Appendix A: Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement with Corrections
Prepared on 

behalf of the 

.BSDI

TIER 1 DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN

DRAFT / NOVEMBER 2019 PAGE i 

Table of Contents

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................... 0-1 

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

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................. 2-1 

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................... 3-1 

4. COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES, STAKEHOLDERS, AND 

THE PUBLIC ................................................................................... 4-1 

5. REFERENCES ................................................................................. 5-1 

6. LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................... 6-1 

7. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................. 7-1 

8. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................... 8-1 

Appendices

APPENDIX A – MAP BOOK 

APPENDIX B – ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT REPORT 

APPENDIX C – AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION 

APPENDIX D – SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DATA 

APPENDIX E – NOTICE OF INTENT 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-i 

Contents 

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 0-1

0.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 0-1

0.2 Description of the study area ............................................................................................. 0-3

0.3 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 0-5

0.4 Project’s Goals & Objectives ............................................................................................. 0-6

0.5 Corridor Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................... 0-7

0.6 Public Involvement and agency coordination .................................................................. 0-12

0.7 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 0-12

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit 0-1: SEHSR and East Coast Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors ............................................... 0-2

Exhibit 0-2: Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 0-4

Exhibit 0-3: Urban Population and Employment Trends .............................................................................. 0-5

Exhibit 0-4: Corridor Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 0-9

Exhibit 0-5: Route Alternatives Comparison ............................................................................................... 0-10

Exhibit 0-6: Environmental Resources – Relative Ratings by Corridor Alternative ................................... 0-11
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-1 

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

0.1 BACKGROUND 

The United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

is working with states to improve high-speed and intercity passenger rail corridors via projects that range from 

upgrading existing services to developing entirely new rail lines and services. The FRA defines “high-speed 

rail” as having the ability to travel at speeds between 90 miles per hour (mph) and 150 mph, or even higher.1

FRA is implementing this high-speed rail initiative through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

(HSIPR), created to address the nation’s transportation challenges by making strategic investments in an 

efficient network of passenger rail corridors connecting communities across the country.2

 These investments 

focus on three key objectives: 

 Building new high-speed rail corridors that expand and fundamentally improve passenger 

transportation in the geographic regions they serve; 

 Upgrading existing intercity passenger rail corridors to improve reliability, speed, and frequency of 

services; and 

 Laying the groundwork for future high-speed rail services through corridor and state planning 

initiatives. 3

What is the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor? 

The vision of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor, which is one of eleven USDOT-designated 

high-speed rail corridors, is to develop an integrated passenger rail transportation solution for the Southeast 

(see Exhibit 0-1). 4 The SEHSR Corridor initiative proposes high-speed rail from Washington, DC through 

Richmond, VA and Raleigh and Charlotte, NC, and from Charlotte to Atlanta, Georgia. 

Implementing the SEHSR Corridor and other corridor projects and programs within the Piedmont Atlantic 

Megaregion will serve as a catalyst for economic expansion, with benefits including: 

 Creation of new jobs; 

 Improved mobility by providing choices for travelers beyond flying or driving; 

 Reduced growth in transportation-related air pollutant emissions; 

 Reduced dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels; and 

 Improved land utilization and investment in livable urban and rural communities. 

Chapter 1 describes the status of various studies and projects related to implementing the SEHSR Corridor. 

 

1 FRA’s High Speed Rail Strategic Plan April 2009 website, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833 (accessed on 3/3/17) 

2 FRA’s High Speed Rail Overview, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0134 (accessed on 1114/18) 

3 High Speed Rail Overview, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0060 

4 Southeast Corridor website, http://www.sehsr.org/ (accessed on 7/31/15) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-2 

Exhibit 0-1: SEHSR and East Coast Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors 

Sources: HNTB and National Conference of State Legislators5 

 

5 http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/chart-of-federally-designated-high-speed-rail-corr.aspx (accessed on 11/25/15) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-3 

What is NEPA? 

The National Environmental Policy Act6 (NEPA) requires an assessment of potential environmental impacts 

for every federal action that could “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” NEPA applies 

to any project where there is major federal involvement, including federal financial assistance, the issuance 

of a permit, or a requirement for federal approval. This Project requires NEPA clearance due to potential 

involvement from the federal government, specifically FRA and the likelihood of the Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT), South Carolina DOT (SCDOT), and North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) seeking federal 

financial assistance for implementation and construction. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

required when it is either apparent, or becomes apparent through subsequent analysis, that the Project is likely 

to have a major effect on the natural and/or human environment. GDOT recommended and FRA determined 

that a Tier 1 EIS is the appropriate class of action for this Project. 

What is a Tiered Environmental Process? 

“Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex projects covering large geographic 

areas. This Tier 1 EIS establishes the Purpose and Need for the Project; provides a broad assessment of the 

potential transportation, social, economic, and environmental impacts of Corridor Alternatives (generalized 

area of travel) for the Project; and presents the outcomes of public and agency coordination that were 

considered during the Tier 1 assessment and decision-making processes. In this Tier 1 EIS, FRA will select a 

Preferred Corridor Alternative; identify general locations for potential stations; and identify potential 

technology, speed, and frequency necessary to support the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

Due to the size and complexity of the Project, GDOT and FRA will defer the following decisions to a future 

Tier 2 analysis: the alignment of the corridor (including the approach into Atlanta), locations of stations and 

facilities, operating equipment, type of locomotive technology, and detailed operating characteristics. A future 

Tier 2 EIS will define an exact alignment within the broader Preferred Corridor Alternative, but could also 

consider additional alignment options identified by stakeholders or the public. A Tier 2 analysis will continue 

the public involvement and agency coordination that began during Tier 1, and will document the 

environmental impact. 

0.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 

The Atlanta to Charlotte corridor spans approximately 280 miles and connects the cities of Atlanta, GA, and 

Charlotte, NC, in a general northeasterly direction. Due to the width of the Study Area, this Tier 1 EIS 

considers potential connections to various cities and destinations between Atlanta and Charlotte. The Study 

Area is defined as the area containing all reasonable Corridor Alternatives connecting the Project’s termini, 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (H-JAIA) and the proposed Charlotte Gateway Station. 

Therefore, the boundary of the Study Area generally follows I-20 (between Atlanta and Columbia), I-77 

(between Columbia and Charlotte), and the Norfolk Southern rail line (between Charlotte and Atlanta). The 

Study Area also contains I-85 between Charlotte and Atlanta as well as parts of surrounding metropolitan 

areas, as illustrated in Exhibit 0-2. Currently, the Study Area is served by Interstate highways, intercity bus 

 

6 42 U.S.C. §4332, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-4 

service, Amtrak, and three airports: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (H-JAIA), GreenvilleSpartanburg International Airport (GSP), and Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT). 

Exhibit 0-2: Study Area 

 Source: HNTB 

Between the years 2000 to 2010, the Project’s Study Area has witnessed significant growth, specifically in 

the larger metropolitan areas, relating to population and employment. Future projections show similar growth 

trends. Exhibit 0-3 provides the employment and population growth trends of five metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) areas within the Project’s Study Area. This population and employment growth trend is 

a driving force for the Project’s need, which is discussed further in Chapter 1 of this Tier 1 EIS. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-5 

Exhibit 0-3: Urban Population and Employment Trends 

Population Employment

Metropolitan 

Planning 

Organization 

Areas

2010/2015 2040/2045 

Change from 

2010/2015 to 

2035/40 

2010/2015 2040/2045 

 Change from 

2010/2015 to 

2040/2045 

Atlanta 5,591,573 8,063,017 44% 2,923,956 3,965,194 36% 

Augusta 511,686 712,986 39% 191,037 298,160 56% 

Greenville 666,738 811,139 22% 368,204 499,100 36% 

Columbia 647,091 860,437 33% 352,080 478,154 36% 

Charlotte 1,394,800 2,250,500 61% 998,600 1,418,700 42% 

Sources: Atlanta7, Augusta,8 Greenville9, Columbia,10 and Charlotte’s LRTPs11

0.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The Purpose of the Project is to improve intercity passenger travel between Atlanta and Charlotte by 

expanding the region’s transportation system capacity, and improving trip time and reliability through highspeed passenger rail services. The Project will provide transportation system capacity necessary to 

accommodate current and projected population and economic growth occurring along the SEHSR Corridor 

network including the following metropolitan areas in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion: Atlanta, Charlotte, 

Greenville, and Spartanburg. 

The Atlanta to Charlotte Project supplements the completed and ongoing intercity passenger rail studies along 

the SEHSR Corridor and supports FRA’s HSIPR Program under USDOT’s 2008 Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act (PRIIA).12 This corridor would ultimately also provide linkages to other metropolitan 

areas along the East Coast (Washington, DC, New York, and Boston, MA). 

GDOT has identified seven transportation system needs relevant to the Study Area, each corresponding to the 

anticipated population and employment growth with increasing travel demand. The Project would satisfy the 

following needs: 

• Population and Employment Growth 

• Improve Regional Transportation System Connectivity 

 

7 Atlanta Regional Commission, http://atlantaregionsplan.org/population-employment-forecasts/ (accessed on 3/20/19) 

8 Augusta Regional Transportation Study, https://www.augustaga.gov/2120/Transportation-Vision-2040 (accessed 3/20/19) 

9 Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study, http://www.gpats.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/GPATS_Horizon2040_10_15_2018.pdf

(accessed on 3/21/19) 

10 Columbia Area Transportation Study Moving the Midlands 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan http:/centralmidlands.org/wpcontent/uploads/2040-LONG-RANGE-TRANSPORTATION-PLAN-APPROVED-AUGUST-27-2015.pdf (accessed 6/14/2017) 

11Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization http://www.crtpo.org/PDFs/MTP/2045/2045_MTP.pdf (accessed on 3/20/19)

12 Public Law No. 110-432. Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-6 

• Increase Transportation System Capacity 

• Improve Travel Times and Reliability 

• Provide an Alternative Travel Mode 

• Traveler Safety 

• Improve Energy Efficiency and Air Quality 

• Maintain and Enhance Economic Growth and Vitality 

0.4 PROJECT’S GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

A set of goals and objectives, vetted through the scoping process and public-stakeholder engagement, served 

as a basis for developing the Project’s Corridor Alternatives (discussed further in Chapter 2). Specifically, the 

goals and objectives helped evaluate whether a Corridor Alternative met the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

The goals and supporting objectives for the Project are to: 

Goal 1: Develop a high-speed passenger rail link between Atlanta and Charlotte that addresses 

intercity passenger transportation needs by: 

• Developing a high-speed intercity passenger rail system that can be integrated into and support the SEHSR 

Corridor Plan and other high-speed rail networks by incorporating existing and future plans; 

• Improving intercity and regional connectivity by providing additional capacity to meet existing and 

projected travel demand; 

• Providing high-speed passenger rail service that is competitive with travel times of other transportation 

modes (highway, intercity bus, and air); and 

• Supporting the development of planned multimodal transportation hubs that complement existing and 

planned transit services. 

Goal 2: Provide a cost-effective and financially efficient high-speed, intercity passenger rail 

corridor by: 

• Creating a phased financial program for the Project that reflects funding and cost limitations. Presently, 

there is no state or federal funding available to develop the corridor; 

• Improving the corridor through multiple-phased options that can be used to identify Tier 2 project-specific 

activities;

• Providing a long-term financial plan that identifies an initial capital investment and phased long-term 

expansion to reflect the projected level of ridership and revenue potential for the service; and

• Providing a long-term financial plan that defines the potential return on investment or annual operating 

subsidy required to operate and maintain the corridor by either a public or private entity or a joint publicprivate venture.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-7 

0.5 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

This Tier 1 EIS considered six reasonable Corridor Alternatives identified by a 2008 Volpe Center report, and 

selects three of the six for further evaluation based on how well they meet the Project’s goals and Purpose and 

Need.13 This screening process is detailed in Chapter 2. The initial six reasonable Corridor Alternatives are 

depicted in Exhibit 0-4 and are described as follows: 

Southern Crescent 

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative is a 268-mile route that primarily follows the Norfolk Southern 

(NS) Piedmont Division right-of-way (ROW), which hosts the existing Amtrak Crescent long-distance service 

between Atlanta and Charlotte. This alternative proposes sharing the NS ROW, with freight and passenger 

trains operating together on shared tracks in certain sections of the corridor and on separate tracks in certain 

sections.14 This route serves three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, and Gastonia; 

four stations in South Carolina in Spartanburg, Greer, Greenville, and Clemson; and six stations in Georgia 

in Toccoa, Gainesville, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta, and H-JAIA. 

Interstate 85 

The I-85 Corridor Alternative is a 255-mile route located primarily within the interstate highway ROW on a 

dedicated high-speed passenger rail alignment following I-85 between Gastonia, NC and Suwanee, GA, then 

following a shared railroad ROW in the approaches to the Charlotte and Atlanta termini.15 This route serves 

three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, and Gastonia; three stations in South 

Carolina in Spartanburg, Greenville, and Anderson; and four stations in Georgia in Suwanee, Doraville, 

downtown Atlanta, and H-JAIA. 

Greenfield 

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route primarily on a new “greenfield” dedicated high-speed 

passenger rail alignment between CLT airport and Athens, GA, then following shared railroad ROW in the 

approaches to the Charlotte and Atlanta termini. This route serves three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte 

Gateway, CLT airport, and South Gastonia; two stations in South Carolina at GSP airport and Anderson; and 

five stations in Georgia in Athens, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta, and H-JAIA. 

I-20 and I-77 

The I-20 and I-77 Corridor Alternative is a 321-mile route located primarily within the interstate highway 

ROW following I-77 between Charlotte, NC and Columbia, SC and I-20 between Columbia, SC, Augusta, 

GA and Atlanta. Similar to the I-85 Corridor Alternative, this corridor consists of a dedicated high-speed 

passenger rail alignment in the interstate ROW, then follows a shared railroad ROW in the approaches to the 

 

13 The Volpe Center, 2008, “Evaluation of High Speed Rail Options in the Macon-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte Rail Corridor”, 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/Atl-Char/VolpeCenterFeasibilityStudy2008.pdf 

14 “Shared ROW” or “shared use” refers to ROW that is used by both freight and passenger service. 

15 “Dedicated use” refers to new ROW dedicated solely for the purpose of providing passenger rail service. The addition of freight operations 

was not evaluated in this report. This does not necessarily preclude the operation of temporarily separated freight operations in that the 

engineering design standards used for the dedicated route alternative can support freight use where capacity is available. Heavy freight use will 

increase the maintenance costs associated with these tracks. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-8 

Charlotte and Atlanta termini. This route serves one station in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway; two 

stations in South Carolina in Rock Hill and Columbia; and four stations in Georgia in Augusta, Covington, 

downtown Atlanta, and H-JAIA. 

