requirements, they are also considered in this section in 

accordance with EPA guidance. Potential air quality effects of the proposed DC2RVA Project include: 

 Changes in rail-related emissions due to an increase in train operations each day and a 

change in equipment. 

 Changes in the overall regional emissions due to travelers shifting from one mode of 

transportation to another. 

 Changes in local (microscale) emissions, including changes at various crossings that could 

handle additional traffic due to nearby highway-railroad crossing closures, experience 

additional delay due to an increase in train operations, and changes in vehicular delay 

around stations due to increased traffic resulting from increased ridership. 

4.6.1 Locomotive Operations–NOx, VOC, and PM 

EPA established a comprehensive program to dramatically reduce emissions from locomotives, 

including line-haul, switch, and passenger engines (40 CFR Part 1033). The program establishes 

emission standards with applicability dependent on the date a locomotive is first manufactured. The 

first set of standards (Tier 0) applies to most locomotives originally manufactured before 2001. The most 

stringent set of standards (Tier 4) applies to locomotives manufactured in 2015 and later. Additional 

intercity passenger locomotives operating under the DC2RVA Project will, at a minimum, meet the 

emissions standards set by EPA. EPA has published expected fleet average pollutant emission rates in 

their Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives USEPA-420-F-09-025 (EPA, 2009). 

The DC2RVA Project is subject to federal air quality general conformity regulations (40 CFR Part 

93, Subpart B). These regulations require that an evaluation of Project-generated emissions within 

the study area’s nonattainment and maintenance areas be conducted to assess potential air quality 

effects. Annual pollutant emissions were calculated for the one nonattainment area in the study 

area (i.e., the Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia ozone nonattainment area). The emissions 

were calculated using the expected EPA emission rates, along with projected locomotive fuel 

consumption, which was developed as part of the rail operations modeling conducted for this 

Project (Table 4.6-1). The emissions inventory listed in Table 4.6-1 represents the expected Projectgenerated emissions under the Build Alternatives (i.e., emissions generated from the additional 

intercity passenger trains from this Project). Fuel consumption in the nonattainment and 

maintenance areas would not be substantially different among the different Build Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-35 

Table 4.6-1: Predicted Build Alternative Project-Generated Locomotive Emissions 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

NOx VOC 

Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia1 13.7 0.3 

De minimis (allowable) levels in the nonattainment/maintenance areas 

according to 40 CFR 51.853 

100 50 

Notes: 1. Predicted emissions listed are for those generated from the additional intercity passenger trains from this Project. 

Table 4.6-1 shows that Project-generated predicted annual pollutant emissions, from the 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) trains added by this Project, in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, are all below general conformity de minimis threshold values. Pursuant to the 

General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project-generated emissions below these de minimis

values to be minimal. Such projects do not require formal conformity determinations. These 

numbers are considered conservatively high because they do not account for any reduction in 

automobile emissions related to travelers diverting from auto to rail travel. 

4.6.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics 

Currently, FRA does not have any guidelines related to MSAT analysis, including hot-spot 

analyses. A hot-spot analysis is known as a “microscale” analysis because it focuses on a relatively 

small geographic area. In the absence of FRA MSAT guidelines, regional MSAT effects associated 

with the Project are discussed qualitatively. The qualitative assessment presented below is based 

on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis 

in NEPA Documents, released December 6, 2012, and in part from a study conducted by FHWA 

entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions among Transportation Project 

Alternatives (FHWA, 2010). It is provided as a basis for identifying and comparing the potential 

differences in MSAT emissions, if any, among the alternatives. 

4.6.2.1 Regional MSAT Effects 

MSAT emissions would be similar among the Build Alternatives because the regional change in 

vehicle emissions would be similar. This analysis qualitatively compares the Build Alternatives 

to the No Build Alternative. In 2045, the Build Alternatives are projected to have up to 1.12 million 

more rail passenger trips annually (compared to the No Build Alternative). By shifting this travel 

to rail, it is expected that up to 2,700 vehicles per day (VPD) and 322,000 vehicle miles would be 

removed from the parallel roads of I-95 and U.S. Route 1 in the 123-mile Project corridor in the 

year 2045. Assuming an average fuel efficiency of 22 miles per gallon, this equates to a reduction 

of approximately 5.3 million gallons of fuel per year. In comparison, the additional intercity 

passenger trains that would operate as a result of this project are estimated to consume 

approximately 2.3 million gallons of fuel per year. Therefore, overall fuel consumption would be 

reduced in the DC2RVA corridor. The Build Alternatives would also result in a reduction in 

passenger miles of travel by air and bus, which could ultimately lead to a reduction in vehicle 

miles from these two modes; however, the ridership forecasting completed for this Project does 

not include projections related to reduced vehicle trips for air or bus travel. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-36 

Beginning in 2025, through 2045, and beyond, the Build Alternatives would decrease regional 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and MSAT emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. The 

availability of improved intercity passenger rail service would reduce the number of vehicle trips 

on a regional basis. Because the Build Alternatives would not substantially change the regional 

traffic mix, the amount of MSATs emitted from highways and other roadways within the study 

area would be proportional to the VMT. Because the regional VMT estimated for the Build 

Alternatives would be less than the No Build Alternative in 2045, MSAT emissions from regional 

vehicle traffic would be less for the Build Alternatives compared to the No Build Alternative in 

2045. Regardless of the Build Alternatives, emissions would also likely be lower than present levels 

in 2045 because of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual priority 

MSAT emissions by 83 percent between 2010 and 2050 even if VMT increases by 102 percent over 

that same period. 

Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, 

VMT growth rates, and local control measures; however, the magnitude of the EPA-projected 

reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study 

area are likely to be lower in nearly all cases. Further information on highway vehicle MSATs is 

included in Appendix T. 

4.6.2.2 Local MSAT Effects 

The potential MSAT emission sources directly related to Project operation would be from trains 

operating along the DC2RVA corridor, vehicles used at maintenance facilities, passenger vehicles 

traveling to and from the train stations, and passenger vehicles delayed at grade crossings. 

Localized increases in MSAT emissions would occur as a result of all of these activities. 

DRPT expects that the differences in local MSAT effects amongst the Build Alternatives would be 

minor. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternative 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would shift freight trains and some intercity passenger trains 

outside of those towns, through less populated areas. While there would be fewer local MSAT 

emissions through town under the bypass alternatives, there would be greater local MSAT 

emissions along the bypasses themselves. 

In Ashland, Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would relocate the 

rail passenger station south of town in a less populated area. Passengers driving to and from the 

new station would result in a reduction in local MSAT emissions in downtown Ashland, and an 

increase in local MSAT emissions in the area surrounding the Ashcake Station. 

In Richmond, local MSAT emissions will vary based on the route used (i.e., A-Line or S-Line) and 

station location. Nonetheless, DRPT does not anticipate a noticeable difference in local MSAT 

emissions between the Build Alternatives. 

The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced at maintenance 

facilities, where in-yard diesel-fueled switch locomotives would be used to pull in or pull out the 

trainsets for maintenance. The only maintenance facility along the DC2RVA corridor is proposed 

at Brown Street, north of Main Street Station in Richmond. Local MSAT emissions around this 

maintenance facility would increase with additional DC2RVA trains. There is no residential 

development or other sensitive land uses directly adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility. 

Therefore, DRPT expects any local MSAT effects to be minor. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-37 

Localized Project-related emissions would be substantially reduced due to implementation of 

EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations. The Build Alternatives would decrease regional MSAT 

emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. 

4.6.3 Highway Vehicle Operations–CO 

Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are associated with large volumes of slow-moving traffic, such as 

highly congested intersections. Areas experiencing high levels of CO are referred to as CO “hot spots.” 

The purpose of a CO hot-spot analysis is to determine if CO emissions generated by a proposed project 

would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the air quality standard for CO as promulgated by EPA. 

The Build Alternatives would result in an increase in vehicular delay at grade crossings because 

more trains would be operating over these crossings; however, given the relatively short length 

and rapid passages of intercity passenger trains and modest predicted increases in the rates of 

train service, it is unlikely that these delays would result in any substantial effect on air quality 

levels. Additionally, at the locations where highway-rail grade separations are proposed, vehicles 

would no longer have to stop to wait for trains to pass, and CO emissions would be reduced. 

Proposed grade separation locations are identified in Section 4.15.2. 

Additionally, the Build Alternatives are anticipated to increase vehicular traffic near station 

locations; however, while the Project would enhance passenger train travel speeds over an 

extended route, the frequency of service would be relatively modest. This would tend to reduce 

the temporal concentration of motor vehicles associated with trips to and from train stations along 

the DC2RVA corridor. Many stations also have direct connections to local and regional transit. 

Particularly, all intercity passenger rail stations in Northern Virginia share service with Virginia 

Railway Express (VRE). Other stations in Northern Virginia have convenient or direct connection 

to the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA), including Franconia-Springfield, 

Alexandria, Crystal City, L’Enfant Plaza, and Washington Union Station. In Richmond, Main 

Street Station has multiple local and regional bus services, and the Greater Richmond Transit 

Company (GRTC) has plans for a 7.6-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system along Broad Street and 

Main Street. These multimodal connections can help offset vehicular traffic at these stations. 

The federal ambient air quality standards for CO are 35 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour) and 9 

ppm (8-hour). DRPT ran a computer model to determine the CO concentrations at the worst-case 

grade crossings along the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT selected these locations because the locations 

have the highest projected amount of traffic and/or the greatest amount of delay. Based on traffic 

operations analysis conducted for this Project (see Section 4.15), the following worst-case traffic 

locations were selected: 

 England Street/Thompson Street–where all intercity passenger and freight train traffic 

would continue to operate through town, which would contribute to the worst-case traffic 

conditions in Ashland (Build Alternatives 5A and 5B) 

 Jahnke Road–where most intercity passenger and freight train traffic would use the CSXT 

A-Line between ACCA Yard and Centralia, which would contribute to the worst-case traffic 

conditions on the A-Line in Richmond (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) 

 Hermitage Road–where most intercity passenger train traffic would use all or a portion 

of the CSXT S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia, which would contribute to 

the worst-case traffic conditions on the S-Line in Richmond (Build Alternatives 6C, 6D, 

6F, and 6G) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-38 

The CO hot-spot analysis compared the 2015 Existing (Base), 2025 Interim (Opening) Build and 

No Build, and 2045 Design Year Build and No Build scenarios. DRPT used CAL3QHC, which is 

a standard EPA dispersion model, to estimate CO concentrations. Model input parameters 

included MOVES2014 emissions factors, CO background levels, persistence factors, peak-hour 

volumes, free-flow speeds, and estimated gate down time. Simulated meteorological conditions 

designed to yield worst-case concentrations were used in the analysis. 

The results of the analyses indicated that the 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations at the locations analyzed 

in any scenario were well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Based on these 

results, no mitigation is required, and no additional analysis is recommended (Table 4.6-2). 

Table 4.6-2: Predicted CO Concentrations (including background) 

Worst-Case 

Intersection/Crossing 

Analysis Scenario 

2015 Existing 2025 No Build 2025 Build 2045 No Build 2045 Build 

1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 

England Street/Thompson Street 4.2 2.9 3.4 2.4 3.6 2.5 3.1 2.2 3.2 2.2 

Jahnke Road 4.1 2.9 3.3 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.0 

Hermitage Road 3.6 2.5 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.7 

Note: NAAQS: 35 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour). 

4.6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary GHG associated with the combustion of transportation fuels, 

accounting for more than 95 percent of transportation GHG emissions based on global warming 

potential. CO2 is emitted in direct proportion to fuel consumption, with different emission levels 

associated with different fuel types. Other notable GHGs include methane (CH4) and nitrous 

oxide (N2O), which together account for 2 percent of transportation GHG emissions, and 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which comprise approximately 3 percent of transportation GHG 

emissions. N2O and CH4 are not directly related to fuel consumption, but instead are dependent 

on engine operating conditions (i.e., vehicle speeds) and emissions control technologies. HFCs 

are also emitted from vehicle air conditioners and refrigeration used in some freight shipments; 

these emissions do not come from the tailpipe and depend on factors such as the age of the vehicle 

and how often air conditioners are used. Given the relatively small percentage of these gases in 

comparison to CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFC, emissions were not calculated for this Project. 

The projected change in 2045 CO2 emissions for the Build Alternatives relative to the No Build 

Alternative is shown in Table 4.6-3 by mode of passenger travel. These emission values were 

derived from mass emission rates per passenger mile published in a report prepared for the 

American Bus Association (Bradley, 2014) and projected changes in annual passenger miles of 

travel from Table 4.8-1 of this Draft EIS. 

Increases in CO2 emissions associated with additional intercity passenger rail service are expected 

to be more than offset by reductions in CO2 emissions due to reduced use of other transportation 

modes, as shown in Table 4.6-3. The results in Table 4.6-3 are presented by the Build Alternatives 

in Richmond but reflect the projected changes through the entire DC2RVA corridor. DRPT 

derived the CO2 emissions from the passenger ridership estimates for the entire DC2RVA 

corridor. The ridership forecasts for the Build Alternatives only differ based on which station 

option is used in Richmond. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-39 

Table 4.6-3: Change in Projected CO2 Emissions in the DC2RVA Corridor by Mode Compared 

to the No Build Alternative (tons per year)–Year 2045 

Build Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 64,552 -43,206 -10,527 -17,516 -6,696 

6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

A-Line) 

58,536 -39,281 -9,715 -15,543 -6,003 

6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line) 

58,536 -39,281 -9,715 -15,543 -6,003 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 56,711 -37,568 -9,310 -15,496 -5,663 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 58,975 -39,752 -9,677 -15,493 -5,947 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

60,496 -40,475 -9,693 -16,379 -6,051 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

60,155 -41,187 -9,854 -15,632 -6,518 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

60,597 -41,658 -9,995 -15,813 -6,869 

Note: Results in this table are for the entire DC2RVA corridor. The results for the entire DC2RVA corridor only differ by which Build Alternative 

station option is considered in Richmond. 

4.6.5 Construction Effects 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and equipmentrelated particulate emissions in and around the study area. (Equipment-related particulate emissions 

can be minimized if the equipment is well maintained.) The potential air quality effects would be shortterm, occurring only while demolition and construction work is in progress and local conditions are 

appropriate. The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with building demolition, 

ground clearing, site preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, onsite movement of equipment, and 

transportation of materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction 

activity, and high wind conditions. There is not enough information regarding construction activity, 

equipment, and duration to estimate emissions from construction in this Draft EIS. If required, DRPT 

will perform this analysis during final design to demonstrate general conformity. DRPT will also 

identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. 

GHG emissions would also be generated during the construction phase of the program; however, 

these emissions are likely to be relatively minor given the nature and size of the program and the 

limited duration of the construction activities. 

4.6.6 Conclusion 

The Project-generated net increases in predicted annual pollutant emissions, from new SEHSR 

passenger service, in nonattainment areas would all be below general conformity de minimis

threshold values. Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project-generated 

emissions below these de minimis values to be minimal. Such projects do not require formal 

conformity determinations. With regard to GHG emissions, the Build Alternatives would reduce 

CO2 emissions versus the No Build Alternative. As a result, DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA 

Project will not result in significant adverse effects to public health related to air pollutants and 

air toxics or contributions to GHG emissions. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-40 

4.6.7 Mitigation 

DRPT will identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. Air 

quality mitigation is discussed in Section 4.19.2.3 in the Construction Impacts section. 

4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes potential Project-related noise and vibration effects and identifies mitigation 

measures to offset Project-related impacts. These analyses only evaluated noise and vibration from 

the additional intercity passenger trains proposed under this project, except where noted. 

Noise and vibration effects were assessed based on the methods and criteria included in FRA’s High 

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (September 

2012) for sections of the study corridor where passenger train speeds can reach 90 miles per hour 

(mph). On sections where all train speeds are below 90 mph, this assessment used the noise and 

vibration impact assessment methods published in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) manual per FRA guidance. The assessment 

addresses both operational and construction effects from the proposed alternatives. 

The noise and vibration study area consists of lands adjacent to the project corridor; it was not 

defined by the FTA/FRA screening methods. Rather, the noise and vibration analyses 

conservatively determined the distances at which noise and vibration impacts would no longer 

occur. Noise and vibration-sensitive land uses within the study area were categorized for analysis 

purposes according to FRA and FTA land use categories. Land use was identified from GIS 

databases, digital aerial photographs, field surveys, and information on planned development 

from local planning departments where publicly available and reasonably obtainable. 

4.7.1 Noise 

4.7.1.1 Noise Impact Criteria 

According to FRA and FTA, noise-sensitive land uses are divided into one of three categories. 

 Category 1: Land where quiet is an essential element (e.g., amphitheaters and concert 

pavilions). This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land 

uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic 

Landmarks (NHLs) with significant outdoor use. 

 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance. 

 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category 

includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with 

such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Buildings 

with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, 

recording studios, and concert halls, fall into this category. Places for meditation or study 

associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and 

recreational facilities are also included. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-41 

Category 1 and 3 receptors are evaluated using the equivalent-average sound level (Leq) from the 

noisiest hour of train-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. The Leq represents a constant 

sound that, over the hour, has the same acoustic energy as the time-varying signal. Category 2 

receptors are evaluated using the day-night sound level (Ldn), because Category 2 receptors are 

sensitive to noise during all hours of the 24-hour day. The Ldn describes a receiver’s cumulative noise 

exposure from all events over a full 24 hours, with events between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. penalized 

by adding an additional 10 decibels (dB) to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. 

This analysis followed the FTA/FRA noise impact assessment methodology in which 

measurements of existing noise levels are used to determine the noise impact threshold. Projectrelated noise is then calculated using FTA and FRA methods, and the resulting noise levels are 

compared with the FTA/FRA noise impact criteria to determine if noise impacts are expected to 

occur. 

Figure 4.7-1 from the FTA guidance manual shows the noise impact criteria used by both FTA 

and FRA, which are based on the land use category and the existing noise exposure in the area. 

No impact indicates Project noise levels are unlikely to cause annoyance. A moderate noise 

impact is a noise level increase that is noticeable to most people, yet generally not enough to cause 

adverse reactions. A severe noise impact is a noise level increase that could cause annoyance to a 

significant percentage of people. FTA guidance requires consideration and adoption of noise 

mitigation measures for moderate and severe noise impacts when noise mitigation is feasible and 

reasonable. 

Figure 4.7-1: FTA/FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-42 

4.7.1.2 Noise Prediction Methodology 

Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is an acoustical descriptor that contains all acoustical energy associated 

with a single event such as the passby of a locomotive, railcar, or a locomotive horn use event. SEL 

values are used as the noise emissions terms in the train noise models; they are expressed in units of 

dBA (A-weighted decibel). Actual noise levels from passenger trains between Poughkeepsie and 

Albany, New York (the Empire Line) that are similar to the trains proposed on this Project were 

measured to calculate projected noise levels on the DC2RVA corridor. Noise measurements were 

performed in areas where Empire Line trains were expected to reach speeds of 90 mph. Due to track 

maintenance and other unknown factors, none of the Empire Line trains were traveling at or above 

90 mph during measurements of passby noise; therefore, SEL values measured along the Empire Line 

were used to calculate noise from all other passenger trains (at speeds below 90 mph). The SEL values 

for freight locomotives and railcars were obtained from FRA’s CREATE Noise and Vibration Assessment 

Manual (FRA, 2013). The SEL for CSXT locomotive horns was obtained from the Final EIS for the 

Acquisition of Conrail by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX Railroad (United States Surface 

Transportation Board, 1998). Noise from freight trains on the proposed bypasses and passenger trains 

traveling at speeds below 90 mph were modeled using FTA’s general noise assessment methods. SEL 

values for proposed intercity passenger trains traveling at 90 mph were obtained from Appendix E 

of the FRA guidance manual. This analysis used the maximum allowable speed on each rail section 

to calculate train noise. Characteristics of the SEHSR passenger trains that were used in the noise 

analysis are shown in Table 4.7-1. Figure 2.2-3 in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIS provides additional 

information about the proposed increases in intercity passenger rail service in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 4.7-1: Intercity Passenger Train Characteristics used in the Noise Assessment

Characteristics Proposed DC2RVA Train 

Train speed (mph)1 90 

Train Length (feet) 665 

Number of locomotives per train 2 

Number of railcars per train 8 

Throttle setting 8 

Locomotive length (feet) 70 

Length of train railcars (feet) 85 

Notes: 1. Maximum train speed varies by rail section; the maximum allowable speed per section was modeled. 

Growth in the passenger (non-SEHSR) and freight trains that currently use the corridor will occur 

independently from the proposed Project; therefore, the noise analysis only modeled the proposed 

additional intercity passenger trains on most rail sections in the study area. The exceptions to this 

are the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 

5C and 5C–Ashcake). In these areas, the distribution of freight and/or passenger (non-SEHSR) 

trains that currently use the corridor may change and was, therefore, modeled. 

The proposed bypasses in Fredericksburg and Ashland are expected to have unique combinations 

of freight and intercity passenger trains and were modeled based on the way trains are proposed 

to use the bypasses. In Fredericksburg, only freight trains are expected to use the proposed bypass 

alignment (Build Alternative 3C); therefore, noise from freight trains was evaluated on that bypass 

alignment. The proposed additional intercity passenger trains that will bypass downtown 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-43 

Fredericksburg were also modeled on the existing alignment under the Fredericksburg Bypass 

alternative. In Ashland, under the bypass alternatives (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

freight trains and intercity passenger trains that do not stop in Ashland are expected to use the 

bypass alignment while other passenger trains would use the existing alignment. This results in a 

net reduction in train noise on the existing alignment and is considered a benefit of the proposed 

Project. Noise from freight trains was not evaluated in areas other than on the proposed bypass 

alignments because freight train traffic would continue to operate and expand on the existing 

corridor in the Build Alternatives as it would in the No Build Alternative. 

Trains operate on five different rail sections in each of the eight Richmond Build Alternatives. In 

addition to operating on different sections, sometimes passenger train length increases under 

different Richmond alternatives; therefore, each alternative was evaluated individually, and 

noise from all trains on all five sections was calculated for each alternative. Noise from freight 

trains was not included in the evaluation of Project-related noise under each Richmond 

alternative because freight trains currently operate on those lines (unlike the proposed bypass 

alternatives), and changes in freight train volume and size will occur based on market forces and 

in a manner that is unrelated to the proposed Project. 

Table 4.7-2 shows other train characteristics used to evaluate noise from trains on the proposed 

bypasses in Fredericksburg (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) and on the eight Richmond Build Alternatives. 

Table 4.7-2: Characteristics of Existing Trains Analyzed in the Noise Assessment

Amtrak 

Auto Train 

Amtrak 

Long 

Distance 

Amtrak 

Interstate 

Corridor 

Carolinian 

Interstate 

Corridor 

(SEHSR) 

and 

Regional 

(Virginia 

and SEHSR) 

Freight 

Train1

SEL for locomotive at 50 feet2, 3 97 97 97 97 974

SEL for railcar at 50 feet2, 3 82 82 82 82 1004

SEL for locomotive horn at 50 feet2, 3 108 108 108 108 1105

Maximum train speed (mph)6 90 90 90 90 607

Train length (feet) 4390 1075 750 992 7083 

Number of locomotives per train 2 2 1 2 2 

Number of railcars per train 50 11 8 10 738

Throttle setting 8 8 8 8 8 

Locomotive length (feet) 70 70 70 70 74 

Length of train railcars (feet) 85 85 85 85 95 

Notes: 1. Freight trains were only modeled on the proposed bypasses. 2. Source: HDR Engineering, Inc. 3. SEL for 90 mph trains from FRA 

(September 2012). 4. Source: FRA CREATE. 5. Source: United States Surface Transportation Board, 1998. 6. Varies by rail section; the maximum 

allowable speed per section was modeled. 7. Maximum freight train speed is 60 mph. 8. Based on an average of cars on intermodal trains and coal

and merchandise trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-44 

Under FRA safety rules, locomotive horns are required to be used at public at-grade crossings. 

CSXT operating rules also require locomotive horns to be used when trains: 

 Approach public crossings 

 Approach tunnels, yards, or locations where railroad employees may be working 

 Approach roadway workers 

 Approach standing trains 

 Approach passenger stations 

 When warning people or animals near the track 

This analysis utilized FRA methods to evaluate locomotive horn noise at public at-grade 

crossings, yards, and near passenger stations. FRA has studied locomotive horn noise and had 

determined that horn noise contours exhibit the general cone-like shape shown in Figure 4.7-2. 

Locomotive horn use increases as trains approach the crossing, and therefore, the noise contour 

flares outward at the crossing. The locomotive horn contours created during this noise analysis 

exhibit a similar shape; refer to the noise contour figures in Noise and Vibration Technical Report

(Appendix P). 

Figure 4.7-2: FRA Sample Train Noise Contour 

4.7.1.3 Predicted Noise Levels 

Using the information in Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, train noise levels under the Build Alternatives 

were calculated throughout the study area. These calculations accounted for project-related 

wayside noise (locomotive and wheel-rail noise) and locomotive horn use at public at-grade 

crossings. Existing locomotive horn use is incorporated into the noise analysis via the existing 

noise measurements. FRA locomotive horn use rules do not require locomotive horn use at 

private at-grade crossings. The analysis assumed that freight trains would use the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

would be used by freight trains and passenger trains that do not stop in Ashland. Analysis results 

were used to determine the distance from the tracks at which train noise levels equal the noise 

impact thresholds for moderate and severe noise impacts at Category 1, 2, and 3 land uses. Noise 

impacts are identified at the noise-sensitive land uses within those distances to the track. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-45 

4.7.1.4 Noise Impact Assessment 

This section presents the results of the assessment of Project-related noise during operation and 

construction. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P) includes figures that show the 

noise impact contours. 

Operational Noise Impacts 

The noise impact assessment results are presented in Table 4.7-3; this includes both locomotive 

horn and wayside horn noise. The values shown in the table represent the number of noisesensitive land use receptors projected to experience noise impacts under the Build Alternatives. 

Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 refer to land use categories evaluated in the noise 

assessment, as explained previously. The noise analysis did not account for terrain or buildings 

that block train noise from reaching noise-sensitive parcels; therefore, the results are considered 

to be conservatively high, over-estimating the number of likely train noise impacts. 

The proposed project has potential to reduce existing horn noise through new grade separations and 

crossing closures. Closing an at-grade crossing reduces locomotive horn noise. Adding new at-grade 

crossings where locomotive horns must be used increases outdoor noise levels near the new crossing. 

Section 4.15.2 provides the recommended grade crossing treatments for all of the alternatives. 

Increases in intercity passenger trains results in a corresponding increase in locomotive horn use 

in most portions of the project corridor. Exceptions to this include the proposed bypasses of 

Fredericksburg (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

where train volumes will decrease on the exising alignment. Horn noise impacts are 

distinguishable from wayside noise impacts on the noise impact contour figures shown in the 

Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Appendix P. 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C (Arlington). DRPT does not anticipate that Build Alternatives 

1A, 1B, and 1C will cause any noise impacts. 

Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia). Build Alternative 2A would result in noise impacts at 

775 sensitive receptors. The most severe impacts generally occur at residences located 

immediately adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor, including a trailer park just south of Woodbridge 

Station and several other residential neighborhoods in Prince William County. 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C (Fredericksburg). Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass 

through town would impact 75 and 76 sensitive receptors, respectively. Projected noise impacts 

along the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) are substantially higher due to noise from 

freight trains on the bypass, which would run through areas that currently have no train traffic. 

Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia). Build Alternative 4A is projected to cause noise impacts 

at 70 sensitive receptors. 

Build Alternatives 5A through 5D (Ashland). Projected noise impacts are similar among Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–

Ashcake), ranging from 154 to 159 sensitive receptors. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C 

and 5C–Ashcake), would impact 329 sensitive receptors. The higher number of impacts is due to 

the addition of freight train noise along the proposed bypass, which runs through areas that do not 

have trains under existing conditions. 

One of the severe Category 3 impacts is at the Ashland Library, located adjacent to the tracks; 

however, the proximity of the nearby station means that intercity passenger and freight trains 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-46 

would actually be traveling slower than modeled. This is one example where use of the highest 

train speed on each section results in conservatively high analysis results. 

The impacts identified with the Ashland area alternatives assume that passenger trains would 

operate at 90 mph through the Town of Ashland. In reality, the trains would slow down through 

town, even if they are not stopping at the station. Any reduction in speed would reduce the noise 

impacts from the Project. As a result, the noise analysis results are conservative. 

Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Richmond). Projected noise impacts through Richmond 

range from 313 to 439 sensitive receptors under Build Alternatives 6A through 6G. 

Table 4.7-3: Operational Noise Impact Summary by Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Operational Noise Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 

3B 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 

3C 2 1 2,392 1,524 8 5 3,932 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 

5B 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5B–Ashcake 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 

5C 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 

5D–Ashcake 1 0 135 18 1 4 159 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 

6B–A-Line 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 

6B–S-Line 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6C 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 

6D 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6E 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 

6F 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

6G 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 

The noise impact locations are shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-47 

Construction Noise Impacts 

Construction of the Build Alternatives would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. 

Equipment used to move soil and other earthen materials is often the loudest construction noise 

source. FTA and FRA both recommend construction noise limits of 90 dBA (daytime) and 80 dBA 

(nighttime) on a 1-hour Leq basis in residential areas. 

Typical equipment used for different phases of railroad construction with typical noise levels, 

quantities, and estimated utilizations for each type of equipment used are presented in Table 4.7-4. 

The table shows the calculated construction noise sound pressure levels (SPL) at different distances. 

These are estimates of construction noise at different distances from the center of a construction site. 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Clearing Off-Highway Trucks 4 6 50% 124 127 108 94 88 

Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 67% 122 125 106 92 86 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 5 42% 118 119 100 86 80 

Trenchers 2 4 33% 117 115 96 82 76 

Utility Relocation Cranes 1 6 50% 121 118 100 86 80 

Dumper/Tender 2 4 33% 110 108 89 75 69 

Off-Highway Trucks 2 6 50% 124 124 105 91 85 

Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 67% 122 125 106 92 86 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 5 42% 118 119 100 86 80 

Trenchers 2 6 50% 117 117 98 84 78 

Welders 3 6 50% 114 116 97 83 77 

Earthwork Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Off-Highway Trucks 4 8 67% 124 128 109 95 89 

Off-Highway Trucks 1 4 33% 123 118 100 86 80 

Rollers 2 6 50% 117 117 98 84 78 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 6 50% 121 121 102 88 82 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Signal Boards 3 8 67% 106 109 90 76 70 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6 50% 118 119 101 87 81 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-48 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Bridge Construction for 

Overpasses 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Impact Pile Driver 1 6 50 n/a n/a 95 81 75 

Pavers 2 8 67% 119 120 101 87 81 

Paving Equipment 2 8 67% 119 120 101 87 81 

Rollers 2 8 67% 117 118 99 85 79 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Retaining Walls Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Impact Pile Driver 1 6 50 n/a n/a 95 81 75 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Rubber Tired Loaders 2 7 58% 121 121 103 89 83 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 58% 118 120 101 87 81 

Signals Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

 Continued
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-49 

Table 4.7-4: Estimated Construction Equipment Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Equipment 

NumberHours/da

y

Utilization SWL/unit Total SWL 

SPL (dBA) at 

distance (feet) 

100 500 1,000 

Track Installation Air Compressors 1 6 50% 117 114 95 81 75 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Track Laying Machine 1 8 67% 129 128 109 95 89 

Track Tamper 1 8 67% 121 119 100 86 80 

Track Stabilizer 1 8 67% 126 124 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Demolish Existing Bridge Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 67% 117 115 96 82 76 

Excavators 2 8 67% 120 121 102 88 82 

Graders 1 8 67% 120 118 100 86 80 

Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67% 122 120 101 87 81 

Scrapers 2 8 67% 123 125 106 92 86 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Signal Work Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Install Track and Subballast 

over Bridge 

Air Compressors 1 6 50% 117 114 95 81 75 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Track Laying Machine 1 8 67% 129 128 109 95 89 

Track Tamper 1 8 67% 121 119 100 86 80 

Track Stabilizer 1 8 67% 126 124 106 92 86 

Ballast Regulator 1 8 67% 119 118 99 85 79 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67% 118 119 100 86 80 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 

Final Cut-Over and Removal 

of Turnouts 

Cranes 1 7 58% 121 119 100 86 80 

Forklifts 3 8 67% 117 120 102 88 82 

Generator Sets 1 8 67% 117 115 97 83 77 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 58% 118 120 101 87 81 

Welders 1 8 67% 114 113 94 80 74 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-50 

The results presented in Table 4.7-4 conservatively overestimate actual expected construction noise 

levels by assuming that all equipment (i.e., all dump trucks or all pickup trucks) operate at the same 

location. Typically, construction equipment is spread throughout the construction work zone. Given 

the linear nature of the Project and relatively confined width of the railroad right-of-way, it is 

reasonable to assume that all equipment would not operate next to each other in the same (stationary) 

location for 1 hour. On this basis, construction noise levels in Table 4.7-4 somewhat overestimate noise 

levels for construction phases that would use more than one piece of equipment at a particular 

location. In all other cases, the results are assumed to be within 3 dBA of likely construction noise 

levels, if the equipment has been properly maintained and the mufflers are in good condition. 

Construction noise analysis results shown in Table 4.7-4 indicate the total combined noise for all 

equipment types and construction phases never exceeds the FTA/FRA recommended limit of a 

1-hour Leq of 90 dBA at 200 feet, even using a conservative approach to the evaluation. Because 

the conservatively calculated construction noise is not anticipated to exceed 90 dBA at 200 feet, 

construction noise is not expected to be adverse in most locations; however, DRPT will ensure 

that construction noise mitigation measures will be evaluated when an analysis of construction 

noise based on the actual construction plan can be completed. At the preliminary design phase, 

construction noise mitigation measures are not recommended due to the overly conservative 

nature of these calculation results. 

FRA and FTA do not have standardized criteria for construction; however, FTA suggests 

reasonable criteria that can be used for assessment purposes. The criteria for residential land uses 

are 1-hour Leq of 90 dBA during the day and 80 dBA during the night; therefore, it would be 

prudent to limit construction to daytime hours whenever feasible. 

4.7.1.5 Noise Mitigation Measures 

Potential noise mitigation measures are broadly categorized as applied at the source, in the pathway 

(the path that sound travels), or at the receiver. The source of most train noise is the interaction of steel 

wheels and the steel rail; this is called wayside noise. In addition to wayside noise, railcars (particularly, 

freight cars) sometimes rattle and produce noticeable amounts of noise. Locomotives also emit noise 

from the engine casing and from the cooling and exhaust vents. Maintaining wheels and rails is an 

effective way to manage and reduce wayside noise. Use of continuously welded rail (CWR or rail with 

no joints) also minimizes wayside noise (joints and gaps in the rail produce noise when trains roll over 

them). As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT assumes that all track will be CWR. 

Locomotive horns are another loud source of train noise; however, their use is mostly limited to 

at-grade crossings and other areas required by CSXT operating rules where they are used to warn 

people that trains are approaching. Locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is required 

under FRA safety regulations. FRA does not require locomotive horn use at private at-grade 

crossings. Grade crossing closure, grade separations, and installation of wayside horns 

(stationary horns located where trains cross public at-grade crossings, whose use eliminates the 

use of locomotive horns) are potential measures to mitigate locomotive horn use. These have been 

evaluated and are incorporated into the Project to the extent deemed reasonable and appropriate 

within the design, operating, and financial constraints of the Project. FRA regulations also allow 

the creation of quiet zones, where locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is not required 

due to the installation of supplemental safety measures. Under those regulations, municipalities 

can coordinate the design and development of quiet zones. Section 4.15.2.2 (Relevance of Build 

Alternatives on Quiet Zones) provides additional information on quiet zones. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-51 

Noise barriers, while not commonly used on rail projects, can block train noise and reduce noise levels 

in areas behind them. To be effective, noise barriers must block the line of sight between the noise 

source and the receiver. Raising the height of the noise barrier above that line of sight increases the 

amount of noise reduction the noise barrier provides, but the cost of a noise barrier is directly related 

to the size of the noise barrier. Cost effectiveness is sometimes used to evaluate whether the noise 

reduction provided by a noise barrier justifies the expense of designing, constructing, and 

maintaining the barrier. This type of evaluation also considers the number of noise-sensitive land uses 

expected to experience a noise reduction due to the noise barrier. FRA does not have criteria for 

evaluating cost effectiveness of noise barriers. VDOT does, however, and their criteria could be useful 

for evaluating the cost effectiveness of noise barriers on this Project. At this early phase of Project 

development (Draft EIS and preliminary design), it is premature to discuss specific details of potential 

noise mitigation options before a recommended Preferred Alternative is selected. 

Receiver-based mitigation is rarely implemented on rail projects because it is not cost effective to 

treat multiple individual locations across large areas. 

Noise mitigation during construction is discussed in Section 4.19.2.4 in the Construction Impacts 

section. 

4.7.2 Vibration 

This section describes potential Project-related vibration effects and identifies mitigation 

measures to offset projected impacts. Vibration effects were assessed based on the methods and 

criteria included in FRA’s High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

guidance manual (September 2012) as well as those included in FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (May 2006) manual, where applicable. 

4.7.2.1 Vibration Impact Criteria 

The FRA and FTA vibration impact criteria are identical and are used to predict future vibration 

impacts from train operations. There are separate criteria for both ground-borne vibration (GBV) 

and ground-borne noise (GBN). GBN is a rumble sound created by GBV and is often masked by 

airborne-noise; therefore, GBN criteria are primarily applied to subway operations in which 

airborne noise is negligible. The basis for evaluating rail vibration impact thresholds is the highest 

expected root mean square (RMS) vibration levels for repeated vibration events from the same 

source. As presented in Table 4.7-5, the thresholds are differentiated between vibration-sensitive 

land uses and the frequency of the events. 

The Category 1 vibration impact threshold is acceptable for most moderately sensitive 

equipment; other highly sensitive equipment would require a detailed analysis to determine the 

acceptable vibration levels and the effect of the Project on the equipment. There are no GBN 

impact thresholds for Category 1 land uses because equipment sensitive to GBV is generally not 

sensitive to GBN; however, other special Category 1 land uses, such as concert halls, television 

and recording studios, and theaters, can be very sensitive to GBV and GBN. FTA has developed 

special vibration impact thresholds for these Category 1 land uses, but these land uses were not 

encountered within the vibration impact contour distances. Category 2 and 3 land uses exist 

within the vibration impact distances discussed below. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-52 

Table 4.7-5: Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria 

for General Assessment 

Land Use Category 

GBV Impact Levels (VdB re 1 μin/s) GBN Impact Levels (dBA re 20 μPa) 

Frequent 

Events 1

Occasional 

Events 2

Infrequent 

Events 3

Frequent 

Events 1

Occasional 

Events 2

Infrequent 

Events 3

Category 1: Buildings where 

vibration would interfere with 

interior operations. 

65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 65 VdB 4 n/a 5 n/a 5 n/a 5

Category 2: Residences and 

buildings where people 

normally sleep. 

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA 

Category 3: Institutional land 

uses with primarily daytime use. 

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA 

Source: FRA, 2012. 

Notes: 1. Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day; 2. Occasional Events is defined as between 30 

and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day; 3. Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day; 4. 

This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive 

manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building 

often requires special design of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and stiffened floors; 5. Vibration-sensitive equipment 

is not sensitive to GBN. 

4.7.2.2 Vibration Prediction Methodology 

The vibration assessment consists of the following general steps: 

1. Establish the study area and identify vibration-sensitive land uses. The FTA/FRA 

vibration screening assessment was not performed. Rather, the lands adjacent to the rail 

line were considered part of the study area, and the vibration study conducted for this 

Project identified the distance from the rail line at which vibration impacts would no 

longer occur. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P) provides additional 

detail regarding the vibration study conducted. 

2. Evaluate the railroad traffic conditions and set corresponding impact thresholds. 

3. Select the base generalized vibration curve, and then apply appropriate adjustments for 

factors such as speed. 

4. Determine the propagation from Project-related vibration sources to the impact 

thresholds. 

5. Identify receptors anticipated to experience vibration impacts. 

The FRA and FTA General Assessment methodologies are nearly identical and are intended to 

predict approximate magnitude of impact, and those with the highest magnitude of impact may 

merit a more-detailed assessment during subsequent engineering phases. Noise and vibrationsensitive land uses within the study area were identified according to FRA categories. Land use 

was identified from GIS databases, field surveys, and information on planned development from 

local planning departments. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-53 

The vibration prediction begins with selection of a generalized base curve, depending on the 

mode considered. These curves represent typical ground-surface vibration as a function of 

distance from the source, based on many GBV measurements of numerous transit sources. 

The generalized ground surface vibration curves suitable for assessing the high speed passenger 

trains (not the existing passenger or freight) are shown in Figure 4.7-3. They represent the upper 

range of the measurement data from equipment in good condition and were adjusted to account 

for projected operating speeds as described below. 

Figure 4.7-3: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves 

The generalized ground surface vibration curves suitable for assessing existing intercity 

passenger and freight trains (for the segments on which they are modeled) are shown in Figure 

4.7-4. These curves similarly represent the upper range of the measurement data from equipment 

in good condition. The top curve represents trains that are powered by diesel-electric 

locomotives, and the middle curve represents fixed-guideway steel-wheel transit vehicles such 

as light-rail vehicles and streetcars. 

The base curves must then be adjusted to account for Project-specific vibration factors that differ 

from the conditions of the base curve. Adjustment parameters are given in the FRA and FTA 

guidance and include train speed, wheel and rail type and condition, and type of track support 

system, among other adjustments. The adjustment parameters are based on typical vibration 

spectra and are given as generalized single numbers to be applied to the base curve. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-54 

Figure 4.7-4: FRA Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Suitable for Assessing 

Transit and Freight Trains 

The adjustments are arithmetically added to the reference vibration curve, and the resulting levels 

are compared to the impact thresholds. This is algebraically equivalent to subtracting the same 

adjustments from the impact threshold and comparing it to the unadjusted reference curve. In 

this way, the graphical curves shown in Figures 4.7-3 and 4.7-4 can be used to find the distance 

to vibration impact. For this assessment, the distance to vibration impact was determined by 

looking up the level of the adjusted criterion curve on the y-axis and then finding the distance on 

the x-axis from the generalized vibration curve. 

Computation Assumptions and Input Data 

The vibration assessment used the same passenger and freight rail data as the noise assessment 

(Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2). The FRA generalized vibration curve “Steel-wheel at-grade” was used as 

the base curve for the impact assessment of the proposed additional intercity passenger trains 

(Figure 4.7-3). Freight trains already run through the DC2RVA corridor and are not modeled for 

any of the track in the existing corridor; however, where freight trains are being introduced, such 

as on the proposed bypass sections, the FTA generalized vibration curve “Locomotive powered 

passenger and freight” (Figure 4.7-4) was used as the base curve for the impact assessment of 

freight trains. 

Specific modeling considerations for each Build Alternative are provided in Table 4.7-6. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-55 

Table 4.7-6: Vibration Analysis Modeling Assumptions 

Alternative Area Alternative Modeling Assumption 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 1C There are three alternatives, but no vibration-sensitive receptors within 500 feet 

of the Project; therefore, no vibration assessment was completed for Build 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A There is only one alternative along the existing passenger rail corridor. The 

additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A and 3B Build Alternatives 3A and 3B would route Project-related trains through the existing 

passenger rail corridor. The additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using 

the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

3C The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would route freight trains and 

potentially some of the passenger trains along a new alignment that bypasses 

Fredericksburg. The additional intercity passenger trains were modeled through 

the existing corridor using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel atgrade high speed trains. Even at a lower speed, the freight trains generate more 

vibration than the passenger trains; therefore, the freight trains were modeled in 

the bypass corridor using the FTA generalized vibration curve for locomotivepowered passenger or freight trains. 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A There is only one alternative along the existing passenger rail corridor. The 

additional intercity passenger trains were modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A, 5A–Ashcake, 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would 

route Project-related trains through the existing passenger rail corridor. The 

additional intercity passenger trains are modeled using the FRA generalized 

vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed trains. 

5C and 

5C–Ashcake 

Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake would route the through passenger trains 

and the freight trains along a new alignment that bypasses the Town of Ashland, 

while passenger trains that stop in Ashland would use the bypassed area of the 

existing corridor. Even at a lower speed, the freight trains generate more vibration 

than the passenger trains; therefore, the freight trains were modeled in the bypass 

corridor using the FTA generalized vibration curve for locomotive-powered 

passenger or freight trains. The planned number of future passenger trains is the 

same as the number of passenger trains that currently use this portion of the 

DC2RVA corridor, and the planned future trains are on average shorter than the 

average length of existing trains, plus there would be no freight traffic. These 

changes represent a benefit to vibration effects; therefore, vibration contours were 

not calculated for the bypassed area of the existing corridor. 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, and 6E 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E would route Project-related trains via 

the current CSXT North End Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the A-line) 

between West Acca Yard in Richmond and Centralia, VA. The CSXT Bellwood 

Subdivision (sometimes referred to as the S-line) between Control Point 

Hermitage in Richmond and Centralia, VA, would not see any increase in 

passenger train traffic, so the trains were not modeled as a consequence of this 

Project on that section. The additional intercity passenger trains are modeled 

using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high speed 

trains. 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, and 6G 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would route Project-related trains via 

the current S-line. The A-line would see a reduction in passenger trains, which 

represents a Project benefit, so the trains are not modeled as a consequence of 

this Project on that section. The additional intercity passenger trains were 

modeled using the FRA generalized vibration curve for steel-wheel at-grade high 

speed trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-56 

4.7.2.3 Predicted Vibration Levels 

Estimates of Project-related, train-induced GBV were developed based on the methodology 

described above. The predicted vibration levels were used to develop distance-to-vibrationimpact contours. 

4.7.2.4 Vibration Impact Assessment 

This section presents the results of the vibration impact assessment during operation and 

construction. 

Operational Vibration Impacts 

Using site-specific and project-specific data as explained above, DRPT conducted the vibration 

assessment by calculating the distance from the rail line at which train-induced vibration levels 

equal the FRA ground-borne vibration impact thresholds. Vibration impact contour lines were 

then overlaid upon digital aerial photographs (refer to Appendix P) to delineate the areas 

projected to experience vibration impacts. (See the Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Appendix 

P.) Vibration-sensitive land uses inside the vibration contours are projected to experience 

vibration impacts as defined by FRA. Table 4.7-7 shows the number of receptors anticipated to 

experience vibration impacts associated with each Build Alternative. 

Table 4.7-7: Vibration Impact Summary by Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Vibration Impacts 

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 0 15 0 15 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 0 0 

3B 0 0 0 0 

3C 0 43 0 43 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 2 0 2 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 25 1 26 

5A–Ashcake 0 25 1 26 

5B 0 30 1 31 

5B–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

5C 0 35 1 36 

5C–Ashcake 0 35 1 36 

5D–Ashcake 0 30 1 31 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 0 8 0 8 

6B–A-Line 0 8 0 8 

6B–S-Line 0 8 0 8 

6C 0 8 0 8 

6D 0 8 0 8 

6E 0 8 0 8 

6F 0 8 0 8 

6G 0 8 0 8 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-57 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C (Arlington). There are no vibration-sensitive receptors within 

500 feet of Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, or 1C; therefore, vibration impact contours were not 

calculated, and there are no receptors anticipated to experience vibration impacts for these Build 

Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia). Under Build Alternative 2A, 15 receptors are 

projected to experience vibration impacts. Additionally, there is a structure on National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP)⎯the historic Alexandria Union Station⎯which is within all vibration 

impact contours; however, this structure was designed to stand next to rail transportation. 

Furthermore, the vibration levels are currently being compared to human-comfort criteria, which 

is much lower than vibration levels necessary to cause damage to even old, fragile structures. 

Therefore, while this structure is within the vibration impact contours, it is not considered an 

impact and is not included in Table 4.7-7. 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C (Fredericksburg). No receptors are projected to experience 

vibration impacts under Build Alternatives 3A or 3B that pass through town. Under the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), 43 receptors are projected to experience vibration 

impacts as a result of freight trains operating along new alignment.

Build Alternative 4A (Central Virginia). Under Build Alternative 4A, two residential receptors 

are projected to experience vibration impacts. 

Build Alternatives 5A through 5D (Ashland). Under the Build Alternatives in the Ashland area, 26 

to 36 receptors are projected to experience vibration impacts. These impacts, including the Category 

3 impact at the Ashland Library, are based on the assumption that passenger trains are operating at 

90 mph through Ashland. In reality, trains would slow down through town, even if they are not 

stopping at the station. At this point, the tabulation of vibration impacts is considered a conservative 

overestimate. The addition of freight traffic on the proposed bypass alignment is the primary source 

of vibration impacts for Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake. 

Build Alternatives 6A through 6G (Richmond). Projected vibration impacts in the Richmond 

area are the same for all Build Alternatives. Vibration impacts are projected in areas where all 

trains operate on the same alignment. Refer to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix 

P) for figures showing the locations of these impacts. 

Construction Vibration Impacts 

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment 

and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread 

through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings near construction can respond to 

these vibrations, with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels; low 

rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels; and slight damage at the highest levels. 

Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage 

structures, but they can reach the range of perceptible vibration or audible sound in buildings 

very close to the site. A possible exception is the case of fragile buildings where special care must 

be taken to avoid damage. The construction vibration criteria include special consideration for 

fragile buildings. The damage criteria published by FTA, using units of peak particle velocity 

(PPV) expressed in inches per second, are presented in Table 4.7-8. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-58 

Table 4.7-8: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 

Building Category Description Damage Criteria, PPV (in./sec.) 

I Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 

II Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 

III Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 

IV Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 

Ground vibrations from construction activities can be audible and perceptible in buildings near 

the construction limits. Some buildings are more sensitive to vibration than others; they might 

have recording or broadcast facilities or vibration-sensitive equipment in them. FRA advocates a 

separate set of vibration criteria for buildings with vibration-sensitive uses or equipment inside 

of them. The criteria used for vibration-sensitive equipment is presented in Table 4.7-9. 

Table 4.7-9: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria–Vibration-Sensitive Equipment 

Type of Building or Room Max Lv, VdB 1

TV Studios 65 

Recording Studios 65 

Theaters 65 

Vibration-Sensitive Lab 48 

Notes: 1. RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. 

PPVs associated with typical construction equipment, as published by FTA, are presented in Table 

4.7-10. These vibration emission levels and factors represent a conservatively high usage because it is 

not anticipated that all this machinery is to be used at any one particular location at the same time. 

Table 4.7-10: Construction Equipment PPV 

Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in./sec.) Approx. Lv1 at 25 ft. 

Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 1.518 112 

Typical 0.644 104 

Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 0.734 105 

Typical 0.17 93 

Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 

Hydromill In soil 0.008 66 

In rock 0.017 75 

Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 

Hoe Ram 0.089 87 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87 

Caisson drilling 0.089 87 

Loaded trucks 0.076 86 

Jackhammer 0.035 79 

Small bulldozer 0.003 58 

Source: FTA, May 2006. 

Notes: 1. RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-59 

4.7.2.5 Vibration Mitigation 

Vibration mitigation options are limited due to the presence of freight trains in the DC2RVA 

corridor. Mitigation strategies, such as floating slabs, are not feasible options for tracks that also 

carry freight. Where freight trains operate, the only feasible options for mitigation of the trains 

are track and wheel maintenance measures, strategic location of special trackwork, and buffer 

zones between the tracks and the receptors. DRPT has no control over the implementation of 

these mitigation measures by the freight railroads. Passenger train maintenance can also be 

implemented to reduce ground-borne vibration; modification of the passenger rail vehicle 

suspension is also a potential mitigation option. DRPT will identify the necessary mitigation 

measures during the final design process. 

 Track and wheel maintenance: Maintenance procedures reduce vibration effects 

through regularly scheduled rail grinding, wheel truing programs, vehicle 

reconditioning programs, and implementation of flat-wheel detectors. These 

maintenance procedures minimize the vibration sources before they can affect vibrationsensitive receptors. 

 Location of special trackwork: Effects of special trackwork has not been evaluated in this 

assessment because the locations are likely to change as Project design progresses. It is 

crucial that vibration effects on sensitive receptors are evaluated when locating special 

trackwork. 

 Vehicle suspension: Changing the vehicle suspension of the passenger trains is normally 

an option only when creating a new fleet of passenger trains. It is not feasible for the 

freight train traffic, and it is unlikely that the existing passenger train fleet will modify 

their suspension. 

Construction-related vibration mitigation measures include BMP’s such as equipment selection, 

finding alternatives to traditional impact pile driving, and limiting the hours of operation and 

locations where sources of construction-related vibration will occur. DRPT will develop the 

details of these BMPs during the final design process. 

4.8 ENERGY 

4.8.1 Energy Consumption during Operation 

DRPT evaluated the Build Alternatives in terms of their potential to realize savings in energy 

consumed by all major modes of transportation in the DC2RVA corridor compared to the No 

Build Alternative. As noted in Section 3.8, travel by rail is the most energy-efficient mode of 

transportation. As a result, any substantial increase in rail ridership associated with any of the 

Build Alternatives that would shift ridership from the other less-efficient modes of transportation 

would result in conservation of travel-related energy. 

The estimated change in intercity passenger miles of travel of the Build Alternatives relative to 

the No Build Alternative are shown in Table 4.8-1 by mode of travel. The results in Table 4.8-1 

represent the benefit to other modes only from intercity passenger ridership accommodated by 

the DC2RVA project. Auto, bus, and air travel will continue to grow under the No Build 

Alternative and Build Alternatives, however, at a lesser rate under the Build Alternatives. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-60 

When comparing the Build Alternatives with the No Build Alternative, there would be an 

increase in intercity passenger rail miles, while the other three modes of transportation would 

experience a decrease, as shown in Table 4.8-1. This can be attributed to a shift in ridership from 

the other three modes to rail. 

DRPT estimated the future energy use of all modes in the DC2RVA corridor by calculating the 

total passenger miles of travel projected for 2045 by mode for the No Build Alternative and Build 

Alternatives and then applying the energy consumption rates by mode that are presented in 

Section 3.8. The estimated change in annual energy consumption of the Build Alternatives 

compared to the No Build Alternative is summarized in Table 4.8-2 by mode of travel. 

The results in Table 4.8-2 show that the total energy consumption from intercity passenger travel 

under the No Build Alternative would be higher than the Build Alternatives. By expanding intercity 

passenger rail service, the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in energy consumption 

compared to the No Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation; however, the other three 

modes would experience a decrease, which would result in an overall net decrease in energy 

consumption. As previously mentioned, this can be attributed to a shift in ridership from the other 

three less energy-efficient modes to rail. 

Table 4.8-1: Change in Annual Passenger Miles of Travel Compared to the No Build 

Alternative (millions)–Year 2045 

Build Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 315 -164 -31 -68 52 

6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

A-Line) 

286 -149 -29 -60 48 

6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line) 

286 -149 -29 -60 48 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 277 -143 -27 -60 47 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 288 -151 -29 -60 48 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

295 -154 -29 -63 49 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

293 -156 -29 -61 47 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

296 -158 -29 -61 47 

Note: The results reflected in this table represent all passenger travel to, from, and within the DC2RVA corridor. Corridor-wide ridership 

forecasts for the Build Alternatives only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond (Ridership Technical Report, Appendix J). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-61 

Table 4.8-2: Change in Annual Energy Consumption Compared to the No Build Alternative 

(billions of BTUs)–Year 2045 

Build Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 513 -636 -26 -158 -307 

6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

A-Line) 

465 -578 -24 -140 -277 

6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line) 

465 -578 -24 -140 -277 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 451 -553 -23 -140 -265 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 469 -585 -23 -140 -280 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

481 -596 -23 -148 -286 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

478 -606 -24 -141 -293 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill 

Road/Main Street Stations) 

481 -613 -24 -143 -299 

Note: The results reflected in this table represent all passenger travel to, from, and within the DC2RVA corridor. Corridor-wide ridership 

forecasts for the Build Alternatives only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond (Ridership Technical Report, Appendix J). 

When comparing the Build Alternatives with the No Build Alternative, there would be an 

increase in intercity passenger rail miles, while the other three modes of transportation would 

experience a decrease, as shown in Table 4.8-1. This can be attributed to a shift in ridership from 

the other three modes to rail. 

DRPT estimated the future energy use of all modes in the DC2RVA corridor by calculating the 

total passenger miles of travel projected for 2045 by mode for the No Build Alternative and Build 

Alternatives and then applying the energy consumption rates by mode that are presented in 

Section 3.8. The estimated change in annual energy consumption of the Build Alternatives 

compared to the No Build Alternative is summarized in Table 4.8-2 by mode of travel. 

The results in Table 4.8-2 show that the total energy consumption from intercity passenger travel 

under the No Build Alternative would be higher than the Build Alternatives. By expanding 

intercity passenger rail service, the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in energy 

consumption compared to the No Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation; however, 

the other three modes would experience a decrease, which would result in an overall net decrease 

in energy consumption. As previously mentioned, this can be attributed to a shift in ridership 

from the other three less energy-efficient modes to rail. 

4.8.2 Energy Consumption during Construction 

The No Build Alternative would not require any construction; therefore, no changes in energy 

consumption are expected. During construction of the Build Alternatives, additional energy 

would be expended beyond what would be used for normal rail operations. This additional 

energy would be consumed on a short-term basis by construction of improvements required to 

implement the Project and by construction-related delays to existing rail service in the DC2RVA 

corridor; however, once the Project is complete and additional improved passenger rail service is 

provided, long-term energy savings would be realized. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-62 

4.9 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

4.9.1 Effects 

This section addresses the visual effects of the proposed Build Alternatives. To assess potential 

changes to the visual environment, a qualitative visual impact rating system was used that 

considers those changes from the perspective of viewers from the rail corridor (e.g., train 

passengers), as well as viewers looking toward the rail corridor. 

In accordance with FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA, 1999), DRPT 

identified major changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed 

environment as a result of this Project. The assessment considers the visual changes associated 

with the Build Alternatives, such as track improvements, bridges, grade crossings/separations, 

roadway improvements, stations and maintenance facilities, and other permanent improvements 

associated with the Project. 

The level of visual impact was assessed by combining the severity of the change in visual quality 

with the degree to which people are sensitive to the change. 

Visual quality considers landscape qualities related to natural and/or man-made features, 

specifically: 

 Natural features, including topography, water courses, rock outcrops, and natural vegetation; 

 The positive and negative effects of man-made alterations to the environment and built 

structures on visual quality; and 

 Visual composition, including an assessment of the complexity and vividness of patterns 

that exist in the landscape. 

Visual sensitivity is based on the number and types of users, viewers, or sensitive receptors typically 

found in the study area. Generally, viewers in parks and residential areas are assumed to be the most 

sensitive to visual and aesthetic changes, and viewers in industrial areas would be the least sensitive. 

For each visual assessment unit, a High, Moderate, or Low Visual Impacts rating was assigned 

for the No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives. These ratings are described below: 

 Low Visual Impacts: The alternative is consistent with the existing visual elements in the 

landscape, such as line, form, texture, and color, and the alternative blends with the 

existing visual character. Viewers are generally not very sensitive to these changes. 

 Moderate Visual Impacts: The project is notably visible in the landscape but does not 

dominate or detract from the existing visual features. Viewers may notice these changes, 

but the changes are generally not seen as negative. 

 High Visual Impacts: The project elements are obvious and dominate the landscape 

detracting from the existing landscape characteristics or scenic qualities. Viewers are 

sensitive to these changes and may perceive them negatively. 

The following sections describe the visual changes associated with the Build Alternatives by the 

Visual Assessment Units (VAU). The No Build Alternative would not have visual effects 

associated with the DC2RVA Project. The Build Alternatives were described in detail in Chapter 

2. The existing conditions within each VAU were described in Section 3.9. A summary of effects 

within each VAU by alternative are provided in Table 4.9-1. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-63 

4.9.1.1 Arlington: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

VAU 1-1 (CFP 110 to CFP 109.3)—Long Bridge Approach. There are two existing tracks 

throughout this VAU with up to four tracks in some areas. The addition of one to two tracks on 

either side of the existing tracks would not result in major visual changes within this VAU. The 

existing tracks are already part of the landscape. Additionally, changes to the views from the train 

would be minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 

4.9.1.2 Northern Virginia: Build Alternative 2A 

VAU 2-1 (CFP 109.3 to CFP 100)—Crystal City through Franconia. Within this VAU, the number 

of tracks is generally three along the main line with up to ten or more in the Norfolk Southern (NS) 

Yard area south of Alexandria. The addition of one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the 

side varying, would not result in major changes within this VAU. Additionally, changes to the 

views from the train would be minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternative 2A. 

VAU 2-2 (CFP 100 to CFP 92)—Franconia through Lorton. The northern half of this VAU consists 

primarily of three tracks, with another two WMATA tracks located immediately to the west. The 

southern half transitions down to two tracks. The addition of one track on one side of the existing tracks, 

with the side varying, would not result in major changes within this VAU. Additionally, changes to the 

views from the train would be minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternative 2A. 

VAU 2-3 (CFP 92 to CFP 85)—Lorton through Neabsco Creek. There are two tracks through most 

of this VAU. The Occoquan River Railroad Bridge is the most notable rail visual feature within 

this VAU. Build Alternative 2A adds one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the side 

varying. It would also add a bridge on the east side of the existing Occoquan River Railroad 

Bridge that would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the existing bridge to 

minimize the visual impacts. The views from the train would only differ slightly. The visual 

impact rating is moderate for Build Alternative 2A. 

VAU 2-4 (CFP 85 to CFP 62)—Neabsco Creek through north of Fredericksburg. The rail corridor 

includes two tracks throughout most of this VAU. Notable rail features are the numerous bridges 

in this section, including Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek, Quantico Creek, and Aquia Creek. Build 

Alternative 2A adds one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the side varying. It would 

also add bridges at each creek crossing except Quantico Creek, where two bridges currently carry 

three tracks at this location. The new bridges would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of the existing bridges to minimize the visual impacts. The views from the train would 

only differ slightly. The visual impact rating is moderate for Build Alternative 2A. 

4.9.1.3 Fredericksburg: Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

VAU 3-1 (CFP 62 to CFP 48)—through Fredericksburg. This section primarily consists of two 

tracks, though it broadens out to up to six tracks at the Fredericksburg rail yard on the south side 

of Fredericksburg. The most notable visible feature of the railroad is the Rappahannock River 

Bridge and station platforms. There would be a new raised station platform, parking deck, and 

station building for all Build Alternatives. These facilities would generally reflect the horizontal 

and vertical profiles of the existing facilities to minimize the visual impacts. Build Alternative 3A 

has a low visual impact rating because it does not add any track. Build Alternative 3B has a high 

visual impact rating because it adds one additional track to the east and an additional bridge over 

the Rappahannock River. The new bridge would be constructed with one additional track and 

include width for two tracks. Additionally, the new bridge would generally reflect the horizontal 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-64 

and vertical profiles of the existing bridge to minimize the visual impacts. Build Alternative 3B 

also includes a new grade separation at Landsdowne Road. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) is not within this VAU but is listed in VAU 3-2. 

VAU 3-2 (CFP 62 to CFP 48)—Fredericksburg Bypass. This VAU shares common areas on the 

north end and south end with VAU 3-1. Near CFP 61, it turns east and follows the existing singlerail track Dahlgren Spur. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would cross the 

Rappahannock River on new alignment and is on new alignment until reconnecting with the 

existing tracks near CFP 52. Much of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) is on new 

alignment, except where following the Dahlgren Spur rail feature and where it ties into the CSXT 

main line at the north and south ends. Most passenger trains would still use the alignment 

through Fredericksburg, so views from the train would not be greatly altered. Only certain 

intercity passenger trains not serving Fredericksburg would use the bypass. The new bridge over 

the Rappahannock River would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the 

existing upstream railroad bridge in downtown Fredericksburg to minimize the visual impacts. 

Given the new bridge over the Rappahannock River and the two tracks on new alignment, Build 

Alternative 3C has a high visual impact rating in this VAU. Four new highway-rail grade 

separations are also included along the new alignment section of Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C). The Build Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 3A and 3B) 

are not within this VAU but are listed in VAU 3-1. 

4.9.1.4 Central Virginia: Build Alternative 4A 

VAU 4-1 (CFP 48 to CFP 19)—South of Fredericksburg through Doswell. There are primarily 

two tracks within this VAU. The new bridges over the Mattaponi River and North Anna River 

would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the existing bridges to minimize the 

visual impacts and are in areas where the number of viewers of the bridge structures are low. The 

addition of one track on one side of the existing tracks, with the side varying, and the new bridges 

would not result in major changes within this VAU. No new highway-rail grade separations are 

included with Build Alternative 4A. Additionally, changes to the views from the train would be 

minimal. The visual impact rating is low for Build Alternative 4A. 

4.9.1.5 Ashland: Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 

5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

VAU 5-1 (CFP 19 to CFP 9)—through Ashland. There are primarily two existing tracks throughout 

this VAU. The tracks are in the middle of the main downtown area in Ashland along Railroad 

Avenue (also called Center Street) and are a dominant feature of the landscape with the town 

buildings and roadways developed around the tracks. The Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would include new 

grade separations at Ashcake Road and Vaughan Road; however, these grade separations would 

be located outside of downtown Ashland. Build Alternative 5A would not add track, but it would 

have a visual change to the landscape due to the grade separations and would therefore have a 

moderate visual impact rating. Similarly, Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake would include the visual 

intrusion of a new station south of Ashcake Road but would still have a moderate visual impact 

rating. Build Alternatives 5B and 5B–Ashcake would add a single track adjacent to the existing 

tracks in a sensitive visual area through town and would have moderate visual impact. The visual 

impact of Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake would be slightly greater than Build Alternative 5B due to 

the station relocation at Ashcake but would still have a moderate visual impact rating. Similar to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-65 

Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake, Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake would add a third track through 

downtown Ashland, which is a sensitive visual area. The impacts would be slightly less than Build 

Alternative 5B–Ashcake as the existing two tracks and the added third track would be centered 

through town; however, there would be the visual intrusion of a new station at Ashcake Road 

resulting in a moderate visual impact rating. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) are not within this VAU but are listed in VAU 5-2. 

VAU 5-2 (CFP 19 to CFP 9)—Ashland Bypass. This VAU shares a northern terminus and 

southern terminus with VAU 5-1. The remainder of the section is on new alignment, where there 

are no existing rail features. The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would 

add two tracks on a new alignment in this VAU. This would be a major change in the visual 

landscape, and the six proposed highway-rail grade separations would be highly visible. Build 

Alternative 5C–Ashcake would also have the visual intrusion of a new station facility south of 

Ashcake Road. There are no sensitive resources, but several residences would experience major 

changes in their viewshed with Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake, resulting in a high visual 

impact. Views from the long distance trains would be altered by no longer traveling through the 

Town of Ashland. The Build Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–

Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) are not within this VAU but are listed in VAU 5-1. 

4.9.1.6 Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 

and 6G 

VAU 6-1 (CFP 9 to CFP 2)—South of Ashland through ACCA Yard. This VAU has two existing 

tracks on the north end with an increasing number of tracks approaching the Acca Yard. A new 

highway-rail grade separation at Hungary Road, located in a primarily suburban residential 

setting, would be included with all the Richmond Build Alternatives (Build Alternatives 6A 

through 6G) in this VAU. Some visual changes to views from the train would also occur. Staples 

Mill Station is located within this VAU. Build Alternatives 6A, 6E, 6F, and 6G would include a 

new two story station at Staples Mill and a new pedestrian bridge across the tracks to access the 

platforms. These alternatives would have a moderate visual impact rating based on these visual 

changes associated with the station. Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D would 

close the existing Staples Mill Station. These alternatives would have a low visual impact rating 

within this VAU because the visual changes to and from the train are minimal. 

VAU 6-2 (CFP 2 to SRN 0)—Acca Yard through Main Street along the S-Line. This approximately 

4-mile long VAU begins in the Acca Yard area with a large expanse of tracks. It tapers down to two 

existing tracks at the southern terminus near Main Street Station in downtown Richmond. The 

historic rail viaduct is an integral part of the scenic views. There are several notable rail visual 

features in the section, including Main Street Station and the Triple Crossing. New highway-rail 

grade separations would be included at Hermitage Road under Build Alternative 6B–S-Line and at 

Hospital Street/North 7th Street under Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G. Three of the 

DC2RVA intercity passenger rail route and station alternatives utilize the CSXT S-Line (Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G) and would involve the restoration of intercity passenger service on the 

west side of Main Street Station, and require the construction of one to two multistory parking 

garages within the viewshed of the main station building and also require alterations to historic 

platforms, thus diminishing the integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association. Build Alternative 6B–S-Line would also utilize the CSXT S-Line adjacent to Main Street 

Station but would bypass the station and result in a disuse of the station for intercity passenger rail 

purposes. Build Alternative 6E would maintain and slightly expand intercity passenger rail service 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-66 

at Main Street Station with the expansion of and alteration to the historic platforms. The singlestation alternatives at Boulevard (Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line) would also include 

a new station building and pedestrian overpass at Boulevard Station. The single-station alternative 

at Broad Street (Build Alternative 6C) would include a new station building and pedestrian 

overpass at Broad Street Station. Four single-station alternatives (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, and 6C) would close Main Street Station to passenger rail service, but there would be 

no major visual changes to the station building itself. Each of the Richmond Build Alternatives (6A 

through 6G) would have an impact within this VAU. Some visual changes to views from the train 

would occur. Build Alternative 6A would have a moderate visual impact rating within this VAU. 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G would have a high visual impact 

rating within this VAU because there is extensive trackwork coupled with sensitive resources. 

VAU 6-3 (SRN 0 to A 11)—Main Street through Centralia via the S-Line. Build Alternatives that 

route intercity passenger trains via the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia operate 

through this VAU, each of which consists of adding a single track to the existing James River 

crossing. Most of the section south of the James River consists of two tracks with some limited 

areas widening out to as many as eight tracks. A new highway-rail grade separation would be 

included with Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G. The most notable rail visual feature 

is the James River crossing. Some visual changes to views from the train would occur. The new 

bridge on the James River S-line would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of the 

existing bridge to minimize the visual impacts. Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G 

would have a high visual impact rating due to the additional bridge across the James River. 

VAU 6-4 (CFP 2 to A 11)—Acca Yard through Centralia via the A-Line. The Build Alternatives 

that route intercity passenger trains via the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) operate through this VAU, which primarily consists of 

two existing tracks. New highway-rail grade separations would be included at Broad Rock 

Boulevard and Walmsley Boulevard under Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E. The most 

notable feature in this VAU is the scenic railroad bridge over the James River on the A-line. This 

bridge is visible from many nearby parks and residential areas, as well as from the river itself, 

which is highly used for recreational purposes; no change is proposed to the existing bridge. Some 

visual changes to views from the train would occur. All Build Alternatives would have a low 

visual impact rating because minimal track work and no additional bridge across the James River 

are proposed in this VAU. 

VAU 6-5 (SRN 0 to CA 87)—Main Street Station through Hospital Wye. There is a single track 

within this VAU. There are no notable rail visual features. The Build Alternatives do not involve 

any track work within this VAU. There would be no effect on views to or from the railroad. All 

Build Alternatives have a low visual impact rating within this VAU. 

VAU 6-6 (SRN 0 to CA 80)—Main Street Station through Fulton Yard/Eastern Henrico County. 

This VAU includes two existing tracks where it parallels the James River, expanding to more than 

ten tracks to the east of Richmond. The most notable rail feature is the raised rail bridge that is 

parallel to the James River. The Build Alternatives do not involve any track work within this 

VAU. There would be no effect on views to or from the railroad. All Build Alternatives have a 

low visual impact rating within this VAU. 

The High, Moderate, or Low Visual ratings for each VAU and each Build Alternative are provided 

in Table 4.9-1. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-67 

Table 4.9-1: Visual Impact Rating by Visual Assessment Unit 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Visual Assessment Unit (VAU) 

1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 4-1 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A L – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

1B L – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

1C L – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A – L L M M – – – – – – – – – – – 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A – – – – – L – – – – – – – – – – 

3B – – – – – H – – – – – – – – – – 

3C – – – – – – H – – – – – – – – – 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5A–Ashcake – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5B – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5B–Ashcake – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

5C – – – – – – – – – H – – – – – – 

5C–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – H – – – – – – 

5D–Ashcake – – – – – – – – M – – – – – – – 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – – – – – – – – – M M L L L L 

6B–A-Line – – – – – – – – – – L H L L L L 

6B–S-Line – – – – – – – – – – L H H L L L 

6C – – – – – – – – – – L H L L L L 

6D – – – – – – – – – – L H H L L L 

6E – – – – – – – – – – M H L L L L 

6F – – – – – – – – – – M H H L L L 

6G – – – – – – – – – – M H H L L L 

 L = Low Visual Impact; M = Moderate Visual Impact; H = High Visual Impact 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-68 

4.9.2 Mitigation Evaluation 

DRPT will work with affected communities during the final design process to obtain public 

review and comment on the nature and style of design for new physical structures, such as major 

waterway crossings, highway-rail grade separations, and station improvements. DRPT 

anticipates that new bridges and buildings would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of existing bridges and building in their environs to minimize the visual impact. 

Constructing tracks adjacent to the existing tracks would also minimize visual impacts and would 

occur for the Build Alternatives through most of the DC2RVA corridor, except for the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake). These Build Alternatives would construct a railroad with highway-rail grade 

separations along new alignment. With these strategies, DRPT has determined that most of the 

Build Alternatives have low to moderate visual impact ratings. 

Other visual impact mitigation strategies that DRPT will consider during the final design process 

include: 

 Incorporating landscaping to screen undesirable features 

 Using other screening techniques for undesirable features 

 Adding architectural design features in character with existing visual environs 

 Minimizing tree and shrub removal

 Enhancing or creating visually pleasing designs

4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSXT would continue maintenance and repairs of the existing 

infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned for the DC2RVA 

corridor, as defined in Section 2.5.1.1, would move forward. Anticipated effects of the No Build 

Alternative are discussed below in comparison with the Build Alternatives. All practicable 

measures would be taken to avoid and minimize impacts; however, due to the length and linear 

nature of the DC2RVA Project, impacts to habitats would be unavoidable. For this EIS, estimated 

impacts to habitats and natural communities are calculated using a conservative assumption and 

are categorized as permanent or temporary. 

4.10.1 Habitat and Natural Communities 

Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would result in effects to the general ecology of its 

surroundings. The Build Alternatives would affect terrestrial natural communities and associated 

wildlife habitat through conversion of existing land coverage to railroad structures and 

maintained right-of-way. Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, between 31 and 

264 acres of habitat are estimated to be permanently converted by the proposed improvements 

within and outside of the existing railroad right-of-way. This conversion would result in the loss 

of wildlife habitat. Permanent (converted to use by the railroad) and temporary (able to 

renaturalize after construction completion) impacts to general habitat types within the LOD of 

each Build Alternative are summarized in Table 4.10-1. Most of the area affected by the Build 

Alternatives, aside from the bypasses, is already developed. Habitats that would be affected are 

directly adjacent to the existing rail line and are already altered by local activities, including 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-69 

operation of the railroad, with the exception of the bypass alternatives (i.e., Build Alternatives 3B 

and 5C). Disturbance or loss of these upland habitats adjacent to the existing railroad would not 

result in substantial impacts to wildlife due to their location and widespread availability of such 

habitats within the study area and the region. 

Table 4.10-1: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Agriculture (pasture/row crop/ grassland) Aqueous Habitat (wetlands/streams/ open water) Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – No – – P: –– 

T: 0.6 

P: –– 

T: 0.6 

1B – – – No – – P: 1.5 

T: 0.9 

P: 1.5 

T: 0.9 

1C – – – No – – P: 0.4 

T: 0.7 

P: 0.4 

T: 0.7 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A P: 2.1 

T: 1.6 

P: 1.1 

T: 2.0 

P: 15.0 

T: 7.2 

No P: 0.2 

T: 0.1 

P: 1.3 

T: 0.9 

P: 13.2 

T: 11.8 

P: 32.9 

T: 23.6 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 0.1 

T: 1.1 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.4 

P: 0.4 

T: 3.2 

No – P: 0.1 

T: 1.4 

P: 1.5 

T: 3.4 

P: 2.2 

T: 9.5 

3B P: 2.3 

T: 1.4 

P: 1.9 

T: 0.9 

P: 2.1 

T: 3.5 

No – P: 0.1 

T: 1.4 

P: 13.4 

T: 5.2 

P: 19.8 

T: 12.4 

3C P: 32.7 

T: 8.2 

P: 8.5 

T: 3.1 

P: 66.9 

T:17.4 

Yes – P: 13.2 

T: 4.0 

P: 19.3 

T: 5.4 

P: 140.6 

T: 38.1 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A P: 0.9 

T: 7.4 

P: 0.3 

T: 5.1 

P: 0.5 

T:10.1 

No P: 0.1 

T: 1.0 

P: 0.1 

T: 9.4 

P: 0.7 

T: 7.6 

P: 2.6 

T: 40.6 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.6 

P: 18.1 

T: 6.7 

P: 21.9 

T: 12.9 

5A–Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.6 

P: 16.4 

T: 6.7 

P: 20.2 

T: 12.9 

5B P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.6 

T: 0.9 

P: 25.6 

T: 7.6 

P: 29.4 

T: 14.1 

5B–Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.8 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.6 

T: 0.9 

P: 25.9 

T: 8.7 

P: 29.7 

T: 15.3 

5C P: 29.3 

T: 5.7 

P: 2.3 

T: 0.3 

P: 64.0 

T:20.7 

Yes P:11.0 

T: 2.4 

P: 4.7 

T: 0.9 

P: 36.5 

T: 8.9 

P: 147.8 

T: 38.9 

5C–Ashcake P: 29.3 

T: 5.7 

P: 2.3 

T: 0.3 

P: 64.0 

T:20.7 

Yes P:11.0 

T: 2.4 

P: 4.7 

T: 0.9 

P: 34.8 

T: 8.9 

P: 146.1 

T: 38.9 

5D–Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.0 

T: 4.9 

No P: –– 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.9 

P: 32.3 

T: 9.1 

P: 36.1 

T: 15.8 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-70 

Table 4.10-1: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Agriculture (pasture/row crop/ grassland) Aqueous Habitat (wetlands/streams/ open water) Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – P: 3.7 

T: 2.7 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 70.8 

T: 35.5 

P: 76.0 

T: 38.9 

6B–A-Line – – P: 3.9 

T: 2.8 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 95.6 

T: 48.3 

P: 101.0 

T: 51.8 

6B–S-Line – P: 0.7 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 68.9 

T: 17.6 

P: 78.6 

T: 22.2 

6C – – P: 4.4 

T: 2.8 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 122.1 

T: 48.6 

P: 128.0 

T: 52.1 

6D – P: 0.7 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 63.9 

T: 17.7 

P: 73.6 

T: 22.3 

6E – – P: 6.4 

T: 3.5 

No – P: 2.2 

T: 0.8 

P: 80.5 

T: 57.1 

P: 89.1 

T: 61.4 

6F – P: 0.6 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.7 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 73.1 

T: 18.3 

P: 82.9 

T: 22.9 

6G – P: 0.6 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.3 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 71.5 

T: 17.6 

P: 80.9 

T: 22.2 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

*Areas of internal forest that are a minimum of 300 feet from the edge of the forested area. 

Due to the new area crossed by the Build Alternatives that includes new bypasses, more habitat 

not already affected by human activities would be affected. A greater amount of all habitat types 

would be permanently converted, and larger areas of intact forested habitat would be bisected, 

removing a large portion of interior forest and fragmenting habitat. Interior forest habitats are 

located 300 feet or farther from the forest edge and are commonly composed of mature trees. 

These areas are important to forest interior dwelling species (FIDS), especially Neotropical 

migrant songbirds that utilize these habitats for foraging, breeding, and nesting. FIDS can also 

include certain mammals, especially certain species of bats, reptiles, and amphibians that prefer 

unbroken forested tracts. 

The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) crosses an area of 1,200+ acres of continuous 

forest southwest of the Rappahannock. This area includes Virginia Outdoors Fund Easements 

and the Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary, discussed in Section 4.10.1.1. This area also 

includes at least 750 acres of interior habitat defined as ‘high’ by the VDCR Ecological Core model 

that is connected to a very large area of ‘outstanding’ habitat associated with Fort A. P. Hill. The 

Virginia Outdoors Fund Easements and the Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary, including the 

majority of the forest mentioned above, would be cut off from the Fort A. P. Hill habitat by the 

construction of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), and a large portion of the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-71 

interior habitat would be lost and/or degraded due to the introduction of the railroad through 

the habitat. 

The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) cross several smaller wildlife 

corridors associated with waterways, and three larger tracts of forested habitats (approximately 

140, 380, and 180 acres) with interior habitat that would be bisected by the proposed alignment 

resulting in a decrease of interior habitat. 

Station upgrades would occur in urban areas. Although the LODs are wider in these locations, 

only small additional amounts of urban tree canopy would be affected. 

4.10.1.1 Conservation Areas 

DRPT have made efforts, to the extent practicable, to avoid impacts to existing conservation areas 

(federal and state) and priority conservation areas (areas of habitat designated as worthy of 

conservation). Aside from temporary impacts to Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area, the 

alternatives avoid existing conservation areas. Due to the linear nature of the Project and the 

location of the existing tracks through rural areas, some of the habitat areas adjacent to the 

DC2RVA corridor have been determined worthy of conservation for a variety of qualities. 

Unavoidable impacts to these areas are outlined below (Table 4.10-2). As previously mentioned, 

impacts listed are the total area of predicted temporary and permanent impacts within the 

proposed LOD, unless otherwise noted. A more detailed discussion of conservation area impacts 

can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M). 

State Wildlife Lands 

DRPT anticipates that Build Alternatives 4A would result in unavoidable temporary impacts to 

Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area. Approximately 2.54 acres adjacent to existing 

railroad right-of-way would be disturbed for construction and then replanted and encouraged to 

renaturalize. Coordination with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) 

would be necessary. 

County Wildlife Lands 

DRPT anticipates that Build Alternative 2A would result in approximately 0.55 acre of temporary 

impacts to Pohick Seeps Conservation Area. The site is located on parcels owned by Fairfax 

County that have a Permanent Wildlife Conservation Easement. Depending on the type of 

impacts proposed, temporary impacts could potentially be considered permanent for the rare 

habitat located there. Proposed work in this area will require coordination with Fairfax County. 

Private Wildlife Lands 

Two parcels containing open-space easements managed by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation 

(VOF) are crossed by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). DRPT anticipates that 

VOF conservation area CLN-VOF-3804 would have 1.22 acres of permanent impacts and 0.32 acre 

of temporary impacts, and area CLN-VOF-03850 would have 21.09 acres of permanent impact 

and 5.37 acres of temporary impact. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would 

bisect intact interior forested habitat in these locations. Coordination with VOF may be necessary. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-72 

Table 4.10-2: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

USFWS 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuges 

State 

Wildlife 

Lands 

County 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Private 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Priority 

Conservation 

Areas 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1B – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1C – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A – – P: –––

T: 0.55 

n/a P: 0.01 

T: 0.78 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A n/a n/a n/a – P: 0.03 

T: 1.52 

3B n/a n/a n/a – P: 0.10 

T: 1.61 

3C n/a n/a n/a P: 22.31 

T: 5.69 

P: 83.36 

T: 18.63 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A n/a P: –––

T: 2.54 

n/a n/a P: –––

T: 2.48 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5A–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5B n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5B–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5C n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 4.80 

T: 21.13 

5C–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 4.80 

T: 21.13 

5D–Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B–A-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B–S-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6C n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6D n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6E n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6F n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6G n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2015. 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact, n/a = no resources located in that Area 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-73 

Priority Conservation Areas including Wildlife Corridors 

Details about unavoidable impacts to Priority Conservation Areas are described in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report (Appendix M). These areas are recommended for preservation. 

Temporary impacts may be permanent depending on the type of impact and the potential to 

disrupt sensitive resources that may not have the ability to recover (e.g., clearing and grubbing 

of an area with a rare plant community). 

Aside from the proposed Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), which bisects a large 

forested area and wildlife corridor, all impacts to wildlife corridors would result from widening 

the existing railroad. In some of these areas, wildlife are able to use areas under bridges that span 

waterways and dry culverts. Larger animals may be able to successfully cross existing tracks if 

no fencing or other additional barriers exist; however, an increased track area and increased train 

traffic would result in a decreased ability for wildlife to cross and increased mortality rates. Figure 

3.10-2 in Chapter 3 identifies the existing wildlife corridors. Overall, DRPT does not anticipate a 

substantial amount of wildlife crossing. 

4.10.1.2 Invasive Species 

The Build Alternatives could increase the spread of invasive species. Construction equipment 

used could carry seeds or propagative plant parts from other construction projects or infested 

areas. Removal of sediment and soil to offsite locations could spread invasive species, and 

placement of fill from borrow sites could introduce invasive species to the study area. Exposed 

soil also allows invasive species to spread, which could contribute to encroachment of invasive 

species on vegetation communities adjacent to the LOD. 

In accordance with EO 13112, Invasive Species, the potential for the establishment of invasive 

plant species during construction of any Build Alternative would be minimized by prompt 

seeding of disturbed areas with seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to 

ensure that seed mixes are free of noxious species. To prevent the introduction of new invasive 

species and to prevent the spread of existing populations, BMPs would also be followed and 

could include washing machinery before it enters the area, minimizing ground disturbance, and 

reseeding disturbed areas. While the LOD is vulnerable to colonization by invasive plant species 

from adjacent properties, implementation of the stated provisions would reduce the potential for 

the establishment and proliferation of invasive species. 

4.10.1.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Due to the need to expand existing bridge crossings of major waterways where submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV) exists, the proposed Project would have unavoidable impacts on these plant 

species. Permanent impacts would include areas converted for the use of piers or infrastructure, 

while temporary impacts would include disturbed areas with the ability to support SAV again after 

construction completion. Impacts to SAV are only anticipated to occur with Build Alternative 2A. 

No SAV beds occur in the DC2RVA corridor south of Aquia Creek, and proposed improvements 

included with Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would not require work in waters containing SAV. 

Estimated acres of impacts to SAV are presented in Table 4.10-3 (Figure 4.10-1). A request to remove 

SAV from or plant SAV on state-administered benthic surfaces would be submitted with a JPA to 

VMRC. In determining whether to grant approval for SAV removal or planting, VMRC shall be 

guided by §28.2-1205 of the Code of Virginia and the SAV Transplantation Guidelines, or any new 

and improved methodologies as approved by VMRC (VMRC, 2000). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-74 

Table 4.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative Existing Historic Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A P: ––– 

T: 0.03 

– P: ––– 

T: 0.03 

1B P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

– P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

1C – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: 1.33 

T: 1.91 

P: 0.37 

T: 0.35 

P: 1.70 

T: 2.26 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

There is no SAV south of Aquia Creek; therefore, there are no impacts listed for the Build Alternatives in Alternative Areas 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

4.10.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Minimization measures to protect natural habitats and communities could involve modifications 

to later designs such as: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing, in particular in riparian areas 

 Development of a mitigation plan that includes landscaping and planting detail for onsite 

replacement of any trees removed 

 Native revegetation, including native shrub plantings and native reseeding of disturbed 

areas to prevent the spread of invasive species, and additional erosion during storm 

events due to exposed soil 

 Using bridges or open bottom culverts in streams to minimize the disruption of natural 

stream bottoms 

Invasive Species 

To avoid the introduction of new invasive species and prevent the spread of existing populations, 

BMPs should be followed, including washing machinery before it enters the area to prevent the 

spread of seeds and minimizing ground disturbance. Prompt seeding of disturbed areas with 

native seeds or seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to ensure that seed 

mixes are free of noxious species will decrease the ability for invasive species to take root and 

outcompete native species. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Mitigation for areas of temporary disturbance to SAV would be coordinated with VMRC. The 

following procedures are suggested by the Chesapeake Bay Program (Chesapeake Bay Program, 

1995) for the protection of SAV areas: 

 Protect existing, historic, and potential SAV areas from physical disruption 

 Avoid or minimize dredging within SAV areas 

 Avoid nearby construction activities that create additional turbidity 

 Avoid reduction in Secchi depths (measure of water clarity) compared to predisturbance levels 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-75 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-76 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-77 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-78 

Figure 4.10-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-79 

 Establish an undisturbed buffer around SAV beds 

 If construction must occur near or in beds, avoid activities during the growing season 

(April–October for most species) 

 Preserve natural shorelines through stabilization with marsh plantings 

Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize disturbance and removal of SAV would be made during 

final design as part of obtaining the VMRC permit. Erosion and sediment control measures would 

minimize potential impacts to water quality within adjacent SAV areas. Construction within or 

adjacent to SAV areas would avoid the growing season for representative plant species to the 

extent practicable. Mitigation for SAV loss would be developed in coordination with VMRC and 

may include enhancement (increase aerial coverage of SAV beds or improvement in habitat 

quality) or restoration (return SAV to unvegetated bottom, which historically supported SAV) of 

SAV beds. 

4.10.2 Wildlife 

Construction activities associated with the build alternatives, including clearing and grubbing and 

direct use of adjacent habitat, could result in the disturbance of local wildlife species such as birds, 

reptiles and amphibians, deer, foxes, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, groundhogs, and other common 

mammals associated with these areas. Mobile species, such as adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles, 

would be displaced during construction. Loss of less mobile animals may result from construction. 

These species would return and repopulate the area once construction has been completed. 

Additional loss of wildlife may occur due to mortality from collisions with trains, increased 

habitat fragmentation (discussed further in Section 4.10.1, Habitat and Natural Communities), 

impacts to aqueous habitats due to decreased water quality (discussed further in Section 4.1.3, 

Water Quality), and habitat loss through the introduction of invasive species (discussed further 

in Section 4.10.1.2, Invasive Species). As noted in Section 4.10.1, DRPT does not anticipate a 

substantial amount of wildlife crossing. 

4.10.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 

All mapped colonial waterbird colonies are located more than 1 mile from the proposed Project. 

Due to the distance of the rail corridor from known colonies, DRPT does not anticipate that any 

activities associated with the build alternatives would have any impact on colonial waterbirds. 

4.10.2.2 Migratory Birds 

The migratory birds of primary concern in the study area are migratory songbirds, commonly 

referred to as Neotropical migrants. Short-term adverse impacts from construction noise and 

disturbance may mask territorial vocalizations of birds and breeding calls, and they may 

temporarily disturb breeding pairs. Important stopover habitat for migratory songbirds includes 

forested areas with dense undergrowth that provides cover from predators. Migratory birds 

could be affected through habitat degradation and loss associated with this Project. Most of the 

lost habitat associated with this Project, aside from proposed bypasses, would be directly adjacent 

to the existing rail line and is lower quality edge habitat already impacted by local activities. 

Nearby conservation areas, such as federal, state, and private wildlife lands, are more likely to 

provide optimal habitat for these species. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-80 

The proposed Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would use larger areas of habitat, each affecting approximately 

80 acres of forested areas, and would bisect a large area of interior forested habitat (located 300 

feet or farther from the forest edge and commonly composed of mature trees). These areas 

provide important habitat to many migratory species and protect them from predators that prefer 

the forest edge. The Fredericksburg Bypass would cut through two VOF easements, a large 

forested area including wildlife corridors, and may represent important sites for FIDS, which 

need large, relatively unfragmented tracts of hardwood or mixed hardwood forest to successfully 

breed and maintain viable populations. FIDS prefer tracts in excess of 100 acres or they require 

large contiguous linear tracts of hardwood or mixed hardwood forest that are a minimum of 600 

feet wide, as many of these species prefer nest sites to be located greater than 300 feet from the 

forest edge. This diverse group includes Neotropical migrant songbirds such as tanagers, 

warblers, and vireos that breed in North America and winter in the Caribbean, Central America, 

and South America, as well as residents and short-distance migrants such as woodpeckers, some 

raptors, and owls (Jones, et. al., 2001). Songbirds using these areas may be displaced and would 

disperse to nearby areas with suitable habitat, which may create greater competition. 

4.10.2.3 Aquatic and Marine Life 

Due to the number and type of water crossings involved, direct disturbance of aquatic communities 

would be unavoidable. In-stream work and use of wetland areas would result in the elimination of 

some aqueous habitat and species that would be unable to relocate. Additional impacts to aqueous 

habitats due to decreased water quality (discussed further in Section 4.1.3, Water Quality) and 

habitat loss through the introduction of invasive species could occur (discussed further in Section 

4.10.1.2, Invasive Species). 

Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters 

Cook Lake in Cameron Run Regional Park, the only mapped trout water in the Project vicinity 

(VDGIF, 2015b), is not located near the LOD and is not expected to be affected. Anticipated 

impacts to waters containing anadromous fish are dependent on the size of the water body and 

the type of crossing required. Depending on the combination of build alternatives selected, DRPT 

estimates there would be between 8,235 and 14,420 linear feet of permanent impacts to anadromous 

fish waters. Temporary and permanent impacts are detailed in Table 4.10-4. 

Table 4.10-4: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters

Water Alternative Confirmed Species 

Anticipated Impacts 

(Linear Feet) 

Four Mile Run 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 189 

T: 692 

Occoquan River 2A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 1,161 

T: 1,275 

Neabsco Creek 2A Striped Bass P: 1,201 

T: 1,332 

Powells Creek 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 1,592 

T: 1,908 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-81 

Table 4.10-4: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters

Water Alternative Confirmed Species 

Anticipated Impacts 

(Linear Feet) 

Aquia Creek 2A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 2,085 

T: 3,641 

Claiborne Run 3A Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 227 

T: 318 

3B P: 1,231 

T: 682 

3C P: 362 

T: 507 

Rappahannock 

River 

3B Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 914 

T: 922 

3C P: 1,034 

T: 2,094 

Mattaponi River 4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 715 

T: 1,167 

North Anna 

River 

4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 252 

T: 386 

Little River 4A Yellow Perch P: 179 

T: 228 

South Anna 

River 

5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 

Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass 

P: 230 

T: 329 

James River 6B–S-Line American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 2,940 

T: 6,162 

6D P: 2,940 

T: 6,162 

6F P: 3,905 

T: 5,197 

6G P: 3,905 

T: 5,197 

Falling Creek 6A Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 242 

T: 174 

6B–A-Line P: 242 

T: 174 

6C P: 242 

T: 174 

6E P: 242 

T: 174 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-82 

4.10.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Wildlife 

DRPT will evaluate further minimization of impacts to wildlife during the final design process 

by decreasing LOD in habitat areas. This will include considering conservative use of staging 

areas and limiting access roads to reduce habitat loss. Wildlife passage can be facilitated through 

wildlife crossings. Wildlife crossings are man-made structures that allow animals to safely cross 

barriers. These crossings allow the connection or reconnection between habitats mitigating the 

impacts of habitat fragmentation, allow greater access to resources, and avoid wildlife/train 

collisions. DRPT will evaluate providing oversized culverts and extended bridges in areas where 

habitat fragmentation would occur. If pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of 

3 inches for pipes under 24 inches and a minimum of 6 inches for pipes 24 inches or greater. 

Migratory Birds 

General time-of-year (TOY) restrictions on construction activities to avoid impacts on migratory 

and resident songbirds in Virginia are from mid-March through mid-August and for migrant 

passerines and non-passerines from the beginning of May through the end of July (VDGIF, 2016). 

To the maximum extent practicable, DRPT will avoid grading and construction during the 

breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, DRPT will conduct nest 

surveys, if necessary, and will avoid activities within 100 feet of active nests, where possible. 

DRPT will not plant food sources within the right-of-way, which will make the right-of-way less 

attractive to birds decreasing the likelihood of collisions with trains. 

Aquatic and Marine Life 

DRPT will work with VDGIF, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the design process to develop specific measures for 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to aquatic wildlife. DRPT will implement 

BMPs, including use of silt curtains and limiting overflow from dredging equipment, which will 

minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of in-water activities. Erosion and 

sediment control measures will also minimize potential impacts to water quality during 

construction. 

Bottomless culverts and single-span bridges will be considered at smaller streams to maintain 

fish passage and channel morphology and to avoid instream work to the extent practicable. If 

pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of 3 inches for pipes under 24 inches and 

a minimum of 6 inches for pipes 24 inches or greater. Preconstruction sediment quality 

assessments and water quality monitoring during construction will be considered to address 

potential resuspension of contaminants and nutrients into overlying waters. 

TOY restrictions will be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on fish during early life stages. 

VDGIF typically recommends restrictions on all in-stream work within Anadromous Fish Use 

Areas and their tributaries between February 15 and June 30. Exact restrictions will vary 

depending on the species, type of work, and location and will be developed with VDGIF. 

Stormwater management measures, including detention basins, vegetative controls, and other 

measures, will be implemented to minimize water quality impacts, if necessary. These measures 

will reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus avoiding substantial further 

degradation of impaired water bodies in and downstream of the study area. With implementation 

of these BMPs, DRPT anticipates the proposed Project will not adversely affect downstream 

species. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-83 

4.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential impacts to federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species that may be present 

within the study area could occur for the build alternatives where planned improvements affect 

areas where species or their habitat may be found. 

Based on research through regulatory agency online databases, agency input regarding 

threatened and endangered species that may be present within the study area, and field surveys of 

potentially suitable habitat, DRPT determined that the build alternatives could potentially impact 

seven federally endangered and/or threatened species and eight state-listed endangered and/or 

threatened species (Table 4.10-5 and 4.10-6). Potential impacts depend on the species and range, 

including, but not limited to, elimination of the species from the area, removal or alteration of 

habitat, elimination of access to important life stage areas, disruption of breeding season, or 

disturbance resulting in a species leaving the area. The build alternatives for the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

which would bisect forested habitat, wildlife corridors, and use rural areas with far less alteration, 

would have the greatest chance of impacting wildlife, including threatened and endangered 

species. All other alternatives would be in mostly urban or already disturbed, although in some 

cases naturalized, areas adjacent to the existing tracks. 

Coordination with USFWS and NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA), as amended, for potential impacts to federally listed species would be conducted where 

required after the Draft EIS is published. Preliminary coordination with USFWS has consisted of 

obtaining the current list of federally listed threatened and endangered species that could 

potentially be found in the study area. DRPT anticipates that future coordination will cover the 

need for additional field surveys and discussion regarding the potential Project effects. 

Table 4.10-5: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the waterfowl sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted by a build alternative. 

Alternative 2A 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

Known or likely to occur within the Lower 

Aquia Creek subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014) 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum)

FE Potential habitat does not appear 

to be present, and no suitable 

habitat was identified during field 

surveys; not likely to adversely 

affect. 

Known or likely to occur only in Stafford 

County (USFWS, 2014a) in the Lower Potomac 

(02070011) watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-84 

Table 4.10-5: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

Existing populations in the Lower Rappahannock 

(02080104) watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline County 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2016) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Alternative 4A 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Species present; may affect Existing populations in the Mattaponi (02080105) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2014); Po River, 

upstream of this Project, has been listed by 

VDGIF as endangered waters for the dwarf 

wedgemussel; this species is known or likely to 

occur within the Poni River subwatershed 

(VDGIF, 2014); this species is known or likely to 

occur within the South Anna River–Cedar Creek 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014 and VDCR, 2014) 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Species potentially present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline County 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2016) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential bat habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect 

There are historic records of the potential of 

this species occurring in the Campbell CreekMattaponi River subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in 

Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a) crossed by 

this alternative area 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Species present; may affect South Anna River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the dwarf wedgemussel; 

this species is known or likely to occur within 

the South Anna River–Cedar Creek 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014 and VDCR, 2014) 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential bat habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

Bat habitat was noted during field surveys in 

Carter Park; it is generally agreed by the 

regulatory agencies that this species can be 

found throughout Virginia 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Species potentially present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout Virginia 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

FT Species unlikely to be present in 

the project area 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia, but no habitat in in the Richmond area 

would be affected 

*FE – Federal Endangered; FT – Federal Threatened; SE – State Endangered; ST – State Threatened. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-85 

Table 4.10-6: Potential for State-Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the waterfowl sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted by a build alternative. 

Alternative 2A 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

ST Species potentially present; 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

This species has been recorded in Huntly Meadows Park 

(CEDER-VDGIF); the Project is separated from Huntly 

Meadows Park by more than 1.5 miles of urban development 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Four wetlands recommended for further sensitive joint-vetch 

survey 

Small Whorled 

Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

SE Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta)

ST Species potentially present; 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

Known or likely to occur in the Cameron Run (VDGIF, 

2014b) subwatershed and the Accotink Creek-Gunston Cove 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014b and VDCR-NHD, 2014) 

Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

Green Floater

(Lasmigona subviridis)

ST Species present; may 

affect; coordination with 

VDGIF required 

The Rappahannock River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the green floater; coordination with 

VDGIF is required 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Poni River subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in 

Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a and NatureServe, 2014) and 

the Lower Rappahannock (02080104) and Mattaponi 

(02080105) watersheds (NatureServe, 2014) 

Small Whorled 

Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

SE Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys 

Alternative 4A 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Poni River and Campbell Creek-Mattaponi 

River, Reedy Creek, and Polecat Creek subwatersheds 

(VDCR, 2014) in Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a and 

NatureServe, 2014) within the Mattaponi (02080105) 

watershed and the Lower Rappahannock (02080104) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

FT Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Campbell Creek-Mattaponi River 

subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in Caroline County (USFWS, 

2014a) crossed by this alternative area 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

No species indicated 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

This species is known or likely to occur in the Falling Creek 

(VDCR, 2014 and VDGIF, 2014b) and Proctors Creek-James 

River (VDGIF, 2014b) subwatersheds in Chesterfield County 

(NatureServe, 2014) 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

ST Species present; may 

affect; coordination with 

VDGIF required 

Several active nests were recorded in 2009 within 3 miles of 

this alternative area near River Front Plaza in Richmond 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST Species unlikely to be 

present in the project 

area 

It is generally agreed by the different regulatory agencies that 

this species can be found throughout Virginia, but no habitat 

in in the Richmond area would be affected 

*ST – State Threatened. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-86 

4.10.3.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed under Tier II of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 

for “Very High Conservation Need.” The Bald eagle is no longer listed as threatened, but this 

discussion was left in this section since it is still protected under some laws. Table 4.10-7 lists bald 

eagle nests that would have their buffer zones encroached on by construction of the Build 

Alternatives (Figure 4.10-2). Disturbance of nesting bald eagles is unlikely to occur if the 

following guidelines are followed: 

 Clearing, grubbing, and construction activities within 660 feet, but outside 330 feet, can 

be restricted to outside of the breeding season (mid-December to June), even if these 

activities are occurring within railroad right-of-way 

 A buffer of at least 660 feet can be maintained between all activities and the nest (including 

active and alternate nests) 

- If a similar activity is closer than 660 feet, then a distance buffer as close to the nest as 

the existing tolerated activity may be maintained 

 A buffer of at least 0.5 mile, or 1 mile in open areas, can be maintained for blasting and 

other activities that produce extremely loud noises, or restricted to outside the breeding 

season (USFWS, 2007) 

 Construction activities in Bald Eagle Concentration Areas may also negatively affect bald 

eagles. Bald eagles congregate in these locations for feeding and sheltering (roosting) 

because of their proximity to food sources. Construction activities may prevent bald 

eagles from foraging and roosting in these locations, resulting in disturbance that may stress 

or relocate the species to less optimal habitat. Permanent alterations at these sites can 

eliminate or reduce essential feeding and sheltering habitat. Bald Eagle Concentration Areas 

are intersected near Aquia Creek, Potomac River, Quantico Creek, Powells Creek, Neabsco 

Creek, and Occoquan River. TOY restrictions are listed in Table 4.10-8. 

Nesting Bald Eagles 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-87 

Table 4.10-7: Number of Bald Eagle Nests within Buffer Zones 

Alternative Area Alternative 

2,640 feet or up to 5,280 feet 

in open areas1 660 feet2 330 feet3

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 18 8 4 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 1 – – 

6B–A-Line 1 – – 

6B–S-Line 1 – – 

6C 1 – – 

6D – – – 

6E 1 – – 

6F – – – 

6G 1 – – 

Source: CCB, 2016. 

Notes; 1. For projects that have blasting or other loud noise components. 2. Clearing, external construction, and landscaping between 330 and 

660 feet should be done outside breeding season. 3. 330 feet, or as close as existing tolerated activity of similar scope. 

None of the Build Alternatives are within bald eagle nest buffer zones in Alternative Areas 1, 3, 4, or 5. 

Table 4.10-8: Listed Time-of-Year Restrictions for Threatened and Endangered Species with 

Potential to Occur in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Species Status Recommended Time-of-Year Restrictions 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) 

FE March 15–May 31; August 15–October 15 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

FE The standard TOY restrictions are June 1–July 31 for the “pup season,” April 15–

September 15 outside of the 5.5-mile-radius buffer for hibernacula, and April 1–

November 15 within a hibernaculum buffer 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT Compliance with the USFWS ESA 4(d) rule. VDGIF’s standard recommendations are 

to prohibit tree removal within 150 feet of a documented maternity roost from June 

1–July 31 and to prohibit tree removal within 0.25 mile of a documented hibernaculum 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

ST Nest Sites: December 15–July 15; Concentration Areas and Roost Sites: Summer: May 

15–August 31; Winter: December 15–March 15 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) 

ST None listed 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) 

ST April 15–June 15 (release of glochidia); August 15–September 30 (spawning) 

Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus) 

ST February 15–July 15 for activities within 600 feet of nest 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) 

ST For instream work: October 1–March 31; For work within 900 feet of stream (zone of 

concern): April 1–September 30. Maintain undisturbed naturally vegetated buffer of at 

least 300 feet (preferably larger) on stream 

Source: VDGIF, 2016. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-88 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-89 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-90 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-91 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-92 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternative 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-93 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-94 

Figure 4.10-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-95 

4.10.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

DRPT will coordinate with USFWS, EPA, VDCR, VDGIF, and other regulatory agencies 

regarding habitat and wildlife—rare, threatened, and endangered species, bald eagles, migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and SAV in particular—to ensure impacts are avoided to the extent 

practicable through the final design process and appropriate mitigation is developed where 

impacts are unavoidable. DRPT will reduce the likelihood of adverse effects through use of these 

measures: 

 Minimizing the LOD through design 

 Following appropriate BMPs for sediment and erosion control during construction 

 Using infiltration stormwater management 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing 

 Prompt reseeding of disturbed areas with native vegetation 

 TOY restrictions (Table 4.10-8) 

Bald Eagle 

According to the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to minimize disturbance, 

activities should be conducted outside of the breeding season, if possible, and kept as far away from 

nests as possible. Loud and disruptive activities should be limited to periods when eagles are not 

nesting, and activity between the nest and nearest foraging area should be avoided. General 

guidance for Category A activities, such as constructing roads and other linear facilities, and 

Category H, such as blasting and other loud, intermittent noises, is outlined in Table 4.10-9 (USFWS, 

2007). It may be necessary to also obtain a permit issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act (16 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended, for activities located in Bald Eagle 

Concentration Areas. This would be determined during the design process. Specific avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation would be developed in coordination with USFWS and VDGIF and 

may require development of an eagle conservation plan. 

Table 4.10-9: Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

If there is no similar activity 

within 1 mile of the nest 

If there is similar activity closer 

than 1 mile from the nest 

Category A activities, 

such as constructing 

roads and other linear 

facilities 

If the activity 

will be visible 

from the nest 

660 feet. Landscape buffers are 

recommended. 

660 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Landscape buffers are recommended. 

If the activity 

will not be 

visible from the 

nest 

330 feet. Clearing, external 

construction, and landscaping 

between 330 and 660 feet should 

be done outside breeding season. 

330 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Clearing, external construction, and 

landscaping within 660 feet should be 

done outside breeding season. 

Category H, such as 

blasting and other loud, 

intermittent noises 

Avoid blasting and other activities that produce extremely loud noises within 0.5 mile of active 

nests (or within 1 mile in open areas), unless greater tolerance to the activity (or similar activity) 

has been demonstrated by the eagles in the nesting area. 

Source: USFWS, 2007. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4-96

4.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

4.11.1 Economic Effects 

The Build Alternatives would have direct effects on economic activity through business/ 

commercial relocations, as shown in Table 4.11-1. 

Table 4.11-1: Commercial Relocations by Build Alternative 

Alternative 

Area Alternative 

Stafford Count

y

Hanover Count

y

Henrico Count

y

City of Richmond 

 Total 

O GC GC GC GC S/W M/A O 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3B – – – – – – – – 1

3C – – – – – – – – 1

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – 1 – – – – – 1

5A–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

5B – – 1 – – – – – 1

5B–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

5C – – 1 – – – – – 1

5C–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

5D–Ashcake – – 1 – – – – – 1

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A – – – 5 1 0 4 0 10

6B–A-Line – – – 5 2 4 7 0 18

6B–S-Line – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

6C – – – 5 1 1 5 3 15

6D – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

6E – – – 5 1 0 4 0 10

6F – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

6G – – – 5 0 2 2 1 10

This table includes only the Build Alternatives with commercial relocations. 

O=Other; GC=General Commercial; S/W=Storage/Warehousing; M/A=Manufacturing/Auto Repair 

The nonresidential relocations were broken down into types of businesses with similar relocation/ 

structural needs: general commercial, storage and warehousing, manufacturing, and other. The 

category “Other” includes an apartment building as well as a variety of government properties (city, 

county, or university-owned). The government properties include a Department of Motor Vehicles, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-97 

Commonwealth of Virginia Workers’ Compensation Department, and City of Richmond Department 

of Public Works properties. The general commercial businesses within the Build Alternatives include 

technical services and entertainment services. The warehousing and storage facilities include food 

and container storage. The manufacturing facilities include auto service and repair, and electrical 

manufacturing and repair. In Alternative Area 5, the Town of Ashland could be adversely affected 

economically by Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake. There are 

few business relocations, due to these Build Alternatives, but the short-term effects of construction 

within town, particularly central downtown along Railroad Avenue and Center Street, could cause 

local businesses to suffer loss of commerce and, potentially, closure. In addition to the short-term 

effects of construction, Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake could close South Center 

Street between England Street and Maiden Street. Access to the businesses and residences would still 

be provided from other public rights-of-way. However, the long-term effects of the closure and 

change in access could also cause loss of commerce and potential closure of businesses. This in turn 

could cause negative effects on the economic vitality of downtown Ashland. 

Based on the number of nonresidential relocations and the types of businesses potentially being 

relocated, adequate replacement properties would be available for relocation purposes. The 

acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displaced persons and businesses would be 

conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and 24 VAC 30 - 41. DRPT assures that relocation resources 

would be available to all displaced businesses and nonprofit entities without discrimination. 

4.11.2 Neighborhood and Community Effects 

4.11.2.1 Community Effects 

DRPT assessed impacts to communities based on potential right-of-way acquisition of residences 

and community facilities, partial acquisitions of parcels, potential changes in community 

cohesion, changes in access to community facilities, and changes in access for emergency services. 

More-detailed information on right-of-way acquisition and relocation can be found in Section 

4.12, Title VI and Environmental Justice. Effects based on changes to the transportation network 

are summarized in the next section, discussed in the Transportation Section (Section 4.15), and 

discussed in more detail in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). 

The No Build Alternative would not require any right-of-way acquisition or result in any 

neighborhood and community effects. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to communities from 

relocations and right-of-way acquisition. There are no relocations, and none of the Build 

Alternatives require more than 1.5 acres of right-of-way. There are no adverse effects to 

community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), Build Alternative 2A would require two residential 

relocations in part of the Belmont Bay community along Railroad Avenue (Prince William 

County). Access to this community is currently through the condominiums at Belmont Bay and 

would not change under the Build Alternative 2A. DRPT has determined that there would be no 

adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

The community of Brooke (Stafford County) would be affected by Build Alternative 2A. Partial 

acquisition of residential property would occur due to an additional roadway connection north 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-98 

of and parallel to the CSXT line to continue to provide access to the street network for residents 

via Brooke Road and Andrew Chapel Road. DRPT has determined that access to and from the 

area for emergency services, school transportation, and religious facilities on Andrew Chapel 

Road would not be adversely affected by Build Alternative 2A. Additional effects to this 

community include partial acquisition of residential property around the Eskimo Hill Road 

crossing of the CSXT line. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B that pass through town would 

not require residential relocations, and only partial acquisition of primarily residential parcels would 

be required in the communities in this area. DRPT has determined that the Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) would adversely affect the community of Little Falls (Stafford County). The 

adverse effects would be due to partial acquisition of residential parcels on Little Falls Road and 

Forest Lane Road, as well as an increase in the frequency of trains along the existing Dahlgren Spur. 

There are currently very few train movements on this line (one per day). Additional freight trains 

would use the bypass as part of future train operations. Existing crossings of these roads would be 

improved with median treatments to provide additional safety measures for residents. 

The communities that would be affected by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

include the residential development along Sandy Lane Drive, Swan Lane, Thornton Rolling Road, 

and Patriot Lane and the community of Summit (Spotsylvania County). As rural communities, 

they may not be as well defined as urban or suburban communities, but they would still be 

adversely affected by residential relocations. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) 

would bisect the residential development along Thornton Rolling Road and Patriot Lane. 

Community cohesion could be adversely affected by this alternative. None of these communities 

are currently on a rail line, and the introduction of a rail line and freight rail traffic would 

undoubtedly result in an adverse effect on this currently rural area. DRPT does not, however, 

anticipate adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency 

services since roadway crossings along the new alignment bypass would be grade-separated. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), to the east and south of Carmel Church and Patersons 

Corner, access to the residential development along Railroad Lane (Caroline County) would not 

be affected by Build Alternative 4A since only one low-volume roadway (Colemans Mill Road) 

would be closed. DRPT has determined that there would be no adverse effects to community 

facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), within the Town of Ashland, the proximity of the community to 

the existing CSXT rail line makes adverse effects to the community difficult to avoid. The Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake) would have similar effects on the community. There would be no residential 

relocations, one commercial relocation, and partial acquisitions of parcels. The communities 

affected include downtown Ashland, southern Ashland, Gwathmey, and Elmont. 

The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would result in 20 residential 

relocations, 1 community facility relocation (Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle and camp), 2 

commercial relocations, and partial acquisition of more than 50 parcels. The communities affected 

include Blunts Bridge Road, Independence Road, Ashcake Road and Wildwood Boulevard, and 

Elmont. As noted above, one community facility would be adversely affected, but DRPT does not 

expect any other adverse effects to community facilities, access to community facilities, or access 

for emergency services since roadway crossings along the new alignment bypass would be gradeseparated. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-99 

Within Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to communities from residential relocations 

would occur in Laurel Park in Henrico County and in McGuire in the City of Richmond. The 

Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) would affect both communities through these residential relocations and 

the relocation of a church, the Rock Christian Center. The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line 

between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would 

only affect the community of Laurel Park. One community facility would be adversely affected, 

but no other adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for 

emergency services are expected. 

More-detailed information on community effects can be found in the Community Impact 

Assessment Technical Report (Appendix Q). 

4.11.2.2 Effects from Changes to the Transportation Network 

Effects on communities from changes to the transportation network have been assessed based on 

physical changes to the roadway network and increased intercity passenger rail service in the 

DC2RVA corridor. The methodology used to determine the proposed crossing improvements at 

each at-grade crossing is provided in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). Types of 

crossing treatments were identified at each at-grade highway-rail crossing to improve safety and 

road and rail traffic flow (see Section 4.15.2.1). Most existing public at-grade crossings are 

proposed to remain at-grade with the addition of four-quadrant gates or gates with center median 

treatment; there are fewer locations with proposed grade separations and closures. New grade 

separations would reduce vehicular delay at those locations. DRPT evaluated all crossing 

improvement effects on connectivity and accessibility (see Section 4.15.2.2) and completed a 

crossing closure diversion analysis (see Section 4.15.2.3) to determine the effects the proposed 

roadway closures would have on traffic operations. Crossings proposed to be closed are typically 

lower volume roadways with nearby alternate new or existing access across the rail corridor, or 

were determined due to safety concerns and/or the requirements of the physical or operational 

infrastructure of the Project. All new crossings of roads as part of the Build Alternatives would be 

grade-separated, except for two new at-grade roadway crossings that are proposed as part of the 

station improvement designs for Build Alternative 6C. Additionally, some existing public atgrade crossings would be grade-separated which would reduce vehicular delay at those 

locations. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to the local transportation 

network as a result of construction of the proposed Project because there are no at-grade crossings 

in this alternative area. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), Build Alternative 2A would not change access to the 

communities of Harbor View and Colchester (Fairfax County), via Furnace Road, and would 

therefore not adversely affect these communities. The community of Brooke (Stafford County) 

would be affected by Build Alternative 2A. Mount Hope Church Road would be closed at the 

CSXT rail line, and an additional roadway connection would be added north of and parallel to 

the CSXT line to provide access to the street network for residents via Brooke Road and Andrew 

Chapel Road. More detail appears in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). DRPT has 

determined that access to and from the area for emergency services, school transportation, and 

the religious facilities in Brooke would not be adversely affected by Build Alternative 2A. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-100 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), DRPT expects that the Project will result in direct effects 

to the transportation network. The improved station at Fredericksburg would provide better 

access to the transportation network with a larger station building, additional parking, and 

improved handicapped parking, which are all positive effects. The end of Patriot Lane 

(Spotsylvania County) would also be acquired as part of right-of-way acquisition for the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). The roadway would terminate at the new wye 

junction required for joining the bypass to the main line. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the Colemans Mill Road (Caroline County) crossing of 

the CSXT rail line would be closed under Build Alternative 4A. DRPT does not expect adverse 

effects to access for emergency response, school transportation, or the roadway network as a 

result of this road closure. The north side of Colemans Mill Road would continue to be accessed 

by Rogers Clark Boulevard. The south side would maintain access through Dry Bridge Road to 

Colemans Mill Road. Access to the eastern section of Railroad Lane (Caroline County) would 

remain in place under Build Alternative 4A. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), closure of College Avenue/Henry Clay Street would occur under 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C if the existing platforms at the Ashland Station were extended. 

DRPT expects that there would be no adverse effects to access to community facilities or for 

emergency response, school transportation, or access to the roadway network as a result of this 

road closure. West Vaughan Road would provide an alternative for emergency medical services 

and would be improved with a grade separation under the Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake). This would improve 

safety and emergency response time. The Volunteer Rescue Squad on Duncan Street would still 

have access to both sides of the rail line, as would the Ashland Police Department on England Street. 

Closure of Independence Road at West Patrick Henry Road would occur under the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). An alternate alignment that uses existing West Patrick 

Henry Road and Blanton Road would be less than 1 mile. 

DRPT does, however, expect adverse effects due to road closure in Ashland. Closure of the 

northbound portion of South Railroad Avenue between England Street and Maiden Lane, due to 

the addition of a third track, under Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, would 

adversely affect the community of Ashland and, in particular, the community cohesion of the area 

of town south of England Street. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to the transportation network are expected as a 

result of construction of the Build Alternatives. The station improvements at Staples Mill would 

provide expanded mobility and better access to the transportation network with an expanded 

building, additional parking, and a designated pick-up and drop-off area, which would all be 

positive effects of the Project. Some at-grade roadway crossings would also be closed under the 

Build Alternatives, which are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

The Boulevard single-station alternative (Build Alternative 6B–S-Line) includes the closure of the 

Ownby Lane/Hermitage Road intersection in the Diamond/Newtowne West area to 

accommodate the Hermitage Road grade separation. The area is generally in commercial and 

industrial uses. Access to Ownby Lane would still be available via Overbrook Road and Botetourt 

Street. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of Bassett Avenue in Westover . Access to the east 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-101 

side of this crossing would still be available via Westover Hills Boulevard. Access to the west side of 

the crossing would still be available through Jahnke Road, which would be improved with fourquadrant gates to increase safety at the crossing. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of the Terminal Avenue at-grade crossing in Hickory 

Hill. Access on the eastern side of Terminal Avenue is available via Belt Boulevard. Access on the 

western side of Terminal Avenue is available via Hopkins Road. A signal study of the intersection of 

Terminal Avenue and Hopkins Road would also occur under these alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) include the closure of Thurston Road in the community of Chimney 

Corner. Access to the western side of Thurston Road would still be available via Hopkins Road. 

Access to the eastern side of Thurston Road would still be available via Dorsey Road. Access to 

and from the community for emergency services and school transportation would not be 

adversely affected by the alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of St James Street and North Second 

Street/Valley Road between the communities of Gilpin and Southern Barton Heights. Based on 

the proximity to and connections to the existing roadway network via North First Street and 

North Fifth Street, access to and from the communities for emergency services and school 

transportation would not be adversely affected by the alternatives. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of the at-grade crossing at Dale 

Avenue/Trenton Avenue in the community of Ampthill Heights. It primarily provides access to 

the DuPont plant, and alternate access is available. 

The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) include the closure of Brinkley Road in Chimney Corner. 

Access to Brinkley Road would still be available via Dorsey Road and Thurston Road via Hopkins 

Road. 

Old Lane in the community of Centralia would be closed under all Build Alternatives. Access to 

and from the community for school transportation would not be adversely affected by the 

alternatives. An increase in response time for emergency services could occur if the response were 

from Fire Station 17 in Centralia, but it would be less than a 5-minute increase. If the response 

were from Fire Station 1, there would be no difference in response time. 

4.11.3 Community Facilities and Services 

The No Build Alternative would have no direct effects on community facilities. 

In Alternative Areas 1 through 4, the Build Alternatives would have no direct effects on community 

facilities. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), one community facility, the Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle 

camp in Hanover County, would be relocated due to Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake. The 

facility would be relocated in a manner that would enable access to remain similar to the existing 

access. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-102 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, and 5B–Ashcake would require a minor temporary 

easement of two parcels from the Gwathmey Baptist Church. The temporary easement would not 

affect activities at the church, and DRPT does not expect the temporary easement to have adverse 

effects to the church. 

All Build Alternative would require a temporary easement from Patrick Henry Branch of the 

YMCA in Ashland due to alignment changes along Ashcake Road. DRPT does not expect the 

temporary easement to have adverse effects to the facility. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard 

and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) would require the relocation of the 

Rock Christian Center as a part of the grade separation of the intersection of Broad Rock 

Boulevard and the CSXT rail line. The facility would be relocated in a manner that would enable 

access to remain similar to the existing access. In addition, partial acquisition of the parcel 

containing Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center would also occur in this 

location. The partial acquisition of this parcel is minor in nature (0.10 acre) and would not affect 

the functioning of the center. 

4.11.4 Right-of-Way and Relocations 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would take place in accordance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4601). Data and information were collected on social demographics and potential 

relocations, including individual tax parcel data, within the Build Alternatives. This information 

was compiled from city/county tax parcel databases, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

mapping, aerial photos, the United States Census website, GIS databases, conceptual 

drawings/engineering, and field inspections. All field inspections were conducted from within 

public right-of-way. Given that potential property effects are only being estimated at this time, 

local citizens/property owners were not contacted for any data to determine family size, 

household size, property value, owner/renter status, or any other demographic information. 

Similarly, individual businesses potentially subject to relocation were not contacted to determine 

their number of employees. These data were estimated using the sources noted above. 

Potential relocations were determined based on overlaying the estimated LOD of the Build 

Alternatives on county/city tax parcel digital data through the use of GIS. The individual parcel 

data were then compiled, and the area that may be acquired with implementation of a Build 

Alternative was computed. Potential relocations were identified as residential 

(individuals/families), community facilities, and commercial. The relocations can be classified as 

total acquisitions or partial acquisitions: 

 Total Acquisition: This occurs when the primary improvement (house, business, 

nonprofit, or farm) is within the right-of-way or access to the parcel is removed and cannot 

be restored. The owner is compensated for the fair market value of the entire parcel and 

provided relocation assistance. 

 Partial Acquisition: This occurs when a portion of a parcel is acquired and that portion 

does not include a primary improvement. The owner is compensated for the fair market 

value of the portion of their parcel and minor improvements that would be acquired. 

This document represents a preliminary examination of the potential relocations; therefore, direct 

contact with individual residents, landowners, and business owners did not occur. Coordination 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-103 

with affected property owners will begin with the Public Hearing and continue into the final 

design process. Social and economic characteristics of the displaced population are based on 

United States Census data from the 2009 - 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) and from 

the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Residential relocations by Build Alternative are detailed in Table 4.11-2. The No Build Alternative 

requires no residential relocations. Specific communities within which these relocations occur 

were discussed in Section 4.11.2.1. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington) Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would have no residential 

relocations. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the single Build Alternative 2A would have two 

residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would 

have 19 residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the single Build Alternative 4A would have no 

residential relocations. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

would have 21 residential relocations. These alternatives would relocate one community facility, 

the Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle camp in Hanover County. This facility would be relocated 

due to severing the parcel and lack of access to the remaining part of the parcel. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), residential relocations would occur under all Build 

Alternatives. The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E would have 12 relocations. Build Alternative 6C, which also 

uses the A-Line, has 12 single-family residence relocations and an apartment building relocation 

with 100 units. The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have seven relocations. 

Right-of-way acquisitions may be further minimized as design progresses. Easements may be 

used in lieu of acquiring new right-of-way for some properties. Temporary easements may also 

be needed on adjacent property to gain access to the existing rail line and right-of-way during 

construction activities and for construction staging. If necessary, these temporary easements 

could be obtained for a short duration, and the land would be returned to its original condition 

before easement lease termination. 

DRPT has the ability and, if necessary, is willing to provide housing of last resort, including the 

purchase of land or dwellings; repair of existing dwellings to meet decent, safe, and sanitary 

conditions; relocation or remodeling of dwellings purchased by DRPT; or construction of new 

dwellings. DRPT assures that all displaced families and individuals would be relocated to 

suitable replacement housing, and that all replacement housing would be fair housing available 

to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and would be within 

the financial means of the displacees. Each person would be given enough time to negotiate for 

and obtain possession of replacement housing. No residential occupants would be required to 

move from property needed for the Build Alternatives until comparable decent, safe, and sanitary 

replacement dwellings have been made available to them.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-104 

Table 4.11-2: Residential Relocations by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative 

City/County 

Arlington County City of Alexandria Fairfax Count

y

Prince William Count

y

Stafford County City of Fredericksburg Spotsylvania Count

y

Caroline County Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond Chesterfield Count

y

Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A 0 – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

1B 0 – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

1C 0 – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long Bridge 

to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A – 0 0 2 0 – – – – – – – 2 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – 0 

3B – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – 0 

3C – – – – — — 18 0 – – – – 19 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia (Crossroads 

to Doswell) 

4A – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5A–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5B – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5B–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

5C – – – – – – – – – – – – 21 

5C–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 21 

5D–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I295 to Centralia) 6A – – – – – – – – – 7 5 0 12 

6B–A-Line – – – – – – – – – 7 5 0 12 

6B–S-Line – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 

6C – – – – – – – – – 7 105 0 112 

6D – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 

6E – – – – – – – – – 7 5 0 12 

6F – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 

6G – – – – – – – – – 7 0 0 7 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-105 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees would be in accordance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 

Assurance is given that relocation resources would be available to all residential, business, farm, 

and nonprofit displacees without discrimination. 

4.11.5 Land Use Planning 

4.11.5.1 Changes in Land Use 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no land use 

conversion and has no direct impacts to land use. 

The Build Alternatives require different amounts of right-of-way acquisition (Table 4.11-3). The 

transition of these land uses to transportation use is a direct effect, but it is an extension of the 

existing adjacent transportation land use and is not out of character with the area. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), the only land use in transition to a transportation use is currently 

vacant. The transition of this land to a transportation use would not be incompatible with the 

current use. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the greatest amount of land use transition to a 

transportation use is from residential uses. The transition of residential use to a transportation 

use would be incompatible; however, it is an extension of the existing adjacent transportation 

land use and is not out of character with the area. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B pass through town and 

involve transition from commercial/office and residential uses to a transportation land use. 

This conversion is not incompatible with the current land use. The Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) bypasses the City of Fredericksburg to the east. It begins in Stafford 

County and is along the Dahlgren Spur, an existing rail line that is surrounded by commercial 

land uses at the junction with the main rail line. At Ferry Farm, the land use along Build 

Alternative 3C transitions to residential uses, and then rural residential and rural uses, with 

some commercial uses near the former Renaissance Faire. Build Alternative 3C turns south and 

crosses the Rappahannock River at the Spotsylvania County/Caroline County line. The land 

use in both counties along this alternative is predominantly agricultural, forested, and rural 

residential. Stafford County comprehensive planning is focusing growth within the urban 

service areas and does not recommend “increasing land use intensity” in other areas (Stafford 

County, 2014). Build Alternative 3C is not in one of the urban service areas. The Caroline 

County comprehensive plan states that agricultural and forested uses are “the primary land 

uses to be protected” (Caroline County, 2010). The Spotsylvania County comprehensive plan 

fosters “the preservation of agricultural and forestal land” and states that “the primary goal of 

the Future Land Use Element in the rural portion of the County is the preservation of farms, 

forestland, and open space” (Spotsylvania County, 2013). Based on the current land use 

planning within these counties, conversion of the existing land uses along Build Alternative 3C 

to a transportation land use is not compatible with the adjacent land uses. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to 

transportation use is currently in agricultural use. The transition of this land to a transportation 

use would be incompatible with the current use. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-106 

Table 4.11-3: Land Use Acreage within Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Agricultural Commercial/Office Industrial Institutional Transportation Preserved Open Space Residential Vacant 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – 0 

1B – – – – – – – 1.5 

1C – – – – – – – 0.4 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 4.3 1.9 0.63 1.96 – 10.2 12.1 0.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 0.2 0.3 – 1.9 – 0.05 0.4 – 

3B 0.2 10.7 – 2.0 – 3.4 12.6 – 

3C 66.4 22.0 – 1.9 – 5.6 75.2 – 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0.9 0.1 – 0.1 0.3 – 0.1 – 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 4.2 0.5 2.7 0.5 11.2 – 3.6 – 

5A–Ashcake 4.2 – 3.8 – 9.7 – 3.6 – 

5B 4.2 0.5 2.7 2.2 15.2 – 5.5 – 

5B–Ashcake 4.2 0.1 3.8 1.9 15.3 – 5.5 – 

5C 150.8 0.5 6.5 0.5 37.3 – 0.6 – 

5C–Ashcake 150.8 – 7.6 – 35.8 – 0.5 – 

5D–Ashcake 4.2 0.4 3.9 1.4 21.1 – 6.3 – 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – 8.5 17.1 0.2 – 0.2 19.5 6.8 

6B–A-Line – 16.0 25.7 0.2 – 0.2 19.5 7.6 

6B–S-Line – 8.7 22.5 0.2 – 0.01 4.8 12.7 

6C – 38.6 18.4 7.1 – 0.4 21.3 7.3 

6D – 9.5 17.7 0.2 – 0.01 4.6 13.0 

6E – 9.2 19.9 0.2 – 0.4 19.5 9.4 

6F – 12.4 23.1 0.2 – 0.01 4.6 14.1 

6G – 11.8 22.2 0.2 – 0.01 4.6 13.6 

Source: City and County Land Use GIS databases. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to a transportation 

use for Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake is from land already 

in transportation use, such as the additional right-of-way required along Railroad Avenue. The 

transition of this land to a transportation use would not be incompatible with the current use. The 

Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) to the west of the Town of Ashland lies 

completely within Hanover County. The Ashland Bypass alternatives begin north of town and turn 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-107 

southwest and then southeast to return to the main rail line south of Gwathmey. The land use along 

the bypass alternatives is currently in agricultural use. The Hanover County comprehensive plan 

states that in the existing agricultural land use category, such as along the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), “appropriate uses would be farming, forestry, Agricultural 

Forestal Districts, public or semi-public uses that serve the community,” or rural residential uses. 

Based on the current land use planning within the county, conversion of existing land uses along 

the Ashland Bypass to a transportation land use is not compatible with the adjacent land uses. An 

existing Agricultural/Forestal District, the Stanley District, is also within Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake and is adversely affected by those alternatives (see Section 4.3, Agricultural Lands). 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to transportation 

use for most of the Build Alternatives is currently in commercial and industrial use. The transition 

of this land to a transportation use would not be incompatible with the current use. The singlestation Broad Street alternative (Build Alternative 6C) involves transition of almost 40 acres of 

commercial/office land use to a transportation use. This is primarily near the historic Broad Street 

Station. 

4.11.5.2 Compatibility with Future Land Use 

Many of the local jurisdictions have directly addressed the importance of rail service, and in some 

cases this particular Project, to local and regional mobility in their respective comprehensive 

planning processes. In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), future land use adjacent to the Build 

Alternatives is expected to remain in a similar use to current uses. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), in Prince William County, future land use is projected 

to intensify within the Development Area (where development has already occurred) and remain 

similar to existing land uses within the Rural Area. The single Build Alternative 2A is compatible 

with these land uses. Within Stafford County, future land use is expected to stay similar to 

existing land use, with development intensifying in the Urban Service Areas. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), Build Alternatives 3A and 3B, which pass through 

Fredericksburg, are compatible with future land uses. In the City of Fredericksburg, future land 

use is expected to remain similar to existing land use, due to the city’s developed nature. Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B are compatible with these land uses. In Spotsylvania and Caroline 

counties, future land use within Build Alternatives 3A and 3B is expected to remain similar to the 

existing rural residential and agricultural/forested uses. In both counties, I-95 and the CSXT rail 

line are acknowledged as important transportation corridors. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build 

Alternative 3C) is also compatible with future land uses for those sections along existing rail. The 

7.1-mile new alignment portion of this bypass alternative is inconsistent with the future rural 

land use planned for that area. However, DRPT does not expect Build Alternative 3C to affect 

future land use outside of the Project right-of-way., 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), future land use in Caroline County is discussed in 

Alternative Area 3. In Hanover County, future land use is projected to remain similar to existing 

land uses, while providing “orderly growth” (Hanover County, 2012). 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Build Alternatives, other than the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternative 5C and Build Alternative C–Ashcake), are compatible with future land uses. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), existing land uses surrounding the Build Alternatives are 

expected to remain similar. The Build Alternatives are compatible with these uses. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-108 

4.11.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal Transportation Planning 

Many of the intercity passenger stations along the DC2RVA corridor have direct connections to 

local and regional transit. Particularly, all intercity passenger rail stations in Northern Virginia 

share service with VRE. Other stations in Northern Virginia have convenient or direct connection 

to the WMATA, including Franconia-Springfield, Alexandria, Crystal City, L’Enfant Plaza and 

Washington Union Station. In Richmond, Main Street Station has multiple local and regional bus 

services and the planned Broad Street bus rapid transit system. These multimodal connections 

can help offset vehicular traffic at these stations. 

Many of the jurisdictions have recognized the importance of rail and multimodal transportation 

options within their transportation networks to residents, local businesses, regional connections, 

and economic vitality. In several of the jurisdictions, improved passenger rail and planning for it 

is specifically mentioned (Fairfax County, Stafford County, the City of Fredericksburg, Caroline 

County, the Town of Ashland, the City of Richmond, and Chesterfield County). Within the 

counties that have existing rail stations, focusing new development, particularly transit-oriented, 

in these areas is a priority. 

Nevertheless, two entities, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 

and the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, have expressed opposition to the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

respectively. Because these alternatives are not supported by specific government-entity 

resolutions, they are not compatible with planning in these areas. 

4.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The environmental justice analysis is based on whether the percentage of minority or low-income 

populations within a census tract impacted by an alternative is greater than the percentage of 

minority or low-income populations within that census tract’s county. For example, Fairfax 

County has a minority population of 46.11 percent. If the percentage of minority population in a 

census tract in Fairfax County is higher than 46.11 percent, the tract has the potential to contain 

an environmental justice population. Instead of a regional population across the entire corridor, 

this method provides a more accurate representation of potential environmental justice 

populations in diverse areas such as the DC2RVA corridor. Data and information from other 

sources, such as free and reduced school lunch programs and the public involvement process, 

have also been used to refine the identification of potential environmental justice communities 

not identified by United States Census data. The number of relocations, changes in community 

cohesion, relocations of community facilities, changes of access to these facilities, changes in 

response times for emergency services, and noise and vibration effects are all examined to assess 

effects. The trigger for an environmental justice effect is defined as “disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects” (EO 12898). These effects are then compared to 

impacts in those census tracts that do not meet the thresholds for environmental justice 

populations. 

The U.S. DOT definition of Adverse Effects is “the totality of significant individual or cumulative 

human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which 

may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and 

water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural 

resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-109 

cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of 

public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of 

persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, 

exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from 

the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, 

benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations is an Adverse Effect that: 

1. “is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 

2. will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be 

suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]). 

4.12.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts 

The No Build Alternative requires no right-of-way acquisition; therefore, it requires no 

relocations and has no direct adverse impacts to Title VI or environmental justice populations. 

Under the No Build Alternative, beneficial impacts also would not be realized. Congestion and 

lack of mobility would continue to affect individuals and communities. These problems also 

would continue to impact businesses and economic activity along the DC2RVA corridor, which 

would, in turn, result in additional impacts to individuals and communities. 

Under all Build Alternatives, more-frequent and more-reliable intercity passenger rail service in 

the DC2RVA corridor would provide better access and mobility to all communities and 

populations, including environmental justice populations. Access to a wider geographic area for 

educational, medical, and employment opportunities would be improved as well. 

4.12.2 Community-Level Impacts 

United States Census information and preliminary relocation data was supplemented with 

information from public involvement activities for this Project and from federal education 

statistical information, and regional and local agency planning information on communities. 

4.12.2.1 Relocations and Displacements 

Seven of the Build Alternatives that significantly alter the natural or railroad operating 

environments on the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), or CSXT A-Line in the City of Richmond (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) have the potential to impact six census tracts with low-income and 

minority populations, out of a total of 10 census tracts with residential relocations (Table 4.12-1 

and Figure 4.12-1). Implementation of a Build Alternative would impact communities with 

environmental justice populations by requiring the acquisition of right-of-way and the 

displacement of residences. DRPT considers displacements to be adverse effects. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) has the 

potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential environmental justice 

populations. All 19 residential relocations would occur in census tracts that have low-income 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-110 

populations, and 18 would occur in a census tract with low-income and minority populations. In the 

latter tract, in Spotsylvania County, the elementary school that students in the area are zoned for, Cedar 

Forest, is also a Title 1 school based on the high percentage of students that receive free and 

reduced-price lunches. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) 

does not have the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential 

environmental justice populations. Of the 21 residential relocations, only five would occur in a 

census tract that has high low-income and minority populations. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), three of the four Build Alternatives that use the A-Line 

between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E) would have five 

residential relocations that occur in census tracts with high minority populations (Table 4.12-1). 

However, this is not disproportionate since seven potential residential relocations would also 

occur with these alternatives in census tracts with lower proportions of the population that are 

low-income or minority. The fourth Build Alternative that uses the A-Line (Build Alternative 6C) 

would have 112 relocations, 105 of which would be in census tracts with high minority or lowincome populations. DRPT has, therefore, determined that Build Alternative 6C has the potential 

for disproportionately high and adverse effects on potential environmental justice populations. 

The Build Alternative 6C relocations include a 100-unit apartment building. 

The potential impacts to environmental justice populations could be avoided and/or minimized 

by using a Build Alternative that does not have relocations occurring in a census tract with high 

percentages of low-income and minority populations. 

4.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

The Build Alternatives were also analyzed to determine any disproportionate and adverse noise 

and vibration effects to environmental justice populations. The potential noise receptors that were 

assessed for this analysis were residential receptors and other places for sleeping (Category 2) 

and were those receptors with moderate and severe impacts. A full discussion of noise impacts 

appears in Section 4.7, Noise and Vibration. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), there are no affected noise receptors. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), there are more than 700 noise receptors affected by the 

single Build Alternative 2A. Fifty-five (55) percent of these noise receptors occur in census tracts 

with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations in the communities of 

Springfield Forest, Lorton, Colchester, Marumsco Acres, Marumsco Woods, and Leeland. This 

Build Alternative would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential 

environmental justice populations in these communities. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), there are less than 100 noise receptors affected by Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B; however, 88 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion 

of minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of Mayfield, Hazel Hill, 

Patriot Lane, Summit, and Claiborne Crossing. This would be a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in these communities. There are 

almost 4,000 noise receptors affected by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), 

primarily due to the addition of freight trains along the new bypass. Forty-five (45) percent of 

these noise receptors occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income 

populations. The affected receptors occur throughout the entire bypass, not just clustered in one 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-111 

community. This alternative would not have a disproportionate effect on environmental justice 

populations. Mitigation for these effects could include noise barriers for affected receptors. 

Additional information regarding noise mitigation is provided in Section 4.7.1.5, Noise 

Mitigation Measures; however, detailed recommendations for noise mitigation will be developed 

during the final design process. 

Table 4.12-1: Residential Relocations by Environmental Justice Census Tracts 

Alternative Area Alternative 

City/County 

Prince William Count

y

Stafford County Spotsylvania Count

y

Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond 

Total Tract 9001 Tract 105.04 Tract 202.05 Tract 3205 Tract 3204 Tract 2005.03 Tract 2009.06 Tract 402 Tract 706.02 Tract 710.02 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 2 – – – – – – – – – 2 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3C – 1 18 – – – – – – – 19 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5C – – – 16 5 – – – – – 21 

5C–Ashcake – – – 16 5 – – – – – 21 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – – – – 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6B–A-Line – – – – – 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6B–S-Line – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6C – – – – – 3 4 100* 4 1 112 

6D – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6E – – – – – 3 4 0 4 1 12 

6F – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

6G – – – – – 3 4 0 0 0 7 

% Minorities in City/County 52 33 28 15 44 61 – 

% Minorities in Census Tract 42 9 36 7 17 20 25 50 84 83 – 

% Low-Income in City/County 6 5 8 5 11 26 – 

% Low-Income in Census Tract 5 10 9 2 10 10 6 46 14 21 – 

 Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. *This is an apartment building with 100 units. 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, have no residential relocations; therefore, they 

do not appear in this table. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-112 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-113 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-114 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-115 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-116 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-117 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-118 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-119 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-120 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternative 4A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-121 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 4A, 5A, 

5A–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-122 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A, 

5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-123 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A, 

5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake, 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-124 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-125 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-126 

Figure 4.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tract Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 6G 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-127

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), there are less than 100 noise receptors affected by the 

single Build Alternative 4A. Seventy-nine (79) percent of these occur in census tracts with a high 

proportion of minority and low-income populations in the communities of Claiborne, Woodford, 

Milford, Penola, and Doswell. This would be a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), there are almost 160 noise receptors affected by Build 

Alternatives that pass through town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake); however, 80 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of 

minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of downtown Ashland, 

Gwathmey, and Elmont. There are more than 300 noise receptors affected by the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake). Forty-six (46) percent of these occur in census tracts 

with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations; therefore, the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would not have a disproportionately high and adverse 

impact on potential environmental justice populations. The Build Alternatives that pass through 

town (Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would have a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in 

these communities. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), noise receptors affected by the Build Alternatives range from 

approximately 310 to 440. The Build Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E) affect approximately 400 noise receptors 

on the A-line; 30 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and 

low-income populations in the communities of Cedarhurst, Forest View, Belt Center, and 

Chimney Corner. Three of the four Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street 

Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, and 6F) affect approximately 440 noise 

receptors on the S-line; 54 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of 

minority and low-income populations in the communities of Newtowne West, Chamberlayne, 

Gilpin, Davee Gardens, and Bellwood. The fourth Build Alternative that uses the S-Line (Build 

Alternative 6G) affects approximately 310 noise receptors. Thirty-five (35) percent of these occur 

in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations, and they occur 

in the communities previously listed for both the A-Line and the S-Line. None of the Build 

Alternatives in Alternative Area 6 would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on 

potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 

Additional information on the environmental justice analysis can be found in the Community 

Impact Assessment Technical Report (Appendix Q). 

4.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVEGROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 306108) (Section 

106), and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) require federal agencies to consider the 

effects of their actions on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment if the action would result in an adverse effect 

on any property listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Eligibility criteria for the NRHP are 

summarized in Section 3.13. The Section 106 process is summarized below: 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-128 

 Initiate Section 106 process–The responsible federal agency first determines whether it 

has an undertaking that is a type of activity that could affect historic properties. Historic 

properties are properties that are included in the NRHP or that meet the criteria for the 

NRHP. If so, it must identify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) to consult with during the process. It should 

also plan to involve the public, and identify other potential consulting parties. If it 

determines that it has no undertaking, or that its undertaking is a type of activity that has 

no potential to affect historic properties, the agency has no further Section 106 obligations. 

 Identify historic properties–If the agency's undertaking could affect historic properties, 

the agency determines the scope of appropriate identification efforts and then proceeds 

to identify historic properties in the area of potential effects. The agency reviews 

background information, consults with the SHPO/THPO and others, seeks information 

from knowledgeable parties, and conducts additional studies as necessary. Districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects listed in the NRHP are considered; unlisted properties 

are evaluated against the National Park Service's published criteria, in consultation with 

the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that may attach 

religious or cultural importance to them. 

If questions arise about the eligibility of a given property, the agency may seek a formal 

determination of eligibility from the National Park Service. Section 106 review gives equal 

consideration to properties that have already been included in the NRHP as well as those 

that have not been so included, but that meet NRHP criteria. 

If the agency finds that no historic properties are present or affected, it provides 

documentation to the SHPO/THPO and, barring any objection, proceeds with its 

undertaking. 

If the agency finds that historic properties are present, it proceeds to assess possible 

adverse effects. 

 Assess adverse effects–The agency, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, makes an 

assessment of adverse effects on the identified historic properties based on criteria found 

in ACHP's regulations. 

If they agree that there will be no adverse effect, the agency proceeds with the undertaking 

and any agreed-upon conditions. 

If they find that there is an adverse effect, or if the parties cannot agree and ACHP 

determines that there is an adverse effect, the agency begins consultation to seek ways to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. 

 Resolve adverse effects–The agency consults to resolve adverse effects with the 

SHPO/THPO and others, who may include Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations, local governments, permit or license applicants, and members of the 

public. ACHP may participate in consultation when there are substantial impacts to 

important historic properties, when a case presents important questions of policy or 

interpretation, when there is a potential for procedural problems, or when there are issues 

of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 

Consultation usually results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines 

agreed-upon measures that the agency will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-129

adverse effects. In some cases, the consulting parties may agree that no such measures are 

possible, but that the adverse effects must be accepted in the public interest. 

 Implementation–If an MOA is executed, the agency proceeds with its undertaking under 

the terms of the MOA. 

 Failure to resolve adverse effects–If consultation proves unproductive, the agency or the 

SHPO/THPO, or ACHP itself, may terminate consultation. If a SHPO terminates 

consultation, the agency and ACHP may conclude an MOA without SHPO involvement. 

However, if a THPO terminates consultation and the undertaking is on or affecting 

historic properties on tribal lands, ACHP must provide its comments. The agency must 

submit appropriate documentation to ACHP and request ACHP's written comments. The 

agency head must take into account ACHP's written comments in deciding how to 

proceed. 

 Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations–The regulations also place major 

emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, in 

keeping with the 1992 amendments to NHPA. Consultation with an Indian tribe must 

respect tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. Even if an Indian tribe has not been certified by 

NPS to have a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer who can act for the SHPO on its lands, 

it must be consulted about undertakings on or affecting its lands on the same basis and in 

addition to the SHPO. 

 Public Involvement–Public involvement is a key ingredient in successful Section 106 

consultation, and the views of the public should be solicited and considered throughout 

the process. 

FRA and DRPT initiated the Section 106 process and invited consulting parties, such as the 

National Park Service (NPS), local historical societies, and property owners, to participate in the 

Fall of 2014. Table 5.7-1 in Chapter 5 lists the consulting parties for this Project, as well as those who 

were invited to be a consulting party but did not respond. 

DRPT defined an Area of Potential Effect after the Section 106 process was initiated. The Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the SHPO for the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

concurred on the Area of Potential Effect in early 2015. DRPT evaluated the resources in the APE 

and identified 158 historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE): 9 archaeological 

sites, 135 above ground resources, 3 resources with an above ground and below ground 

component, and 11 battlefields. See the Cultural Resources Reports (Appendix R) for technical 

reports and mapping related to cultural resource studies and historic properties. DHR has 

reviewed and commented on these technical reports. After DHR review, FRA and DRPT 

distributes them to the consulting parties for review and comment. Section 5.7 provides a 

summary of the Section 106 coordination completed for this Project. 

FRA has completed a preliminary evaluation of potential effect of the Project on archaeological 

and historic architectural resources in accordance with Section 106. According to the criteria for 

Effect and Adverse Effect developed by ACHP (36 CFR Section 800.5), potential effect is 

determined based on the following: 

 No Effect–There would be no effect, neither adverse nor beneficial, on historic properties. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-130 

 No Adverse Effect–There would be an effect, but the effect would not compromise those 

characteristics that qualify the property for listing on the NRHP. Archaeological sites may 

be “adversely affected” when they are threatened with unavoidable physical destruction 

or damage. 

 Adverse Effect–There would be an effect that would compromise the physical and/or 

historic integrity of the resource.

4.13.1 Archaeological Resources 

As described in Section 3.13, archaeological studies have been completed along all Project 

alternatives with the exception of the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses and on roadway 

modification areas. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach for archaeological 

studies such as this are allowed where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or 

large land areas. DHR has agreed with this approach for this Project. Additional Phase I survey 

will be completed through these unsurveyed areas once a Preferred Alternative is selected. Any 

ensuing Phase II archaeological evaluation testing will be included as a stipulation in the PA that 

will be completed as part of the environmental process. 

Two (2) NRHP and 10 NRHP-eligible archaeological sites are located in the APE, including 9 

archaeological sites and 3 resources that have both an archaeological and an architectural 

component. One of these sites—Ferry Farm/George Washington’s Boyhood Home 

(44ST0084/089-0016)—is a National Historic Landmark (NHL). FRA’s preliminary 

determinations of effect for archaeological resources in Virginia are listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 

4.13-2. Coordination of these determinations is ongoing with DHR and consulting parties. The 

resources are listed in the order they appear in the study area from north to south. Only the 

sites with a preliminary determination of an adverse effect on the resource are described below. 

Site 44SP0187 comprises a set of cut stone piers that are now located under the waters of the 

Rappahannock River. They may be associated with earlier railroad structures or nearby mills that 

are no longer extant. It is eligible under Criteria A and D for its association with the development 

of Fredericksburg and its information potential. Construction of a new bridge across the 

Rappahannock River to accommodate a third track for Build Alternative 3B would impact the 

subsurface archaeological deposits in this area, thus diminishing the data potential of this site. 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would have an adverse effect to this 

historic property. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1095 are all archaeological sites located in downtown 

Richmond. They are potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D for their association 

with the development of Richmond and their data potential. They were recorded based on the 

appearance of warehouses and other urban buildings on historic maps in this area. Today, these 

sites are paved parking lots. Often, parking lot developers truncate once-extant buildings and 

leave foundations and other deposits in place, sealing them with asphalt. As such, the potential 

for notable archaeological deposits within these recorded sites is high. Current plans for Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G include the installation of new piers to support expanded 

tracks near Main Street Station. The installation of the piers would result in subsurface 

disturbances within these three recorded archaeological sites. As such, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect 

on these three archaeological sites. 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-131

Table 4.13-1: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Potential Effect (Number of Resources 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 3 

3B 1 1 1 

3C* 0 1 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5B 0 0 0 

5B–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5C* 0 0 0 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 0 5 4 

6B–A-Line 0 5 4 

6B–S-Line 3 4 2 

6C 0 5 4 

6D 3 4 2 

6E 0 7 2 

6F 3 4 2 

6G 3 4 2 

* Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass options. As such, this count only includes previously recorded 

resources. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-132 

Table 4.13-2: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Archaeological Sites 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm – – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

44SP0187 Stone Piers; Bridge or 

Building 

– – – – No 

Effect 

Adverse – – – – – – – – – – 

44SP0468-extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No Effect – – – – – – – – – – 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/ Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

44HE1098 Main Street Station 

Parking Lot/Railroad 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

44HE1092 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe44HE1094 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe44HE1095 Storage Facility – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers

127-6245/ 44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory, 700 East 4th Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe

020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No Effe

020-0022/ 44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – No 

Advers
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-133

4.13.2 Historical Resources 

One-hundred thirty-eight (138) eligible or listed buildings, districts, structures, and objects are 

located within the APE of the DC2RVA Project⎯135 above ground resources and 3 that have an 

above ground and below ground component. They range from single-family rural dwellings to 

significant historic districts along the rail corridor. One above ground property is an NHL—Main 

Street Station in Richmond (127-0172). FRA’s preliminary determinations of effect for historic 

resources in the Project APE are listed in Tables 4.13-3 and 4.13-4. Coordination of these 

determinations is ongoing with DHR and relevant consulting parties. The resources are listed in 

the order they appear in the study area from north to south. Only the buildings, districts, 

structures, and objects with a preliminary determination of an adverse effect on the resource are 

described below; these historic properties are also shown on Figure 4.13-1. 

Table 4.13-3: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Buildings, Districts, 

Structures, and Objects 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Potential Effect (Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A 1 2 0 

1B 1 2 0 

1C 1 2 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 1 10 4 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 1 0 15 

3B 4 11 1 

3C* 1 5 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 3 12 4 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 3 16 

5B 7 10 2 

5B–Ashcake 7 10 2 

5C* 1 4 2 

5C–Ashcake* 1 4 2 

5D–Ashcake 7 10 2 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A 8 50 11 

6B–A-Line 16 42 11 

6B–S-Line 13 45 11 

6C 16 42 11 

6D 7 52 10 

6E 7 60 2 

6F 7 52 10 

6G 10 57 2 

*Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass options. As such, this count only includes previously recorded 

resources. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-134 

Figure 4.13-1: Historic Properties with Potential Adverse Effects 
 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-135

Figure 4.13-1: Historic Properties with Potential Adverse Effects 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-136 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

029-0218 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway 

(8.5-mile section of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from Fairfax County to the southern boundary of Alexandria) 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

000-0045 Washington National Airport 

(Reagan National Airport) (1 Aviation Circle, Arlington) 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0160 George Washington Junior High 

School, (1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown (northwestern quadrant of Old Town Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District 

(northwest of Old Town Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot (110 Callahan 

Drive, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0128 George Washington National 

Masonic Memorial (101 Callahan Drive, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill (3642 Wheeler 

Avenue, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Holmes Run 

(Cameron Run Park, Alexandria) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0953 Old Colchester Road, Potomac 

Path, King's Highway (Occoquan River to Route 1, Fairfax County) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark House/Enyedi 

House (10605 Furnace Road, Fairfax County) 

– – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0043 Colchester Arms, Fairfax Arms 

(10712 Old Colchester Road, Fairfax County) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Occoquan River 

(Occoquan River at Town of Occoquan, Prince William County) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base Quantico, 

Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (East of town of Quantico, Prince William and Stafford counties) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

287-5147 Town of Quantico, Town of 

Quantico Historic District (Southern Prince William County, east of Route 1) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands (945 

Widewater Road, Stafford County) 

– – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – – 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over Potomac Creek 

at Leland Road (Leland Road east of Route 1, Stafford County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road 

(Naomi Road north of Rappahannock, Stafford County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse 

— – – – – – – – 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. 

Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery (Lee Drive, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm (268 Kings Highway, Stafford County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest (Sherwood 

Forest Farm Road, Stafford County) 

– – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

111-0132-0025 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (Railroad at Rappahannock River north of Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0704 

Fredericksburg Train Station (200 Lafayette Boulevard, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic District 

(downtown Fredericksburg, east of Route 1) 

– – – –

Adverse Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0020 

Purina Tower (401 Charles Street, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-138 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

111-0132-0522 

House, 314–316 Frederick Street (314–316 Frederick Street, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0009-0795 

Pulliam's Service Station (411 Lafayette Boulevard, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic District 

Extension (west of historic district, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

088-5364 Fredericksburg & Gordonsville 

Railroad Bed District (Virginia Central Railroad) (38 miles long; Fredericksburg to Orange) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory 

(210 Ferdinand Street, Fredericksburg) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – 

088-0254 Slaughter Pen Farm (11232 

Tidewater Trail, Spotsylvania County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – – – 

088-0039 LaVue (3232 LaVue Lane, 

Spotsylvania County) 

– – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation Office, Jackson 

Shrine (12019 Stonewall Jackson Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0208 House (12096 Guinea Drive, 

Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of Caroline 

County MPD (numerous properties throughout Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-5129 Woodford Historic District 

(central Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior Company 

Office (Lake Farm Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & Passenger 

Depot (Woodford Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – 

016-0224 Glenwood House (11102 

Woodford Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

– – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion (11146 

Woodford Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

016-0270 Milford State Bank (15461 Antioch 

Road, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

016-5136 Milford Historic District (eastcentral Caroline County) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 016-0286 Coleman's Store (22275 Penola 

Road/16095 Polecat Lane, Caroline County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-5448 Doswell Historic District 

(northern Hanover County, east of Route 1) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0470 House/Squashapenny Store (10570 

Doswell Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, Doswell Branch 

(part of Squashapenny Antiques) (10561 Doswell Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and Tower (10577 

Doswell Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic District 

(southern Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Little River 

(Little River at RF&P, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little River (south 

side of Little River, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

042-0557 Dry Bridge (10411 Old Bridge 

Road, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– –

042-0392 Montevideo (Hanover County 

west of Route 1, north of Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

166-5073 Berkleytown Historic District 

(north of Ashland, Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse 

– –

166-5073-0010 

House, Dabney Funeral Home (600 B Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– –

166-0001 Ashland Historic District 

(downtown Ashland west of I-95) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

Adverse Adverse 

– –

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-140 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

166-0001-0015 

Business Office, Randolph-Macon (310 N. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District Expansion (east of original district, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District (east of RF&P, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-0001-0008 

Ashland Station Depot (112 N. Railroad Avenue, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Adverse 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-5041 Priddy House (107 Stebbins 

Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

– – 

166-0001-0055 

House (704 S. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-0001-0060 

House (708 S. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-0036 MacMurdo House (713 S. Center 

Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse – – 

166-0037 Hugo House (11208 Gwathmey 

Church Road, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

166-0001-0077 

House (1005 S. Center Street, Ashland) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

– – 

042-5048 Elmont Historic District (southern 

Hanover County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adve

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District 

(northern Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adve

043-0694 Hunton Treasures (11701 

Greenwood Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effec

043-5646 House (11501 Old Washington 

Highway, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – –

No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adverse 

No 

Adve

043-5657 Darling Smokestack (Old 

Washington Highway, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0690 Lewis-McLeod House (2945 

Mountain Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial School Historic 

District (Hungary Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

043-0292-0001 

Main Building/Robert Stiles Building/Bluford Office Building (2900 Hungary Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5636 Integrated Power Sources of 

Virginia (2260 Dabney Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic District 

(northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6569 Central National Bank (3501 W. 

Broad Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6514 Kent Road Village (905 Kent Road, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0742 West of Boulevard Historic 

District (west Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6756 Carillon Neighborhood Historic 

District (northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0171 James River and Kanawha Canal 

Historic District (north of James River, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6792 Southern Railway (north of James 

River, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood 

Historic District (northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 402 House (351 W. 49th Street, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic District 

(west Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp R Rolando Historic District 

(southwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 268 Broad Run House (2011 S. Kinsley 

Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg Electric 

Railway (along Route 1 between Richmond and Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-142 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, United States Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District (north central Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6188 Movieland Bowtie Cinema 

(1331 North Boulevard, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6840 Warehouse (2728 Hermitage 

Road, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6730 Hermitage Road Warehouse 

Historic District (north central Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6165 Cookie Factory Lofts (900 

Terminal Place, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0226 Science Museum of Virginia 

(2500 Broad Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5978 Todd Lofts (1128 Hermitage Road, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6145 Southern Stove Works (1215 

Hermitage Road, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6570 West Broad Street Industrial and 

Commercial Historic District (north of Broad Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0414 Governor's School (1000 North 

Lombardy Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0354 Virginia Union University Historic 

District (1500 North Lombardy Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0428 George W. Carver Elementary 

School (1110 West Leigh Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0822 Carver Residential Historic 

District (northeast Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6171 Richmond and Chesapeake Bay 

Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland Railway Company Car Barn (northeast Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-5679 Barton Heights Cemetery 

(1600 Lamb Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing Home (210 

Hospital Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery (320 Hospital 

Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ Plateau Historic 

District (northwest Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row 

Historic District (north of James River, downtown Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage (East Main 

Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0172 Main Street Station and Trainshed, 

New Union Station, Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot (Main Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344-0123 

Railroad Y.M.C.A. (1552 East Main Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic District and 

Expansions (north of James River, downtown Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6793 C&O Railroad (downtown 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5809 Bridge #1857, North 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge North (14th Street, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, South 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge South (14th Street, 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf Storage 

Warehouse (1717–1721 East Cary Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0282 Henrico County Courthouse 

(2127 Main Street East, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0192 St. John's Church Historic District 

(downtown Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-144 

Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-0192-0322 

Libby Hill Park and Park House (2801 East Franklin Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0854 Bridge #1850 (E. Main Street, 

spanning Southern Railway, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0119 John Woodward House (3017 

Williamsburg Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6693 Armitage Manufacturing Company 

(3200 Williamsburg Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works (Williamsburg 

Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 (east of downtown 

Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5313 James River Steam Brewery 

Cellars (4920 Old Main Street, Henrico County)) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0439 Aviation General Supply Depot 

(508 Bickerstaff Road, Henrico County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse Historic 

District (south of James River, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco, Southern 

Stove Works (516 Dinwiddie Avenue, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6245/ 44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory (700 East 4th Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company, 

Transmontaigne(1314 Commerce Street, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic District 

(east of Route 1, Richmond) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance (north 

Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued
Table 4.13-4: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Districts 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, Auburn 

Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond (8000 Jefferson Davis Highway, Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0013 House (3619 Thurston Road, 

Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5378 VEPCo Power Transmission Line 

(west of Route 1, Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0140 Circle Oaks (4510 Centralia Road, 

Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office (Centralia 

Road, Chesterfield County) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

076-0301 Richmond, Fredericksburg, and 

Potomac Railroad (rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and Main Street Station in Richmond) 

Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse No 

Effect 

Adverse Adverse Adverse 

–

No 

Adverse 

Adverse Adverse Adverse Adve

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

Corridor, Richmond, and Petersburg Railroad (A-Line rail corridor between Main Street Station and Centralia) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

Corridor (S-Line rail corridor between Main Street Station and Centralia) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-146 

The RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080) is a double-vault arched structure rumored to be 

the oldest documented and identified reinforced concrete bridge in the Commonwealth. It is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural merit. It is also a 

contributing element to the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac (RF&P) Railroad (076-0301). 

Construction of Build Alternative 3B would result in removal of the existing bridge and 

construction of a new structure. Demolition would remove all character-defining features of this 

resource. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would have an adverse 

effect on this structure. 

The Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (111-0132-0025) is a multiple-span, open-spandrel, 

concrete-arch bridge and is an excellent and rare surviving example of a reinforced-concrete arch 

railroad bridge within this region of Virginia. It was erected when the station and tracks were 

elevated for automobile traffic pass through on surface streets in downtown Fredericksburg. The 

bridge is both individually eligible (Criterion C for its architectural merit) and eligible as a 

contributing element to the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132) and the RF&P Railroad 

(076-0301). Addition of a third track to the east of the existing alignment as part of Build 

Alternative 3B would require construction of a new bridge adjacent to the old structure, thus 

diminishing its integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association and affecting its architectural 

character. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would have an adverse 

effect on this resource. 

The 200-acre Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132) comprises the city’s downtown 

commercial area, adjacent industrial area, and some of the surrounding residential blocks. This 

part of Fredericksburg boasts a wide variety of infrastructure that ranges in date from the early 

eighteenth century throughout the late twentieth century. It is listed in the NRHP under Criterion 

C for its architectural merit. Although Build Alternative 3A does not require installation of new 

tracks, plans call for construction of a multi-story parking deck to the east (south) of the tracks in 

an existing parking lot. Installation of the third track associated with Build Alternative 3B also 

entails building the multi-story parking deck. This new structure would impact the viewshed of 

the district and its integrity of setting, feeling, and association by adding a large, non-conforming, 

visual element to the distinct area skyline. The new parking structure would also add a new 

physical element within the district boundaries. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The Doswell Historic District (042-5448) encompasses a rural community that was once a center of 

major activity along road and rail networks. Nearly a dozen historic properties are located within 

the district’s boundaries. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for its association 

with railroad history and C for its architectural integrity. Although the community was founded 

along the rail lines, Build Alternative 4A would adversely affect one contributing element to the 

district, the Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470), as listed below. This includes potentially 

removing the main building and associated outbuildings and taking land from the parcel, thus 

diminishing the characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that because of the potential physical adverse effects to a contributing element, 

Build Alternative 4A would likely have an adverse effect on the district. 

Located at 10570 Doswell Road, the Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470) is a two-and-a-halfstory, three-bay, vernacular commercial building. Located adjacent to the tracks, the store was a 

commercial hub for the Doswell community. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion C for its architectural style. The building is also a contributing element to the Doswell 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-147 

Historic District (042-5448). The building is located immediately east of the rail tracks. Build 

Alternative 4A requires acquisition of land from the parcel and would bring the tracks even closer 

to the dwelling, potentially requiring removal of the main building or one or more contributing 

outbuildings on the property, thus compromising its integrity of design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 

4A would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073) is typical of many small-town, twentieth-century, 

African American neighborhoods in that it was relatively isolated from the formal downtown 

core and is dotted by small vernacular dwellings. It is potentially eligible under Criteria A for its 

association with African-American history in this area and C for its architectural merit. Construction 

of an overpass carrying Vaughan Road over the rail tracks associated with Build Alternatives 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would require alterations to the historic road pattern within the 

district and require a new bridge structure within the viewshed of the district and several 

contributing elements. Due to these disturbances to the setting, feeling, and design of the district, 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

would have an adverse effect. 

The Ashland Historic District (166-0001), with its large collection of late-Victorian and Edwardian 

frame dwellings and its brick commercial core, all set among hundreds of trees, survives as a fine 

example of a railroad and streetcar suburb preserving much of its turn-of-the-century character. It 

is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with railroad history and C for its 

architectural character. Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the 

existing rail corridor through town, would result in modified roadways, sidewalks, and viewsheds 

in the district, thus impacting character-defining features. Moreover, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that these alternatives would have an adverse effect to several contributing 

resources to the district (as described below), including the Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008) 

and the MacMurdo House (166-0036). As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have an adverse effect on the Ashland 

Historic District. 

The Randolph-Macon College Historic District Expansion (166-5072) highlights a significant 

part of campus that developed between the early-twentieth century and the mid-1960s when a 

substantial building boom occurred. The expansion was determined to be eligible for the NRHP 

as part of the current survey. Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding 

the existing rail corridor through town, would result in modified roadways, sidewalks, and 

viewsheds in the district, thus impacting character-defining features. Thus, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have an 

adverse effect on the district. 

The 85-acre Randolph-Macon College Historic District (166-0002) includes the college campus 

and all associated buildings, structures and landscape features. This is the oldest Methodistrelated college in the United States still in operation. The original district was listed in the NRHP 

under Criteria A as one of the oldest Methodist colleges in the United States and C for its 

architectural merit. As with the Randolph-Macon Historic District Expansion listed above, Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would result in modifications that would 

diminish character-defining features of the district through roadway realignments, sidewalk 

modifications, and viewshed changes. Some contributing elements may also be required to be 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-148 

relocated. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–

Ashcake would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The one-story, five-bay, brick Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008) is said to have been 

designed by W. P. Lee to replace a previous circa-1890 station that burned down. Although the 

building is no longer used as a station (with its interior turned over for other purposes), the 

building appears little altered and is a good example of a Colonial Revival-styled depot 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with area development and 

C for its architectural character. The building is also a contributing element to the Ashland 

Historic District (166-0001) and the RF&P Railroad (076-0301). Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake require track changes and alterations to the station. Build Alternative 5D–

Ashcake includes demolition of the historic station and construction of a new station. These 

modifications, and the potential demolition, would diminish the characteristics that render this 

resource eligible for the NRHP. Removal of the historic, and continued, use of these contributing 

elements would remove character-defining attributes of the property—namely its use as a rail 

stop. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–

Ashcake would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The MacMurdo House (166-0036) is a two-story, three-bay, Greek Revival, single-family 

dwelling. It is one of the few buildings of its style in Ashland, and it has excellent historic 

integrity. As such, it is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural 

merit. The building is also a contributing element to the Ashland Historic District (166-0001) as it 

dates to the period of significance and reflects the developmental history of the district. Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the existing rail corridor through 

town, would result in moving the existing sidewalks and roadways closer to the historic dwelling 

and onto the parcel boundaries, thus impacting the resource’s integrity of design, setting, feeling, 

and association and modifying key visual elements of the building. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have an 

adverse effect on this property. 

The Laurel Industrial School Historic District (043-0292) consists of a complex of buildings that 

was part of a school founded under the patronage of the Prison Association of Virginia, a group 

of private citizens who sought to reform the state’s penal system by establishing a self-supporting 

model industrial reformatory for boys. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association 

with prison reform and C for its architectural character. All Build Alternatives in Area 6 (6A 

through 6G) would require construction of a bridge to carry traffic on Hungary Road over the 

rail tracks, as well as notable associated secondary road changes. These modifications would 

impact the district through the introduction of a large visual element (the new overpass) and 

modified roadway plans. Some contributing elements may also be required to be relocated. As 

such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A through 6G would have an 

adverse effect on this historic district. 

The Scott's Addition Historic District (127-6136) is a 152-acre industrial and commercial district in 

Richmond featuring 287 contributing resources built primarily between 1900 and 1956 in the 

Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Mission, Moderne, International, and Art Deco styles. The 

district is located immediately southeast of the intersection of the A-line and the S-line in Richmond. 

It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond development and C 

for its architectural fabric. Construction of Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6E, 

and 6G would require notable changes to this area, including new tracks outside of the existing 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-149 

right-of-way, erecting superstructures to support rail facilities, and construction of multi-story 

parking facilities. These changes would diminish character-defining features of the district. FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

would have an adverse effect on the historic district. 

Containing approximately 142 parcels, the Rolando Historic District (Temp R) is a post-World 

War II-era, suburban neighborhood. The dwellings were constructed in the Minimal Traditional 

style. The neighborhood and contributing dwellings have been generally unchanged since its 

subdivision in 1946. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its styling as a 

post-war neighborhood. Plans associated with Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

include construction of a new overpass carrying Broad Rock Boulevard over the tracks and 

associated roadway modifications. Some of the impacted roadways are located within the 

footprint of the district, and the new overpass would be a notable new visual element to the 

viewshed of the neighborhood. These changes would diminish the district’s integrity of design, 

setting, feeling, and association. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this district. 

The two-story, Federal-style, frame Broad Run House (Temp 268) was constructed with a centralpassage plan. It is a rare and exceptional, surviving example of a late-eighteenth century dwelling 

in this area of Richmond. Although it is located within the Rolando Historic District, the resource 

is a noncontributing element to the district as it dates outside of its period of significance. The 

house is located within the northeastern section of the Rolando Historic District listed above. It is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural style and as a unique 

example of extant eighteenth-century architecture in this part of Richmond. The new overpass 

and roadway changes along Broad Rock Boulevard would have the same impacts on this 

individual resource. Given this, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The Movieland Bowtie Cinema (127-6188), previously known as the Richmond Locomotive & 

Machine Works, the American Locomotive Company, and Richmond Works, is an industrial 

complex with two buildings⎯the brass foundry and the iron foundry⎯that are both steel-framed 

resources with masonry walls. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with 

Richmond industrial history and C for its architectural merit. Construction of Build Alternatives 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C require development of new rail corridors and large-scale 

structures to accommodate the train movement in this part of Richmond, as well as associated 

road modifications and new parking structures. Some of these changes border, or are actually 

located on, the Movieland Bowtie Cinema parcel. Modifications would diminish the 

characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP. As such, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse 

effect on this resource. 

Access to the Warehouse at 2728 Hermitage Road (127-6840) was not granted during the Phase 

I-level survey. As such, little is known about the structure; however, the changes noted above 

associated with the Movieland Bowtie Cinema would also result in notable changes to the 

viewshed and nearby roadways related to this warehouse. FRA’s preliminary determination is 

that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse effect on this 

resource. 

The industrial Hermitage Road Warehouse Historic District (127-6730) is characterized by 

roughly a dozen medium- to large-scale one-story warehouse buildings set on a gridded block 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-150 

pattern. Most of the buildings have large footprints that occupy most of the block on which they 

sit. The buildings are typically one-story, clad in brick, and covered with flat roofs. It is listed in 

the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with twentieth-century Richmond development 

and Criterion C for its architectural styling. Located north of the tracks, Build Alternatives 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would require road work along Hermitage Road, which forms the 

western boundary of the district, and also include construction of a rail superstructure to aid in 

train movement. This new superstructure would be visible from the district. Because of these 

modifications, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 

and 6C would have an adverse effect on this district. 

The Cookie Factory Lofts (127-6165), previously known as Southern Biscuit Company, Interbake 

Foods, and Famous Foods of Virginia, is a six-story, multi-bay, industrial building with a water 

tower on the roof that was constructed with Colonial Revival attributes. It is listed in the NRHP 

under Criterion A for its association with the development of this section of Richmond and 

Criterion C for its architectural merit. The resource is also a contributing element to the West 

Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) listed below. The same 

aforementioned changes associated with Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would 

affect the setting, feeling, and association of the Cookie Factory Lofts due to construction of new 

rail lines and road changes in the area. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse effect on this historic property. 

The Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226) is a 3-story, 11-bay, monumental Neoclassical style 

train station that now houses the Science Museum of Virginia. This resource was designed by 

architect John Russell Pope and is constructed of dressed ashlar with a large, central, copper 

dome. It is listed on the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with transportation history and C 

for its architectural characteristics. The resource is also a contributing element to the West Broad 

Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) listed below. While construction of 

Build Alternative 6C would restore the historic usage of this property, many of the rail-related 

features originally part of this property were removed when the structure was converted into a 

museum. Work associated with Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would result in 

new construction to the north and east of the historic building, such as raised tracks and 

installation of new structures, as well as roadway modifications. This work would diminish the 

integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of this historic 

property. As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–SLine, and 6C would have an adverse effect on the Science Museum of Virginia. 

The five-story, multi-bay Todd Lofts (127-5978) building was originally built as the Richmond 

Brewery. The E.M. Todd Company bought the building in 1919 and expanded it into a meat 

production facility. Until 1998, this resource housed the county’s oldest meat processor in 

continuous business. This property is located along Hermitage Road. It is listed on the NRHP 

under Criterion A for its association with industrial development in this part of Richmond. Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would require road work along Hermitage Road, and 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line include construction of a rail superstructure to aid 

in train movement. This new superstructure would be visible from the property. Because of these 

modifications, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 

and 6C would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The Southern Stove Works (127-6145) is an industrial complex of four brick buildings and a 

water tower built during the time of rapid industrialization in Richmond. Southern Stove Works 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-151 

was one of the two largest and most important stove making plants in Richmond and the South. 

It is listed on the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond industrialization and 

C for its architectural merit. This resource is located just east across Hermitage Road from Todd 

Lofts, listed above. The same modifications stated above are applicable to this resource, including 

roadway changes and construction of new rail structures. FRA’s preliminary determination is 

that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have an adverse effect on this 

historic property. 

The 40-acre West Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) reflects 

development of the industrial capabilities of Richmond, and the allied development of 

commercial resources, culminating in the embrace of large-scale consumer economy by the 

middle of the twentieth century. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with 

industrial history in this area and C for its architectural characteristics. The district is located on 

both sides of Broad Street and extends northeast past Marshall Street. Changes associated with 

the new rail system and associated roads related to Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 

6C would diminish character-defining features of this district, as well as at least two contributing 

resources⎯the Cookie Factory Lofts (127-6165) and the Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226). 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would 

have an adverse effect on this historic district. 

The Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344) encompasses the area of 

Richmond's earliest residential, commercial, and manufacturing activity. It is listed in the NRHP 

under Criteria A for its association with early Richmond developmental history and C for its 

architectural merit. The district is located east of the S-line corridor and north of the James River 

in downtown Richmond. Construction associated with Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would 

include one to two multistory parking garages and the addition of long, linear platforms within 

the district boundaries, thus resulting in a modified building stock and the addition of large visual 

elements to the district. These elements have the potential to diminish the characteristics that 

render this resource eligible for the NRHP. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

Main Street Station and Trainshed (127-0172), also known as New Union Station and Seaboard 

Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot, symbolizes the importance of the rail terminal as 

an entrance gateway to Richmond and is an example of the influence of the French Ecole des 

Beaux Arts on American building. The building is a National Historic Landmark (NHL), listed in 

the NRHP under Criteria A and C, and is also a contributing element to both RF&P Railroad (076-

0301) and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad (127-6271), both listed below. Three of the four Build 

Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–ALine, and 6C) include disuse of the current station and construction of a new station elsewhere. 

Removal of the historic, and continued, use of this significant rail station would remove characterdefining attributes of the building—namely its use as a rail depot. This is especially notable as 

this property is an NHL due to its association with local, state, and national rail history. Three of 

the four Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G) would involve the restoration of intercity passenger service on the 

west side of Main Street Station and would include the construction of one to two multistory 

parking garages within the viewshed of the main station building and also require alterations to 

historic platforms, thus diminishing the integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–ALine, 6C, 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this resource. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-152 

The French Renaissance Revival-styled Railroad Y.M.C.A. (127-0344-0123) is notable for its 

architectural characteristics and for its importance as a community center to provide recreational 

space for railroad workers and their families in the area. It is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its importance to the early recreational and social history of this section of 

Richmond and under Criterion C for its architectural styling. Work associated with Build 

Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G involves the construction of one to two multistory parking decks and 

platform modifications, both of which would add a notable visual element within the viewshed 

of this resource. The parking garages and modified platforms have the potential to diminish the 

characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP. FRA’s preliminary determination 

is that Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

The Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac Railroad (076-0301) opened in 1836 and eventually 

spanned from the Potomac River to Richmond. It is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for 

its association with rail development in northern and central Virginia. The DC2RVA corridor 

includes the main rail line, spurs, and associated elements such as station houses, bridges, and 

other structures. Construction associated with several alternatives would result in removal or 

large-scale modifications to several contributing elements to the railroad district, including Main 

Street Station listed above and several bridges. The exact roster of bridges is under consideration 

but, at a minimum, this includes the Naomi Road Bridge and the Rappahannock River Bridge in 

Fredericksburg, the North Anna Bridge near Doswell, and several bridges and other rail 

structures in Richmond. FRA’s preliminary determination is that the Build Alternatives 1A 

through 1C, 2A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 5B through 5D–Ashcake, and 6A through 6G that include 

improvements on or expansion to the rail line, bridges, or structures between Arlington and Acca 

Yard in Richmond would have an adverse effect on this property. 

The historic Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor (127-6251) merged from several railroads in 

the early 1890s and represents the origins and growth of the railroad industry in the Richmond 

to Petersburg corridor., The historic predecessor of the CSXT A-Line, the line ran roughly parallel 

along what is today I-95, transporting rail travelers between Richmond and Florida. It is eligible 

for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with area transportation history. Like the 

RF&P listed above, construction of any one of the Build Alternatives in the Richmond area would 

result in modifications or reconstruction of several contributing elements to this railroad district. 

The exact list is pending, but this includes the CSXT A-Line bridge over the James River and 

potential contributing resources in the Centralia area. FRA’s preliminary determination is that 

portions of the CSXT A-Line improvements between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E), including the connection with the CSXT S-Line at Centralia (Build 

Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have an adverse effect on this resource. 

Also representing the post-Civil War trend of merging smaller operations, the Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad Corridor (127-6271) was founded in 1900. The historic predecessor to the CSXT S-Line 

from Main Street Station to Centralia, it roughly paralleled what is today I-85 from Richmond to 

Florida. It is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with area 

transportation history. Similar to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, work associated with 

improvements to the S-Line would include modifications to contributing elements to this 

resource such as Main Street Staton, the S-Line bridge over the James River, and other road and 

rail structures south of Richmond. FRA’s preliminary determination is that improvements 

between Main Street Station and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G), 

including the connection with the CSXT A-Line at Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, and 6E) would have an adverse effect on this resource. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-153 

4.13.3 Battlefields 

Due to their expansive nature and multi-resourced nature, battlefields have been pulled from the 

list of above ground properties as mentioned above and are outlined here in a separate narrative. 

The resources were defined and mapped based on the American Battlefield Protection Program 

(ABPP)-defined Potential National Register (PotNR) boundaries, as determined in 2009. If PotNR 

boundaries were not available, DHR boundaries were used. In February 2016, DHR agreed to use 

these boundaries in the current analysis (Appendix R). 

There are 11 battlefields located in the APE. All 11 are associated with Civil War activities located 

in areas that were the site of numerous troop engagements during the war, notably 

Fredericksburg and surrounding counties, Hanover County, Henrico County, the City of 

Richmond, and Chesterfield County. 

FRA’s preliminary determinations of effect for historic resources in Virginia are listed in Tables 

4.13-5 and 4.13-6. 

Table 4.13-5: Summary of Preliminary Effect Determinations on Battlefields 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Potential Effect (Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 1A 0 0 0 

1B 0 0 0 

1C 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 3A 0 0 3 

3B 0 3 0 

3C* 0 0 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 4A 0 1 0 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5B 0 0 0 

5B–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5C* 0 0 0 

5C–Ashcake 0 0 0 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 6A 0 4 2 

6B–A-Line 0 4 2 

6B–S-Line 0 6 0 

6C 0 4 2 

6D 0 6 0 

6E 0 6 0 

6F 0 6 0 

6G 0 6 0 

* Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass options. As such, this count only includes previously recorded

resources. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Table 4.13-6: Details of Project Preliminary Effect on Battlefields 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

111-5295 Battle of 

Fredericksburg I 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

111-5296 Battle of 

Fredericksburg II 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

088-5181 Salem Church 

Battlefield (Banks Ford Battlefield) 

– – – – No 

Effect 

No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – – – 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield – – – – – – – No 

Adverse 

– – – – – – – 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern 

Battlefield 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek 

Battlefield 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's 

Farm (New Market Heights Battlefield), New Market Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5071 Darbytown & New 

Market Roads Battlefield, Route 5 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff 

Battlefield (Fort Darling, Fort Drewry), Fort Darling Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II), Bermuda Hundred Road (Alt Route 697) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-155 

Coordination of these determinations is ongoing with DHR and relevant consulting parties. 

Based on preliminary dialogues with DHR, the Project would have No Adverse Effect on any of 

the 11 battlefields within the APE. As Project plans are confirmed, the work would be evaluated 

to assure that character-defining features of the battlefields in general, and contributing elements 

specifically, are not altered or diminished during the Project. Because FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that there would be no adverse effects to these battlefields, narratives are not 

presented below. See Section 3.13 for descriptions of these resources. 

4.13.4 Summary and Mitigation 

In summary, FRA’s preliminary determination is that 33 historic properties would be adversely 

affected by 1 or more of the Build Alternatives (Figure 4.13-1). Figures in the Cultural Resources 

Reports (Appendix R) show the potential impacts to these historic properties. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that the remaining 125 historic properties in the APE would have no effect or no 

adverse effect resulting from any of the Build Alternatives. 

Where FRA determines that the Project will have an adverse effect on historic resources, efforts will 

be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Efforts have been made by DRPT 

to identify Project alternatives that avoid adverse effects to Section 106 resources identified in this 

section. Where avoidance is not possible, FRA will identify measures to minimize and mitigate 

for impacts. Chapter 5 outlines measures to minimize harm to historic resources. Chapter 6 

describes the coordination that has taken place between DRPT and state historic preservation 

offices, resource owners, historic societies, and other consulting parties. 

A Programmatic Agreement was executed for the SEHSR project. Due to the nature of the DC2RVA 

Project, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is underway to outline: (1) studies still required once a 

recommended Preferred Alternative has been selected (namely, additional Phase I and Phase II 

archaeological studies on the main corridor and road improvement areas and full cultural 

resource studies on the bypasses, if selected); and (2) tasks that would be undertaken to mitigate 

adverse effects. 

4.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES 

4.14.1 Effects 

Effects to parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges, collectively referred to as parkland 

resources, were determined through overlay of the parkland boundaries with the permanent and 

temporary limits of disturbance for the Build Alternatives. Section 3.14 in Chapter 3 identifies all 

the parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges identified in the study area. DRPT assumed 

that the proposed right-of-way would match the permanent limits of disturbance, and these areas 

would be permanently removed from use as a park, recreational area, or wildlife refuge. 

Seventeen (17) parkland and trail resources could potentially be impacted by the Build 

Alternatives. Six of the 17 facilities would have permanent impacts while the remainder would 

only have temporary impacts. Table 4.14-1 identifies the permanent and temporary impacts to 

parkland resources by Build Alternative. Figure 4.14-1 depicts the permanent impact areas. The 

No Build Alternative would have no impacts to parkland resources. 

Section 3.14 in Chapter 3 also identifies Section 4(f) recreational resources and Section 6(f) 

resources. These designations apply to some of the public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-156 

refuges in the study area and afford additional protection to these resources. See Chapter 5 for 

the Section 4(f) Evaluation and discussion of Section 4(f) impacts and mitigation. Section 6(f) 

impacts are discussed below. 

The permanent impacts associated with each of the Build Alternatives are discussed below. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), Build Alternatives 1B and 1C would impact Long Bridge Park. 

Permanent impacts range from 0.36 to 1.45 acres. Build Alternative 1B would have the greatest 

impact to this resource. 

In Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the single Build Alternative 2A would have a 0.04-acre 

permanent impact to the Dog Run Park at Carlyle. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), none of the alternatives through or around 

Fredericksburg (Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C) would have permanent impacts to parkland 

resources. 

In Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia), the single Build Alternative 4A would not have 

permanent impacts to parkland resources. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), permanent impacts to parkland resources are minimal. The four 

alternatives that include a new intercity passenger rail station at Ashcake Road (Build 

Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would have a 0.01-acre 

permanent impact to Ashland Trolley Line. The alternatives that would add a third track, 

primarily on the east side of the right-of-way, through town (Build Alternatives 5B and 5B–

Ashcake) would have a 0.03-acre permanent impact to Carter Park. 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), permanent impacts to parkland resources are minimal. Build 

Alternatives that use the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–ALine, 6C, and 6E) would have the slightly higher permanent impact of 0.19 acre and would only 

impact Gates Mill Park. Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and 

Centralia (Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) would have a 0.17-acre permanent 

impact to Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park. 

Section 6(f) directs the United States Department of Interior (DOI) to assure that replacement 

lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. 

Consequently, where conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for transportation projects, 

replacement lands would be necessary. There are no permanent impacts to Section 6(f) lands. 

George Washington Memorial Parkway, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military 

Park, and Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm are Section 6(f) resources but would only have temporary 

impacts during construction and replacement lands would not be required. 

4.14.2 Mitigation 

Impacts to parkland, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges were avoided and minimized to the 

maximum extent possible. All potential impacts consist of minor amounts of additional right-ofway required for track construction that would not impact park functions. DRPT will coordinate 

these impacts with the park owners. Temporary impacts were also avoided and minimized to 

the greatest extent feasible. DRPT will make all efforts to return temporary easements back to 

pre-construction conditions and to avoid impacting the essential park functions during 

construction.
Table 4.14-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Parkland Resources by Build Alternative (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Long Bridge Park

Crystal City Water 

Park

Old Town Greens 

Homeowners Association 

Dog Run Park at 

Carlyle 

George Washington 

Memorial Parkway Veterans Memorial 

Park

Mount Vernon Trail 

Pierson/Slaughter 

Pen Farm 

Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National 

Military Park

Mtti Wildlif

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A P: 0.00 

T: 0.51 

– – – – – – – – 

1B P: 1.45 

T: 0.88 

– – – – – – – – 

1C P: 0.36 

T: 0.65 

– – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A – P: 0.00 

T: 0.11 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.14 

P: 0.00 

T: 1.04 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.05 

P: 0 feet 

T: 20 feet 

– – 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A – – – – – – – P: 0.00 

T: 0.17 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.02 

3B – – – – – – – P: 0.00 

T: 0.17 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.02 

3C – – – – – – – – – 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – – – – – – – – P: 0.00 

T: 1.09 

P

T

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A – – – – – – – – – 

5A–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

5B – – – – – – – – – 

5B–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

5C – – – – – – – – – 

5C–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

5D–Ashcake – – – – – – – – – 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – – – – – – – – 

6B–A-Line – – – – – – – – – 

6B–S-Line – – – – – – – – – 

6C – – – – – – – – – 

6D – – – – – – – – – 

6E – – – – – – – – – 

6F – – – – – – – – – 

6G – – – – – – – – – 

P: Permanent Impacts in Acres; T: Temporary Impacts in Acres
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-158 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1B 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-159 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1C 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-160 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-161 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 3A, 3B 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-162 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-163 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-164 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-165 

Figure 4.14-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-166 

4.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

This section summarizes the anticipated effects on the DC2RVA Project area transportation 

network and is presented at the same two scales as the Affected Environment Transportation 

Facilities section: Regional Scale and Corridor Scale. 

The Regional Scale Environmental Consequences include the following (in order of presentation): 

 DC2RVA train service through the corridor, including the type and number of increases 

in daily trips through the DC2RVA corridor, and associated ridership projections. 

 Effects due to increases in DC2RVA ridership along the corridor: 

- Effects on the regional roadway network from the DC2RVA Project, including the 

number of vehicles anticipated to be removed from the transportation network due to 

DC2RVA ridership. 

- Effects on adjacent roadways to the Amtrak stations that are being served by the 

DC2RVA intercity passenger trains. 

- Effects on parking needs at the Amtrak stations that are being served by the DC2RVA 

intercity passenger trains. 

The Corridor Scale Environmental Consequences include the following (in order of presentation): 

 Crossing improvements that are proposed at each roadway crossing as part of the 

DC2RVA Project, including presentation of: 

- Descriptions of the types of crossing treatments. 

- Crossing improvements at existing public and private at-grade crossings. 

- Crossing improvements at existing grade-separated crossings. 

- Build alternative improvements to other public roadways. 

- Summary of all proposed public roadway closures and grade separations. 

 Crossing improvement effects (qualitative) on connectivity and accessibility, including: 

- Effects of improvements at public at-grade crossings 

- Effects of improvements at private at-grade crossings 

- Effects of improvements at grade-separated crossings. 

- Relevance of Build Alternatives to existing quiet zones. 

- Effects on bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. 

 Quantitative traffic operational analysis (changes in volumes and level of service along 

roadways and through the intersections) to determine the effects of the public roadway 

closures that are proposed as part of the DC2RVA Project. 

 Quantitative analysis of the crossing improvement effects on vehicles at the public atgrade crossings (total daily vehicle delay). 

It is the intent of this section to provide a high-level overview of the transportation analysis and 

resulting effects that were conducted to support the decisions to be made for the DC2RVA Project. 

The Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) contains a full inventory of all methodology, data, 

and analyses summarized herein. In accordance with Project planning dates for physical impacts, 

analyses of transportation facilities are estimated for 2025; refer to Section 2.1.2 for details. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-167 

4.15.1 Regional Scale 

This section presents the future year 2025 conditions of the DC2RVA train service and associated 

increased ridership from a regional level, and the analysis of how those improvements are 

anticipated to affect the greater roadway network. Year 2025 is the current best estimate of when 

construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service 

would be placed in operation. 

4.15.1.1 DC2RVA Train Service and Ridership 

Under 2025 Build conditions, intercity passenger rail ridership is projected to increase due to 

increased train frequency, availability, and reliability, as well as trends in general population 

growth. The future year increases in ridership from the DC2RVA Project could affect the regional 

roadway network1 in the following ways: 

 Decreases in vehicles using the roadway network (i.e., mainly I-95) between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond. Refer to Section 4.15.1.2 for this analysis.

 Increases in vehicles using the roadway network directly adjacent to the train station(s) 

that provide service, as well as increases in parking needs at those stations. Refer to Section 

4.15.1.3 and 4.15.1.4 for these analyses.

The DC2RVA Project would add nine new passenger rail round trips for 2025 Build conditions 

(refer to Chapter 2 for full details): 

 Four new interstate corridor (NC) passenger trains, with stops at the following stations 

within the DC2RVA corridor: 

- Alexandria 

- Fredericksburg 

- Richmond (station location within the city varies by Build Alternative) 

 Five new Northeast Regional passenger (VA) trains, with stops at the following stations 

within the DC2RVA corridor: 

- Alexandria 

- Woodbridge 

- Quantico 

- Fredericksburg 

- Ashland (station location within town varies by Build Alternative) 

- Richmond (station location within the city varies by Build Alternative) 

Table 4.15-1 presents the annual ridership at each station, represented as a total number of 

boardings and alightings (i.e., a total number of train passengers getting on and off of the 

train) for 2015, 2025 No Build, and 2025 Build conditions, by Build Alternative. As the station 

alternatives in Richmond drive the differences in ridership for Build conditions throughout 

the DC2RVA corridor, the annual ridership is presented by the seven station alternatives in 

the Richmond area. Ridership is the same for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, so 

they are presented as a single Build Alternative 6B. The table also compares each of the Build 

 

1 Changes in the number and operating characteristics (i.e., type, speed, and length) of trains can have a direct effect 

on individual at-grade highway-rail crossings in terms of delay experienced while trains are traversing the crossing. 

These analyses are provided on the Corridor Scale, which are included in Section 4.15.2. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-168 

Table 4.15-1: Annual DC2RVA Ridership1 at Station in Project Area (boardings and alightings2) 

Alternative 

Station 

Alexandria Woodbridge Quantico Fredericksburg 

Ashland 

Station 

Staples 

Mill Road 

Boulevard 

Road 

Broa

Stree

Existing–2015 174,238 23,836 34,574 127,535 28,013 351,156 – – No Build–2025 208,496 31,191 37,945 168,627 32,694 407,119 – – Build Alternatives–2025: Annual Ridership (% Change Compared to 2025 No Build Alternative) 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

233,602 

(12%) 

82,694 

(165%) 

45,313 

(19%) 

305,177 

(81%) 

47,368 

(45%) 

714,795 

(76%) 

– – 

6B3 (Boulevard 

Station Only) 

227,706 

(9%) 

82,304 

(164%) 

44,943 

(18%) 

311,500 

(85%) 

50,437 

(54%) 

– 700,152 

(new) 

– 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

224,571 

(8%) 

81,140 

(160%) 

44,278 

(17%) 

311,761 

(85%) 

54,002 

(65%) 

– – 677,6

(ne

6D (Main Street Station Only) 

228,278 

(9%) 

82,521 

(165%) 

45,118 

(19%) 

314,017 

(86%) 

55,771 

(71%) 

– – – 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

230,896 

(11%) 

82,171 

(163%) 

45,398 

(20%) 

301,810 

(79%) 

45,701 

(40%) 

588,610 

(45%) 

– – 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

230,840 

(11%) 

83,057 

(166%) 

45,257 

(19%) 

303,303 

(80%) 

44,165 

(35%) 

417,774 

(3%) 

– – 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

233,030 

(12%) 

83,467 

(168%) 

45,527 

(20%) 

303,120 

(80%) 

44,388 

(36%) 

514,975 

(26%) 

– – 

1 The annual ridership represents the DC2RVA Project. It excludes passengers on VRE, the Auto Train, and the long distance trains to Georgia/Florida. Ridership fo

only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond. 

2 Boardings and alightings represent train passengers getting on and off of the train, respectively. 3 The DC2RVA passenger train ridership is the same for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, so they are presented in this table as a single Build Alternative 6B
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-169 

conditions to the No Build, as a percentage of total ridership. The total DC2RVA ridership 

throughout the corridor is anticipated to increase approximately 50 percent by 2025 for all Build 

Alternatives (ranging from a low of 48 percent for Build Alternative 6C Broad Street Station Only, to 

a high of 56 percent for Build Alternative 6F, Full Service at Staples Mill and Main Street Stations). 

4.15.1.2 Ridership Effects on Regional Roadways 

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effects of increased DC2RVA ridership on the 

number of vehicles that use the regional roadway system each day. 

Future year roadway traffic volumes for the No Build condition were developed by applying a 

two percent growth rate (linear growth, non-compounded) to existing traffic volumes. Refer to 

the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for details of the methodology of determining the 

growth rate, which was based on examining growth trends in historical traffic volume data, and 

of determining the associated future year regional roadway network Build conditions. 

Table 4.15-2 summarizes the estimated traffic on the regional roadway for 2025 No Build 

conditions, as well as existing conditions (2015) for reference. The data indicate an overall increase 

of 20 percent in total VMT2 by 2025, without the DC2RVA rail improvements. The I-95 facility 

represents approximately 280 directional roadway miles (including I-395) of the total regional 

roadway miles between Washington, D.C. and Richmond within the DC2RVA corridor. I-95 is 

projected to carry approximately 45.4 million vehicle miles annually by 2025, which represents 

almost 50 percent of the total vehicles miles in the regional area. 

Table 4.15-2: Regional Roadway Network, No Build Conditions 

Directional 

Measure 

Interstate 

and U.S. 

Routes 

State 

Primary 

Route 

State 

Secondary 

Route 

Urban 

Routes Total 

2015 Total 

(Regional 

Scale) 

ADT 47,856,880 14,744,998 5,748,709 1,029,843 69,380,430 

Length 895.0 530.7 422.2 70.8 1,918.7 

VMT 60,815,804 13,903,153 3,658,472 618,849 78,996,278 

2025 No Build 

Total 

(Regional 

Scale) 

ADT 57,240,582 17,636,174 6,875,907 1,231,773 82,984,436 

Length 895.0 530.7 422.2 70.8 1,918.7 

VMT 72,740,471 16,629,261 4,375,819 740,192 94,485,743 

The DC2RVA improvements are expected to result in an increase of up to 854,000 annual rail 

passenger trips 3 (compared to No Build conditions). By shifting this travel to rail, DRPT 

anticipates that up to 2,050 VPD and 250,000 daily vehicle miles would be removed from the 

parallel roads of I-95 and U.S. Route 1 in the 123-mile Project corridor – annually, this equates to 

 

2 A vehicle mile is a measure of total travel on a particular roadway or within an overall area; it is calculated by 

multiplying the number of vehicles traveling on a particular roadway by the total length of that roadway. 

3 This value represents trips going to, from, and through the study corridor. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-170 

removing 656,000 vehicles per year and 80 million annual vehicle miles from the system4. This 

represents a reduction in vehicle miles both annually and daily of approximately 0.6 percent. 

4.15.1.3 Ridership Effects on Roadway Network at Amtrak Stations 

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the effects on major roadways that are located adjacent 

to the Amtrak stations that are served by the DC2RVA passenger trains. To complete this 

assessment, the annual DC2RVA passenger train ridership (as presented in Table 4.15-1) was 

used to estimate daily trips by mode, and the resulting motor vehicle trips were compared to the 

daily volumes of the adjacent roadways 5 to determine the percent change in traffic due to 

increases in DC2RVA ridership. The Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) includes 

estimates of the daily number of passengers and associated daily number of motor vehicle trips, 

as well as associated changes in daily traffic at every station for each Build Alternative. 

A summary of the ridership effects on the station roadway network is presented in Table 4.15-3. 

The results indicate the following overall corridor-wide results. 

 For each Build Alternative, the DC2RVA ridership equates to over 2,000 new daily motor 

vehicle trips at each station (for each single-station alternative) or combination of stations 

(for each two-station alternative). 

 Most adjacent roadways to the stations will experience nominal increases in traffic6 (under 

1 percent increase in total daily traffic) for most Build conditions. In general, the adjacent 

roadways at the stations are multiple lane facilities with high carrying capacity that could 

accommodate increases in vehicular trips due to the DC2RVA Project. 

 Overall, the highest increases in daily traffic on adjacent roadways due to the DC2RVA 

ridership are anticipated at the Fredericksburg station where traffic is projected to 

increase approximately 7 to 8 percent on the adjacent roadways of Princess Anne Street 

and Caroline Street for all Build Alternatives. These facilities carry some of the lowest 

existing and future daily volumes on adjacent roadways to stations for the project. 

 Within Ashland, the location of the station has minimal effect on the results. Increases to 

traffic are nominal (less than 1 percent change in daily traffic) for both the existing station 

location and the station relocation to Ashcake Road. 

 For the single station Build Alternatives in Richmond, the greatest increases in traffic on 

adjacent roadways are anticipated for the two stations that are not currently served by 

any passenger trains (Boulevard and Broad Street stations), which are projected to 

increase approximately 5 percent. Traffic increases adjacent to the Main Street Station and 

Staples Mill Station are projected to increase approximately 4 percent and 2 percent, 

respectively. 

 

4 Average daily to annual equivalence based on assumed ratio of 320. 

5 Adjacent roadway(s) at stations were defined as those that vehicles (including personal motor vehicle, transit, or 

drop-off service such as taxis) could use to access the station. The starting adjacent roadway values were based on the 

DC2RVA Project not being build, i.e. the No Build. 

6 While increases in DC2RVA ridership would cause increases in traffic adjacent to DC2RVA stations, the levels of 

increase in ridership do not directly correlate to the same increases in traffic. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-171 

 For the two-station Build Alternatives in Richmond, the traffic increases vary by station; 

however, all projected traffic increases are anticipated to be under 2 percent at both 

Staples Mill Road and Main Street stations for all Build conditions. 

 Reductions in traffic due to the DC2RVA ridership are anticipated at stations that are 

being served in the No Build condition but are not being served in the Build condition. 

4.15.1.4 Ridership Effects on Parking Needs at Stations 

DRPT used an Amtrak-approved method to determine the parking demand at each Amtrak 

station in the DC2RVA corridor7. Parking factors vary by the type and location of station. There 

are three types of Amtrak stations within the DC2RVA corridor: Large (fully staffed, multiple 

transit services and amenities, multiple tracks and platforms); Medium (lower levels of staff, 

supporting transit services); and Caretaker (enclosed waiting areas, limited amenities, not fully 

staffed). Additionally, stations were categorized as city center (high density urban) or suburban 

(medium density) 8 . The analysis approach takes into account the different characteristics of 

regional, state corridor, or long distance passenger train riders and includes average duration of 

trip. Refer to the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for detailed assumptions, as well as 

results for each station alternative. 

Alexandria Depot 

 

7 Amtrak recommends that parking capacities at its stations should be based on at least a twenty-year projection of 

ridership growth. Accordingly, DRPT determined it appropriate to conduct the DC2RVA parking analysis based on 

projections for the year 2045. 

8 It was assumed that a suburban station requires more parking than in a city center. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-172 

Table 4.15-3: Summary of Ridership Impacts on Station Roadways, % Change1 in Traffic on Adjacent Road

Intercity Passenger Trains 

2025 Build 

Alternatives 

Station 

Alexandria Woodbridge Quantico Fredericksburg 

Ashland 

Station 

Staples Mill 

Road 

Boulevard 

Road 

6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 7.7% 0.3% 2.2% 0.0% 

6B3 (Boulevard 

Station Only) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 8.1% 0.3% -3.0% 5.2% 

6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 8.1% 0.3% -3.0% 0.0% 

6D (Main Street Station Only) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 8.1% 0.3% -3.0% 0.0% 

6E (Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 7.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 7.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 

6G (Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 

0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 7.3% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 

1 The % changes shown in this table compare the 2025 Build to the 2025 No Build conditions. For details of each Build Alternative, refer to the Transportation Te

presented by the Richmond area alternatives, because the ridership forecasts developed for this Project only differ based on which station option is used in Richmond

2 Adjacent roadway(s) at stations were defined as those that vehicles (including personal motor vehicle, transit, or drop-off service such as taxis) could use to access t3 The DC2RVA passenger train ridership is the same for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, so they are presented in this table as a single Build Alternative 6

Note that the station(s) served within Richmond for each Build Alternatives are highlighted for ease of reference. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-173 

DRPT calculated a range of daily parking space demand (a high and low range) based on 

projected DC2RVA ridership. A summary of the results is provided in Table 4-15.4. 

Table 4-15.4: Summary of Daily Parking Space Demand by Station 

Station Station Size / Type 

Daily Parking Space 

Demand: Low 

Daily Parking Space 

Demand: High 

Alexandria Medium / Suburban 140 190 

Woodbridge Caretaker / Suburban 35 47 

Fredericksburg Medium / Suburban 142 191 

Ashland Caretaker / Suburban 29 39 

Boulevard Road Large / Suburban 459 620 

Broad Street Large / Suburban 446 603 

Staples Mill: 

Build Alternative 6A Large / Suburban 467 632 

Build Alternative 6E Large / Suburban 411 556 

Build Alternative 6F Large / Suburban 301 406 

Build Alternative 6G Large / Suburban 344 465 

Main Street: 

Build Alternative 6D Large / City Center 193 261 

Build Alternative 6E Medium / Suburban 49 66 

Build Alternative 6F Large / Suburban 199 269 

Build Alternative 6G Medium / Suburban 120 163 

The results indicate the following overall corridor-wide results. 

 The daily parking space demand does not vary by Build Alternative for the stations with 

a single location (Alexandria; Woodbridge; Fredericksburg; Ashland; Boulevard Road; 

and Broad Street). 

 At Staples Mill Road Station, sizing and type do not vary. Build Alternative 6A would 

require the highest daily parking space demand at 632 spaces (high demand), which is a 56 

percent increase over the Build Alternative 6F which requires 406 spaces (high demand). 

 At Main Street Station, the station size and type varies by Build Alternative. Build Alternatives 

6D and 6E, in which it is defined as a large station, would require the most daily parking (260 

to 270 spaces, high demand), while Build Alternative 6E, in which Main Street is defined as a 

medium station, requires the least amount of parking (66 spaces, high demand). 

The conceptual layouts based on these parking needs are shown in Chapter 2. These conceptual 

layouts for each station were based on the physical characteristics of the station site, the DC2RVA 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-174 

basis of design, and the functional requirements of Amtrak. In general, the high end of the range 

of the daily parking space demand was used (with rounding) when developing the parking 

layouts; however, for the Alexandria station, the conceptual layout reflects the existing property 

constraints and not the calculated parking space demand. 

4.15.2 Corridor Scale 

This section presents the potential effects of the DC2RVA Project on the highway-rail crossings 

and connecting roadway network. It includes descriptions of the improvements proposed at each 

crossing as well as analysis of the effects of those improvements on vehicles using the crossings 

and on connectivity to the transportation network. All analyses in this section are for the 

permanent Build condition; for temporary construction-related effects, refer to Section 4.19. 

4.15.2.1 DC2RVA Build Alternative Crossing Improvements 

Types of Crossing Treatments 

The following five types of crossing treatments are included within the DC2RVA Build Alternatives; 

these were based on FRA guidelines, life-cycle cost efficiency, and safety needs of the geometry of 

parallel/intersecting crossing roadways and operating conditions within the DC2RVA corridor. 

Other site improvements (i.e., geometric and/or safety improvements) to improve overall roadway 

and/or railroad safety, as part of or in addition to these treatments, are not precluded from the design 

of any of these treatments. It is anticipated that changes to crossing treatments that could occur during 

final design would have limited effects compared to the treatment types developed and analyzed in 

this Draft EIS. In the unanticipated event that substantive changes are developed as part of final 

design efforts, the impacts of these changes would be assessed at that time. 

Grade Separation.

A highway-rail crossing that occurs at two different vertical 

levels (i.e., the roadway pavement and the railroad tracks 

do not intersect). Per FHWA 9 , “the decision to grade 

separate at [an existing] highway-rail crossing is primarily 

a matter of economics” as a long-term investment. Benefits 

of grade-separated crossings (compared to at-grade 

crossings) include reduction in collisions, vehicle and rail 

delay, and maintenance costs. 

Four-Quadrant Gates.

A system of gates (entrance and exit gates on all roadway 

approaches) designed to provide full closure of the crossing 

when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing, thus 

eliminating the opportunity for vehicles to navigate around 

a single lowered gate. Design can include detection inside 

the gates to ensure that vehicles do not get “trapped” inside 

lowered gates. 

 

9 Quoted from FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition August 2007) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-175 

Median Treatment with Gates.

A system of physical improvements designed to impede 

the movement of vehicles into the opposing traffic lane and 

around the single lowered gate (two-quadrant gate). 

Treatments include barrier wall systems, wide raised 

medians, and mountable raised curb systems with vertical 

median separators. Considerations include cost-benefit 

(median treatments are generally less expensive to install 

than four-quadrant gate systems) and absence/distance of 

nearby intersections and driveways. 

Closure.

Per FHWA10, “closure of [an existing at-grade] crossing to 

highway traffic should always be considered as an 

alternative.” Benefits include reduction in collisions, 

vehicle and rail delay, and rail maintenance costs. 

Considerations include elimination of redundant crossings, 

convenience/travel cost of vehicles using an adjacent 

crossing, and effects on adjacent crossings and connecting 

roadway network due to diversion of vehicles. 

Locking Gate (private crossings only).

This term refers to a moveable barrier gate that is engaged 

(i.e., closed) and only opens on demand, and would be 

implemented in accordance with FRA’s 2009 High Speed 

Passenger Rail Safety Strategy guidelines11. The locking gate 

could be manual (requiring property owners to exit their 

vehicle to manually interact with the gate) or more 

automated (e.g., key card access to open and close the gate), 

the details of which would be determined during final 

design. 

No Action.

Considered at crossings where the existing crossing 

treatment is sufficient to accommodate the DC2RVA 

Project. 

The example images above are representative of a typical application; they are included for illustrative purposes only.

 

10 Quoted from FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition August 2007) 

11 FRA’s 2009 High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy guidance states for track speeds between 80mph and 110mph, 

private highway-rail grade crossings should be treated with “automated warning or locked gate with signal 

interlock”. Other types of private gates were considered during the alternatives development process, but from a safety 

standpoint, the locked gate treatment was considered to be the better candidate by restricting access to the crossing to 

the private crossing owner and allowing access only for a specific set of conditions as opposed to being open 24 hours 

a day excluding train events. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-176 

Virginia state code12 restricts the creation of new at-grade crossings; this means that any new 

crossings of existing roadways due to the DC2RVA Project should be grade-separated, with 

potential roadway realignment and/or closure. As part of any Build Alternative for the DC2RVA 

Project, every existing or new at-grade crossing should be grade-separated, closed, or have 

appropriate crossing treatment that is connected into the train detection circuitry13 and physically 

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

Existing or future year roadway capacity improvements, other than those that are directly due to 

actions of this Project, are under the purview of VDOT and/or local governments and are 

excluded from the DC2RVA analyses. For example, if a Build Alternative of the DC2RVA Project 

consolidates two adjacent crossings, assessing if roadway improvements that are directly related 

to that traffic diversion are required is part of this Project and would be evaluated as part of the 

environmental consequences; however, assessing if roadway improvements are needed due to 

increases in overall traffic due to regional growth (i.e., No Build conditions) is outside the 

purview of this Project. 

Crossing Improvements at Existing Public and Private At-Grade Crossings 

Decisions regarding whether an existing at-grade public or private roadway crossing should be 

eliminated (grade-separated or closed) or improved through installation of new or additional 

crossing treatments depended on several factors, including FHWA crossing elimination guidance 

criteria for public roadways14, as well as the identification and analysis of site-specific conditions 

by the DRPT team15: 

 Traffic Data and Traffic Operations 

 Train Data and Rail Operations 

 Safety/Geometric Deficiencies 

 Environmental Resources 

 Engineering Feasibility 

 

12 The applicable state law can be found at: https://vacode.org/56-363/. 

13 The design and construction of crossings will comply with all applicable safety standards, including positive train 

control. Positive train control is a new system being designed to automatically stop a train before certain types of 

accidents occur. Specifically, positive train control, as mandated by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (RSIA), is being designed to prevent train-to-train collisions; derailments caused by excessive speed; unauthorized 

incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance activities are taking place; and movement of a train 

through a track switch left in the wrong position. 

14 FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition provides guidance criteria and details 

physical and operational improvements for highway-rail at-grade crossings to enhance safety and operation of 

roadway and rail traffic through the crossings. Specifically, the handbook outlines analysis methodologies for 

consideration of traffic control devices or other measures at every public roadway-rail at-grade crossing and sets forth 

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

if any one or more of the set thresholds are met or exceeded. FHWA Rail-Roadway Crossing Handbook can be found 

here: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/07010.pdf. 

15 Site-specific condition evaluation was based on project site visits, aerial and/or street-view photography, and VDOT 

and FRA online databases. The level of detail documented for the site-specific conditions was intended to support 

identification of feasibility considerations for each proposed action at the crossing location. 

 Adjacent Property Uses. 

 Preliminary Cost-Benefit 

 Accessibility 

 Connectivity to Adjacent Crossings 

 Special Uses at Crossings 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-177 

The methodology to determine the crossing treatment at new crossings followed a similar sitespecific process as described above, with an emphasis on roadway network connectivity and 

accessibility to adjacent crossings and land uses. 

Based on the above, DRPT developed a crossing improvement recommendation for each crossing16 for 

the Draft EIS, which can vary by Build Alternative. It is anticipated that, during final design, 

additional crossing diagnostics would be performed based on the standards of practice at that time. 

Summary tables of total type of crossing improvement for each Build Alternative for public and 

private crossings are provided in Tables 4.15-5 and 4.15-6, respectively. 

At-Grade Crossing at Vaughan Road in Ashland, VA 

 

16 The proposed crossing improvements that DRPT developed were based on the Build condition of adding one 

additional track throughout the DC2RVA corridor. It was intended that the primary proposed actions resulting from 

the evaluation could be altered for other Build condition scenarios based on detailed engineering analyses and design 

considerations. For example, for Hermitage Road (S-Line crossing), DRPT initially recommended additional median 

treatment; however, during the design of Build Alternative 6B–S-Line, it was determined that the potential for risk to 

motorists at this crossing increases significantly with passenger trains accelerating and decelerating toward the 

proposed Boulevard Station. Accordingly, the Hermitage Road crossing was proposed to be grade-separated as part 

of this build alternative. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-178 

Table 4.15-5: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements, Summary by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Proposed Crossing Improvements1

Grade 

Separation 

Crossing 

Closure 

Four-Quadrant 

Gates 

Media

Treatm

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 1C 

RO 2-Track East Alignment, RO 2-Track West Alignment, and RO 1 Track East & West 

0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A3 Add 1 Track East or West 0 1 2 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A No Additional Track 0 0 3 1 3B Add Main Track East of Existing 1 0 2 1 3C 2-Track Bypass (East) 0 0 5 4 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Add 1 Track East or West 0 1 4 2 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A and 5B 

No Additional Track; 

and Add 1 Track East 

2 1 7 1 

5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, 

No Additional Track (Relocate Station); Add 1 Track East (Relocate Station); and Add Main Track and Center Existing; 

2 0 8 1 

5C 2-Track West Bypass 0 1 9 1 5C

–Ashcake 2-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station) 0 0 10 1 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6E 

Staples Mill Road Station Only; Boulevard Station Only (A-Line); and Split Service Main Street/Staples Mill 

3 4 2 1 

6B

–S-Line Boulevard Station Only (S-Line) 4 5 4 3 

6C Broad Street Station Only 3 4 2 2 6D, 6F, and 6G Main Street Station Only; 

Full Service. Main Street/Staples Mill; and Shared Service, Main Street/Staples Mill 

3 5 4 4 

1 "Crossing Closure" can include construction of a new roadway connector to provide access. "Median Treatment" can include raised medians (new or extension of exist

raised curbs with vertical median tubes, with gates. "No action required" includes existing crossings with existing treatment that meets the DC2RVA criteria; existing 

the Build Alternative (bypass alignments only); or new crossings of public roadways that do not require an action due to property acquisition (bypass alignments). 

2 "New” public crossings are provided as a summary total for reference and include crossings that would be grade-separated, closed/consolidated with adjacent crossing

or realigned. The exception is for Build Alternative 6C (Broad Street Station), which includes two new at-grade public roadway crossings as part of the station improv

3 Build Alternative 2A includes the proposed improvement of four-quadrant gates at Potomac Avenue, if not installed by others as part of the Powells Creek–Arkendal

Note that all crossings may require minor safety and/or geometric improvements related to construction of the Build Alternative (i.e., moving existing gates to accomm

This table does not include potential effects to other non-crossing roadways that may be required as part of the Build Alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

Table 4.15-6: Private At-Grade Crossing Improvements, Summary by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Proposed Crossing Improvement 

Crossing 

Closure 

Four-Quadrant 

Gates 

Locking 

Gate 

No A

Requ

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A, 1B, and 1C 

RO 2-Track East Alignment; RO 2-Track West Alignment; and RO 1 Track East & West 

0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A Add 1 Track East or West 0 3 1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A and 3B 

No Additional Track; and 

Add Main Track East of Existing 

0 0 0 

3C 2-Track East Bypass 1 0 4 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Add 1 Track East or West 0 0 10 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

No Additional Track; Add 1 Track East of Existing; Add Main Track / Center Existing 

0 0 0 

5C and 5C–Ashcake 

2-Track West Bypass 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E 

Staples Mill Road Station Only; Boulevard Station Only (A-Line); Broad Street Station Only; and Split Service, Main Street/Staples Mill 

0 0 0 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G 

Boulevard Station Only (S-Line); Main Street Station Only; Full Service, Main Street/Staples Mill; and Shared Service, Main Street/Staples Mill 

0 2 2 

1 “No action required" in the above table includes existing crossings with existing treatment that meets the DC2RVA criteria; or new crossings of public roadways t

to property acquisition or alternate access (bypass alignments). 

2 "New Private Crossings" in the above table are provided as a summary total for reference, and include crossings that would be closed/consolidated with adjace

acquisitions; or realigned. Note that all crossings may require minor safety and/or geometric improvements related to construction of the Build Alternative (i.e., moving existing gates to accom
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-180 

As shown by the summary at-grade crossing improvement data: 

 DRPT proposes that most of the existing at-grade public roadways remain at grade with 

the addition of four-quadrant gates or gates with median treatment as appropriate to 

provide a corridor with increased safety for the DC2RVA Project. 

 DRPRT proposes that most of the existing private at-grade crossings have locking gates 

in all Build Alternatives, unless the property is acquired or alternate access can be 

provided. Four-quadrant gates are proposed at private crossing locations where sitespecific safety, geometric, and/or operating conditions were determined to preclude use 

of locking gates. See the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for details. 

 Most new crossings occur in Build Alternative 3C (Fredericksburg Bypass) and Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake (Ashland Bypass). 

 Build Alternative 6C (Broad Street Station Only) includes two new at-grade public 

roadway crossings on West Leigh Street as part of the station improvement design, which 

would require a variance of Virginia State Code and/or coordination with VDOT. 

Each proposed crossing improvement for public at-grade roadways is presented in Figures 4.15-

1 through 4.15-13. Additionally, a list of each public roadway closure and grade separation is 

provided at the end of this section. 

Full methodology of the crossing improvement evaluation process, as well as detailed lists of the 

crossing roadways and figures showing the proposed crossing improvements at private 

crossings, are provided in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S). 

Crossing Improvements at Existing Grade-Separated Crossings 

All existing grade-separated crossings (both public and private) in the rail corridor would be 

maintained as part of all Build Alternative designs. The proposed crossing improvements at the 

existing grade-separated crossings consist of one of the following: 

 No action required (i.e., the existing structure is sufficient to accommodate the DC2RVA 

Project) 

 Extend the existing structure (i.e., widen either roadway structure for roadway overpasses 

or rail structure for roadway underpasses) 

 Build a new structure 

These three types of crossing improvements are functionally equivalent because the existing 

operations of the crossing roadway (i.e., the number and type of lanes) are not modified as part 

of the Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Improvements to other Roadways 

In addition to the highway-rail crossing roadways, two public roadways that run parallel to and 

generally adjacent to the railroad tracks are included in the Build Alternative improvements, as 

follows. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-181 

Figure 4.15-1: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-182 

Figure 4.15-2: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-183 

Figure 4.15-3: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3B 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-184 

Figure 4.15-4: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 3C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-185 

Figure 4.15-5: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 4A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-186 

Figure 4.15-6: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5A, 5B 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-187 

Figure 4.15-7: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-188 

Figure 4.15-8: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-189 

Figure 4.15-9: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-190 

Figure 4.15-10: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6E 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-191 

Figure 4.15-11: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 6B–S-Line 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-192 

Figure 4.15-12: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternative 6C 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-193 

Figure 4.15-13: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements – Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, 6G 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-194 

 The Build Alternatives that include the addition of a third track through town (Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) require the closure of the eastern section 

of Railroad Avenue / Center Street between England / Thompson Street and Maiden 

Lane. At this location Railroad Avenue / Center Street17 runs adjacent and parallel to the 

railroad tracks within the Town of Ashland. The portion of Railroad Avenue / Center 

Street on the eastern side of the rail corridor between England / Thompson Street and 

Maiden Lane conflicts with the addition of the third track. All other portions of Railroad 

Avenue / Center Street, on either side of the rail corridor within the Town of Ashland, 

would be realigned, as required, to accommodate the design of the Build conditions and 

remain open to traffic after completion of construction. 

 The proposed additional track through the Richmond Area conflicts with one public 

roadway that is located adjacent and parallel to the railroad tracks. Dalebrook Drive from 

Bellbluff Drive to southern terminus of Dalebrook Drive would be required to be 

realigned without change to existing operations as part of all Build Alternatives. 

Summary of All Proposed Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations 

For ease of reference, a summary of the public roadway improvements that are proposed as part 

of each Build Alternative is provided here. Unless specified below, all other public roadway 

crossings would either maintain the existing at-grade condition with crossing improvements of 

either four-quadrant gates or median treatment with gates, or do not require any action. 

Alternative Area 1 (Arlington): There are no public roadway closures or grade separations 

within Area 1 as part of any Build Alternative. 

Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia): There are no grade separations proposed within the 

single Build Alternative 2A. One closure is proposed at Mount Hope Church Road crossing. 

Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg): As shown in Table 4.15-7, there are no proposed public 

roadway closures through Fredericksburg. One grade separation is proposed at Landsdowne 

Road in Build Alternative 3B only. Four grade separations are proposed along the new alignment 

portion of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). 

Table 4.15-7: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Fredericksburg Area 

Alternative Area Alternative Grade Separate Landsdowne Road 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A 

3B 

3C 

This table only shows the proposed improvements of grade separation and closure for public roadways.

 

17 Railroad Avenue / Center Street operates as two one-way roadways (one on each side of the rail line) through the 

Town of Ashland. Based on inventory of physical street signage, the Railroad Avenue designation is generally used 

closest to the center of town (near England Street) and the Center Street designation is used elsewhere. For ease of 

reference, these roadways will be designated as “Railroad Avenue / Center Street” with callouts to the appropriate 

side of the tracks, as necessary, as well as to/from limits, in place of any “N” or “S” designation in the transportation 

analysis for the Draft EIS. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-195 

Alternative Area 4 (Central Virginia): There are no proposed grade separations within the single 

Build Alternative 4A. One closure is proposed at Colemans Mill Road crossing. 

Alternative Area 5 (Ashland): As shown in Table 4.15-8, each Build Alternative in Ashland 

contains some combination of the following closures and separations: 

 All Build Alternatives except for the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–

Ashcake) will require two grade separations as part of this project: W. Vaughan Road 

crossing and Ashcake Road crossing. 

 All Build Alternatives that include station platform improvements at the existing station 

location within town require one roadway crossing closure at College Avenue crossing to 

accommodate the platform improvements at the existing station. 

 The Build Alternatives that include the addition of a third track through town (Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) require the closure of the eastern section of 

Center Street / Railroad Avenue between England / Thompson Street and Maiden Lane. 

 The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) will require one roadway 

closure at Independence Road and six grade separations along the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) (not listed in Table 4.15-8). 

Table 4.15-8: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Ashland Area 

Area Alternative 

Grade Separate 

West Vaughan 

Crossing 

Grade 

Separate 

Ashcake 

Crossing 

Close 

College 

Avenue 

Crossing 

Close Center Street, 

South of England 

Street to Maiden 

Lane 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A   

5A–Ashcake   

5B    

5B–Ashcake   

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake   

This table only shows the proposed improvements of grade separation and closure for public roadways. 

Alternative Area 6 (Richmond): As shown in Table 4.15-9, each Build Alternative in Richmond 

contains some combination of the following closures and grade separations, the need for which 

is driven by the at-grade crossing evaluation that was completed by DRPT as part of this project: 

 All Build Alternatives grade separate Hungary Road near Staples Mill Road Station and 

close Old Lane near the junction of the CSXT A-Line and S-Line at Centralia. 

 All Build Alternatives that use the A-Line close Bassett Avenue, Terminal Avenue, and 

Thurston Road, and grade separate Broad Rock Boulevard and Walmsley Boulevard. 

 All Build Alternatives that use the S-Line close St James Street, N 2nd Street/Valley Road, 

Dale/Trenton Avenue, and Brinkley Road, and grade separate Hospital Street and E 

Commerce Drive. 

 Build Alternative 6B–S-Line grade separates the S-Line crossing of Hermitage Road, 

which is proposed for safety considerations due to proximity of trains decelerating and 

accelerating to the new Boulevard Road Station.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-196 

Table 4.15-9: Public Roadway Closures and Grade Separations in Richmond Area 

Alternative Grade Separate Hungary Road Close Bassett Avenue Grade Separate Broad Rock Boulevard Close Terminal Avenue Grade Separate Walmsley Boulevard Close Thurston Road Close Old Lane Grade Separate Hermitage Road (S-Line Crossing) Close St James Street Close N 2nd Street/ Valley Road Grade Separate Hospital Street Grade Separate E Commerce Road Close Dale / Trenton Avenue Close Brinkley Road 

6A        

6B–A-Line        

6B–S-Line         

6C        

6D        

6E        

6F        

6G        

This table only shows the proposed improvements of grade separation and closure for public roadways. 

4.15.2.2 DC2RVA Crossing Improvement Effects on Connectivity and Accessibility 

The purpose of this analysis is to qualitatively identify locations where existing accessibility and 

connectivity of the roadway network may be affected by the DC2RVA Project as compared to the 

No Build condition. These locations will be moved forward for further quantitative analysis (refer 

to Section 4.15.2.4.). 

Accessibility and connectivity to public roadways and private property driveways and access 

were considered. The identification was conducted at each highway-rail crossing; however, both 

the crossing roadway and adjacent connecting roadway network within the limits of disturbance 

were evaluated. The determination of "no effect"18 is defined as maintaining existing capacity and 

connectivity to the roadway network, as follows: 

 No increases or decreases to carrying capacity of public roadways. 

 All existing movements on the crossing roadway are maintained. 

All existing parcel access is maintained, unless the design requires a full property acquisition. The 

results of this process are summarized by type of crossing in the sections below. Refer to the 

Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for full details of the process and results of the 

evaluation. 

 

18 “No effect” does not preclude minor changes to location of any access points within the same property, if needed, to 

facilitate design and construction of the project. For properties with existing access to the crossing roadway, if at least 

one access to that property area is maintained or the parcel was a full property acquisition, the “no effect” is considered 

reasonable. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-197 

Effects of Improvements at Public At-Grade Crossings and Adjacent Public Roadways 

Closure Effects. The crossing improvements that are anticipated to have the greatest effect on the 

existing accessibility and connectivity of the transportation network are related to either closures 

of existing public at-grade highway–rail crossings or closures of public roadways located adjacent 

and parallel to the railroad tracks that are required due to engineering of other improvements. 

Closing an existing traffic movement requires a permanent detour of vehicular traffic. This 

permanent detour not only affects the vehicles that are making the detour, but also the traffic 

operations and vehicles along the alternate route to some degree and therefore warrants further 

analysis. 

Fourteen (14) public roadway closures within the different Build Alternatives were identified to 

be analyzed further (see Section 4.15.2.3); these include: 

 Mount Hope Church Road crossing, Stafford County: Build Alternative 2A 

 Colemans Mill Road crossing, Caroline County: Build Alternative 4A 

 College Avenue/Henry Clay Road crossing, Town of Ashland: Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, 

and 5C 

 Railroad Avenue/Center Street between England Street and Maiden Lane, Town of 

Ashland: Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

 Independence Road intersection with West Patrick Henry Road, Hanover County: Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

 Bassett Avenue crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E 

 Terminal Avenue crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 

6E 

 Thurston Road crossing, Chesterfield County: Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 

6E 

 Brinkley Road crossing, Chesterfield County: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 

6G 

 Old Lane crossing, Chesterfield County: all Richmond Area Build Alternatives 

 Ownby Lane intersection with Hermitage Road, City of Richmond: Build Alternative 6B–

S-Line 

 St James Street crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G 

 N 2nd Street/Valley Road crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, and 6G 

 Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue crossing, City of Richmond: Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 

6D, 6F, and 6G 

The closure locations are included on Figures 4.15-1 through 4.15-13. Refer to Section 4.15.2.3 of 

this Draft EIS for details on the closure diversion analysis that was completed for each location. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-198 

Grade Separation and Median Treatment Effects. After review of all highway-rail crossings19, 

the proposed crossing improvements of grade separation and crossing treatment improvements 

(including both median treatment with gates and four-quadrant gates) are expected to have 

minimal effect on existing accessibility and connectivity of the transportation network as part of 

any Build Alternative of the DC2RVA Project. The designs of all proposed grade separations and 

crossing treatment improvements of existing at-grade crossings maintain the existing functional 

characteristics of the crossing roadway, including number and type of roadway lanes. 

Improvements associated with the Build Alternatives sought to address potential adverse effects 

on traffic through implementation of grade separations. 

Effects of Improvements at Private At-Grade Crossings 

After review of all private at-grade highway-rail crossings, DRPT does not anticipate that any of 

the private crossing improvements included as an element of any DC2RVA Build Alternative 

would have an effect on the overall connectivity and accessibility of the transportation network; 

therefore, they do not warrant further detailed traffic operations analysis. 

This outcome is supported by the fact that these crossings are all private and are, by definition, 

exclusive of the public roadway network. Regardless of the private classification, however, the 

crossing improvements at all private at-grade crossing locations were designed to maintain 

existing accessibility and connectivity to the private land parcels. All Build Alternatives as part 

of the DC2RVA Project maintain private property access, with the exception of where full 

property acquisitions are required by the design. 

Effects of Improvements at Grade-Separated Crossings 

After review of all public and private grade-separated highway-rail crossings, DRPT does not 

anticipate any of the proposed modifications to existing grade-separated crossings would have 

an effect on the overall connectivity and accessibility of the transportation network for any Build 

Alternative of the DC2RVA Project. The crossing modifications, if required, at existing gradeseparated crossings include two types: extension of the existing crossing structure or construction 

of a new separate parallel grade-separated crossing structure. All modifications were designed to 

maintain existing functional characteristics of the crossing roadway, including number and type 

of roadway lanes, as part of each Build Alternative; therefore, the proposed actions of the existing 

grade-separated public and private crossings do not warrant further detailed traffic operations 

analysis. 

Relevance of Build Alternatives on Quiet Zones (Public At-Grade Crossings) 

As discussed in Section 3.15.2.2, a Quiet Zone is a section of rail line that contains one or more 

consecutive at-grade public crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded20. 

FHWA defines highway-rail Supplemental and Alternative Safety Measures (SSMs) as 

 

19 The impact to the two new W. Leigh Street at-grade crossings is identified as “no effect” to the connectivity of the 

transportation network because all existing movements are maintained in the design. This is not intended to indicate 

that there would be no effects to vehicles if a new crossing is implemented; refer to Section 14.15.2.2 of this Draft EIS 

for the daily vehicle delay analysis.

20 FRA’s regulatations mandate that a horn be sounded at every public at-grade crossing (i.e., horns are not required 

to be sounded at public crossings that re grade-separated or private crossings). See the Transportation Technical Report 

(Appendix S) for details. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-199 

engineering improvements that compensate for the absence of the train horn safety requirement 

at at-grade crossings. SSMs include the following: 

 Closure of a highway-rail at-grade crossing. Note that closure of an at-grade crossing indicates, 

in this instance, closure of the at-grade condition, which would include grade separation of the 

crossing or permanently closing the crossing to vehicular traffic.

 Four-quadrant gates. 

 Gates with traffic channelization arrangements (e.g., non-mountable curb or mountable 

curb with delineators). 

In accordance with FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised Second Edition 

August 2007), if SSMs are “employed at every highway-rail grade crossing in the quiet zone, they 

automatically qualify the quiet zone (subject to reporting requirements).” The DC2RVA Build 

Alternatives include SSMs at all public existing at-grade crossings; therefore, because the proposed 

actions for existing at-grade highway-rail crossings for the DC2RVA Project fully align with the 

definition of SSMs, the DC2RVA Project would not negatively affect the ability of local public 

authorities to obtain Quiet Zones within their jurisdictions. Because local jurisdictions must initiate 

and manage the process for implementing Quiet Zones, the noise reduction benefits that derive 

from removing the requirement for trains to routinely sound horns are dependent on locality 

actions; the DC2RVA Project would support local jurisdictions should they seek to establish Quiet 

Zones. FRA Office of Safety authorizes quiet zones on a site-specific basis, which are voluntary by 

the operating railroad. 

Furthermore, DRPT does not anticipate that the DC2RVA Project will adversely affect the existing 

Quiet Zone designations because safety improvements that qualify as SSMs are proposed at all 

existing public at-grade crossings, including those with existing Quiet Zone designations that are 

based on the “grandfather” provision in the regulations. Refer to the Transportation Technical 

Report (Appendix S) for full assessment details. 

Effects on Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity 

All existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be maintained (provided in-kind) as part of 

all DC2RVA Build Alternatives and would be designed to current safety standards. This includes 

the existing at-grade pedestrian crossings through the Town of Ashland. The 11 at-grade 

pedestrian crossings in Ashland consist of 3-foot-wide walkways at top of rail, with steps at each 

end. The pedestrian crossings do not have any train warning protection (e.g., no flashing lights 

or gates). In addition, the current at-grade pedestrian crossings do not meet Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Most of the pedestrian crossings also lack a designated 

crosswalk leading across Center Street/Railroad Avenue. DC2RVA Build Alternatives that add a 

track through town would extend existing pedestrian crossings across the new track alignment, 

as necessary. 

Opportunities for additional bicycle and pedestrian accessibility improvements, including 

updates to ADA facilities, would be incorporated during final design in coordination with FRA 

after the Draft EIS. 