CSXT and NS via Augusta (CSX Augusta) 

The CSX and NS via Augusta Corridor Alternative is a 373-mile route that follows the NS Charlotte-Columbia 

Subdivision ROW from Charlotte, NC to Columbia, SC, then the CSX Georgia Subdivision ROW from 

Columbia, SC to Atlanta, GA. This corridor shares the NS and CSX ROW, with freight and passenger trains 

operating together on shared tracks in certain sections of the corridor and on separate tracks in certain sections 

where the alignment supports it. This route serves one station in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway; two 

stations in South Carolina in Rock Hill and Columbia; and four stations in Georgia in Augusta, Covington, 

downtown Atlanta, and H-JAIA. 

CSXT and NS via Athens (CSX Athens) 

The CSX and NS via Athens Corridor Alternative is a 281-mile route that follows the NS Charlotte-Columbia 

Subdivision ROW from Charlotte, NC to Chester, SC, then the CSX Monroe and Abbeville Subdivisions to 

Athens and Atlanta, GA. This corridor shares the NS and CSX ROW with freight and passenger trains 

operating together on shared tracks in certain sections of the corridor and on separate tracks in certain sections 

where the alignment supports it. This route serves one station in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway; two 

stations in South Carolina in Rock Hill and Greenwood; and five stations in Georgia in Athens, Lawrenceville, 

Tucker, downtown Atlanta, and H-JAIA. 

Corridor Alternatives Advancing 

Out of the six route alternatives, GDOT selected three to advance for further evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS, 

based on how well they addressed the Project goals and Need and Purpose Statement and input from the 

public. The I-20/I-77, CSXT and NS Augusta and CSXT and NS Athens route alternatives did not adequately 

address the Project’s Purpose and Need, therefore GDOT decided not to advance them to the next stage of 

analysis. GDOT selected the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives to advance. 

Chapter 2 provides more information on this screening process and the consideration of the No Build 

Alternative. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-9 

Exhibit 0-4: Corridor Alternatives 

Source: HNTB 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-10 

Comparison of Corridor Alternatives 

Chapter 2 of this Tier 1 EIS further refines the three Corridor Alternatives and estimates preliminary service 

characteristics using train simulation and demand forecasting tools, the results of which are summarized in 

Exhibit 0-5. The ranges presented in Exhibit 0-5 reflect two technology options evaluated for each Corridor 

Alternative. The Southern Crescent was evaluated for two options using diesel technology, one following 

shared tracks and one with a combination of shared and dedicated passenger tracks. The I-85 Corridor 

Alternative was evaluated using a diesel and electric option, both following dedicated tracks. Likewise, the 

Greenfield Corridor Alternative was also evaluated for a diesel and electric option, both following dedicated 

tracks. 

Exhibit 0-5: Route Alternatives Comparison 

Corridor Alternative 

Criteria Southern Crescent I-85 Greenfield 

Capital Costs ($2012) $2.0B-$2.3B $13.3B-$15.4B $6.2B-$8.4B 

Top Operating Speed (mph) 79 to 110 125 to 180 125 to 220 

End to End Travel Time 

(hours:minutes) 4:35 - 5:34 2:42 - 2:50 2:06 - 2:44 

Projected Annual Ridership 

(2050) 0.94 M to 1.18 M 5.50 M to 5.62 M 5.38 M to 6.30 M 

Source: Revenue and Ridership analysis, HNTB

Travel time and operating speeds are a function of the technology type (diesel versus electric), the use of 

dedicated or shared tracks (and associated freight volumes), the presence of at-grade roadway crossings, the 

number and location of station stops, and the curvature and grade of the right-of-way. The Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative is able to reach the greatest top operating speed and can operate at top speed for the longest 

duration due to its gentle geometry. The I-85 Corridor Alternative has the second greatest top operating speed, 

and is limited by the curvatures of the Interstate right-of-way. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

has the slowest top speed due to the utilization of diesel trains, the geometry of the tracks, and the presence 

of freight train traffic and at-grade roadway crossings. 

GDOT conducted a train simulation to determine the number of daily round trips possible, considering the 

technology, speed, and travel time. Due to its faster operating speed and shorter travel time, GDOT determined 

that the Greenfield Corridor Alternative would support the most round-trip frequencies among the Corridor 

Alternatives and, therefore, would generate the highest ridership. I-85 generates the second highest ridership 

and the Southern Crescent generates the lowest in this analysis. The Southern Crescent is least competitive 

with existing modes of travel, like automobile, air, and intercity bus, due to the longer trip time. 

The I-85 Corridor Alternative is estimated to be the most expensive, which is primarily attributed to 

retrofitting to Interstate interchanges and constructing elevated structures where right-of-way is unavailable 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-11 

due to existing development. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is the second most expensive, primarily 

due to right-of-way costs. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative is the least expensive due to sharing 

an existing railroad corridor. Additional financial analysis, including operating and maintenance costs, 

revenue projections, and operating ratios, can be found in Chapter 2. 

Environmental Analysis 

Chapter 3 of this document details the potential environmental resources located within each of the three 

Corridor Alternatives. GDOT summarized these findings using a qualitative rating system, depicted in Exhibit 

0-6. GDOT evaluated each Corridor Alternative on its potential impacts to environmental resources, relative 

to the other two Corridor Alternatives. Exhibit 0-6 is a sample of the environmental analysis conducted in this 

Tier 1 EIS for the purposes of comparing Corridor Alternatives. Chapter 3 provides detailed information on 

all environmental resources considered in this Tier 1 EIS, and describes the additional analysis that GDOT 

and FRA are deferring to future Tier 2 analysis. 

Exhibit 0-6: Environmental Resources – Relative Ratings by Corridor Alternative 

* Parks/Federal lands rating is based on number of acres impacted. 

As illustrated in Exhibit 0-6, each Corridor Alternative generally has greater potential impacts in some 

categories and fewer potential impacts in other categories. None of the Corridor Alternatives performed 

perfectly using this comparative rating system. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative had the lowest potential 

impact in four categories, more than any of the other Corridor Alternatives. The I-85 Corridor Alternative 

scored “moderate” in nearly all categories. The Southern Crescent had the highest potential impact in five 

categories, more than the other two. Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 provides a more quantitative comparison of the 

Corridor Alternatives’ potential environmental impact. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 0-12 

0.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

GDOT developed a Public Involvement and Coordination Plan early during the Tier 1 EIS process to guide 

all outreach with the public, stakeholders, and participating and cooperating agencies. GDOT and FRA held 

a series of public meetings during scoping, as well as meetings with stakeholders and agencies over the course 

of the project, which are described in Chapter 4 and documented in Appendix C. 

FRA approved the Public Involvement and Coordination Plan on February 20, 2013, and it provided structure 

for coordination and communication between lead federal and state, cooperating, and participating agencies, 

including tribal governments, and was intended to guide the agency coordination process, ensure efficient 

reviews, and streamline the project decision-making process. The NEPA process for the Project began with 

early coordination and an agency scoping process. FRA announced the agency scoping meeting in a Notice 

of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2013 (see Appendix E). FRA and GDOT held 

the agency scoping meeting on June 24, 2013. In addition, interagency coordination meetings between federal 

and state lead agencies, as well as stakeholder meetings took place throughout the development of the Tier 1 

EIS. Meeting summaries are located in Appendix C. 

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act16, FRA sent coordination letters on 

July 9, 2015, to the state historic preservation officers (SHPO) of Georgia, South Carolina, and North 

Carolina, and to historic preservation-focused agencies and organizations to request information on known 

eligible historic properties within the Study Area. Section 106 also requires tribal consultation. GDOT 

contacted Native American Tribes with interests in natural or cultural resources located in the Study Area via 

letter during the scoping process. 

FRA and GDOT held three public scoping meetings in early June 2013 in Suwanee, GA; Greer, SC; and 

Charlotte, NC. FRA and GDOT also provided the opportunity for both agencies and the public to review and 

comment on the Project. 

0.7 NEXT STEPS 

In accordance with NEPA and FRA’s procedures, once the Tier 1 DEIS is available for public review, there 

will be a minimum 45 day public comment period. During that time, FRA, GDOT, SCDOT, and NCDOT will 

hold public meetings to provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the Project, submit 

comments on the Project, and obtain feedback from the Project team on the Tier 1 DEIS. After the close of 

the meeting and public comment period, FRA and GDOT will consider the public and agency input as well 

as the findings of the Tier 1 DEIS in selecting the Preferred Corridor Alternative. 

After FRA publishes the Tier 1 DEIS and the public comment period is completed, GDOT will prepare a 

combined Tier 1 Final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) wherein the Preferred Corridor Alternative 

will be presented. Should funding for further study become available, FRA and GDOT will then evaluate 

potential alignments (including the Atlanta Approach), stations, facilities, and detailed service characteristics 

in future Tier 2 analysis. 

 

16 36 CFR 800. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-i 

Contents 

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

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1-5

1.1.1 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Timeline ................................................................... 1-5

1.1.2 Current Plans, Programs and Key Initiatives ...................................................................... 1-7

1.2 Study Area and Description ............................................................................................. 1-12

1.3 Environmental Process .................................................................................................... 1-13

1.3.1 Tier 1 EIS Framework ...................................................................................................... 1-14

1.4 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 1-17

1.4.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1-17

1.4.2 Needs ............................................................................................................................. 1-18

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1-1: SEHSR and East Coast Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors ............................................... 1-2

Exhibit 1-2: U.S. Map of Megaregions .......................................................................................................... 1-4

Exhibit 1-3: SEHSR Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 1-6

Exhibit 1-4: Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 1-13

Exhibit 1-5: Tier 1 EIS Key Milestones ...................................................................................................... 1-16

Exhibit 1-6: Urban Population and Employment Trends ............................................................................ 1-19

Exhibit 1-7: Interstate Level of Service within Study Area Metropolitan Areas ........................................ 1-21

Exhibit 1-8: Available Travel Modes and Average Travel Times ............................................................... 1-23

Exhibit 1-9: Fatalities by Travel Mode – United States .............................................................................. 1-25

Exhibit 1-10: Fatalities per vehicle miles traveled (United States) ............................................................. 1-26

Exhibit 1-11: Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes, 1990–2014 (United States) ...................................... 1-27
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

is working with states to improve high-speed and intercity passenger rail corridors via projects that range from 

upgrading existing services to developing entirely new rail lines and services. The FRA defines “high-speed 

rail” as having the ability to travel at speeds between 90 miles per hour (mph) and 150 mph, or even higher.1

FRA is implementing this high-speed rail initiative through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

(HSIPR), created to address the nation’s transportation challenges by making strategic investments in an 

efficient network of passenger rail corridors connecting communities across the country. 2 These investments 

focus on three key objectives: 

• Building new high-speed rail corridors that expand and fundamentally improve passenger 

transportation in the geographic regions they serve; 

• Upgrading existing intercity passenger rail corridors to improve reliability, speed, and frequency of 

services; and 

• Laying the groundwork for future high-speed rail services through corridor and state planning 

initiatives. 3

The vision of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor, which is one of eleven USDOT-designated 

high-speed rail corridors, is to develop an integrated passenger rail transportation solution for the Southeast 

(see Exhibit 1-1)

 4 The SEHSR Corridor initiative proposes high-speed rail from Washington, DC through 

Richmond, VA and Charlotte and Raleigh, NC, and from Charlotte to Atlanta, Georgia. The first designated 

segment of the SEHSR is between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC, and is discussed further in Section 

1.1.1.5 

1 FRA’s High Speed Rail Strategic Plan April 2009 website, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833 (accessed on 3/3/17)

2 FRA’s High Speed Rail Overview, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0134 (accessed on 1114/18) 

3 High Speed Rail Overview, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0060 

4 Southeast Corridor website, http://www.sehsr.org/ (accessed on 7/31/15)

5 FRA, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0140 (accessed on 2/24/16)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-2 

Exhibit 1-1: SEHSR and East Coast Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors 

Sources: National Conference of State Legislators6

6 http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/chart-of-federally-designated-high-speed-rail-corr.aspx (accessed on 11/25/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-3 

The segment connecting Atlanta to Charlotte crosses the core of the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. The term 

megaregion refers to a group of clustered geographic locations that are connected by economic, social and 

infrastructure relationships that resulted from the continued expansion of the metropolitan regions throughout 

the second half of the twentieth century.7 America 20508

 provides the following description regarding 

megaregions: “As metropolitan regions continued to expand throughout the second half of the twentieth 

century their boundaries began to blur, creating a new scale of geography now known as the megaregion. 

Interlocking economic systems, shared natural resources and ecosystems, and common transportation systems 

link these population centers together. As continued population growth and low density settlement patterns 

place increasing pressure on these systems, there is greater impetus to coordinate policy at this expanded 

scale”.9 America 2050 recognizes eleven emerging megaregions in the U.S. (see Exhibit 1-2). One of which 

is the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion, which represents over twelve percent of the U.S. population. There are 

six metropolitan cities in the megaregion, including Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, Greensboro, Greenville, 

and Raleigh. 

7 What Are Megaregions, FHWA, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/megaregions/what_are/ (accessed on 3/3/17)

8 America 2050 is the Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) national infrastructure planning and policy program. The RPA is an urban research 

and advocacy organization based in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut metropolitan region. http://www.rpa.org/ (accessed on 1/25/16)

9 America 2050 website, http://www.america2050.org/megaregions.html (accessed on 9/24/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-4 

Exhibit 1-2: U.S. Map of Megaregions 

Source: America 2050

Implementing the SEHSR Corridor and other railroad corridor projects and programs within the Piedmont 

Atlantic Megaregion will serve as a catalyst for economic expansion, with benefits including: 

• Creation of new jobs; 

• Improved mobility by providing choices for travelers beyond flying or driving; 

• Reduced growth in transportation-related air pollutant emissions; 

• Reduced dependence on non-renewable fossil fuel; and 

• Improved land utilization and investment in livable urban and rural communities. 

FRA in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) prepared this Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the extension of the SEHSR corridor from Charlotte, NC to 

Atlanta, GA, including the preparation of the Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan, 

hereafter referred to as the “Project.” The Project includes two components: (1) an environmental analysis of 

the proposed routes, and (2) a Service Development Plan (SDP). This document includes the Tier 1 EIS

portion of the Project. The Alternatives Development Report (ADR), included within the Tier 1 EIS as 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-5 

Appendix B, identified and analyzed a range of Corridor Alternatives, their potential service speeds and 

frequencies, and examined their ability to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. The next phase of study will 

likely require multiple Tier 2 level environmental reviews throughout the corridor, as part of a Tier 2 EIS, 

GDOT will prepare an SDP report that defines the operating characteristics of the Project and a proposed 

approach to develop the corridor in logical phases. The environmental analysis and SDP report will lay the 

blueprint for ultimately delivering the full buildout of the preferred corridor alternative identified in this Tier 

1 EIS. 

North Carolina and South Carolina are key stakeholders for this Project, and have been actively involved. 

Coordination with these states will continue throughout the process. 

1.1 BACKGROUND

The following sections provide an overview of the history and development of high-speed intercity passenger 

rail and highlights key initiatives or studies that are under way or completed, specifically in Georgia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina. Efforts in the Commonwealth of Virginia are also referenced. 

1.1.1 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Timeline 

On October 20, 1992, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced the designation of five high speed rail 

corridors around the country, including the SEHSR Corridor. As originally proposed, the SEHSR Corridor 

connected Charlotte and Raleigh, NC, Richmond, VA, and Washington, DC. In DC, it would link to the 

Northeast Corridor (NEC) for continued service to New York, NY and Boston, MA. Exhibit 1-3 depicts a 

timeline of major planning and funding milestones for the SEHSR Corridor. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-6 

Exhibit 1-3: SEHSR Timeline 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-7 

In 1995, the USDOT extended the SEHSR Corridor to Hampton Roads, VA. In 1998, following the enactment 

of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (PL 105-187, Section 7201), USDOT created two more 

extensions: 

• Charlotte through Spartanburg/Greenville, SC, to Atlanta and on to Macon, GA, and Jacksonville, FL 

• Raleigh through Columbia, SC, and Savannah, GA, to Jacksonville, FL. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA – Public Law No. 110-432) further 

defined high-speed rail and authorized the basic funding framework for high-speed rail service. PRIIA also 

authorized the appropriation of funds to USDOT to establish and implement a high-speed rail corridor 

program known as the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. 

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 200910, Congress appropriated $8 billion to help 

create a national network of high-speed rail corridors. As authorized under PRIIA, FRA distributed those 

funds through the HSIPR program. Congress appropriated an additional $2.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2010 for 

the HSIPR program. On April 1, 2010, FRA issued a Notice of Funding Availability soliciting applications 

for that $2.5 billion. The USDOT Secretary of Transportation selected the Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger 

Rail Corridor Investment Plan (PRCIP) to receive HSIPR funding based on the corridor’s “... utility and... 

potential for future development”.11 

Between 2009 and 2017, FRA invested approximately $742 million in planning and construction for 

development of the SEHSR Corridor from Washington, DC through Virginia and North Carolina. This 

investment includes the initiation, continuation, or completion of multiple tiered environmental documents 

for the SEHSR Corridor from Washington, DC, through Richmond, VA, to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC, and

for the construction of some initial improvements on the segment of the SEHSR Corridor in Virginia and 

North Carolina.12 The Project will serve as an extension of the investments made in the SEHSR Corridor to 

the north. 

1.1.2 Existing Plans, Programs and Key Initiatives 

The state departments of transportation (DOTs) of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), along with other organizations, have 

undertaken various studies relating to passenger rail and this Project, some of which are still in progress. The 

following sections discuss the initiatives that provide additional context for the Project. 

1.1.2.1 Georgia 

The 2008 Volpe Feasibility Study13 - The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (supported by 

FRA) assessed the feasibility of implementing high-speed rail connecting Macon and Atlanta, GA, to 

Charlotte, NC. The Volpe Study played a significant role in establishing the concept for the Project (Atlanta 

10 Public Law 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

11 FRA’s website, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02692 (accessed on 10/29/15)

12 FRA’s website, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0554 (accessed on 10/29/15)

13 The Volpe Center (2008), “Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Options in the Macon-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte Rail Corridor,”

http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/Atl-Char/VolpeCenterFeasibilityStudy2008.pdf (accessed 11/7/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-8 

to Charlotte corridor). The DOTs of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina participated as stakeholders 

for this study. 

The High Speed Rail Planning Services Final Report (2012)14 – Funded by an FRA HSIPR grant, GDOT 

evaluated the feasibility of high-speed rail for three corridors serving Atlanta, GA, and the southeastern U.S. 

This study evaluated a southern extension of the SEHSR Corridor to Florida, a westward connection to the 

Gulf Coast HSR Corridor to Alabama, and a northward connection to Tennessee and Kentucky. The corridors 

were as follows: 

• Atlanta, GA, to Birmingham, AL15; 

• Atlanta, GA, to Macon, GA, to Jacksonville, FL16; and 

• Atlanta, GA, to Chattanooga, TN, to Nashville, TN, to Louisville, KY17. 

Georgia Multimodal Passenger Terminal (Georgia MMPT) – The Georgia MMPT is a proposed transit 

terminal to be constructed in downtown Atlanta that would provide connections for: 

• Intercity Passenger rail; 

• Commuter Passenger Rail 

• Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail rapid transit; 

• Regional and local bus transit; 

• Intercity bus; and 

• Other planned transit services (i.e., Atlanta Streetcar). 

The Georgia MMPT is a proposed station-stop for this Project. FTA is the lead Federal agency on an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of the Georgia MMPT, although that EA is on hold 

as of the publication of this DEIS. This Tier 1 DEIS assumes the development of a station serving downtown 

Atlanta, which is represented by the Georgia MMPT. This Tier 1 DEIS does not require service to the specific 

location of the Georgia MMPT, but rather a station providing convenient and accessible service to the 

population in Downtown Atlanta. 

Georgia State Rail Plan (2015)18 – GDOT’s rail plan articulates Georgia’s vision and plans for freight and 

passenger rail service in Georgia. Pursuant to federal guidance,19 the Plan includes a description of the state 

rail network, its related transportation and economic benefits and deficiencies, and a program of proposed 

14GDOT, GDOT, http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/High%20Speed%20Rail%20Planning%20Services%20Report%20-

Final%20Draft-ReducedSize.pdf (accessed on 3/3/17)

15 http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/High%20Speed%20Rail%20Planning%20Services%20Report%20-%20AtlantaBirmingham.pdf (accessed on 4/14/17)

16 http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/High%20Speed%20Rail%20Planning%20Services%20Report%20-%20Atlanta-MaconJacksonville.pdf (accessed on 4/14/17)

17 http://www.dot.ga.gov/AboutGeorgia/Board/Presentations/HighSpeedRail-Feasiblility-B-j-l.pdf (accessed on 4/14/17)

18 GDOT, http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/StateRailPlan (accessed on 11/4/15)

19 FRA State Rail Plan Guidance, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04760 (accessed on 3/3/17)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-9 

investments for the rail system through 2040. Georgia’s rail plan serves as a basis for proposed and existing 

passenger rail service. Georgia’s rail plan explicitly mentions this Project, falling under its policy goal to: 

“Provide for a reliable, enhanced and interconnected passenger rail system.” 

1.1.2.2 South Carolina 

The 2008 Volpe Feasibility Study – See Section 1.1.2.1 above. 

South Carolina Statewide Rail Plan20 - South Carolina DOT’s rail plan (August 2014) establishes the role 

of rail statewide, assesses the current rail system (trends and forecasts), and identifies future rail improvements 

and investments around the state. A key component of the rail plan is setting the vision for South Carolina’s 

rail network, including high-speed passenger rail. The rail plan is a component of South Carolina’s 2040 

Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (MTP), which also includes the following:21 

• An Interstate Plan;22

• A Freight Plan;23

• A Strategic Corridor Network Plan;24 and

• A Public Transportation and Coordination Plan.25

South Carolina’s rail plan serves as a basis for proposed and existing passenger rail service. The plan also 

explicitly lists this Project as being part of South Carolina’s long-range rail service and investment program. 

1.1.2.3 North Carolina 

Charlotte, NC to Washington, DC, Southeast High Speed Rail Tier 1 EIS26 - Virginia’s DRPT and North 

Carolina’s Department of Transportation (NCDOT) undertook a programmatic environmental study to assess 

the potential impacts of implementing high-speed passenger rail between Charlotte and Washington, DC. The 

Tier 1 EIS identified the preferred route of the SEHSR Corridor serving Washington, DC, through Richmond, 

VA, to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC, using existing or historic freight railroad right-of-way (ROW). The Tier 1 

EIS defined the initial maximum speed for this segment at 110 mph using diesel powered locomotives with 

up to eight round-trips per day. Although the Tier 1 EIS did not recommend electrification, the document 

mentioned the potential for upgrading to higher speeds with electrification as population and transportation 

demand increases in the future. FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Record of 

20 South Carolina DOT, https://www.scdot.org/Multimodal/pdf/SC_MTP_Rail_Plan_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 3/18/2019) 

21 South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan website, (accessed on 05/04/2016)

22 South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – Interstate Plan, 

https://www.scdot.org/Multimodal/pdf/SC_MTP_Interstate_Plan_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 03/18/2019)

23 South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – Statewide Freight Plan, http://www.scdot.org/multimodal/pdf/sc_mtp_freight_plan.pdf

(accessed on 05/04/2016) 

24 South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – Strategic Corridors Plan, 

https://www.scdot.org/Multimodal/pdf/SC_MTP_Strategic_Corridors_Plan_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 05/04/2016) 

25 South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan –Statewide Public Transportation and Coordination Plan, 

https://www.scdot.org/Multimodal/pdf/SC_MTP_Transit_Plan_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 03/18/2019) 

26 FRA, https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0427 (accessed on 11/4/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-10

Decision (ROD) for this Tier 1 EIS in 2002. This segment serves as the northern portion of the SEHSR 

Corridor. 

SEHSR Richmond, VA to Raleigh, NC, Tier 2 EIS – Building on the Charlotte, NC, to Washington, DC, 

SEHSR Tier 1 EIS, FRA, DRPT and NCDOT completed a Tier 2 EIS for the portion of the SEHSR between 

Raleigh and Richmond. FRA issued the ROD for this EIS in March 2017, selecting a preferred alternative for 

a specific route between Raleigh and Richmond.27

The 2008 Volpe Feasibility Study – See Section 1.1.2.1 above. 

Charlotte Gateway Station28 - Located in the city’s center, the Charlotte Gateway Station is a proposed 

multimodal transportation facility that will serve the SEHSR Corridor and provide connecting services for: 

• Amtrak intercity rail; 

• Commuter rail; 

• Local and express bus service through Charlotte Area Transit System; 

• Bus rapid transit; 

• Center City Corridor streetcar service; and

• Intercity bus. 

The Charlotte Gateway Station is a proposed station-stop and the northern terminus for this Project. NCDOT 

and the City of Charlotte prepared a Multimodal Station Area Plan for Gateway Station with funding provided 

by the FRA through USDOT’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery “TIGER 

Discretionary Grants” Program.29 USDOT has selected the City of Charlotte to receive $30 million in 

additional TIGER funding, which will support the construction of initial track and platform facilities at the 

station. The City of Charlotte and NCDOT began construction on the bridges and tracks for the new station 

in 2018 and plan to be complete by 2022. The City of Charlotte and NCDOT are also preparing engineering 

designs for the station facility. Funding for the station building has not been identified as of the publishing of 

this DEIS. 

The Piedmont Improvement Program30 - Funded under FRA’s HSIPR program, NCDOT invested in 

modernizing the state’s railways through a series of railroad construction projects, including new rail-highway 

grade separations, and other enhancements known as the Piedmont Improvement Program (PIP). Funded 

projects included grade separations, double-track installations, and locomotive and passenger car acquisition 

and rehabilitation. PIP projects aimed to make train travel safer, faster, more frequent and more reliable, 

enhance opportunity for greater job growth and commercial development, and better connect the economic 

regions of Raleigh and Charlotte and the cities, towns and communities in between. All PIP projects were 

27 NCDOT, https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Rail-DivisionResources/Documents/SEHSR%20Raleigh%20to%20Richmond%20Signed%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf . 

28 Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/facilities/gatewaystation/Pages/Projectfacts.aspx 

(accessed on 11/4/15)

29 CATS, https://charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/charlotte-gateway-station/Documents/CGS%20MSAP%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

(accessed on 11/1/18)

30 North Carolina DOT, https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/rail/Pages/piedmont-improvement-program.aspx (accessed on 11/1/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-11

completed in 2017, and the environmental documents prepared for the individual PIP projects also serve as 

Tier 2 EIS clearances for SEHSR between Charlotte and Raleigh. The PIP investments will support the 

operation of up to five daily round trip conventional speed trains between Raleigh and Charlotte. If funding 

becomes available, some of these trains could be extended from Raleigh to Richmond along the proposed 

SEHSR corridor. Additional trips beyond the five frequencies would require revised agreements with the 

railroad. 

North Carolina Comprehensive State Rail Plan31 - NCDOT’s rail plan, issued in August 2015, identifies 

needs and guides investments in the state’s freight and passenger rail network for the next 25 years. Objectives 

of NCDOT’s state rail plan are to: 

• Establish the public vision for the state rail system; 

• Analyze and prioritize rail corridors, programs, and proposed projects; 

• Propose future improvements and investments, and assess funding options; 

• Provide a current inventory of the rail system and identify trends, markets, and needs; and 

• Describe how programs managed by the NCDOT Rail Division work together with other government 

agencies, businesses, and industries. 

North Carolina’s rail plan serves as a basis for proposed and existing passenger rail service. North 

Carolina’s rail plan explicitly mentions this Project as a proposed passenger rail improvement and 

investment. 

1.1.2.4 Virginia 

Washington, DC to Richmond32 - Virginia DRPT and FRA are working to improve passenger rail service 

between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA, which is a corridor shared by growing volumes of intercity 

passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic. A Tier 2 EIS, preliminary engineering and a service development 

plan are underway that will specify improvements for the 123-mile project corridor. The project will provide 

a critical link to enhancing public mobility and connectivity by providing faster, more frequent, and more 

reliable passenger rail service along the eastern seaboard. To develop a high-speed passenger rail link, 

additional tracks and other infrastructure improvements are under consideration. The EIS and preliminary 

engineering project is planned for completion in 2018. 