4.15.2.3 DC2RVA Crossing Closure Diversion Analysis (Traffic Operations) 

Roadway closures can affect more than the closed roadway itself. Closing an existing traffic 

movement requires vehicles to divert to a different route. This not only affects the vehicles that 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-200 

are diverting, but it also affects traffic operations and vehicles along the diversion route to some 

degree. It is the purpose of this analysis to evaluate the effect of each closure along the diversion 

route. There are fourteen roadways that are anticipated to be closed by the DC2RVA Build 

Alternatives; these are presented in Table 4.15-10. 

Table 4.15-10: Existing and 2025 No Build Data for Closure Diversion Analysis 

Alternative Area1 Alternative 

Closure 

Roadway Name 

Existing/ 

New 

Roadway 

Type 

Crossing 

Milepost 

Daily Volumes2

2015 

2025 

No Build 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A Mount Hope 

Church Road 

Existing Crossing CFP 67.54 214 256 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Colemans Mill 

Road 

Existing Crossing CFP 29.70 449 537 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)3

5A, 5B, and 5C College Avenue / 

Henry Clay Road 

Existing Crossing CFP 14.90 1,326 1,586 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake 

Railroad Avenue / 

Center Street 

Existing Adjacent n/a 1,000 1,200 

5C and 

5C–Ashcake 

Independence 

Road 

New Crossing New 949 1,135 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Bassett Avenue Existing Crossing A 1.01 1,399 1,674 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Terminal Avenue Existing Crossing A 3.88 683 817 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Thurston Road Existing Crossing A 10.00 459 549 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Brinkley Road Existing Crossing S 9.83 1,836 2,196 

6A through G Old Lane Existing Crossing A 10.74 4,896 5,856 

6B–S-Line Ownby Lane Existing Adjacent n/a n/a n/a 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

St James Street Existing Crossing SRN 1.75 1,000 1,196 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

N 2nd Street/ 

Valley Road 

Existing Crossing SRN 1.60 2,142 2,562 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Dale Avenue/ 

Trenton Avenue 

Existing Crossing S 4.98 0 0 

1

 No closure diversion analysis in Alternative Areas 1 or 3. 

2 The source for all traffic volumes for transportation analyses is the VDOT GIS online database for AADT with Vehicle Classification for 2014 

(accessed January 2016). ADT grown to future years; refer to Section 4.15.1.2 of this Draft EIS. Note that the Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue

crossing is not open to public traffic in existing conditions. 

3

 Within Ashland, Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake does not include any closures of public roadways.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-201 

The analysis was performed at a level of detail commensurate with size and varied conditions of 

the project’s geographic scale, and with the relatively low traffic volumes on the majority of 

roadways that have the potential for being closed. The closure diversion analysis included two 

evaluations for each closure: 

1. Effects on the roadway traffic along the diversion route(s), including changes in daily 

volumes and associated facility level of service (LOS)21 operations. 

2. Effects on intersection capacity and operations along the diversion route(s). DRPT 

considered three threshold criteria: under capacity, near capacity, and over capacity, 

where intersections may be approaching but not yet exceeding capacity. The intersection 

capacity analyses are intended to generally correspond to LOS as follows: 

a) Under capacity represents LOS A/B conditions 

b) Near capacity represents LOS C/D conditions 

c) Over capacity represents LOS E/F conditions 

For this analysis, DRPT assumed that diverted vehicles would travel beginning at the location of 

the crossing and then utilize the closest adjacent crossing(s) using the shortest roadway path 

(determined based on roadway speeds and distances and engineering judgment). Diversions on 

both sides of the crossing (i.e., east and west of the tracks) were included, as well as upstream 

and downstream adjacent crossings, as applicable. The diversion analysis was conducted 

separately for each roadway closure, except within Ashland. For the Ashland alternatives, the 

analysis was completed for each Build Alternative to evaluate all of the proposed roadway 

closures together on the affected roadway network within the town22. 

Refer to the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for full details on the process and 

assumptions, as well as detailed results, including maps of roadways and intersection, by closure 

location. 

The results of the roadway and intersection diversion analysis are summarized in two tables: 

 Table 4.15-11 summarizes the analysis as it was conducted: by closure location. 

 Table 4.15-12 compiles the results by Build Alternative. 

As shown by the results in Table 4.15-11, the majority of the roadway closures are anticipated to 

have minimal effect on both roadway and intersection operations. “Minimal effect” is defined as 

the Build condition LOS on all roadway segments and through all intersections as being 

equivalent to the No Build condition. 

There are four closures that DRPT anticipates will have an effect on roadway and/or intersection 

operations, which are shaded for ease of reference in the table and described in further detail 

below. 

 

21 Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic operating conditions based generally on a comparison of traffic volumes 

to available capacity. LOS is described in terms of letter grades from A to F; LOS A represents free-flowing traffic 

conditions, while LOS F represents a breakdown in traffic flows, with stop-and-go conditions. Generally, LOS C is 

considered acceptable in rural areas, whereas LOS D is considered acceptable in urban areas. 

22 Within the Town of Ashland, a small traffic assignment model was developed to analyze the closure diversions. 

While the model used the same general process as the other roadway closures, the advantage of using a computerized 

model is to enable the consideration of a greater number of and more varied detour routes. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-202 

Table 4.15-11: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Closure 

Alternative Area1 Alternative Closure Roadway Name 

# Roadway 

Segments / Effect 

on Roadway 

Volumes & LOS 

# Intersections / 

Effect on 

Intersection 

Capacity 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A Mount Hope Church Road 4 / Minimal Effect 4 / Minimal Effect 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Colemans Mill Road 4 / Minimal Effect 7 / Minimal Effect 

Area 5: Ashland2 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A and 5C Ashland: Close College 

Avenue Crossing 

24 / Decreased LOS 

one segment 

24 / Decreased 

capacity through one 

intersection 

5B–Ashcake and 

5D–Ashcake 

Ashland: Close Center 

Street (South of England / 

Thompson Street to Maiden 

Lane) 

24 / Minimal Effect 24 / Minimal Effect 

5B Ashland: Close College 

Avenue Crossing & Close 

Center Street (South of 

England / Thompson Street 

to Maiden Lane) 

24 / Decreased LOS 

on one segment 

24 / Decreased 

capacity through one 

intersection 

5C and 

5C–Ashcake 

Independence Road 3 / Minimal Effect 3 / Minimal Effect 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Bassett Avenue 8 / Minimal Effect 10 / Minimal Effect 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Terminal Avenue Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 

6C, 6E 

Thurston Road 4 / Minimal Effect 6 / Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Brinkley Road 4 / Decreased LOS on 

one segment 

6 / Minimal Effect 

6A - G Old Lane 4 / Decreased LOS on 

two segments 

6 / Decreased 

capacity through one 

intersection 

6B–S-Line Ownby Lane Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

St James Street 4 / Minimal Effect 6 / Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

N 2nd Street/ Valley Road Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

6B–S-Line, 6D, 

6F, 6G 

Dale Avenue/ 

Trenton Avenue 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

Qualitative / 

Minimal Effect 

1

 No closure diversion analysis in Alternative Areas 1 or 3. 

2

 Within the Town of Ashland, the closure diversion analysis was performed as a set for the concurrent closures by Build Alternative. Build 

Alternative 5A–Ashcake does not include any public roadway closures. 

Shaded rows represent closures that are anticipated to have an effect on roadway and/or intersection operations. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-203 

Effects of Closure of College Avenue Crossing, Town of Ashland 

This closure is required by the station improvements at the existing station location (i.e., the 

extension of the platform across College Avenue/Henry Clay Road) in Build Alternatives 5A and 

5C. Diverted vehicles could use a variety of alternate routes through the grid street network in 

the Town of Ashland. 

 Roadway Operations. Thompson Street, between N James Street and N Center Street, is 

projected to drop from operating at LOS D (with 14,600 daily vehicles) in 2025 No Build 

to LOS E (with 15,400 daily vehicles) 2025 Build. 

 Intersection Operations. Thompson/England Street at Center Street, which is the 

primary intersection in the center of the Town of Ashland, is projected to operate near 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS C/D) during Build conditions, compared to under 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS A/B) during 2025 No Build conditions. 

Effects of Closure of College Avenue Crossing and Closure of Center Street 

(South of England/Thompson Street to Maiden Lane), Town of Ashland 

These concurrent closures are required due to conflicts with the station platform 

improvements (closure of College Avenue crossing) and conflicts with the addition of the 

third track (closure of Railroad Avenue/Center Street (on the east side of the tracks, between 

England/Thompson Street and Maiden Lane) that are part of Build Alternative 5B. Diverted 

vehicles could use a variety of alternate routes through the grid street network in the Town 

of Ashland.

Roadway Operations. Thompson Street, between N James Street and N Center Street, is projected 

to drop from operating at LOS D (with 14,600 daily vehicles) in 2025 No Build to LOS E (with 

15,300 daily vehicles) in 2025 Build. 

 Intersection Operations. Thompson/England Street at Center Street, which is the 

primary intersection in the center of the Town of Ashland, is projected to operate near 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS C/D) during Build conditions, compared to under 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS A/B) during 2025 No Build conditions. 

Effects of Closure of Brinkley Road, Chesterfield County 

The Kingsland Road crossing is located just over approximately 1⁄2 mile north of the Brinkley 

Road crossing. For 2025 Build conditions as part of Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, 

diverted vehicles would access this crossing by using Dorsey Road to the west of the rail corridor 

and Chester Road to the east. 

 Roadway Operations. Kingsland Road, between Dorsey Road and Chester Road is 

projected to drop from operating at LOS A (with 2,100 daily vehicles) in the 2025 No Build 

conditions to LOS B (with 4,200 daily vehicles) in the 2025 Build conditions. 

 Intersection Operations. Minimal effect. 

Effects of Closure of Old Lane, Chesterfield County 

The Centralia Road crossing, which is proposed to be grade-separated as a part of the Richmond-toRaleigh (R2R) project, is located approximately 1⁄2 mile south of the Old Lane crossing. For 2025 Build 

conditions in all Richmond Build Alternatives (6A through 6G), diverted vehicles would access this 

crossing by using Hopkins Road to the west of the rail corridor and Chester Road to the east. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-204 

 Roadway Operations. The following two roadway segments are affected by the closure: 

- Centralia Road, between Hopkins Road and Chester Road, is projected to drop from 

operating at LOS B (with 10,500 daily vehicles) in the 2025 No Build conditions to LOS 

E (with 16,300 daily vehicles) in the 2025 Build conditions. Centralia Road near this 

segment would be redesigned and reconstructed (including the grade separation) to 

accommodate these future volumes. 

- Hopkins Road, between Old Lane and Centralia Road, is projected to drop from 

operating at LOS B (with 4,100 daily vehicles) in the 2025 No Build conditions to LOS 

C (with 8,000 daily vehicles) in the 2025 Build conditions. 

 Intersection Operations. Centralia Road at Chester Road is projected to operate near 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS C/D) during Build conditions, compared to under 

capacity (generally equivalent to LOS A/B) during 2025 No Build conditions. 

The results of the crossing diversion analyses compiled by Build Alternative are presented in 

Table 4.15-12. 

4.15.2.4 DC2RVA Crossing Improvement Effects on Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

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

crossing over the course of a day (24 hours) based on the number of trains that are expected to 

pass through the crossing. The purpose of the daily delay calculations as part of the DC2RVA 

transportation analysis is to quantify the delay experienced by vehicles due to the number and 

type of trains traveling through the public at-grade highway-rail crossings for existing, No Build, 

and Build conditions. This daily vehicle delay calculation applies only to the at-grade public 

crossings themselves in the DC2RVA corridor23. Any combination of more trains, slower trains, 

and more motor vehicles would result in increases in resulting daily vehicle delay. Refer to the 

Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S) for full details on the daily delay calculation and 

source data, as well as the results summarized below. 

At-Grade Crossing at Mine Road 

 

23 While private vehicles may experience additional delay due to either train service improvements or crossing 

improvements as part of the DC2RVA Project, it is not quantified as part of this analysis. 

24 The increase of 1 hour of total daily delay for Build Alternative 3A is due to a combination of maintaining existing 

crossing conditions and increases in train frequency. 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

Table 4.15-12: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area1 Alternative 

Closure Diversion Roadway(s) 

Analyzed 

Effects on Roadway Traffic 

Volumes and Associated LOS Effects o

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Mount Hope Church Road Minimal Effect Minimal EffArea 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A Colemans Mill Road Minimal Effect Minimal Eff

Area 5: Ashland(Doswell to I-295) 5A College Avenue/Henry Clay Road Thompson Street: 14,600 vehicles / LOS D, No Build 

15,400 vehicles / LOS E, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

England/Th

Street: Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

5A–Ashcake No Closures for this Build Alternative n/a n/a

5B College Avenue / Henry Clay Road; 

Railroad Avenue / Center Street 

Thompson Street: 14,600 vehicles / LOS D, No Build 15,300 vehicles / LOS E, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

England/Th

Street: Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

5B–Ashcake Same as 5D–Ashcake Same as 5D–Ashcake Same as 5D

5C College Avenue / Henry Clay Road; 

Independence Road 

Thompson Street: 

14,600 vehicles / LOS D, No Build 15,400 vehicles / LOS E, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

England/Th

Street: Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

5C–Ashcake Independence Road Minimal Effect Minimal Eff

5D–Ashcake Railroad Avenue / Center Street Minimal Effect Minimal Eff

 Continued (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-206 

Table 4.15-12: Summary of Closure Diversion Analysis Results, by Build Alternative 

Alternative Area1 Alternative 

Closure Diversion Roadway(s) 

Analyzed 

Effects on Roadway Traffic 

Volumes and Associated LOS Effects o

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 6A Bassett Avenue; Terminal Avenue; Thurston Road; Old Lane Centralia Road: 10,500 vehicles / LOS B, No Build 

16,300 vehicles / LOS E, Build Hopkins Road: 4,100 vehicles / LOS B, No Build 8,000 vehicles / LOS C, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

Centralia R

Under CapaNear CapacAll other lo

6B–A-Line Same as 6A Same as 6A Same as 6A

6B–S-Line St James Street; 

N 2nd Street/Valley Road; 

Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue; Brinkley Road; Old Lane 

Same as 6AKingsland Road:

2,100 vehicles / LOS A, No Build 4,200 vehicles / LOS B, Build All other locations minimal effect. 

Same as 6A

6C Same as 6A Same as 6A Same as 6A

6D Same as 6B–S-Line Same as 6B

–S-Line Same as 6B

6E Same as 6A Same as 6A Same as 6A 

6F Same as 6B–S-Line Same as 6B

–S-Line Same as 6B

6G Same as 6B–S-Line Same as 6B

–S-Line Same as 6B

1 No closure diversion analysis locations in Alternative Areas 1 or 3. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-207 

Effects of Types of Crossing Treatments on Daily Vehicle Delay 

Different crossing treatments that are proposed as part of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives would 

have different effects on the total daily delay. The type of crossing improvement that can have 

the largest effect on the daily delay calculation is crossing elimination, as it fully removes the 

delay condition of vehicles queueing at an at-grade crossing. Crossing elimination is defined as 

either grade-separation or crossing closure: 

 Grade separation eliminates the vehicle delay by physically separating the train traffic from 

the roadway vehicles, though all vehicles use the crossing in the same travel patterns as the 

existing condition. This would affect the daily delay calculation by “zeroing out” the daily 

delay at the grade-separated crossing in the Build condition. For the DC2RVA Project, the 

following proposed crossing closure locations would divert vehicular traffic to adjacent 

crossing(s) that are grade-separated, as previously presented in Section 4.15.2.3, and 

therefore do not require diverted vehicles to be accounted for in the analysis of delay. 

- Mount Hope Church Road, Build Alternative 2A, Stafford County 

- Colemans Mill Road, Build Alternative 4A, Caroline County 

- Independence Road, Build Alternative 5C, Hanover County 

- Old Lane, all Richmond Build Alternatives, Chesterfield County 

- St James Street, Build Alternative 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, Richmond 

- Terminal Avenue, Build Alternative 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E, Richmond 

- N 2nd Street/Valley Road, Build Alternative 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, Richmond 

- Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue is not considered an existing public crossing and 

therefore has no effect on the delay analyses. 

 Crossing closure eliminates the vehicle delay by physically removing the ability of 

roadway vehicles to cross the rail corridor at an existing location; these vehicles would be 

accommodated via a permanent detour of vehicular traffic to adjacent crossing(s) as 

presented in Section 4.15.2.3. This would affect the daily delay in two ways in the Build 

conditions: (1) it would “zero out” the daily delay at the location of the crossing closure, 

and (2) it would increase the delay at any adjacent at-grade crossing(s) that the detoured 

vehicles use. If the adjacent crossing used by detoured vehicles is a grade-separated 

crossing(s), there is no effect on the grade-separated crossing because, as noted above, 

there is no interaction between motor vehicles and rail traffic. Otherwise, proposed 

crossing closures would require detouring vehicles to adjacent at-grade crossing(s), and 

therefore, would require inclusion of diverted vehicles on those adjacent crossing(s) as 

part of the Build condition. For the total daily delay analyses, vehicles were diverted per 

the closure diversion analysis methodology as presented in Section 4.15.2.3 above.

Table 4.15-13 presents the summary of the total daily delay results for the above conditions. The 

results indicate the following overall corridor-wide results. 

Effect of the DC2RVA Project on the 40-hour FHWA Daily Delay Threshold 

Daily vehicle delay is one of FHWA’s 11 criteria for which grade separation of at-grade crossings 

should be considered; the criteria threshold set by FHWA is 40 total vehicle hours of delay per 

day, which is the cumulative time all vehicles are delayed at a crossing per day. 

 The 40-hour FHWA threshold for total daily delay at an individual at-grade crossing is 

not met or exceeded under existing or No Build conditions. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-208 

 The 40-hour FHWA threshold for total daily delay at an individual at-grade crossing is not 

met or exceeded by the crossing conditions for any Build Alternative as part of the DC2RVA 

Project with the exception of one crossing. The England Street/Thompson Street crossing 

exceeds the 40-hour FHWA threshold in two of the build alternatives that pass through the 

Town of Ashland (Build Alternatives 5A and 5B with 41.85 total daily hours). The total daily 

delay at this crossing is 37.37 hours under No Build conditions. 

Effect of the DC2RVA Project on Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

The results shown in Table 4.15-13 are the sum total of all crossings within each Build Alternative. 

Negative values in the “% change” column represent decreases in delay in the Build condition. 

 DRPT anticipates that the DC2RVA Project will reduce vehicle delay for each Build 

Alternative with the exception of Build Alternative 3A, which maintains existing crossing 

conditions24. This reduction in delay indicates that the overall proposed grade separations 

and operating conditions that reduce delay (i.e., improved train speeds) outweigh the 

proposed changes that would increase delay (i.e., number of daily vehicles and trains, length 

of train). While vehicles at crossing closures will divert to adjacent crossings, the majority of 

diverted vehicles would utilize adjacent grade-separated crossings (thus removing the daily 

delay of those vehicles) and/or are relatively not high volumes of vehicles that are detoured. 

 Corridor-wide, the Build Alternatives with the greatest reductions in total vehicle delay 

hours are represented by the areas with the most at-grade crossing eliminations (i.e., grade 

separation or crossing closure) or those with service changes (i.e., the bypass alignments 

that reduce the daily number of trains through existing at-grade crossings or service line 

changes on the A- and S-Lines in Richmond). 

 Within Build Alternative 2A, there is one crossing elimination at Mount Hope Church 

Road (of four total at-grade crossings), which represents a 1 percent reduction in daily 

delay compared to No Build. 

 Within Fredericksburg, the only Build Alternative that includes a crossing elimination is 

3B, which includes one grade separation at Landsdowne Road (of four total at-grade 

crossings) and has the fewest total number of at-grade crossings. 3B represents a 60 

percent reduction in daily delay compared to No Build. 

 Within Build Alternative 4A, there is one crossing elimination at Colemans Mill Road (of 

seven total at-grade crossings), which represents a 6 percent reduction in daily delay 

compared to No Build. 

 Within Ashland, the Build Alternatives with the greatest reductions in daily delay occur 

for the bypass alignments (5C and 5C–Ashcake), which represent approximately 90 

percent reductions in daily delay through the existing at-grade crossings in town. The 

bypass alignments remove freight and long-distance passenger trains from traveling 

through the at-grade crossings in the town. For all other Build Alternatives, which vary 

in the total number and location of crossing elimination, there is a reduction of 

approximately 25 percent in daily delay compared to No Build. 

 The A-Line Build Alternatives in Richmond include seven crossing eliminations (out of 

eleven total at-grade crossings), which represents a 70 percent reduction in daily delay 

 

24 The increase of 1 hour of total daily delay for Build Alternative 3A is due to a combination of maintaining existing 

crossing conditions and increases in train frequency. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-209 

compared to No Build. The exception is 6C, which includes two new at-grade crossings at 

the Broad Street Station and therefore would experience higher total delay. 

 The S-Line Build Alternatives in Richmond include seven crossing eliminations (of a total 

of seventeen at-grade crossings), which represents a 60 percent reduction in daily delay 

compared to No Build. The exception is 6B–S-Line, which includes an additional crossing 

elimination in proximity to the Boulevard Station. By eliminating the most at-grade 

crossings in the Build condition, it is projected to experience the greatest decreases in delay. 

 For crossings that remain at-grade and experience increases in delay in the Build 

condition, the change in total daily delay is less than 8 percent for most crossings. Less 

than ten individual crossings that are located within Fredericksburg, Ashland, and 

Richmond will experience higher total daily delay. Refer to the Transportation Technical 

Report (Appendix S) for these details. 

Total Daily Delay due to Types of Trains 

Table 4.15-13 also shows the Intercity Passenger, VRE Passenger, and Freight percentage of total 

daily delay. 

 The delay due to intercity passenger trains increases compared to No Build conditions for 

the majority of the corridor and continues to represent a relatively small fraction of the 

total daily vehicle delay experienced at at-grade crossings in 2025 Build conditions. 

 The majority of the total delay experienced throughout all alternative areas would 

continue to be from freight trains, which represents almost 90 percent of the total delay 

corridor-wide in 202525. 

4.16 UTILITIES 

Utility impacts for the Build Alternatives vary widely throughout the length of the Project. Table 

4.16-1 summarizes the estimated utility impacts and costs for the Build Alternatives. The No Build 

Alternative would not require any utility relocations. 

4.17 SAFETY AND SECURITY 

FRA’s Track Safety Standards (49 CFR 213) are based on classifications of track that determine 

maximum operating speed limits, inspection frequencies, and standards of maintenance, among 

other issues. Higher track classes require more-stringent maintenance standards to support higher 

allowable maximum operating speed. Between Fredericksburg and Staples Mill Station in Richmond, 

the proposed maximum speed is 90 mph, or FRA Class 5. Outside of this area, the proposed 

maximum speed is 79 mph, or FRA Class 4. The proposed improvements described in Chapter 2 

would bring rail infrastructure in the selected corridor into compliance with the appropriate FRA 

standards. FRA will require the preparation of a System Safety Plan upon the completion of the EIS 

and prior to authorization to implement the infrastructure and service improvements proposed 

under the DC2RVA Project. Refer to the Basis of Design Technical Report (Appendix B).

 

25 The exception to this is Build Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake, which shift all freight trains onto the bypass. 

Accordingly, the existing at-grade intersections through the Town of Ashland would therefore have reduced daily 

delay due to freight trains for the bypass alternatives.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-210 

Table 4.15-13: Summary of Total Daily Delay1 Results, 2025 Build Conditions, By Build Alternative 

Alternative 

Area2 Alternative 

Crossings that 

Exceed FWHA 

40-hour Daily 

Delay Threshold 

Total Daily Vehicle Delay Results 

No Build 

(Hours) 

At-Grade 

Crossings 

Removed3 as 

part of project 

Build 

(Hours) 

Intercity 

Percent 

of Total 

Delay 

VRE 

Percent 

of Total 

Delay 

Freigh

Percen

of Tot

Delay 

No 

Build Build 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 0 0 23.28 1 23.01 13% 5% 82% 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 0 0 16.61 0 17.61 13% 5% 81% 

3B 0 0 16.61 1 6.59 13% 5% 82% 

3C 0 0 36.37 0 32.79 9% 0% 91% 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 0 0 3.58 1 3.35 13% 0% 87% 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A 0 1 73.94 3 56.28 11% 0% 89% 

5A–Ashcake 0 0 73.94 2 56.33 11% 0% 89% 

5B 0 1 73.94 3 55.01 11% 0% 89% 

5B

–Ashcake and 

5D–Ashcake 0 0 73.94 2 55.06 11% 0% 89% 

5C 0 0 73.94 1 9.76 42% 0% 58% 

5C

–Ashcake 0 0 73.94 0 9.77 42% 0% 58% 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

6A, 6B

–A-Line, 

and 6E 0 0 78.70 7 26.48 12% 0% 88% 

6B

–S-Line 0 0 168.36 9 40.37 11% 0% 89% 

6C4 0 0 104.90 7 64.95 24% 0% 76% 

6D and 6F 0 0 168.36 8 68.55 10% 0% 90% 

6G 0 0 168.36 8 67.20 8% 0% 92% 

1 Delay represents the Total Daily Vehicle Delay for all train types. It is the cumulative delay for all at-grade crossings. 2 Note that there are no public at-grade crossings located within Alternative Area 1 (Arlington). 3 Removal of the At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossing Condition includes the proposed improvements of Grade Separation and Crossing Closure. 4 Build Alternative 6C includes the delay associated with the two new at-grade crossings in all calculations excluding the No Build condition. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-211 

Table 4.16-1: Estimated Utility Relocations and Costs 

Alternative 

Area Alternative 

Relocations (in feet, except Major Facility) 

Cost 

Fiber Water $2016 

Sanitary 

Sewer 

Electric 

Dist. 

Electric 

Trans. Gas 

Major 

Facility 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long 

Bridge 

Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – $0 

1B – – – 400 – – – $118,800 

1C – – – 400 – – – $118,800 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 3,000 – – 2,000 – 45,000 – $34,485,000 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads)

3A 1,500 – – – – 3,500 – $2,695,500 

3B 1,500 – – – – 3,500 – $2,695,500 

3C 1,500 – – – – 4,000 – $3,070,500 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A 153,000 1,160 – 1,875 – 7,275 – $13,506,885 

Area 5: 

Ashland (Doswell 

to I-295)

5A 61,776 – – 400 – 600 – $3,472,272 

5A–Ashcake 61,776 – – 400 – 600 – $3,472,272 

5B 90,288 5,000 600 2,825 – 2,800 – $8,724,561 

5B–Ashcake 90,288 5,000 600 2,825 – 2,800 – $8,724,561 

5C 30,096 1,667 200 942 – 933 – $2,908,123 

5C–Ashcake 30,096 1,667 200 942 – 933 – $2,908,123 

5D–Ashcake 90,288 5,000 600 2,825 – 2,800 – $8,724,561 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 24,345 2,170 1,175 9,510 3,700 6,915 1 $28,935,430 

6B–A-Line 104,855 2,575 1,220 20,920 5,200 7,200 1 $43,945,400 

6B–S-Line 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,020 14,700 7,325 2 $96,463,578 

6C 104,900 2,665 1,220 20,920 5,700 7,200 1 $46,471,005 

6D 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,020 14,700 7,325 2 $96,463,578 

6E 91,630 2,350 1,220 11,040 3,700 7,140 2 $33,035,740 

6F 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,020 14,700 7,325 2 $96,463,578 

6G 196,175 1,658 1,215 23,705 14,700 7,475 2 $96,779,523 

Note: Cost estimates do not include engineering costs or contingency. Major utility facility relocations are provided by number, not feet. 

Each at-grade highway-rail crossing was analyzed to determine which safety mechanisms or 

treatments would be proposed as part of the Build Alternatives. These treatments include grade 

separation, closure/consolidation, four-quadrant gates, median treatment, other treatment, or no 

action. All roadways that would be retained across the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 

3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would be grade-separated. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-212 

There would be two new at-grade crossings under the single-station alternative in Richmond at 

Broad Street (Build Alternative 6C). The Project would improve safety of the private at-grade 

crossings with either locking gates or signalized four-quadrant gates and would improve safety 

at the pedestrian at-grade crossings. 

Safety of the existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor would be improved as 

part of the Build Alternatives (Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report).

4.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Most of the rail lines in the United States, including the DC2RVA corridor, are used for 

transportation of various freight, including hazardous materials. All Class I railroads are required 

to maintain a safety plan for transporting such materials. FRA and The United States Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) regulate the transportation of materials on railroads. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of DHS determines the routes for shipment of 

certain hazardous materials. For security reasons, TSA does not share this information outside 

specific agencies and freight rail carriers; however, freight rail carriers regularly communicate 

with emergency management agencies and DHS about materials of concern. 

The Build Alternatives would add nine additional round trips of intercity passenger trains on the 

DC2RVA corridor. The Project would not add any hazardous materials trains on the DC2RVA 

corridor. The Build Alternatives are designed in accordance with FRA regulations, industry 

standards, and CSXT requirements. DRPT expects that the proposed upgrades to facilities and 

added rail capacity associated with the Build Alternatives will increase safety of all train traffic 

through the DC2RVA corridor by decreasing congestion, maintaining the rail line to current 

standards in locations where work is being conducted and replacing older infrastructure. The 

modern infrastructure and new technologies that would be applied would provide a greater level 

of safety for all rail traffic, including transportation of hazardous materials. 

4.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction impacts associated with a transportation project are those impacts that are 

temporary or short term and that occur only during construction. They can involve temporary 

changes in land use and access, air quality, noise levels, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The 

following provides an overview of the types and extent of potential construction impacts that 

may occur if a Build Alternative is advanced. BMPs and other measures that can be used as 

appropriate to mitigate any temporary construction impacts are also presented. Construction 

impacts would be similar amongst the different Build Alternatives in each alternative area, with 

the exception of Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Alternative Area 5 (Ashland). In these 

areas, more construction would occur with the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and 

the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) than the Build Alternatives that go 

through town (Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake). 

However, the Build Alternatives that go through town and add an additional track (Build 

Alternatives 3B, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake) would require construction through a built 

up urban environment where space is more confined and where construction activities are more 

likely to impact activities of area residents. Refer to the Constructability Technical Report (Appendix 

L) for addition information regarding the construction of each Build Alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-213 

4.19.1 Impacts 

4.19.1.1 Rail 

Track closures and shifts can have major effects on rail operations. New stations and station 

alterations can also have effects on transit users. Construction of the additional track, 

infrastructure additions and modification to control points, station infrastructure with additional 

platforms, and speed increases requires a phased construction approach. 

4.19.1.2 Land Use and Access 

Construction activities for all Build Alternatives could result in temporary and localized detours, 

modifications to access, and increases in truck traffic. Access to businesses and homes could be 

temporarily disrupted due to temporary detours that are necessary to allow ample space for 

equipment staging and construction. 

4.19.1.3 Air Quality 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment-related particulate emissions in and around the study area. The potential air quality 

effects would be short term, occurring only while demolition and construction work is in progress 

and local conditions are appropriate. The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is 

associated with building demolition, ground clearing, site preparation, grading, stockpiling of 

materials, onsite movement of equipment, and transportation of materials. The potential is 

greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity, and during high wind 

conditions. 

GHG emissions would also be generated during construction; however, these emissions are likely 

to be relatively minor given the nature and size of the Project and the limited duration of 

construction activities. 

4.19.1.4 Noise 

Noise levels would not be substantially altered by construction, which includes noise generated 

by heavy equipment during construction activities. The potential for noise impacts during 

construction is correlated to the proximity of sensitive noise receptors to the proposed 

construction activity. The potential for noise impacts during construction typically increases in 

urban and suburban areas because of the higher population densities found in those areas; 

however, noise in urban areas might be less noticeable than in rural areas because ambient noise 

levels are higher in urban areas. Construction noise impacts are temporary and, typically, 

progress linearly along transportation corridor construction projects. As construction approaches 

an area, noise impacts to receptors in that area would begin to increase over a period of time, 

reach a peak, and then dissipate as construction moves past the area. Section 4.7.1.4 provides 

additional information regarding construction noise. 

4.19.1.5 Water Resources 

Construction could potentially result in short-term effects such as increased sedimentation, 

increase in turbidity from in-stream work, and possible spills, or non-point source pollutants 

entering groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff. Construction activities that could 

affect stormwater runoff include excavation to widen ‘cut’ sections and to remove unsuitable 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-214 

(organic) material from ‘fill’ sections; filling and placing ballasts to support new track; relocating 

access roads; relocating or creating new trackside swales; and any substructure work required for 

bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction staging areas and haul 

roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion and sedimentation. 

Additionally, culvert installation may require pump-around methods, resulting in a temporary 

cessation of flow through stream sections. 

4.19.1.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

Human presence during construction and the associated construction noise, such as from passing 

equipment, piling emplacement, and blasting of bedrock, may temporarily displace some species 

of wildlife. The noises associated with construction may also mask territorial vocalizations of 

birds, interfering temporarily with breeding. Amphibians, which breed more commonly at dusk 

or night, are less likely to be affected. Construction in forested areas may result in mortality of 

amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals within the work zone and the loss of nesting birds if 

construction is initiated during nesting season. The clearing of terrestrial and aquatic vegetated 

cover within the construction footprint would temporarily displace certain habitat areas, and the 

mechanical removal of cover would cause animal migration away from the disturbance, resulting 

in a temporary decrease in available habitat and increased competition for remaining habitat. 

Water quality and therefore aquatic species may be affected temporarily by runoff from 

construction areas and permanently through runoff from increased impervious surfaces. 

Anadromous fish movements could be interrupted during construction. Opportunistic or 

invasive plant species may have a competitive advantage in colonizing disturbed areas during 

early construction activities. Many of these effects can be offset through application of BMPs. 

4.19.2 Mitigation 

4.19.2.1 Rail 

During construction, the goal will be to maintain two main tracks in operation wherever possible; 

however, there will be some track outages and service disruptions during construction. DRPT 

will prepare a Service Development Plan (SDP) for the DC2RVA Project. The SDP will define the 

phased implementation of improvements relative to the incremental expansion of service. 

Preliminary engineering and final design plans will include a construction staging plan to 

minimize track outages during construction. Station improvements for platform additions and 

pedestrian access will be constructed early to support the new track when placed in operation. 

4.19.2.2 Land Use and Access 

Temporary disruptions to driving patterns and access are often unavoidable but would be 

minimized to the extent possible by carefully planning for maintenance of traffic during the 

construction process. The SDP will define the phased implementation of improvements relative 

to the incremental expansion of service. Preliminary engineering and final design plans will 

include a construction staging plan to minimize roadway outages during construction. Safety 

concerns due to the presence of heavy construction equipment during Project construction will 

be mitigated using appropriate signage and fencing to separate pedestrians and vehicles from 

construction areas and equipment. All land use temporarily affected by construction activities 

would be returned to its original use after construction is complete. All temporary access for 

construction vehicles would be removed and returned to its original land use. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-215 

4.19.2.3 Air Quality 

DRPT will identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. The 

VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications include provisions on fugitive dust control. Under these 

provisions, dust and airborne dirt generated by construction activities will be controlled through 

dust control procedures or a specific dust control plan, when warranted. The contractor and 

DRPT will meet to review the nature and extent of dust-generating activities and will 

cooperatively develop specific types of control techniques appropriate to the specific situation. 

Techniques that may warrant consideration include measures such as minimizing track-out of 

soil onto nearby publicly traveled roads, reducing speed on unpaved roads, covering haul 

vehicles, and applying chemical dust suppressants or water to exposed surfaces, particularly 

those on which construction vehicles travel. With the application of appropriate measures to limit 

dust emissions during construction, this Project will not cause any significant, short-term 

particulate matter air quality impacts. 

4.19.2.4 Noise 

Practices to minimize the effects of construction noise would be in accordance with Section 

107.14(c)(3) of VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications. 

While construction noise is unavoidable in most cases, steps can be taken to minimize the impact, 

such as the following: 

 Keep all equipment well maintained, tuned, and properly lubricated to minimize atsource noise production; 

 Use sound attenuation devices on exhaust ports; 

 Substitute the use of flag persons to control construction vehicle movements, instead of 

using audible back-up alarms for vehicles; 

 Minimize unnecessary idling of heavy equipment and machinery, especially diesel 

engines and generators, when not actively in use; and 

 Prohibit construction during sensitive nighttime, early evening, and early morning hours. 

DRPT will evaluate construction noise mitigation measures in more detail when an analysis of 

construction noise based on an actual construction plan can be completed and will ensure that all 

appropriate mitigation measures are employed by including these measures in the contractors’ 

contracts. 

4.19.2.5 Water Resources 

All temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and water resources associated with 

construction activities are regulated by USACE and Virginia DEQ through Sections 404 and 401 

of the CWA, as well as by the Virginia Water Protection Program. DRPT will be responsible for 

ensuring that all Section 404 and 401 permit requirements are met by the Project contractors. 

Stormwater discharges to jurisdictional wetlands and waterways, such as discharges from 

construction sites, are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Stormwater program. An NPDES Construction permit would be required for any 

construction site that disturbs more than 1 acre (including sites that are smaller than 1 acre but 

are included as part of a larger project or development). Through issuance of an NPDES 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-216 

Stormwater permit, the regulating agency would ensure that enough erosion and sediment 

control measures are specified for the activity and that impacts are further reduced by using 

construction BMPs. 

Erosion and sedimentation control plans for highway and rail improvements, including staging 

areas, would be required for work that would include ground disturbance, and they would describe 

the measures to be employed as erosion control, sedimentation control, temporary stormwater 

management measures, and dust control. Erosion control plans would also address in-water work 

at stream crossing locations. These plans must be approved before site construction could proceed 

and would be developed in accordance with regulations set forth by VDCR. Implementation of the 

Project-specific plan would be expected to minimize impacts of erosion and sedimentation during 

construction. Erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented throughout the 

construction period to minimize water quality impacts from increased levels of sedimentation and 

turbidity. Control measures may include berms, dikes, sediment basins, fiber mats, straw silt 

barriers, netting, mulch, temporary and permanent seeding, and other methods. Construction 

impacts to in-stream aquatic habitats would be minimized to the extent practicable by avoiding 

stream relocations and by crossing streams at right angles where possible. To the extent possible, 

construction equipment would be restricted from fording and otherwise disrupting in-stream 

habitats. Staging areas for heavy equipment, material storage, and short-term field offices would 

be chosen carefully and situated away from sensitive areas. 

4.19.2.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

DRPT anticipates that construction would be monitored to adhere to a strict schedule with 

possible time of year restrictions to avoid disrupting the critical life cycles of both aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife, in particular, threatened and endangered species. The spread of invasive plant 

species would be minimized during construction through cleaning of equipment and machinery 

between sites to reduce transport of undesirable plant species and prompt revegetation of 

disturbed areas. Temporary and permanent revegetation establishment, in accordance with 

VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications, would minimize the extent and duration of undesirable 

plant growth and reduce sediment runoff. Work in streams and wetlands would also be 

minimized to the extent practicable, and necessary in-stream work would be done in the dry or 

with the use of sediment curtains and other measures to minimize impacts to aquatic species. 

Aquatic and terrestrial habitat would be restored in temporary construction areas as the native 

vegetation reestablishes over time. 

4.20 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

4.20.1 Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are those that are caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but still are reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or 

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems 

(40 CFR 1508.8(a)). The analysis of indirect effects followed a seven-step process described below 

based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 466, Desk Reference 

for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects (TRB, 2002). This process is 

consistent with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and FHWA regulations for 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-217 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and with applicable CEQ and 

FHWA guidance. 

NCHRP Report 466 states that indirect effects can occur in three broad categories: 

1. Encroachment-alteration impacts – Alteration of the behavior and functioning of the 

affected environment caused by project encroachment (physical, biological, 

socioeconomic) on the environment 

2. Induced growth impacts – Project-influenced development effects (land use) 

3. Impacts related to induced growth – effects related to Project-influenced development 

effects (impacts of changed land uses on the human and natural environment) 

4.20.1.1 Step 1: Scoping 

Scoping entails collaboration with the public, agencies, and other stakeholders to identify the 

significant issues that should be studied in the indirect effects analysis. The study team 

coordinated extensively with local, state, and federal agencies and jurisdictions and the public 

throughout the study. Early outreach included an agency scoping meeting, four public scoping 

meetings, e-mail distributions, press releases, website announcements, and letters to elected 

officials. Additional details on the coordination can be found in Chapter 6. 

Commenters identified several resources of concern, including: 

 Socioeconomics (land use, parks and recreational areas, public lands, minority and lowincome populations, and right-of-way and displacements); 

 Natural resources (surface waters and wetlands, floodplains, biological resources, and air 

quality); 

 Historic properties (building sites, districts, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in 

the NRHP). 

4.20.1.2 Step 2: Identify Study Area Direction and Goals 

As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, and Chapter 2, Alternatives, the proposed 

improvements would be largely limited to the existing rail corridor, with the exception of several 

local realignment options at the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland. Accordingly, 

the general study areas for the Project are centered on the existing rail facilities, as illustrated in 

Figure 1.2-1 in Chapter 1. The preceding sections of this chapter describe the direct environmental 

impacts of the proposed improvements along these corridors. 

Indirect effects can occur in areas beyond the direct footprint of the constructed improvements. 

Moreover, the areas within which indirect effects may materialize vary by resource type. 

Therefore, each resource-specific study area includes additional lands that contain resources that 

are in some way connected to the area of direct effects of the Project. The following study areas 

have been defined for the indirect and cumulative effects analyses. 

Socioeconomics 

The study area for indirect and cumulative effects on socioeconomic resources encompasses an area 

defined by Census tracts that lie directly within or partially within the direct impacts area. Topics 

included under socioeconomics include land use, demographics, environmental justice, parks and 

recreational resources, and public lands. The Project corridor traverses parts of 153 census tracts in 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-218 

Arlington County (2), the City of Alexandria (10), Fairfax County (13), Prince William County (11), 

Stafford County (10), the City of Fredericksburg (3), Spotsylvania County (4), Caroline County (6), 

Hanover County (12), Henrico County (19), the City of Richmond (52), and Chesterfield County 

(11). The data associated with these tracts are presented in Table 3.12-2 and Figure 3.12-1 in Chapter 

3. While the census tracts encompass areas where indirect socioeconomic effects may occur, the 

locations where induced growth might occur is focused near the stations where access to improved 

intercity passenger rail services would be provided. Inducement of growth requires access to the 

rail services at the station locations in the same manner as highway interchanges provide access to 

the interstate highway system. Major passenger transport stations for intercity passenger rail work 

best in existing regional centers (FRA, 2011). Accordingly, station locations proposed for one or 

more alternatives include the following, which are all in urban or suburban areas: 

 Alexandria Union Station 

 Woodbridge Station 

 Quantico Station 

 Fredericksburg Station 

 Ashland Station 

 Staples Mill Road Station 

 Boulevard Station 

 Broad Street Station 

 Main Street Station 

In a station area planning reference document for high speed and intercity rail, FRA (2011) 

suggests defining the station area in terms of 0.25- and 0.5-mile radii of the station. Accordingly, 

the study area for analysis of potential induced development is defined as the areas within a 0.5-

mile radius of the station locations. 

Also included for the indirect effects analysis for socioeconomics is Union Station in downtown 

Washington, D.C. Although Washington’s Union Station is beyond the limits of the Project, it 

serves as an existing hub for Amtrak services and an important origin and destination for 

potential passenger travel on the Washington, D.C. to Richmond line. Union Station is located 

near many government and commercial buildings and residential areas. 

Natural Resources 

The study area for indirect and cumulative effects to natural resources includes the seven eightdigit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed boundaries that encompass the Project limits. 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Section 3.1.1, provides descriptions of these watersheds, and 

Figure 3.1-1 in Chapter 3 shows their locations.

 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (HUC 02070010) 

 Lower Potomac (HUC 02070011) 

 Lower Rappahannock (HUC 02080104) 

 Mattaponi (HUC 02080105) 

 Pamunkey (HUC 02080106) 

 Middle James-Willis (HUC 02080205) 

 Lower James (HUC 02080206) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-219 

These watersheds represent the area within which there is potential for indirect and/or 

cumulative effects on waters and related resources (wetlands and floodplains) upstream and 

downstream of the study area. It also is a suitable area for consideration of the potential effects of 

habitat loss on the availability and connectivity of wildlife habitats.

Historic Properties 

The study area for indirect and cumulative effects to historic properties is the same as the Section 

106 APE for architectural and archaeological resources as defined in the historic properties 

analysis. The APE extends 500 feet on either side of the DC2RVA corridor center line in those 

areas where the proposed corridor would follow the existing rail line; however, in town or urban 

settings, the APE is reduced to one city block because dense modern development would often 

limit the effect of the proposed rail Project on historic resources. The APE was expanded to 1,000 

feet in areas where DRPT recommends highway-rail grade separations and also expanded as 

needed in areas of new roadways to capture potential viewshed impacts (areas where alterations 

to a resource’s setting and feeling could occur). This APE was approved by DHR in March 2015.

Direction and goals pertain to past trends and future expectations regarding social, economic, 

natural resource, and historic property conditions. Past actions regarding land use and 

development, including exploitation of natural resources, are reflected in the current conditions 

of the environment, as described in Chapter 3. Future conditions depend in part on the policies 

and planning activities of local and regional planners with respect to land use types and densities. 

Local comprehensive plans generally contain sections regarding visions or goals for desired 

patterns of development, as well as protection and preservation of sensitive environmental 

resources. Evidence indicates that transportation investments result in land use changes only in 

the presence of other factors. These factors include supportive local land use policies, local 

development incentives, availability of developable land, and a favorable investment climate 

(TRB, 2002). An understanding of local goals, combined with knowledge of demographic, 

economic, and social trends, contributes to understanding the potential for Project-influenced 

changes. Moreover, understanding goals permits consideration of the extent to which potential 

indirect effects align with those goals as a partial determinant of impact significance and an 

indicator of effects that merit further analysis. In Chapter 3, Section 3.11.3.2, Status of Local 

Planning/Development Trends, provides an overview of direction and goals. 

4.20.1.3 Step 3: Inventory Notable Features in the Study Area 

The objective of this step is to identify specific environmental issues within the indirect effects 

study areas against which the Project may be assessed. This is accomplished through conducting 

an inventory of notable features for each resource of concern. Notable features include specific 

valued, vulnerable, or unique elements of the environment. More-specific information regarding 

notable features for each resource is provided throughout Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

4.20.1.4 Step 4: Identify Impact-Causing Activities of the Proposed Alternatives 

Step 4 identifies the impact-causing activities of the Project so that they may be compared with 

the goals and trends identified in Step Two and the notable features identified in Step Three to 

assess whether a potential for indirect effects exists (Step Five). General types of Project impactcausing activities include earthwork for track and station construction (clearing, excavation, and 

filling), landscaping, erosion control, remediation, changes in travel patterns, and changes in 

access. These activities have been considered in the analysis of direct effects for each resource in 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-220 

this chapter. Direct effects that may result from the Project can potentially trigger indirect effects 

through encroachment and alteration of the environment farther in distance or time. 

In addition to indirect effects that can be triggered by Project encroachment, indirect effects can 

also occur as a result of induced changes in land use patterns, population density, or growth rate 

that would otherwise not be expected without implementation of a proposed Project. General 

circumstances influencing the likelihood of induced development include: 

 Extent and maturity of existing transportation infrastructure 

 Accessibility 

 Location attractiveness 

 State of the regional economy 

 Land availability and value 

 Availability of utilities 

 Area vacancy rates 

 Local political/regulatory conditions 

 Land use controls 

For this Project, the potential for induced growth effects is focused on station locations. The existing 

railway passenger stations on the DC2RVA corridor require facilities and infrastructure 

improvements. The site preparation for station construction may include clearing and grubbing, 

grading for new or expanded platforms and trackage, utility service installation and relocations, 

and drainage installations. Other potential impact-causing activities at station locations may 

include provision of intermodal connectivity for local transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel; 

passenger pickup and drop offs; parking as either parking decks or paved parking areas; and 

ancillary retail and other amenities. The relevant station locations are as listed previously in Step 2. 

4.20.1.5 Step 5: Identify Indirect Effects for Analysis 

The objective of this step is to assess whether notable features identified in Step 3 would be 

indirectly affected by the proposed alternatives, taking into consideration the impact-causing 

activities and direct effects in Step 4. The following subjects were determined to potentially 

experience indirect effects from the Build Alternatives and were thus selected to move forward 

to the analysis of indirect effects in Step 6: 

 Socioeconomics and land use 

 Parks and recreation areas 

 Historic properties 

 Water resources 

 Floodplains 

 Wildlife and habitat 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-221 

4.20.1.6 Step 6: Analyze Indirect Effects and Evaluate Analysis Results 

Socioeconomics and Land Use 

Under the No Build Alternative, the population along or near the rail corridor is expected to 

continue to grow. The Washington/Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg, and Richmond urban 

areas would continue to function as hubs of residential and commercial activities. In-fill 

development and denser development would be expected in these areas. Less-developed lands 

between these hubs also would be expected to continue to experience development as people 

seek more space that is still within reasonable commuting distance of job opportunities. 

All existing rail station locations are in urban and suburban locations where considerable 

development already exists; however, under the Build Alternatives, further intensification of 

development densities could occur at these locations in response to demand for residential space 

and commercial services in areas convenient to the stations, generally within a 0.5-mile radius from 

the station. Government agencies and other entities often prepare planning documents to anticipate 

and guide the form and density of such development. For example, Amtrak prepared a Master Plan 

for Washington, D.C.’s Union Station (Amtrak, 2012). The Master Plan provides for relieving 

existing and future passenger rail congestion and accommodating triple the current number of 

passengers and double the current number of trains (including the new SEHSR trains) within the 

existing station footprint. This would be accomplished by improving existing facilities and 

constructing new facilities under and over the existing facilities, including air rights development 

of retail, hotel, commercial, and residential spaces. Construction would be phased over a 15- to 20-

year period. Phase 4 of the Master Plan provides further expanded tracks and platforms on a lower 

level and creation of a new Amtrak lower-level concourse, which would accommodate increased 

intercity passenger rail service south to Virginia and the Southeastern United States. Aside from 

the facilities that would specifically be built to serve increased intercity passenger rail services, it is 

difficult to determine specific increments of other types of development that could be attributed to 

actual implementation of the services. The variety of other passenger rail services at the station (e.g., 

Northeast Corridor [NEC], VRE, Metrorail), as well as the dense and dynamic existing and planned 

residential and commercial activities, also contribute to the overall development status of the 

station area and surrounding lands. Similarly, the City of Richmond’s Downtown Master Plan 

(2009) calls for Main Street Station to be a multimodal transportation hub for downtown Richmond. 

Recent and ongoing construction at the Main Street Station is aimed at rehabilitating the condition 

of the facilities, furthering the multimodal functions of the station, and promoting retail and social 

activities within and around the station. 

Other stations in the DC2RVA corridor that would be served by the additional intercity passenger 

trains may also experience some increment of increased development to take advantage of the 

transportation benefits provided; however, such development would be consistent with the 

urban or suburban patterns already existing and would be consistent with local land use planning 

and goals. Moreover, such development would only enhance the utilization and effectiveness of 

the passenger rail services. 

Except for the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), the Project involves improvements to an existing rail facility. As 

such, the Project would not divide or segment existing communities or interfere with community 

cohesion. Existing communities adjacent to the rail corridor are accustomed to the presence of the 

rail facility, the train traffic on it, and the noise and visual effects associated with it. However, in 

sections where parallel track would be added, the rail facility would be in incrementally closer 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-222 

proximity to residences and businesses, which may increase noise levels and/or remove visual 

buffers. It is possible that some residents or businesses may leave the area because of such increased 

proximity effects. It is also possible, however, that some people may be attracted to communities 

adjacent to the rail stations because of the improved travel times and access. 

The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would bisect residential development along two 

local roads (Thornton Rolling Road and Patriot Lane), which would adversely affect community 

cohesion by separating adjacent neighbors and introducing a rail line where one does not currently 

exist. The introduction of a rail line and rail traffic would alter the rural setting of the area and may 

make nearby lands less attractive for residential use. Likewise, the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C or 5C–Ashcake) would cross rural lands designated in Hanover County’s 

Comprehensive Plan for agricultural and forestry uses, including the locally designated Stanley 

Agricultural and Forestal District. In addition to displacing homes, this alternative would adversely 

affect community cohesion by separating adjacent neighbors and introducing a rail line where one 

does not currently exist. The introduction of a rail line and rail traffic would alter the rural setting 

of the area. The effects on community cohesion are mitigated, to some extent, through the provision 

of highway-rail grade at most of the roadways that cross the bypass alignments. 

The Project could contribute positively to economic activity along the DC2RVA corridor in the 

short term by providing jobs during Project design and construction and in the long term by 

reducing congestion, improving intercity travel time and reliability, and improving accessibility 

to employment at other location within the region by rail. 

Parks and Recreation Areas 

Many publicly owned parks and recreation areas exist immediately adjacent to the rail corridor. 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on these properties. None 

of these properties are at station locations where new or modified access would be provided to 

accommodate intercity passenger rail services. Accordingly, none of the Build Alternatives would 

result in induced growth effects on parks or recreation areas; however, these properties could 

potentially experience encroachment-alteration indirect effects under the Build Alternatives due to 

ongoing proximity effects over time, such as air quality, noise, and visual impacts from the railroad 

and trains operating on it. However, these are expected to be minor and would not differ 

substantially from the No Build Alternative. There would be direct effects of the Project on publicly 

owned parks and recreational areas by one or more of the Build Alternatives (see Section 4.14 of 

this chapter). Land at up to six parks would be directly used by the Project. None of these impacts 

would affect park activities, and the amount of right-of-way required would generally be below 0.4 

acre. The exception is at Long Bridge Park, where Build Alternative 1B would impact 1.45 acres. 

Impacts at the other parks would be temporary and would not result in incorporation of parkland 

into the railroad right-of-way. Noise levels under the Build Alternatives would generally be higher 

than existing noise levels or No Build Alternative noise levels; however, such noise levels would 

not rise to a level as to render the parklands unsuitable for their designated public recreational uses. 

Historic Properties 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on historic properties, 

except to the extent that station modifications are being planned and constructed to address other 

needs while also accommodating future increases in intercity passenger train services. For 

example, the City of Richmond’s Main Street Station and Trainshed (NRHP and NHL) is 

currently undergoing renovations that include retrofitting, upgrading, and expanding existing 

platforms to accommodate more trains; replacing the roof of the train shed; restoring pedestrian 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-223 

and bicycle travel through the train shed between Franklin Street and the farmer’s market; 

providing 80,000 square feet of retail space; and providing facilities and amenities to promote the 

site as an alternative transportation hub for transit, bicycles, and other alternative vehicles (City 

of Richmond Department of Economic & Community Development, 2016). These improvements 

also would support use of the station as a multimodal transportation hub for downtown 

Richmond (City of Richmond, 2009). While these improvements anticipate use of the station for 

both the Washington-to-Richmond and Richmond-to-Raleigh sections of the SEHSR corridor, 

additional improvements at the station would be needed to fully implement the increased 

intercity train services. 

Several of the Build Alternatives could have induced development effects on historic properties 

based on the different stations associated with the alternatives: 

 Build Alternative 2A in the Northern Virginia Area includes Alexandria Union Station 

(NRHP). Two other NRHP-listed historic properties are near the station – the George 

Washington National Masonic Memorial and the Rosemont Historic District. Although 

the Project involves no physical changes to the station, the increased train service could 

incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or denser 

development. However, the City of Alexandria’s Master Plan sets goals of encouraging 

quality, high-density mixed-use development near the King Street Metro Station, which 

is adjacent to the Alexandria Union Station. The major proposed changes involve phasing 

out industrial uses and replacing them with higher-density mixed-use development and 

moderate density office spaces. Accordingly, any increment of development induced by 

the Project at this location would be fully consistent with local planning for land use. 

Evaluation of effects on historic properties at this location pursuant to Section 106 of the 

NHPA is not complete. FRA’s preliminary conclusion is there will be no adverse effect, 

but this is subject to further consultation with DHR and the Section 106 consulting parties. 

 Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C in the Fredericksburg Area involve the Fredericksburg 

Amtrak/VRE Station. The historic station building (potentially eligible for NRHP) is not 

actually used for the station but is occupied by a restaurant. Passengers use the nearby 

platforms that have canopies to provide some protection from the weather. The station 

building is within the Fredericksburg Historic District (NRHP), which straddles the rail 

corridor. The historic station building would not be physically impacted. Instead, the 

platforms would be widened and lengthened, a new station building would be 

constructed, and a parking garage would be constructed. A tunnel would be constructed 

to connect the new station building with the parking garage. The increased train service 

could incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or denser 

development; however, the City of Fredericksburg’s Comprehensive Plan contains 

provisions aimed at protecting the city’s historic properties while also allowing 

compatible development through building rehabilitation, infill on vacant parcels, and 

replacement of noncontributing resources (City of Fredericksburg, 2010). Evaluation of 

effects on historic properties pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA is not complete. FRA’s 

preliminary conclusion is there will be no adverse effect on the historic train station 

building and an adverse effect on the Fredericksburg Historic District under Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3B, but this is subject to further consultation with DHR and the 

Section 106 consulting parties. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-224 

 Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake through the town of Ashland would 

involve the Ashland Station Depot. Although the building is no longer used as a station 

(with its interior turned over for other purposes), it is potentially eligible for NRHP. 

Increased train service at this station under Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5D could 

incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or denser 

development. Evaluation of effects on the historic station for these alternatives pursuant 

to Section 106 of the NHPA is not complete. FRA’s preliminary conclusion is there will be 

an adverse effect under Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, but this is 

subject to further consultation with DHR and the Section 106 consulting parties. 

 The Build Alternatives that use the S-Line between Main Street Station and Centralia 

(Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G) and one of the Build Alternatives that uses 

the A-Line between Acca Yard and Centralia (Build Alternative 6E) would involve the 

Main Street Station (NRHP and NHL) in downtown Richmond. Increased train service at 

this station could incrementally enhance the attractiveness of adjacent lands for more or 

denser development; however, development around the station is relatively dense, and 

ongoing planning and construction at the station are taking into account more intensive 

utilization of the station and its environs as a multimodal transportation hub, increased 

commercial uses, and increased social activities. Evaluation of effects on the historic 

station for these alternatives pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA is not complete. FRA’s 

preliminary conclusion is there will be no adverse effect under Build Alternatives 6B–SLine and 6E and an adverse effect under Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G. Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, and 6C would involve disuse of the Main Street Station, 

which would be an adverse effect. This preliminary conclusion is subject to further 

consultation with DHR and the Section 106 consulting parties. 

DRPT does not expect either the No Build Alternative or the Build Alternatives to have notable 

indirect encroachment-alteration effects on historic properties. 

Water Resources 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on water resources. The Build 

Alternatives may have incremental induced development effects on water resources near station 

areas; however, given the urban and suburban locations of these stations, land cover is relatively 

impervious, and the potential for increased runoff and diminished water quality is less than it would 

be if the induced development were to occur in more naturalized land cover types (e.g., forest). 

Under the No Build Alternative, stormwater runoff from the existing rail and station facilities 

would continue to transport sediments and roadway contaminants to local water bodies, 

including impaired streams. 

All the Build Alternatives involve direct loss of streams and wetlands as a result of track additions 

and modification, with the exception of Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C where there would be 

no stream impacts. Potential temporary indirect impacts of the Build Alternatives during Project 

construction include increased downstream sedimentation and turbidity from in-stream work, 

and possible spills or non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface water from 

storm runoff. Each Build Alternative would incrementally increase the amount of impervious 

surface, resulting in increased stormwater runoff flows from affected surfaces. If untreated, 

increased flows would incrementally increase the transport of sediments and roadway 

contaminants to streams crossed by or adjacent to the rail corridor. These pollutants can then be 

transported farther downstream and into wetland areas. Pollutant levels in runoff and the extent 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-225 

of downstream impacts are very difficult to quantify because there are many variables 

surrounding land use and stream dynamics. Given that a meaningful projection of the extent of 

pollutant loads from each alternative cannot be made without extensive analysis, the best 

predictor of relative degree of impacts would then be the amount of increase in impervious 

surfaces and the number of stream crossings for each alternative. Specific quantities of additional 

impervious surfaces for each Build Alternative are not yet known, but they are expected to be 

similar among the alternatives given the substantial overlap of the alternatives. 

Floodplains 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on floodplains. Likewise, 

the Build Alternatives would not have induced development impacts on floodplains because 

none of the locations where induced development might occur are in floodplains. With respect to 

encroachment-alteration indirect effects, the existing rail tracks displaced 100-year floodplains by 

placing bridges and culverts at stream crossings within the floodplains. The Build Alternatives 

would require new or modified bridges and extensions of culverts, which could potentially cause 

indirect effects with respect to changes in flood flow elevations and changes in floodplain 

configurations. While floodplain encroachments are likely, Project design under any of the 

alternatives would be consistent with federal policies and procedures for the location and 

hydraulic design of encroachments on floodplains. Therefore, DRPT does not expect that the 

Project would cause notable increases in flood levels, increase the probability of flooding, or 

increase the potential for property loss and hazard to life. Furthermore, the Project would not be 

expected to have substantial indirect effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Wildlife and Habitat 

The No Build Alternative would have no induced development effects on wildlife and habitat. 

DRPT does not expect the Build Alternatives to have notable induced development impacts on 

wildlife and habitat because all locations of potential induced development are in urban and 

suburban areas where available natural habitat is very limited. With respect to encroachmentalteration indirect effects of the Build Alternatives, wildlife habitat along the rail corridor is highly 

variable. In some areas, development has entirely displaced or at least fragmented forested habitat. 

In other areas, sizable blocks of forested habitat remain, though in many cases it is fragmented by 

agricultural activities. While the No Build Alternative would not result in further fragmentation of 

wildlife habitats due to rail construction, present and planned future development and 

transportation projects would continue to reduce habitat areas. Under the No Build Alternative, 

wildlife that occupies habitats adjacent to the rail corridor would continue to experience 

disturbance from noise, habitat degradation from soil erosion and sedimentation, introduction of 

invasive plants, and risk of collision with vehicles and trains. Stream hydrology and water quality 

within aquatic habitats downstream of the rail corridor are currently affected by erosive stormwater 

velocities and transport of sediment and roadway contaminants in stormwater runoff. The Build 

Alternatives may incrementally increase ongoing habitat impacts due to expansion of the rail 

facilities. Adjacent habitats would be further fragmented by removal of habitat for construction of 

the proposed improvements. Such habitat disturbances and losses could incrementally increase 

competition for resources in diminished habitats by displaced populations. 

The indirect impacts to water quality discussed earlier would potentially affect habitat quality for 

aquatic species living in streams and wetlands downstream of the rail corridor. Sediments and 

pollutants in runoff may contribute to changes in macrobenthic community structure and 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-226 

composition, affecting fish and amphibian populations that rely on them as a food source, as well 

as birds and mammals higher on the food chain. 

4.20.1.7 Step 7: Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation 

Various indirect effects for the Project are identified in Step 6. While planning judgment allows the 

identification of potential indirect effects, insufficient data exist to fully assess the consequences of 

these indirect effects. For example, while it is reasonable to predict that direct impacts to water 

quality may occur at stream crossings by the railroad, there is not enough information to determine 

how far downstream such impacts would persist. Despite the lack of detailed data, DRPT expects 

that the consequences of the indirect effects would be limited because: 

 The proposed improvements would modify an existing rail facility within which the 

locations of potential induced development are limited to station areas where 

development already is prevalent. 

 Any induced development that may occur would be largely compatible with existing 

development and would actually be desirable in the context of promoting more compact 

development patterns consistent with rail mass transit, multimodal transportation hubs, 

and facilitation of intercity travel that does not rely on the automobile. 

 Any induced development would be consistent with local planning goals and land use plans. 

 The narrow linear nature of the Project presents a limited footprint of direct impacts and, 

therefore, a limited potential for expansive indirect impacts attributable to encroachment 

and alteration. 

 Impacts of the Project can be minimized and mitigated in many ways, including: 

- Implementation of temporary and permanent stormwater management features and 

erosion and sediment controls. 

- Compensation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. 

- Resolution of adverse effects on historic properties through design changes and other 

measures developed in consultation with DHR and other Section 106 consulting parties. 

4.20.2 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. The cumulative effects analysis uses a five-part evaluation process 

based on FHWA guidance: 

1. What is the geographic area affected by the Project? 

2. What are the resources affected by the Project? 

3. What are the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have impacted 

these resources? 

4. What were those impacts? 

5. What is the overall impact on these various resources from the accumulation of the actions? 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-227 

4.20.2.1 Geographic Area and Time Span 

The geographic limits of the resource-specific study areas used for the cumulative effects analysis 

are the same as those used for the indirect effects analysis. The time span for the analysis is from 

the mid-1950s (when highways and automobile use were rapidly expanding and rail passenger 

travel was declining) to 2045, which is the design year for the Project (the horizon year for traffic 

analysis and Project design). Notwithstanding, a general synopsis of human activities before the 

mid-1950s is provided as background. 

4.20.2.2 Affected Resources 

The resources that would potentially experience cumulative effects are the same as those that 

would experience direct and/or indirect effects. 

4.20.2.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Past Actions 

General Past Development. The current condition of the affected environment reflects the 

impacts of thousands of years of prehistoric occupations and four centuries of historic occupation. 

In the Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg, and Richmond portions of the DC2RVA corridor, many 

of the past actions that have broadly contributed to the baseline for this analysis occurred as part 

of a general development progression advancing from subsistence hunting and gathering to 

agricultural uses to increasingly dense urban/suburban occupations. This incremental land use 

intensification in portions of the DC2RVA corridor has contributed to increased benefits to society 

from expanding communities with growing employment and increasing standards of living, but 

also a decline in natural resource conditions. Other portions of the DC2RVA corridor remain 

largely in agricultural or rural residential uses, with a correspondingly greater portion of 

remaining natural resources. These stages of progressively more intensive utilization of the 

environment by humans encompass a multitude of past actions that cannot be reasonably 

enumerated; however, the cumulative impact of these actions is represented in the current state 

or condition of environmental resources. 

Existing Rail. In 1834, RF&P was formed, connecting Richmond to Washington, D.C. via 

Fredericksburg. The railroad served as a bridge line between other railroads to the north and 

south to facilitate movement of freight and passengers. Its strategic location allowed it to connect 

with virtually every major northeastern and southeastern railroad. By the 1930s, the line was 

accommodating many passenger rail services, including extensive long-distance interstate travel 

between New York and Florida. During the 1960s through the 1980s, several railroads merged 

and consolidated, and RF&P eventually became part of CSXT. Rail passenger travel declined 

through the 1960s and 1970s as the interstate highway system made automobile travel more 

convenient, and air travel diverted most long-distance travelers. In 1971, Amtrak took over 

passenger services on the RF&P line. As highways became more congested, rail travel again 

became attractive, particularly in urban areas such as Northern Virginia. Establishment of VRE 

in 1992 provided a new alternative to commuting on congested highways between 

Fredericksburg and Washington, D.C. Amtrak trains using the line include regional services 

connecting to the NEC services that run from Washington to New York and Boston, as well as 

some long-distance service. Amtrak has expanded service in the corridor since 1992, adding 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-228 

Road Development. The 1918 Virginia General Assembly approved establishment of the first 

state highway system, a network of 4,002 miles for which construction and maintenance would 

be the direct responsibility of the highway commissioner and his staff. Among the roads to be 

included was the Richmond-Washington Highway, the predecessor of U.S. Route 1 and I-95. A 

fully paved Route 1 was not completed until 1927 (VDOT, 2006). 

In the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944, Congress called for designation of a national system of 

interstate highways that was “so located as to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the 

principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the national defense, and to 

connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance.” However, it was not 

until passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that enough funding was provided for 

development of the system. In Virginia, early emphasis was on the I-95 corridor because it was 

to parallel U.S. Route 1, which by the mid-1950s had become the most heavily traveled through 

road in Virginia and one of the nation’s busiest highways. I-95 had lower crash rates than 

conventional roads; reduced travel times; stimulated commercial, industrial, and residential 

growth; and provided broader tax bases for local governments related to the associated economic 

development (VDOT, 2006). 

Development of an arterial network to supplement the interstate system was authorized by the 

1964 Virginia General Assembly. 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

As described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, population in the DC2RVA corridor and adjacent 

urban regions continues to grow, increasing demand for reliable and safe travel options. With 

population growth comes increased development, consumption, and freight movement. 

Construction of homes, businesses, community facilities, and supporting infrastructure will 

continue into the future throughout the DC2RVA corridor; however, those developments are too 

numerous and unspecific to enumerate here. Illustrative of the types of infrastructure other than 

transportation facilities needed to support ongoing development is a 340-megawatt electrical 

power generating plant at Doswell approved by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) (SCC, 

2016). Section 3.11.3.2 outlines expected future land use and planned growth and development 

as envisioned by local jurisdictions and regional planning organizations. 

The following rail and transit projects have been identified within the indirect and cumulative 

effects study area. 

 Washington Union Station Capacity upgrade 

 Virginia Avenue Tunnel expansion (under construction) 

 VRE 4th Track: CP Virginia – Long Bridge 

 Long Bridge Project 

 RF&P Franconia-Featherstone improvements (CSXT “Fast Track agreement”) 

 RF&P Powells Creek – Arkendale improvements 

 Main Line Relocation Project at Acca Yard and Crossovers South of the James River 

 Richmond-Petersburg section improvements for service expansion to Norfolk 

 DC2RVA Franconia – Occoquan Improvements 

 VRE Broad Run/Crossroads Yard expansion 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-229 

 VRE Gainesville/Haymarket Extension 

 VRE Station Platform Expansion Program 

 VRE Potomac Shores Station 

 GRTC Pulse Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Implementation (The Pulse BRT) 

 WMATA Silver Line Phase II Implementation (under construction) 

 Crystal City BRT/Streetcar Corridor 

The Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region 

contains projects to add nearly 1,200 new lane miles of roadway throughout the Washington 

Metropolitan Area. Notable projects in the Virginia portion of the region include the following: 

 I-395 express lanes between the Capital Beltway and the Pentagon 

 I-66 corridor improvements from U.S. 15 to Capital Beltway 

 I-66 express lanes inside the beltway 

 I-66 eastbound widening inside the Beltway 

 U.S. 1, Richmond Highway BRT 

 U.S. 1 widening 

The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Fredericksburg region contains 37 projects to 

increase roadway capacity, replace or expand aging bridges, enhance safety and operations, 

improve intersections, increase commuter parking options, and provide enhanced 

accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians. Notable projects include: 

 Extension of I-95 express lanes 

 Reconstruction of I-95/Route 630 interchange at Stafford 

 Replacement of Falmouth bridge on U.S. 1 

 Widening of U.S. 17 in Spotsylvania and Stafford counties 

The Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization’s draft Plan 2040 includes many 

highway improvement projects on I-95, I-295, I-64, US 1, US 301, and others. 

4.20.2.4 Impacts 

Socioeconomics and Land Use 

Impact from Proposed Project. Except for the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and 

the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), the land use and relocations 

impacts are relatively modest compared to the length of the Project. Including the bypass 

alternatives, the total number of residential relocations would range from approximately 10 to 

150, depending on the specific combination of alternatives within each area. Of the larger number, 

just over 40 would be within the 2 bypass sections. The lower number reflects the ability to contain 

much of the Build Alternative improvements within the existing rail corridor for large portions 

of its length. Acquisition of properties and relocations of families, businesses, farms, and 

nonprofit organizations would occur in accordance with standards of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended, 1987). Any individual 

displaced as a result of the acquisition of real property, in whole or in part, would be eligible to 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-230 

receive reimbursement for the fair market value of the property acquired, as well as moving costs. 

Displaced property owners would be provided relocation assistance and advisory services 

together with the assurance of the availability of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Relocation 

resources would be made available to all relocatees without discrimination. 

The Build Alternatives would reduce congestion and improve travel time and reliability within the 

rail corridor. These improvements to mobility would generally contribute positively to the quality 

of life for local communities and support the anticipated continued economic growth; however, the 

two sections of potential bypasses would convert lands largely in rural residential and agricultural 

uses to transportation use. These conversions would be inconsistent with local comprehensive 

plans and would result in some divisions of rural communities. Notwithstanding, the bypasses still 

would provide transportation benefits and would incrementally decrease some impacts along 

sections of the existing rail line through the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland. 

The Build Alternatives could induce more or denser development at station locations as a result 

of the improved transportation services; however, such development generally would be 

desirable to enhance the effectiveness of passenger rail services. Furthermore, because the station 

locations are in already urbanized areas, such development would be consistent with local plans, 

policies, and goals. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past and present actions have changed the landscape 

dramatically and have resulted in the conversion of forest land to agricultural lands to residential, 

commercial, and industrial land uses as the populations and economies of localities along the 

DC2RVA corridor grew. It is presumed that in prehistoric times forests once covered the entirety 

of the area surrounding the rail corridor. Those forests were displaced by agriculture and 

development long before modern times. Therefore, tree cover that exists today is due to multiple 

regenerations of tree growth. Agriculture, particularly tobacco farming, depleted the soil, and 

much of the soil that was not depleted washed away due to erosion of unprotected soil surfaces. 

Livestock waste contributed to water pollution. By the mid-1950s, development accelerated 

sharply in Northern Virginia, largely as a result of a growing federal government sector and postWorld War II prosperity. Housing booms in counties bordering Washington D.C. were fed by 

postwar affluence and the desire of people to own their own homes and land. The Interstate 

Highway Act authorized construction of high speed roads that made living farther from work a 

possibility. By the time I-95 was completed between Richmond and Washington, D.C., several 

residential subdivisions had already been built in jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor. In 

recent times, the City of Fredericksburg and portions of the surrounding Stafford and 

Spotsylvania counties have become bedroom communities to the metropolitan Washington 

region, as well as becoming economic activity centers themselves. The City of Richmond and 

surrounding counties collectively have become the third largest metropolitan area in Virginia 

ranked by population. The urbanization of these areas has created neighborhoods, facilitated 

social interaction, provided business and employment opportunities, facilitated economies of 

scale in community services such as education and public safety, and provided connectivity 

through robust multimodal transportation systems. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the socioeconomic and land use impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would 

not contribute to overall cumulative impacts. The foreseeable future projects noted above may 

have various socioeconomic and land use impacts throughout the study area; however, there is 

not enough information to reasonably quantify them. The foreseeable transportation projects 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-231 

listed above are all along existing transportation facilities. As such, disruptive socioeconomic and 

land use effects could be largely limited by containing construction within existing rights-of-way 

to the extent possible. Furthermore, these projects also would be subject to NEPA and other 

regulatory processes that are designed to help avoid substantial impacts to communities. Future 

projects also would be guided by local comprehensive plans, which identify areas for compatible 

planned growth while accommodating future planned transportation improvements. 

Cumulative Effect. Except for the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland 

Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), the nature and magnitude of the direct and 

indirect effects among the Build Alternatives are very similar. While there are some differences 

in the extent of impacts associated with each alternative, these differences as well as the overall 

impacts are small in the context of the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Build Alternatives 3C, 5C, and 5C–Ashcake would have greater socioeconomic and land 

use impacts than the other Build Alternatives. Nevertheless, at a corridor-wide scale, these 

impacts are relatively small; however, at local scales, these impacts would be felt more acutely. 

Parks and Recreation Areas 

Impact from Proposed Project. There would be direct effects of the Project on publicly owned 

parks and recreational areas by one or more of the Build Alternatives (see Section 4.14 of this 

chapter). Land at up to six parks would be directly used by the Project. None of these impacts 

would affect park activities, and the amount of right-of-way required would generally be below 

0.4 acre. The exception is at Long Bridge Park, where Build Alternative 1B would impact 1.45 

acres. Impacts at the other parks would be temporary and would not result in incorporation of 

parkland into the railroad right-of-way. Noise levels under the Build Alternatives would be 

higher than existing noise levels or No Build Alternative noise levels; however, such noise levels 

would not rise to a level as to render the parklands unsuitable for their designated public 

recreational uses. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past actions have preserved notable acreages of land 

throughout the study area for conservation and recreational uses. At the same time, some past 

actions may have had direct physical encroachment impacts on some parks and recreation areas. 

Population increases and associated traffic increases may have caused higher levels of traffic 

noise within parks and placed greater wear and tear on park facilities due to greater use. 

Development adjacent to parks may have contributed to visual impacts to parks and increased 

volumes of stormwater flow to streams running through parks. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the parks and recreation area impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would not 

contribute to overall cumulative impacts to parks and recreation areas. Some of the foreseeable 

future projects noted above may have various park and recreational area impacts throughout the 

study area; however, there is not enough information to reasonably quantify them. 

Notwithstanding, the projects that would be subject to federal transportation agency approvals 

also would be subject to Section 4(f) provisions that require avoidance and minimization of uses 

of land from publicly owned public parks and recreation areas. 

Cumulative Effect. The Build Alternatives would have only minor impacts to parks and 

recreation areas. Additionally, the legal protections afforded parks and recreation areas by 

Section 4(f) for federal-aid transportation projects and the plan review processes by local 

jurisdictions for other projects greatly limit the potential for impacts by future projects. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-232 

Accordingly, no substantial adverse cumulative impacts to parks and recreation areas by the 

Project are anticipated. 

Historic Properties 

Impact from Proposed Project. The APE encompasses 158 historic properties. A preliminary 

determination of effects has concluded that 33 historic properties could experience adverse effects 

from 1 or more of the alternatives, as outlined in Section 4.13. A formal effects determination would 

be coordinated with DHR once a recommended Preferred Alternative is selected. Where FRA 

determines that the Project will have an adverse effect on historic resources, Section 106 requires 

that efforts be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. As part of this process, 

FRA and DRPT have initiated consultation with DHR and other “consulting parties,” such as the 

National Park Service (NPS), local historical societies, and property owners. Due to the nature of 

the this Project, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is underway to outline: (1) studies still required 

once a recommended Preferred Alternative has been selected (namely, additional Phase I and Phase 

II archaeological studies on the main corridor and road improvement areas and full cultural 

resource studies on the bypasses, if selected); and (2) tasks that would be undertaken to mitigate 

adverse effects. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Damage to or loss of historic resources was far more 

prevalent from past actions that occurred before the NHPA. The NHPA and the establishment of 

historic resource protection objectives at the local planning level have reduced the rate of impacts 

to historic resources. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Notwithstanding the protections 

now afforded, conflicts between protection of historic properties and development and 

transportation projects are expected to continue under the No Build Alternative, especially 

because non-federal actions, such as private developments, are not subject to the NHPA. Potential 

effects include permanent loss and proximity effects (noise and visual impacts) from present and 

planned future development and transportation projects. 