In addition to the Tier 2 EIS between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA, DRPT is constructing multiple 

capacity improvement projects to enhance commuter, passenger and freight efficiency along the SEHSR 

Corridor. In 2012, FRA awarded Virginia DRPT $74.8 million from the HSIPR program to construct 11 miles 

of additional third track along a section of the corridor passing through Quantico, VA. Eight miles of the 

project, along with a new intercity passenger rail station in Quantico, VA are planned for completion in 2020.33

In 2016, USDOT selected Virginia DRPT to receive $165 million from the Fostering Advancements in 

Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) grant 

program for the Atlantic Gateway project to improve transportation efficiency in Northern Virginia. Virginia’s 

31 North Carolina’s Amtrak, http://www.ncbytrain.org/projects/rail-plan.html (accessed on 11/4/18)

32 Virginia State Rail Plan, Major Rail Initiatives, http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/rail/major-initiatives/ (accessed on 2/9/17)

33 https://www.vre.org/projects-plans-facility/projects/arkendale-to-powells-creek-third-track-project/ 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-12

FASTLANE proposal includes approximately $0.5 billion in rail improvements on the SEHSR Corridor, 

including the construction of 11 miles of additional track in the shared Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 

commuter territory approaching Washington, DC. 

The Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project34 - This study evaluated potential routes for highspeed rail service in both the Richmond to Petersburg to South Hampton Roads Corridor along Route 460, 

and the existing Amtrak Corridor from Richmond to Williamsburg to Newport News along I-64. New 

passenger rail service in these locations could ultimately provide rail connections to the Southeast, Northeast, 

and Mid-Atlantic regions as an extension of the SEHSR Corridor. DRPT and FRA completed the Tier 1 EIS

for this project in 2009 and issued a ROD in December 2012. 

Virginia State Rail Plan (VSRP)35 – The plan, issued in November 2018, presents information on the future 

needs of Virginia’s rail system and identifies recommendations to meet those needs. The VSRP includes the 

following information and attributes: 

• A defined vision for passenger and freight rail transportation in Virginia; 

• Is consistent with the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) and VTrans 2040 Long-term Plan; 

• Was prepared in coordination with FRA according to current guidelines; 

• Includes a Rail Resource Allocation Plan; and 

• Incorporates coordination with railroads, rail providers, regional planning groups and public. 

1.2 STUDY AREA AND DESCRIPTION

The “Study Area” is defined as the area containing all reasonable Corridor Alternatives connecting the logical 

termini under study for the Project, for purposes of evaluating environmental impacts. Therefore, the boundary 

of the Study Area generally follows I-20 (between Atlanta and Columbia), I-77 (between Columbia and 

Charlotte), and the Norfolk-Southern rail line (between Charlotte and Atlanta). The Study Area also contains 

I-85 between Charlotte and Atlanta as well as parts of surrounding metropolitan areas, as illustrated in Exhibit 

1-4. The Study Area will likely shrink in size as the number of Corridor Alternatives continue through vetting 

and environmental analysis. 

The Atlanta to Charlotte corridor spans approximately 280 miles and connects the cities of Atlanta, GA, and 

Charlotte, NC, in a general northeasterly direction from Atlanta (see Exhibit 1-4). Due to the width of the 

Study Area, this Tier 1 EIS considers potential connections to various cities and destinations between Atlanta 

and Charlotte. 

The proposed logical termini for the Project are Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (H-JAIA) 

and the proposed Charlotte Gateway Station. Within the termini cities, this Tier 1 EIS also considers 

connections to downtown Atlanta and Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT). 

This Tier 1 EIS considers potential connections to various cities and destinations between Atlanta and 

Charlotte, generally following the Interstates. GDOT considers I-85, I-20, and I-77 to be viable Corridor 

Alternatives due to their proximity and connectivity to population centers in the Study Area. 

34 https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0481

35 Virginia State Rail Plan, http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/media/1668/vsrp-print-version-full-report.pdf (accessed on 3/1/17) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-13

Exhibit 1-4: Study Area 

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS 

The National Environmental Policy Act36 (NEPA) requires an assessment of potential environmental impacts 

for every federal action that could “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” NEPA applies 

to any project where there is major federal involvement, including federal financial assistance, the issuance 

of a permit, or a requirement for federal approval. This Project requires NEPA clearance due to potential 

involvement from the federal government, specifically FRA and the likelihood of GDOT, SCDOT or NCDOT 

seeking federal financial assistance for implementation and construction. An EIS is required when it is either 

apparent, or becomes apparent through subsequent analysis, that the Project is likely to have a major effect 

on the natural and/or human environment. GDOT recommended and FRA determined that a Tier 1 EIS is the 

appropriate class of action for this Project. 

36 42 U.S.C. §4332, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-14

1.3.1 Tier 1 EIS Framework 

The NEPA process for the Project began with the FRA’s publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal 

Register on May 16, 2013. The NOI, included in Appendix E advised the public and other agencies that FRA 

would prepare a Tier 1 EIS for the Project. 

The FRA is using a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28, to complete the NEPA environmental 

review of the Project. “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex projects covering 

large geographic areas. This Tier 1 EIS establishes the Purpose and Need for the Project; provides a broad 

assessment of the potential transportation, social, economic, and environmental impacts of Corridor 

Alternatives for the Project; and presents the outcomes of public and agency coordination that were considered 

in the Tier 1 assessment and decision-making processes. For this Project, in the Tier 1 EIS, FRA will select a 

Preferred Corridor Alternative (generalized area of travel); identify general locations for potential stations; 

and identify potential technology, speed, and frequency necessary to support the Purpose and Need of the 

Project. 

Following the Tier 1 ROD, GDOT will determine whether and how to move forward with implementing the 

Project. If GDOT decides to move forward, and if sufficient funding is secured, FRA, in coordination with 

Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, as appropriate, will determine the type of Tier 2 EIS to be 

prepared at that time. FRA and GDOT will prepare a Tier 2 EIS that examines potential impacts of the 

proposed action. A Tier 2 EIS will select the exact alignment of the corridor (including the Atlanta Approach, 

defined in Chapter 2), locations of stations and facilities, and operating equipment. FRA and GDOT have 

deferred technology selection to a Tier 2 EIS as several high-performance technology options are being 

studied to maximize cost savings and service delivery. GDOT and FRA will conduct a separate Tier 2 EIS for 

the Atlanta Approach, which could introduce additional locations beyond those identified in this Tier 1, 

including coordination with other rail and transit studies and initiatives in Atlanta. The Tier 2 EIS could also 

include any of the following based upon the proposed action: 

• Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 

environmental effect; 

• Environmental Assessments (EAs) for actions in which the significance of the environmental impact is 

not clearly established. EAs can lead to the development of EIS documents or a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI); or 

• Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for actions with known significant environmental effects. 

The detailed environmental analyses undertaken during the Tier 2 EIS will more specifically assess the 

environmental impacts of each action and identify ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. FRA will 

use the Tier 2 EIS to determine the exact location and magnitude of each action, such as types of structures, 

proposed station locations and configurations, storage and maintenance facility sites, and routing within 

existing ROW, among others. The Tier 2 EIS will continue the public involvement activities and agency 

coordination that began during the Tier 1 EIS process. 

FRA and GDOT developed this Tier 1 EIS pursuant to the following guidance and federal regulations: 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC § 4332 et seq.), and implementing 

regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); 

• 49 USC § 303 (formerly Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f)); 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-15

• National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC § 470), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

NHPA-implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800); 

• Clean Air Act as amended (42 USC §7401); 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC § 1531-1544); 

• Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251-1387); 

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 USC § 4601); 

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice); 

• Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); 

• Executive Order 13988 (Floodplain Management); 

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545); 

• Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-

59; SAFETEA-LU); and 

• Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). 

Exhibit 1-5 provides an illustration of the key activities for the Tier 1 EIS. GDOT plans to utilize the 

streamlining measure available and combine the FEIS and ROD. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-16

Exhibit 1-5: Tier 1 EIS Key Milestones 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-17

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Charlotte to Washington, DC Tier 1 EIS covered the original USDOT-designated segment of the SEHSR 

Corridor. GDOT recognizes that, as part of the overall SEHSR Corridor, the purposes for the Charlotte to 

Washington, DC project are similar to those for the Atlanta to Charlotte Project. The following are key project 

purposes for the Charlotte to Washington, DC project: 

▪ Provide the traveling public, particularly special populations such as the elderly and the disabled, 

with improved transportation choices; 

▪ Help ease existing and future congestion (air, highway, passenger rail) within the corridor; 

▪ Improve safety and energy effectiveness within the transportation network; 

▪ Reduce the overall air quality related emissions per passenger mile traveled within the corridor; 

and

▪ Improve overall transportation system efficiency within the corridor, with minimal environmental 

impacts. 

1.4.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the Project is to improve intercity passenger travel between Atlanta and Charlotte by 

expanding the region’s transportation system capacity, and improving trip time and reliability through highspeed passenger rail services. The Project will provide transportation system capacity necessary to 

accommodate current and projected population and economic growth occurring along the SEHSR Corridor 

network including the following metropolitan areas in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion: Atlanta, Charlotte, 

Greenville, and Spartanburg. 

The Atlanta to Charlotte Project supplements the completed and ongoing intercity passenger rail studies along 

the SEHSR Corridor and supports FRA’s HSIPR Program under USDOT’s 2008 PRIIA. This corridor would 

ultimately also provide linkages to other metropolitan areas along the East Coast (Washington, DC, New 

York, and Boston, MA). 

1.4.1.1 Goals and Objectives 

A set of goals and objectives, vetted through the scoping process and public-stakeholder engagement, served 

as a basis for developing the Project’s Corridor Alternatives (discussed further in Chapter 2). Specifically, the 

goals and objectives helped evaluate whether a Corridor Alternative met the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

The goals and supporting objectives for the Project are to: 

Goal 1: Develop a high-speed passenger rail link between Atlanta and Charlotte that addresses 

intercity passenger transportation needs by: 

• Developing a high-speed intercity passenger rail system that can be integrated into and support the 

SEHSR Corridor Plan and other high-speed rail networks by incorporating existing and future plans; 

• Improving intercity and regional connectivity by providing additional capacity to meet existing and 

projected travel demand; 

• Providing high-speed passenger rail service that is competitive with travel times of other transportation 

modes (highway, intercity bus, and air); and 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-18

• Supporting the development of planned multimodal transportation hubs that complement existing and 

planned transit services. 

Goal 2: Provide a cost-effective and financially efficient high-speed, intercity passenger rail 

corridor by: 

• Creating a phased financial program for the Project that reflects funding and cost limitations. Presently, 

there is no state or federal funding available to develop the corridor in the Tier 2 EIS; 

• Improving the corridor through multiple-phased options that can be used to identify Tier 2 projectspecific activities;

• Providing a long-term financial plan that identifies an initial capital investment and phased long-term 

expansion to reflect the projected level of ridership and revenue potential for the service; and

• Providing a long-term financial plan that defines the potential return on investment or annual operating 

subsidy required to operate and maintain the corridor by either a public or private entity or a joint publicprivate venture.

1.4.2 Needs 

GDOT has identified eight transportation system needs relevant to the Study Area, each corresponding to the 

anticipated population and employment growth with increasing travel demand. The Project would satisfy the 

following needs: 

• Population and Employment Growth 

• Improve Regional Transportation System Connectivity 

• Increase Transportation System Capacity 

• Improve Travel Times and Reliability 

• Provide an Alternative Travel Mode 

• Traveler Safety 

• Improve Energy Efficiency and Air Quality 

• Maintain and Enhance Economic Growth and Vitality 

1.4.2.1 Population and Employment Growth 

A primary Project need is the forecasted population and employment growth in the Study Area, particularly 

in the larger metropolitan areas. In determining population and employment growth, GDOT reviewed the 

approved long-range transportation plans (LRTP) of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the 

Study Area. An MPO is a designated local decision-making body that is responsible for carrying out the 

metropolitan transportation planning process for census-designated urbanized areas with populations greater 

than 50,000 residents and within a contiguous boundary.37 One of the responsibilities for an MPO is the 

adoption of an LRTP, and population and employment growth are key factors considered during its

development. 

37 FHWA’s Census website, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/urbanized_areas_and_mpo_tma/faq/page01.cfm (accessed on 

05/04/2016)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-19

The Study Area includes several metropolitan areas that have historically been some of the fastest-growing 

cities in the southeastern United States. Population and employment information provided by MPOs within 

the Study Area (Atlanta, Augusta, Greenville, Columbia, and Charlotte) served as the basis for the Project’s 

needs38. Each urban area expects a steady and significant growth trend for population and employment from 

2010/2015 through 2040/2045 (see Exhibit 1-6)

39. Atlanta (44%) and Charlotte (61%) have the highest 

estimated population increases from 2010/2015 through 2040/2045, while Augusta (56%) and Charlotte 

(42%) estimate the highest increases in employment projections. In the future, these metropolitan areas expect 

to have considerable growth in both population and employment by 2040/2045. According to the U.S. Census 

as of 2015, Atlanta was the ninth largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the U.S., Charlotte was 33rd, and 

Greenville was 83rd40. To date, this rapid growth has predominantly relied upon the Interstate highway system 

to accommodate intercity travel demand. 

Exhibit 1-6: Urban Population and Employment Trends 

Population Employment

Metro Areas 2010/2015 2040/2045

Change 

from 

2010/2015 

to 2035/40

2010/2015 2040/2045

Change 

from 

2010/2015 to 

2040/2045

Atlanta 5,591,573 8,063,017 44% 2,923,956 3,965,194 36%

Augusta 511,686 712,986 39% 191,037 298,160 56%

Greenville 666,738 811,139 22% 368,204 499,100 36%

Columbia 647,091 860,437 33% 352,080 478,154 36%

Charlotte 1,394,800 2,250,500 61% 998,600 1,418,700 42%

Sources: Atlanta41, Augusta,42 Greenville43, Columbia,44 and Charlotte’s LRTPs45

1.4.2.2 Improve Regional Transportation System Connectivity 

Maintaining and improving regional transportation system connectivity aligns with the SEHSR Corridor’s

vision. This Project provides an integral link for the southeastern United States by providing a connection 

between Atlanta, the largest southeastern metropolitan area, and the East Coast (including the northeastern 

region of the U.S.). Furthermore, the Project enhances regional connectivity within the Piedmont Atlantic

38 There is a total of seven MPOs in the Study Area.

39 Some of the MPOs in the Study Area use 2010 as their base year and 2040 as their horizon year, others use 2015 and 2045, respectively. 

40 American FactFinder, MSA Annual Population Estimates: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk (accessed 3/25/19)

41 Atlanta Regional Commission, http://atlantaregionsplan.org/population-employment-forecasts/ (accessed on 3/20/19)

42 Augusta Regional Transportation Study, https://www.augustaga.gov/2120/Transportation-Vision-2040 (accessed 3/20/19) 

43 Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study, http://www.gpats.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/GPATS_Horizon2040_10_15_2018.pdf

(accessed on 3/21/19) 

44 Columbia Area Transportation Study Moving the Midlands 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan http:/centralmidlands.org/wpcontent/uploads/2040-LONG-RANGE-TRANSPORTATION-PLAN-APPROVED-AUGUST-27-2015.pdf (accessed 6/14/2017)

45Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization http://www.crtpo.org/PDFs/MTP/2045/2045_MTP.pdf (accessed on 3/20/19)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-20

Megaregion. By implementing the Project, Atlanta could become a passenger rail hub, serving other intercity 

passenger rail proposals connecting various cities within the Southeast and the Gulf Coast. 

With respect to improving regional transportation systems linkages, providing seamless connections to local 

transportation systems along the corridor is equally important to improving mobility. The Project will improve 

transportation options along the corridor by integrating with other local and regional travel networks, such as 

Atlanta’s Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and the Charlotte Area Transit System 

(CATS), travel nodes such as H-JAIA and CLT airports, and multimodal transportation facilities such as the 

proposed Georgia MMPT and Charlotte Gateway Station. 

H-JAIA serves not only the Atlanta region, but also much of Georgia, for commercial air travel. H-JAIA has 

been ranked as the world’s busiest airport since 1998. Twenty-one passenger airlines operate at H-JAIA, 

serving at least 150 domestic destinations and 75 international destinations in 50 countries.46

Currently, MARTA provides public transit access to H-JAIA within its service area. GRTA Xpress, Gwinnett 

County Transit (GCT), and CobbLinc provide commuter bus services from suburban metro-Atlanta counties 

with stops in downtown Atlanta, where travelers can transfer to MARTA rail and access H-JAIA. GRTA’s 

long range service plans include new direct routes to H-JAIA from Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, as well as 

other modifications to commuter service that better reflect employment and ridership trends.47

Some private operators offer van-based airport shuttle service between H-JAIA and surrounding cities, 

including Augusta and Athens. Privately operated intercity buses offer service between Atlanta and Athens 

and between Atlanta, Greenville, and Charlotte, with continuing service north to Richmond, VA, Washington, 

DC, New York City, NY, and Boston, MA, as well as points in between. Not all parts of the Study Area are 

served, thus, there is a need to enhance transportation access to H-JAIA. 

The CLT airport offers non-stop service to 150 destinations and is one of the fastest growing airports in the 

U.S. Some of this growth is attributed to CLT’s position as American Airlines’ largest hub and the addition 

of a third parallel runway in 2010.48 CLT is served by three CATS bus routes, connecting travelers to central 

Charlotte and surrounding areas, including connections to the LYNX light rail.49 

Improving regional transportation system linkages helps accommodate projected travel patterns and demand 

stemming from the population and employment increases described in Section 1.4.2.1. 

1.4.2.3 Increase Transportation System Capacity

Several transportation modes, including the highway system, intercity bus, passenger rail, and air, 

accommodate passenger travel between Atlanta and Charlotte; some are frequently at or near capacity.

Automobile travel along Interstate highways is the most widely used form of transportation between Atlanta 

and Charlotte, particularly I-85. Although capacity improvements to highways and the interstate system within 

the Study Area are planned or underway (see Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-7), they alone will likely not address long46 ATL Master Plan, http://www.atl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ATL_ExecSumm_2015_101415_Spreads.pdf (accessed 9/7/2017)

47 GRTA Direct Xpress Service Plan, http://directxpress.xpressga.com/downloads/ (accessed 8/29/2017)

48 Charlotte-Douglas Master Plan, 

http://www.cltairport.com/AboutCLT/Documents/Development%20Master%20Plan/CLT%20ACEP%2002232016%20-%20FINAL.pdf 

(accessed 8/29/17)

49 CATS Routes, http://charlottenc.gov/cats/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 8/29/17)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-21

term travel demand and mobility needs. According to projections of local transportation planning studies and 

reports, automobile traffic volumes will increase and congestion will worsen for each of the metropolitan 

areas along the roadways within the Study Area, particularly on the interstates.50 Furthermore, these planning 

studies project that demand for I-85 will exceed capacity in the Atlanta, Greenville, and Charlotte metropolitan 

areas, causing significant delay for highway travelers throughout the Study Area. Exhibit 1-7 provides 

projected levels of service (LOS) on the Interstate highways within six metropolitan areas in the Study Area, 

highlighting areas of over-saturation. Future LOS projections are derived from MPO travel demand models 

for the respective areas. The projection year varies based on the date provided in each MPO’s long range plan. 

LOS A-C describes at or near to fully free-flowing traffic patterns and indicates a roadway is operating within 

acceptable parameters. LOS D-F describes congested conditions (D) to gridlock (F), indicating that a roadway 

has more demand than capacity. 

Exhibit 1-7: Interstate Level of Service within Study Area Metropolitan Areas 

Metropolitan Area Interstate 

Corridor

Future LOS Future Year

Atlanta I-85 LOS F 2040

Augusta I-20 LOS F 2040

Spartanburg I-85 LOS E or worse 2035

I-26 LOS D or worse 2035

Greenville I-85 LOS F 2030

Columbia I-20 LOS D or worse 2035

I-77 LOS D or worse 2035

Charlotte I-85 LOS F 2030

I-77 LOS F 2030

Sources: Georgia DOT Statewide Travel Demand Model, Atlanta Regional Commission, Augusta Regional Transportation Study, Spartanburg 

Area Transportation Study, Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study, Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, and 

Columbia Area Transportation Study 

According to the 2016 Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan, the mileage of federal-aid highways in Georgia 

experiencing LOS F will more than double by the year 2040. On the Interstates in Georgia, the volume-tocapacity ratio is expected to increase by about 30 percent statewide. Furthermore, Georgia’s statewide travel 

demand model projects that much of the state’s increase in congestion will be concentrated in metro Atlanta 

and the surrounding communities north and east of the city.51

Much of the highway congestion within the Study Area results from the Southeast region’s population and 

economic growth. Many large corporations are headquartered in the Southeast and Atlanta and Charlotte in 

particular, including Home Depot, UPS, Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, Bank of America, and Goodrich, among 

others.52 This economic success has resulted in the expansion of residential and commercial development into 

rural areas, further broadening the effects of automobile traffic congestion. 

50 Metropolitan Planning Organizations’ long range transportation plans and travel demand models 

51 Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan/Strategic Transportation Plan: Evaluation of Future Deficiencies Technical Memorandum, 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/SSTP (accessed 8/30/17)

52 Fortune 500 by City and State, http://fortune.com/fortune500/ (accessed on 8/21/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-22

As for air travel between Atlanta and Charlotte, there are currently twenty flights per day, demonstrating the 

high demand for intercity travel between the Project’s terminal cities.53 As of 2015, CLT ranked the fifth 

busiest nationwide in departures (over 700 daily flights) and ninth in the nation for passengers (over 22 million 

enplanements annually).54 H-JAIA is the busiest passenger airport in both the U.S. and the world with over 

49 million annual enplanements in 2015 (approximately 2,500 daily flights).55 Both airports provide 

international as well as domestic connections.56 Recent studies conducted by H-JAIA and CLT show that air 

traffic at and between these airports will continue to grow, signaling a need for greater system capacity.57 

In 2014, the percentage of on-time arrivals into H-JAIA and CLT was 78 and 79 percent, respectively.58 The 

Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport (GSP) provides regional air service to both the Atlanta and 

Charlotte hubs; however, this service is oriented toward connecting longer distance service. There is no 

commercial air service available to the intermediate population centers along the corridor. 

Amtrak operates one round trip daily between Atlanta and Charlotte as part of its New York-New Orleans 

Crescent service; this infrequent and relatively slow service is not suited to accommodate future growth in 

travel demand. A one-way trip between Atlanta and Charlotte takes approximately 5 hours and 17 minutes 

and service stops at the following stations: Atlanta, Gainesville, Toccoa, Greenville, Spartanburg, Clemson, 

Gastonia, and Charlotte. 

Based on the Study Area’s existing and future travel demand and transportation system capacity, there is a 

need to supplement Interstate highways and other travel modes to increase system capacity by diverting more 

trips from these modes to trains. The Project would supplement the Study Area’s transportation system 

capacity.

1.4.2.4 Improve Travel Times and Reliability 

Deficiencies with the existing transportation system hinder travel time reliability between Atlanta and 

Charlotte. To improve intercity travel and mobility between Atlanta and Charlotte, a proposed travel mode 

must provide competitive travel times and reliability in comparison to existing modes. The Study Area’s 

projected travel demand, resulting from population and employment growth, further underscores the need for 

a travel mode that offers competitive and reliable travel times. 

53 Quarterly, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) collects a 10% sample of origin and destination data of airline tickets from reporting 

carriers. According to its sample size, BTS for 2014 reported just fewer than 2,500 passengers flying to and from Atlanta and Charlotte, 

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=247&DB_Short_Name=Origin and Destination Survey (access on 3/1/17).

54 Charlotte Douglas International Airport Report of Achievement 2015, 

http://www.cltairport.com/News/Documents/ReportofAchievement/CLTReportAchievement2015.pdf (accessed 11/7/2018)

55 H-JAIA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2015, 

http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/BusinessInformation/Reports/FY15_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf (accessed 11/7/2018)

56 Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport website, http://www.atlanta-airport.com/Airport/ATL/Mayor_Welcome.aspx (accessed on 

2/3/17)

57 H-JAIA’s 2031 Master Plan, https://www.atl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ATL_ExecSumm_2015_101415_Spreads.pdf; CharlotteDouglas’ Master Plan, http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Airport/Pages/DestinationCLT.aspx (accessed on 3/3/17)

58 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/HomeDrillChart.asp?URL_SelectMonth=5&URL_SelectYear=2015 

(accessed on 7/29/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-23

The most direct roadway route from Atlanta to Charlotte is I-85 via Greenville and Spartanburg. An alternative 

route is I-20 from Atlanta to Columbia and I-77 north to Charlotte. Private intercity bus companies provide, 

on average, twelve scheduled trips per day between Atlanta and Charlotte. As previously noted, Amtrak runs 

two trips per day between Atlanta and Charlotte (one in each direction). In comparison, airlines provide 20 

flights daily between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Exhibit 1-8 presents the available travel modes serving the corridor, travel times, and frequency of service 

offered. The Project would provide improved travel times and more reliable service between the two cities 

compared to other modes, with the possible exception of air travel. However, the air travel time listed below 

does not include time spent within each airport including passing through security. 

Exhibit 1-8: Available Travel Modes and Average Travel Times 

Travel Mode Frequency of Trips 

(One-Way)

Average Travel Time between

Atlanta and Charlotte

Automobile59

 I-85 N/A 3 hours, 45 minutes

 I-20, I-77 N/A 4 hours, 43 minutes

Intercity Bus60 14 5 hours, 14-16 minutes, depending on carrier

Intercity Rail

 Amtrak Crescent 61 2 5 hours, 17 minutes

Air 36

 American62 18 1 hour 17 minutes (direct flight time only)

 Delta 18 1 hour, 10 minutes (direct flight time only)63

Sources: HNTB Revenue and Ridership Results, May 2013; Websites of intercity bus providers; Google maps 

There is a need for faster and more reliable travel options that are less negatively impacted by variable external 

factors such as automobile traffic congestion, freight railroad traffic, airport system delays, or weather-related 

travel delays. Furthermore, the current Amtrak service is only offered once a day with slow moving overnight 

service. The current schedule from Atlanta leaves northbound around 8:00 PM and arrives in Charlotte after 

1:00 AM. The return service from Charlotte leaves southbound after 2:00 AM and arrives in Atlanta after 

8:00 AM.64 

59 Travel times reflect start/end points from city-centers of Charlotte and Atlanta Google Maps Driving Directions, assumes vehicles are driving 

the posted speed limits 

60 Greyhound website: https://www.greyhound.com/ (accessed on 4/14/17); and Megabus website: http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx 

(accessed on 7/14/17)

61 Amtrak website http://www.amtrak.com/home (accessed on 7/31/15)

62 Estimate based on information provided by searching for weekday flights between Atlanta and Charlotte 

(https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=ATL;t=CLT;d=2017-05-05;r=2017-05-09;so=c;q=flights+atlanta+to+charlotte+nc). 

63 This number is dependent on which rail alternative is preferred. However, The Volpe Center in their “Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Options in the 

Macon-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte Rail Corridor.” (2008) provides this estimate. 

64 Amtrak website https://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak (accessed on 2/14/17)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-24

Highway travel time varies by time of day, congestion levels, crashes, and weather events, affecting vehicular 

travel as well as intercity busses. The FHWA estimates the travel time index (TTI) for major cities in the U.S. 

each year and publishes these scores in its quarterly Urban Congestion Reports. TTI is the ratio of travel time 

in the peak period to travel time in uncongested conditions, and represents the level of reliability for highway 

travel times. In December 2016, FHWA reported the TTI for metro Atlanta and Charlotte was 1.32 and 1.24, 

respectively. Both Atlanta’s and Charlotte’s TTI scores have gradually increased since 2014.65 

The on-time performance for the Amtrak Atlanta-Charlotte Crescent Route as of December 2016 was 55.8 

percent for the preceding twelve months.66 For air travel, during November 2015, almost 15 percent of flights 

departing H-JAIA and CLT had delays of more than 15 minutes. For those flights delayed, the average 

departure delay for each airport was approximately 48 minutes.67 The benchmark for the Project is in 

comparison to automobile travel. As of now, automobile travel is the fastest way to travel between Atlanta 

and Charlotte with average commute times between 3 hours 45 minutes via I-85 and 4 hours 43 minutes via 

I-20 and I-77. 

1.4.2.5 Provide An Alternative Travel Mode 

There is a need for a competitive alternative to auto and air travel modes between Atlanta and Charlotte that 

accommodates the Study Area’s existing and forecasted population and employment growth. Current 

transportation system-capacity constraints and the estimated increase in travel demand substantiate this need 

(See Section 7 of Chapter 3 of this Tier 1 EIS for further information). Contemporary travel patterns also 

require alternative transportation choices for those who cannot or choose not to drive, and those seeking 

alternatives to congested highways, airports, and other transportation modes. Additionally, the commuting 

distance between jobs and people has been increasing between 2000 and 2012.68 The Project provides an 

alternative travel mode that can compete with automobile and air travel as housing spreads out away from the 

employment centers. 

A United States Conference of Mayors’ report estimated that potential travel efficiency gains through highspeed intercity rail could lead to increased business productivity.69 Automobile travelers would benefit from 

reduced road congestion, airport users would benefit from reduced airport congestion, and travelers without 

car access would benefit from much faster and more frequent public transportation service. 