Cumulative Effect. The Build Alternatives would adversely affect historic properties and 

contribute to the cumulative degradation of historic properties. However, feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm to historic properties would be 

incorporated into the Project. 

Water Resources 

Impact from Proposed Project. The Project corridor crosses more than 350 rivers and streams, 51 

of which are characterized as impaired on Virginia’s Section 303(d) list (see Section 3.1.6 in 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, for details). As shown in Figure 3.1-1, the following boundaries 

of watersheds are crossed by the Project: 

 The Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Watershed encompasses approximately 

831,483 acres, with roughly 45 percent of the watershed forested. 

 The Lower Potomac River Watershed encompasses approximately 1,160,160 acres, most 

of which is forested. 

 The Pamunkey Watershed encompasses approximately 941,032 acres, most of which is 

forested. 

 The Lower Rappahannock Watershed encompasses approximately 738,446 acres. Half of the 

area is forested, with the remainder consisting largely of agricultural and developed land. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-233 

 The Mattaponi Watershed encompasses approximately 582,426 acres of which 

approximately 70 percent is forested. 

 The Middle James-Willis Watershed encompasses approximately 615,449 acres. 

 The Lower James Watershed encompasses approximately 1,135,000 acres, approximately 

48 percent of which is in urban and suburban uses. 

Details on the impacts of the alternatives are provided in Section 4.1. Unavoidable impacts to 

streams and wetlands would be mitigated. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past and present actions within the affected watersheds 

have impacted an unknown quantity of streams and wetlands; however, the water quality effects 

of these actions are reflected in impairment designations and establishment of TMDLs of 

pollutants in certain waters, including the Chesapeake Bay, into which most of the affected 

watersheds drain. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the water resources impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would not contribute to 

overall cumulative impacts; however, the other reasonably foreseeable projects noted earlier would 

have incremental effects on water resources. Before implementation, these projects would be 

required to undergo analysis of alternatives that avoid and minimize water resources impacts to 

the extent practicable, and project proponents would have to obtain any required permits. 

Compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts also would be required. 

Cumulative Effect. While the impacts of the Project and the multiple other reasonably foreseeable 

transportation projects and other likely development would be additive, these impacts would not 

all be occurring simultaneously due to the phasing of construction over a period of years. 

Additionally, the impacts would be largely disbursed over many streams and multiple 

watersheds. Furthermore, the direct impact of the Project at each stream would be localized and 

the reach of the Project’s indirect impacts is not expected to be extensive. Stormwater generated 

through new impervious surfaces would be treated through improved or new stormwater 

management facilities. Implementation of compensatory mitigation, both for the Project and 

other foreseeable actions would offset the adverse direct and indirect impacts. Moreover, local 

jurisdictions have established preservation and conservation programs that serve to improve 

water quality by protecting streams and controlling development. For example, Fairfax County’s 

Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) system protects the county’s stream valleys by 

incorporating them into a system of connected parklands and trail systems. The EQC system 

provides buffer lands that separate streams from land uses and development activities that have 

the potential to degrade the ecological quality of streams (Fairfax County, 2013). Prince William 

County’s Comprehensive Plan limits development within the designated “Rural Area” and 

includes various rural preservation goals and policies that serve to protect water quality through 

careful land use planning (Prince William County, 2008). Both counties also prepare watershed 

management plans or studies that assess, monitor, and evaluate water quality and identify 

priorities and BMPs for improving water quality. Other counties and cities encompassed by the 

watersheds have similar policies and programs in place to protect water resources. 

Floodplains 

Impact from Proposed Project. As noted in Section 4.1.1.2 of this chapter, none of the floodplain 

encroachments by the Build Alternatives would represent a significant encroachment. The Project 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-234 

would be designed to not encourage, induce, allow, serve, support, or otherwise facilitate 

incompatible base floodplain development. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. The cumulative extent of impacts to floodplains from 

past and present actions is not known; however, it can be assumed that the degree of impacts was 

greater before federal initiatives to avoid and minimize floodplain impacts (e.g., EO 11988 in 

1977). State and local initiatives also now protect floodplains and reduce floodplain 

encroachments by development (Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act enabled localities to 

establish resource protection areas along streams draining to the Chesapeake Bay). 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the floodplain impacts of the Build Alternatives would not occur and would not contribute to 

overall cumulative impacts. Reasonably foreseeable future public or private actions could 

potentially impact floodplains; however, these actions would also be subject to federal and local 

floodplain protections that would minimize potential impacts. 

Cumulative Effect. Because the floodplain encroachments by the Project do not represent 

significant encroachments, and because federal and local initiatives would continue to exert 

floodplain protections, adverse cumulative effects of the Project to floodplains are expected to be 

negligible. 

Wildlife and Habitat 

Impact from Proposed Project. Most of the habitat within the LOD for all Build Alternatives 

includes either developed lands or aquatic habitats. A limited amount of forested and other 

upland habitat would be disturbed by the Build Alternatives, with the exception of the 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake). Disturbance or loss of these upland habitats would not result in substantial impacts 

to wildlife due to the widespread availability of such habitats within the study area. In general, 

habitats that would be impacted are directly adjacent to the existing rail line and are already 

altered by local activities, including operation of the railroad. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. As outlined above under cumulative socioeconomic and 

land use impacts, past and present actions have changed the landscape dramatically and 

converted natural habitats to human uses. These changes have resulted in considerable 

fragmentation and loss of habitat throughout the study area. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Under the No Build Alternative, 

the wildlife and habitat impacts of the Build Alternative would not occur and would not 

contribute to overall cumulative impacts; however, the other reasonably foreseeable actions noted 

above would be expected to contribute to further fragmentation and losses of habitat over time. 

Cumulative Effect. Adverse effects on wildlife habitats are expected to continue to accrue with 

anticipated population growth in the study area, even in the absence of the Project. The relative 

contribution of the Build Alternatives to the effects of terrestrial and aquatic habitat losses is small 

given the existing fragmented condition of affected habitat areas along the existing rail corridor. 

The contribution of the Build Alternatives to degradation of water quality within aquatic habitats 

is also minimal given that the proposed improvements are being made to an existing rail facility 

and stormwater management measures would be implemented in accordance with federal, state, 

and local regulations to minimize onsite and downstream water quality impacts. Project 

proponents would be responsible for coordination with applicable federal and state agencies. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-235 

4.20.2.5 Overall Cumulative Effects 

Overall, the No Build Alternative reflects the absence of the incremental direct and indirect 

impacts of the Build Alternatives relative to accumulation of adverse effects; however, adverse 

environmental effects, though offset to some degree by mitigation and compensation measures, 

would continue to accumulate due to ongoing implementation of other reasonably foreseeable 

projects and development in general. Furthermore, cities along the rail corridor would also not 

benefit from the transportation improvements that would accompany the Build Alternatives. 

While providing transportation benefits, the Build Alternatives would incrementally increase 

environmental effects. Where these effects would occur along the existing rail corridor, they are 

relatively small in the context of the entire corridor as well as the localized impact sites. In contrast, 

impacts with the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would be correspondingly greater because of the size of new rightof-way required; therefore, on a proportionate basis, these bypass alternatives would contribute more 

to cumulative effects than comparable lengths of corridor on existing rail alignment. 

In summary, considerable adverse impacts to sensitive and vulnerable resources have occurred 

over time, first due to agricultural uses of the land and then to residential, commercial, industrial, 

institutional, and public infrastructure development; however, current regulatory requirements 

and planning practices are helping avoid or minimize the contribution of present and future 

actions to adverse cumulative effects. With the exception of the bypass alternatives, when 

considered in the context of the Project setting, the magnitude and intensity of the impacts of the 

Build Alternatives generally would not have substantial cumulative effects, particularly 

considering the efforts to minimize adverse impacts of the Project and other mitigation measures 

to be implemented. The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and the Ashland Bypass 

(Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) may be perceived as having a more substantial 

cumulative effect, at least at the local level where the impacts would be most felt. 

4.21 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND 

LONG-TERM BENEFITS 

This section addresses in general terms the proposed Project’s relationship between local shortterm impacts/use of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. 

Build alternatives were developed based on sound planning for local, regional, and statewide 

transportation needs within the context of present and possible future traffic requirements and 

land use patterns. Coupled with the environmentally sensitive design of the proposed Project and 

BMPs, this helps to ensure that the short-term use of resources related to construction would be 

outweighed by the long-term benefits of implementing the proposed Project. 

The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the Build Alternatives would occur 

during land acquisition and Project construction. The short-term use of the environment and of 

human, socioeconomic, cultural, and natural resources contributes to the long-term productivity 

of the DC2RVA corridor. Most short-term, construction-related impacts would occur within or 

near the proposed right-of-way. 

Some existing homes, farms, and businesses would be displaced under the Build Alternatives; 

however, adequate replacement housing, land, and space are available for homeowners, tenants, 

and business owners. Residential displacements would range from approximately 10 to 150 over 

the entire DC2RVA corridor, with the highest number of displacements associated with the 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-236 

Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), the Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 

5C–Ashcake), and the single-station alternative at Broad Street in Richmond (Build Alternative 

6C). DRPT estimates that these alternatives would result in 21, 21, and 112 residential 

displacements, respectively. Business displacements would range from approximately 10 to 20 

over the entire DC2RVA corridor and most would occur in Alternative Area 6 (Richmond). 

Improved access to intercity travel within the DC2RVA corridor would contribute to long-term 

residential and business growth. 

Construction activities would create short-term air quality impacts, such as dust due to 

earthwork, road and rail improvements, and exhaust from construction vehicles. Short-term 

noise impacts would be unavoidable due to use of heavy equipment. Air and noise abatement 

measures, discussed in Sections 4.6 and 4.7, would be used to minimize these short-term impacts 

during construction. Short-term visual impacts would occur near the construction corridor. 

Mitigation measures, such as reducing slope cuts outside necessary road widths, reducing 

vegetation removal, leaving native vegetation screens in place, and minimizing the alteration of 

scenic viewsheds, would be used to reduce long-term visual resource impacts. 

Implementation of BMPs for protection of surface waters would minimize potential water quality 

impacts. A short-term impact from construction would be removal of biotic communities and wildlife 

within the proposed right-of-way and construction staging areas Overall, the Build Alternatives 

would have minimal short-term impacts relative to the long-term benefits of increased intercity 

passenger rail service in the DC2RVA corridor, and the ultimate extension of the SEHSR corridor 

along the East Coast. The elimination of some of the existing at-grade rail crossings and construction 

of grade-separated crossings would also improve the safety of rail crossings and reduce roadway 

delay. Construction-related activities would be localized and temporary. Short-term gains to the local 

economy should be recognized as a result of hiring local firms and labor, as well as purchasing local 

services and supplies to construct the proposed Project. Once completed, the benefits of long-term 

productivity in terms of improved mobility and safety would be realized. Implementation of the 

Project would enhance the existing transportation network between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, VA, and provide a viable travel alternative for residents and users. This is consistent with 

the purpose of the proposed Project. Based on the significant contribution to the long-term objectives 

of regional and local plans for development, the proposed Project is consistent with the maintenance 

and enhancement of the long-term productivity at the local, regional, state, and national levels. 

Benefits of the Project are described in more detail in Chapter 1. 

4.22 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Construction of one of the Build Alternatives would require certain irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of natural resources, energy (which would include fossil fuels), manpower, 

materials, and fiscal resources. Because most of the Project would be constructed within existing 

railroad right-of-way, land acquisition for construction of the proposed Project would be 

minimized; however, there would be an irreversible conversion of land to a transportation use in 

areas of new alignment and in areas where the existing road network would be modified to 

accommodate rail crossing closures and consolidations and to avoid historic resources. If a 

greater need for the use of the land were to arise or if the transportation facility were no longer 

needed, it could be converted to another use. There is no reason to believe such a conversion 

would be necessary or desirable. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 4-237 

The acquisition of new right-of-way and new construction within the existing right-of-way may 

result in short-term and long-term losses and alterations to the natural resources in the area. 

Upland and aquatic biotic communities, as well as agricultural land, may be committed to rail 

service where new right-of-way is required. The most apparent impact may be loss of aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat productivity and connectivity; therefore, wildlife abundance may decline in the 

area as a result of habitat destruction. Increased noise associated with the Project may be 

intolerable to some wildlife species. Forested areas may be cleared in some locations, and 

wetlands and other surface waters may be filled to accommodate new bridges and underpasses. 

Riprap may be placed along stream banks at bridge crossings, reducing habitat within riparian 

zone. After construction, some habitat types may be restored within the construction limits, 

although their value to wildlife is unlikely to equate to that which was lost. If wetlands are filled 

for new construction, mitigation of impacts would likely involve restoration of degraded 

wetlands within the same watershed. In the long term, this would offset the loss of wetland 

habitats within the Project construction limits. The commitment of natural resources within 

existing and new right-of-way is a permanent loss of productive wildlife habitat. 

Construction of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) or the Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would also increase habitat fragmentation within the DC2RVA 

corridor. As described in Section 4.10, habitat fragmentation can increase the risk of predation or 

displacement of native species by invasive, exotic species. Loss of habitat, mortality due to 

collisions, barrier effect, and reduction in habitat quality are the main impacts of habitat 

fragmentation by railroads. On a local scale, trains may affect wildlife habitats through the 

introduction of exotic plant species (e.g., seeds), emission of toxic contaminants (e.g., heavy 

metals), or right-of-way management (e.g., herbicide application). Section-specific habitat 

fragmentation effects are discussed in Section 4.10. Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials 

would be expended in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials, as well as during 

construction of the Project. While these materials are generally not retrievable, they are not in 

short supply, and their use would not have an adverse effect on the continued availability of these 

resources. The steel rails required for the Project could be recycled should an alternate use of the 

property be selected. Any construction would also require a substantial, one-time expenditure of 

state and federal funds, which are not retrievable and could be used instead on other projects 

within the local community or in other parts of the country. 

Specific natural resource impacts for the Build Alternatives have been previously detailed in this 

chapter. When reviewed in the overall context of the Project and taken in total, they are 

proportionately small compared to the benefits of the Project. 

4.23 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

The following table (Table 4.23-1) provides a summary of the potential impacts of each of the 

Build Alternatives upon the built and natural environments. It is the intent of this table to 

summarize the key results that differentiate the Build Alternatives and assist in the decisions to 

be made. All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to 

construction activities). Any “Change” shown is consistent with how that resource was evaluated 

in this chapter (i.e., “change” in the transportation resource compares 2025 Build Alternatives to 

2025 No Build conditions; “change” in the air quality and energy resources compares 2045 Build 

Alternatives to 2045 No Build conditions). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 4-238 

As noted earlier in this chapter, DRPT uses two future planning years for analysis of the DC2RVA 

Project. Year 2025 is the current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure 

could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed in operation. All the physical 

impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are estimated for 2025, and 

compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. Year 2045 is used by DRPT 

to demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger rail 

benefits and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon 

following the completion of the passenger project. DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon 

date to estimate some of the longer term effects of the proposed service such as ridership, energy 

use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects. 
Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost 

Limits Alternative Description 

Additional ROW 

(Acres) 

Natural Resources Geologic Resourc

Wetlands 

(Acres) 

Floodplains 

(Acres) 

Stream & River 

Crossings 

(linear feet) 

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species and 

Habitat 

ConstructionLimiting Soils 

Prime Farmland 

Prime Soils 

(Acres) 

NRCS Form 

106 Score 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0.0 0.02 0.3 0 No Unknown / Not Rated 0 0 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 1.5 0.00 0.1 0 No Unknown / Not Rated 0 0 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0.4 0.01 0.1 0 No Unknown / Not Rated 0 0 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 33.0 5.19 15.1 7, 198 Yes Yes 53.56 66 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 2.2 5.24 7.7 1,101 Yes Yes 26.84 80 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 19.8 5.29 10.5 1,506 Yes Yes 34.01 80 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 140.5 23.82 8.0 4,597 Yes Yes 69.05 118 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 2.4 8.39 17.2 3,627 Yes Yes 99.17 93 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 21.9 0.41 5.9 6,928 Yes Yes 27.18 51 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

20.5 0.41 7.1 6,928 Yes Yes 28.04 46 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 29.4 0.41 6.5 9,114 Yes Yes 31.2 51 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 29.9 0.45 10.7 9,101 Yes Yes 33.82 51 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 147.8 8.44 9.2 9,005 Yes Yes 89.83 171 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 146.4 8.48 10.4 9,005 Yes Yes 90.88 171 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

36.4 0.45 11.5 8,163 Yes Yes 39.38 52 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 76.0 3.21 8.1 7,523 Yes Yes 45.20 29 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 101.0 2.91 11.3 9,650 Yes Yes 49.04 23 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 78.7 3.47 48.6 8,819 Yes Yes 30.79 22 

6C Broad Street Station Only 128.1 2.99 16.1 10,886 Yes Yes 49.93 22 

6D Main Street Station Only 73.7 3.47 51.9 8,819 Yes Yes 30.93 22 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 89.1 3.31 22.2 7,952 Yes Yes 45.20 24 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 83.0 3.52 50.7 8,869 Yes Yes 31.78 19 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 81.0 3.74 48.1 8,235 Yes Yes 32.48 19 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities). Any "Change" shown compares 2045 Build Alternatives to 2045 No Build conditions. Air Quality is analyze

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-240 

Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost 

Limits Alternative Description 

Noise Vibration 

Impacted Noise Receptors Impacted Vibration Receptors 

Category 1 

Moderate 

Category 1 

Severe 

Category 2 

Moderate 

Category 2 

Severe 

Category 3 

Moderate 

Category 3 

Severe 

Total 

Category 1 

Category 2 

Category 3 

Total 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 0 15 0 15 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 0 66 8 1 0 75 0 0 0 0 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 0 0 0 0 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 2 1 2392 1524 8 5 3932 0 43 0 43 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 0 2 0 2 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 0 135 14 1 4 154 0 25 1 26 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

0 0 135 14 1 4 154 0 25 1 26 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 0 30 1 31 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 1 0 133 20 1 4 159 0 30 1 31 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 0 35 1 36 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 0 0 272 51 2 4 329 0 35 1 36 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

1 0 135 18 1 4 159 0 30 1 31 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 0 0 366 8 6 0 380 0 8 0 8 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 0 0 386 9 6 0 401 0 8 0 8 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8 

6C Broad Street Station Only 0 0 387 9 7 0 403 0 8 0 8 

6D Main Street Station Only 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 0 0 379 9 6 0 394 0 8 0 8 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 0 8 0 8 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 0 298 10 4 0 313 0 8 0 8 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities). Any "Change" shown compares 2045 Build Alternatives to 2045 No Build conditions. Noise and Vibration categories defin

 Continued
Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost Limits Alternative Description 

Park Resources Cu

Number / Acres 

Effects on Archaeological Sites Effects on Building

Adverse 

Effect 

No Adverse 

Effect 

No Effect 

Adverse 

Effect 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0 / 0 0 0 0 1 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 1 / 1.45 0 0 0 1 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 1 / 0.36 0 0 0 1 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 1 / 0.04 0 0 0 1 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 / 0 0 0 3 1 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 0 / 0 1 1 1 4 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 0 / 0 0 1 0 1 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 / 0 0 0 0 3 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 / 0 0 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

1 / 0.01 0 0 0 0 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 1 / 0.03 0 0 0 7 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 2 / 0.04 0 0 0 7 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 0 / 0 0 0 0 1 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 1/ 0.01 0 0 0 1 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

1 / 0.01 0 0 0 7 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 1 / 0.19 0 5 4 8 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 1 / 0.19 0 5 4 16 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 13 

6C Broad Street Station Only 1 / 0.19 0 5 4 16 

6D Main Street Station Only 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 7 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 / 0.19 0 7 2 7 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 7 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 1 / 0.17 3 4 2 10 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities).  Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4-242 

Table 4.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Area 

# 

Area Name and 

CSXT Milepost Limits Alternative Description 

Transporta

Proposed Crossing Improvements: 

Public At-Grade Crossings 

New Public 

Crossings 

Propo

Pr

Grade 

Separate 

Closure 

Four-Quad 

Gates 

Median 

Treatment 

No Action 

Closure 

1 Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) CFP 110 – 109.3 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Northern Virginia 

CFP 109.3 – 62 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 

3 Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) CFP 62 – 48 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 0 0 5 4 0 5 1 

4 Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) CFP 48 – 19 

4A 

Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 

5 Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) CFP 19 – 9 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 2 1 7 1 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 2 1 7 1 0 0 0 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 2 0 8 1 0 0 0 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 0 1 9 1 0 8 0 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 0 0 10 1 0 8 0 

5D–Ashcake 

Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

2 0 8 1 0 0 0 

6 Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) CFP 9 – A 011 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 4 5 4 3 1 0 0 

6C Broad Street Station Only 3 4 2 2 1 2 0 

6D Main Street Station Only 3 5 4 4 1 0 0 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 3 5 4 4 1 0 0 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/ Main Street Stations 3 5 4 4 1 0 0 

Notes: All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary disturbances due to construction activities). Any "Change" shown compares 2025 Build Alternatives to 2025 No Build conditions. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

SECTION 4ΈfΉ EVALUATION 5
 5-1 

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in 

the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger 

rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. 

to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project. 

5.1.1 Introduction to Section 4(f) 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Act of 1966 (23 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 138) prohibits use of land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl 

refuge, or any significant historic site unless it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible and 

prudent alternatives to avoid the property and that the proposed project included all possible 

planning to minimize effects. 

 Section 4(f) applies only to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges. Similar resources that are privately owned yet open to the public are 

not considered Section 4(f) resources. 

 Section 4(f) also applies to historic sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), regardless of whether the site is in public or private 

ownership. 

 Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites listed on or eligible for inclusion on the 

NRHP, including those discovered during construction. The exception to this is when 

FRA, in consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), 

determines that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be 

learned by data recovery and has minimal value to preservation in place. 

 Section 4(f) applies to protected resources when a “use” occurs. This “use” can be 

permanent, such as the permanent acquisition of a property, or temporary, such as the 

use of the property for construction staging purposes. Section 4(f) also applies when a 

“constructive use” occurs, such as when the noise, vibration, air quality, or visual effects 

of a project are so great that the use of the property is substantially impaired, even though 

it is not physically affected by the project. 

5 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-2 

5.1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project 

The Project would deliver higher speed passenger rail service, increase passenger and freight rail 

capacity, and improve passenger rail service frequency and reliability in a corridor shared by 

growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic, thereby providing a 

competitive option for travelers going between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and those 

traveling to and from adjacent connecting corridors. 

The purpose of the current DC2RVA Project described here is to fulfill the purpose of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) within this 

segment of the larger SEHSR corridor. The Project, by increasing rail capacity and improving 

travel times between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, would improve passenger train 

performance and reliability in the corridor, enabling intercity passenger rail to be a competitive 

transportation choice for travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond. 

DRPT anticipates that the Project will provide multiple benefits to the traveling public and the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, including: 

 Providing an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond and beyond. 

 Increasing the capacity of the multimodal rail system between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond. 

 Improving the frequency, reliability, and travel time of passenger rail operations in 

Virginia and beyond, and providing a competitive alternative to highway and air travel. 

 Accommodating Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail service operations. 

 Accommodating freight rail movement through the corridor, including to and from 

Virginia’s ports. 

 Improving modal connectivity with other public transportation systems within the 

corridor to further expand travel options for passengers within Virginia and beyond. 

 Improving multimodal rail operations safety in the corridor. 

 Improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting 

passenger trips by automobile and movement of freight by trucks to more 

environmentally sustainable rail transportation. 

Higher speed passenger rail service would also encourage economic development in Virginia and 

along the Eastern Seaboard travel corridors by expanding competitive travel options in the 

corridor for business and leisure travelers. Additionally, because the Project corridor is a 

multimodal corridor shared with freight, intercity passenger, and commuter service, the 

proposed improvements would also enhance the efficiency of freight rail movements within the 

corridor. Improvements to freight rail operations in the corridor would encourage economic 

development by increasing freight traffic through Virginia’s ports and present an opportunity for 

greater diversion of freight transport from congested highways to rail. 

Current conditions existing in the Project corridor support the Tier I EIS purpose and need and 

are the foundation for the Project today. These conditions include: 

 Population Growth. Population in the corridor and adjacent urban regions continues to 

grow, increasing demand for reliable and safe travel options for passengers. In addition 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-3 

to overall population growth, changing demographics in the corridor and adjacent urban 

regions are increasing the demand for passenger rail service. 

 Freight Growth. Demand for freight movement through and within the corridor is 

growing as economic activity and population increase. Ongoing expansion of Virginia’s 

deep water ports and intermodal facilities further increases the need for efficient shipment 

of freight. 

 Congestion in the I-95 Corridor. The I-95 corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond remains congested, despite ongoing and planned improvements. As a result, 

trip times by highway vehicle are not reliable. 

 Air Travel Congestion. Travel by air is increasingly at capacity, resulting in frequent 

delays and causing commercial carriers to reduce flights and increase fares, which limits 

the transportation options between Washington, D.C., Richmond, and adjacent corridors, 

and generates detrimental economic effects such as lost productivity for travelers and 

excessive fuel consumption. 

 Rail Capacity in the Corridor. The shared freight and passenger rail corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond is nearing capacity and requires improvements to 

effectively and efficiently meet existing and future demands for passenger service, 

commuter passenger service, and freight service. 

 Providing Options for Reliable and Convenient Movement of Goods and People. The 

transportation network must provide options for reliable and convenient movement of goods 

and people for Virginia and the southeast region’s economy to remain strong and grow. 

 Air Quality. There is a need to reduce growth of transportation-related mobile source 

emissions and the resultant effects to air quality. Travel or freight movement by train 

provides a safe and efficient travel mode, and it uses less energy and produces fewer 

emissions per passenger or ton of freight moved per mile. 

5.1.3 Project Description and Approach 

The DC2RVA Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and service upgrades 

to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of 

freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. The increased capacity 

will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and door-to-door competitive travel 

time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic. 

Specific improvements to the existing rail infrastructure between Arlington, VA, and Centralia, 

VA, include: 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to accommodate efficient 

operation of passenger, commuter, and freight rail service with increased frequency, 

reliability, and speed, including an additional main track along most of the corridor, 

additional sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity and reliability 

improvements at certain locations. 

 Corridor-wide upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating 

speeds, including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing 

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-4 

 New or replacement station, platform, and parking improvements at intercity passenger 

stations in the corridor to improve the efficiency of railroad operations, improve quality 

of service, and accommodate increased ridership. 

 Safety improvements to roadway crossing treatments, to include median treatment, grade 

separations, and/or closure of existing at-grade crossings of the rail corridor. 

5.1.4 Project Alternatives 

Developing potential rail alignments was an iterative process. DRPT relied on previous studies 

and public scoping comment as the starting point for developing potential rail alignments. Rail 

alignment modifications were made to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on 

environmental resources and existing infrastructure, and to minimize the need for additional new 

infrastructure, while preserving the ability of that alignment to meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need. The final screening evaluation—to determine the Build Alternatives to be carried forward 

for evaluation in the Draft EIS—focused on each rail alignment’s ability to reduce trip times based 

on increased track design speed and increase the reliability of rail operations based upon added 

capacity, with the least potential environmental impact and consideration of cost to construct. 

As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT evaluated both existing and potential new passenger rail 

stations in the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT plans to incorporate the DC2RVA SEHSR passenger train 

service into Amtrak’s regional and long distance intercity passenger rail network; along the DC2RVA 

corridor, these existing stations include: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, Fredericksburg, 

Ashland, and Staples Mill Road and Main Street in Richmond. Additionally, in Richmond, DRPT is 

considering two proposed new locations under some Build Alternatives: Boulevard Station and 

Broad Street Station. However, not all proposed trains would necessarily serve all existing or 

proposed stations. 

For evaluation in the Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT combined and categorized the Build Alternatives into 

six alternative areas along the corridor (Figure 5.1-1): 

 Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach): 1-mile section that includes approach 

alignments to the Long Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. 

and Virginia. 

 Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur): 47-mile section that 

includes additional track within existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads): 14-mile section that 

includes alignments through or around the city. 

 Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell): 29-mile section that includes 

additional track primarily within the existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295): 10-mile section including alignments through 

or around the town. 

 Alternative Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia): 23-mile section including different station 

locations and routing options along the A-Line and/or S-Line. 

Project Build Alternatives were developed separately, specific to the existing conditions, constraints, 

and/or needs of each of the six areas, and will be linked to form a single DRPT recommended 

Preferred Alternative for the corridor, to be confirmed in the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD). 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-5 

Figure 5.1-1: Alternative Areas 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-6 

Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for a full summary of the alternatives development process and 

description of Build Alternatives, and Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS for description of the DRPT 

recommended Preferred Alternative. 

In general, the DC2RVA Project proposes to increase capacity by adding one additional main track. 

In most areas, the Project will add a new third track in addition to two existing tracks. The 

determination of the location of the new track on the east or west of existing trackage varies by 

location within the corridor based on physical constraints and minimization of impacts. For each 

alternative, DRPT also evaluated the potential to realign the tracks to improve speeds. The proposed 

Build Alternatives vary within the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland, where 

alignments outside of the existing right-of-way were considered (i.e., bypass alignments around the 

downtown areas); the typical section of the new bypass alignments consists of two tracks. 

From a wide range of options that were considered during the alternatives development process, 

23 Build Alternatives, which vary within each alternative area, were included for evaluation in 

the Draft EIS (Table 5.1-1). Each includes build-alternative-specific improvements to features such 

as stations and at-grade roadway crossings, as applicable. The following sections provide details 

of each of these Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative. 

5.1.4.1 No Build Alternative 

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

planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. Information about planned physical 

improvements and rail service additions in the corridor was gathered from fiscally-constrained 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning documents, Commonwealth multiyear 

improvement programs, and from transit agency planning documents. If a project was under 

construction, fully-funded, or was the focus of advanced collaborative planning (evidenced by 

partial funding, board-level commitments, or interagency agreements), DRPT assumed it to be 

complete by 2025 for the purposes of the Draft EIS evaluation. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides 

a full description of elements included in the No Build Alternative. 

The purpose of the No Build Alternative is to serve as a baseline for comparison of potential 

effects and impacts of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative was fully 

evaluated and dismissed by FRA in the 2002 SEHSR Tier I ROD because it does not meet the 

SEHSR Purpose and Need. Although previously dismissed as not a viable alternative, it is fully 

considered as part of the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project because the baseline is required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

5.1.4.1 Build Alternatives 

The 23 Build Alternatives are summarized below. Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-22 show the proposed 

improvements by alternative. Figures 5.1-23 through 5.1-39 show the proposed station 

improvements. All of these figures are provided at the end of this section. 

Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full information, including lists of specific track and station 

improvements, for each Build Alternative. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-7 

 Table 5.1-1: Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

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

5B Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

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

Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

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 

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 Stations 

 Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

There are three Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 1, which are described in Table 5.1-2. Build 

Alternative 1A, 1B, and 1C are shown in Figure 5.1-2. 

Table 5.1-2: Arlington Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

TRACK 

All three Build Alternatives would: 

 Equally support expanded intercity passenger service (all types), expanded VRE commuter service, and expanded CSXT 

freight service 

 Add two main tracks, with minor shifts to improve speed 

 Be constructed within existing railroad right-of-way 

The difference between the alternatives is on which side(s) of the existing track the new track is added (as indicated in Build

Alternative names): two tracks on the east (1A); two tracks on the west (1B); one track east and one track west (1C) 

Final decision deferred to the completion of the Long Bridge Study (separate study by the District of Columbia Department 

of Transportation) 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 45 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within area 

CROSSINGS 

No changes to existing public roadway crossings 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-8 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Alternative Area 2, which is described in Table 5.1-3. Build 

Alternative 2A is shown in Figure 5.1-3. 

Table 5.1-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with realignment of some curves to improve speed, to create: 

 Fourth track from Alexandria to Crystal City 

 Third track from Spotsylvania to Alexandria 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Station improvements are mainly platform improvements and to be performed by VRE 

Proposed new DC2RVA service includes: 

 Alexandria: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) (Figure 5.1-23) 

 Woodbridge: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (Figure 5.1-24) 

 Quantico: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (no figure) 

 All other stations: VRE service only (no figure)

No changes to the locations of Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) or 

VRE commuter stations served 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Mount Hope Church Road), with alternate access provided; no grade separations 

of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, and Aquia Creek 

Alexandria Union Station 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-9 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg 

There are three Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 3, which are described in Table 5.1-4, Table 

5.1-5, and Table 5.1-6. Build Alternative 3A, 3B, and 3C are shown in Figure 5.1-4, Figure 5.1-5, and 

Figure 5.1-6, respectively. All three Build Alternatives would support expanded intercity passenger 

(all types), VRE commuter, and CSXT freight service, without change to stations served by existing 

Amtrak (Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), Long Distance, and Auto 

Train) passenger service or VRE commuter service. 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 3B is consistent with the City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2015). 

Table 5.1-4: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3A 

TRACK 

No construction of new track / no additional rail capacity within Fredericksburg 

 Existing two main tracks would be maintained, which are used by freight, passenger, and commuter trains, similar to existing conditions 

 Tracks would be shifted in some areas to improve speed 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the city 

All improvements are within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new 

parking structure (Figure 5.1-25) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: 

 Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in Alternative Area 3 is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only. 

CROSSINGS 

All public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements (no roadway crossing closures or grade 

separations of public at-grade crossings) 

Improvements to major rail bridges over the Rappahannock River 

Table 5.1-5: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3B

TRACK 

One main track would be added in most areas, with track shifts to improve speed 

 Within Fredericksburg, the additional track would be added east of the existing two tracks 

 A third track already exists between Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania stations; therefore, no improvements are required 

in this section 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, a new elevated railway, side and center 

platform improvements, and a new parking structure (Figure 5.1-26) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in Alternative Area 3 is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only. 

CROSSINGS 

No public roadway crossing closures; grade separation of one at-grade roadway crossing (Landsdowne Road) 

Improvements to major rail bridges over the Rappahannock River 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-10 

Table 5.1-6: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3C 

TRACK 

Existing two-track corridor through the city would be maintained, with some track shifts to improve speed 

New two-track bypass would be constructed east of the city 

 Would serve all freight rail as well as some or all of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 Would require new right-of-way 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new parking 

structure (Figure 5.1-25)

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in Alternative Area 3 is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only. 

CROSSINGS 

Public roadway crossings along existing Dahlgren Spur would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

All new public roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Alternative Area 4, which is described in Table 5.1-7. Build 

Alternative 4A is shown in Figure 5.1-7. Based on geography throughout this area, this section is 

most suitable for higher speed passenger rail service and therefore provides the greatest 

contiguous section along the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum authorized speed up to 90 mph. 

Table 5.1-7: Central Virginia Build Alternative: 4A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with track shifts to improve speed 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Supports expanded intercity passenger service (all types) and CSXT freight service 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within the area 

Would not preclude the development of a proposed future station at Carmel Church (not included as part of this study) 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Colemans Mill Road); no grade separations of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Multiple crossings of small waterways and wetlands 

Corridor in rural Caroline County 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-11 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 5: Ashland 

There are seven Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 5, which are described in Table 5.1-8 

through Table 5.1-11 below. Build Alternative 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake are shown in Figure 5.1-8, Figure 5.1-9, Figure 5.1-10, Figure 5.1-11, Figure 5.1-

12, Figure 5.1-13, and Figure 5.1-14, respectively. 

The Ashland Build Alternatives may include different station locations: either maintaining the 

station at the existing downtown station with improvements (Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C) 

or relocating the station to south of Ashcake Road (all Build Alternatives with “–Ashcake” in their 

name). The Build Alternatives with the same letter, with and without the “–Ashcake” 

designation, are otherwise identical in terms of alignment. For ease of comparison, they are 

presented together in the tables below. 

Due to constraints of the geography through this location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible, with an existing 35 mph municipal slow order 

through the Town of Ashland. 

Table 5.1-8: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks (no construction of new track/no additional rail capacity) within Ashland 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

All rail improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5A: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which would require closure of the 

existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 5.1-27) 

 5A–Ashcake: Would close the existing station and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road (Figure 5.1-28) 

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 5.1-9: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks and construct one additional track east of the existing tracks within Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

 New right-of-way would be required for rail improvements within the town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) with different station locations: 

 5B: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts 

(Figure 5.1-29) 

 5B–Ashcake: Would close the existing station and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road (Figure 5.1-28) 

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-12 

Table 5.1-10: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would construct a two-track bypass, west of Ashland, to serve all freight rail as well as all Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 New right-of-way would be required on bypass alignment 

Both alternatives would maintain the existing two-track corridor through town 

 No additional right-of-way needed in town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5C: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

5.1-27) 

 5C–Ashcake: Would close the existing station and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road (Figure 5.1-28) 

CROSSINGS 

All new roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 5.1-11: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake 

TRACK 

One additional main line track, with centering of all main line tracks on the existing alignment, would be constructed through 

the entire area, which generally requires additional railroad right-of-way, especially within the town of Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

STATIONS 

This rail alignment would require removal of the existing station building and platforms, resulting in the relocation of service 

to a new station south of Ashcake Road to provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service (Figure 5.1-28). 

CROSSINGS 

Includes the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Corridor in downtown Ashland 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-13 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 6: Richmond 

There are eight Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 6. All Build Alternatives generally add one 

main track (though they vary whether they use the A-Line or S-Line through the city), and they vary 

in whether they consolidate passenger train service to a single station (including two potential new 

stations at Boulevard Station or Broad Street Station) or provide combinations of service at two 

stations. There are no changes to CSXT freight service routes due to proposed changes to passenger 

train routes as part of the DC2RVA Project. The Amtrak Auto Train does not stop in Richmond. 

Five of the Richmond area alternatives are single-station alternatives, which are presented in 

Table 5.1-12 through Table 5.1-16. The single station alternatives are Build Alternative 6A, 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D, which are shown in Figure 5.1-15, Figure 5.1-16, Figure 5.1-17, Figure 

5.1-18, and Figure 5.1-19, respectively. All single-station alternatives consolidate Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, as well as all Amtrak Long Distance, 

Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, to one station. 

Three of the Richmond area alternatives are two-station alternatives, which are presented in Table 

5.1-17 through Table 5.1-19. All dual station alternatives use the existing Staples Mill Road and 

Main Street Stations. The dual station Build Alternatives are Build Alternatives 6E, 6F, and 6G, 

which are shown in Figure 5.1-20, Figure 5.1-21, and Figure 5.1-22, respectively. All two-station 

alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service to at 

least one station, as well as associated service of Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) to one or both stations. 

Main Street Station
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-14 

Table 5.1-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with track 

shifts to improve speed

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street Station would be closed to passenger rail service, and all service consolidated at Staples Mill Road Station 

Staples Mill Road Station would be improved and becomes the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-30) 

 Does not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

One of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Alternative Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

Elevated loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and consolidated

to a new station at Boulevard 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-31) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

Second of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Alternative Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Boulevard 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-31) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate four at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-15 

Table 5.1-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

At-grade loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Broad Street 

New Broad Street Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-32) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Station location would require two new at-grade crossings on West Leigh Street adjacent to proposed station, which would 

require a variance from state code and/or coordination with VDOT 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D (Main Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Staples Mill Road Station would be closed to passenger rail service and all service consolidated at Main Street Station 

Main Street Station would be improved and be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-33) 

 Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

 Potential increases in passenger and freight delay may occur as proximity to I-95 prevents adding sufficient station 

platforms/track on the west side of the station 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

James River Bridge
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-16 

Table 5.1-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational. All passenger trains would serve Staples Mill Road Stations; trains to and 

from Newport News would additionally serve Main Street Station. 

 Staples Mill Road Station would be expanded and would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including 

new proposed Northeast Regional (SEHSR) to Norfolk and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains (Figure 5.1-34) 

 Main Street Station would have platform and parking improvements and would be served by all Northeast Regional (SEHSR 

and Virginia) passenger trains to Newport News (Figure 5.1-35) 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with all passenger trains serving both stations 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 5.1-36 and Figure 

5.1-37) 

 Both stations would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including new proposed Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and the S-Line (through Richmond), 

with track shifts to improve speed 

 The A-Line is used for service but does not require proposed track

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with both stations being served by all new proposed SEHSR service and 

other Amtrak passenger train services to either one or both stations 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 5.1-38 and Figure 5.1-39) 

 Both stations would be served by all Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) trains 

 Long Distance (Amtrak) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) would serve Staples Mill Station only 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-17 

Figure 5.1-2: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-18 

Figure 5.1-3: Build Alternative 2A – Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-19 

Figure 5.1-4: Build Alternative 3A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-20 

Figure 5.1-5: Build Alternative 3B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-21 

Figure 5.1-6: Build Alternative 3C – Add Two-Track Bypass East 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-22 

Figure 5.1-7: Build Alternative 4A – Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-23 

Figure 5.1-8: Build Alternative 5A – Maintain Two Track Through Town 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-24 

Figure 5.1-9: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake – Maintain Two Track Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-25 

Figure 5.1-10: Build Alternative 5B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-26 

Figure 5.1-11: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-27 

Figure 5.1-12: Build Alternative 5C – Add Two-Track West Bypass
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-28 

Figure 5.1-13: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake – Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-29 

Figure 5.1-14: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake – Three Tracks Centered Through Town 

(Add Single Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-30 

Figure 5.1-15: Build Alternative 6A – Staples Mill Road Station Only
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-31 

Figure 5.1-16: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line – Boulevard Station Only, A-Line
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-32 

Figure 5.1-17: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line – Boulevard Station Only, S-Line
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-33 

Figure 5.1-18: Build Alternative 6C – Broad Street Station Only
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-34 

Figure 5.1-19: Build Alternative 6D – Main Street Station Only
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-35 

Figure 5.1-20: Build Alternative 6E – Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-36 

Figure 5.1-21: Build Alternative 6F – Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-37 

Figure 5.1-22: Build Alternative 6G – Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-38 

Figure 5.1-23: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-24: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-40 

Figure 5.1-25: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-42 

Figure 5.1-27A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/850-Foot Platf
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-27B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/350-Foot Platf
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-44 

Figure 5.1-28: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-29A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-46 

Figure 5.1-29B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-30: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-48 

Figure 5.1-31: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-32: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-50 

Figure 5.1-33: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-34: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-52 

Figure 5.1-35: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-36: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-54 

Figure 5.1-37: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-38: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-56 

Figure 5.1-39: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-57 

5.2 TYPES OF SECTION 4(f) USE 

Under Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303[c]), as amended by Section 6009 of 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), U.S. DOT may approve a transportation project requiring the use of a publicly 

owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or a historic site only if: (1) there is 

no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the project includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) resource resulting from the use, unless the criteria 

for de minimis Section 4(f) involvement can be met. Historic sites protected under Section 4(f) 

include publicly or privately owned properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. For those 

historic sites, the Section 106 process helps inform the Section 4(f) process, but the two processes 

are distinct. Section 4.13 of the Draft EIS includes a description of the Section 106 process. Projects 

funded by U.S. DOT must comply with the requirements of Section 4(f). Section 4(f) has 

mandatory requirements for avoidance alternatives, minimization measures, and possible 

mitigation of any use of the above types of resources. 

There are three different types of Section 4(f) use: 

 Permanent Use 

 Temporary Use 

 Constructive Use 

A Section 4(f) Permanent Use occurs if a property meeting the requirements of Section 4(f) is 

permanently acquired (as fee simple or as permanent easement) such that the use of that acquired 

Section 4(f) property is incorporated in the transportation facility changing its original use to 

“transportation use” and the acquisition does not meet the de minimis criteria. 

Temporary Use occurs when the Section 4(f) property or a portion of the Section 4(f) property is 

impacted or used only during a portion of the construction of the project such that the Section 

4(f) property is not permanently incorporated into the transportation facility or transportation 

use. For temporary use, the Section 4(f) property must be restored to its original condition (e.g. 

regrading or revegetating the area). For temporary use the following conditions must be met: 

 The land use is of short duration (defined as less than the time needed for the construction 

of the project) 

 There is no change in ownership of the land 

 The scope of the work must be minor 

 There are no temporary or permanent adverse changes to the activities, features, or 

attributes of the property 

 The land must be fully restored to a condition at least as good as prior to the project 

 There must be documented agreement from the official(s) with jurisdiction over the 

property with the above conditions 

Constructive Use occurs when there is an indirect impact to the Section 4(f) property of such 

magnitude as to effectively act as a permanent incorporation. Here, the project does not physically 

incorporate the resource but is close enough to it to severely impact important features, activities, 

or attributes associated with it and to substantially impair it. Examples of impacts that may be 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-58 

considered constructive use include noise, vibration, air quality, and visual impacts. 

“Constructive use” is rare; however, if it is determined that there is a “constructive use”, the 

requirements are the same as a regular Section 4(f) use. 

A de minimis impact involves the use of a Section 4(f) property that is generally minor in nature. 

For a de minimis use of a non-historic site: 

 The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, 

does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource 

for protection under Section 4(f); 

 The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the 

project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 

 The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property is informed of U.S. DOT’s intent to make 

the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for 

protection under Section 4(f). 

A determination of de minimis impact on a historic site may be made when all three of the 

following criteria are satisfied: 

 The process required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

results in the determination of "no adverse effect" or "no historic properties affected" with 

the concurrence of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), if 

the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 consultation; 

 The SHPO and/or THPO, and ACHP, if the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 

consultation, is informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make a de minimis impact determination 

based on their written concurrence in the Section 106 determination; and 

 U.S. DOT has considered the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 

106 consultation. 

Additional details on historic properties and the Section 106 evaluation process can be found in 

Section 4.13. 

5.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(f) RESOURCES 

Chapter 3 of this Draft EIS discusses the screening process that was completed to identify Section 

4(f) resources that would potentially be affected by Project alternatives. The following sections 

describe these resources. 

5.3.1 Parks and Recreation Areas 

The parks discussed in this section are located within the temporary and/or permanent rightsof-way of the proposed Build Alternatives. Potential impacts to these park properties are 

described in Section 5.4. 

 Long Bridge Park⎯Long Bridge Park is a 29-acre local park constructed in 2011 that is 

owned and operated by Arlington County. The park is located between Long Bridge Drive 

and the western edge of the rail alignment and includes additional land east of the rail 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-59 

alignment adjacent to Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. This park includes multi-sport, 

lighted, athletic fields, as well as walkways, greenspace, and playgrounds. The park 

facilities are located west of the rail alignment. 

 Dog Run Park at Carlyle⎯This 3-acre facility consists of a fenced dog exercise area and 

tennis courts. The park is owned by the City of Alexandria. 

 George Washington Memorial Parkway⎯The Parkway encompasses 1,105 acres and is 

operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The facility is utilized for transportation and 

recreational driving, but it also includes several walking/biking trails. The Parkway runs 

parallel to the DC2RVA corridor throughout much of Arlington. 

 Veterans Memorial Park⎯This 110-acre park includes a recreation center and several 

outdoor athletic fields, pavilions, a skate park, horseshoe pits, and walking trails. 

 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park⎯This park is operated by 

NPS. The park is 8,374 acres in size and is comprised of several different sections. The 

park encompasses four major Civil War battlefields and also preserves four historic 

buildings associated with them. The Stonewall Jackson Shrine is contained within this 

park in the section located near Guinea, VA. 

 North Ashland Park⎯This small 0.2-acre park is owned by the Town of Ashland and 

currently consists of open greenspace and a picnic shelter, but it is under development 

and is likely to expand in size. The park is part of a much larger 29-acre parcel owned by 

the Town that includes a sewage treatment facility and maintenance/storage areas. 

 Railside Park⎯This 1.0-acre park is owned by the Town of Ashland and is located at the 

northern end of North Center Street. The park connects to Vaughan Road by a 1/3-milelong path along the rail tracks. The site remains largely open space with one picnic table 

and some park benches for viewing passing trains. 

 Carter Park⎯This park is around 13.5 acres and is located between South Center Street 

and Maple Street Extended. Most of the park is heavily wooded. Carter Park is the 

centerpiece of the Ashland park system. It contains a junior Olympic size swimming pool, 

one-half basketball court, a picnic shelter and picnic area, playground, and gravel walking 

trails through the wooded areas. 

 Ashland Trolley Line⎯This park is approximately 0.5 mile in length and totals 6.7 acres. It 

is part of the historic Ashland-Richmond Trolley Line. The majority of the walkway and 

park is owned by Hanover County and is maintained as a natural surface trail. The northern 

portion of the park also includes Walder Lane and is owned by the Town of Ashland. 

 Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields⎯The Maggie Walker Governor’s School is 

located adjacent to the railroad tracks to the west on North Lombardy Street in Richmond. 

This resource includes approximately 4.9 acres of outdoor athletic fields. The parcel is 

owned by the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School Regional School Board. 

 Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park⎯This 6.4-acre park is owned by the City of 

Richmond Public Works. The park provides access to the walk along the floodwall south 

of the James River. 

 Gates Mill Park⎯This park is 11.4 acres and is located west of the railroad right-of-way. 

The park is owned by Chesterfield County and includes some trails for passive recreation. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-60 

 Mount Vernon Trail⎯The trail is an 18-mile-long trail that connects Theodore Roosevelt 

Island Park with George Washington’s Estate at Mount Vernon. It is a very popular trail 

in the Washington, D.C. area with heavy use by bikers and pedestrians. Most of the trail 

is paved with some portions on boardwalk. This trail also connects with several other local 

and regional trails, including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Trail, the Four Mile Run Trail, 

and the Custis Trail. The trail crosses the DC2RVA corridor near Long Bridge Park. 

5.3.2 Wildlife Refuges 

There is only one wildlife refuge potentially affected by the Build Alternatives. 

 Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area⎯This state wildlife management area is 

2,652 acres in size and is owned and operated by the Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary is located in close proximity to Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 

1C, but there would be no permanent or temporary impacts to the Wildlife Sanctuary land. 

5.3.3 Historic Properties 

Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS describes the historic architecture resources within the Area of Potential 

Effect (APE) of the Project that were determined to be eligible for listing or are listed on the NRHP. 

DRPT determined that these resources meet one or more of the following NRHP eligibility criteria: 

 Criterion A⎯Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history 

 Criterion B⎯Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 

 Criterion C⎯Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, 

or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction 

 Criterion D⎯Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or 

history. Although resources considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D alone are 

evaluated for project effect, a resource must be eligible for one other criterion in addition to 

D (wherein preservation in place in warranted) to be considered a Section 4(f) resource. 

The 158 historic properties (buildings, districts, objects, structures, and sites) that are included in 

this Section 4(f) analysis are listed in Table 5.3-1 (see Chapter 3 for additional details). The 

resources are listed in the order they appear in the DC2RVA corridor from north to south. 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 1: 

Arlington 

029-0218 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway 

(portion of George Washington 

Memorial Parkway) 

Ca. 1929 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 1: 

Arlington 

000-0045 Washington National Airport 

(Reagan National Airport) 

1941 Listed under Criteria A and C 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-61 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0160 George Washington Junior High 

School, 1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue 

1935 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown 

Ca. 1810 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District Ca. 1900 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot 

110 Callahan Drive 

1905 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0128 George Washington National 

Masonic Memorial 

Ca. 1922 Listed Criterion C and 

Criterion Consideration F 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Holmes Run in 

Cameron Run Park 

1946 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill 

3642 Wheeler Avenue 

ca. 1776 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

029-0953 Old Colchester Road, Potomac Path, 

King's Highway 

ca. 1664 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark House/Enyedi 

House, 10605 Furnace Road 

ca. 1876 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion B and Criteria 

Consideration B and G 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

029-0043 Colchester Arms, Fairfax Arms, 

10712 Old Colchester Road 

ca. 1756 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Occoquan River 1915 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base Quantico 

(Current), Quantico Marine Corps 

Base Historic District (NRHP Listing) 

post-1918 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

287-5147 Town of Quantico 

(Historic/Current), Town of 

Quantico Historic District (Current) 

post-1918 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands, 945 Widewater 

Road 

ca. 1790 Eligible for the NRHP under 

Criteria B and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over Potomac Creek at 

Leland Road 

1872 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and B 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road 1931 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. 

Battlefields National Military Park & 

Cemetery, Lee Drive 

1862 Listed under Criteria A and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0016/ 

44ST0084 

Ferry Farm 1738 Listed National Historic 

Landmark (NHL), NRHP, and 

Virginia Landmarks Registry 

(VLR) under Criteria A, B, and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest (Historic) 1810 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0025 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 1927 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

44SP0187 Stone Piers; Bridge or Building 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria C and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0704 

Fredericksburg Train Station 

200 Lafayette Boulevard 

1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic District Post 1727 Listed under Criterion C 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-62 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0020 

 Purina Tower 1916 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0522 

House 

314–316 Frederick Street 

1851 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0009-

0795 

Pulliam's Service Station 

411 Lafayette Boulevard 

ca. 1935 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic District 

Extension 

post 1775 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I 1862 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II 1863 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-5181 Salem Church Battlefield 

(Banks Ford Battlefield) 

1863 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-5364 Fredericksburg & Gordonsville 

Railroad Bed District 

(Virginia Central Railroad) 

1853 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory ca. 1775 Listed under Criteria A and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-0254 Slaughter Pen Farm 

11232 Tidewater Trail 

(Wayside Farm or Pierson Farm) 

ca. 1898 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

44SP0468-

extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 1861 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A, C, and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-0039 LaVue 

3232 LaVue Lane 

(Prospect View) 

ca. 1848 Listed under Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation Office 

Jackson Shrine 

12019 Stonewall Jackson Road 

ca. 1820 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A, B, and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0208 House 

12096 Guinea Drive 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of Caroline 

County MPD 

ca. 1896-

ca. 1950 

Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-5129 Woodford Historic District ca. 1890-1969 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior Company 

Office, Lake Farm Road 

ca. 1896 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & Passenger 

Depot, Woodford Road 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0224 Glenwood House 

11102 Woodford Road 

ca. 1925 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion 

11146 Woodford Road 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0270 Milford State Bank 

15461 Antioch Road 

ca. 1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-5136 Milford Historic District ca. 1880-1960 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0286 Coleman's Store 

22275 Penola Road 

Penola 

16095 Polecat Lane 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-63 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield 1864 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-5448 Doswell Historic District ca. 1840-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0470 House 

10570 Doswell Road 

ca. 1898 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria B and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, Doswell Branch 

(part of Squashapenny Antiques) 

10561 Doswell Road 

ca. 1920 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and Tower

10577 Doswell Road 

ca. 1928 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic District ca. 1900-1935 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Little River 1923 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little River 1862 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

042-0557 Dry Bridge 

10411 Old Bridge Road 

ca. 1850 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

042-0392 Montevideo 1790 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5073 Berkleytown Historic District ca. 1900-1965 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5073-

0010 

House, Dabney Funeral Home 

600 B Street 

1955 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001 Ashland Historic District 1850-1950 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0015 

Business Office, Randolph-Macon, 

310 N. Center Street 

ca. 1895 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District Expansion 

ca. 1900-1960 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District 

1872-1950 Listed VLR and NRHP under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0008 

Ashland Station Depot 

112 N. Railroad Avenue 

1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5041 Priddy House 

107 Stebbins Street 

ca. 1926 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0055 

House 

704 S. Center Street 

ca. 1850 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0060 

House 

708 S. Center Street 

ca. 1894 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0036 MacMurdo House 

713 S. Center Street 

ca. 1858 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0037 Hugo House, 

11208 Gwathmey Church Road 

ca. 1886 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0077 

House 

1005 S. Center Street 

ca. 1890 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

042-5048 Elmont Historic District ca. 1870-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District ca. 1870-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-64 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

043-0694 Hunton Treasures 

11701 Greenwood Road 

ca. 1930 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

043-5646 House 

11501 Old Washington Highway 

ca. 1937 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield 1864 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5657 Darling Smokestack 

Old Washington Highway 

ca. 1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0690 Lewis-McLeod House 

2945 Mountain Road 

ca. 1921 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial School Historic 

District, Hungary Road 

1892 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0292-

0001 

Main Building/Robert Stiles Building/ 

Bluford Office Building, 

2900 Hungary Road 

1895 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5636 Integrated Power Sources of Virginia 

2260 Dabney Road 

ca. 1940 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic District Post-1900 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6569 Central National Bank 

3501 W. Broad Street 

1956 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6514 Kent Road Village 

905 Kent Road 

1942 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0742 West of Boulevard Historic District ca. 1895 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6756 Carillon Neighborhood Historic 

District 

1859 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0171 James River and Kanawha Canal 

Historic District 

1795 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6792 Southern Railway ca. 1850 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood Historic 

District 

post-1941 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Temp 402 House 

351 W. 49th Street 

ca. 1958 Not accessible; Further Survey 

Required 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic District ca. 1950-1960 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Temp R Rolando Historic District ca. 1946-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Temp 268 Broad Run House 

2011 S. Kinsley Avenue 

ca. 1770 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg Electric 

Railway 

1902 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic 

District, United States Department 

of Defense Supply Center Historic 

District 

post-1942 Eligible under Criteria A, B, C, 

and D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, Earthworks, 

Fort 

1861-1865 Eligible under Criteria A, C, and 

D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek Battlefield 1864 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-65 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6188 Movieland Bowtie Cinema 

1331 North Boulevard 

1887 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6840 Warehouse 

2728 Hermitage Road 

ca. 1955 Indeterminate; Could not 

Access; Phase II Needed 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6730 Hermitage Road Warehouse 

Historic District 

1930-1958 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6165 Cookie Factory Lofts 

900 Terminal Place 

1927 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0226 Science Museum of Virginia 

2500 Broad Street, West 

1919 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5978 Todd Lofts 

1128 Hermitage Road 

1892 Listed under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6145 Southern Stove Works 

1215 Hermitage Road 

1905 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6570 West Broad Street Industrial and 

Commercial Historic District 

1890-1960 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0414 Governor's School 

1000 North Lombardy Street 

1938 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0354 Virginia Union University Historic 

District 

1500 North Lombardy Street 

1899 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0428 George W. Carver Elementary 

School 

1110 West Leigh Street 

1887 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0822 Carver Residential Historic District Pre-1958 Listed under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6171 Richmond and Chesapeake Bay 

Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland 

Railway Company Car Barn 

1907 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5679 Barton Heights Cemetery 

1600 Lamb Avenue 

1814 Listed under Criteria A and B 

and Criterion Consideration D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing Home 

210 Hospital Street 

1860 Listed under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery 

320 Hospital Street 

1816 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ Plateau Historic 

District 

1889-1950 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row 

Historic District 

post 1737 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1098 Main Street Station Parking 

Lot/Railroad 

19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage 

East Main Street 

ca. 1866 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0172 Main Street Station and Trainshed, 

New Union Station, Seaboard Airline 

& Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad 

Depot 

1901 Listed NHL, NRHP, and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0344-

0123 

Railroad Y.M.C.A. 

1552 East Main Street 

1907 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-66 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic District and 

Expansions 

1780 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1092 Warehouse 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1094 Warehouse 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6793 C&O Railroad Pre-1851 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5809 Bridge #1857, North 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge North 

1911 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, South 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge South 

1911 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf Storage 

Warehouse 

1717-1721 East Cary Street 

1914 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1095 Storage Facility 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0282 Henrico County Courthouse 

2127 Main Street East 

1896 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0192 St. John's Church Historic District 18th Century 

to 1940 

Listed under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0192-

0322 

Libby Hill Park and Park House 

2801 East Franklin Street 

ca. 1873 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0854 Bridge #1850, E. Main Street 

spanning Southern Railway 

ca. 1913 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0119 John Woodward House 

3017 Williamsburg Avenue 

pre-1782 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6693 Armitage Manufacturing Company 

3200 Williamsburg Avenue 

1900 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works 

Williamsburg Avenue 

ca. 1925 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 1938 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5313 James River Steam Brewery Cellars 

4920 Old Main Street 

1866 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0439 Aviation General Supply Depot 

508 Bickerstaff Road 

1917 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm 

(New Market Heights Battlefield) 

New Market Road 

1862 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5071 Darbytown & New Market Roads 

Battlefield, Route 5 

1864 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse Historic 

District 

1880-1960 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco 

Southern Stove Works 

516 Dinwiddie Avenue 

1920 Listed under Criteria A and C 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-67 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6245/ 

44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, 

Emergency Fleet Corporation 

Factory 

700 East 4th Street 

1919 Eligible under Criteria A, C, and 

D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company, 

1314 Commerce Street 

Transmontaigne 

1936 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic District 1947 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance 1929 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

1619 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criterion D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff Battlefield 

(Fort Darling, Fort Drewry) 

Fort Darling Road 

1862 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II) 

Bermuda Hundred Road 

(Alt Route 697) 

1865 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, Auburn Chase 

Building 42, Defense Supply Center 

Richmond 

8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

1804 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A, C, and D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0013 House 

3619 Thurston Road 

1913 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0022/ 

44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks 1861 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5378 VEPCo Power Transmission Line ca. 1910 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0140 Circle Oaks 

4510 Centralia Road 

1840 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office 1905 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) 

Corridor 

Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 

post 1833 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) 

Corridor 

1900 Eligible under Criterion A 

All 076-0301 RF&P Railroad 1836 Eligible under Criterion A 

5.4 SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY IMPACTS 

5.4.1 Parks and Recreation Areas 

This section describes the potential impacts by alternative to parks and recreational areas 

protected under Section 4(f). Table 5.4-1 provides a summary of the temporary and permanent 

use of lands associated with these Section 4(f) resources. Figure 5.4-1 depicts the areas of 

permanent use. Based on the criteria discussed in Section 5.2, FRA anticipates all permanent 

impacts to parks and recreation areas will be de minimis and all temporary impacts to parks and 

recreation areas will not result in a Section 4(f) use. DRPT sent initial coordination letters 

regarding Section 4(f) impacts to resource owners in June 2017 (Appendix U). FRA and DRPT 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-68 

will continue this coordination after publication of the Draft EIS and will discuss potential 

impacts with all affected resource owners prior to issuance of the Final EIS. 

 Long Bridge Park⎯Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would have temporary impacts to 

this facility. Build Alternatives 1B and 1C would also have permanent impacts. 

Build Alternative 1A would expand the railroad infrastructure on the east side of the right-ofway approaching Long Bridge from the south, which would have 0.51 acre of temporary 

impacts during construction associated with access, erosion control, and material placement to 

this 29-acre park; this is less than two percent of the parkland at this facility. The temporary 

impacts would affect a narrow strip of land less than 10 feet in width along the east side of the 

railroad; however, this area is segregated from the active parkland by a retaining wall and fence 

on the west side of the active railroad corridor and is inaccessible for public use. The Long 

Bridge Park activities such as trails and sport fields are located along the west side of the 

railroad. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because 

upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the 

activities of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

Build Alternative 1B would expand the railroad infrastructure on the west side of the rightof-way approaching Long Bridge from the south, which would require 1.45 acres of 

permanent right-of-way and 0.88 acre of temporary impacts for a combined permanent and 

temporary impact of eight percent of the 29-acre facility. The permanent impacts would affect 

a long narrow width of additional right-of-way of generally less than 50 feet expanding to 

around 100 feet in one area on the west side of the existing railroad. Temporary impacts, from 

area needed for construction access, erosion control, and material placement, extend 

approximately another 15 feet in width. The permanent impacts avoid the park activity areas 

such as walking trails and sport fields. The areas impacted consist of landscaping or natural 

vegetation. Impacted landscaped elements will be replaced in nearby locations in the 

remaining parkland. Temporary impacts may affect the area adjacent to the soccer field but 

will not affect the field itself, and disruptions to the activity will be avoided. FRA believes the 

permanent impacts to be minor in nature and will recommend that the use is de minimis. FRA 

does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon 

completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities 

of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

Build Alternative 1C would expand the railroad infrastructure on both the east and west 

sides of the right-of-way approaching Long Bridge from the south, which would require 

0.36 acre of additional permanent right-of-way and 0.65 acre of temporary impacts totaling 

three percent of the 29-acre facility. These impacts would affect a narrow strip of land along 

the west side of the existing railroad, generally less than 25 feet in width (approximately 15-

foot width of permanent impacts and 10-foot width of temporary impacts). The areas 

impacted consist of landscaping and natural vegetation. Temporary impacts are associated 

with access, erosion control, and material placement for construction. Trails and sport fields 

are not impacted. Impacted landscaped elements will be replaced in nearby locations in the 

remaining parkland. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature and will recommend 

that the use is de minimis. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a 

Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its 

prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected during the timeframe 

of the temporary impacts. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-69 

 Mount Vernon Trail⎯Build Alternative 2A would have temporary impacts to 20 feet of 

this trail facility for access and erosion control during construction. Trail connectivity 

would be maintained during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts 

will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, trail connectivity 

would be maintained, and the land would be restored to its prior condition. The activities 

of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Dog Run Park at Carlyle⎯Build Alternative 2A would require 0.04 acre of permanent right-ofway from this park facility and 0.14 acre of temporary impacts totaling six percent of this 3-acre 

dog park. The permanent impacts are primarily located at the west side of the park in an area of 

natural vegetation that is not utilized for park activities. There is also a very narrow strip of 

permanent impacts along the length of the park, approximately 3 feet in width. Temporary 

impacts, from area needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during 

construction, are located in an area of natural vegetation comprising a narrow strip and extending 

an additional 10 feet from the additional permanent right-of-way. The adjacent dog run area and 

tennis courts would not be impacted. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature and will 

recommend that the use is de minimis. The transportation use of this additional right-of-way does 

not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection 

under Section 4(f). FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use 

because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition. The 

activities of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 George Washington Memorial Parkway⎯Build Alternative 2A would have temporary 

impacts to this facility. These impacts consist of an approximately 10-foot-wide strip of 

vacant forested land on the east side of the existing railroad totaling 1.04 acres or less than 

0.1 percent of the 1,105-acre facility. Temporary impacts would be from area needed for 

access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion 

of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the 

park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Veterans Memorial Park⎯Build Alternative 2A would have temporary impacts of 0.05 

acre of this 110-acre facility or 0.5 percent of the total parkland acreage. The impacted area 

is a narrow strip of land, less than 5 feet in width. Temporary impacts would be needed 

from area needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. 

The area consists of natural vegetation. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts 

will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would 

be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected during 

the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park⎯Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 

4A would have temporary impacts to this facility. Build Alternatives 3A and 3B, which 

follow the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, share a common alignment 

in this area and would have temporary impacts of 0.02 acre, less than 0.001 percent of the 

8,374-acre National Military Park. The temporarily impacted area is a small rectangularshaped piec of land that is vacant. Temporary impacts would be from area needed for 

access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-70 

of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition and the activities of the 

park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

Build Alternative 4A, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way south of 

Fredericksburg, would have temporary impacts of 1.09 acres, or 0.01 percent of the National 

Military Park. The temporary impacts consist of an approximately 20-foot-wide strip that 

consists of forest and agricultural lands. Temporary impacts would be from area needed 

for access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion 

of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the 

park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 North Ashland Park⎯Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake, which adds a third track through 

and constructs a new station south of Ashland, would have temporary impacts to this 

facility. The temporary impacts would be 0.02 acre in size or 10 percent of the 0.2-acre 

park. The temporary impacts would be to an open grassed area that is approximately 10 

feet wide along the existing right-of-way. Temporary impacts would be from area needed 

for access and erosion control during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary 

impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land 

would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected 

during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Railside Park⎯Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake, which adds a third track through and 

constructs a new station south of Ashland, would have temporary impacts to this facility. 

The temporary impacts would be 0.01 acre in size or one percent of the 1.-acre park. The 

temporary impacts would be to an approximately 6-foot-wide strip of vacant land along 

the existing right-of-way. Temporary impacts would be from area needed for access and 

erosion control during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will 

result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would be 

restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected during 

the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Carter Park⎯Build Alternatives 5B and 5B–Ashcake, which add a third track through 

Ashland (Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake also constructs a new station south of Ashland), 

share a common alignment in this area and would require 0.03 acre of permanent rightof-way, 0.2 percent of this 13.5-acre park facility. This impact consists of a very narrow 

strip of forested land, less than 5 feet in width, on the east side of the existing right-ofway. Park activities would not be affected. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature 

and will recommend that the use is de minimis. The transportation use of this additional 

right-of-way does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify 

the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 

 Ashland Trolley Line⎯Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake, each of which constructs a new station south of Ashland, share a common 

alignment at this location and would require 0.01 acre of permanent right-of-way, 0.1 

percent of this 6.7-acre park facility. The additional right-of-way is required for access 

purposes to connect to Walder Lane which is located within the park boundaries in the 

area owned by the Town of Ashland. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature and 

will recommend that the use is de minimis. The permanent impacts consist of a small area 

of additional right-of-way. The transportation use of this additional right-of-way does not 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-71 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for 

protection under Section 4(f). 

 Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields⎯Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, 

which expand intercity passenger rail service on the S-Line through and south of 

downtown Richmond, share a common alignment in this area and would have temporary 

impacts of 0.01 acre, 0.2 percent of this 4.9-acre facility. The area temporarily impacted 

consists of small slivers of land less than 5 feet in width. These areas are not actively used 

by the school and consist of natural vegetation. Temporary impacts would be from area 

needed for access and erosion control during construction. FRA does not anticipate the 

temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of 

construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park 

would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park⎯Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, 

which expand intercity passenger rail service on the S-Line through and south of 

downtown Richmond, share a common alignment in this area and would require 

permanent right-of-way from and temporary impacts to this park facility. Permanent 

impacts would be 0.17 acre, and temporary impacts would be 0.23 acre for a total affected 

percentage of six percent of the 6.4-acre park. The affected area is a vacant grassed area 

with a multi-use trail that currently crosses under the existing tracks. Trail connectivity 

would be maintained during and after construction. The impacted width ranges up to 70 

feet for temporary and permanent impacts combined. FRA believes the impacts to be 

minor in nature and will recommend that the use is de minimis. The transportation use of 

this additional right-of-way does not adversely affect the activities, features, and

attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Temporary impacts 

would be from area needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during 

construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) 

use because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior 

condition, trail connectivity would be maintained, and the other activities of the park would 

not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Gates Mill Park⎯Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E, which expand intercity 

passenger rail service on the A-Line through and south of Richmond (none of which are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative as described in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS), share a common alignment in this area and would require permanent right-ofway from and temporary impacts to this park facility. Permanent impacts would be 0.19 

acre, and temporary impacts would be 0.22 acre for a total affected percentage of four 

percent of the 11-acre park. The affected area includes parking for an adjacent business 

and vacant forested land. The land is not actively used for park activities. FRA believes 

the impacts to be minor in nature and will recommend that the use is de minimis. The 

transportation use of this additional right-of-way does not adversely affect the activities, 

features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 

Temporary impacts would be from area needed for access, erosion control, and material 

placement during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result 

in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored 

to its prior condition, and there would be no changes to areas of park activity.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-72 

5.4.2 Wildlife Refuges 

There are no permanent impacts to wildlife refuges (see Table 5.4-2). Build Alternative 4A would 

have temporary impacts of 2.54 acres or 0.1 percent of the 2,652-acre Mattaponi Wildlife 

Management Area. The impacted area consists of forest in a narrow strip of land, approximately 

15 feet wide on the west side of the existing right-of-way. Temporary impacts would be from area 

needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of 

construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the other activities of the park 

would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. Roaches Run Waterfowl 

Sanctuary is located near the DC2RVA corridor but will not have temporary or permanent 

impacts associated with any of the Build Alternatives. 

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area 
SECTION 4

Table 5.4-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Park Resources by Build Alternative (Acres) 

Resource 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

6B–A-Line 

6B–S-Line 

6C 

Long Bridge Park 

0.00 

(0.51) 

1.45 

(0.88) 

0.36 

(0.65) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Mount Vernon Trail 

– – – 0 ft 

(20 ft) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Dog Run Park at Carlyle 

– – – 0.04 

(0.14) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 

– – – 0.00 

(1.04) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Veterans Memorial Park 

– – – 0.00 

(0.05) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

– – – – 0.00 

(0.02) 

0.00 

(0.02) 

– 0.00 

(1.09) 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

North Ashland Park 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.00 

(0.02) 

– – – – 

Railside Park – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.00 

(0.01) 

– – – – 

Carter Park – – – – – – – – – – 0.03 

(0.00) 

0.03 

(0.00) 

– – – – – – – 

Ashland Trolley Line 

– – – – – – – – – 0.01 

(0.00) 

– 0.01 

(0.00) 

– 0.01 

(0.00) 

0.01 

(0.00) 

– – – – 

 Continued; Key: Permanent Impacts / (Temporary Impacts); Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-74 

Table 5.4-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Park Resources by Build Alternative (Acres) 

Resource 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

6B–A-Line 

6B–S-Line 

6C 

Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.00 

(0.01) 

– 

Walker’s 

Creek Retention Basin Park 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.17 

(0.23) 

– 

Gates Mill Park 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.19 

(0.22) 

0.19 

(0.22) 

– 0.19 

(0.22

Key: Permanent Impacts / (Temporary Impacts); Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 

Table 5.4-2: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Wildlife Refuges by Build Alternative (Acres) 

Resource 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

6B–A-Line 

6B–S-Line 

6C 

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area 

– – – – – – – 0.00 

(2.54) 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

Key: Permanent Impacts / (Temporary Impacts); Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-75 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1B
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-76 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1C 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-77 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-78 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-79 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–

Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-80 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-81 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-82 

5.4.3 Historic Properties 

There are 158 historic properties within the APE: 9 archaeological sites, 135 aboveground 

resources, 3 resources with an aboveground and belowground component, and 11 battlefields. 

FRA anticipates that the Project could potentially result in a Section 4(f) use of up to 14 of the 158 

historic properties from one or more of the Build Alternatives (Tables 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 and Figure 

5.4-2). Therefore, FRA anticipates the Project will result in either no use or de minimis use of the 

remaining 144 properties. If FRA determines there is no use of these properties, no further action 

is required, and these results will be presented to the DHR to inform DHR of FRA’s de minimis 

determinations. More-detailed figures showing impacts to historic properties and DHR eligibility 

determinations (including individual eligibility and contributions to historic districts) are 

provided in the Cultural Resources Reports (Appendix R). 

Preliminary dialogues with the DHR on effect and Section 4(f) use took place on August 10, 2016, 

and the ensuing preliminary determinations are represented here. Where FRA anticipates that one 

or more of the Build Alternatives will potentially result in a use of a historic property, details are 

provided below regarding each alternative’s impact on the resource. If the DHR determined that 

the project will have an adverse effect on a resource but FRA determined that the project will have 

a de minimis use or no use, these resources are discussed below to provide contextual data for the 

de minimis/no use determination. FRA and DRPT will continue consultations with DHR and 

consulting parties, and the Final EIS will detail final determinations of effect and Section 4(f) uses. 

Table 5.4-3: Summary of Preliminary Section 4(f) Recommendations for All Historic 

Properties 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Section 4(f) Recommendation 

Use de minimis No Use 

Area 1: Arlington 1A 1 1 1 

1B 1 1 1 

1C 1 1 1 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 1 6 8 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3A 0 0 21 

3B 3 10 8 

3C1 1 3 2 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 3 10 7 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 4 15 

5B 3 11 5 

5B–Ashcake 3 11 5 

5C1 1 3 3 

5C–Ashcake1 1 3 3 

5D–Ashcake 3 11 5 

Area 6: Richmond 6A 4 36 43 

6B–A-Line 5 25 53 

6B–S-Line 8 30 45 

6C 5 28 50 

6D 7 36 40 

6E 3 47 33 

6F 7 35 41 

6G 7 43 33 

Note: 1. Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass alternatives. As such, this count only includes 

previously recorded resources; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

029-0218 Mount Vernon Memorial 

Highway (portion of George Washington Memorial Parkway) 

de 

minimis

de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – – – – 

000-0045 Washington National 

Airport (Reagan National Airport) 

No Use No Use No Use – – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0160 George Washington Junior 

High School 1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District – – – de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot 

110 Callahan Drive 

– – – de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0128 George Washington 

National Masonic Memorial 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill 

3642 Wheeler Avenue 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Holmes 

Run in Cameron Run Park 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0953 Old Colchester Road, 

Potomac Path, King's Highway 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark 

House/Enyedi House 10605 Furnace Road 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0043 Colchester Arms 

Fairfax Arms 10712 Old Colchester Road 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Occoquan 

River 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-84 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (Current), Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (NRHP Listing) 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

287-5147 Town of Quantico (Historic/ 

Current), Town of Quantico Historic District (Current) 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands 

945 Widewater Road 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over Potomac 

Creek at Leland Road 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over Naomi 

Road 

– – – – No Use Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – 

089-0016/ 

44ST0084 

Ferry Farm – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – – – – – – 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest (Historic) – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – 

111-0132-0025 Rappahannock River 

Railroad Bridge 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

44SP0187 Stone Piers; Bridge or 

Building 

– – – – No Use Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0704 Fredericksburg Train Station 

200 Lafayette Boulevard 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic 

District 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0020 Purina Tower – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

111-0132-0522 House 

314–316 Frederick Street 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0009-0795 Pulliam's Service Station 

411 Lafayette Boulevard 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic 

District Extension 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

088-5181 Salem Church Battlefield 

(Banks Ford Battlefield) 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

088-5364 Fredericksburg & 

Gordonsville Railroad Bed District (Virginia Central Railroad) 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun 

Manufactory 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

088-0254 Slaughter Pen Farm 

11232 Tidewater Trail (Wayside Farm or Pierson Farm) 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

44SP0468-

extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

088-0039 La Vue 

3232 LaVue Lane (Prospect View) 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

No Use – – – – – – – 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation Office 

Jackson Shrine 12019 Stonewall Jackson Road 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0208 House 

12096 Guinea Drive 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-86 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of 

Caroline County MPD 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-5129 Woodford Historic District – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior 

Company Office, Lake Farm Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & 

Passenger Depot, Woodford Road 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0224 Glenwood House, 

11102 Woodford Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion 

11146 Woodford Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-0270 Milford State Bank 

15461 Antioch Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-5136 Milford Historic District – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0286 Coleman's Store, 

22275 Penola Road Penola, 16095 Polecat Lane 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

042-5448 Doswell Historic District – – – – – – – Use – – – – – – 042-0470 Squashapenny Junction 

Store; House 10570 Doswell Road 

– – – – – – – Use – – – – – – 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, Doswell 

Branch (part of Squashapenny Antiques) 10561 Doswell Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and Tower 

10577 Doswell Road 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Little 

River 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little River – – – – – – – de 

minimis

– – – – – – 

042-0557 Dry Bridge 

10411 Old Bridge Road 

– – – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

042-0392 Montevideo – – – – – – – – – – – – No Use No Use 166-5073 Berkleytown Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-5073-0010 House, Dabney Funeral 

Home, 600 B Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – 

166-0001 Ashland Historic District – – – – – – – – – de 

minimis

Use Use – – 

166-0001-0015 Business Office, 

Randolph-Macon College 310 N. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon College 

Historic District Expansion 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon College 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0001-0008 Ashland Station Depot 

112 N. Railroad Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – de 

minimis

Use Use – – 

166-5041 Priddy House 

107 Stebbins Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – 

166-0001-0055 House 

704 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0001-0060 House 

708 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0036 MacMurdo House 

713 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-88 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

166-0037 Hugo House 

11208 Gwathmey Church Road 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0001-0077 House 

1005 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

042-5048 Elmont Historic District – – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District – – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

043-0694 Hunton Treasures 

11701 Greenwood Road 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use No Use No Use 

043-5646 House 

11501 Old Washington Highway 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use No Use No Use 

043-5657 Darling Smokestack 

Old Washington Highway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 043-0690 Lewis-McLeod House 

2945 Mountain Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial School 

Historic District, Hungary Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0292-0001 Main Building/Robert Stiles 

Building/Bluford Office Building, 2900 Hungary Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5636 Integrated Power Sources of 

Virginia, 2260 Dabney Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6569 Central National Bank 

3501 W Broad Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-6514 Kent Road Village 

905 Kent Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0742 West of Boulevard Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6756 Carillon Neighborhood 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0171 James River and Kanawha 

Canal Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6792 Southern Railway – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 402 House 

351 W. 49th Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic District – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp R Rolando Historic District – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 268 Broad Run House 

2011 S. Kinsley Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg 

Electric Railway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, US Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek Battlefield – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127-6188 Movieland Bowtie Cinema 

1331 North Boulevard 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-90 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-6840 Warehouse 

2728 Hermitage Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6730 Hermitage Road Warehouse 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6165 Cookie Factory Lofts, 

900 Terminal Place 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0226 Science Museum of Virginia 

2500 Broad Street, West 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5978 Todd Lofts 

1128 Hermitage Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6145 Southern Stove Works 

1215 Hermitage Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6570 West Broad Street Industrial 

and Commercial Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0414 Governor's School 

1000 North Lombardy St. 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0354 Virginia Union University 

Historic District, 1500 North Lombardy St. 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0428 George W. Carver 

Elementary School 1110 West Leigh Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0822 Carver Residential Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6171 Richmond and Chesapeake 

Bay Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland Railway Company Car Barn 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5679 Barton Heights Cemetery 

1600 Lamb Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing Home 

210 Hospital Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery 

320 Hospital Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ Plateau 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco 

Row Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44HE1098 Main Street Station Parking 

Lot/Railroad 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage 

East Main Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0172 Main Street Station and 

Trainshed, New Union Station, Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344-0123 Railroad Y.M.C.A. 