1.4.2.6 Traveler Safety 

An additional benefit of high-speed intercity rail as an alternative travel mode is its contribution to the overall 

net improvement in traveler safety. Based on national data provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

65 FHWA Urban Congestion Report: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/ucr/index.htm 

66 Amtrak website https://www.amtrak.com/crescent-train&mode=perf&overrideDefaultTemplate=OTPPageVerticalRouteOverview (accessed 

on 2/14/17)

67 FlightStats, Departure month of November 2015, http://www.flightstats.com/company/monthly-performance-reports/airports/ (accessed on 

09/30/15)

68 Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program “The growing distance between people and jobs in metropolitan America,” 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2015/03/24-job-proximity/srvy_jobsproximity.pdf (accessed on 09/30/15)

69 The United States Conference of Mayors report “The Economic Impacts of High-Speed Rail on Cities and their Metropolitan Areas,” 

http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/documents/report.pdf (accessed on 09/28/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-25

between the years 2008 and 2013, rail service had lower fatality rates compared to auto and air travel, as 

displayed in Exhibit 1-9.

70 Data presented in Exhibit 1-9 and 1-10 is for reference purposes only to help 

illustrate how various travel modes compare to one another on a macro level. Implementing high-speed rail 

passenger service between Atlanta and Charlotte could potentially lower the incidence of fatalities within the 

Study Area. 

Exhibit 1-9: Fatalities by Travel Mode – United States 

Travel Mode 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Air 568 548 476 489 449 429

Highway 37,423 33,883 32,999 32,479 33,782 32,719

Water 854 865 821 904 765 642

*Train 317 252 269 256 239 242

Source: United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics71 

*Includes train accidents and incidents at highway-rail grade crossings 

70 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national_transportation_statistics/table_02_01 (accessed on 

12/16/15)

71 https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_01.html
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-26

Exhibit 1-10: Fatalities per vehicle miles traveled (United States)72

72 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/passenger_travel_2016/tables/fig5_1 (accessed 11/7/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-27

1.4.2.7 Improve Energy Efficiency and Air Quality 

There is a need to improve energy efficiency by reducing dependence on non-renewable energy sources such 

as oil, and to improve air quality via reduced emissions of pollutants contributing to greenhouse gases (GHG). 

Energy efficiency and improving air quality are essential considering anticipated population and employment 

growth trends within the Study Area. See Exhibit 1-11 for how different transportation modes compare in the 

pollutants emitted. 

The Study Area includes 26 counties in three states. Under the EPA’s 2015 ozone standard, DeKalb, Fulton, 

Gwinnett, and Clayton Counties in metro Atlanta are nonattainment status, meaning they exceed national 

standards for ozone levels. Mecklenburg, Gaston, and York Counties near Charlotte, NC, and Rock Hill, SC 

are in maintenance status for EPA’s 2008 ozone standard, meaning they were previously in nonattainment. 

Furthermore, several counties near Atlanta, GA (Hall, Barrow, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Fulton, Clayton, and 

Walton) were previously in nonattainment for the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard, which has 

since been revoked. All counties in the Study Area are in attainment for PM2.5. Mecklenburg County in North 

Carolina is in maintenance status for carbon monoxide (CO). All other counties meet attainment for all other 

pollutants.73 

Exhibit 1-11: Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes, 1990–2014 (United States)74

GDOT anticipates that the Project would reduce roadway vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which would result 

in an overall beneficial impact on air quality. Local air quality impacts due to the Project, particularly near 

station locations, will be evaluated in the Tier 2 EIS. 

73 EPA Green Book, https://www.epa.gov/green-book 

74 USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/passenger_travel_2016
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-28

The Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 EIS assessed impacts relative to GHG emissions. The EIS 

found that construction of the proposed intercity passenger rail service would decrease GHG emissions via 

the reduced use of other more polluting transportation modes. Compared to the no-build alternative, the 

Chicago-St. Louis proposed passenger rail service would reduce CO2 emissions by 20,150 metric tons per 

year.75 GDOT believes it is reasonable to assume that this Project will also result in reduced emissions by 

diverting trips from current travel modes and onto passenger rail service with a lower per passenger emissions 

rate.76

1.4.2.8 Maintain and Enhance Economic Growth and Vitality 

Based on the stakeholders’ collective vision and plans to foster economic development within the Study Area, 

there is a need for a travel mode that helps sustain current and future economic vitality. In Georgia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina, there are economic development plans and efforts currently in place on the 

statewide, regional, and local levels. All three states’ long-range transportation plans explicitly identify 

economic growth as a statewide goal (i.e., Georgia DOT Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan 2016, 2040 

SC DOT Multimodal Transportation Plan, and NC DOT 2040 Statewide Transportation Plan).77 The 

following information provides additional examples of how economic development plays a role in each state: 

Georgia:78 The Georgia Competitiveness Initiative Report 2012, under its goals and vision for 

expanding and maintaining the state’s infrastructure, specifically states that transportation 

improvements and funding be allocated for enhancing connectivity within Georgia and with other 

states. This Project would provide intra-regional connectivity as well as regional connectivity with 

South Carolina and North Carolina. 

South Carolina:79 Since 2007, the SCDOT Commission has prioritized projects based on criteria 

established in Act 114.80 Under Act 114, the Commission is required to establish priority lists of 

projects for federal-aid and non-federal aid funding programs. One of the criteria used for project 

prioritization is evaluating the potential for economic development. 

North Carolina:81 The Association of Regional Councils of Government for North Carolina 

specifically mentions that transportation investments in the state should provide viable multimodal 

options for travelers. Additionally, one of its performance metrics used for gauging how effective 

transportation investments are allocated is tracking the number of non-freight rail miles added to North 

Carolina’s transportation system. This Project qualifies as a non-freight rail investment. 

75 Illinois DOT website, http://www.idothsr.org/environmental_documentation/tier_1/feis.aspx (accessed on 07/31/15)

76 More detail in Chapter 2 and in Appendix B – Alternatives Development Report 

77 Georgia - 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Programs/Documents/SSTP/Plan/Statewide%20Strategic%20Transportation%20Plan%20Update.pdf; South 

Carolina - http://www.dot.state.sc.us/multimodal/pdf/sc_mtp_executive_summary.pdf; and North Carolina - 

http://www.ncdot.gov/download/performance/NCDOT_2040TransportationPlan.pdf

78Georgia Competitiveness Initiative Report 2012, http://www.georgiacompetitiveness.org/uploads/GCI_Report.pdf (accessed on 12/6/15)

79 South Carolina DOT website FAQs, https://www.scdot.org/inside/planning-project-prioritization.aspx (accessed on 11/1/18)

80 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 57-1-370(B)(8)

81 North Carolina Regional Councils’ “North Carolina Tomorrow 2014 Report,” 

http://www.ncregions.org/NC_Regional_and_Statewide_Strategies.pdf (accessed on 12/6/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | INTRODUCTION

DRAFT MARCH 2019 PAGE 1-29

As previously mentioned, one of North Carolina’s PIP also has an economic development goal of 

seeking to enhance the opportunities for greater job growth and commercial development, and to better 

connect the economic regions of Raleigh and Charlotte and the cities, towns, and communities in 

between these cities. 

Economic growth in terms of employment and tourism is monitored in Atlanta and Charlotte by their 

respective visitors bureaus and economic development agencies. Atlanta has become one of the nation’s 

leading tourist destinations and is a major convention and meeting destination. In 2016 Atlanta reported 52 

million visitors generating $15 billion in spending.82 The Charlotte region hosted 27.8 million visitors in 2016, 

and Mecklenburg County, NC experienced $5.2 billion in visitor spending, more than any other county in the 

state.83 

Tourism’s impact on the state and national economy is reported annually by the U.S. Travel Association, which 

ranks both Georgia and North Carolina in the top ten states for travel industry employment and travel 

expenditures. In 2015, travel activities in Georgia generated $27.5 billion in spending and supported 262,600 

travel-related jobs, worth $8.7 billion in payroll. North Carolina followed closely behind by generating $22.8 

billion in spending and supporting 220,700 travel-related jobs, worth $5.5 billion in payroll. South Carolina’s 

travelers spent $13.4 billion in 2015 and supported 126,900 jobs, worth $2.4 billion in payroll. In Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina, jobs created by travelers represented 7.5 percent, 6.4 percent, and 7.9 

percent of their state’s total private industry employment in 2015.84

High-speed intercity passenger rail has the potential to promote economic development and job creation 

through construction of the system, establishment of stations, and land development spurred by its provision. 

For example, the Richmond and Raleigh Tier 2 EIS indicates that in North Carolina, the SEHSR Corridor 

would generate the following benefits over a twenty-year period:85

• $700 million in new state and local tax revenues; 

• $10.5 billion in employee wages; 

• 31,000 new one-year construction jobs; 

• 800 permanent railroad jobs; and 

• 19,000 permanent full-time jobs. 

GDOT anticipates that this Project could also result in positive economic impacts. 

82 Atlanta Convention & Visitors Bureau, http://www.atlanta.net/acvb/ (accessed 9/6/2017)

83 Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, http://www.crva.com/news/visitors-spent-67-billion-charlotte-region-2016-nearly-52-billionmecklenburg-county (accessed 9/6/2017)

84 U.S. Travel Association, https://www.ustravel.org/economic-impact (accessed 9/6/2017)

85 Southeast High Speed Rail, Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC - TIER II Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(F) 

Evaluation, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17056 (accessed on 11/25/15)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-i 

Contents 

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Development Approach ................................................................................ 2-3

2.2.1 Phase 1: Corridor Alternatives Identification and Screening ............................................. 2-4

2.2.2 Phase 2: Refinement and Analysis of Corridor Alternatives ............................................ 2-13

2.3 Summary of Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................. 2-41

2.4 Tier 2 EIS Considerations ................................................................................................ 2-43

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit 2-1: Corridor Alternative versus Alignment ..................................................................................... 2-3

Exhibit 2-2: Phase 1 Screening – Identification of Six Reasonable Corridor Alternatives ........................... 2-7

Exhibit 2-3: Phase 1 Screening - Scoring Criteria ......................................................................................... 2-9

Exhibit 2-4: Phase 1 Screening – Highest Rated Corridor Alternative by Criterion ................................... 2-11

Exhibit 2-5: Phase 1 Screening – Cumulative Scores and Evaluation......................................................... 2-11

Exhibit 2-6: Phase 1 Screening Results ....................................................................................................... 2-13

Exhibit 2-7: Planned and Committed Projects ............................................................................................. 2-15

Exhibit 2-8: Phase 2 - Three Corridor Alternatives Advancing .................................................................. 2-22

Exhibit 2-9: Atlanta Approach Options ....................................................................................................... 2-26

Exhibit 2-10: Station Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 2-30

Exhibit 2-11: Conventional Trainset: Diesel-Electric Locomotive with Non-Tilting Passenger Coaches . 2-32

Exhibit 2-12: Electric High-Speed Trainset: Passenger Coaches with Distributed Power .......................... 2-32

Exhibit 2-13: Summary of Operating Speed, Travel Time, and Frequencies .............................................. 2-35

Exhibit 2-14 Ridership and Revenue Forecasts ........................................................................................... 2-36

Exhibit 2-15: FRA Standard Capital Cost Categories ................................................................................. 2-37

Exhibit 2-16: Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................... 2-38
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-ii

Exhibit 2-17: Operating Cost Categories and Primary Cost Drivers ........................................................... 2-38

Exhibit 2-18: Operating and Maintenance Annual Cost Estimates ............................................................. 2-39

Exhibit 2-19: Financial Analysis Summary ................................................................................................. 2-40

Exhibit 2-20: Summary of Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................ 2-42
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-1 

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the process by which GDOT identified, refined, and evaluated the proposed Build 

Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative (hereafter referred to as the No-Build Alternative) for the Project. 

Chapter 3, “Affected Environment and Consequences,” of this Tier 1 EIS evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts of each of the alternatives carried forward from this screening process. 

This chapter also summarizes the detailed analyses included in the Alternatives Development Report (ADR). 

Appendix B presents the entire ADR. The ADR evaluated the universe of Corridor Alternatives, discussed 

the criteria used to assess each alternative, and detailed the potential service characteristics (train speed, train 

frequency, and station stops) for the screened Corridor Alternatives. This chapter summarizes these service 

characteristics and their associated ridership and revenue forecasts, and operating and maintenance costs. 

Capital cost estimates are based on high-level conceptual engineering that focuses on the general location of 

a given Corridor Alternative and the essential passenger rail infrastructure proposed to accommodate the 

service. 

Because this chapter summarizes the ADR’s analysis, certain components discussed in the ADR are not 

discussed in this chapter, such as number of train sets, track infrastructure improvements, and maintenance 

facilities. GDOT developed the universe of Corridor Alternatives during scoping for the Project.1 As 

referenced in Chapter 1 of this Tier 1 EIS, scoping is a key milestone of this EIS. The purpose of scoping is 

to provide an opportunity for participating agencies and members of the public to provide the lead agencies 

with expert advice and input on the Project. After FRA published the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlanta to Charlotte portion of the Southeast High Speed Rail 

(SEHSR) Corridor in the Federal Register on May 16, 2013, GDOT initiated scoping and prepared a draftscoping document for public review and comment.2

 In addition to providing agencies and the public the 

opportunity to provide feedback, the scoping process allowed time to educate agencies and the public on the 

Project’s Purpose and Need and provide an overview of key activities to take place during this Tier 1 EIS.

As noted in Chapter 1, this Tier 1 EIS evaluates the potential impacts of implementing a high-speed passenger 

rail service that connects Atlanta and Charlotte. A candidate Corridor Alternative must address two goals to 

be a viable option for providing this service: 

• Goal 1 – Develop a high-speed rail link between Atlanta and Charlotte that addresses intercity 

passenger transportation needs. 

• Goal 2 – Provide a cost-effective and efficient rail corridor. 

These two goals provide a framework for evaluating whether a Corridor Alternative provides a responsive 

service that meets future travel demand, and whether it is a sound transportation investment. 

1 The scoping process is described in more detail in the Alternatives Development Report (ADR). 

2 For the Federal Register Notice of Intent refer to: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04634.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-2 

Furthermore, the purpose of the Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan, or the Project, 

is to improve intercity travel and mobility between Atlanta and Charlotte by expanding the region’s 

transportation capacity and provide reliable mode choices through improvements in passenger rail services. 

This corridor will also be an important component of the planned SEHSR Corridor, which proposes linkages 

to metropolitan areas along the East Coast in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and 

Washington, D.C., as well as connections to points north along the Northeast Corridor (New York and 

Boston). Investment in passenger rail is an essential part of the region’s multimodal transportation system and 

its ability to support population and economic growth throughout the SEHSR Corridor network. 

The intention of intercity passenger rail is to provide an alternate transportation service that is competitive 

with other modes of travel in terms of travel time, convenience and safety. The proposed Atlanta to Charlotte 

intercity passenger rail service would satisfy the following needs: 

• Provide Regional Linkage – Improve overall regional connectivity by providing an intercity 

passenger rail linkage between Atlanta and Charlotte and other proposed SEHSR locations, as well 

as enhance multimodal transportation connections; 

• Improve Capacity – Supplement Interstate highways and commercial airports to provide increased 

corridor capacity to support passenger movement; 

• Improve Travel Times – Decrease travel times between major urban centers compared to auto and 

total air travel times; 

• Provide a Safe and Reliable Alternative Mode – Provide travelers with an alternate choice to 

automobile, bus, conventional rail and air travel that is safe, reliable and efficient; 

• Enhance Energy Efficiency – Improve energy efficiency by reducing dependence on foreign oil and 

decreasing greenhouse gas emissions; and 

• Promote Economic Development – Increase economic activity and employment opportunities via 

improved transportation connectivity resulting in a more productive and competitive economy with 

an expansion of the labor pool market along the corridor. 

This Tier 1 EIS considers “Corridor Alternatives”, which GDOT defines as 600 feet wide, or 300 feet 

measured from centerline in each direction. The Tier 1 EIS generally utilizes a 600-foot wide “environmental 

screening area” to identify and evaluate impacts to environmental resources; however, the EIS can define 

environmental screening areas as narrow as 100 feet where constrained by known resources, such as in

developed urban areas, or as wide as 1,000 feet, depending on the resource, as detailed in Chapter 3. This 

corridor will be further defined during a future Tier 2 EIS to a more precise width of 100 to 250 feet, which 

will represent the specific alignment required to construct the improvements proposed in this Project. Exhibit 

2-1 is an example illustration of the difference between a Corridor Alternative and an alignment. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-3 

Exhibit 2-1: Corridor Alternative versus Alignment 

Image Credit: HNTB 

2.2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

The screening and evaluation of Corridor Alternatives for the Project followed a three-phase process with 

increasingly detailed considerations in each phase. The three phases of analysis were: 

• Phase 1 – Screening: GDOT started with six reasonable Corridor Alternatives identified by a 2008 

Volpe Center study.3

 GDOT used qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate how well each 

Corridor Alternative meets the project goals and Purpose and Need Statement. Phase 1 concluded by

advancing three of the six Corridor Alternatives for further analysis. 

• Phase 2 – Alternatives Analysis: GDOT conducted more detailed operational and performance 

analysis of the three advancing Corridor Alternatives. Refinements were made to the corridor 

location and GDOT considered station opportunities where appropriate. Phase 2 also introduces the 

No-Build scenario, technology and speed considerations specific to each Corridor Alternative, and 

two options for approaching downtown Atlanta (the Atlanta Approach). This analysis is the focus of 

Chapter 2 and concludes with a summary of performance metrics comparing the three remaining 

Corridor Alternatives. 

• Phase 3 – Environmental Analysis: GDOT evaluated potential environmental impacts of the three 

refined Corridor Alternatives from Phase 2 using high-level measures appropriate for Tier 1 

environmental analysis. Phase 3 is detailed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

3 The Volpe Center, 2008, “Evaluation of High Speed Rail Options in the Macon-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte Rail Corridor”, 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/Atl-Char/VolpeCenterFeasibilityStudy2008.pdf 

Alignment: up to 250 feet wide 

Corridor Alternative: 600 feet wide 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-4 

This three-phased approach summarizes the alternatives development process for the Tier 1 EIS, which will 

conclude with the selection of one preferred Corridor Alternative. Following the Tier 1 EIS, future Tier 2 

studies will make decisions on the specific alignment (including the Atlanta Approach, which likely would 

be analyzed in a standalone NEPA document), station locations, train technology, additional service 

characteristics, and will conduct a more detailed environmental analysis of the preferred Corridor 

Alternative. 

2.2.1 Phase 1: Corridor Alternatives Identification and Screening 

The following sections describe the steps taken during Phase 1, including route identification, evaluation and 

screening, and public input. 

2.2.1.1 Reasonable Corridor Alternative Identification 

In the first phase of the screening process GDOT identified six reasonable Corridor Alternatives connecting 

Atlanta to Charlotte. In the Atlanta metro area, each of these corridors served the proposed Georgia MultiModal Passenger Terminal (MMPT), and terminated at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (HJAIA). 4

 In the Charlotte metro area, all six Corridor Alternatives terminated at the planned Charlotte Gateway 

Station located in the city center, “Uptown,” area of Charlotte. Three of the Corridor Alternatives would also 

serve the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT). Initial stations areas are identified here in the Phase 

1 screening, and then are revisited during the Phase 2 alternatives analysis as the three remaining Corridor 

Alternatives are further refined. Final station locations and alignment location will be determined during one 

or more future Tier 2 EIS. 

A critical component for each Corridor Alternative is the manner in which it would transition into the Atlanta 

metropolitan area (hereafter referred to as the Atlanta Approach). During the Phase 1 screening, GDOT 

evaluated six Corridor Alternatives independent of their Atlanta Approach and instead focused on the extent 

between Atlanta and Charlotte. Due to the complexity of the developed urban environment and the existing 

freight railroad network in Atlanta, various approach options are discussed for each of the three Corridor 

Alternatives in Section 2.2.2.2. The selection of a preferred route into and through Atlanta is deferred to a 

future Tier 2 study. 

During Phase 1, GDOT used high-level assumptions for operating speeds based on the types of train 

technology that could be used for each Corridor Alternative. During Phase 2, GDOT conducted a more 

detailed analysis based on the technology type, physical characteristics of each Corridor Alternative, and other 

service characteristics. For the purposes of the Phase 1 screening, GDOT assumed the following: 

• Shared-use railroad corridors are evaluated with diesel trains operating at up to 79 mph on shared track 

and 110 mph on dedicated track; 

• Interstate highway corridors are evaluated with diesel-electric technology capable of speeds as high 

as 125 mph; and

4 The proposed Georgia MMPT is one potential station location in downtown Atlanta, other opportunities may be explored during a Tier 2 

analysis. The Georgia MMPT project is currently listed in the Atlanta MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), indicating support from 

the region, however a local project sponsor with the ability to finance the project has yet to be identified at the time of this report. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-5 

• Greenfield corridors could be designed for electric trains capable of traveling up to 220 mph. 

Again, these assumptions were revisited and refined during Phase 2 for each of the remaining three Corridor 

Alternatives, which is discussed in Section 2.2.2.4. A decision on train technology is deferred to a future Tier 

2 study. 

The six Corridor Alternatives, as envisioned during the Phase 1 screening portion of this Tier 1 EIS, are 

described in the following sections and are mapped in Exhibit 2-2. 

ALTERNATIVE 1: SOUTHERN CRESCENT 

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative is a 268-mile route that primarily follows the Norfolk Southern 

(NS) Piedmont Division right-of-way (ROW), which hosts the existing Amtrak Crescent long-distance service 

between Atlanta and Charlotte. This corridor shares the NS ROW, with freight and passenger trains operating 

together on shared tracks in certain sections of the corridor and on separate tracks in certain sections.5

 This 

route serves three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, and Gastonia; four stations 

in South Carolina in Spartanburg, Greer, Greenville, and Clemson; and six stations in Georgia in Toccoa, 

Gainesville, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA.

ALTERNATIVE 2: INTERSTATE 85 

The I-85 Corridor Alternative is a 255-mile route located primarily within the interstate highway ROW on a 

dedicated high-speed passenger rail alignment following I-85 between Gastonia, NC and Suwanee, GA, then 

following a shared railroad ROW in the approaches to the Charlotte and Atlanta termini.6

 This route serves 

three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, and Gastonia; three stations in South 

Carolina in Spartanburg, Greenville, and Anderson; and four stations in Georgia in Suwanee, Doraville, 

downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA.

ALTERNATIVE 3: GREENFIELD 

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route primarily on a new “greenfield” dedicated high-speed 

passenger rail alignment between CLT airport and Athens, GA, then following shared railroad ROW in the 

approaches to the Charlotte and Atlanta termini. This route serves three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte 

Gateway, CLT airport, and South Gastonia; two stations in South Carolina at GSP airport and Anderson; and 

five stations in Georgia in Athens, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA.

ALTERNATIVE 4: INTERSTATES 20 AND 77 

The I-20 and I-77 Corridor Alternative is a 321-mile route located primarily within the interstate highway 

ROW following I-77 between Charlotte, NC and Columbia, SC and I-20 between Columbia, SC, Augusta, 

GA and Atlanta. Similar to the I-85 Corridor Alternative, this corridor consists of a dedicated high-speed 

passenger rail alignment in the interstate ROW, then follows a shared railroad ROW in the approaches to the 

Charlotte and Atlanta termini. This route serves one station in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway; two 

5 “Shared ROW” or “shared use” refers to ROW that is used by both freight and passenger service. 

6 “Dedicated use” refers to new ROW dedicated solely for the purpose of providing passenger rail service. The addition of freight operations 

was not evaluated in this report. This does not necessarily preclude the operation of temporarily separated freight operations in that the 

engineering design standards used for the dedicated route alternative can support freight use where capacity is available. Heavy freight use will 

increase the maintenance costs associated with these tracks. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-6 

stations in South Carolina in Rock Hill and Columbia; and four stations in Georgia in Augusta, Covington, 

downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA.

ALTERNATIVE 5: CSX AND NS VIA AUGUSTA (CSX AUGUSTA) 

The CSX and NS via Augusta Corridor Alternative is a 373-mile route that follows the NS Charlotte-Columbia 

Subdivision ROW from Charlotte, NC to Columbia, SC, then the CSX Georgia Subdivision ROW from 

Columbia, SC to Atlanta, GA. This corridor shares the NS and CSX ROW, with freight and passenger trains 

operating together on shared tracks in certain sections of the corridor and on separate tracks in certain sections 

where the alignment supports it. This route serves one station in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway; two 

stations in South Carolina in Rock Hill and Columbia; and four stations in Georgia in Augusta, Covington, 

downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA. 

ALTERNATIVE 6: CSX AND NS VIA ATHENS (CSX ATHENS) 

The CSX and NS via Athens Corridor Alternative is a 281-mile route that follows the NS Charlotte-Columbia 

Subdivision ROW from Charlotte, NC to Chester, SC, then the CSX Monroe and Abbeville Subdivisions to 

Athens and Atlanta, GA. This corridor shares the NS and CSX ROW with freight and passenger trains 

operating together on shared tracks in certain sections of the corridor and on separate tracks in certain sections 

where the alignment supports it. This route serves one station in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway; two 

stations in South Carolina in Rock Hill and Greenwood; and five stations in Georgia in Athens, Lawrenceville, 

Tucker, downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-7 

Exhibit 2-2: Phase 1 Screening – Identification of Six Reasonable Corridor Alternatives 

Source: HNTB 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-8 

2.2.1.2 Phase 1 Evaluation and Screening Criteria 

After identifying six reasonable Corridor Alternatives, GDOT then screened the initial range of Corridor 

Alternatives. The evaluation used both quantitative and qualitative metrics to rate each Corridor Alternative, 

then assessed the performance of each Corridor Alternative against the others. Based on this screening 

process, the three top-performing Corridor Alternatives moved forward to the Phase 2 evaluation. 

GDOT applied the following screening criteria to the six Corridor Alternatives in Phase 1: 

1) Purpose and Need: A qualitative measure of how well each alternative meets the Purpose and Need 

including the primary goals and objectives of the Project. Corridor Alternatives best meeting the 

Project’s goals and objectives of the stated Purpose and Need rank the highest. 

2) Corridor Length (miles): A measure of potential improvement costs and indication of travel time. 

A longer corridor will require more miles of improvements and associated costs, all things being equal. 

A longer corridor will typically have a longer travel time and higher capital cost than a shorter corridor. 

Therefore, shorter Corridor Alternatives rank higher than longer Corridor Alternatives in this analysis. 

3) Corridor Travel Time (minutes): An estimate of travel times from the Atlanta airport (H-JAIA) to 

Charlotte Gateway Station using Phase 1 screening-level assumptions for operating speed. Improved 

and competitive travel time, as compared to other travel modes, between Atlanta and Charlotte is an 

objective of the Purpose and Need, and is a measure of the relative mobility benefits of a corridor. For 

this criterion, the lower the travel time, the higher the ranking of a given Corridor Alternative. 

4) Geometry (Curves > 1 degree 30 minutes) and Limiting Speed: A measure of track curvature that 

potentially limits train speeds. This analysis uses “1 degree 30 minutes” as the baseline curvature 

screening criteria to compare corridor geometry impacts7

. This does not represent the maximum 

allowable curvature, but it typically limits a non-tilt train to about 90 mph and a tilt train to 110 mph. 

Thus, Corridor Alternatives with sharper curves negatively affect travel time; therefore, the higher

number of curves with geometry greater than 1 degree 30 minutes lowers a Corridor Alternative’s 

ranking. 

5) Population Served: A measure of potential residential market access and ridership. A Corridor 

Alternative that serves a larger total market ranks higher than a corridor serving a smaller total market. 

6) Employment Served: A measure of potential employment market access and ridership. Corridor 

Alternatives serving larger employment markets receive higher rankings. 

7) Regional and Intermodal Links: A qualitative measure of how well each alternative provides 

connectivity to regional rail systems, airports, and multimodal terminals. This screening qualitatively 

evaluates rail connectivity and access to airports at H-JAIA, CLT and GSP, and the SEHSR Corridor 

at Charlotte Gateway Station. Corridor Alternatives that provide better connectivity receive higher 

rankings. 

7 Degree of curvature is a commonly used measurement of horizontal curve along track. The larger the degree of curvature, the sharper the 

curve. More information on track geometry and limiting speeds can be found in the Alternatives Development Report, located in Appendix B. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-9 

2.2.1.3 Phase 1 Ratings and Results 

Each of the Corridor Alternatives received a score and rating based on each of the criteria provided in Section 

2.2.1.2. 

Exhibit 2-3 outlines scoring and rating categories. The best performing Corridor Alternatives received 100 

percent for a given criterion, which was 5.0 points. Each subsequent Corridor Alternative’s score was in 

proportion to the best performing alternative. 

Exhibit 2-3: Phase 1 Screening - Scoring Criteria 

Performance Relative to the Best Performing Corridor Alternative Score Rating

Best performing corridor(s) (between 91 and 100%) 4.1 - 5.0 Best

Between 81 and 90% of the best performing corridor 3.1 - 4.0 Very Good

Between 71 and 80% of the best performing corridor 2.1 - 3.0 Good

Between 61 and 70% of the best performing corridor 1.1 - 2.0 Fair

60% or less of the best performing corridor* 0.0 - 1.0 Poor

*Negative percentages receive a score of zero. 