1552 East Main Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic 

District and Expansions 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44HE1092 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 44HE1094 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6793 C&O Railroad – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127-5809 Bridge #1857, North 14th

Street; Mayo Bridge North 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, South 14th

Street; Mayo Bridge South 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf Storage 

Warehouse 1717–1721 East Cary Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-92 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

44HE1095 Storage Facility – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0282 Henrico County 

Courthouse 2127 Main Street East 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0192 St. John's Church Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0192-0322 Libby Hill Park and Park 

House, 2801 East Franklin Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0854 Bridge #1850, E. Main 

Street, spanning Southern Railway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0119 John Woodward House 

3017 Williamsburg Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6693 Armitage Manufacturing 

Company 3200 Williamsburg Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works 

Williamsburg Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 043-5313 James River Steam Brewery 

Cellars 4920 Old Main Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0439 Aviation General Supply 

Depot 508 Bickerstaff Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm 

(New Market Heights Battlefield) New Market Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5071 Darbytown & New Market 

Roads Battlefield, Route 5 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco 

Southern Stove Works 516 Dinwiddie Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6245/ 

44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory 700 East 4th Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company 

1314 Commerce Street Transmontaigne 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff Battlefield 

(Fort Darling, Fort Drewry), Fort Darling Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II), Bermuda Hundred Road (Alt Route 697) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, Auburn 

Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0013 House 

3619 Thurston Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0022/ 

44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-94 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

020-5378 VEPCo Power Transmission 

Line 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0140 Circle Oaks` 

4510 Centralia Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 076-0301 RF&P Railroad Use Use Use Use No Use Use Use Use – de 

minimis 

Use Use Use Use 

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

(ACL) Corridor, Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

(SAL) Corridor 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-95 

Figure 5.4-2: Historical Properties with Potential Section 4(f) Use
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-96 

Figure 5.4-2: Historical Properties with Potential Section 4(f) Use 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-97 

RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080): The bridge is a double-vault arched structure rumored to 

be the oldest documented and identified reinforced concrete bridge in the Commonwealth. It is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural merit. Construction of Build 

Alternative 3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would result in 

the removal of the existing bridge and construction of a new structure. Based on effect dialogues with 

DHR, FRA believes that demolition would remove all character-defining features of this resource. 

FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternative 3B, which is identified as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a 

Section 106 adverse effect on this structure and would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (111-0132-0025): This multiple-span, open-spandrel, concretearch bridge is an excellent and rare surviving example of a reinforced-concrete arch railroad bridge 

within this region of Virginia. The bridge is both individually eligible (Criterion C for its architectural 

merit) and eligible as a contributing element to the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132) and the 

RF&P Railroad (076-0301). Addition of a third track to the east of the existing alignment as part of 

Build Alternative 3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would 

require construction of a new bridge adjacent to the old structure. Although the new bridge would 

somewhat diminish its integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association, and affect the architectural 

character of the Rappahannock Railroad Bridge, FRA does not believe these indirect impacts are so 

severe as to substantially impair the bridge.1 FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternative 3B, 

which is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the bridge. 

Site 44SP0187: This site includes a series of stone piers along the river, likely associated with a 

railroad structure or a mill once located in this area. It is eligible under Criteria A and D for its 

association with the development of Fredericksburg and its information potential. Construction 

of a new bridge across the Rappahannock River to accommodate a third track for Build 

Alternative 3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would 

physically impact the subsurface archaeological deposits in this area, thus diminishing the data 

potential of this site. FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternative 3B, which is identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse effect to this historic property and would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of this site. 

Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132): The district is a 200-acre area that comprises the city’s 

downtown commercial area, adjacent industrial area, and some of the surrounding residential 

blocks. It is listed in the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural merit. Although no new tracks 

are part of Build Alternative 3A and installation of the third track associated with Build Alternative 

3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would be constructed 

within the existing rail right-of-way, work associated with both alternatives would entail building 

a multi-story parking deck to the east (south) of the tracks in an existing parking lot. This new 

structure would impact the viewshed of the district and its integrity of setting, feeling, and 

association by adding a large, non-conforming, visual element to the distinct area skyline. The new 

parking structure would also add a new physical element within the district boundaries. These 

impacts are all, however, indirect, and FRA does not believe that they are severe enough to 

 

1 Per 23 CFR 774.15(a), “substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the 

property are substantially diminished.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-98 

substantially impair the district. FRA’s initial determination is, therefore, that Build Alternatives 

3A and 3B, of which Build Alternative 3B is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative 

in Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse 

effect on this historic property but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the district. 

Doswell Historic District (042-5448): Doswell Historic District encompasses a rural community 

that was once a center of major activity along road and rail networks. It is potentially eligible for 

the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with railroad history and C for its architectural 

integrity. Although the community was founded along the rail lines, Build Alternative 4A would 

adversely affect one contributing element to the district, the Squashapenny Junction Store (042-

0470), as listed below. This includes potentially removing the main dwelling and/or associated 

outbuildings and taking land from the parcel, thus diminishing the characteristics that render it 

eligible for the NRHP. Because of the potential physical adverse effects to a contributing element, 

Build Alternative 4A, which is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative 

Area 4 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would likely have a Section 106 adverse effect on 

the district, and FRA’s initial determination is that this alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use. 

Squashapenny Junction Store/House, 10570 Doswell Road (042-0470): The store was a 

commercial hub for the Doswell community and is an excellent example of railroad-town 

commercial architecture. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its 

architectural style. The building, also a contributing element to the Doswell Historic District (042-

5448), is located immediately east of the rail tracks. At a minimum, Build Alternative 4A requires 

the acquisition of approximately 10 feet of land from the parcel and would bring the tracks closer 

to the dwelling, potentially requiring the physical removal of one or more contributing buildings 

on the property and compromising its integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association. Depending on final design, the main building itself may be an 

acquisition, thus resulting in additional physical impacts. As such, FRA’s initial determination is 

that Build Alternative 4A, which is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative in 

Alternative Area 4 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse 

effect on this resource and would result in a Section 4(f) use. However, this determination may 

be altered pending future design plans that minimize the project footprint in this area. 

Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073): The district is typical of many small-town, twentieth-century, 

African-American neighborhoods, dotted by small vernacular dwellings. It is potentially eligible under 

Criteria A for its association with African-American history in this area and C for its architectural merit. 

Construction of an overpass carrying Vaughan Road over the rail tracks associated with Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would require alterations to the historic road pattern 

within the district and require a new bridge structure within the viewshed of the district and several 

contributing elements, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the district. Due to these disturbances to the setting, feeling, and design of the district, 

FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a 

Section 106 adverse effect but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the district. 

Ashland Historic District (166-0001): The Ashland Historic District survives as a fine example of a 

railroad and streetcar suburb, preserving much of its turn-of-the-century character. It is listed in the 

NRHP under Criteria A for its association with railroad history and C for its architectural character. 

Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the existing rail corridor through 

town, would result in physically modified roadways, sidewalks, secondary resources, and 

viewsheds in the district, some of which are contributing elements to the district. Character-
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-99 

defining features may be impacted. Moreover, FRA believes these alternatives would have an 

adverse effect to several contributing resources to the district through physical modifications or 

additions to their viewshed. As such, FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–

Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on the Ashland Historic District 

and would result in a Section 4(f) use of this district. 

Randolph-Macon College Historic District (166-0002) and Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District Expansion (166-5072): The districts include the 85-acre college campus and all associated 

buildings, structures, and landscape features. The original district was listed in the NRHP under 

Criteria A as one of the oldest Methodist colleges in the United States and C for its architectural merit. 

The expansion was determined to be eligible for the NRHP as part of the current survey. Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would result in modifications that would physically 

and visually diminish character-defining features of the districts through roadway realignments, 

sidewalk modifications, and viewshed changes, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts 

will result in substantial impairment of the districts. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on these 

historic properties but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of these historic properties. 

Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008): The building is a good example of a Colonial Revivalstyled depot, potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with area 

development and C for its architectural character. It is also a contributing element to the Ashland 

Historic District (166-0001) and the RF&P Railroad (076-0301). Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake require track changes, platform modifications, and alterations to the NRHPeligible station. Some design proposals associated with these alternatives include demolition of 

the historic station and construction of a new station. FRA’s preliminary determination is that 

Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on 

this resource and would result in a Section 4(f) use of the property. 

MacMurdo House (166-0036): This two-story, three-bay, Greek Revival, single-family dwelling 

is one of the few buildings of its style in Ashland. As such, it is potentially eligible for the NRHP 

under Criterion C for its architectural merit. The building is a contributing element to the Ashland 

Historic District (166-0001) as it dates to the period of significance and reflects the developmental 

history of the district. Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the 

existing rail corridor through town, would result in moving the existing sidewalks and roadways 

closer to the historic dwelling and onto the parcel boundaries, thus physically impacting the 

resource’s integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association and modifying key visual elements 

of the building, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the house. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–

Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this property but would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

Laurel Industrial School Historic District (043-0292): The district consists of a complex of 

buildings that were part of a school founded under the patronage of the Prison Association of 

Virginia. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with prison reform and C for 

its architectural character. All Build Alternatives in Area 6 (6A–6G) would require construction 

of a bridge to carry traffic on Hungary Road over the rail tracks, as well as notable associated 

secondary road changes. These modifications would impact the district through introduction of 

a large visual element (the new overpass) and physically modified roadway plans. Some 

additional landscape elements may also be required to be relocated. As such, FRA’s preliminary 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-100 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6A through 6G, of which Build Alternative 6F is identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this historic district; however, the 

modifications do not rise to the level of substantial impairment. Therefore, the Project would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the district. 

Scott's Addition Historic District (127-6136): This area is a 152-acre industrial and commercial 

district in Richmond featuring 287 contributing resources built primarily between 1900 and 1956. It 

is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond development and C for its 

architectural fabric. Construction of Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

would require notable visual and physical changes to this area, including new tracks outside of the 

existing right-of-way, erecting superstructures to support rail facilities, and construction of multistory parking facilities. These changes would diminish character-defining features of the district, 

although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial impairment of the 

district. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 

6E, and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on the historic district but would not result in 

a Section 4(f) use of the district; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Rolando Historic District (Temp R): The district is a post-World War II-era, suburban 

neighborhood containing approximately 142 parcels. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion C for its styling as a post-war neighborhood. Plans associated with Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G include construction of a new overpass carrying Broad Rock 

Boulevard over the tracks and associated roadway modifications, which are required to expand 

intercity passenger rail service on the A-Line through and south of downtown Richmond. Some 

of the impacted roadways are located within the footprint of the district, and the new overpass 

would be a notable new visual element to the viewshed of the neighborhood. These changes 

would diminish the district’s integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association, although FRA 

does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial impairment of the district. FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have 

a Section 106 adverse effect on this district but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the recommended Preferred 

Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Broad Run House (Temp 268): This two-story, Federal-style, frame dwelling was constructed 

around 1770 with a central-passage plan. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion 

C for its architectural style and as a unique example of extant eighteenth-century architecture in 

this part of Richmond. Plans associated with Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

include construction of a new overpass carrying Broad Rock Boulevard over the tracks and 

associated roadway modifications, which are required to expand intercity passenger rail service 

on the A-Line through and south of downtown Richmond. Some of the impacted roadways are 

located within the viewshed of this resource, and the new overpass would be a notable new visual 

element to the property. These changes would diminish the district’s integrity of design, setting, 

feeling, and association, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in 

substantial impairment of the house. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this property but would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource; however, none of these Build Alternatives are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-101 

Movieland Bowtie Cinema (127-6188): This is an industrial complex with two buildings, the 

brass foundry and the iron foundry, that are both steel-framed resources with masonry walls. It 

is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond industrial history and C 

for its architectural merit. Construction of Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6C require 

development of new rail corridors and large-scale structures to accommodate train movement in 

this part of Richmond to serve new stations on either Boulevard or Broad Street, as well as 

associated road modifications and new parking structures. Construction of 6B–S-Line also 

requires modifications to the rail system and new structures in this area. Some of these changes 

border, or are located on, the Movieland Bowtie Cinema parcel. Modifications would physically 

and visually diminish the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP, although 

FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial impairment of the property. 

As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 

6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not result in a Section 4(f) 

use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Warehouse (127-6840): This circa 1955 warehouse could not be accessed during the reconnaissance 

survey; eligibility for this resource is assumed. As with the Movieland Bowtie Cinema, Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C all require notable modifications to the landscape, road 

system, rail lines, and extant resources in this area to serve new stations on either Boulevard or 

Broad Street. These changes would introduce large-scale new visual elements to the viewshed of 

this resource, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the warehouse. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Hermitage Road Warehouse Historic District (127-6730): This industrial district is characterized 

by roughly a dozen medium- to large-scale one-story warehouse buildings constructed in the 

second quarter of the twentieth century and set on a gridded block pattern. It is listed in the 

NRHP under Criterion A for its association with twentieth-century Richmond development and 

Criterion C for its architectural styling. Construction of Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6C 

require development of new rail corridors and large-scale structures to accommodate train 

movement to serve new stations on either Boulevard or Broad Street, as well as road 

modifications and new parking structures. Construction of Build Alternative 6B–S-Line also 

requires modifications to the rail system and new structures in this area. These changes would 

physically and visually diminish the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the 

NRHP, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the district. As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives 

are identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Cookie Factory Lofts (127-6165): The building is a six-story, multi-bay industrial building 

constructed in 1927 with Colonial Revival attributes. It is listed in the NRHP under Criterion A 

for its association with the development of this section of Richmond and Criterion C for its 

architectural merit. The resource is also a contributing element to the West Broad Street Industrial 

and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) listed below. As with nearby properties listed above, 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C all require notable modifications to the 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-102 

landscape, road system, rail lines, and extant resources in this area to serve new stations on either 

Boulevard or Broad Street. These changes would introduce large-scale new visual elements to the 

viewshed of this resource, although FRA does not believe these impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the building. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226): This building is a 3-story, 11-bay, monumental Neoclassical 

style train station that now houses the Science Museum of Virginia. It is listed on the NRHP under 

Criteria A for its association with transportation history and C for its architectural characteristics. The 

resource is also a contributing element to the West Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic 

District (127-6570) listed below. While construction of Build Alternative 6C would partially restore 

the historic usage of this property as a passenger station, many of the rail-related features originally 

part of this property were removed when the structure was converted into a museum. Work 

associated with Build Alternative 6C, as well as that required to serve a new station on Boulevard in 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, would result in new construction, such as raised tracks 

and the installation of new structures, as well as roadway modifications, to the north and east of the 

historic building. This work would physically and visually diminish the integrity of design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of this historic property. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B-A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 

adverse effect on the Science Museum of Virginia and, because of the physical alteration to the 

museum and demolition of contributing elements to this resource, would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of this property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Todd Lofts (127-5978): The structure is a five-story, multi-bay commercial building originally used as 

a brewery. It is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with industrial development 

in this part of Richmond. Build Alternative 6C would require road work along Hermitage Road and 

includes construction of a rail superstructure to aid in train movement to a new station on Broad 

Street. This new superstructure would be visible from the property and directly impact the property 

but not touch the building. Similar nearby large-scale modifications would be part of Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line to serve a new station on Boulevard. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 

adverse effect on this resource, but because no changes will be made to the building itself, it would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. None of these Build Alternatives are identified as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Southern Stove Works (127-6145): This resource is an industrial complex of four brick buildings 

and a water tower built during the time of rapid industrialization in Richmond. It is listed on the 

NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond industrialization and C for its 

architectural merit. This resource is located just east across Hermitage Road from Todd Lofts, listed 

above. The same modifications stated for Todd Lofts are applicable to this resource, including 

roadway changes and construction of new rail structures required to serve a new station on 

Boulevard in Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, or a new station on Broad Street in Build 

Alternative 6C, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the building. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this historic property but would not 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-103 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

West Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570): The district 

comprises an area of approximately 40 acres; it reflects the development of the industrial 

capabilities of Richmond. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with 

industrial history in this area and C for its architectural characteristics. The district is located on 

both sides of Broad Street and extends northeast past Marshall Street. Changes associated with 

the Project and associated roads required to serve a new station on Boulevard in Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, or a new station on Broad Street in Build Alternative 6C 

would physically and visually diminish character-defining features of this district, as well as at 

least two contributing resources: the Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226) and Cookie Factory 

Lofts (127-6165), although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the district. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this historic district but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of this district; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344): This district encompasses the area of 

Richmond's earliest residential, commercial, and manufacturing activity. It is listed in the NRHP 

under Criteria A for its association with early Richmond developmental history and C for its 

architectural merit. The district is located east of the S-line corridor and north of the James River in 

downtown Richmond. Construction associated with the expansion of intercity passenger rail 

service to Main Street Station on the S-Line in Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would include one 

to two multistory parking garages and the addition of long, linear platforms within the district 

boundaries. These elements have the potential to visually diminish the characteristics that render 

this resource eligible for the NRHP, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result 

in substantial impairment of the district. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6D, 6F, and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not result in a 

Section 4(f) use of this district, of which Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred 

Alternative in Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1095: These three sites represent warehouses once located 

in this part of Richmond. They are potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D for 

their association with the development of Richmond and their data potential. Current plans for 

Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service on 

the S-Line through and south of downtown Richmond, include installation of new piers to 

support expanded tracks near Main Street Station. Installation of the piers would result in 

physical subsurface disturbances within these three recorded archaeological sites. As such, FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would have a 

Section 106 adverse effect on these three archaeological sites and would result in a Section 4(f) 

use of these three sites. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in 

Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Main Street Station and Trainshed (127-0172): This multi-story, multi-bay monumental structure 

symbolizes the importance of the rail terminal as an entrance gateway to Richmond. The building 

is a National Historic Landmark (NHL), listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C, and is also a 

contributing element to both RF&P Railroad (076-0301) and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad (127-

6271), both listed below. Based on parameters set forth in 800.5(2)(iv) and DHR’s evaluation of 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-104 

effect, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 

6C could have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource based on the disuse of the current 

station and thus removal of the historic, and continued, use of this rail station. In addition, 

construction of Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service 

on the S-Line through and south of downtown Richmond, would alter physical elements of the 

property, and FRA’s preliminary determination is that this impact would constitute a Section 106 

adverse effect on this resource. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C could and 6D, 6F, and 6G would result in a Section 4(f) use of this 

property. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 6 

as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Railroad Y.M.C.A (127-0344-0123): The resource is a three-story, three-bay, rectangular, French 

Renaissance Revival-style commercial building constructed in 1907. It is eligible for the NRHP 

under Criterion A for its importance to the early recreational and social history of this segment 

of Richmond and under Criterion C for its architectural styling. Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 

6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service on the S-Line through and south of downtown 

Richmond, all involve the construction of large parking decks to the north of this resource within 

the viewshed. The decks will diminish the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of this 

resource, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the building. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, 

and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this property but would not result in a Section 

4(f) use of this resource. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in 

Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS.

Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac Railroad (076-0301): The RF&P opened in 1836 and 

eventually spanned from the Potomac River to Richmond. It is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its association with rail development in northern and central Virginia. 

Construction associated with several alternatives would result in removal or large-scale physical 

modifications to several contributing elements to the railroad district, including the Ashland 

Depot and several bridges. Determinations on the structures to be modified as part of the Project 

are ongoing and will be reflected in the final designs. However, based on preliminary data, FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake, and 6A through 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on 

this property and, because of the physical alterations to contributing elements, could result in a 

Section 4(f) use of the property.2 Among these Build Alternatives, one of the Build Alternatives 

in Alternative Area 1 (Build Alternative 1A, 1B, or 1C) will be required to deliver the service 

proposed in this Draft EIS, and Build Alternatives 2A, 3B, 4A, and 6F are the recommended 

Preferred Alternatives in respective Alternative Areas 2, 3, 4, and 6 as described in Chapter 7 of 

this Draft EIS. 

 

2 Section 11502 (23 U.S.C. 138(f)/49 U.S.C. 303(h)) exempts from Section 4(f) review the use of railroad and rail transit 

lines, or elements thereof, that are in use or that were historically used for the transportation of goods or passengers. 

The exemption applies regardless of whether the railroad or rail transit line, or element thereof, is listed on or is eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The exemption has two important exceptions: 1) the exemption 

does not apply to rail stations or transit stations; and 2) the exemption does not apply to bridges or tunnels located on 

a rail line that has been abandoned under the process described in 49 U.S.C. 10903 or a transit line that is not in use. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-105 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) Corridor (127-6251): This is a historic railroad corridor that 

represents the origins and growth of the railroad industry in the Richmond to Petersburg 

corridor. It is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with area transportation 

history. Like the RF&P listed above, construction of the Build Alternatives would result in 

physical modifications or reconstruction of several contributing elements to this railroad district. 

The exact list is pending, but this includes the A-line bridge over the James River and potential 

contributing resources in the Centralia area. Determinations on the structures to be modified as 

part of the Project are ongoing and will be reflected in the final designs. However, based on 

preliminary data, FRA’s preliminary determination is that all Richmond area alternatives (Build 

Alternatives 6A through 6G) would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource and, 

because of the physical alterations to contributing elements, could result in a Section 4(f) use of 

the resource. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 

6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) Corridor (127-6271): This historic railroad corridor represents 

a competing rail enterprise to the ACL above. It is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A 

for its association with area transportation history. Similar to the ACL, work associated with 

improvements to the S-Line would include modifications to contributing elements to this 

resource, such as Main Street Station, the S-Line bridge over the James River, and other road and 

rail structures south of Richmond. Determinations on the structures to be modified as part of the 

undertaking are ongoing and will be reflected in the final designs. However, based on 

preliminary data, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A through 6G 

would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource and, because of the physical alterations 

to contributing elements, could result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property. Build 

Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 6 as described in 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

5.5 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES 

A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not 

cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of 

protecting the Section 4(f) property. In assessing the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) 

property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation 

purpose of the statute. An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound 

engineering judgment. An alternative is not prudent if: 

 It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project 

in light of its stated purpose and need; 

 It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; 

 After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: 

– Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; 

– Severe disruption to established communities; 

– Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; or 

– Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes; 

 It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary 

magnitude; 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-106 

 It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or 

 It involves multiple factors that, while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique 

problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 

If FRA concludes that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section 4(f) 

property, then it may approve only the alternative that causes the least overall harm in light of 

the statute's preservation purpose. The least overall harm is determined by balancing the 

following factors: 

 The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any 

measures that result in benefits to the property); 

 The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, 

attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

 The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

 The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

 The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

 After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not 

protected by Section 4(f); and 

 Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

An avoidance alternative for an individual Section 4(f) resource used by the Project must be 

evaluated within the area of the Project where the resource is located. An avoidance alternative 

must not impact other Section 4(f) resources. The recommended Preferred Alternative will be 

comprised of a recommended Preferred Alternative option within each alternative area. 

Avoidance alternatives are not required when a finding of de minimis use is made for Section 4(f) 

resources because Section 4(f) is satisfied once de minimis applies. 

The following sections discuss the resources for which FRA recommends there is Section 4(f) use 

with one or more of the proposed Build Alternatives. The resources are discussed by the overall 

corridor first and then by Build Alternatives in alternative areas 1 through 6. 

5.5.1 Summary of Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that there are up to 14 historic resources for which one or 

more of the Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use. None of these Section 4(f) 

resources is along Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, or 2A. There are two historic resources along 

Build Alternative 3B (Fredericksburg) with a potential Section 4(f) use. There are no feasible and 

prudent avoidance alternatives in Alternative Area 3. Depending on the resource, Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3C would be avoidance alternatives; however, Build Alternative 3A does not 

meet the Project Purpose and Need and Build Alternative 3C is not prudent and feasible due to 

extensive impacts and substantial costs. There are two historic resources with a potential Section 

4(f) use along Build Alternative 4A. No avoidance alternatives were identified with Build 

Alternative 4A; therefore, the No Build Alternative would be the avoidance alternative. The No 

Build Alternative does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. Two resources along Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D-Ashcake have a potential Section 4(f) use. Build 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5C, and 5C–Ashcake would not result in a Section 4(f) use and, as 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-107 

such, would be the avoidance alternatives within this area. There are seven resources in 

Alternative Area 6 with a potential Section 4(f) use along one or more of the Build Alternatives. 

Due to extensive resources in Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), there is no avoidance alternative 

that would avoid all potential Section 4(f) use other than the No Build Alternative. The No Build 

Alternative does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. The RF&P Railroad extends through all 

six alternative areas. There is no avoidance alternative for this resource other than the No Build 

Alternative, which does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternatives 2A, 3B, 4A, and 6F as the recommended 

Preferred Alternatives in their respective alternative areas along the Project corridor. This Draft 

EIS does not identify a recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Areas 1 and 5. With 

the identification of recommended Preferred Alternatives in Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6, while remaining 

undetermined in Areas 1 and 5, FRA’s preliminary determination is that there are up to 14 historic 

resources for which one or more Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use upon 

publication of this Draft EIS. 

5.5.2 Entire DC2RVA Corridor 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac Railroad (076-0301): Given that the historic RF&P 

Railroad corridor extends between the Potomac River on the north and Main Street Station on the 

south, FRA’s preliminary determination is that there is a permanent Section 4(f) use with all Build 

Alternatives in all six of the alternative areas with the exception of Build Alternatives 3A and 5A. 

Build Alternatives 3A and 5A do not add additional track or modify any structures within the 

existing rail corridor, but they do not comprise a complete alternative; therefore, they would not 

meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

A total avoidance alternative is the only alternative that would avoid all Section 4(f) uses within 

the corridor. The only total avoidance alternative would be to not use the existing rail line, and 

this would not be feasible and prudent due to cost and extensive impacts to the human and 

natural environment. 

5.5.3 Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would not result in a 

Section 4(f) use, other than de minimis, for any resources other than the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) 

discussed in Section 5.5.2. 

5.5.4 Build Alternative 2A 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 2A would not result in a Section 4(f) 

use, other than de minimis, for any resources other than the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed 

in Section 5.5.2. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 2A as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 2 of the Project corridor. 

5.5.5 Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3A would not result in a Section 4(f) 

use. Build Alternative 3B would result in a Section 4(f) use from two historic resources. Build 

Alternative 3B is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-108 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. Build Alternative 3C does not result in any Section 4(f) uses and, as 

such, would be the avoidance alternative within Area 3; however, Build Alternative 3C is not a 

feasible and prudent alternative because it results in extensive impacts to wetlands, residential 

and commercial properties, and substantially higher costs and the cultural resource study only 

provided preliminary data. In addition to these historic resources, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that the Build Alternatives 3B and 3C also include certain de minimis uses of 

Section 4(f) resources, and Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C include use of the RF&P Railroad 

(076-0301) discussed in Section 5.5.2. 

RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080): This is the existing railroad bridge over Naomi Road. 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would result in a Section 4(f) use of 

this resource. Avoidance alternatives must not modify the existing structure at all (including not 

adding an abutting structure) or not add an additional track. Build Alternatives 3A and 3C are 

avoidance alternatives for this resource. Build Alternative 3A is not a prudent and feasible 

alternative as it does not meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. Build Alternative 3C is not a 

feasible and prudent alternative because it results in extensive impacts to wetlands, residential 

and commercial properties, and substantially higher costs. Build Alternative 3B is the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft 

EIS and would result in a use of this resource. 

Site 44SP0187: This archaeological site is located under the existing bridge and FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternative 3B would result in a Section 4(f) use due to construction of a 

new bridge. There are no other avoidance alternatives other than utilizing a new alignment, not 

modifying the existing structure at all (including not adding an abutting structure), or not adding an 

additional track. The avoidance alternatives are Build Alternatives 3A and 3C as discussed above. 

Build Alternative 3A is not a prudent and feasible alternative as it does not meet the Purpose and 

Need of the Project. Build Alternative 3C is not a feasible and prudent alternative because it results in 

extensive impacts to wetlands, residential and commercial properties, and has substantially higher 

costs. Build Alternative 3B is the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 3 as 

described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS and would result in a use of this resource. 

5.5.6 Build Alternative 4A 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 4A would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of two historic resources along the existing tracks. In addition to these historic resources, FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 4A also includes certain de minimis uses of 

Section 4(f) resources, as well as use of the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed in Section 5.5.2. 

Build Alternative 4A is the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 4 as 

described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS and would result in a use of these resources. 

Doswell Historic District (042-5448): Because the district is located on both sides of the existing 

tracks, there is no avoidance alternative other than the No Build Alternative. The No Build 

Alternative is not a prudent and feasible alternative because it does not meet the Purpose and 

Need of the Project. 

Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470): This resource is located within the Doswell Historic 

District. Impacts to individually eligible historic resources within the district were minimized to the 

greatest extent feasible. Any shifts to avoid this resource would result in impacts to other resources. 

Similar to the Doswell Historic District, there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-109 

5.5.7 Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

which add a third track through Ashland, would result in a Section 4(f) use of two historic resources 

along the existing tracks. Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5C, and 5C–Ashcake, which do not 

add a third track through Ashland, would not result in a Section 4(f) use of these resources and, as 

such, would be the avoidance alternatives within this segment. In addition to these historic 

resources, FRA’s preliminary determination is that the Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 5, 

with the exception of Build Alternative 5A, also include certain de minimis uses of Section 4(f) 

resources, as well as use, or de minimis use, of the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed in Section 

5.5.2. This Draft EIS does not identify a recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 

5; therefore, FRA will defer determination of use of the resources in this area to the Final EIS. 

Ashland Historic District (166-0001): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, which add a third track through Ashland, would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of this historic district. The historic district is located on both sides of the existing 

tracks. Build Alternatives 5A and 5A–Ashcake, which do not add additional track, and Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake, which are a bypass on new alignment, would be the avoidance 

alternatives. 

Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, which add a third track through Ashland, would 

result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. Build Alternatives 5A and 5A–Ashcake, which do not 

add additional track, and Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake, which are a bypass on new 

alignment, would be the avoidance alternatives. 

5.5.8 Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 6A would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of three historic resources; Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6C would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of four historic resources; Build Alternative 6B–S-Line would result in the highest number of 

Section 4(f) uses of seven historic resources; Build Alternatives, 6D, 6F, and 6G would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of six historic resources; and Build Alternative 6E would result in a Section 4(f) 

use of two historic resources. 

Due to the extensive resources in Alternative Area 6, there is no avoidance alternative that would 

avoid all Section 4(f) use other than the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative does not 

meet the Project Purpose and Need and, therefore, is neither feasible nor prudent. Chapter 7 of 

this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred Alternative for 

Alternative Area 6, which includes certain use, or de minimis use, of Section 4(f) resources 

described below, as well as use of the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed in Section 5.5.2.

Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C, which serve new stations on either Boulevard or 

Broad Street, would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource due to the new Broad Street station 

or installation of new structures with accompanying new road patterns. All other Build 

Alternatives would result in no use. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as 

the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6; therefore, use of this resource 

would be avoided. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-110 

Main Street Station and Trainshed (127-0172): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C could result in a Section 4(f) use to this resource 

due to the discontinuation of passenger rail service at the station. Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 

6G would result in a Section 4(f) use to this resource due to physical alterations of the station. 

Build Alternative 6E would result in de minimis impacts. There is no prudent and feasible 

avoidance alternative for this resource. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of 

this resource. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1095: These sites would be impacted due to piers for new 

Main Street Station platforms. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–SLine, 6D, 6F, and 6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service at Main Street Station, would 

result in a Section 4(f) use to these three resources. All other Build Alternatives would result in 

no use or de minimis impacts. There is no prudent and feasible avoidance alternative for these 

resources. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. 

Atlantic Coast Line (ACL) Railroad Corridor (127-6251): FRA’s preliminary determination is that 

all Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. There is no avoidance 

alternative. Although use of the S-Line would minimize impacts to the A-Line, impacts to the ALine cannot be avoided. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this 

resource. 

Seaboard Air Line (SAL) Railroad Corridor (127-6271): FRA’s preliminary determination is that all 

Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. There is no avoidance alternative. 

Although use of the A-Line would minimize impacts to the S-Line, impacts to the S-Line cannot be 

avoided. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred 

Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. 

5.6 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

Section 4(f), as applied by FRA and in this document, requires a description of the measures 

undertaken to minimize harm where the preferred alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use. 

Minimization measures are not required when a finding of de minimis use is made for Section 4(f) 

resources because Section 4(f) is satisfied once de minimis applies. 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that all impacts to parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife 

refuges will result in de minimis impacts; therefore, no further minimization measures are 

required. 

Eleven historic resources located along the recommended Preferred Alternative wherein a Section 

4(f) use would occur were evaluated to minimize harm by the Project (presented below in north 

to south order). The minimization measures presented here only comprise efforts to date and do 

not represent the full suite of measures that will ultimately be undertaken by the Project during 

final design. They represent consultation to date based on coordination with FRA, DHR, 

cooperating agencies, and consulting parties. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-111 

5.6.1 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080) 

This is the existing railroad bridge over Naomi Road, located within the APE for Build Alternative 

3B. The current bridge is a double-vault arched structure constructed in 1931. Designs associated 

with the recommended Preferred Alternative require the replacement of this structure, resulting 

in a Section 4(f) use. Project engineers explored numerous options to incorporate the existing 

structure into the Project design, including reinforcing the current structure, widening the 

structure, and encasing the structure within a new bridge system; none of these options met 

engineering standards and safety protocols required by the Project design. Mitigation for the use 

of this structure, inclusive of all comments received from cooperating agencies and consulting 

parties, will be included in the Project Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The mitigation 

stipulations will outline steps to minimize harm. 

5.6.2 Site 44SP0187 (Stone Piers) 

Site 44SP0187 comprises a set of stone piers located within and directly adjacent to the 

Rappahannock River, just east of the rail trestle, in Fredericksburg. The piers may represent a mill 

once located in this area or be associated with the pre-1927 rail bridge, but additional research is 

needed to determine their exact use. The footprint of the site overlaps with the construction 

footprint for the new Rappahannock River rail bridge required as part of Build Alternative 3B. 

Construction of the bridge, and more specifically the approach to the structure, would physically 

impact significant archaeological deposits. Project engineers inspected alternatives to the currently 

designed bridge and approach to minimize harm to this archaeological site; however, other 

approaches caused greater disturbances to nearby historic properties. The footprint of the impact 

was lessened to the greatest extent possible to minimize impacts on the site. Mitigation of the 

impacts will be included in the MOA, likely to include additional archival research and a data 

recovery excavation. 

5.6.3 Doswell Historic District (042-5448) 

The Doswell Historic District is located at the intersection of the main rail corridor (historic RF&P) 

and the Buckingham Branch Railroad as part of Build Alternative 4A. The community developed 

around the two railroads, including a store, a bank, an inn, and numerous dwellings. The current 

rail station and associated track house were built in 1929. The district straddles the extant rail line 

and, as such, the Project runs through the center of the district. Project engineers have worked 

closely in this area to refine Project plans to minimize impacts to the district. Original design 

concepts ranged from a rail bridge spanning the historic district to enlarging the intersection to 

accommodate additional rail traffic. The engineering team conducted charrettes on the design of 

the rail in this location attended by DRPT. The resulting plans are greatly reduced and minimize 

the footprint in this area to the maximum extent practicable. Plans for utilities were also 

minimized to limit impacts. 

Despite these efforts, the rail would be widened on the east side of the railroad right-of-way in the 

vicinity of Squashapenny Junction Store—the original general store for the Doswell community. The 

store was purposefully built directly adjacent to the tracks to facilitate the movement of goods to and 

from the rail cars that stopped at the nearby station. Widening of the rails may require removal of the 

store or an associated outbuilding, which is a contributing element to the historic district. DRPT held 

meetings with the public to discuss the current design on June 1-3, 2015, and December 8-10, 2015. In 

addition, Hanover County is a consulting party to the Project, and their comments have been solicited 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-112 

for the cultural resource studies. Their comments, as well as those of all other consulting parties and 

cooperating agencies, will be included in the development of the Project MOA. The stipulations 

outlined to mitigate adverse effects will highlight efforts to minimize harm. 

5.6.4 Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470) 

Squashapenny Junction Store, as mentioned above, is located in the Doswell Historic District as 

part of Build Alternative 4A. It is immediately east of the extant rail tracks and north of Doswell 

Road. The store property was designed to abut the rail tracks and face onto the main road through 

town to maximize exposure and accessibility for rail passengers and goods arriving by the rail 

system. Although DRPT has thoroughly revisited the design schematics for this area to minimize 

impacts, the limits of disturbance still extend onto the Squashapenny property, and relocation of 

the store is possible. A new utility line may also be installed under a contributing outbuilding 

and through the western edge of the property. Original plans for the Project included removal of 

the outbuilding for utility installation, but avoidance plans are now underway to minimize the 

impacts to the built environment. 

As with the larger Doswell Historic District, discussions are ongoing with the public and 

consulting parties regarding additional ways to minimize harm to this resource. The historic 

property will be included in the Project MOA, and stipulations to mitigate any adverse effects 

will be clearly outlined. 

5.6.5 Site 44HE1098 (Main Street Station Parking) and Site 44HE1097 (Railroad, 

Warehouse) 

Both of these resources are archaeological sites located within and adjacent to the west side of 

Main Street Station. They are currently covered in pavement and used as parking lots. The exact 

details of the subsurface integrity of the sites, as well as their temporal associations, are not 

known; additional research is needed. These two sites will be impacted by construction associated 

with Build Alternative 6F, the recommended Preferred Alternative identified in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS, which requires new structural supports for an expanded rail platform. Construction of 

the supports will require subsurface disturbances within the mapped boundary of each site, thus 

removing significant archaeological data. Project engineers have worked to minimize the 

footprint of each structural support and place the supports as close to the existing structural 

system as possible. These actions have minimized the footprint of the Project impacts on these 

sites, but disturbances are still anticipated. Mitigation of the impacts will be included in the MOA, 

likely to include additional archival research and a data recovery excavation. 

5.6.6 Main Street Station Trainshed (127-0172) 

Main Street Station was built in 1901 as the main terminal for the SAL, a competitor to the ACL. 

Both lines ran from Richmond to Florida during the first half of the twentieth century, capitalizing 

on America’s desire for travel during this period. The property includes the Beaux Arts-style 

station as well as the associated trainshed, platform, and other landscape elements. Build 

Alternative 6F, the recommended Preferred Alternative identified in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, 

has the potential to diminish the characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP 

due to modifications to the building, platform, trainshed, and other contributing elements. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-113 

The area around Main Street Station was the subject of numerous meetings between the Project team, 

the City of Richmond, other cooperating agencies, consulting parties, and the public. Build 

Alternative 6F would minimize harm to this historic property as it will have the least amount of 

impacts to this resource. In addition, Project engineers worked to minimize the extent of the changes 

to the resource and its contributing elements by making the footprint of the changes as minimal as 

possible, reducing the size of the new platforms as they could, and committing to include specific 

design criteria in the final designs to minimize harm to this resource. Stipulations related to this 

resource will be included in the Project MOA, including mitigating effects to the resource and criteria 

to ensure a sympathetic design to any new construction associated with this resource. 

5.6.7 Site 44HE1095 (Storage Facility) 

Site 44HE1095 is located south of Main Street Station. The site represents a possible 

warehouse/storage facility dating to the nineteenth century. Additional research is needed to 

determine its exact use and temporal association. The site will be impacted by construction 

associated with Build Alternative 6F, the recommended Preferred Alternative identified in 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, which requires new structural supports for an expanded rail platform. 

Construction of the supports will require subsurface disturbances within the mapped boundary 

of the site, thus disturbing significant archaeological deposits. Project engineers have worked to 

minimize the footprint of each structural support. While these actions have minimized the 

footprint of the Project impacts on the site, disturbances to significant archaeological deposits are 

still anticipated. Mitigation of the impacts will be included in the MOA, likely to include 

additional archival research and a data recovery excavation. 

5.6.8 Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad (076-0301) 

The recommended Preferred Alternative is parallel to, and in some instances encapsulates, the 

historic RF&P Railroad corridor between the Potomac River on the north and Main Street Station 

on the south. The design team has minimized impacts on the extant rail corridor to the maximum 

extent practicable through retention of the general alignment, maintenance of existing tracks, and 

minimizing the limits of disturbance (LOD) outside of the current right-of-way. Project impacts 

come through replacement of several contributing bridges and culverts—replacements that are 

required to bring the alignment in compliance with current safety standards and operational 

protocols. Steps to mitigate the adverse impacts will be stated in the Section 106 MOA. 

5.6.9 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) Corridor (127-6251) 

The ACL Corridor includes the linear railroad footprint from what was Broad Street Station (now 

the Science Museum of Virginia) to the south to cross the James River. It merged with the main 

line in Centralia and continued to Florida. Today, this is referred to as the “A-Line.” The ACL 

and SAL (see below) merged in 1967. Like the RF&P, the rail corridor as a historic property 

includes the rail alignment itself, as well as numerous bridges, culverts, track houses, rail stations, 

and more. DRPT has sought out engineering solutions to avoid or minimize impacts to 

contributing elements to the rail district; however, due to the nature of the current Project—

parallel to this historic rail alignment—some impacts will be unavoidable. In order to meet 

modern safety standards and proposed operational functions, all of the alternatives will require 

removal or replacement of some elements, most notably bridges and culverts, that contribute to 

the significance of this resource. FRA’s preliminary determination is that improvements 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-114 

associated with Build Alternatives 6A through 6G will result in a use of the ACL Corridor. 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred 

Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. Minimization of the 

adverse effects will be outlined in the Project MOA. 

5.6.10 Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) Corridor (127-6271) 

The SAL was a competing company to the ACL. This operation also ran between Richmond and 

Florida, commencing at Main Street Station and crossing the James River, then running parallel to 

the ACL before veering west in Petersburg. When the ACL and SAL merged in 1967, trains for the 

new company operated out of both Broad Street Station and Main Street Station and shared the 

same tracks. Known today as the “S-Line,” this historic property is composed of the rail itself, 

stations, track houses, and structures. As with the RF&P and the ACL, DRPT vigorously sought to 

minimize harm by narrowing the LOD where possible, maintaining historic bridges, and reusing 

the extant corridor. Despite these efforts, several structures—and Main Street Station itself—

require modifications to meet ridership needs and safety features. As such, avoidance of all 

contributing elements is not possible. FRA’s preliminary determination is that improvements 

associated with Build Alternatives 6A through 6G will result in a use of the SAL Corridor. Chapter 

7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred Alternative for 

Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. Due to the adverse effect/use of the 

property, the Project MOA will contain stipulations to mitigate the harm. 

5.7 COORDINATION 

DRPT coordinated with numerous property owners and officials with jurisdiction over resources 

protected under Section 4(f) and further coordination will take place as necessary. Additional 

coordination with owners and officials with jurisdiction over impacted parkland and recreational 

areas will take place after issuance of the Draft EIS. If FRA determines that the Project will result 

in a Section 4(f) use and there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, FRA will provide 

individual Section 4(f) evaluations to the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) Office of 

Environmental Compliance and Policy for review and concurrence with the Final EIS. 

5.7.1 Consulting Parties 

While FRA continued to be the primary point of contact for all federally recognized tribes, FRA 

delegated state agency and consulting party coordination to DRPT in 2014. As such, DRPT sent 

invitation letters to agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders in the Section 106 

consultation process. FRA sent a letter to the one federally recognized tribe along the DC2RVA 

corridor⎯Pamunkey Indian Tribe. Table 5.7-1 provides information on the 39 distributed 

consulting party invitations. Of these, 14 have elected to participate in the process; Table 5.7-1 

lists these groups, along with their response dates. For an additional six, DRPT assumed that they 

would want to participate and has treated them as consulting parties. Although a formal response 

was not received from these six groups, they have requested participation on similar projects and 

have shown a noted interest in the current undertaking through telephone calls or attendance at 

associated meetings. These six are noted by “assumed yes” in the table on the next page. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-115 

Table 5.7-1: List of Invited Consulting Parties 

Stakeholder Invite Letter Date Response (Date) 

American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−Fredericksburg January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−National Capital Region January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

Quantico Marine Corps Base January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−Washington-Rochambeau NHT January 22, 2015 Assumed Yes 

Pamunkey Indian Tribe1 April 17, 2017 Assumed Yes 

City of Fredericksburg January 6, 2015 Yes (January 12, 2015) 

NPS−Richmond January 6, 2015 Yes (January 14, 2015) 

Arlington County January 6, 2015 Yes (January 14, 2015) 

City of Richmond January 6, 2015 Yes (January 16, 2015) 

Alexandria Archaeology January 6, 2015 Yes (January 21, 2015) 

Ashland Museum January 6, 2015 Yes (January 21, 2015) 

NPS−Captain John Smith Chesapeake NHT January 6, 2015 Yes (January 22, 2015) 

Central Virginia Battlefields Trust January 6, 2015 Yes (January 22, 2015) 

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. January 6, 2015 Yes (January 9, 2015) 

Civil War Trust January 6, 2015 Yes (February 11, 2015) 

Prince William County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 13, 2015) 

Caroline County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 3, 2015) 

Hanover County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 3, 2015) 

NPS−Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail January 22, 2015 Yes (March 4, 2015) 

City of Alexandria January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Fairfax County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Henrico County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Spotsylvania County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Stafford County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

ACL & SAL Railroad Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Center for Neighborhood Revitalization January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Arlington Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Caroline Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Chesterfield Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Hanover County Historical Society, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Henrico County Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Alexandria Foundation January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Prince William, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Richmond Foundation January 6, 2015 Yes (December 2016) 

Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

National Trust for Historic Preservation January 6, 2015 Yes (December 22, 2016) 

Stafford County Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Catawba Indian Tribe January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Note: 1. The letter to the Pamunkey Indian Tribe was sent by FRA. The Pamunkey were not a federally recognized tribe at the time the initial 

letters were disseminated. They were recognized at a later date, at which time the FRA invited them to participate. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-116 

5.7.2 Meetings 

DRPT has held several in-person and telephone-based meetings with DHR, ACHP, and other 

consulting parties. They included a Section 106 kick- off and several follow-up meetings to update 

participating agencies and parties on the Project initiation; determination of APE; cultural resource 

methodology for the reconnaissance predictive model, identification surveys, and evaluation 

studies; survey results; Project effect on historic properties; stipulations to mitigate adverse effects; 

and crafting the Project MOA. Table 5.7-2 highlights the meetings held with these groups. 

Table 5.7-2: Section 106 and Section 4(f) Meetings 

Date Attendees Topics 

November 7, 2014 DHR, DRPT Kick-off meeting; discussions on APE, methodology, reporting 

March 19, 2015 VDOT, DRPT Roadway bridges and Section 106 coordination 

February 18, 2016 DHR Update on corridor and status of studies 

June 14, 2016 Civil War Trust General discussion on results to date; Richmond to Raleigh 

Memorandum of Agreement 

August 10, 2016 DHR Preliminary dialogue on historic properties and project effect 

TBD FRA, DRPT, DHR Project PA; mitigation of adverse effects 

TBD FRA, DRPT, Consulting Parties, DHR, 

ACHP 

Review of studies and discussion of historic properties and 

Project effect 

5.7.3 Correspondence 

Since the Project’s initiation, repeated correspondence has occurred between DRPT and the 

cultural resource agencies, localities, and consulting parties to keep them informed on the 

progress of the studies, resource eligibility, and the Project’s potential effects on historic 

properties, and DRPT will continue to hold meetings at milestones or as necessary throughout 

the Project. In particular, meetings and e-mail exchanges with DHR have occurred regularly to 

provide information on Project plans. Data on the study results in specific Project areas were also 

sent to corresponding consulting parties to garner comments on the Project results. The 

architectural reports were posted on the Project’s webpage for general public comment as well. 

The archaeological reports were only distributed to the agencies, localities, and consulting parties 

as requested due to the sensitivity of site location mapping. Table 5.7-3 includes correspondence 

conducted to date and lists the additional anticipated correspondence that will occur at Project 

milestones as required. Copies of relevant correspondence are included in Appendix R, Cultural 

Resources Reports and Appendix U, Section 106 and 4(f) Coordination Documents. 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence 

Date Medium Recipient Topic 

September 25-

October 15, 2014 

E-mail; Letter DHR, FRA, DRPT Initiation of Section 106 Process 

January 5- 

February 2, 2015 

E-mail, Letter DHR, FRA, DRPT Defining Project APE 

June 8, 2015 E-mail VDOT VDOT/DHR PA on Historic Bridges 

June 22, 2015 Letter Civil War Trust, DRPT Receipt of comments on Project screening review 

 Continued
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-117 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence 

Date Medium Recipient Topic 

July 30, 2015 E-mail Consulting Parties, DRPT Distribution of Archaeological Predictive Model 

report for review 

July 17, 2015; 

August 28, 2015 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Archaeological Predictive Model Report; 

DHR Reply 

August 3- 

September 4, 2015 

E-mail Arlington County, City of

Alexandria, Prince William 

County, City of 

Fredericksburg, DRPT 

Receipt of comments on Archaeological IA Predictive

model 

August 28, 2015 E-mail Consulting Parties, DRPT Reminder to submit comments on Predictive Model 

Report 

October 20, 2015; 

December 18, 2015 

Letters NPS (FSNMP) Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit 

to dig on federal land (Segment 7) 

December 9, 2015; 

February 5,2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 7); 

DHR Reply 

December 15, 2015 Letter DHR Application to conduct archaeology on state lands

(Segment 11) 

March 18-31, 2016 E-mail; Memo DHR Discussion of alternative methodology for 

architecture in Segment 18 

April 13- 

April 26, 2016 

E-mail David Hamilton (Consulting 

Party), DHR, DRPT, FRA 

Mr. Hamilton is a private property owner along the 

Ashland Bypass. Numerous emails were exchanged

with Mr. Hamilton regarding his concerns, his position 

as a consulting party, and distributing Project data 

May 20, 2016; 

June 8, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 6); 

DHR Reply 

May 31, 2016; 

June 22, 2016 

Letter, 

E-mail 

DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 3); 

DHR Reply 

May 31, 2016; 

June 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 4); 

DHR Reply 

June 21, 2016; 

June 28, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

8-9); DHR Reply 

July 6, 2016; 

July 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 1); 

DHR Reply 

July 6, 2016; 

July 15, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 2); 

DHR Reply 

July 25, 2016; 

August 15, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

10-12); DHR Reply 

December 21, 2016; 

February 21, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 

13); DHR Reply 

August 3, 2016; 

August 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 

14); DHR Reply 

October 21, 2016; 

November 30, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

15, 16, 20); DHR Reply 

November 14, 2016; 

December 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

17, 19); DHR Reply 

October 21, 2016; 

November 3, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 

18); DHR Reply 

January 20, 2017; 

March 1, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Structures); 

DHR Reply 

February 24, 2017; 

TBD 

E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Architectural Reports for Review; 

Consulting Party Comments 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-118 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence 

Date Medium Recipient Topic 

April 14, 2017; TBD Letter Consulting Parties Distribution of All Phase IA and IB Reports for 

Review; Consulting Party Comments 

September 6, 2016; 

October 11, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Archaeological Phase I Report (Segments 

1-20); DHR Reply 

January 20, 2017; 

February 3, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Phase IA Fredericksburg Bypass Report; 

DHR Reply 

January 6, 2017; 

February 3, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Phase IA Ashland Bypass Report; DHR 

Reply 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of LOD Expansion Areas Report; DHR 

Reply 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of LOD Expansion Areas Report for

Review; Consulting Party Comments 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase II Report; DHR Reply 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Architectural Phase II Report for

Review; Consulting Party Comments 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Project Effects Letter; DHR Reply 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Project Effects Letter for Review; 

Consulting Party Comments 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Draft MOA for Review 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Draft MOA for Review; Consulting 

Party Comments 

5.8 FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be completed for the Final EIS for the Project. Included will 

be an analysis to determine the Preferred Alternative in each of the six alternative areas of the 

Project that has the least overall harm on Section 4(f) resources. All possible planning measures 

to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources will be undertaken and documented in this evaluation. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND 6 AGENCY COORDINATION
 6-1 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

This chapter presents the public involvement and agency coordination activities for the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Tier II Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) employed many forms of 

outreach to engage diverse audiences, inform them of the Draft EIS, and offer a variety of ways 

to contribute their input. Coordination began early and continued throughout the development 

and publication of the Draft EIS. The first major public involvement and agency outreach event 

was the Project scoping, which occurred in fall 2014. The Scoping Summary Report in Appendix 

V contains more information on the scoping outreach process and input received during the 

Project scoping. The public involvement and agency coordination efforts that followed the initial 

scoping activities are described in detail in the following sections. 

6.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Based on the geographic extent of the Project, DRPT implemented an extensive public 

involvement process to keep the public informed with the latest Project information and to 

provide the public with opportunities to ask questions, comment, and inform the Draft EIS. The 

Scoping Summary Report in Appendix V includes examples of the public outreach materials 

distributed during the Project. 

The public involvement was based on several key Project milestones, including: 

 Scoping 

 Alternatives Development 

 Alternatives Review 

 Draft EIS 

6.1.1 Project Launch 

On October 6, 2014, 30 days in advance of the first public scoping meeting, DRPT initiated the 

Project’s public outreach to alert the public, agencies, and media of the Project’s inception. Public 

outreach announcements for the launch were developed in addition to public outreach 

announcements for Scoping. This section describes the Project launch outreach. Project Scoping 

outreach and education efforts included more print and electronic outreach to diverse groups and 

is described in the sections that follow. 

An initial group of web “splash” pages, launched on October 6, 2014, announced the kick-off of 

the Project, promoted the website as a way to stay informed about the Project, offered a brief 

6 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-2 

description of the Project, provided a way to join the mailing list, encouraged visitors to take a 

brief initial survey, and provided details of the upcoming public scoping meetings. 

DRPT developed an electronic survey to obtain initial information from respondents, including 

sources of their news and information, most convenient times for public meetings, their current 

usage of rail, and how they perceive the benefits of rail. Demographic information was also 

collected as part of the survey. The survey was available via a link on the Project website splash 

page from October 6 to October 20, 2014. 

Social media accounts were established and became live for posting on October 6, 2014 to coincide 

with the Project’s public outreach launch. 

A database for the Project was compiled at the initiation of the study to track landowner and 

stakeholder contacts, comments, and meetings. DRPT distributed an email message on October 

6, 2014 to 983 contacts in the Project database—including Title VI advocacy groups, ethnic groups, 

social service groups, and community groups—to announce the Project kick-off, to promote the 

Project website, and to direct the recipients to the Project splash page. 

DRPT also distributed an initial press release to key local and regional print and electronic 

media—including a Spanish version to limited English proficiency media outlets—to announce 

the Project kick-off and to begin to familiarize the public and the media with the study process. 

The releases yielded 20 known news stories that ran in print and broadcast media informing the 

public of the Project kick off. DRPT shared emails and press releases with regional public 

information officers, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and social service/Title VI 

advocacy groups requesting they share the information with their groups. 

In addition to electronic media and the press releases, a Project brochure was produced and 

distributed to regional libraries, faith groups, transportation agencies, chambers of commerce, 

and elected officials encouraging them to share this important information with their 

communities and customers. 

All materials from these meetings, as well as the Scoping Summary Report, were posted on the 

Project website. The report summarized the scoping process, meetings, Project launch, and input 

received from the public and agencies during the scoping period (Appendix V). 

The Project launch included formal publication by FRA of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Project 

in the Federal Register on October 23, 2014. 

6.1.2 Newspaper and Online Advertising 

DRPT placed multiple advertisements in local and regional newspapers and specialty 

newspapers along the Project corridor prior to each round of public meetings as indicated in Table 

6.1-1. Ads placed in Hispanic newspapers were translated to Spanish. Electronic, interactive ads 

were placed in conjunction with the print ads on the Free-Lance Star and Richmond Times 

Dispatch websites and also through the Washington Post Digital advertising to reach people 

through news sites and other partner websites in the Project area. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-3 

Table 6.1-1: Newspaper Advertising

Phase Region Newspaper Date 

Scoping Northern Virginia Virginia Press Association 

(31 newspapers with approximately 

300,000 circulation) 

10/26/2014 

Scoping Richmond and Fredericksburg Nuevas Raices 

(Hispanic) 

10/28/2014 

Scoping Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch 10/28/2014 

Scoping Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. Washington Post Express 

(Commuter Edition) 

10/28/2014 

Scoping Richmond Richmond Free Press 

(African American) 

10/30/2014 

Scoping Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. El Tiempo 

(Hispanic) 

10/31/2014 

Scoping Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star 10/31/2014 

Scoping Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch 11/3/2014 

Scoping Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star 11/7/2014 

Alternatives 

Development 

Northern Virginia Virginia Press Association 5/31/15 - 6/6/15 

Alternatives 

Development 

Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star 5/22/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star—online 5/22/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Richmond and Fredericksburg Nuevas Raices 5/26/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch 5/26/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch—online 5/26/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. Washington Post Express 5/26/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Richmond Richmond Free Press 5/28/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. El Tiempo 5/29/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star 5/29/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star—online 5/29/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch 5/31/2015 

Alternatives 

Development 

Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch—online 5/31/2015 

Alternatives Review Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star 11/23/2015 

Alternatives Review Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star—online 11/23/2015 

Alternatives Review Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch 11/23/2015 

Alternatives Review Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch—online 11/23/2015 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-4 

Table 6.1-1: Newspaper Advertising

Phase Region Newspaper Date 

Alternatives Review Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. El Tiempo 11/27/2015 

Alternatives Review Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. Washington Post Express 11/30/2015 

Alternatives Review Richmond and Fredericksburg Nuevas Raices 12/1/2015 

Alternatives Review Richmond Richmond Free Press 12/3/2015 

Alternatives Review Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star 12/6/2015 

Alternatives Review Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star—online 12/6/2015 

Alternatives Review Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch 12/6/2015 

Alternatives Review Richmond Richmond Times Dispatch—online 12/6/2015 

Alternatives Review Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. Washington Post Express 12/7/2015 

Alternatives Review Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. Virginia Press Association 11/29/15–12/5/15 

Alternatives Review Northern Virginia/ Washington, D.C. Washington Post Digital/Web-based 11/20/15–12/10/15 

6.1.3 Targeted Title VI outreach 

At the beginning of the Project, DRPT researched Title VI audiences to identify groups for 

targeted Title VI outreach over the course of the Project. These groups included human service 

organization and faith leaders, Hispanic organizations, the National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), transit organizations, public information officers, 

librarians, and social service organizations. In addition, DRPT contacted all MPOs within the 123-

mile corridor to augment the Project information distribution process through their own Title VI 

outreach lists and committees. DRPT also notified elected officials and provided them with 

Project information to share with their constituents. As the Project advanced, the Title VI list was 

further enhanced to incorporate information gathered on Environmental Justice areas as the 

alternatives were refined. Email notifications to Title VI groups and organizations were sent, and 

outreach materials were distributed at transit agencies, community centers, libraries, and 

Hispanic and faith-based organizations in areas with higher populations of low income residents 

and areas with higher populations with limited English proficiency (LEP). 

6.1.4 Scoping 

In November 2014, DRPT conducted Project scoping activities pursuant to the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA). CEQ regulations direct federal agencies that have made a decision to prepare an 

EIS to engage in a public scoping process. The purpose of this process is to provide an early and 

open forum for identifying public concerns and clearly defining the environmental issues and 

alternatives to be examined in the EIS. 

DRPT and FRA held public scoping meetings for the Project on November 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2014 

(Table 6.1-2). Open house style meetings were held from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m., with a formal 

presentation given by a DRPT staff member using PowerPoint slides as visuals at 6:00 p.m. The 

public was invited to ask questions and receive responses from DRPT after the presentation. The 

PowerPoint meeting presentation was made available on the Project website (see details below). 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-5 

During the open house portion of the meeting, attendees were invited to review information 

boards and discuss the Project details with team members. A meeting handout was provided in 

English and Spanish with details about the Project. 

The intent of the scoping meetings was to: 

 Introduce the Project 

 Explain the study process 

 Refine the Project Purpose and Need 

 Begin to identify alternatives for consideration through public input 

Table 6.1-2 provides the meeting date, location, and number of attendees for each public scoping 

meeting. 

Table 6.1-2: Public Scoping Meetings 

Meeting Date 

Meeting Type/ 

Area Targeted Meeting Location 

Meeting 

Attendance1

November 5, 2014 

5–7:30 p.m. 

Public Scoping Meeting—

Ashland/Hanover Co./Richmond 

Hanover Arts and Activities Center

500 South Center Street 

Ashland, VA 

58 

November 6, 2014 

5–7:30 p.m. 

Public Scoping Meeting—

Richmond/Ashland/Hanover Co. 

Department of Motor Vehicles 

2300 W. Broad Street 

Richmond, VA 

74 

November 12, 2014 

5–7:30 p.m. 

Public Scoping Meeting—

Greater Fredericksburg 

National Museum of the Marine Corps 

– Quantico 

18900 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Triangle, VA 

39 

November 13, 2014 

5–7:30 p.m. 

Public Scoping Meeting—

Northern Virginia 

Westin Crystal City 

1800 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 

66 

Self-guided Online Meeting Online Public Scoping Meeting—

Entire Corridor 

http://dc2rvarail.com/archive-onlinemeeting-phase-1/ 348 

Note: 1. Attendance numbers based on DC2RVA sign-in sheets. 

In addition to the Project launch announcements discussed in Section 6.1.1 above, DRPT used the 

following methods to publicize the public scoping meetings: 

 Project website information and details. 

 Newspaper and online advertising (English/Spanish), as described in Section 

6.1.2. 

 Email notifications to the Project contact database, including Title VI advocacy 

groups. A series of three email messages was sent: one 30 days out, one a week 

out, and one just before the end of the comment period. 

 Press releases and media advisories (English/Spanish). 

 One-on-one media pitching to generate news stories. 

 Social media messaging. 

 Cable channel calendars of events slides. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-6 

 Large static display poster at libraries and Virginia Railway Express (VRE). 

 Flyers, rack cards, and bookmarks at key locations, including libraries, community 

centers, faith organizations, social service organizations, ethnic businesses, and 

transit agencies (English/Spanish). 

 Collaboration with county/city public information officers, transportation 

agencies, and jurisdiction communications managers (English/Spanish). 

 Informational webinars for jurisdictional, transportation, and MPO public 

information officers and chambers of commerce directors. 

The public were invited to provide comments about the Project during and after each meeting 

through various formats. To offer stakeholders—agencies and the general public—ample 

opportunity to provide scoping input on the DC2RVA Project, comment forms in English and 

Spanish were made available and collected in several locations. Comments were submitted by: 

 Submitting a hardcopy comment form to any Project team member at any of the 

in-person meetings. 

 Mailing the hardcopy comment form to the DRPT main office. 

 Submission via the comment form on the website. 

 Submission via the online meeting. 

 Emailing the Project email address. 

 Calling the toll-free Project hotline. 

To encourage participation and commenting from LEP communities, additional scoping meeting 

handouts were distributed to public libraries after the last public scoping meeting and before the 

end of the comment period. 

DRPT received 1,625 scoping comments. The formal comment period lasted 30 days, from 

October 27, 2014 to December 5, 2014. All comments received were fully considered. DRPT 

reviewed each comment, categorized them by topic and appropriately grouped them for 

response, and prepared summary responses that were published in the Scoping Summary Report 

(Appendix V). Public comments ranged from general support or opposition to very specific 

remarks on particular locations and resources. They also included several logistical comments 

and questions related to the scoping meetings and comment process, such as requests for meeting 

accommodations for sign language, comments on website function, and information requests. 

Table 6.1-3 and Figure 6.1-1 provide a summary of comment trends, indicating the number of 

times a particular topic was mentioned by commenters. 

After the meetings, DRPT prepared a Scoping Summary Report that documented public outreach 

efforts during the scoping period, described the format and content of the public scoping 

meetings, and summarized comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general 

public (Appendix V). 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-7 

Table 6.1-3: Scoping Comments 

Topic 

Number of 

Mentions Topic 

Number of 

Mentions 

Alternatives 202 Cultural Resources 11 

Pedestrian/Bicycle 184 Wetlands 11 

Parks/Recreation/Public Lands 168 Real Estate 10 

Land Use 158 General Opposition 9 

Traffic/Safety 130 Mobility 9 

Stations 108 EIS Process 8 

Economics 87 Wild and Scenic Rivers 8 

Air Quality 77 Wildlife 7 

Service 61 Cumulative Impacts 6 

Aesthetics 60 Agency Coordination 5 

Parking 56 Threatened and Endangered Species 5 

General Support 38 Coastal Zone Impacts 4 

Mailing List Request 36 Flooding/Floodplains 4 

Operations/Maintenance 28 Social Impacts 4 

Cost 24 Sustainability 4 

Displacements 21 Rail Technology/Electrification 3 

Right-of-Way 21 Soil/Topography 3 

Compatibility with Other Projects/Plans 20 Construction 2 

Ridership 20 Energy 2 

Schedule 19 Environmental Justice 2 

Public Involvement 17 Purpose and Need 2 

Biological Resources 16 Utilities 2 

Information Request 16 ADA Accommodations 1 

Noise/Vibration 14 Ownership/Trackage Rights 1 

Study Area/Termini 12 Revenue 1 

Water Quality/Resources 12 Special Waste 1 

Conservation/Mitigation 11 – –

Figure 6.1-1: Top Ten Scoping Comment Topics 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-8 

DC2RVA Public Scoping Meeting 

6.1.5 Public Meetings 

Following the formal public scoping process, DRPT held two additional sets of public information 

meetings to update the public on the Project’s progress at key milestones. 

DRPT held Preliminary Alternative Development meetings on June 1, 2, and 3, 2015. The topics 

covered at this set of meetings included: 

 Draft Purpose and Need Statement 

 Alternatives development process 

 Preliminary rail alignment options 

DRPT held another round of public information meetings on December 8, 9, and 10, 2015. The 

topics covered at these meetings included: 

 Review of alternatives 

 Preliminary information and methodology for rail operations, modeling, 

engineering, and environmental analyses 

Each round of public meetings included a companion online public meeting Powerpoint 

presentation available for the duration of the comment period. The online public presentation 

offered the same display information as an in-person meeting, but allowed users to view the 

information when it was most convenient for them. All public meeting materials were available 

on the Project website. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-9 

Each set of meetings had an informal open house format. Upon arrival, attendees were asked to 

sign in and were given a public meeting handout providing background on the study and a 

comment form (materials were produced in English and Spanish). Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to provide written comments at the meeting, mail comment forms to DRPT, or 

comment electronically. A presentation by DRPT and Project team members, followed by a 

question and answer session, was held at the first and third set of meetings to complement the 

open house format. Project staff was present at each meeting to answer questions. 

Table 6.1-4 provides the meeting date, location, and number of attendees for each set of public 

information meetings. 

Table 6.1-4: Public Information Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Type Meeting Location 

Meeting 

Attendance1

June 1, 2015 Public Information Meeting Hilton Alexandria Old Town 

1767 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 

52 

June 2, 2015 Public Information Meeting Dorothy Hart Community Center

408 Canal Street 

Fredericksburg, VA 

37 

June 3, 2015 Public Information Meeting Department of Motor Vehicles 

2300 W. Broad Street 

Richmond, VA 

95 

Self-guided Online Meeting Online Public Information Meeting http://dc2rvarail.com/archive-onlinemeeting-phase-2/ 963 

December 8, 2015 Public Information Meeting Dorothy Hart Community Center

408 Canal Street 

Fredericksburg, VA 

57 

December 9, 2015 Public Information Meeting Hilton Springfield 

6550 Loisdale Road 

Springfield, VA 

56 

December 10, 2015 Public Information Meeting Department of Motor Vehicles 

2300 W. Broad Street 

Richmond, VA 

98 

Self-guided Online Meeting Online Public Information Meeting http://dc2rvarail.com/online-meeting/ 1,653 

Note: 1. Attendance numbers based on DC2RVA sign-in sheets. 

The methods of outreach notifications for the public information meetings are summarized below: 

 Project website information and details. 

 Newspaper and online advertising (English/Spanish), as described in Section 

6.1.2. 

 Email notifications to the Project contact database, including Title VI advocacy 

groups. A series of three email messages was sent: one 30 days out, one a week 

out, and one just before the end of the comment period. 

 Property owner letters. 

 Postcards to property owners (Alternatives Review meeting only). 

 Press releases and media advisories (English/Spanish). 

 One-on-one media pitching to generate news stories. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-10 

 E-newsletters. 

 Social media messaging. 

 Cable channel calendars of events slides. 

 Large static display poster at libraries and Virginia Railway Express (VRE). 

 Flyers, rack cards, and bookmarks at key locations, including libraries, community 

centers, faith organizations, social service organizations, ethnic businesses, and 

transit agencies (English/Spanish). 

 Collaboration with county/city public information officers, transportation 

agencies, and jurisdiction communications managers (English/Spanish). 

 Informational webinars for jurisdictional, transportation, and MPO public 

information officers and chambers of commerce directors. 

DRPT translated all broad outreach media—such as meeting handouts and comment forms, 

newspaper ads, flyers, and press releases—to Spanish. Any remaining handouts, including the 

Spanish versions, were distributed after each meeting to area libraries areas with higher 

concentrations of Hispanic populations to encourage their understanding and participation. 

Outreach materials included reference to several methods by which people could submit 

comments and questions regarding the Project. These methods included: 

 Submission of comment form at in-person meetings 

 Submission via the electronic comment form on the Project website 

 Emailing the Project email address, info@dc2rvarail.com

 Calling the toll-free Project hotline (information in English and Spanish) 

 Mailing a hardcopy comment form to the Project office 

All comments received during these public meetings were reviewed, documented, and included in 

the Project’s administrative record. Comments received during specific comment periods informed 

decision making tied to the specified milestone. Comments submitted outside of these comment 

periods informed DRPT’s understanding of public sentiment regarding the Project and, in some 

cases, provided unique information, like property and historic resource details, that helped guide 

alternatives development efforts. DRPT responded to comments that included information 

requests (e.g., specific landowner concerns or general Project information questions) by email, 

unless otherwise requested. DRPT also hosted meetings, made phone calls, and provided 

information by mail as needed. 

By advance request (72 hours), DRPT provided Spanish language translators and Sign Language 

interpreters onsite for all public meetings. On several occasions, sign language interpreters were 

requested and provided in Northern Virginia area. Materials were written in English and Spanish 

at the public information meetings and public hearings, and closed captioning was added to video 

presentations. All meeting locations were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible, and 

telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD)/teletypewriter (TTY) numbers were included in 

materials. Meetings were held in transit-accessible locations to the extent possible, and transit 

information was provided in outreach materials. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-11 

6.1.5.1 Public Meetings Hosted by Outside Organizations 

In addition to the public meetings hosted by DRPT, the department was asked to present at three 

public meetings held by outside organizations. These meetings were requested by local 

jurisdictions, citizens, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss proposed 

alternatives in their areas. Table 6.1-5 provides the meeting host, date, location, and number of 

attendees for each set of meetings. During these meetings, DRPT gave a brief Project update 

presentation and answered questions from the audience. Topics raised during the question and 

answer sessions included the study process, property impacts, passenger and freight rail service, 

Project cost, rail within the I-95 corridor, noise and vibration, eliminated alternatives, safety, 

economics, purpose and need, Project outreach, and train speeds. Comment forms were available 

at these meetings, collected, reviewed, and logged. Additionally, DRPT collected sign-in sheets 

and added attendees to the Project notification database. All comments received by participants 

were logged in the database and noted by issue type. 

Table 6.1-5: Outside Organization Hosted Meetings 

Meeting Host Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Attendance1

Virginians for High Speed Rail; 

Town of Ashland 

February 4, 2016 

(6:30 – 8:30 p.m.) 

Ashland Town Hall 

101 Thompson Street 

Ashland, VA 23005 

17 

Hanover County April 4, 2016 

(6:30 – 8:30 p.m.) 

Patrick Henry High School 

12449 W Patrick Henry Road 

Ashland, VA 23005 

402 

Spotsylvania County July 11, 2016 

(6:30 – 8:30 p.m.) 

Fredericksburg Christian High School 

9400 Thornton Rolling Road 

Fredericksburg, VA 22408 

233 

Note: 1. Attendance numbers based on DC2RVA sign-in sheets. 

6.1.6 Project Contact Mailing List 

DRPT created a Project mailing list for stakeholder groups and members of the public who desired 

to be kept informed of the Project. Requests to be added to the mailing list could be made at any time, 

including through the Project website and at all public meetings. DRPT delivered Project updates, 

newsletters, and public meeting invitations to those on the mailing list via email. Table 6.1-6 provides 

a list of the distributed emails. 

In addition to emails, the Project mailing list was used to generate distribution lists for printed and 

mailed materials for individuals not readily reachable by email. Printed materials in the form of 

poster displays, flyers, bookmarks, postcards, and meeting handouts were produced and 

distributed through Title VI advocates—including faith leaders, MPOs, social services, and elected 

officials—to be shared in libraries, transit authorities, community centers, businesses and faith 

groups. All flyers, bookmarks, meeting handouts, and emails were also translated to Spanish. The 

public information officers from the jurisdictions within the Project area were included in the 

information and materials distribution to further the communication to Title VI, faith, and civic 

leaders in their areas. DRPT contacted many Title VI leaders directly by phone and/or through inperson meetings early in the effort to begin the formation of a relationship and to include these 

groups in outreach. These initial communications included the Virginia Department for the Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing, Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, and Virginia 

Association of Area Agencies on Aging, among others. Property owners in the study area received 

postcard (direct mail) announcements of the alternatives review public meetings. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-12 

Table 6.1-6: Electronic Notifications and Project Updates 

Title of Email 

Distribution 

Date 

Number of 

Recipients 

Notification of Project Launch and Available Resources October 7, 2014 959 

Public Scoping Meeting Notification October 27, 2014 959 

Public Scoping Meeting Notification to Hispanic Organizations October 27, 2014 20 

Public Scoping Meeting Reminder November 3, 2014 956 

Scoping Comment Period Reminder to Faith Based Organizations November 21, 2014 113 

Scoping Comment Period Reminder December 1, 2014 1,417 

Alternatives Development Public Meeting Notification May 4, 2015 2,903 

Alternatives Development Public Meeting Notification to Hispanic 

Organizations May 20, 2015 32 

Alternatives Development Public Meeting Reminder May 27, 2015 2,875 

Alternatives Development Comment Period Reminder June 15, 2015 2,743 

Alternatives Development Comment Period Reminder to Hispanic 

Organizations June 15, 2015 30 

Amtrak Contest Solicitation for Submissions October 7, 2015 2,749 

Alternatives Review Public Meeting Notification November 9, 2015 2,735 

Alternatives Review Public Meeting Notification to Hispanic Organizations November 9, 2015 29 

Alternatives Review Public Meeting Reminder December 1, 2015 2,767 

Alternatives Review Comment Period Reminder January 4, 2016 2,889 

Alternatives Review Comment Period Reminder to Hispanic Organizations January 4, 2016 29 

Corridor-Wide Project Update May 10, 2016 3,629 

6.1.7 Property Owner Notifications 

In accordance with Section 33.2-1011 of the Code of Virginia, DRPT mailed property owner 

notification letters to allow field personnel access to properties for Project review and field 

surveys. Notifications were mailed no less than 15 days prior to the date of first entry. DRPT 

distributed these letters in batches to correspond with the field review schedule, which was 

conducted in segments. In addition to the property access notification letter, an informational 

flyer was included in these Project mailings that described the Project and schedule, explained 

the types of field surveys and work being conducted, and provided contact information for 

questions and comments (see Appendix V for sample letters and informational flyer). In total, 

DRPT mailed 9,448 property notification letters. As of February 2017, these mailings resulted in 

173 calls, comments, and emails received. The majority of the responses to property owner 

notifications related to coordinating times the survey crews could access the properties and the 

manner in which access would be permitted. Some property owners also expressed concerns 

related to the Project’s impact on property access, noise, and property values. 

In advance of the Preliminary Alternative Development public meetings in June 2015, DRPT sent 

property owners who had been identified at that point of the Project a postcard direct mail 

advising them of public meetings and the formal comment period. 

As a way to communicate information specific to the sub-areas within the Project area, printed 

fact sheets were developed and distributed to the public through libraries and community 

centers. Additionally, web pages were developed to specifically address areas on the corridor and 

property owner needs. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-13 

6.1.8 E-Newsletters 

DRPT distributed E-newsletters at key milestones throughout the Project to highlight details and 

outcomes of public meetings, explain the study process, provide updates on alternatives and 

recommendations, remind readers how and where to comment, and provide other timely insight. 

Table 6.1-7 provides the newsletter distribution dates and number of people reached. Project enewsletters were also available on the Project website. 

Spanish-speaking audiences were encouraged to request assistance if needed as follows: 

En Español? Si necesita servicios de traducción para participar, por favor envíe un email a: 

espanol@DC2RVArail.com. También puede llamar a la línea directa del proyecto para dejar comentarios: 

888-832-0900. 

No requests from Spanish-speaking audiences were received. 

Table 6.1-7: E-Newsletters 

Title Distribution Date Registered to Receive Newsletter 

DC2RVA Rail Mail: First Edition April 22, 2015 2,967 

DC2RVA Rail Mail: Second Edition September 11, 2015 2,768 

DC2RVA Rail Mail: Third Edition March 10, 2016 3,243 

DC2RVA Rail Mail: Fourth Edition June 29, 2016 3,639 

DC2RVA Rail Mail: Fifth Edition January 11, 2017 4,191 

6.1.9 Project Website 

DRPT launched the Project website on October 6, 2014, which can be found at 

http://www.DC2RVArail.com. It serves as key reference for all public information. DRPT 

continually updates the website throughout the life of the Project with current and relevant 

information. The site offers information pertaining to the Project process and background, public 

meeting notices, study schedule, Project mapping, and pages with information specific to key 

areas of interest along the Project corridor, as well as access to all public meeting materials, 

including online meetings, boards, presentations, and handouts, and an electronic comment 

form. The website includes translation and font enlargement features. 

All meeting materials and meeting summary reports were posted on the Project website. 

Included on the Project website is a page dedicated to other projects and studies related to or 

impacted by DC2RVA. This page (http://dc2rvarail.com/resources/ongoing-projects/) 

includes links and updates for: 

 Acca Yard/Main Line Relocation

 Virginia Avenue Tunnel 

 Arkendale to Powells Creek Third Track Project 

 Crossroads to Hamilton Third Track and New Spotsylvania Station 

 Richmond to Raleigh Southeast High Speed Rail Project 

 Washington Union Station Expansion Project 

 Richmond to Hampton Roads Southeast High Speed Rail Project 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-14 

 Long Bridge Phase II Study EIS 

 Potomac Yard Metrorail Station EIS 

 Tri-Cities Multimodal Passenger Rail Station Study 

 Atlantic Gateway Program 

In addition, DRPT added a brief Project overview and related links on its main website and 

provided the same information to Amtrak for its Northeast Corridor Future website 

(http://necfuture.com) and to NCDOT for its Southeast High Speed Rail website 

(https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/sehsr). 

6.1.10 Project Press Releases 

DRPT issued press releases during Project kick-off and prior to public meetings, and also made 

them available on the Project website. DRPT also issued media advisories prior to the public 

meetings to invite the media to attend and provide meeting coverage. To garner more media 

attention, the outreach team contacted key media outlets to follow up on releases and offered to 

provide other information to inform news stories. These efforts resulted in 188 (as of 5/9/2017) 

news stories published regarding the Project. 

Table 6.1-8 lists the dates and content of these notifications. 

Table 6.1-8: Press Releases and Media Advisories 

Date Information Format 

October 6, 2014 Project Launch–Kick-Off/Survey/Splash Page Notification–Press Release 

October 22, 2014 Public Scoping Meeting Information and Dates, Times, 

Locations 

Notification–Press Release (English/Spanish) 

November 4, 2014 Meeting reminder/invitation for media to attend Media Advisory 

May 19, 2015 Preliminary Alternatives Development Information 

and Dates, Times, Locations 

Notification–Press Release (English/Spanish) 

May 28, 2015 Meeting reminder/invitation for media to attend Media Advisory 

November 24, 2015 Alternatives Review Public Meeting Information and 

Dates, Times, Locations 

Notification–Press Release (English/Spanish) 

December 3, 2015 Meeting reminder/invitation for media to attend Media Advisory 

6.1.11 Small Group Informational Meetings 

DRPT conducted more than 20 small group informational meetings with interested organizations 

throughout the corridor, in many cases at the request of the organizations themselves. All 

meetings were open to the public and included agencies, civic groups, and members of the public. 

Feedback received at these meetings focused on ways that DRPT could collaborate to improve 

communication with their groups and customers about the Project. 

Table 6.1-9 lists these meetings and the topic of discussion. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-15 

Table 6.1-9: Small Group Informational Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Topics 

November 3, 2014 Richmond Regional Planning District 

Commission, GWRideConnect, 

Arlington Transit, Dinwiddie County, 

Federal Railroad Administration 

 Public Information Officer Update Regarding Upcoming 

Public Meetings 

March 12, 2015 Virginia Hispanic Chamber of 

Commerce 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Hispanic Community Outreach Strategy 

March 12, 2015 Ridefinders  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Public Outreach Strategy 

March 12, 2015 AAA Seniors  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Senior Citizens Outreach Strategy 

March 15, 2015 Historic Fredericksburg Foundation 

Inc. 

 Project Overview 

 Project Engagement Opportunities 

March 19, 2015 East Coast Greenway Alliance, 

Virginia Bicycling Federation 

 Project Purpose and Need 

 Barriers to Greenway within Private Freight Right-ofWay 

March 19, 2015 Mayfield Civic Association  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Field Studies 

 Public Engagement Opportunities 

May 13, 2015 Caroline County, City of Alexandria, 

Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico 

 Public Information Officer Update Regarding Upcoming 

Public Meetings 

May 22, 2015 Hampton Roads Regional Council  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

July 15, 2015 DuPont  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

September 9, 2015 Neabsco Beach Way Homeowners 

Association 

 Project Overview

 Neabsco Creek Bridge

October 15, 2015 City of Richmond Public Information 

Office, Greater Richmond Transit 

Company 

 Project Overview 

 December 2015 Public Meeting Outreach Strategy 

November 10, 2015 City of Richmond Office of Diversity  Title VI Outreach Strategy 

November 10, 2015 City of Richmond Social Services 

Department 

 Title VI Outreach Strategy 

November 10, 2015 Virginia Department for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing 

 Title VI Outreach Strategy 

November 12, 2015 Fairfax County Public Information 

Office 

 Project Overview 

 December Public Meetings 

November 13, 2015 Fairfax County Department of 

Transportation Public Information 

Office 

 Project Overview 

 December Public Meetings 

November 17, 2015 City of Richmond, City of 

Fredericksburg, Springfield Chamber 

of Commerce 

 Business Groups/Chambers of Commerce Update 

Regarding Upcoming Public Meetings 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-16 

Table 6.1-9: Small Group Informational Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Topics 

February 3, 2016 Transportation Association of 

Greater Springfield 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

June 9, 2016 Randolph-Macon College, Town of 

Ashland, Hanover County 

 Project Overview 

 Ashland Area Alternatives 

 Potential Impacts to College 

June 14, 2016 Civil War Trust  Cultural Resources 

July 27, 2016 Randolph-Macon College  Ashland Area Alternatives 

 Potential Impacts to College 

August 22, 2016 Virginia Association of Counties  Project Overview 

September 15, 2016 ACEC – Virginia Transportation 

Business Opportunities Networking 

Luncheon 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

September 19, 2016 Arlington/Alexandria Phase II Meeting  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

October 27, 2016 Hap Conners Fredericksburg Area 

Meeting 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 3, 2016 Northern Virginia Transportation 

Commission 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 3, 2016 Potomac and Rappahannock 

Transportation Commission 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 16, 2016 Crystal City Civic Association  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 17, 2016 Northern Virginia Transportation 

Authority 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

December 5, 2016 Richmond Area Locality Workshop: 

City of Richmond, Henrico County, 

Chesterfield County, Richmond 

Regional Planning District 

Commission, and Federal Railroad 

Administration 

 Richmond Recommendations 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

6.1.12 Project Brochure 

DRPT prepared two Project brochures—one at the onset of the Project and an updated version in 

fall 2016 as part of the Project launch. Hardcopies of the brochure were printed (1,250 each, total 

2,500). DRPT mailed the first brochure to 553 elected officials, libraries, faith groups, and 

chambers of commerce. Libraries were asked to display stacks of brochures for their customers. 

DRPT disseminated the second brochure at key stakeholder and public meetings. Electronic 

versions of the brochure are available on the Project website. Information in the brochures 

included a Project overview; description of the current passenger rail service; description of the 

Project corridor and other relevant projects; purpose of the Project, EIS steps; preliminary 

engineering; service development plan and schedule. The second brochure included a description 

of the alternatives being carried forward in the Draft EIS. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-17 

6.1.13 Social Media 

The purpose of the Project’s social media efforts is to broaden outreach, increase awareness of the 

Project, and provide engagement opportunities to stakeholders who might not otherwise 

participate. 

Although social media posts are not included in the administrative record, the conversation that 

occurs online is important to the process. DRPT summarized the content of comments to check 

for the most discussed topics and potential new issues not identified through traditional means; 

these monthly social media reports are provided in Appendix V. DRPT used social media to 

perform real‐time evaluation of Project information and locate geographic areas with higher or 

lower levels of stakeholder participation. 

As of December 8, 2016, Social Media profiles are as follows: 

 Twitter: @dc2rvarail 

Followers: 436 

 Facebook: dc2rvarail 

Followers: 404 

6.2 AGENCY COORDINATION 

DRPT and FRA conducted extensive agency coordination throughout the course of the Draft EIS. 

More than 35 agencies were invited to be cooperating or participating agencies. Cooperating 

Agencies include those agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise and typically: 

 Participate in scoping 

 Provide staff support 

 Assist with analyses, field reviews, and public meetings 

 Review documentation 

The Draft EIS is meant to assist Cooperating Agencies in fulfilling their jurisdictional and NEPA 

responsibilities. 

The following agencies agreed to be Cooperating Agencies for the DC2RVA Project1: 

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District 

 United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

 

1 USFWS was also invited to be a cooperating agency but did not respond. Although USFWS is not a cooperating 

agency, they did participate in a phone conference with the cooperating agencies on August 31, 2015. USFWS requested 

information regarding proposed Project alignments. DRPT worked with USFWS to provide this information and 

respond to other USFWS comments. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-18 

Participating Agencies also have an interest and remain involved throughout the Project, but they 

typically do not have as active a role as Cooperating Agencies. The following are Participating 

Agencies for the DC2RVA Project: 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

 Amtrak 

 Arlington County 

 Caroline County 

 Chesterfield County 

 City of Alexandria 

 City of Colonial Heights 

 City of Fairfax 

 City of Fredericksburg 

 City of Richmond 

 Crater Planning District Commission/Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) 

 Dinwiddie County 

 District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) 

 Fairfax County 

 Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) 

 George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) 

 Hanover County 

 Henrico County 

 Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico 

 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)/National Capital 

Region Transportation Planning Board 

 Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) 

 Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (NVRPA) 

 Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) 

 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) 

 Prince William County 

 Richmond Regional Planning District Commission/Richmond Regional 

Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO) 

 Spotsylvania County 

 Stafford County 

 Town of Ashland 

 Town of Dumfries 

 Town of Quantico 

 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

 Virginia Port Authority 

 Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 

 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-19 

6.2.1 Agency Meetings 

Early agency coordination provides support for Project development. The first agency meeting 

was the agency scoping meeting for federal, state, and local agencies conducted on November 3, 

2014. The intent of the meeting was to introduce the Project; explain the study process; refine 

Purpose and Need; review concerns and comments; and begin to identify alternatives for 

consideration. Comments and input from the agencies attending were welcomed. DRPT also held 

Cooperating Agency meetings on June 25, 2015, and March 31, 2016, to update the cooperating 

and participating agencies on Project activities and receive feedback. Table 6.2-1 provides a 

summary of the cooperating agency meetings to date. 

Table 6.2-1: Cooperating Agency Meetings 

Meeting Location Meeting Date Meeting Attendance Topics 

Virginia Housing Center

4224 Cox Road

Glen Allen, VA 

November 3, 2014 16 attendees, 

representing FRA, 

USACE, U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), 

VDOT, MWCOG, 

RRTPO, Stafford County, 

Spotsylvania County, 

Henrico County, 

Chesterfield County, and 

the City of Richmond 

 Served as Agency Scoping Meeting 

 Project Introduction 

 Study Process Explanation 

 Purpose and Need Refinement 

 Identify Alternatives for Consideration 

 Concerns and Comments on the Project from 

Attendees 

DC2RVA Project 

Office 

801 E. Main Street 

Richmond, VA 

June 25, 2015 20 attendees, 

representing FRA, 

USACE, EPA, FHWA, and 

VDOT 

 Project Overview 

 Update on Project Activities to Date 

 Ongoing and Upcoming Project Deliverables 

 Concerns and Comments on the Project from 

Attendees 

DC2RVA Project 

Office 

801 E. Main Street 

Richmond, VA 

March 31, 2016 24 attendees, 

representing FRA, 

USACE, EPA, Amtrak, 

VDOT, VRE, WMATA, 

MWCOG, RRTPO, 

Stafford County, Hanover 

County, Chesterfield 

County, City of 

Fredericksburg, and MCB 

Quantico 

 Update on Project Activities to Date 

 Ongoing and Upcoming Project Deliverables 

 Concerns and Comments on the Project from 

Attendees 

In addition to the larger agency meetings, DRPT scheduled smaller agency-specific meetings as 

needed to discuss certain resources and topics in greater detail. Table 6.2-2 lists these agencyspecific meetings and includes a brief summary of the discussion topics. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-20 

Table 6.2-2: Agency-Specific Coordination Meetings 

Meeting Date Attendees Location Topics 

September 3, 2015 USACE−Norfolk District, 

Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

Dovetail Office 

300 Central Road 

Fredericksburg, VA 

 Wetlands Methodology 

 Permit Requirements 

September 16, 2015 EPA EPA Region III Office 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 

 Project Overview 

 Climate Change and Resiliency 

 Wetlands 

 Environmental Justice, Relocations, 

and Public Outreach 

 Air Quality 

 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

 Stormwater 

November 30, 2015 USACE−Norfolk District, DEQ Project Corridor  Streams and Wetlands Field Review 

Meeting–Segments 6, 7, and 81

December 16, 2015 USACE−Norfolk District, DEQ Project Corridor  Streams and Wetlands Field Review 

Meeting–Segments 10 and 111

February 3, 2016 USACE−Norfolk District, DEQ Project Corridor  Streams and Wetland Field Review 

Meeting–Segments 11 and 121

May 19, 2016 United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

Conference Call  Project Overview 

 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Inventories and Survey 

July 21, 2016 USACE−Norfolk District, DEQ Project Corridor  Streams and Wetland Field Review–

Segment 211

Note: 1. See Section 2.2 of this Draft EIS for a description of DC2RVA corridor segments. 

6.2.2 Task Force Meetings 

Because the Project involves rail infrastructure owned by CSX Transportation (CSXT) and utilized 

by multiple operators, DRPT formed a task force of the transportation providers in the corridor 

to ensure effective coordination between these groups and the Project team. DRPT hosted task 

force meetings quarterly, or as needed at Project milestones, beginning in August 2014. 

Participants at the task force meetings typically included FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, Virginia’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG), DDOT, and the DC2RVA consultant team. 

The task force meetings began with an initial kick-off meeting followed by a series of updates on 

the Project activities and the schedule. The meetings served as an important tool for coordination 

amongst the primary Project stakeholders. The main objectives of the task force are: 

 To serve as the “Core Project Team” 

 To be briefed on major Project milestones and to keep appropriate staff informed 

of the Project progress 

 To serve as advisors to the lead agency for the Tier II EIS 

 To provide technical review and input to complete certain parts of the study 

Table 6.2-3 provides a summary of the task force meetings to date. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-21 

Table 6.2-3: Task Force Meetings 

Meeting Date Attendees Location Topics 

August 18, 2014 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, VRE 

VDOT District Office 

87 Deacon Road 

Fredericksburg, VA 

 Project Introduction 

 Early Project Concerns 

January 8, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

OAG 

DC2RVA Project Office 

801 East Main Street 

Richmond, VA 

 General Update of Project Activities 

 FRA Agreement with DRPT 

 Freight Growth and Modeling 

 Freight and Passenger Rail Capacity 

 VRE Station Planning and Development 

 Long Bridge 

 Basis of Design 

April 8, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

OAG 

Embassy Suites 

Alexandria Old Town 

1900 Diagonal Road 

Alexandria, VA 

 Purpose and Need 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

 Public Involvement 

May 19, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE 

DC2RVA Project Office 

801 East Main Street 

Richmond, VA 

 Purpose of June Public Meetings 

 Materials to be Presented at June Public 

Meetings 

 Issues that arose during Locality Meetings 

 Key Provisions of Basis of Design 

June 29, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

OAG 

Embassy Suites 

Alexandria Old Town 

1900 Diagonal Road 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Service Goals 

 Engineering Options Overview 

September 30, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

OAG 

Embassy Suites 

Alexandria Old Town 

1900 Diagonal Road 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Alternatives Development 

 Screening Results: Potomac to Staples Mill 

 Screening Status: Richmond 

 Ridership Model Development 

 Preliminary Service Plan 

 Streamlining Projects 

November 18, 2015 FRA, DRPT, CSXT, 

OAG 

DC2RVA Project Office 

801 East Main Street 

Richmond, VA 

 Review Purpose of December Public 

Meetings 

 Preview Materials to be Presented at 

December Public Meetings 

 Discuss Issues that arose during Locality 

Meetings 

January 27, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

DDOT, OAG 

National School Boards 

Association 

1680 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Operations Modeling Methodology 

 Alternatives Review 

 Draft EIS Content 

May 11, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

DDOT, OAG 

National School Boards 

Association 

1680 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Locality Update 

 Build Alternatives and No Build Alternative 

 Ridership Forecasting 

 FASTLANE Grant Application 

August 16, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

OAG 

Embassy Suites 

Alexandria Old Town 

1900 Diagonal Road 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Build Alternatives and No Build Alternative 

 Preliminary Ridership Estimates 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-22 

Table 6.2-3: Task Force Meetings 

Meeting Date Attendees Location Topics 

November 2, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE 

National School Boards 

Association 

1680 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Alternatives Review 

 Community Outreach 

 Ridership Modeling Update 

 Atlantic Gateway 

February 2, 2017 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, 

CSXT, Amtrak, VRE, 

DDOT 

Embassy Suites 

Alexandria Old Town 

1900 Diagonal Road 

Alexandria, VA 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Alternatives Review 

 Ridership Modeling Update 

 Preliminary Engineering Update 

 Atlantic Gateway 

 Long Bridge 

6.2.3 Local Officials Coordination 

Beyond agency coordination with departments within localities, DRPT also specifically engaged 

local officials during the Project’s development. In total, DRPT conducted 44 meetings with local 

officials to provide Project briefings and updates, gather feedback on alternatives, and answer 

questions. The organizations and meeting dates are listed in Table 6.2-4. 

Table 6.2-4: Local Official Meetings 

Meeting Date Attendees Topics 

December 3, 2014 City of Richmond Mayor’s Staff, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Richmond Station Locations 

 Relation to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 

November 19, 2014 Delegate Manoli Loupassi, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Richmond Station Locations 

March 12, 2015 Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (FAMPO) 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Fredericksburg Region Outreach Strategy 

March 12, 2015 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Title VI Outreach Strategy 

April 29, 2015 Hanover County, Town of Ashland, RRPDC, 

DRPT 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

May 1, 2015 City of Fredericksburg, FAMPO, GWRC, Stafford 

County, DRPT 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

May 1, 2015 MWCOG Transportation Planning Board, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 4, 2015 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, DRPT 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

May 7, 2015 PRTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 7, 2015 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 8, 2015 NVTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 14, 2015 Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 

(NVTA), DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 18, 2015 GWRC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

 Continued.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-23 

Table 6.2-4: Local Official Meetings 

Meeting Date Attendees Topics 

May 20, 2015 MWCOG Policy Board, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

September 24, 2015 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 9, 2015 Caroline County, City of Fredericksburg, 

FAMPO, GWRC, Stafford County, Spotsylvania 

County, VDOT, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 9, 2015 FAMPO Technical Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 10, 2015 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 12, 2015 Hanover County, Town of Ashland, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 13, 2015 NVTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 15, 2015 PRTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 16, 2015 FAMPO Policy Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 19, 2015 NVTA, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

December 1, 2015 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, FRA, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Richmond Area Rail Conditions and Alternatives 

Development 

March 2, 2016 Hanover County, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Hanover County Field Studies 

 Ashland Area Alternatives 

March 9, 2016 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, DRPT, FRA 

 Richmond Area Station Site Planning 

March 22, 2016 City of Richmond, DRPT  Richmond Station Facilities 

March 22, 2016 Henrico County, DRPT  Henrico Station Facilities 

April 4, 2016 Stafford County, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 7, 2016 Spotsylvania County, FAMPO, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 14, 2016 Caroline County, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 28, 2016 Hanover County, Town of Ashland, RRPDC, 

DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Ashland Area Alternatives 

 Randolph-Macon College 

May 2, 2016 City of Fredericksburg, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 23, 2016 Arlington County, City of Alexandria  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 24, 2016 Speaker William Howell, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 27, 2016 House of Delegates Transportation Chair Ron 

Villanueva, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

July 28, 2016 CTB  Project Overview 

September 21, 2016 CTB  Project Briefing 

October 11, 2016 Caroline County Board of Supervisors, DRPT  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

October 18, 2016 CTB, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-24 

Table 6.2-4: Local Official Meetings 

Meeting Date Attendees Topics 

October 25, 2016 MWCOG Regional Transportation 

Subcommittee, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 1, 2016 CTB, Town of Ashland, Hanover County, 

Randolph Macon College, DRPT 

 Project Tour of Ashland Area 

November 3, 2016 PRTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

November 3, 2016 NVTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

November 17, 2016 NVTA, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

November 28, 2016 VDOT, DRPT  Environmental Justice and ADA Compliance 

November 28, 2016 Governor McAuliffe  Project Briefing 

December 1, 2016 RRTPO, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

December 6, 2016 CTB, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Project Alternatives 

December 14, 2016 Henrico County Board of Supervisors, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 9, 2017 FAMPO Technical Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 11, 2017 FAMPO Transportation Advisory Group, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 18, 2017 Alexandria Transportation Commission, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 23, 2017 FAMPO Policy Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

In addition to the meetings with local officials listed in Table 6.2-4, DRPT and the DC2RVA 

consultant team also met with members of Virginia’s Congressional delegation on May 19, 2016, 

in Cannon House Office Building, Room Cannon 5C. Representatives from the offices of Senator 

Tim Kaine, Senator Mark R. Warner, Representative Don Beyer, Representative Gerald Connolly, 

Representative Robert J. Wittman, Representative Dave Brat, and Representative Robert C. Scott 

all participated in the meeting. Attendees discussed the various area-specific options along the 

corridor, as well as FASTLANE funding.2

DRPT provided additional outreach to elected officials during key Project milestones, as shown 

in Table 6.2-5. More than 300 elected officials were contacted and included on the Project’s email 

database to receive newsletters and other Project updates. See the Scoping Summary Report in 

Appendix V for the list of elected officials contacted. 

Table 6.2-5: Elected Official Targeted Outreach 

Date Format Content 

October 22, 2014 Direct Mailing #1 Project notification provided notice that FRA and DRPT were initiating preparation 

of a Tier II EIS for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA, rail corridor. 

May 18, 2015 Direct Mailing #2 Project update provided schedule information on public meetings to take place in 

early June. The update also shared that the Project’s purpose and need statement 

was completed, preliminary rail alignment options had been developed, and 

alternative screening criteria had been identified. 

November 10, 2015 Email #1 Project update that early stages of the alternatives screening process were 

completed and input from the June 2015 public meetings was incorporated to 

develop a range of viable alternative improvements for detailed evaluation. 

 

2 The Atlantic Gateway is a $1.4 billion partnership that focuses on the I-95 corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Fredericksburg, VA. Partially funded by a federal FASTLANE grant, the program utilizes an innovative public/private 

partnership to leverage a suite of multi-modal improvements along one of the nation’s busiest corridors. 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-25 

6.2.4 Ashland Community Advisory Committee 

Through the alternatives development process and related community meetings, DRPT 

recognized the unique nature of the Town of Ashland and Hanover County, and that many of 

the alternatives for greater rail capacity in this area generated community concerns in that area. 

As a result, DRPT implemented a community-based effort to supplement the corridor-wise 

DC2RVA public involvement activities described above and to help inform DRPT's 

recommendation for a Preferred Alternative that provides the required rail capacity through the 

Ashland/Hanover area. As part of this community-based effort, DRPT established a Community 

Advisory Committee (CAC) to take a more intensive look at all previous options, identify any 

potential new options to meet the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project, and suggest 

mitigation strategies to address Project impacts. The first meeting of the CAC was held in May 

2017. 

6.3 SECTION 106 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 

The DC2RVA consultant team coordinated with numerous property owners and officials with 

jurisdiction over resources protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), with particular focus on resources where the Project alternatives would likely result in 

an adverse effect to cultural or historic properties. Agencies involved in this dialogue included 

ACHP, Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), USACE, American Battlefield 

Protection Program (ABPP), and United States DOI. The consulting party invitations, meetings, 

and additional correspondence are discussed in the following sections. 

6.3.1 Consulting Parties 

While FRA continued to be the primary point of contact for all federally recognized tribes, they 

delegated state agency and consulting party coordination to DRPT in 2014. As such, DRPT sent 

invitation letters to agencies, local governments, Native American tribes, and other stakeholders 

in the Section 106 consultation process. Table 6.3-1 provides information on the 39 distributed 

consulting party invitations. Of these, 14 have elected to participate in the process; Table 6.3-1 

lists these groups along with their response date. An additional six are assumed to request 

participation. Although a formal response was not received from these six groups, they have 

requested participation on similar projects and have shown a noted interest in the current 

undertaking through telephone calls or attendance at associated meetings. These six are noted by 

“assumed yes” in the table below. 

Table 6.3-1: Consulting Parties 

Stakeholder Invite Letter Date Response (Date) 

American Battlefield Protection Program January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

National Park Service (NPS)−Fredericksburg January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−National Capital Region January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

Marine Corps Base Quantico January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−Washington-Rochambeau NHT January 22, 2015 Assumed Yes 

Pamunkey Indian Tribe1 April 27, 2017 Assumed Yes 

City of Fredericksburg January 6, 2015 Yes (January 12, 2015) 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-26 

Table 6.3-1: Consulting Parties 

Stakeholder Invite Letter Date Response (Date) 

NPS−Richmond January 6, 2015 Yes (January 14, 2015) 

Arlington County January 6, 2015 Yes (January 14, 2015) 

City of Richmond January 6, 2015 Yes (January 16, 2015) 

Alexandria Archaeology January 6, 2015 Yes (January 21, 2015) 

Ashland Museum January 6, 2015 Yes (January 21, 2015) 

NPS−Captain John Smith Chesapeake NHT January 6, 2015 Yes (January 22, 2015) 

Central Virginia Battlefields Trust January 6, 2015 Yes (January 22, 2015) 

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. January 6, 2015 Yes (January 9, 2015) 

Civil War Trust January 6, 2015 Yes (February 11, 2015) 

Prince William County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 13, 2015) 

Caroline County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 3, 2015) 

Hanover County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 3, 2015) 

NPS−Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail January 22, 2015 Yes (March 4, 2015) 

City of Alexandria January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Fairfax County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Henrico County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Spotsylvania County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Stafford County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Atlantic Coast Line & Seaboard Air Line (ACL & SAL) 

Railroads Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Center for Neighborhood Revitalization January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Arlington Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Caroline Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Chesterfield Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Hanover County Historical Society, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Henrico County Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Alexandria Foundation January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Prince William, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Richmond Foundation January 6, 2015 Yes (December 2016) 

Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

National Trust for Historic Preservation January 6, 2015 Yes (December 22, 2016) 

Stafford County Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Catawba Indian Tribe January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Note: 1. Letters to Tribes were sent by FRA. 

6.3.2 Meetings 

DRPT and its DC2RVA consultant team held numerous in-person and telephone-based meetings 

with DHR, ACHP, and other consulting parties. They included a Section 106 kick-off and several 

follow-up meetings to update participating agencies and parties on the Project initiation; 

determination of Area of Potential Effects (APE); cultural resource methodology for the 

reconnaissance predictive model, identification surveys and evaluation studies; survey results; 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-27 

Project effect on historic properties; stipulations to mitigate adverse effects; and crafting the Project 

Programmatic Agreement (PA). Table 6.3-2 highlights the meetings held with these groups. 

Table 6.3-2: Section 106 Meetings

Date Attendees Topics Comments 

November 7, 2014 DHR, DRPT, Consultant 

Team 

Kick-off meeting; Discussions on APE, 

Methodology, Reporting 

Discussed Project in relation 

to Richmond to Raleigh 

segment and determined that 

we should follow the same 

general parameters in terms of 

APE and methodology. DHR 

agreed that the Project area 

could be divided into several 

reports for submittal. 

March 19, 2015 VDOT, DRPT, Consultant 

Team 

Roadway Bridges and Section 106 

Coordination 

Discussed existing agreement 

documents and how they can 

facilitate cultural resource 

studies; Determined that 

bridges that fall under VDOT 

purview would not be 

revisited during this study. 

February 18, 2016 DHR, Consultant Team Update on Corridor and Status of Studies Discussed status of Project; 

determined that IA 

reconnaissance studies would 

be sufficient for 

Fredericksburg and Ashland 

bypasses. 

June 14, 2016 Civil War Trust, 

Consultant Team 

General Discussion of Results to Date Specific talk about Richmond 

to Raleigh Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA). 

August 10, 2016 DHR, Consultant Team Historic Properties and Project Effect Preliminary dialogue on 

Project effect for all historic 

properties (as defined as of 

this date). Made preliminary 

determinations of effect to be 

formally coordinated once all 

technical studies have been 

completed. 

6.3.3 Correspondence 

Since the Project’s initiation, repeated correspondence has occurred between DRPT and the Section 

106 agencies, localities, and consulting parties to keep them informed on the progress of the Section 

106 studies, resource eligibility, and Project effect on historic properties, and this will continue at 

milestones throughout the Project. In particular, meetings and email exchanges with DHR have 

occurred regularly to provide information on Project plans. In addition, data on the study results 

in specific Project areas were sent to corresponding consulting parties to garner comments on the 

Project results. The Architectural Reconnaissance Survey–Phase I reports were posted on the 

Project’s webpage for general public comment as well. The Archaeological Phase I reports were 

only distributed to the agencies, localities, and consulting parties as requested due to the sensitivity 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 6-28 

of site location mapping. Table 6.3-3 includes correspondence conducted to date. Copies of relevant 

correspondence are included in Appendix R. 

Table 6.3-3: Section 106 Correspondence

Date Medium Recipient Topic1

September 25–

October 15, 2014 

Email; Letter DHR, FRA, DRPT Initiation of Section 106 Process 

January 5–

February 2, 2015 

Email, Letter DHR, FRA, DRPT Defining Project APE; APE approved on February 2, 2015 

June 8, 2015 Email VDOT VDOT/DHR PA on Historic Bridges 

June 22, 2015 Letter Civil War Trust, DRPT Receipt of comments on Project screening review 

July 30, 2015 Email Consulting Parties, 

DRPT 

Distribution of Archaeological Predictive Model report for

review 

July 17, 2015; 

August 28, 2015 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Archaeological Predictive Model Report; 

DHR Reply 

August 3–

September 4, 2015 

Email Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria, Prince 

William County, City of 

Fredericksburg, DRPT 

Receipt of comments on Archaeological IA Predictive model 

August 28, 2015 Email Consulting Parties, 

DRPT 

Reminder to submit comments on Predictive Model Report 

October 20, 2015; 

December 18, 2015 

Letters NPS (FSNMP) Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit to dig 

on federal land (Segment 7) 

December 9, 2015; 

February 5, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 7); 

DHR Reply 

December 15, 2015 Letter DHR Application to conduct archaeology on state lands (Segment 11) 

March 18–31, 2016 Email; Memo DHR Discussion of alternative methodology for architecture in 

Segment 18 

April 13–

April 26, 2016 

Email David Hamilton 

(Consulting Party), DHR, 

DRPT, FRA 

Mr. Hamilton is a private property owner along the Ashland 

Bypass. Numerous emails were exchanged with Mr. 

Hamilton regarding his concerns, his position as a consulting 

party, and distributing Project data 

May 20, 2016; 

June 8, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 6); 

DHR Reply 

May 31, 2016; 

June 22, 2016 

Letter, 

Email 

DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 3); 

DHR Reply 

May 31, 2016; 

June 22, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 4); 

DHR Reply 

June 21, 2016; 

June 28, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 8-9); 

DHR Reply 

July 6, 2016; 

July 22, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 1); 

DHR Reply 

July 6, 2016; 

July 15, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 2); 

DHR Reply 

July 25, 2016; 

August 15, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 10-12); 

DHR Reply 

December 21, 2016; 

TBD 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 13); 

DHR Reply 

August 3, 2016; 

August 22, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 14); 

DHR Reply 

October 21, 2016; 

November 30, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 15, 16, 

20); DHR Reply 

November 14, 2016; 

December 22, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 17, 19); 

DHR Reply 

October 21, 2016; 

November 3, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 18); 

DHR Reply 

 Continued.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 6-29 

Table 6.3-3: Section 106 Correspondence

Date Medium Recipient Topic1

January 20, 2017; 

TBD 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Structures); 

DHR Reply 

TBD Email Consulting Parties Distribution of Architectural Reports for Review; 

Consulting Party Comments 

September 6, 2016; 

October 11, 2016 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Archaeological Phase I Report (Segments 1-20); 

DHR Reply 

TBD Email Consulting Parties Distribution of Archaeological Phase I Report (Segments 1-

20) for Review; Consulting Party Replies 

January 20, 2017; 

TBD 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Phase IA Fredericksburg Bypass Report; 

DHR Reply 

January 6, 2017; 

February 3, 2017 

Letter, Email DHR Submittal of Phase IA Ashland Bypass Report; 

DHR Reply 

Note: 1. See Section 2.2 of this Draft EIS for a description of DC2RVA corridor segments. 
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 statio

Richmond. 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. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 8
 8-1 

DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

The Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is being distributed to the following federal, regional, state, and local 

agencies, elected officials, and other interested parties for their review and comments. The 

document also is available for public viewing at public libraries and government centers along 

the corridor, as well as on the Project website (www.DC2RVArail.com). 

8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 Council on Environmental Quality 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 United States Department of Agriculture 

- Natural Resources Conservation Service 

- Wildlife Services 

 United States Department of Commerce, Ecology and Environmental Conservation Office 

 United States Department of Defense 

- United States Army Corps of Engineers 

 Norfolk District 

 Baltimore District

- Fort A.P. Hill 

- Fort Belvoir 

- Marine Corps Base Quantico 

 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Region 3 

 United States Department of Homeland Security 

- Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region III 

- United States Coast Guard, 5th Coast Guard District 

 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development 

 United States Department of the Interior 

- Bureau of Indian Affairs 

- National Park Service 

 American Battlefield Protection Program 

7 8
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 8-2 

 Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Battlefield 

 National Capital Region 

 Richmond National Battlefield 

- Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

- United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

 Virginia Field Office 

 United States Department of Transportation 

- Federal Aviation Administration 

- Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Division 

- Federal Transit Administration, Region 3 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency 

- Office of Federal Activities 

- National Environmental Policy Act Program Office, Region 3 

- National Environmental Policy Act Program Office, Region 4 

8.2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AGENCIES 

 Commonwealth Transportation Board 

 Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

- Division of Natural Heritage Resources 

- Division of Planning and Recreation Resources 

 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

- Air Division 

- Chesapeake Bay Program 

- Division of Water Quality, Office of Wetlands and Stream Protection 

- Erosion and Sediment Control 

- Northern Regional Office 

- Office of Environmental Impact Review 

- Piedmont Regional Office 

- Virginia Stormwater Management Program 

- Waste Division 

 Virginia Department of Forestry 

 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

 Virginia Department of Health 

 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

 Virginia Department of Transportation 

 Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

 Virginia Outdoors Foundation 

 Virginia Port Authority 
DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

 8-3 

8.3 OTHER STATE AGENCIES 

 North Carolina Department of Transportation 

 District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

8.4 REGIONAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

 Crater Planning District Commission/Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization 

 George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization 

 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments/National Capital Region 

Transportation Planning Board 

 National Capital Planning Commission 

 Northern Virginia Regional Commission 

 Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority 

 Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 

 Northern Virginia Transportation Commission 

 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission 

 Richmond Regional Planning District Commission/Richmond Regional Transportation 

Planning Organization 

8.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS 

 Arlington County 

 Caroline County 

 Chesterfield County 

 Dinwiddie County 

 Fairfax County 

 Hanover County 

 Henrico County 

 Prince William County 

 Spotsylvania County 

 Stafford County 

 City of Alexandria 

 City of Colonial Heights 

 City of Fairfax 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 8-4 

 City of Fredericksburg 

 City of Richmond 

 Town of Ashland 

 Town of Bowling Green 

 Town of Dumfries 

 Town of Quantico 

 Randolph-Macon College 

8.6 RAIL AND TRANSIT OPERATORS 

 Buckingham Branch Railroad Company 

 CSX Transportation 

 Fredericksburg Regional Transit 

 Greater Richmond Transit Company Transit System 

 National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

 Norfolk Southern 

 Virginia Railway Express 

 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

8.7 ELECTED OFFICIALS 

8.7.1 Federal Elected Officials 

United States Senator Tim Kaine 

United States Senator Mark. R. Warner 

United States Representative Robert J. Wittman, 1st Congressional District 

United States Representative Robert C. Scott, 3rd Congressional District 

United States Representative Donald A. McEachin, 4th Congressional District 

United States Representative Dave Brat, 7th Congressional District 

United States Representative Don Beyer, 8th Congressional District 

United States Representative Barbara Comstock, 10th Congressional District 

United States Representative Gerald E. Connolly, 11th Congressional District 

8.7.2 Commonwealth of Virginia Elected Officials 

Governor Terry McAuliffe 

Senator Ryan T. McDougle, 4th Senate District 

Senator Jennifer L. McClellan, 9th Senate District 
DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

 8-5 

Senator Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., 10th Senate District 

Senator Siobhan S. Dunnavant, 12th Senate District 

Senator Rosalyn R. Dance, 16th Senate District 

Senator Bryce E. Reeves, 17th Senate District 

Senator Richard H. Stuart, 28th Senate District 

Senator Adam P. Ebbin, 30th Senate District 

Senator Barbara A. Favola, 31st Senate District 

Senator Richard L. Saslaw, 35th Senate District 

Senator Scott A. Surovell, 36th Senate District 

Senator George L. Barker, 39th Senate District 

Delegate L. Mark Dudenhefer, 2nd House District 

Delegate William J. Howell, 28th House District 

Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter, 31st House District 

Delegate Vivian E. Watts, 39th House District 

Delegate David B. Albo, 42nd House District 

Delegate Mark D. Sickles, 43rd House District 

Delegate Paul E. Krizek, 44th House District 

Delegate Mark H. Levine, 45th House District 

Delegate Charniele L. Herring, 46th House District 

Delegate Luke Torian, 52nd House District 

Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr., 54th House District 

Delegate Hyland F. Fowler, Jr., 55th House District 

Delegate Riley E. Ingram, 62nd House District 

Delegate Betsy B. Carr, 69th House District 

Delegate Delores L. McQuinn, 70th House District 

Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne, 71st House District 

Delegate James P. Massie III, 72nd House District 

Delegate John M. O'Bannon III, 73rd House District 

Delegate Margaret B. Ransone, 99th House District 

8.7.3 Local Elected Officials 

Libby Garvey, Chairman, Arlington County Board of Supervisors 

Jeffery M. Sili, Chairman, Caroline County Board of Supervisors 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 8-6 

Steve A. Elswick, Chairman, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors 

Sharon Bulova, Chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 

Aubrey M. Stanley, Chairman, Hanover County Board of Supervisors 

Tyrone E. Nelson, Chairman, Henrico County Board of Supervisors 

Corey A. Stewart, Chairman, Prince William County Board of Supervisors 

Timothy J. McLaughlin, Chairman, Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors 

Robert Thomas, Chairman, Stafford County Board of Supervisors 

Mayor Allison Silberberg, City of Alexandria 

Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw, City of Fredericksburg 

Mayor Levar m. Stoney, City of Richmond 

Mayor James Foley, Town of Ashland 

Mayor Jason Satterwhite, Town of Bowling Green 

Mayor Kevin P. Brown, Town of Quantico 

8.8 POTENTIALLY IMPACTED SECTION 4(f) RESOURCE 

PROPERTY OWNERS 

 Arlington County Department of Parks and Recreation (Long Bridge Park and Mount 

Vernon Trail) 

 Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation (Gates Mill Park) 

 City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities (Dog Run 

Park at Carlyle) 

 City of Richmond Department of Public Works (Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park) 

 Hanover County Department of Parks and Recreation (Ashland Trolley Line) 

 Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School (School Fields) 

 National Park Service (George Washington Memorial Parkway) 

 National Park Service (Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park) 

 Prince William County Parks and Recreation (Veterans Memorial Park) 

 Town of Ashland (North Ashland Park, Railside Park, and Carter Park) 

 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Mattaponi Wildlife Management 

Area and Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary) 

8.9 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS 

DRPT will make the Draft EIS available to the public and other interested parties for their review 

and comment at various public locations distributed evenly and equitably along the entire 

DC2RVA corridor. Document viewing locations are listed in the following sections. 
DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

 8-7 

8.9.1 Libraries 

Alexandria Library – Kate Waller Barrett Branch 

717 Queen Street 

Alexandria 22314 

Alexandria Library – James M. Duncan Branch 

2501 Commonwealth Avenue 

Alexandria, VA 22301 

Alexandria Central Library/Charles E. Beatley, Jr. Central Library 

5005 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

Arlington Central Library 

1015 North Quincy Street 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Arlington Public Library – Aurora Hills Branch 

7351 18th Street South 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Arlington Public Library – Columbia Pike Branch 

816 South Walter Reed Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204 

Ashland Branch/Richard S. Gillis Jr. Library 

201 South Railroad Avenue 

Ashland, VA 23005 

Bull Run Regional Library 

8501 Ashton Avenue 

Manassas, VA 20109 

Caroline Library, Inc. 

17202 Richmond Turnpike 

Milford, VA 22514 

Central Rappahannock Regional Library 

1201 Caroline Street 

Fredericksburg, VA 22401 

Central Rappahannock Regional Library— John Musante Porter Branch 

2001 Parkway Boulevard 

Stafford, VA 22554 

Central Rappahannock Regional Library – C. Melvin Snow Memorial Branch 

8740 Courthouse Road 

Spotsylvania, VA 22553 

Central Rappahannock Regional Library – Salem Church Branch 

2607 Salem Church Road 

Fredericksburg, VA 22407 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 8-8 

Chesterfield County Central Library 

9501 Lori Road 

Chesterfield, VA 23832 

Chesterfield County – Chester Branch Library 

11800 Centre Street 

Chester, VA 23831 

Chesterfield County – Ettrick-Matoaca Branch Library 

4501 River Road 

South Chesterfield, VA 23803-1732 

Chesterfield County – Meadowdale Branch Library 

4301 Meadowdale Boulevard 

North Chesterfield, VA 23234 

Chesterfield County – LaPrade Branch Library 

9000 Hull Street Road 

North Chesterfield, VA 23236 

Chinn Park Regional Library 

13065 Chinn Park Drive 

Prince William, VA 22192 

City of Fairfax Regional Library 

10360 North Street 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Colonial Heights Public Library 

1000 Yacht Basin Drive 

Colonial Heights, VA 23834 

Fairfield Area Branch Library 

1001 North Laburnum Avenue 

Henrico, VA 23223 

Fairfax County – John Marshall Library 

6209 Rose Hill Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

Fairfax County – Kingstowne Commons 

6500 Landsdowne Centre 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Hanover Branch Library 

7527 Library Drive 

Hanover, VA 23069 

Henrico County Public Library – Glen Allen Branch Library 

10501 Staples Mill Road 

Henrico, VA 23060 
DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

 8-9 

Henrico County Public Library – North Park 

8508 Franconia Road 

Henrico, VA 23227 

Henrico County Public Library – Libby Mill 

2100 Libbie Lake East Street 

Henrico, VA 23230 

Lorton Library 

9520 Richmond Highway 

Lorton, VA 22079 

Prince William Public Library – Dumfries Neighborhood Library 

18007 Dumfries Shopping Plaza 

Dumfries, VA 22026 

Prince William Public Library – Lake Ridge Neighborhood Library 

2239 Old Bridge Road 

Woodbridge, VA 22192 

Prince William Public Library – Potomac Community Library 

2201 Opitz Boulevard 

Woodbridge, VA 22191 

Quantico Base Library 

2040 Broadway Street 

Quantico, VA 22134 

Springfield – Richard Byrd Library 

7250 Commerce Street 

Springfield, VA 22150 

Richmond Public Library – Broad Rock Library 

4820 Old Warwick Road 

Richmond, VA 23224 

Richmond Public Library – East End Library 

1200 North 25th Street 

Richmond, VA 23223 

Richmond Public Library – Ginter Park Library 

1200 Westbrook Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23227 

Richmond Public Library – Hull Street Library 

1400 Hull Street 

Richmond, VA 23224 

Richmond Public Library – Main Library 

101 East Franklin Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 8-10 

Richmond Public Library – North Avenue Library 

2901 North Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23222 

Richmond Public Library – Westover Hills Library 

1408 Westover Hills Boulevard 

Richmond, VA 23225 

Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired 

397 Azalea Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23227 

Virginia Rehabilitation Center for the Blind and Vision Impaired 

401 Azalea Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23227 

8.9.2 Department of Rail and Public Transportation Offices 

Richmond Office Headquarters

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Northern Virginia Office

4975 Alliance Drive 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Office

198 Van Buren Street, Suite 300 

Herndon, VA 22170 

8.9.3 Government Centers 

Arlington County Courthouse Plaza 

2100 Clarendon Boulevard 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Caroline County Administration Building 

212 North Main Street 

Bowling Green, VA 22427 

Chesterfield County Government Offices 

9901 Lori Road 

Chesterfield, VA 23832 

City of Alexandria – City Hall 

301 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

City of Fredericksburg – City Hall 

715 Princess Anne Street 

Fredericksburg, VA 22401 
DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT EIS 

 8-11 

City of Richmond – City Hall 

900 East Broad Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Crater Planning District Commission 

1964 Wakefield Street 

Petersburg, VA 23805 

Dinwiddie County Planning Department 

14016 Boydton Plank Road 

Dinwiddie, VA 23841 

Fairfax County Government Center 

12000 Government Center Parkway 

Fairfax, VA 22035 

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 

406 Princess Anne Street 

Fredericksburg, VA 22401 

Hanover County Administration Building 

7516 County Complex Road 

Hanover, VA 23069 

Henrico County Eastern Government Center 

3820 Nine Mile Road 

Henrico, VA 23223 

Henrico County Western Government Center 

4301 East Parham Road 

Henrico, VA 23228 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

777 North Capital Street, NE 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20002 

Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 

3040 Williams Drive, Suite 200 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

Prince William County – Sudley North Government Center 

7987 Ashton Avenue 

Manassas, VA 20109 

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 

9211 Forest Hill Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23235 

Spotsylvania County – Marshall Center 

8800 Courthouse Road 

Spotsylvania, VA 22553 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 8-12 

Stafford County Government Center 

1300 Courthouse Road 

Stafford, VA 22554 

Town of Ashland – Town Hall 

101 Thompson Street 

Ashland, VA 23005 

Town of Dumfries – Town Hall 

17755 Main Street 

Dumfries, VA 22026 

Town of Quantico Municipal Office 

337 5th Avenue 

Quantico, VA 22134 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

LIST OF PREPARERS 9
 9-1 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

This Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in close coordination with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 

Personnel from these agencies who were instrumental in the management and preparation of this 

document and related technical studies are listed below. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Randy Brown Southeast High Speed Rail Project Manager FRA oversight, project guidance 

John Winkle, J.D. Transportation Industry Analyst / 

Environmental Protection Specialist FRA oversight, project guidance 

Jessie Fernandez-Gatti Community Planner FRA oversight, project guidance 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Jennifer L. Mitchell, AICP Master of Regional Planning 

Bachelor of Urban Planning 

20 years experience 

Director 

Peter Burrus M.A Business 

B.A. English 

25 years experience 

Chief of Rail 

Emily Stock, AICP Master of Planning 

B.S. Geology 

18 years experience 

Manager of Rail Planning; 

DC2RVA Project Manager 

Randy Selleck, AICP M.S. Urban and Regional Planning 

B.S. Geography 

16 years experience 

Rail Planning Project Manager; 

DC2RVA Deputy Project Manager – Planning 

Nick Ruiz Master of Urban and Regional Planning 

2 years of experience 

DC2RVA Rail Planner 

 

7 9 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 9-2 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Elizabeth Jordan, PhD Ph.D. Anthropology/Historical Archaeology 

M.A. Anthropology/Historical Archaeology 

B.A. Anthropology 

10 years (VDOT) experience 

NEPA Review 

Heather Williams M.S. Environmental Studies 

B.S. Environmental Science 

17 years experience 

NEPA Review 

Ryan Crisp Certified General 

9 years experience Right-of-Way/Relocation/Acquisition 

Michael Heflin Business Management/Marketing 

28 years (VDOT) experience Right-of-Way/Relocation/Acquisition 

Caron Smith Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser

28 years (appraisal) experience Right-of-Way/Relocation/Acquisition 

Richie Stuart B.S. Chemical Engineering 

4 years (VDOT ROW) experience Right-of-Way/Relocation/Acquisition 

Mark Comer B.S. Civil Engineering 

25 years (VDOT) experience Utility Relocations 

Shane Lupo Associates of Science and Surveying 

3 years (VDOT) experience 

10 years with Telecommunications 

Utility Relocations 

The following consultants were involved in the preparation of this Tier II Draft EIS, related 

technical reports, and conceptual engineering designs. A brief resume for each key consultant 

and his/her primary responsibility in the study are listed below. The names and titles of key staff 

are shown in bold. 

HDR 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

John Morton, PE M.S. Engineering Management 

B.S. Civil Environmental Engineering 

43 years experience 

Project Manager

National Director of Rail Environmental 

Programs 

Carey Burch, AICP M.S. Urban and Regional Planning 

B.S. Forest and Wildlife Resource Management 

40 years experience 

Deputy Project Manager, 

Corridor Planning Lead, 

Purpose & Need Statement, 

Alternatives Analysis, Public Outreach 

Megan (Eley) Hunter M.A. Publishing 

B.A. English/Creative Writing 

11 years experience 

Strategic Communications 

Manager

Public Involvement Manager

Megan O’Reilly M.A. Global Communications 

B.A. Public Relations 

9 years experience 

Public Involvement Manager 

Karen Harrington, PE B.S. Biological Systems Engineering 

18 years experience 

Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS)/Mapping Manager 
 L I S T O F P R E P A R E R S 

 9-3 

HDR 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Bridget Ward Master of GIS and Cartography 

B.A. Environmental Studies and Geography 

7 years experience 

GIS Analyst 

Andrew Zimba B.S. Industrial and Systems Engineering 

20 years experience 

GIS Analyst 

Laura (Meadows) Mausolf M.A. Museum Studies 

B.A. History 

4 years experience 

GIS Analyst 

Benjamin Camras Master of Urban and Regional Planning, GIS 

B.A. Geography & Sociology 

8 years experience 

GIS Analyst 

Mark Hemphill M.A. History 

B.A. History 

23 years experience 

Operations Analysis, Simulation, and 

Service Design Lead 

Matt Van Hattem B.A. English Language and Literature 

17 years experience 

Rail Operations Planning and Analysis 

Kevin Johns, EIT M.E. Civil Engineering 

B.E. Computer Engineering 

11 years experience 

Operations Modeling 

Rick Degman B.S. Transportation 

36 years experience 

Operations Modeling 

Leandra Cleveland B.S. Environmental Science/Planning 

18 years experience 

Alternatives Development and Analysis 

Tim Casey, INCE B.S. Biological and Life Sciences 

A.S. General Science 

31 years experience 

Noise and Vibration Analysis 

Elliott Dick, INCE B.S. Noise and Vibration Control 

23 years experience 

Noise and Vibration Analysis 

Jennifer Brown M.S. Environmental Project Management 

B.A. Environmental Policy 

11 years experience 

Natural Resource Analysis 

Carey Wilson, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

19 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Engineering 

Lead 

Robert Cone, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

44 years experience 

Alternatives Development and Screening 

Engineering Quality Control (QC) 

Chad Chandler, PE M.S. Transportation Systems and 

Management Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

15 years experience 

Alternatives Development and Screening 

Engineering, Station Analysis 

Suzanne Baumgardt Bachelor of Architecture 

23 years experience 

Station Conceptual Design and Site 

Layout 

Penley Chiang Master of Architecture 

Bachelor of Arts 

14 years experience 

Station Conceptual Design and Site 

Layout 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 9-4 

HDR 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Chris Riviere, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

29 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Track Design 

Kevin LaGreca, PE B.S. Civil/Construction Engineering 

A.S. Civil/Construction Engineering 

18 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Track Design 

Claudia Walsh, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

21 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Roadway Lead 

Daniel Baum, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

18 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Roadway 

Pieter Dahmen, PE M.S. Agricultural Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

40 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Drainage/ 

Stormwater Management Lead 

Julie Hicks B.S. Civil Engineering 

18 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Drainage/ 

Stormwater Management 

Tim Kearney, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

24 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area–Utilities Lead 

Kathleen Staskin, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

22 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Utilities 

Adeel Mysorewala, PE, 

LEED AP 

B.S. Civil Engineering, Structures 

14 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Structures and 

Bridges (Rail) Lead 

Kennedy Kyei-Mensah, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

8 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Structures and 

Bridges (Rail) 

Michael Mo, PE M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

27 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Structures and 

Bridges (Highway) Lead 

Aaron Zdinak M.S. Geotechnical Engineering 

B.S. Civil/Structural Engineering 

24 years experience 

Geotechnical Lead 

Ryan Tinsley, PG M.S. Engineering Geology 

B.S. Geology, Engineering Geosciences 

17 years experience 

Geotechnical 

Anthony DiGirolamo, PE B.S. Civil Engineering, Transportation 

24 years experience 

Northern Virginia Area – Track Quality 

Control (QC) 

Steve Carroll, EIT B.S. Civil Engineering 

40 years experience 

Capital Costs 

Steve Lorek, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

20 years experience 

CSXT Liaison–Corridor Lead 

Kevin Keller, PG M.S. Hydrogeology 

B.S. Geology 

35 years experience 

CSXT Liaison 
 L I S T O F P R E P A R E R S 

 9-5 

Moffatt & Nichol 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Michael Knott, PE M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

41 years experience 

Engineering Lead – Conceptual 

Engineering 

C. Wayne Hyatt, Jr., PE, 

PLS 

33 years experience Engineering Lead – Preliminary 

Engineering 

Pierce Homer Master of Public Affairs 

B.A. Philosophy 

36 years experience 

Intergovernmental Relations 

C. Eric Burke, PE M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

24 years experience 

Richmond Area – Conceptual & 

Preliminary Engineering 

Jose Avendano, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

27 years experience 

Richmond Area – Conceptual & 

Preliminary Engineering 

Don Darity B.S. Civil Engineering 

30 years experience 

Richmond Area – Traffic Engineering 

Will Garner, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

46 years experience 

Richmond Area – Traffic Engineering 

Studies and Design 

Andrew Hayes M.E. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

5 years experience 

Richmond Area – Traffic Engineering 

Terry Coker, PE M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

34 years experience 

Richmond Area – Structures Design 

Jean Paul Martucci B.S. Civil Engineering 

4 years experience 

Richmond Area – Track Design 

Gray Modlin, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

11 years experience 

Richmond Area – Track Design 

James Todd, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

16 years experience 

Richmond Area – Track Design 

Jeremy Kraft, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

16 years experience 

Richmond Area – Civil/Roadway Design 

Jeff Reck, PE M.S. Hydrology and Water Resource Science 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

24 years experience 

Richmond Area – Hydraulics/Hydrology 

and Drainage 

Leah Young, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

14 years experience 

Richmond Area – Hydraulics/Hydrology 

and Drainage 

Trent Huffman, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

24 years experience 

Richmond Area – Utilities 

Jason Field, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

23 years experience 

Richmond Area – Grade Crossings, 

Safety 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 9-6 

Parsons 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Monica Barrow Master of Business Administration 

B.S. Public Policy & Management/English 

31 years experience 

Service Development Planning 

Lead 

Stephen Walter, CEP M.S. Environmental Studies 

B.S. Environmental Conservation 

39 years experience 

Environmental Lead 

Elizabeth Hynes, AICP 

CTP, LEED AP 

Master of Regional Planning – Land Use and 

Environmental Planning 

B.A. Art History 

17 years experience 

Deputy Environmental Lead; 

Document Manager 

Faisal Hameed, PhD, PE Ph.D. Civil Engineering 

M.S. Civil & Environmental Engineering 

M.S. Technical Management 

B.S. Chemical Engineering 

16 years experience 

Technical Reviews 

Margaret Moore M.A. Public Administration 

M.S. Environmental Science 

B.A. History 

14 years experience 

Community Impact Assessment; Land 

Use, Agricultural Lands, Section 4(f), 

Section 6(f), and Parks 

Michelle Fall, AICP M.S. Environmental Engineering 

B.S. Biology 

23 years experience 

Section 4(f) Resources, Parks, Visual, 

Construction Impacts 

Susan Bupp, RPA M.A. Anthropology 

B.A. Anthropology 

41 years experience 

Cultural Resources 

Rachael Mangum, RPA M.A. Anthropology 

B.A. Anthropology 

17 years experience 

Cultural Resources 

Anthony Pakeltis, AICP Master of Urban Planning and Policy 

Bachelor of Urban Planning 

B.S. Environmental Design 

27 years experience 

Air Quality, Energy, Indirect and 

Cumulative Effects 

Luke Eggering, PWS M.S. Biology 

B.S. Fish and Wildlife Management 

28 years experience 

Natural Resources, Wetlands, and 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Lead 

Joel Budnik, PMC M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences 

B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Management 

20 years experience 

Natural Resources, Wetlands, 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Rebecca Chojnacki B.S. Biotechnology & Biology 

12 years experience 

Natural Resources, Hazardous Materials 

Katherine Astroth M.S. Biology 

B.S. Biology 

8 years experience 

Wetlands 

Rebecca Porath M.S. Zoology 

B.S. Fish and Wildlife Management 

20 years experience 

Wetlands 
 L I S T O F P R E P A R E R S 

 9-7 

Parsons 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Lindsey Postaski M.S. Biology 

B.S. Environmental Science 

7 years experience 

Wetlands 

Margaret Rockwell B.S. Environmental Science 

6 years experience 

Wetlands 

William Heming, Capt. 

USCG (Retired) 

B.S. General Engineering 

Postgraduate Training, Nuclear Technology NSS 

SAVANNAH 

46 years experience 

Agency Coordination 

J. Stuart Tyler, PE M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.A. Environmental Science 

36 years experience 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Joseph Steindam Master of City and Regional Planning 

B.A. Political Science 

3 years experience 

Document Support 

Joseph Springer, AICP Master Degree Studies, 

Urban Planning 

B.A. English and Art History 

25 years experience 

Traffic and Transportation Analysis 

Jennifer Wiley Kleinman, EIT B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering 

12 years experience 

Traffic and Transportation Analysis 

Patrick Porzillo, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

31 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Engineering Lead 

Dan Sengupta, PE, SE M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

24 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Structures 

Design 

Frank Blachly, PE B.S., Civil Engineering, Transportation Emphasis 

40 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Rail Design 

David Pell, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

9 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Track Design 

Clifford Roberts, PE Bachelor of Engineering 

33 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Roadway & Civil 

Engineering Lead 

Zachery Fitzwater, EIT B.S. Civil Engineering, Construction and Highway 

Design 

4 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Grade Crossing 

Analysis and Alignments 

Brian C. Smith, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

18 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – 

Drainage/Stormwater Management 

Design 

Bhup Adhikari, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

18 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Stormwater 

Management 

Byron Williams B.S. Civil Engineering Technology, Utility, 

Transportation, and Structural Design 

5 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Utilities 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 9-8 

Parsons 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Kwong Tse, PE M.E. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

36 years experience 

Central Virginia Area – Bridges 

Randy Walker, PE B.S. Civil Engineering 

37 years experience 

Constructability 

Andrew Metz Master of Urban Planning and Policy 

B.A. Geography 

8 years experience 

Station Operating and Maintenance 

Costs 

Elizabeth Koos 19 years experience EIS Technical Editor 

Dovetail Cultural Resources Group 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Kerri Barile, Ph.D., RPA Ph.D. Anthropology & Architectural History 

M.A. Anthropology 

Masters Certificate in Museum Management 

B.A. Historic Preservation 

25 years experience 

Cultural Resources Lead 

Emily Calhoun, RPA M.A. Anthropology 

B.S. Biological Sciences 

10 years experience 

Cultural Resources 

Heather Dollins Staton Master of Historic Preservation 

Masters Certificate in Transportation Systems 

Management 

B.A. Historic Preservation 

10 years experience 

Cultural Resources 

Cordell & Crumley Inc. 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Deborah Cordell B.S. Communication Arts 

A.A. Arts 

29 years experience 

Public Involvement Manager 

Janette Crumley B.S. Accounting 

29 years experience 

Public Involvement Manager 

Deborah DeMarco Master of Tourism Administration 

B.S. Secondary Education and Marketing Education 

28 years experience 

Public Involvement Specialist 
 L I S T O F P R E P A R E R S 

 9-9 

Mary Peters Consulting 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Mary Peters B.A. Management 

31 years experience 

Executive Advisor 

Novak Transportation Planning Services, LLC. 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

William J. Novak M.A. Geography 

B.A. Geography 

44 years experience 

QC / Technical Review 

Rice Associates 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Charlie Rice B.A. Economics and Business Management 

31 years experience 

Surveying 

RSG 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

William Woodford M.S. Civil Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

36 years experience 

Ridership Forecasting 

Transportation Analytic Services 

Name Qualifications Primary Responsibility 

Jack Fuller Master of Business Administration, Transportation 

and Computer Science 

B.S. Mathematics 

36 years experience 

Operations Modeling and Analysis 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 10
 10-1 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

AAR Association of American Railroads 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACS American Community Survey 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADT Average Daily Traffic 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

APTA American Public Transportation Association 

AQI Air Quality Index 

AREMA American Railway Engineers and Maintenance of Way Association 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

ATC Automatic Train Control 

ATR Above Top of Rail 

BBR Buckingham Branch Railroad 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BOD Basis of Design 

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand 

BRT Bus Rapid Transit 

BTU British Thermal Units 

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CBD Central Business District 

CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

CD Collector-Distributor 

10 7 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 10-2 

CEDAR Comprehensive Environmental Data and Reporting System 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Information System 

CFS Cubic Feet per Second 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 Methane 

CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision 

CLRP Constrained Long Range Plan 

CNE Common Noise Environment 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COI Compounds of Interest 

COG Council of Governments 

CP Control Point 

CRMP Virginia Coast Resources Management Program 

CSS Cab Signal System 

CSXT CSX Transportation (Railroad Company) 

CTC Centralized Traffic Control 

CTB Commonwealth Transportation Board 

CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan 

CU Cataloging Unit 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan 

dB Decibel 

dBA Decibels (A-weighted scale) 

DC2RVA Washington, D.C. to Richmond High Speed Rail Project 

DDOT District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

DHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

DPU City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities 

DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

 10-3 

EA Environmental Assessment 

ECG East Coast Greenway 

EDR Environmental Data Resources 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EMS Emergency Medical Service 

EO Executive Order 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System 

ES Engineering Stationing 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESC Erosion and Sediment Control 

ESRI Environmental Science Research Institute 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAMPO Fredericksburg Metropolitan Planning Organization 

FAQ Frequently Asked Question 

FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

FCPA Fairfax County Park Authority 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act 

FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary 

Report 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FSC Federal Species of Concern 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPH Gallons per Hour 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 10-4 

GPS Global Positioning Satellites 

GRTC Greater Richmond Transit Company 

HABS Historic American Building Survey 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

HC Hydrocarbons 

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis System 

HFC Hydrofluorocarbons 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System 

HP Horsepower 

HPT Horsepower per Ton 

HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site 

HSGT High Speed Ground Transportation 

HSR High Speed Rail 

HSRSP High Speed Rail Strategic Plan 

HOT High Occupancy Toll 

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle 

HU Hydrologic Unit 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

ITS Intelligent Transportation System 

JPA Joint Permit Application 

Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level 

LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative 

LEP Limited English Proficiency 

Leq Equivalent Sound Level 

Leq(h) Equivalent Sound Level for a 1-Hour Period 

LID Low Impact Development 

LOD Limits of Disturbance 

LOS Level of Service 

LOV Low Occupancy Vehicle 

LRT Light Rail Transit 

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan 
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

 10-5 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MAS Maximum Authorized Speed 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCBQ Marine Corps Base Quantico 

Mg/m3 Milligrams per Meter Cubed 

MINES Mines Master Index File 

MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

MP Mile Post 

MPH Miles per Hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MRDS Mineral Resources Data System 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria 

NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign 

NEC Northeast Corridor 

NECIP Northeast Corridor Improvement Project 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHL National Historic Landmark 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHR Natural Heritage Resources 

NHTS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 10-6 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPL National Priorities List (Superfund) 

NPS National Park Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NS Norfolk Southern Railroad 

NVRC Northern Virginia Regional Commission 

NVRPA Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority 

NVTA Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 

NVTC Northern Virginia Transportation Commission 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

O3 Ozone 

O&M Operating and Maintenance 

O/D Origin/Destination 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PDC Planning District Commission 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 μm in Diameter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 μm in Diameter 

PMT Passenger Miles of Travel 

ppm Parts per Million 

PPV Peak Particle Velocity 

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

PRTC Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission 

PTC Positive Train Control 

R2HR Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project 
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

 10-7 

R2R Richmond to Raleigh High Speed Rail Project 

RATPO Richmond Area Transportation Planning Organization 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System 

RF&P Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac (Railroad Company) 

RMA Resource Management Area 

RMS Root Mean Square 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RPA Resource Protection Area 

RPO Rural Planning Organization 

RRPDC Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users 

SCC Virginia State Corporation Commission – Division of Utility and Railroad 

Safety 

SDP Service Development Plan 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail 

SEL Sound Exposure Level 

SF Square Feet 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SOV Single Occupant Vehicle 

SOX Sulfur Oxides 

STB U.S. Surface Transportation Board 

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

SWM Stormwater Management 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone 

TDM Transportation Demand Management 

TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century 

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 10-8 

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TNM FHWA Traffic Noise Model 

TOD Transit Oriented Development 

TPC Train Performance Calculator 

TRB Transportation Planning Board 

TSM Transportation System Management 

TRIS Toxic Release Inventory System 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDOI United States Department of the Interior 

USDOJ United States Department of Justice 

U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

USM Unified Stream Methodology 

UST Underground Storage Tank 

UXO Universal Crossover 

VARTF Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 

VAU Visual Assessment Unit 

V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio 

VDA Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

VdB Vibration Decibel 

VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

Virginia DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

VDF Virginia Department of Forestry 

VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation 

VEC Virginia Employment Commission 

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

VLR Virginia Landmarks Registry 
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

 10-9 

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

VOF Virginia Outdoors Foundation 

VPD Vehicles per Day 

VRE Virginia Railway Express 

VSMP Virginia Stormwater Management Program 

VSTP Virginia 2035 Surface Transportation Plan 

VWPP Virginia Water Protection Permit 

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

W&OD Washington & Old Dominion 

WOUS Waters of the United States 

WQS Water Quality Standards 

μg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter 

2MT 2 Main Track 

3MT 3 Main Track 

4MT 4 Main Track 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY 11 USED TERMS
 11-1 

GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

A 

Abatement: Reduction; often used to describe noise mitigation. 

Accessibility: The ease with which a site or facility may be reached by passengers and others 

necessary to the facility’s intended function. Also, the extent to which a facility is usable by 

persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users. 

Adverse: Negative or detrimental. 

Affected Environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic setting potentially affected 

by one or more of the alternatives under consideration. 

Air Pollution: A general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the 

quality of the atmosphere. 

Alignment: The horizontal and vertical route of a transportation corridor or path. 

Alluvial Communities: Habitat of variable vegetation type that has developed in an area with a 

stream and a well-developed floodplain. The terms "alluvial" and "riparian" are synonymous and 

imply overbank flooding events. 

Alluvium: A term applied to sediments deposited in a streambed, on a floodplain, a delta, or at 

the base of a mountain during comparatively recent geologic time. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): Federal regulation establishing legal 

requirements for accessibility for those with disabilities. 

Amplitude: The magnitude of a periodic wave; also describes the strength or intensity of a signal 

that travels in wave form, such as a radio signal. 

Aquifer: Subsurface geologic unit (rock or sediment) that contains and transmits groundwater. 

Area of Potential Effect (APE): The area along the project right-of-way potentially affected by 

construction and operation of the Project; for archaeological properties, considered to be the area 

of ground proposed to be disturbed during construction of the undertaking, including grading, 

cut-and-fill, easements, staging areas, utility relocation, borrow pits, and biological mitigation 

areas; for historic architecture, considered to be the proposed construction footprint and 

properties near the undertaking where the undertaking would result in a substantial change from 

the historic use, access, or noise and vibration levels that were present 50 years ago, or during the 

period of significance of a property, if different; and for paleontological resources, considered to 

be a zone 250 feet on both sides of the right-of-way for a given alternative and within 0.5 mile of 

any potential facilities, including potential stations. 

11 7 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-2 

Artifacts: Objects made by people, including tools such as projectile points, scrapers, and 

grinding implements, waste products from making flaked stone tools (debitage), and nonutilitarian artifacts (beads, ornaments, ceremonial items, and rock art). 

At-Grade: At ground surface level; used to describe roadways, river crossings, and track 

alignments. 

Attainment: A condition where a pollutant conforms to or shows levels at or below one or more 

of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

A-Weighted Sound Level: A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the 

response of the human ear so it describes the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a 

noise source. 

B 

Ballasted Track: Railways installed over a specific type of crushed rock that is graded to support 

heavily loaded rolling stock. 

Ballastless Track: Railways installed on concrete slabs for support. 

Barrier Offset Distance: The lateral distance from the centerline of the track to the face of the 

barrier, trackside, or other roadside feature. 

Barrier: A device intended to contain or redirect an errant vehicle by providing a physical 

limitation through which a vehicle would not typically pass. 

Benthic: Located on the bottom of a body of water or in the bottom sediments, or pertaining to 

bottom-dwelling organisms. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods designed to minimize adverse effects to the 

environment. Examples of BMPs include practices for erosion and sedimentation controls, 

watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, rice straw bales, and sediment basins. 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The quantity of oxygen used by a mixed population of 

microorganisms in the oxidation of organic matter. 

Biodiversity: The variety and abundance of species, their genetic composition, and the 

communities, ecosystems, and landscapes in which they occur. 

Biological Resources: Plant and wildlife species, terrestrial and aquatic habitats (including 

jurisdictional waters), and habitats of concern (including sensitive plant communities, critical 

habitat, core recovery areas, mitigation banks, and wildlife corridors). 

Biotic Integrity: Condition of the living things in the natural community. 

British Thermal Unit: See BTU. 

BTU: British thermal unit, equal to the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree 

Fahrenheit at 1 atmosphere of pressure. 

Buttressing: An action or structure that provides support or stability. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-3 

C 

Capacity: (1) The maximum number of trains that can be moved in each direction over a specified 

section of track in a 24-hour period. (2) The maximum rate of flow at which persons or vehicles 

can be reasonably expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a 

specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Expressed as 

vehicles per hour or persons per hour. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere; fossil 

fuel combustion emits significant quantities of CO2. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that is formed as a product of the 

incomplete combustion of carbon and is emitted directly by automobiles and trucks. 

Catenary Wire: A suspended (overhead) wire system that supplies power from a central power 

source to an electric vehicle such as a train. 

Choice Passenger: A traveler that has more than one modal option and is making an informed 

choice to use the passenger rail service. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA): The law that defines the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the 

stratospheric ozone (O3) layer. The CAA protects the general public from exposure to airborne 

contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. 

Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA): The primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s 

surface waters, including wetlands. The CWA regulates discharges and spills of pollutants, 

including hazardous materials, to surface waters and groundwater. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A compilation of the general and permanent rules of the 

executive departments and agencies of the federal government as published in the Federal 

Register. The code is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. 

Cofferdam: Watertight enclosure from which water is pumped to expose the bottom of a body of 

water and allow construction. 

Community Cohesion: The degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their 

neighborhood, a level of commitment to the community, or an association with neighbors, 

groups, and institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. 

Concourse: Area for accommodating patrons at a high-speed rail station. 

Congestion Management Plan: A planning document that addresses strategies for reducing 

traffic congestion. 

Connectivity: The degree of “connectedness” of a transportation system, such as a transit 

network, and the ease with which passengers can move from one point to another within the 

network or points outside the network. 

Conservation Easement: An easement that transfers property development rights to another 

entity, such as the local jurisdiction or an agricultural protection organization; the land remains 

in private ownership and may be farmed, but it may not be developed with urban uses. See also 

Easement. 

Construction: Any activity that directly alters the environment, excluding surveying or mapping. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-4 

Cooperating Agency: Any agency invited by the lead federal agency that has agreed to participate 

in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process and has legal jurisdiction over, or 

technical expertise regarding, environmental impacts associated with a proposed action. 

Corridor: A broad geographical band that follows a general directional flow connecting major 

sources of trips that may contain several streets, highways, railroads, and transit route 

alignments. 

Cowardin Classification System: A comprehensive classification system of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats developed for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1979. 

Under this system, wetlands are of two basic types: coastal (also known as tidal or estuarine 

wetlands) and inland (also known as non-tidal, freshwater, or palustrine wetlands). 

Criteria Pollutants: Pollutants for which federal and state air quality standards have been 

established: CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), O3, particulate matter with a 

diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

(PM2.5), and lead (Pb). 

Critical Habitat: Designated areas that provide suitable habitat for federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, and in which are the geographical locations and physical features essential 

to conservation of a particular species 

Crossover: Two turnouts with track between, connecting two nearby and usually parallel tracks, 

allowing a train on one track to cross over to the other. 

Cultural Resources: Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, 

living and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. 

Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects 

associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events. 

Cumulative Effects: The incremental consequences of a proposed action in addition to other past 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the same resources. Other actions in the 

project area include other highway projects and residential, commercial, and institutional 

development. 

Cumulative Impact: An impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Cut and Fill: Construction technique involving excavation or grading followed by placement and 

compaction of fill material. 

Cut Slope: A slope that is shaped by excavation or grading. See also Fill Slope. 

D 

Datum: A reference from which measurements are made for establishing horizontal and vertical 

control. 

Decibel (dB): A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity. 

Detention Pond: A pond designed to temporarily store and slowly release the runoff that it 

receives. 

Dewatering: The process of removing water from an area or substance, such as fill material. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-5 

Digital Terrain Model: A three-dimensional model of digital surfaces of topographic features. 

Disturbance: A discrete natural or human-induced event that causes a change in the condition of 

an ecological system. 

Dry Utility: A wire, cable, pipeline, and support facility used to convey electricity, natural gas, 

gaseous chemicals, telecommunications, cable television, or other non-liquid products. 

E 

Easement: An interest in land owned by another individual or organization that entitles its holder 

to a specific limited use. 

Ecosystem: An interconnected network of living organisms, including people, and their local 

physical environment; often viewed as an ecological unit. 

Effect: A change in the condition or function of an environmental resource or environmental 

value as a result of human activity. 

Emergent: (1) Arising naturally; (2) Vegetation rooted in periodically or continuously inundated 

substrate but with a portion of the plant extending above the water. 

Eminent Domain: A jurisdiction or agency’s legal right to take private property for public use in 

exchange for fair compensation. 

Emissions Budget: The part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies the allowable 

emissions levels, mandated by the NAAQS, for certain pollutants emitted from mobile, 

stationary, and area sources. The emissions levels are used for meeting emission reduction 

milestones, attainment, or maintenance demonstrations. 

Endangered Species: Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as 

being in danger of or threatened with extinction throughout all or most of its range. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Documentation required by NEPA for certain actions 

"significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." An EIS is a decision-making tool 

that presents detailed analysis of a proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

EIS presents the project’s potential effects—both beneficial and adverse—and any mitigation 

measures to reduce adverse effects. 

Environmental Justice: Presidential Executive Order (EO) 12898 requires federal agencies to 

ensure that their actions (or actions they oversee) do not disproportionately discriminate against 

(impact) minority populations and low-income populations. 

Erosion: Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or 

wind. 

Ethnicity: A grouping or categorization of people based on shared cultural traits such as ancestral 

origin, language, custom, or social attitude. 

Eutrophication: The process by which lakes gradually age and become more productive. It 

normally takes thousands of years to progress; however, humans, through their various cultural 

activities, have greatly accelerated this process in many lakes. Cultural or anthropogenic 

"eutrophication" is water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-6 

F 

Farmland of Local Importance: Farmlands important to the local agricultural community, as 

determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee. See also 

Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland. 

Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmlands that are similar to prime farmlands but are less 

valuable because they have steeper slopes, less ability to retain moisture in the soil, or other 

characteristics that limit their use. To qualify as Farmland of Statewide Importance, a property 

must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the previous 4 years. 

Fauna: Animals characteristic of a region, period, or special environment. 

Feasible: Capable of being implemented. 

Fecundity: Fertility; the potential to be fruitful in offspring or vegetation. 

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Federal ESA): The federal ESA and subsequent 

amendments (Sections 7, 9, and 10) provide guidance for conserving federally listed species and 

the ecosystems upon which they depend. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): An agency within the United States Department of 

Transportation (U.S. DOT) that administers financial assistance programs and regulates the 

operation and safety of freight and passenger rail throughout the United States. 

Feeder Route: Branch routes that feed into main (arterial) routes. 

Fill Slope: A slope shaped by the placement and compaction of loose fill material, which may be 

reused from elsewhere on the construction site or imported. 

Fiscally or Financially Constrained Plans: Plans that are limited by the foreseen availability of 

project funding in a region. 

Floodplain: The portion of a river or stream valley, adjacent to the channel, which is covered with 

water when the river or stream overflows its banks at flood stage. 

Floodway: A large-capacity channel constructed to divert floodwaters safely through or around 

population areas. 

Flyover: A bridge that carries one road or rail alignment aerially over another. 

Footprint: The area covered by a facility or affected by construction activities. 

Full Parcel Acquisition: A permanent taking of a parcel of land as part of land acquisition for a 

project. 

G 

General Conformity Rule: Federal, state, tribal, and local governments work in air quality 

nonattainment or maintenance areas to ensure that federal actions conform to the initiatives 

established in the applicable SIP or tribal implementation plan. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): An information management system designed to store 

and analyze data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-7 

Grade Crossing: The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an 

intersection of two or more highways; an intersection of two railroads. 

Grade, Gradient: Slope changes in elevation, defined in percentage, as feet of rise in 100 feet. 

Grade-Separated: At different elevations; on separate levels. 

Greenhouse Gases (GHG): A class of air pollutants believed to contribute to the greenhouse global 

warming effect, including nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Groundwater: Naturally occurring water that moves through the ground and underlying rock at 

a depth of several feet to several hundred feet. 

Growth Inducement: Contribution to the rate or extent of development in an area. 

Guideway: A track or riding surface that supports and physically guides transit vehicles specially 

designed to travel exclusively on it. 

H 

Habitat: An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by 

animals for a particular purpose (e.g., roosting habitat or breeding habitat). 

Hazardous Materials: Any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or 

chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and 

safety, or the environment, if released. 

Hazardous Waste: A hazardous material that is no longer of use and will be disposed of. 

Hazardous waste is regulated by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 

Headway: The time between buses, trains, or other transit vehicles at a given point. For example, 

a 15-minute headway means that one bus arrives every 15 minutes. 

Herbaceous: Plants that have little or no woody tissue. Herbaceous plants typically survive for 

only a single growing season. 

Heritage Resources: An alternate term for cultural resources used in some planning documents. 

See Cultural Resources. 

High-Occupancy Toll Lanes (HOT): Designated travel lanes that are utilized by high-occupancy 

vehicles (HOVs), buses, and tolled vehicles carrying less than noted high-occupancy levels. 

High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV): Designated travel lanes that require two or more 

occupants per vehicle. Future regional plans anticipate occupancy requirement to be three (HOV3+). 

Hydrocarbons: Various organic compounds, including methane, emitted principally from the 

storage, handling, and combustion of fossil fuels. 

I 

Impact: A change in the condition or function of an environmental resource or environmental 

value as a result of human activity. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-8 

Impervious Surface: Surface covered by impenetrable materials, such as parking lots and 

buildings, which increases the potential for water runoff and reduces the potential for 

groundwater recharge. 

Independent Utility: A project is said to have independent utility if it will provide functional 

improvements that can stand alone and serve a major purpose, even if no other improvements 

are made in the region. 

Indigenous Species: A native species; any plant or animal species that occurs naturally in a 

wilderness area. 

Indirect Effects: Impacts on the environment resulting from the primary impact of the proposed 

action but occurring later in time or farther removed in distance, although still reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Infrastructure: The facilities required for a societal function or service (e.g., transportation and 

utility infrastructure). 

Insertion Loss: The actual noise-level reduction at a specific receiver due to construction of a noise 

barrier or some other intervention between the noise source (e.g., traffic) and the receiver. 

In-situ: In the original or natural position. 

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS): The application of advanced technologies to improve 

the efficiency and safety of transportation systems. 

Intermittent Stream: A stream that flows only during part of the year. 

Intermodal Relationships: Relationships between transportation modes. An example of a mode 

is bus mass transit. 

Intermodal Station: A transit station for more than one mode of transportation. 

Intermodal: Transportation that involves more than one mode (e.g., walk, bike, auto, transit, taxi, 

train, bus, and air) during a single journey. 

Invasive Species: A plant, animal, or other organism (1) that is non-native (or alien) to the 

ecosystem under consideration and (2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic 

or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

Inversion: A region where atmospheric temperature increases rather than decreases with height, 

suppressing atmospheric mixing and tending to trap pollutants near the ground surface where 

their effects on health and materials are greater. 

Investment-Grade Ridership Forecast: Ridership forecast that is sufficiently detailed and reliable 

to permit responsible decision making about capital expenditures. 

Isolated Wetlands: Non-jurisdictional wetlands. Wetlands that are not subject to CWA 

regulation. 

J 

Jurisdictional Determination: A written statement issued by the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) that identifies areas within a discrete project area that are subject to CWA 

regulation. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-9 

Jurisdictional Wetlands: Wetlands that are subject to CWA regulation. 

K 

Key Viewpoints: Viewpoints that represent the range of visual character and visual quality in the 

project viewshed, which is the portion of the surrounding landscape within which a project is 

potentially visible. 

Kilovolt: A unit of potential equal to a thousand volts. 

Kiss-and-Ride: Facility for private vehicles to drop off or pick up rail patrons. 

L 

Lead (Pb): A stable element that can have toxic effects and that persists and accumulates in the 

environment, humans, or animals. 

Lead Agency: The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or 

approving a project or action and is responsible for preparing environmental review documents 

in compliance with NEPA. 

Leq: The equivalent sound level, containing the same amount of sound energy as the varying 

sound level measured over a specified time period. 

Leq(h), dBA: Equivalent or average noise level for the noisiest hour, expressed in A-weighted 

decibels. 

Level of Service (LOS): Operating conditions within a stream of traffic describing safety, traffic 

interruptions, speed, freedom to maneuver, comfort, and convenience. Six levels of service are 

defined, designated A through F, with A representing the best conditions and F the worst. 

Link: Traffic term referring to one portion of a longer trip in the transportation system. 

Lithic: Pertaining to or describing a stone tool or artifact. 

Logarithmic Scale: A measurement in which the ratio of successive intervals is not equal to 1 

(which is typical for linear scales) but is some common factor larger than the previous interval (a 

typical ratio is 10, so that the marks on the scale read: 1, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, etc). Logarithmic 

scales are useful for graphing values that have a very large range. 

Logical Termini: Rational endpoints for consideration of transportation improvements and for 

review of environmental impacts. 

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): A document resulting from regional or statewide 

collaboration and consensus on a region or state’s transportation system, and serving as the 

defining vision for the region’s or state’s transportation systems and services. In metropolitan 

areas, the plan indicates all of the transportation improvements scheduled for funding over the 

next 20 years. 

Longitudinal: A facility located parallel to and within highway or railway right-of-way. 

Low-Income Population: A low-income household is one where the median household income 

is below the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-10 

M 

Maintenance-of-Way: A repair and maintenance activity for a railway right-of-way and track, 

including tracks, roadways, buildings, signals, and communication and power facilities. 

Maintenance Siding: A dead-end track dedicated to park maintenance trains and connected to a 

passing track, never to the main line. 

Maintenance: An air basin that was formerly in nonattainment but now meets the established 

standards for that pollutant. See also Attainment and Nonattainment. 

Maintenance-of-Way Facility: A facility co-located with the heavy-maintenance facility with 

offices for inspection and maintenance staff and storage areas for essential equipment and 

materials, such as rail ballast, ties, sections of rail, overhead catenary system poles, and dieselpowered maintenance trains. 

Master Plan: A comprehensive planning document intended to guide the long-range growth and 

development of a community or region, or the long-term management and use of a parkland. 

Mean High-Water Mark: The elevation reached by the water surface at the mean (average) high 

water level (average high tide elevation or average flood elevation), often indicated by physical 

characteristics such as erosion, lines of vegetation, or changes in type of vegetation. 

Mesoscale: Describes regional air quality analysis. 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): An agency created and designated to carry out the 

transportation planning process on behalf of localities in urbanized areas with populations over 

50,000, comprising elected and appointed officials with an interest in or responsibility for 

transportation planning and programming in the metropolitan planning area. An MPO is 

responsible for the development of a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP), and other planning documents required to obtain federal funding 

for transportation projects within its metropolitan planning area. 

Microscale: Describes local air quality analysis. 

Minority Individuals: Members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan 

Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic origin), and Hispanic. 

Mitigation Bank: A large block of land that is preserved, restored, and enhanced for the purpose 

of mitigating for projects that take (disturb, injure, or kill) special-status species, wetlands, or 

otherwise vegetated biological communities. 

Mitigation: Action or measure undertaken to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse 

impacts of a project, practice, action, or activity. 

Mixed-Use Development: Development that incorporates residential and nonresidential uses. 

Mobile Source: (1) The mobile source-related pollutants are CO, HC, NOX, and particulate matter 

(PM10 and PM2.5). (2) Mobile sources include motor vehicles, aircraft, seagoing vessels, and other 

transportation modes. The mobile source related pollutants are CO, HC or volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), NOX, and small particulate matter (PM10). 

Modal: A transportation system defined on the basis of specific rights-of-way, technologies, and 

operational features. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-11 

Monitoring: The collection of information to determine the effects of resource management and 

to identify changing resource conditions or needs. 

Monoculture: The cultivation of a single product to the exclusion of other uses of land. 

N 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 1990 (NAAQS): Federal standards that set allowable 

concentrations and exposure limits for various pollutants. EPA developed the standards in 

response to a requirement of the CAA. Air quality standards have been established for the 

following six criteria pollutants: O3 (or smog), CO, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Pb, 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Federal legislation that establishes national 

policies and goals for the protection of the environment and requires federal agencies to consider 

the environmental impacts of major federal projects or decisions, to share information with the 

public, to identify and assess reasonable alternatives, to identify appropriate measures to mitigate 

potential impacts, and to coordinate efforts with other planning and environmental reviews 

taking place. Codified at: 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 4331 et seq.

National Priorities List (NPL): Also known as EPA's Superfund program. The NPL is a 

comprehensive list of the sites/facilities that have been evaluated using the Hazard Ranking 

System and have been found to pose a sufficient threat to human health and/or the environment 

to warrant cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 (CERCLA). EPA is responsible for updating and maintaining the NPL. 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX): A class of pollutant compounds that include NO2 and nitric oxide (NO), 

both of which are emitted by motor vehicles. See Criteria Pollutants. 

Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC): In accordance with Section 772 of the Federal Aid Policy Guide, 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has established noise standards. These standards 

include NAC, which are noise levels that represent a balancing of desired levels of noise with 

achievable levels. 

Nonattainment: A condition where one or more of the NAAQS for a pollutant have been violated. 

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution that collects from a wide area and cannot be traced to a 

single source. Examples include pesticides or fertilizers that wash into rivers or percolate through 

the soil into groundwater. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and Title 23, 

CFR, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, require the sponsoring agency to 

publish an NOI in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after the decision is made to prepare 

an EIS and before the scoping process for a proposed action. 

Noxious Weed: A plant that has been defined as a pest by law or regulation. 

NPL/Superfund List: A federal list of sites that have been identified as posing an immediate public 

health hazard and where an immediate response is necessary. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-12 

O 

Ordinary High-Water Mark: The line on the shore of a body of water established by the 

fluctuation of water levels. 

Ozone (O3): Unstable blue gas with a pungent odor, formed principally in secondary reactions 

involving VOCs, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. 

P 

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM): Wetlands characterized by erect, herbaceous vegetation 

present for most of the growing season (e.g., marshes, wet meadows, fens, sloughs, or potholes). 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO): Wetlands characterized by woody vegetation greater than 

6 meters (20 feet) in height (e.g., swamps or bottomlands). 

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS): Wetlands characterized by the dominance of small trees, 

saplings, and shrubs. These wetlands generally have higher value than emergent systems, but 

not as much as forested systems. 

Parcel: A distinct, continuous portion or tract of land. 

Park-and-Ride: Facility where rail patrons can leave personal vehicles. 

Partial Parcel Acquisition: A temporary taking of a parcel of land close to construction areas that 

requires that the occupants be moved during the construction period. 

Particulate Matter: Liquid and solid particles of a wide range of sizes and compositions; of 

particular concern for air quality are PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers 

or less in diameter; PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. 

Particulate Pollution: Air pollution, such as dust, soot, and smoke, that is irritating but usually 

not poisonous. Particulate pollution also can include bits of highly toxic solid or liquid substances. 

Of particular concern are PM10 or PM2.5. 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA): Federal act that reauthorizes 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, and strengthens the 

United States passenger rail network by tasking Amtrak, U.S. DOT, FRA, states, and other 

stakeholders in improving service, operations, and facilities. PRIIA focuses on intercity passenger 

rail, including Amtrak’s long-distance routes and the Northeast Corridor (NEC), state-sponsored 

corridors throughout the Nation, and development of high-speed rail corridors. 

Passing Track: A track connected to the main line on both ends that allows a train to stop for 

commercial reasons (e.g., in a station) or operating purposes (e.g., to deal with a delayed train or 

a train with technical issues) and that allows other trains to pass. 

Perennial Stream: A stream that flows continually throughout the year. 

Pesticide: Any substance intended to prevent the presence of, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest. 

The term pesticide applies to insecticides and various other substances used to control pests, 

including herbicides. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-13 

Photogrammetry: The art, science, and technology of obtaining reliable information about 

physical objects and the environment through the process of recording, measuring, and 

interpreting images and patterns of electromagnetic radiant energy and other phenomena. 

Physiographic Province: A region that is generally consistent in geologic structure and climate 

and that has had a unified geomorphic history. 

Plat: A plan or map of a plot of ground. 

Platform: Station area adjacent to tracks where trains stop to allow passengers to board and 

alight. 

Point Source Pollution: Pollution that can be traced to a single source (e.g., a smokestack at a 

factory). 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Chemicals used in electrical transformers, hydraulic 

equipment, capacitors, and similar equipment. 

Practicable: Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing 

technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. 

Preferred Alternative: The alternative identified as preferred by the lead agencies. 

Prime Farmland: Rural land that has the best combination of physical and soil chemistry 

characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these 

uses. 

Program-Level/Programmatic: Refers to a NEPA environmental review that covers the broad 

spectrum of a large, complex, regionally extensive effort comprised of many smaller, regionally 

focused projects or phases. 

Project Corridor: An undefined width of land uses along the rail alignments used to define the 

general features and context of the area. 

Project-Level: Refers to more detailed site-specific environmental analysis focusing on a single 

project that is part of a larger program. 

Purpose and Need: The reason(s) why a project or action is undertaken, and the need(s) it is 

intended to meet or fulfill. 

R 

Rail Guideway: A track that supports and physically guides high-speed trains. 

Relocations: The removal, rearrangement, reinstallation, or adjustment of a utility facility 

required by a transportation improvement project. 

Resource Management Areas: As designated by Counties, these areas include floodplains, highly 

erodible soils, steep slopes, highly permeable soils, and non-tidal wetlands not designated in 

Resource Protection Area (RPA) zones. 

Resource Protection Areas (RPAs): Lands at or near the shoreline that have intrinsic water quality 

value for ecological and biological processes, or are sensitive to significant water quality 

degradation impacts. The RPA designation includes tidal wetlands, tidal shores, non-tidal 

wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or tributary streams, and a 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-14 

minimum 100-foot (30.5-meter) buffer landward along both sides of any tributary stream and all 

other components of RPAs. 

Retention Pond: A pond designed to hold and infiltrate most or all of the runoff that it receives. 

Ridership: The number of people who ride a transportation system. 

Right-of-Way: A legal right of passage over a defined area of real property. In transit usage, the 

corridor along a roadway or railway that is controlled by a transit or transportation 

agency/authority. 

Riparian: Pertaining to anything connected with or immediately adjacent to the banks of a 

stream. 

Riparian: Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural water course, lake, or tidewater. 

Riprap: Randomly placed rock or concrete used to strengthen an embankment or protect it from 

erosion. 

Rolling Stock: Wheeled railway vehicles. 

Ruderal: Weedy vegetation, commonly including or dominated by introduced species, 

characteristic of areas where native vegetation has been disturbed or removed. 

S 

Scale: A graduated line representing a proportionate size. 

Scenic Corridor: A corridor with landscapes and vistas of high scenic quality. 

Scoping: A process used under NEPA to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action or project to be addressed in an 

EIS. 

Scour: Erosion caused by fast-flowing water. 

Screenline: An imaginary line across parallel roadways that defines a zone of analysis. 

Section 4(f): Provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 codified in 

49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303(c). Section 4(f) addresses the potential for conflicts between 

transportation needs and the protection of land for recreational use and resource conservation by 

providing protection for publicly owned parkland, recreation areas, and historic sites from use. 

Specifically, the provisions prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from approving any program 

or project that would require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation 

area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national significance as determined 

by the officials having jurisdiction over these lands unless there are no feasible and prudent 

alternatives to the use of these lands. In addition, a proposed program or project must include all 

possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the proposed use. 

Section 6(f): Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1964 prohibits the 

conversion of property acquired or developed with funds granted through the act to a nonrecreational purpose without approval of the National Park Service (NPS). Section 6(f) directs the 

United States Department of the Interior (DOI) to ensure that replacement lands of equal value 

(monetary), location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. State and 

local governments often obtain grants to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-15 

areas (16 U.S.C. § 460-4 through 460-11, September 3, 1964, as amended 1965, 1968, 1970, 1972–

1974, 1976–1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993–1996). Consequently, where such conversions 

of Section 6(f) lands are proposed, replacement land must be provided. 

Sediments: Fragments of material originating either from the physical or chemical weathering of 

rocks and minerals, from decomposition of organic matter, and from atmospheric fallout. Clay, 

mud, and sand are all types of sediment. 

Sensitive Receiver: Noise-sensitive locations where increased annoyance can occur, such as 

residences, schools, hotels/motels, medical facilities, or other vibration-sensitive receivers. 

Sensitive Receptors: Locations considered more sensitive to adverse effects from air pollution 

(e.g., residences; preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 schools; daycare centers; healthcare facilities such as hospitals, retirement homes, and nursing homes; and parks and/or 

playgrounds). 

Shared Use Corridor: Rail corridors or rights-of-way where conventional passenger and freight 

railroads operate. 

State Implementation Plan (SIP): A plan mandated by the CAA and produced by the state 

environmental agency that contains procedures to monitor, control, maintain, and enforce 

compliance with the NAAQS. Must be taken into account in the transportation planning process. 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): A multi-year capital improvement 

program of transportation projects on and off the state highway system, funded with revenues 

from the State Accounts and other funding sources. 

Station: Area that would provide intermodal connectivity, drop-off facilities, an entry plaza, a 

station house area for ticketing and support services, a station box where passengers wait and 

access the train, and parking facilities. 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): A plan that specifies site management 

activities to be implemented during site development, including construction stormwater BMPs, 

erosion and sedimentation controls, dewatering (nuisance water removal), runoff controls, and 

construction equipment maintenance 

Straddle Bents: A pier structure that spans the functional/operational right-of-way limit of a 

roadway, highway, or railway. 

Strata: Geologic units composed of sedimentary rocks usually thought of as overlying one 

another in layer-cake fashion. 

Stub End: A track that terminates at one end. 

Study Area: A defined area or distance that is established to determine potential area of effects 

associated with the proposed project. Study areas vary in size and distance depending on the type 

of effects being considered. 

Subsidence: Sinking or lowering of the ground surface. 

Sulfur Oxides (SOX): Sulfur-oxygen compounds that include the important criteria pollutants SO2

and sulfur trioxide (SO3). 

Superelevation: The difference in elevation between the outside rail of the curve and the inside 

rail of the curve measured between the highest point on each rail head. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-16 

Switch Frog: The point in the switch where two rails cross. The frog is designed to ensure the 

wheel crosses the gap in the rail without dropping into the gap; the wheel and rail profile ensures 

that the wheel is always supported by at least one rail. 

Switch: A mechanical installation enabling trains to be guided from one track to another at a 

railway junction. 

Switching Station: A station that would work with the paralleling station to balance the electrical 

load between tracks and to switch power off or on to either track in an emergency. 

T 

Tiering: Refers to the practice of addressing general issues in broader environmental impact 

reports or statements, such as Program-Level documents, and providing more detailed sitespecific analyses in subsequent (typically Project) documents that incorporate the initial broad 

analysis by reference. 

Topographic Map: A map of the surface features of the earth. 

Trackway: The route of a train. 

Traction Power Supply Station (TPSS): An electrical substation that supplies power to the rail 

system. 

Transportation Demand Management (TDM): The operation and coordination of various 

transportation system policies and programs to manage travel demand to make the most efficient 

and effective use of existing transportation services and facilities. 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): A document prepared by a metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) that lists projects to be funded with FHWA/Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) funds for the next 1- to 3-year period. 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER): A U.S. DOT-wide 

discretionary grant program investing in critical road, rail, transit, and port projects across the 

nation, managed by the U.S. DOT’s Office of the Secretary. FRA administers several of these 

grants that are rail-specific. 

Transportation System Management (TSM): Actions that improve the operation and 

coordination of transportation services and facilities to realize the most efficient use of the existing 

transportation system. 

Transverse: A facility passing from one side of the right-of-way to the other side of the right-of-way. 

Travel Demand Forecast: A forecast for travel demand on future or modified transportation 

system alternatives using existing or projected land use, socioeconomic, and transportation 

services data. 

Travel Time: The time spent traveling from a place of origin to a place of destination. Total travel 

time includes the time required to reach a station or an airport, time spent waiting for the next 

scheduled train or flight, time spent getting to the boarding area, time spent checking and 

retrieving luggage, time spent getting a rental car or taxi, and time spent to reach the final 

destination. 

Tributary Watercourse: A stream feeding a larger stream or lake. 
 GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS 

 11-17 

U 

Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be entirely avoided, reduced, or compensated for. 

Unique Farmland: Farmland with soils of lower quality than either Prime Farmland or Farmland 

of Statewide Importance, but still used for the production of crops. 

V 

Volume–to-Capacity Ratio (V/C): Describes the relationship between the amount of traffic a 

roadway was designed to carry and the amount of traffic it actually carries. Related to the LOS 

the roadway can provide. 

Viewshed: The total area visible from a single observer position, or the total area visible from 

multiple observer positions. Viewsheds include scenes from highways, trails, campgrounds, 

towns, cities, or other viewer locations. Viewshed types include corridor, feature, or basin 

viewsheds. 

Visual Quality: The character or inherent features of a viewshed. 

Visual Resources: The natural and artificial features of a landscape that characterize its form, line, 

texture, and color. 

W 

Waters of the United States: The federal CWA defines waters of the United States as (1) all waters 

that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or 

foreign commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) all interstate 

waters including interstate wetlands; and (3) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, 

streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, 

wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could 

affect interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR 328.3[a]). 

Watershed: A specific geographic area drained by a major stream or river. 

Weir: A small dam that restricts flow in a stream to raise the water level or diverts flow into a 

desired course. 

Wet Utility: A pipeline that conveys liquid through gravity or pressured systems for public 

purposes (i.e., water and wastewater). 

Wetland: An area of land with soil that is saturated with moisture, either permanently or 

seasonally. According to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual, three criteria must be satisfied 

to classify an area as a jurisdictional wetland: (1) a predominance of plant life that is adapted to 

life in wet conditions (hydrophytic vegetation), (2) soils that saturate, flood, or pond long enough 

during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (hydric soils), and 

(3) permanent or periodic inundation or soils saturation, at least seasonally (wetland hydrology). 

Wildlife Corridor: A belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, walls, 

and development and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, allowing wildlife to move 

between physically separate areas. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 11-18 

Wingwall: A wall at the abutment of a bridge that extends beyond the bridge to retain the earth 

behind the abutment. 

Wye Connection: A railway that connects different sections of track. The transition to a wye 

requires splitting two guideways into four guideways crossing over one another before the wye 

legs diverge in opposite directions to allow bidirectional travel. 

Y 

Yard Track: Dead-end track dedicated to operation needs and connected to a passing track, never 

to the main railway. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

REFERENCES 12
 12-1 

REFERENCES 

Amtrak. 

1999. Report to Congress: Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad 

Corridor, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. May 1999. 87 pages. 

2008. Advancing Passenger Rail in the Commonwealth of Virginia: Short Term Action Plan, 

Part I. Washington, D.C. 28 pages. January 2008. 

2008. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2007: Commonwealth of Virginia. Washington, D.C. 

2 pages. 

2010. PRIIA Section 210 FY10 Performance Improvement Plan: Cardinal. Washington, D.C. 

34 pages. 

2010 Fact Sheet: New Passenger Rail Service Comes to Richmond and Eastern Virginia. Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond, VA. 2 pages. 

2011. PRIIA Section 210 FY11 Performance Improvement Plan: Crescent, Lake Shore Limited, 

Silver Service. Washington, D.C. 90 pages. 

2011. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2011: Commonwealth of Virginia. Washington, D.C. 

3 pages. 

2012. PRIIA Section 210 FY11 Performance Improvement Plan: Auto Train, City of New 

Orleans, Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief. Washington, D.C. 84 pages. 

2012. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2012: Commonwealth of Virginia. Washington, D.C. 

4 pages. 

2012. The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor: 2012 Update Report. July 2012. 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. 2 pages. 

2012. Northeast Corridor Employee Timetable No. 5. October 5, 2012. 

2013. Station Program Planning Guidelines. https://spportal.my-techub.com/Sites/DC2RVA/ 

Project%20Communication/Reference%20Material/amtrak-station-planning-andprogram-guidelines.pdf. 2013. 

12 7 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-2 

2013. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2013: Commonwealth of Virginia. Washington, D.C. 

5 pages. 

2014. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2014: Commonwealth of Virginia. Washington, D.C. 

4 pages. 

2014. Strategic Plan FY2014-FY2018. Washington, D.C. 40 pages. 

2015. Amtrak System Timetable Spring-Fall 2015: Effective April 6, 2015. Washington, D.C. 

141 pages. April 6, 2015. 

2015. Amtrak System Timetable: Virginia Service Connecting the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. 

Washington, D.C. 5 pages. April 6, 2015. 

Arlington County. 

2007. Master Transportation Plan: Goals and Policies Summary. Arlington, VA. 

2011. Five-Year Review of Arlington County’s Comprehensive Plan: 2005-2010. Arlington, VA. 

2017. Summary Report on Amendments to Arlington County’s Comprehensive Plan: A FiveYear Review July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2015 (with updates from July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016). 

Arlington, VA. 

Association of American Railroads. 

2012. Freight Railroads in Virginia–Rail Fast Facts for 2012. Washington, D.C. 2 pages. 

2015. The Environmental Benefits of Moving Freight by Rail. August 2015. 

Beadles, Richard L. 

2010. Prepared Comments of Dick Beadles for Southeast High Speed Rail Public Hearing, 

Richmond, VA. July 20, 2010. 6 pages. 

2013. Railroad Policy in Virginia: How We Got Where We Are and Where We Might Go from Here.

The Virginia News Letter, Vol. 89, No. 3. June 2013. University of Virginia Weldon 

Cooper Center for Public Service. 21 pages. 

Bird Nature. 

2015. Spring and Fall Migration Timetable. http://www.birdnature.com/timetable.html. 

Accessed March 25, 2015. 

Bradley, M.J. and Associates. 

2014. Updated Comparison of Energy Use and Emissions from Different Transportation 

Modes. Manchester, NH. 

Buckingham Branch Railroad (BBR). 

2011. Richmond & Alleghany Division Timetable No. 1. January 24, 2011. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-3 

Caroline County. 

2010. Caroline County Comprehensive Plan 2030. Bowling Green, VA. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 

1995. Guidance for Protecting Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay from 

Physical Disruption. Prepared by: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Workgroup of the 

Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA 903-R-95-013 

CBP/TRS139/95. Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. August 1995. 

Chesterfield County. 

2012. Moving Forward: The Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield County. Chesterfield, VA. 

Code of Virginia. 

Nd. Virginia Antiquities Act (Code of Virginia § 10.1-2300). 

Nd. Crossing of a railroad or public highway by another railroad; crossing of a railroad by a public 

highway. https://vacode.org/56-363/. 

Comstock, Jeffrey A., Sandra H. Azevedo, M. Frances Faure, and Suzanne M. Pierson. 

2003. Level III and IV Ecoregions of EPA Region 3 Map. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm. 

May 28, 2003. 

CCB (The Center for Conservation Biology). 

2016. Mapping Portal-VaEagles Nest Locater. http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/#eagles. Last 

updated 2016. Accessed May 2016. 

City of Fredericksburg, VA. 

2007. Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan. Fredericksburg, VA. 

2010. Historic Preservation Plan for the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared in 

conjunction with the City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan by Historic 

Preservation Task Force, Planning Commission, and City Staff. City of Fredericksburg, 

VA. June 2010. 

2014. Draft Comprehensive Plan. Fredericksburg, VA. 

City of Alexandria, VA. 

2008. City of Alexandria Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan. Alexandria, VA. 

City of Richmond, VA. 

2000. Master Plan, Richmond. Richmond, VA. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-4 

2001. Wetlands digitized by the City of Richmond. GIS format. Received March 20, 2011. 

2006. Richmond Main Street Statin: Track and Platform Modifications–Concept Design Study. 

September 2006. 66 pages. 

2009. Richmond Downtown Plan. Richmond Planning Commission and Richmond 

Community Development Department. July 2009. 

http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/planninganddevelopmentreview/PlansOther.aspx#Do

wntown

City of Richmond Department of Economic and Community Development. 

2016. Main Street Station Phase 3 Development. City of Richmond Department of Economic & 

Community Development Website. http://www.yesrichmondva.com/transportationdevelopment/Main-Street-Station-Phase-3-Development. Accessed September 27, 2016. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, 

D.C. 1997. 

2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act 

Reviews. Washington, D.C. 2016 

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 

1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States 

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services, 

Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 

04DEC1998). 

CSX Corporation. 

2007. United States Department of Transportation Corridors of the Future Program 

Application: The Southeast I-95 Corridor. May 25, 2007. Jacksonville, FL. 72 pages. 

CSX Transportation (CSXT). 

2009. The Peninsula Subdivision. Prepared for The Hampton Roads Partnership. July 17, 2009. 

18 PowerPoint slides. 

2010. Track chart: Baltimore Division–RF&P Subdivision. May 24, 2010. 25 pages. 

2010. Track chart: C&O Division–Piedmont Subdivision and Peninsula Subdivision. 

May 24, 2010. 59 pages. 

2010. Track chart: Florence Division–Bellwood/Richmond Terminal Subdivision. 

May 24, 2010. 1 page. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-5 

2010. Track chart: Florence Division–North End/Richmond Terminal Subdivision. 

May 24, 2010. 1 page. 

2010. Track chart: Florence Division–North End Subdivision. May 24, 2010. 25 pages. 

2011. System Clearance map: 286,000 GWR. Jacksonville, FL. September 23, 2011. 1 page. 

2012. Florence Division Timetable No. 7.1. May 1, 2012. 

2012. Huntington Division East Timetable No. 3. August 5, 2012. 

2012. System Clearance map: Multilevel Routes. Jacksonville, FL. December 6, 2012. 1 page. 

2013. System Clearance map: Multilevel Routes. Jacksonville, FL. December 3, 2013. 1 page. 

2014. CSX in Virginia fact sheet. Jacksonville, FL. May 15, 2014. 2 pages. 

2015. Class 1 Railroad Annual Report to the Surface Transportation Board for the year ending 

December 26, 2014. Jacksonville, FL. March 2015. 139 pages. 

2015. Baltimore Division Timetable No. 1. April 1, 2015. 

2015. System Clearance map: Auto Rack. Jacksonville, FL. May 2015. 1 page. 

2015. System Clearance map: Double Stack. Jacksonville, FL. May 2015. 1 page. 

2015. System Clearance map: Tonnage. Jacksonville, FL. May 2015. 1 page. 

CSX Transportation and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit. 

2000. Capacity Study of Richmond, VA, Washington, D.C. Rail Corridor. Springfield, VA. 

November 2000. 63 pages. 

District Department of Transportation. 

2014. Virginia Avenue Tunnel Reconstruction: Final Environmental Impact Statement & Section 4(f) 

Evaluation. Executive Summary. Washington, D.C. May 2014. 44 pages. 

2015. Long Bridge Study. Washington, D.C. January 2015. 

Dollins, Heather 

2014. Yellow Tavern Battlefield. Virginia-Cultural Resource Information System Form. 

Completed as part of the Lakeside Bridge Study, Henrico County, Virginia. Copy on file, 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Environmental Risk 

Information Service (ERIS). 

2016. Database Report–Ashland Bypass, Ashland, VA. Order #: 20160219034. Requested by: 

Parsons (Parsons Transportation Group). February 24, 2016. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-6 

2016. Database Report–Fredericksburg Bypass, Fredericksburg, VA. Order #: 20160211138. 

Requested by: Parsons (Parsons Transportation Group). February 24, 2016. 

2014. Database Report–Virginia Existing Rail Project–Part 1. Richmond, VA. 

Order #: 20141111060. November 14, 2014. 

2014. Database Report–Virginia Existing Rail Project–Part 2. Doswell, VA. 

Order #: 20141111076. November 17, 2014. 

2014. Database Report–Virginia Existing Rail Project–Part 3. Fredericksburg, VA. 

Order #: 20141119089. November 21, 2014. 

2014. Database Report–Virginia Existing Rail Project–Part 4. Richmond, VA. 

Order #: 20141124097. November 25, 2014. 

Fairfax County. 

2013. Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. Fairfax County, VA. 

2014. Policy Plan: The Countywide Policy Element of The Comprehensive Plan for Fairfax 

County, Virginia. Fairfax, VA. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Nd. GIS mapping layers. https://www.fema.gov. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

1992. Position Paper: Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project 

Development Process. Washington, D.C. 1992. 

2010. “A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions among 

Transportation Project Alternatives,” updated August 25, 2010. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/research_and_analysi

s/methodology/methodology00.cfm. 

2012. Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Air Toxic Analysis. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/aqintguidmem.cfm. 

Washington, D.C. December 2012. 

2014. Questions and Answers Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the 

NEPA Process. Washington, D.C. 2014. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, Revised. Washington, D.C. 

2005. Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans–A Guidance Manual.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04161. Washington, D.C. 2005. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-7 

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

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833. 

2011. Station Area Planning for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03759. Washington, D.C. 2011. 

2012. High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. 

September 2012. 

2013. CREATE Freight Noise and Vibration Model. Chicago, Illinois. 

2016. Office of Safety Analysis Highway-Rail Accident Data. Accessed July 2016. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17371. 

2016. Quiet Zone FRAWeb Report. Accessed July 2006. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L05204. 

2016. U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory. Accessed 2016. http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

2002. Record of Decision for the Tier I Southeast High Speed Rail Project. Washington, D.C. 

November 20, 2002. 20 pages. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Washington, D.C. May 2006. 

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

2013. 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. Fredericksburg, VA. 

Great American Stations. 

Nd. Ashland, VA (ASD). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/ASD. Accessed 

June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Alexandria, VA (ALX). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/ALX. Accessed 

June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Fredericksburg, VA (FBG). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/FBG. 

Accessed June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Lorton, VA (LOR). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/LOR. Accessed 

June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Newport News, VA (NPN). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/NPN. 

Accessed June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Quantico, VA (QAN). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/QAN. Accessed 

June 9, 2015. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-8 

Nd. Richmond–Main Street Station, VA (RVM). 

http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/RVM. Accessed June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Richmond–Staples Mill Road Station, VA (RVR). 

http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/RVR. Accessed June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Washington – Union Station, DC (WAS). 

http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/WAS. Accessed June 9, 2015. 

Nd. Woodbridge, VA (WDB). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/WDB. 

Accessed June 9, 2015. 

Hanover County. 

2012. Comprehensive Plan Hanover County, VA, 2012-2032. Hanover, VA. 

Hawkins, Jeff. 

2008. The Bridges of Richmond. Railpace Newsmagazine. Piscataway, NJ. March 2008. 

Pages 20-33, 47. 

2009. Richmond to Petersburg: CSX’s North End & Bellwood Subdivisions. Railpace 

Newsmagazine. Piscataway, NJ. April 2009. Pages 21-29, 43. 

HDR for Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. 

2006. Richmond Area Rail Improvements–Field Investigation: Summary of Findings. Richmond, VA. 

September 2006. 12 pages. 

Henrico County. 

2009. Henrico County: Vision 2026. Henrico, VA. 

I-95 Corridor Coalition. 

2009. Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Phase II Study–Final Report. December 2009. 118 pages. 

James Madison University. 

2000. Geologic History of Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region–A Description of the Geology 

of Virginia. http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/PhysProv.html. Last 

updated September 13, 2000. Accessed January 5, 2016. 

Jones, Chip. 

2004. Acca Yard Started on Track to Prominence in Late 1800s. Richmond Times-Dispatch. 

Richmond, VA. June 21, 2004. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-9 

Jones, Claudia, Jim McCann, and Susan McConville 

2001. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area–June 2000. Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic 

Coastal Bays. Annapolis, Maryland. 

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/education/Documents/tweetyjune_2000.pdf. Published 

May 2001 

Klein, Mike, Emily Calhoun, Marco González, and Earl E. Proper 

2015. Archaeological Background Review and Predictive Model for the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond, Virginia, Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. Dovetail Cultural Resource 

Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Maryland Transit Administration. 

2014. MARC Train Penn Line Weekday Service timetable. Baltimore, MD. November 17, 2014. 

2 pages. 

2014. MARC Train Penn Line Weekend Service timetable. Baltimore, MD. December 2014. 1 page. 

2015. MARC Train Brunswick Line Weekday Service timetable. Baltimore, MD. January 10, 2015. 

2 pages. 

2015. MARC Train Camden Line Weekday Service timetable. Baltimore, MD. March 9, 2015. 

2 pages. 

McCormick Taylor. 

2010. Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey for the Virginia Railway Express Cherry 

Hill Third Track Project from Arkendale (CFP 72.0) to Powell's Creek (CFP 83.4) Prince 

William and Stafford Counties, Virginia. McCormick Taylor, Glen Allen, Virginia. 

2010. Phase I Architectural Survey for the Virginia Railway Express Cherry Hill Third Track 

Project from Arkendale (CFP 72.0) to Powell's Creek (CFP 83.4) Prince William and 

Stafford Counties, Virginia. McCormick Taylor, Glen Allen, Virginia. Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 

2014. Regional Transportation Priorities Plan for the National Capital Region. 

Washington, D.C. 

Morris, Andrew and Hawkins, Jeff. 

2009. CSX RF&P Subdivision Part 1: Richmond to Milford. Railpace Newsmagazine. 

Piscataway, NJ. May 2009. Pages 20-29, 43. 

2009. CSX RF&P Subdivision Part 2: Caroline County to Brooke. Railpace Newsmagazine. 

Piscataway, NJ. July 2009. Pages 22-29. 

2009. CSX RF&P Subdivision Part 3: Aquia Creek-Washington. Railpace Newsmagazine. 

Piscataway, NJ. December 2009. Pages 21-31, 43. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-10 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2009. Species of Concern–River Herring (Alewife & Blueback Herring). NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Endangered Species Act Listing. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/alewife.htm and 78 FR 48943– 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/12/2013-19380/endangered-andthreatened-wildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-act-listing-determination-for. 

2015. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/ 

efh/efhmapper/index.html. Accessed March 2015. 

National Park Service (NPS). 

2009. Nationwide Rivers Inventory–Virginia Segments. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/ 

programs/rtca/nri/states/va.html. Accessed November 12, 2014. Last updated 

February 27, 2009. 

NatureServe Explorer. 

2014. Online Encyclopedia of Life–species search: Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Appalachian 

Springsnail (Fontigens bottimeri), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa), Blue back Herring (Alosa aestivalis), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), 

Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis),

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), New Jersey Rush (Juncus caesariensis), Northern Longeared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica), Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata), Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), Virginia Piedmont Water 

Boatman (Sigara depressa), Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta).

http://explorer.natureserve.org/. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 

http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed October 2014–January 2015. Last updated 

March 2014. 

NEC Master Plan Working Group. 

2010. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. Washington, D.C. May 2010. 

178 pages. 

Norfolk Southern. 

2015. Class I Railroad Annual Report to the Surface Transportation Board for the Year Ending 

December 31, 2014. March 31, 2015. Norfolk, VA. 141 pages. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-11 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division, Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). 

2002. SEHSR Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC, Tier I Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Executive Summary. Raleigh, NC, and Richmond, VA. 142 pages. 

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Committee. 

2013. Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor. Washington, D.C. January 2013. 

76 pages. 

Old Dominion Chapter, National Railway Historical Society. 

2013. Railroad History of Richmond, Virginia. 2013. 20 pages. 

Prince William County. 

2008. Comprehensive Plan 2008. Prince William, VA. Updates to individual chapters through 

2014. 

Reid, Zachary. 

2014. Bustle of the Rail Yard is Story of Commerce in Richmond. Richmond Times-Dispatch. 

Richmond, VA. June 2, 2014. 

Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (RAMPO). 

2012. plan2035. Richmond, VA. 

Riggan, Phil. 

2013. Why Richmond why??!! Acca Yard. Richmond Times-Dispatch. Richmond, VA. 

May 28, 2013. 

Spotsylvania County. 

2013. Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan. Spotsylvania, VA. 

Stafford County. 

2014. Stafford County Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030. Stafford, VA. 

State Corporation Commission. 

2016. SCC Approves Construction of 340 MW Electric Generating Facility In Hanover County. 

News Release. June 3, 2016. 

Taube, Richard K. and Virginia Railway Express (VRE). 

2008. Chronology of the Virginia Railway Express: 1964 to Present. Alexandria, VA. 

August 11, 2008. 56 pages. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-12 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 

2014. Northeastern Terrestrial Habitat Classification System (NETHCS) Regional Habitat 

Cover Maps. http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/ 

NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/habitatmap/Pages/default.as

px. November 16, 2014. 

2015. Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization. Online mapping of anadromous fish locations 

and dams blocking passage. http://maps.tnc.org/EROF_ChesapeakeFPP/. Accessed 

February 2015. 

Town of Ashland. 

2011. Town of Ashland Comprehensive Plan 2011-2012. Ashland, VA. 

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 

2002. Desk Reference for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. 

NCHRP Report 466. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Washington, 

D.C. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

2010. Navigable Waters of the United States (Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act). 

Norfolk District, VA. 2010. http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical%20services/ 

Regulatory %20branch/Guidance/section_10_determinations.pdf. Accessed October 30, 

2014. 

United States Census Bureau. 

1991. 1990 United States Decennial Census. Washington, D.C. 

2001. 2000 United States Decennial Census. Washington, D.C. 

2011. 2010 United States Decennial Census. Washington, D.C. 

2014. American Community Survey 2009-2013. Washington, D.C. 

United States Code 

1966. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106. 36 CFR 800. 

1966. United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Section 4(f). 23 CFR 138. 

1970. Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) of 1970. Title 49–Compensation for Freight Railroads to 

accommodate passenger service over their tracks. 

1990. Clean Air Act and Clean Air Act Amendments National Air Quality Standards. 

40 CFR Part 50. 

1994. “Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.” Executive Order 12898. February 11, 1994. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-13 

2000. “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” 

Executive Order 13166. August 11, 2000. 

2005. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009(a). Pub. L. 109-59. 

2008. Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008. Section 208–Improving 

Metrics and Standards for Measuring Performance and Service Quality. 

2008. Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008. Section 209–Cost 

Methodology Policy. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

2004. About the Lower Rappahannock Watershed. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/VA/ 

Programs/CSP/CSP05_Mattaponi_Facts.pdf. No date. Accessed March 2015. Posted 

December 9, 2004. 

2004. About the Mattaponi Watershed. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/VA/Programs/ 

CSP/CSP05_Mattaponi_Facts.pdf. No date. Accessed March 2015. Posted 

December 9, 2004. 

2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) download site, part of a larger 

SSURGO database. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Dated from 2014. Accessed January 2016. 

2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). GIS data. Downloaded May 2015. 

United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 

2014. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service (NPS), United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Forest Service. National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. http://www.rivers.gov/map.php. Accessed November 6, 2014. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents. Washington, D.C. 

1999. 

2008. “Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks,” released October 2008. 

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf. 

2008. “Idling Vehicle Emissions for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Heavy-Duty 

Trucks,” released October 2008. http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08025.pdf. 

2009. “Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives USEPA-420-F-09-025,” released 

April 2009. http://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-14 

2010. “Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission Components,” created July, 2010. 

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10015.pdf. 

2013. “EPA Issues Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses 

in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,” created November 2013. 

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420f13049.pdf. 

2014. “MOVES2014,” created 2014. http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/. 

2014. US EPA Brownfields. Updated by VDOT GIS February 2014. 

2014. US EPA Superfund: Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility Compensation and 

Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Updated by VDOT GIS February 2014. 

2014. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRA). Updated by 

VDOT GIS February 2014. 

2014. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) System. Updated by VDOT GIS February 2014. 

2014. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle,” created May 2014. 

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf. 

2014. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ 

index.cfm. Accessed March 18, 2015. Last updated on Wednesday, July 30, 2014. 

2015. US EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions website. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions. 

Accessed October 2015. 

2015. Fast Facts, U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2013, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-15-032. October 2015. 

Nd. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region III–District of Columbia, Delaware, 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/ 

sourcewater/sourcewater.cfm?action=Publications&view=all. Accessed 

November 14, 2014. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

1991. Harperella Recovery Plan. March 5, 1991. Maryland Natural Heritage for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 5. Newton Corner, MA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/910305b.pdf. 

1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) Recovery Plan. September 30, 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5. Newton Corner, MA. 

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0719/ML071980107.pdf. 

1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan–First Revision. November 13, 

1992. New England Field Office, Concord, NH. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/921113b.pdf. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-15 

1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Recovery Plan. February 8, 1993. Annapolis Field Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/dwm%20recovery%20plan.pdf. 

2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ 

ecologicalservices/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. May 2007. 

2010. Wild and Scenic Study Rivers. http://www.rivers.gov/study.html. Last updated 

May 16, 2010. 

2011. Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). July 26, 2011. Raleigh Ecological Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_sensitive_joint-vetch.html. 

2013. Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/featherstone/. 

Accessed December 10, 2014. Last updated June 21, 2013. 

2013. Virginia Ecological Services, Project Reviews in Virginia–Step 6B–Eagle Concentration 

Areas. http://www.arcgis.com/explorer/?open=8fa548ea54f543a2b2dbe9c9853a81d1. 

Last updated February 12, 2013. Accessed October 16, 2014. 

2014. ECOS (Environmental Conservation Online System)–Species Profile: Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon), Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Harperella (Ptilimnium 

nodosum), New Jersey Rush (Juncus caesariensis), Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynome 

virginica), Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), Swamp-pink (Helonias bullata),

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta). http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action#. Accessed 

December 2014 and January 2015. 

2014. Virginia Ecological Services, Project Reviews in Virginia–Step 5–Critical Habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endangered/projectreviews_step5.html. 

Last updated July 8, 2014. Accessed October 16, 2014. 

2014. Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/occoquan_bay/. 

Accessed December 10, 2014. Last updated October 23, 2014. 

2014. Trust Resource List. Online Endangered Species Act species list for your project area, 

represented by the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office, Gloucester, VA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/trustResourceList!prepare.action. Accessed 

October 14, 2014. 

2015. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS mapping. 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/NWI/Index.html. Last updated May 25, 2016. 

2015. Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Fact Sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/ 

NLBAFactSheetJanuary2015.pdf. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-16 

2016. Official Species List. Consultation Codes: Seg 01: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0203 (10-19-2015), 

Seg 02: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0204 (10-19-2015), Seg 03: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0111 (10-08-

2015), Seg 04: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0108 (10-08-2015), Seg 05: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-1199 

(03-10-2015), Seg 06: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0112 (10-08-2015), Seg 07: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI0415 (11-5-2015), Seg 08: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-1202 (03-10-2015), Seg 09: 05E2VA00-2015-

SLI-1203(03-10-2015), Seg 10: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0416 (11-5-2015), Seg 11: 05E2VA00-

2016-SLI-0417 (11-5-2015), Seg 12: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0418 (11-5-2015), Seg 13: 

05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1004 (01-04-2016), Seg 14: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1009 (01-04-2016), Seg 

15: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1416 (02-11-2016), Seg 16: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1417 (02-11-2016), 

Seg 17: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1960 (03-22-2016), Seg 18: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1961 (03-22-

2016), Seg 19: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1962 (03-22-2016), Seg 20: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1963 

(03-22-2016), Seg 21: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-2750 (05-24-2016), Seg 22: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI2752 (05-24-2016). Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, 

VA 23061. March 03, 2015–May 24, 2016. 

2016. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)–Species Profile: Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalist). http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action#. Accessed September 5, 2016. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

2015. The National Map–Hydrography (Hydrography Viewer). United States Department of 

the Interior. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd. Accessed 

March 2015. 

United States Surface Transportation Board. 

1998. Final EIS for the Acquisition of Conrail by Norfolk Southern Railroad and CSX Railroad. 

Washington, D.C. 

Van Gosen, Bradley S. 

2006. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Natural Asbestos 

Occurrences in the Eastern United States (map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1189, 1 plate. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1189/. Accessed November 3, 2016.Virginia Coastal 

Zone Management Program (VCZMP). 

2015. Virginia Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System (GEMS). 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/CoastalGEMSGeos

CoastalGEM.aspx. Accessed May 2015. 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 

2011. Virginia Scenic Rivers and Desirable and Potential River Components, 2011. 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/srfaq.shtml. Accessed 

November 6, 2014. 2011. 

2013. Virginia’s Scenic Rivers. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/ 

srfaq.shtml. Accessed November 6, 2014. November 7, 2014. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-17 

2014. Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Natural Heritage Commission. Letter 

from Alli Baird to Emily Stock, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. 

Re: Southeast High Speed Rail Project Tier II EIS Scoping Notice. Letter dated 

December 4, 2014. 

2014. Natural Heritage Database Search–Subwatershed Query–020700100103-Potomac River 

(MD)-Pimmit Run-PL24, 020700100301-Potomac River (MD)-Fourmile Run-PL25, 

020700100302-Cameron Run-PL26 , 020400100402-Accotink Creek-Gunston Cove-PL30, 

020700100401-PohickCreek-PL29, 020700100803- Potomac River-Occoquan Bay-PL50, 

020700100805- (Lower) Occoquan River-Belmont Bay-PL48, 020700100804-Neabsco 

Creek-PL49, 020700110103-Powells Creek-PL51, 020700110106-Potomac River-Tank 

Creek-PL54, 020700110104-Quantico Creek-PL52, 020700110105-Chopawamsic Creek -

PL53, 020700110203-(Lower) Aquia Creek-Austin Run-PL57, 020700110204-Accokeek 

Creek-PL58, 020700110206-Potomac Creek-Beaverdam-Creek PL60, 020801040102-

Rappahannock River-Hazel Run-Claiborne Run-RA46, 020801040103-Massaponax 

Creek-RA47, 020801050105-Poni River-YO42, 020801050205-Campbell Creek-Mattaponi 

River-YO47, 020801050301-Polecat Creek-YO48, 020801050302-Reedy Creek-YO49, 

020801060803-Long Creek-North Anna River-YO26, 020801060702-Lower LittleRiverYO25, 020801060304-Cedar Creek-South Anna River-YO11, 020801060901-Mechumps 

Creek-Pamunkey River-YO27, 020802060402-Stony Run-Chickahominy River-JL17, 

020802060403-Upham Brook-JL18, 020802060101-Almond Creek-James River-JL01, 

020802060102-Falling Creek-JL02, 020802060103-Proctors Creek-James River-JL03, 

020802050607-Little Westham Creek-James River-JM86, 020802060101-Almond CreekJames River-JL01, 020802060102-Falling Creek-JL02, 020802060503-White Oak SwampJL21, 020801060902-Crump Creek-YO28, 020801060904-Totopotomoy Creek-YO30, 

020802060501-Powhite Creek-Chickahominy River-JL19. 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/dbsearchtool.shtml. Online search 

conducted October 23, 2014. 

2014. Virginia Wetlands Catalog: An Inventory of Wetlands and Potential Wetlands with 

Prioritization Summaries for Conservation and Restoration Purposes by Parcel, 

Subwatershed, and Wetland Boundaries. Natural Heritage Technical Report 14-4 Weber, 

J. T. and J. F. Bulluck. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of 

Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Department of Conservation and Recreation's Virginia Conservation Lands Database 

Map. https://vanhde.org/content/map. Accessed March 2015. 

Nd. Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Virginia Outdoors Plan. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

2005. Wellhead Protection Plan. April 15, 2005. 

2010. Get the Facts - Exceptional State Waters. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/ 

Resources/Factsheets/ExceptionalWaters2010.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2011. 

April 2010. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-18 

2014. Exceptional State Waters (Tier III). http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/ 

WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityStandards/ExceptionalStateWaters(Tier

III).aspx. Accessed November 13, 2014. 

2014. VDEQ Petroleum Release Sites. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 

Updated by VDOT GIS February 2014. 

2015. Virginia Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System (GEMS). 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/CoastalGEMSGeos

patialData.aspx. Accessed November 2015. 

2015. Virginia Environmental Geographic Information Systems (VEGIS). Waters identified as 

impaired 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment–Draft 2014. GIS Layer: 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/mapper_ext/default.aspx?service=public/draft_2014_ad

b_anyuse#. Accessed March 2015. 

2016. Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program website. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/ 

Programs/CoastalZoneManagement.aspx. Accessed February 2016. 

Nd. Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program website. 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/DescriptionBound

ary.aspx. Accessed November 4, 2016. 

Nd. VEDP ACT Landfill. Nd. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality solid waste 

management facilities list. 

Nd. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality–permitted solid waste management 

facilities from April 2008. 

Nd. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality air quality nonattainment areas based on 

the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), particulate matter (PM-fine), and carbon monoxide (CO). 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 

2014. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Google Earth .KMZ Files: Navigable Waters. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/gis/google-earth-files.asp. Accessed November 13, 2014. 

2014. VDGIF TE Species. Dataset Layer from VDGIF of known locations of Virginia's listed 

wildlife species. Data last updated June 2014. Integrator update 14.07. 

2014. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Services (VaFWIS) Geographic Search (3-miles).

http://vafwis.org/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Geographic+Search. Accessed July 30, 2014. 

2014. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Services (VaFWIS) Species Information Report 

(Occurrence, Habitat)–Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Appalachian Springsnail 

(Fontigens bottimeri), Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Barking Treefrog (Hyla 

gratiosa), Blue back Herring (Alosa aestivalis), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Dwarf 

Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Northern 
 REFERENCES 

 12-19 

Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Peregrine Falcon (Falco Peregrinus), Tiger 

Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), Virginia Piedmont Water Boatman (Sigara depressa),

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta).

http://www.vafwis.org/fwis/?Menu=Home.__By+Name. Accessed October 22, 2014. 

2015. Virginia Migratory Waterfowl. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/ 

waterfowl/. Accessed March 26, 2015. 

2015. Webless Migratory Gamebirds. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/webless-migratory-gamebirds.asp. 

Accessed March 26, 2015. 

2016. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Google Earth .KMZ Files: Trout Waters. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/gis/google-earth-files.asp. Accessed March 8, 2016. 

2016. VDGIF Time of Year Restrictions (TOYR) Table. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/ 

environmental-programs/files/VDGIF-Time-of-Year-Restrictions-Table.pdf. Last 

updated April 1, 2016. Accessed April 20, 2016. 

Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 

2012. Private Well Regulations 12 VAC 5-630-10 et seq. August 16, 2012. 

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME). 

2016. Water Well Geodatabase–a database of water well information for the state of 

information. Layer downloaded 2016. 

2016. Online GIS–Abandoned Coal Mine Lands and Reclamation, Division of Energy, Division 

of Oil and Gas, Department of Mines, Division of Mines Land Reclamation, Division of 

Geology and Mineral Resources, Division of Mineral Mining, Virginia Gas and Oil 

Board. https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/webmaps/. Accessed January 6, 2016. 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DPRT). 

2003. Richmond Area Rail Master Plan. Final Report–Phase I. Richmond, VA. July 2003. 108 pages. 

2005. Richmond Area Rail Improvements. Phase 1: Planning and Concept Design. Richmond, VA. 

April 8, 2005. 25 pages. 

2006. Commonwealth of Virginia House Document No. 78: Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

Third Track Feasibility Study. Richmond, VA. 2006. 100 pages. 

2006. Commonwealth of Virginia House Document No. 57: Richmond Rail Study. Richmond, VA. 

2006. 40 pages. 

2008 Urban Crescent Corridor Intercity Passenger Rail–Design Report. Richmond, VA. 

July 24, 2008. 69 pages. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-20 

2009. Passenger Rail Improvements Utilizing CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor Synthesis Report. Richmond, 

VA. September 14, 2009. 51 pages. 

2009. Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor & Service Development Plan, SEHSR Corridor 

I-95 Segment, Washington, D.C. to Norlina, North Carolina, Volume 1. Richmond, VA. 

September 2009. 125 pages. 

2009. Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor & Service Development Plan, SEHSR Corridor 

I-95 Segment, Washington, D.C. to Norlina, North Carolina, Volume I1. Richmond, VA. 

September 2009. 286 pages. 

2010. Commonwealth of Virginia Senate Joint Resolution 63 Document: Funding Strategies for 

State Sponsored Intercity and High Speed Passenger Rail. Richmond, VA. 2010. 

61 pages. 

2013. 2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan. Richmond, VA. November 2013. 172 pages. 

2013. Virginia Rail Resource Allocation Plan. Richmond, VA. November 2013. 52 pages. 

2015. Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Project Basis of Design, Technical 

Criteria for Conceptual and Preliminary Engineering. February 2015. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Project Scoping Summary Report. 

Richmond, VA. Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. 1981. Survey Form: 

Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad. Prince William County. File No. 76-301. 

Negative no(s). 5176. May 2015. 5 pages. 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 

2006. A History of Roads in Virginia, “The Most Convenient Wayes.” Produced by the 

Virginia Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs, 1401 E. Broad Street, 

Richmond, VA 23219. 

2009. “Environmental Division, Air Section, and Consultant Guide for Air Quality Project 

Level Analysis,” updated May 2009, 

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Air_Consultant_Guide.pdf. 

2011. I-95 HOT Lanes Project: Environmental Assessment. Fairfax, VA, to Fredericksburg, VA. 

September 2011. 42 pages. 

2014. Annual Average Daily Traffic with Vehicle Classification for 2014, GIS online database. 

Richmond, VA. 2014. Accessed January 2016. 

Nd. Comprehensive Environmental Data and Reporting System (CEDAR). VDOT GIS 

database including input from regulatory agencies. Dataset received from VDOT 

October 10, 2014. 

Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). 

2015. Community Profile: Arlington County. Richmond, VA. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-21 

2015. Community Profile: Caroline County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Chesterfield County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: City of Alexandria. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: City of Fredericksburg. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: City of Richmond. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Fairfax County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Hanover County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Henrico County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Prince William County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Richmond MSA. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Spotsylvania County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Stafford County. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Community Profile: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria MSA (VA Part). Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Geospatial Extension Program (VGEP). 

2008. Urban Tree Canopy Landcover (UTC). Virginia Department of Forestry in collaboration 

with the participating localities and funded by the Chesapeake Bay Program, the USDA 

Forest Service, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Virginia 

Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental Quality and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University. http://gep.frec.vt.edu/va_utc.html. Accessed 2014. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 

2013. 2012 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake and Coastal Bays. Orth, R.J., 

D.J. Wilcox, J.R. Whiting, L. Nagey, A.K. Kenne, and E.R. Smith. VIMS Special Scientific 

Report Number 155. Final Report to EPA Grant No. CB96314501-0, 

http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav12/index.html. Accessed May 2015. 

2015. SAV in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays Monitoring - Interactive Map. GIS files. College of 

William and Mary. 1971-2011. Gloucester Point, VA. http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/ 

maps. html?svr=www. Accessed May 2016. 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). 

2000. Regulation 4 Vac 20-337-10 et seq.: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) 

Transplantation Guidelines. http://www.mrc.state.va.us/regulations/fr337.shtm. 

Effective date: November 1, 2000. Accessed November 28, 2011. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 12-22 

2012. GIS Polygon of Baylor Public Oyster Grounds as of May 14, 2012. Layer name: 

Baylor2008_05-14-12. Received from the Marine Resources Commission May 14, 2012. 

2012. GIS Polygon of MRC Leases–Private Shellfishing Grounds. Layer name: 

MRC_Leases_05-11-12. Received from the Marine Resources Commission May 11, 2012. 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). 

2011. Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties, 

Virginia–October 2011–Virginia Household Water Quality Program. 

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/BSE/BSE-36/BSE-36_pdf.pdf. October 2011. 

Virginia Railway Express (VRE). 

2011. Manassas Line train schedule. May 2, 2011. 

2013. VRE System Plan–Operations Board Workshop, Summary Report. Alexandria, VA. 

August 2013. 47 pages. 

2014. Fredericksburg Line train schedule. January 2014. 

2014. VRE System Plan Summary. Alexandria, VA. January 2014. 7 pages. 

2014. Developer Breaks Ground on Potomac Shores VRE Commuter Rail Station. RIDE 

Magazine. September 2014. Page 4. 

2014. Spotsylvania County VRE Station Ground Breaking Ceremony. RIDE Magazine. 

September 2014. Page 6. 

2015. Station Assessments for Virginia Railway Express. Alexandria, VA. March 2015. 29 pages. 

Nd. VRE Train Consists. http://www.vre.org/service/consist.htm. Accessed July 17, 2015. 

Virginia Rivers Defense Fund. 

2010. Navigable Waters of the United States. 

http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/NavigableWater.pdf. Uploaded July 2011. Accessed March 11, 2015. Revised March 5, 2010. 

Virginia State Water Control Board. 

2011. 9 VAC 25-260 Virginia Water Quality Standards. Statutory Authority: § 62.1-44.15 3a of 

the Code of Virginia. With amendments effective January 6, 2011. 

Weber, J. T. and J. F. Bulluck. 

2014. Virginia Wetlands Catalog: An Inventory of Wetlands and Potential Wetlands with 

Prioritization Summaries for Conservation and Restoration Purposes by Parcel, Subwatershed, 

and Wetland Boundaries. Natural Heritage Technical Report 14-4. Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. 
 REFERENCES 

 12-23 

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. 

2012. Total Population Projections for Virginia and its Localities. Charlottesville, VA. 

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Public Service Demographics Research Group. 

2016. July 1, 2015 Population Estimates for Virginia and its Counties and Cities. 

www.coopercenter.org/demographics/. Charlottesville, VA. 

William & Mary University (W&M). 

2016. William & Mary Department of Geology–The Geology of Virginia. Coastal Plain 

Provence: http://web.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/coastalplain/ 

coastal_plain.html. Accessed January 5, 2016. 

2016. William & Mary Department of Geology–The Geology of Virginia. Piedmont Provence: 

http://web.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/piedmont/piedmont.html?svr=ww

w. Accessed January 5, 2016. 

Woods, Alan J., James M. Omernik, Douglas D. Brown. 

1999. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects 

Research Laboratory with Dynamac Corporation U.S. EPA National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Map preparation and development of 

digital files were provided by Jeffrey A. Comstock, Sandra H. Azevedo, M. Frances 

Faure, and Suzanne M. Pierson (OAO Corp). Corvallis, OR. July 1999. 
D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

INDEX 13
 13-1 

INDEX 

Accidents .................. 3.15.1.4, 3.17, 4.17, 4.18 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... Chapter 10 

Aesthetics (Visual Quality) .................. 3.9, 4.9 

Affected Environment ..................... Chapter 3 

Agency Coordination .......................... 6.2, 6.3, 

Appendix U, Appendix V 

Agency Scoping Meetings ............. 6.2.1, 6.3.2 

Agricultural Lands .................... 3.3, 4.3, 4.11.5 

Agricultural and Forestal Districts ........ 3.3.2, 

4.3.2 

Air Quality .......... 1.5.2.7, 3.6,4.6, Appendix T 

Air Travel/Aviation .............................. 1.5.2.4 

Alternatives Considered and Dismissed .. 2.4 

Alternatives Development Process .... 2.1, 2.3, 

2.4 

Amtrak ............................................... 2.2, 4.15.1 

Anadromous Fish ...... 3.10.4.1, 4.10.2.3, 4.19.1 

Aquifers .................................. 3.1.7, 4.1.4, 4.1.6 

Aquatic Communities ............. 3.10.4, 4.10.2.3 

Archaeological Resources ......... 3.13.1, 4.13.1, 

Appendix R 

Ashland Bypass ............... 2.3.3.1, 2.4.5, 2.5.2.5 

At-grade Crossings .... (see Grade Crossings/ 

Grade Separation) 

Avoidance Alternatives .............................. 5.5 

Bald Eagles .............................. 3.10.5, 4.10.3.1 

Basis of Design ............................. Appendix B 

Battlefields ................................ 3.13.2.2, 4.13.3 

Bicycle Facilities ..... 3.15.1.3, 4.15.2.2, 4.20.1.4 

Biological Resources ......................... 3.10, 4.10 

Birds .......... 3.10.3.1, 3.10.3.2, 4.10.2.1, 4.10.2.2 

Boulevard Station ........ 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.5.2.6 

Bridges (over roadways) ......... 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.1, 

2.4.1.1, 2.5.2 

Bridges (over water) ... 2.3.2.3, 2.3.3.1, 2.4.1.1, 

2.5.1.1, 2.5.2 

Broad Street Station ..... 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.5.2.6 

Build Alternatives .................................... 2.5.2 

Business Displacements ........................ 4.11.1, 

Appendix Q 

Capacity (Rail) ...................................... 1.5.2.5 

Capacity (Roadway) .............................. 1.5.2.3 

Carbon Monoxide Emissions .................. 4.6.3 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas .. 3.1.3.4, 

4.1.5.10 

Clean Air Act ................................... 3.6.2, 4.6.4 

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule .............. 3.6.3 

13 7 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 13-2 

Clean Water Act .................................... 3.1, 4.1 

Coastal Zone Management Areas ....... 3.1.3.5, 

4.1.1.1 

Community Facilities and Services ..... 3.11.5, 

4.11.3, Appendix Q 

Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans ... 

4.11.5.2 

Compatibility with Transportation Plans ...... 

4.11.5.3 

Congestion ................................. 1.5.2.3, 1.5.2.4 

Construction (Approach) ............................ 2.8 

Construction (Impacts) .............................. 4.19 

Consulting Parties (Section 106) ............. 6.3.1 

Cooperating and Participating Agencies .. 6.2 

Corridor Description ................................... 1.3 

Costs (Capital) ................... 2.7.1, Appendix K 

Costs (Operating and Maintenance) ....... 2.7.2 

County and Municipal Planning ...... 3.11.3.2, 

4.11.5.3 

Cultural Resources (see also Archaeological 

and Historical Resources) ......... 3.13, 4.13, 

Appendix R, Appendix U 

Cumulative Impacts................................ 4.20.2 

Demand Forecasting ................... Appendix J 

Demographics ............................................. 3.11 

Designated Waters .................................... 3.1.3 

Displacements .......................................... 4.11.4 

Distribution of Draft EIS ................. Chapter 8 

Drainage Basins ......................................... 3.1.1 

Drinking Water ................................ 3.1.7, 4.1.4 

Economics ................................ 3.11.2.1, 4.11.1 

Elderly & Disabled Populations ..... 3.12, 4.12 

Emergency Services ................................... 3.11 

Employment and Income ............. 3.11.2, 4.12 

Energy ....................................... 1.5.2.7, 3.8, 4.8 

Environmental Consequences ........ Chapter 4 

Environmental Justice ..................... 3.12, 4.12, 

Appendix Q 

Evaluation Criteria ......................... 2.3.2, 2.4.1 

Existing Conditions ......................... Chapter 3 

Farmland......................................... 3.3.1, 4.3.1 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating 

Forms ........................... 4.3.1, Appendix N 

Fish .......................................... 3.10.4.1, 4.10.2.3 

Floodplains and Floodways ....... 3.1.5, 4.1.1.2 

Fredericksburg Bypass ... 2.3.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.5.2.3 

Freight ..................................................... 1.5.2.2 

Future Growth ........................................ 2.5.1.2 

Geology .......................................... 3.2.2, 4.2.2 

Grade Crossings/Grade Separation ... 2.3.2.3, 

3.17.2, 4.15.2, Appendix S 

Greenhouse Gases ........................... 3.6.6, 4.6.4 

Greenways ........... 3.14.3, 3.14.5, 3.14.7, 3.15.1 

Groundwater .... 3.1.4, 3.1.7, 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 

4.19.1.5 

Hazardous Materials and Waste ..... 3.5, 4.5, 

Appendix O 

Health and Safety .............................. 3.17, 4.18 

High Speed Rail ........................................... 2.1 
 INDEX 

 13-3 

Highway Transportation .......................... 3.15 

Highway Vehicle Operations ................... 3.15 

Historical Resources ..................... 3.13, 4.13.2, 

Appendix R 

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ........... 4.20 

Invasive Species ........................ 3.10.2, 4.10.1.2 

Irreversible Commitment of Resources .. 4.22 

Land Use ..................................... 3.11.3, 4.11.5 

Limited English Proficiency .................. 3.11.1 

Local Officials Coordination .................... 6.2.3 

Local and Regional Plans and Policies ........... 

3.11.3.2, 4.11.5 

Locomotive Operations ............................ 4.6.1 

Long Bridge ................................................ 1.6.4 

Mailing List .............................................. 6.1.6 

Main Street Station ....... 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.5.2.6 

Minority Communities ..................... 3.12, 4.12 

Migratory Birds ..................... 3.10.3.2, 4.10.2.2 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................. 3.10.3.2 

Mineral Resources ................................. 3.4, 4.4 

Mitigation .......... 4.1.6, 4.2.4, 4.4.2, 4.5.2, 4.7.1, 

4.7.2, 4.9.2, 4.10.1.4, 4.10.2.4, 4.10.3.2, 

4.13.4, 4.14.2, 5.6 

Mobile Source Air Toxics .............. 3.6.4, 4.6.2, 

Appendix T 

MS4 Permit .............................................. 4.1.5.8 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards ... 

3.6.1 

National Environmental Policy Act ........ 3.6.6 

National High Speed Rail Program ........ 1.6.1 

National Register of Historic Places ....... 3.13, 

4.13 

Navigable Waters ........... 3.1.3.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.5 

Neighborhood and Communities ....... 3.11.4, 

4.11.2 

Newsletters ................................................ 6.1.8 

No Build Alternative ................................ 2.5.1 

Noise .......................... 3.7.1, 4.7.1, Appendix P 

Noise Mitigation .................................... 4.7.1.5 

Numbers of Trains ............ 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 

2.5.1.2 

Open Space Easements ..................... 3.10.1.4 

Operating and Maintenance Costs ......... 2.7.2 

Operations Analysis ................................. 2.6.1 

Operational Impacts ........................ Chapter 4 

Parks (federal, state and local) ....... 3.14, 4.14 

Participating Agencies ................................ 6.2 

Patronage/Ridership................................ 2.6.2 

Pedestrian Facilities .. 3.14.3, 3.15.1.3, 4.15.2.2 

Pedestrian Safety ........................................ 4.17 

Permits ........................................................ 4.1.5 

Places of Worship and Cemeteries ...... 3.11.5, 

4.11.3 

Particulate Matter (Hot-Spot Analysis) ......... 

3.6.5, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.19.2.3 

Population Characteristics ....... 1.5.2.1, 3.11.1, 

4.12 

Preferred Alternative ....................... Chapter 7 

Preparers ........................................... Chapter 9 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 13-4 

Press Releases .......................................... 6.1.10 

Prime and Unique Farmland ......... 3.3.1, 4.3.1 

Priority Conservation Areas .............. 3.10.1.4, 

4.10.1.1 

Project Alternatives ................................... 2.5.2 

Project Areas and Segments .................... 2.3.1 

Project Benefits ............................................. 1.7 

Project Description ................................ 1.3, 1.6 

Project Location ............................................ 1.2 

Property Owner Notifications ................. 6.1.7 

Proposed Action ........................................... 1.4 

Public Comments ............................ 1.5.3, 6.1.3 

Public Education Facilities/Schools ..... 3.11.5 

4.11.3 

Public Involvement .............. 6.1, Appendix V 

Public Meetings ......................................... 6.1.5 

Public Water Supplies .................... 3.1.6, 4.1.4 

Purpose and Need .................... 1.4, 1.5, 2.3.2.2 

Rail Alignment Alternatives ....... 2.3.3.1, 2.4, 

2.5.2 

Recreational Areas ............................ 3.14, 4.14 

References ....................................... Chapter 12 

Regional Planning ................. 3.11.3.2, 4.11.5.2 

Related Studies and Plans ........................... 1.6 

Residential Displacements/Relocation .......... 

4.11.4, Appendix Q 

Resource Maps ....... Chapter 3, Appendix M, 

Appendix N, Appendix O, Appendix Q, 

Appendix R 

Ridership .................. 2.6.2, 4.15.1, Appendix J 

Richmond to Hampton Roads Rail ..... 1.6.2.4 

Richmond to Raleigh High Speed Rail .......... 

1.6.2.3 

Right-of-Way ............ 4.11.4, Appendices C-H 

Riparian Areas ......... 3.1.4, 3.10.1, 4.1.1, 4.10.1 

Rivers ................................................ 3.1.2, 4.1.1 

Roads ............................... 2.3.2.3, 3.15, 4.11.2.2 

Safety and Security ....................... 3.17.2, 4.17 

Scenic Rivers ........................................... 3.1.3.2 

Scoping ....................................................... 6.1.4 

Screening Process .................................. 2.3, 2.4 

Section 4(f) ................... 3.14.7, 4.14, Chapter 5 

Section 6(f) ................................... 3.14.6, 4.14.1 

Section 401 – Point Source Permit ....... 4.1.5.1 

Section 402 – Water Quality Certificate ......... 

4.1.5.2 

Section 404 – Dredge and Fill Permit .. 4.1.5.3 

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ........ 

4.1.5.5 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ...... 

4.1.5.6 

Section 106 of National Historic 

Preservation Act ......................... 3.13, 4.13 

Segment Descriptions ............................... 2.3.1 

Selection of the Preferred Alternative 

Chapter 7 

Service Options .............. 2.2.3, 2.3.3.3, 2.4.3.1, 

2.5.2.6, Appendix G 

Service Plan ............................. 2.2, Appendix I 

Short-Term Effects and Long-Term Benefits 

4.21 
 INDEX 

 13-5 

Simulation Modeling ................................ 2.6.1 

Soils ................................................... 3.2.3, 4.2.3 

Southeast High Speed Rail ............. 1.5.1, 1.6.2 

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor ........ 1.1, 

1.5, 2.1.1 

Solid Wastes ........................................... 3.5, 4.5 

Speed Assumptions ...................... Appendix I 

Staples Mill Station ...... 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.5.2.6 

State Scenic Rivers ..................... 3.1.3.2, 4.1.1.1 

Stations .................................................. 3.15.1.3 

Stormwater Management/Drainage ... 4.1.1.3 

Streams ............................................. 3.1.2, 4.1.1 

Study Area .................................................... 3.0 

Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom Permit ........ 

4.1.5.4 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ........... 3.10.5, 

4.10.3 

Surface Waters ................................. 3.1.2, 4.1.1 

Task Force ................................................. 6.2.2 

Terrestrial Communities ........................... 3.10 

Threatened and Endangered Species .. 3.10.5, 

4.10.3 

Time of Year Restrictions .................... 4.19.2.6 

Title VI ........................ 3.12, 4.12, Appendix Q 

Topography...................................... 3.2.1, 4.2.1 

Track Geometry ................... Appendices C-H 

Traffic Conditions ........................ Appendix S 

Trails ............................................. 3.14.5, 4.14.1 

Train Types ............................................. 2.2.1.1 

Transit ............................ 3.15.1, 3.11.3.2, 4.15.1 

Transportation Facilities .................. 3.15, 4.15 

Transportation/Multimodal Connectivity.... 

4.15.1, 4.15.2 

Travel Time/Service Reliability ................. 1.5 

Tribal Lands .......................................... 3.13.2.3 

Trout Waters .......................... 3.10.4.1, 4.10.2.3 

Tunnels .......................................... 2.4.5, 2.6.1.2 

Utilities ............................................. 3.16, 4.16 

Vehicle Delay ............................. 4.15.1, 4.15.2 

VDOT Relocation Policies ...................... 4.11.1 

Vibration ................... 3.7.2, 4.7.2, Appendix P 

Vibration Mitigation .............................. 4.7.2.5 

Virginia Outdoors Foundation .......... 3.10.1.4 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel .......................... 1.6.3 

Virginia Railway Express ................... 3.15.1.2 

Virginia Water Protection Permit ........ 4.1.5.7 

Visual Quality ....................................... 3.9, 4.9 

Vulnerable Populations .................................. 

(see Environmental Justice) 

Washington Union Station .................... 1.6.5 

Water Quality .................................. 3.1.6, 4.1.3 

Water Resources .................................... 3.1, 4.1 

Water Supply ................................... 3.1.7, 4.1.4 

Waters of the U.S. ....................................... 3.1 

Website ....................................................... 6.1.9 

Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges ......... 3.10.1, 

3.14.4, 4.14.1 

Wildlife Habitats ......................... 3.10.3, 4.10.2 

WMATA ................................. 3.11.3.2, 3.15.1.3 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 13-6 

Wetlands .................. 3.1.4, 4.1.2, Appendix M 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ............. 3.1.3.2, 4.1.1.1