Source: HNTB 

2.2.1.4 Consistency with Purpose and Need 

Each of the six Corridor Alternatives were qualitatively compared to the Purpose and Need statement as a 

measure of how well they meet each of the eight goals of the Atlanta to Charlotte PRCIP. The goals include: 

1) Provides regional linkages between Atlanta and Charlotte – GDOT determined that all Corridor 

Alternatives met this criterion. 

2) Integrates with the SEHSR Corridor between Charlotte and Washington, D.C. – To fully meet 

this goal, a Corridor Alternative has to provide both consistency with the 110 mph diesel technology 

employed by the SEHSR Corridor and also a direct connection to Charlotte Gateway Station. The 

three Corridor Alternatives that primarily share ROW and tracks with the freight railroads using dieselelectric technology and with a direct connection to the Gateway Station all meet both of these criteria, 

including the Southern Crescent, CSX and NS via Augusta and CSX and NS via Athens (Alternatives 

1, 5 and 6). While providing a direct connection to the Charlotte Gateway Station, the full build out of 

the I-85, Greenfield, and I-20 and 77 Corridor Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) could utilize 

electrified equipment technology and require a transfer at Charlotte Gateway Station, and may only 

partially meet this criterion. 

3) Is consistent with a Federally designated high-speed rail (HSR) corridor – Federal designation as 

a high-speed rail corridor by the USDOT Secretary shows that a corridor has been reviewed by 

USDOT and is eligible for certain types of Federal funding. It also is an indication that a corridor has 

substantial state support, given that states submit designation requests. Having a Federal designation, 

however, does not necessarily preclude a corridor without designation from receiving funding from 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-10

Federal programs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) extended the SEHSR 

Corridor from Charlotte to Greenville and Atlanta.8 The Southern Crescent Corridor (Alternative 1) 

most directly reflects the route of the Federally-designated SEHSR Corridor. The I-85 (Alternative 2) 

and Greenfield (Alternative 3) Corridor Alternatives do not directly follow the route of the Federallydesignated SEHSR Corridor; however, each serves similar cities along the corridor. The I-20 and I77, CSX and NS via Augusta, and CSX and NS via Athens Corridor Alternatives do not meet this 

criterion. 

4) Promotes economic development – All alternatives improve passenger rail service and increase 

accessibility to communities and jobs, as well as provide a degree of positive economic development. 

GDOT determined that all alternatives meet this criterion. 

5) Improves travel time over current passenger rail service – Alternatives with travel times between 

Charlotte and Atlanta that were estimated to be better than current Amtrak services were scored as 

meeting this criterion. All Corridor Alternatives, with the exception of CSX and NS via Augusta 

(Alternative 5), meet this criterion. 

6) Supports multimodal hubs – All alternatives provide access to both a downtown Atlanta station 

(Georgia MMPT) and Charlotte Gateway Station, which serve as local transit hubs with rail and bus 

connections to MARTA in Atlanta and CATS in Charlotte. GDOT determined that all alternatives 

meet this criterion. 

7) Improves/supplements highway and airport capacity – All Corridor Alternatives were scored as 

supplementing highway capacity, given that new or improved rail service generates the majority of 

its riders from existing auto travelers. Those alternatives not serving all major airports along the 

corridor were scored as only partially meeting this criterion. The I-20 and I-77, CSX and NS via 

Augusta, and CSX and NS via Athens (Alternatives 4, 5 and 6) Corridor Alternatives do not meet 

this criterion. 

8) Improves air quality and emissions – Because intercity passenger rail service has lower emissions 

per passenger mile than auto and air modes, all Corridor Alternatives were scored as meeting improved 

air quality and emission goals. 

Appendix B contains the supporting data for each Corridor Alternative by criterion; however, for quick 

reference, Exhibit 2-4 lists the highest-rated Corridor Alternatives by criterion. A Corridor Alternative could 

have rated the highest or lowest for any of the screening criteria, as GDOT analyzed each criterion 

independently. For example, the Southern Crescent Alternative rated the highest for multiple criteria, but it 

also rated lowest for two criteria, Corridor Geometry and Travel Time. A Corridor Alternative’s cumulative 

score reflects how it scored across all criteria; therefore, a lower rating hurts its cumulative score. 

8 https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0140 (accessed 12/7/17)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-11

Exhibit 2-4: Phase 1 Screening – Highest Rated Corridor Alternative by Criterion 

Criterion Highest Rated Corridor Alternatives

Consistency with Purpose and Need I-85 and Greenfield

Shortest Mileage I-85 and Greenfield

Travel Time Greenfield

Corridor Geometry/Limiting Speed I-20 and I-77 and Greenfield

Population Served Southern Crescent, I-85, Greenfield, and I-20 and 77

Employment Served Southern Crescent and I-85

Regional and Intermodal Linkages Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield

Source: HNTB 

The rating process summed the scores generated by each of the criterion to generate the cumulative score for 

a Corridor Alternative and weighted the criteria equally. Exhibit 2-5 outlines the cumulative scores for each 

reasonable Corridor Alternative as well as the comparative performance for each alternative. The results 

indicate the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield performed well in comparison with the other reasonable 

Corridor Alternatives. The I-20 and I-77, CSX and NS via Augusta, and the CSX and NS via Athens Corridor 

Alternatives all performed far below the others. Refer to Appendix B for a detailed presentation of this 

information. 

Exhibit 2-5: Phase 1 Screening – Cumulative Scores and Evaluation 

Alternative Score

Performance Relative to

Best Performing Alternative

Overall

Performance Rating

Southern Crescent 23.8 74% Good

I-85 27.6 86% Very Good

Greenfield 32.1 100% Best

I-20 and I-77 15.8 49% Poor

CSX and NS via Augusta 10.2 32% Poor

CSX and NS via Athens 14.6 45% Poor

Source: HNTB 

Based on the cumulative score of the Phase 1 screening: 

• The Greenfield Corridor Alternative rated as the “best”; 

• The I-85 Corridor Alternative rated “very good” and was within 14 percent of the Greenfield; and 

• The Southern Crescent Alternative rated “good” and was within 26 percent of the Greenfield. 

Exhibit 2-5 illustrates a large difference between the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield Corridor 

Alternatives’ scores and the I-20 and I-77, CSX and NS via Augusta or Athens Corridor Alternatives’ scores. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-12

I-20 and I-77, CSX via Augusta, and CSX via Athens scored “poor” and performed 60 percent worse than the 

Greenfield, noting that the CSX via Augusta Alternative scored the worst at 68 percent below the Greenfield. 

The I-20 and I-77 performed poorly on travel time and regional and intermodal linkages. CSX and NS via 

Augusta and CSX and NS via Athens performed poorly on travel time and geometry. CSX and NS via Augusta 

also performed poorly on corridor length (Exhibit 2-6).

2.2.1.5 Public Input 

As part of the scoping process during June 2013, GDOT held public update open houses in Georgia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina at which attendees provided comments on the Phase 1 evaluation (Exhibit 2-

6). Participants provided comments regarding the alternatives selected to advance into Phase 2 (Refinement 

of Corridor Alternatives). 

2.2.1.6 Phase 1 Screening Conclusion 

Based on the Phase 1 screening technical results, supplemented by public input, GDOT deemed the Southern 

Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives as feasible to advance to Phase 2. The I-20 and I-77, 

CSX and NS via Augusta or Athens Corridor Alternatives scored comparatively lower, and were screened out 

for the following criteria: Travel Time, Employment Served, and Regional and Intermodal Linkages. By letter 

dated October 14, 2015, GDOT requested FRA’s approval to dismiss the three lower-rated alternatives. In a 

letter dated October 21, 2015, FRA concurred. See Appendix B for copies of the pertinent correspondence. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-13

Exhibit 2-6: Phase 1 Screening Results 

Source: HNTB 

2.2.2 Phase 2: Refinement and Analysis of Corridor Alternatives 

In Phase 2, GDOT evaluated potential service and operational characteristics of the three Corridor 

Alternatives that advanced from the Phase 1 screening. This Phase 2 alternatives analysis introduced some 

new considerations and refined some components of the three remaining Corridor Alternatives. New 

considerations introduced during Phase 2 include: multiple options for the Atlanta approach, schedules and 

stopping patterns based on practical operating speeds, and the inclusion of a No-Build Alternative. Areas of 

refinement consisted of: corridor location, station opportunities, train technology options, operating speeds 

by corridor, and travel time calculations. 

Phase 2 concludes with a comparison of the three Corridor Alternatives’ potential service characteristics, 

including the following metrics: daily round trips, travel time, ridership, revenue, capital cost, operating and 

maintenance (O&M) cost, operating ratio, and benefit-cost ratio. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-14

This section describes the No-Build, the three refined Corridor Alternatives, and the Phase 2 analysis approach 

and results. Following Phase 2, Phase 3 documents potential environmental impacts of the three Corridor 

Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative in Chapter 3 of this Tier 1 EIS. 

2.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which promulgates NEPA-implementing regulations, requires 

the inclusion of an alternative of “no action” along with the evaluation of all reasonable alternatives.9 This 

Tier 1 EIS compares the potential environmental effects of taking no action (the No-Build Alternative) with 

the effects of the three build alternatives. The NEPA process includes a detailed analysis of the No-Build 

Alternative to provide equal comparison to the build alternatives, and to help decision makers and the public 

understand the consequences of not implementing a build alternative. This also provides a baseline against 

which to measure the impacts of the build alternative. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the actions required to implement high-speed passenger rail service in the 

corridor would not take place. The No-Build Alternative consists of the existing physical rail infrastructure 

(i.e., tracks, bridges, signals, stations, maintenance, and layover facilities) and the existing passenger rail 

service, highway network and air services between Atlanta and Charlotte. It also includes: 

• Committed improvements to the existing intercity passenger rail system; 

• Existing and programmed improvements to the intercity highway, passenger rail, and aviation services 

indicated in each state’s transportation plan; 

• Statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs);

• MPO’s long range transportation plans (LRTPs); and 

• Transportation improvement programs (TIPs), master plans, and other documents. 

Committed improvements or projects are those that are reasonable and foreseeable; i.e. those programmed in 

the near term, specifically with a project phase programmed within the next six years. The following sections 

discuss the infrastructure included in the No-Build Alternatives for the transportation system in the states of 

Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. 

EXISTING PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE 

Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail service either along or connecting to the Project. Along the corridor, 

Amtrak offers the daily Crescent long-distance train, which operates between New York and New Orleans, 

LA. This train operates in the early morning or late evening between Atlanta and Charlotte, which generally 

takes five and a half hours. Other than recent replacement of passenger cars utilized in the Crescent service, 

Amtrak does not have any plans to improve or modify the existing intercity passenger rail service between 

Atlanta and Charlotte. 

At the north end of the Project corridor in Charlotte, Amtrak operates two train routes which are sponsored 

by the State of North Carolina. This service includes the daily Carolinian, which operates between Charlotte 

and New York via Raleigh and Richmond; and the three times daily Piedmont, which operates between 

9 40 CFR Part 1502 (Environmental Impact Statement), Section 14 (Alternatives including the proposed action) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-15

Charlotte and Raleigh. In 2018, NCDOT completed a major capacity improvement on the Piedmont Corridor 

between Raleigh and Charlotte, which will provide the capacity to add two daily frequencies to the Piedmont

service, providing a total of five daily North Carolina state-supported round-trip trains serving the corridor 

between Raleigh and Charlotte Gateway Station. These investments are described under the Committed 

Passenger Rail improvements, and North Carolina summary on the following pages. Amtrak’s and NCDOT’s 

combined investments in rail transportation will continue to establish passenger rail connectivity to the 

SEHSR corridor from cities within North Carolina, in particular providing for direct transfer to points south 

at Charlotte. 

NON-RAIL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Each of the three states has its respective Interstate highways, state roads, and transit service. I-85 traverses 

all three states within the Project’s Study Area. At least one primary airport is located within each state: 

• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (H-JAIA) in Atlanta; 

• GSP Airport, located between Spartanburg and Greenville, SC; and 

• Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT), Charlotte, NC. 

Each of the three Corridor Alternatives advancing for analysis in this Tier 1 EIS include direct connections to 

each of the airports listed above, which will provide an additional multimodal trip generator to supplement 

the service proposed in the Atlanta to Charlotte PRCIP. 

Chapter 1 of this Tier 1 EIS discusses non-rail transportation modes between Atlanta and Charlotte in terms 

of their respective travel time and travel frequency. See Exhibit 1-8. 

PLANNED AND COMMITTED PASSENGER RAIL, HIGHWAY, AND AVIATION 

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The following sections describe future transportation system improvements within the Project’s Study Area 

that are in various phases of delivery and committed to by the state and local governments. The funded 

improvements are considered a part of the No-Build Alternative. 

Service improvements intended to improve intercity rail passengers’ experience as well as highway and 

aviation projects represent the No-Build Alternative. However, these projects will occur independently, with 

or without implementation of the Project. A listing of these improvements in Georgia, South Carolina, and 

North Carolina is provided in Exhibit 2-7. 

Exhibit 2-7: Planned and Committed Projects 

Project Name County Description

GEORGIA

Amtrak Station Relocation Fulton County Relocate current station to US 41 (Northside Dr.)/17th Street

Georgia MMPT Fulton County Construct new multimodal hub in downtown Atlanta

I-85 Widening Jackson County Widen I-85 from SR 53 to US 129/SR 11

I-85 Widening Jackson/Barrow County Widen I-85 from SR 211 to SR 53
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-16

Project Name County Description

I-85 Widening Gwinnett/Barrow County Widen I-85 from Hamilton Rd to SR 211

I-85 Managed Lanes Gwinnett County Extend managed lanes on I-85 from Old Peachtree Rd to 

Hamilton Mill Rd

I-85 Managed Lanes (2) Gwinnett County 

Expand current managed lane system on I-85 by adding a 

second lane in each direction between I-285 and Old 

Peachtree Road

I-285 East Managed Lanes DeKalb County Construct two new managed lanes on I-285 between I-85 and 

I-20

I-20 East Managed Lanes DeKalb County Construct two new managed lanes on I-20 between I-285 and 

SR 124

I-85 New Interchange

@ Gravel Springs Rd Gwinnett County Construct new interchange at Gravel Springs Rd at I-85

I-85 New Interchange

@ McGinnis Ferry Rd Gwinnett County Construct new interchange on I-85 at McGinnis Ferry Rd 

I-85 New Interchange @ SR 60 Hall County Construct new interchange on I-85 at SR 60

I-985 New Interchange @ Martin 

Road Hall County Construct new interchange on I-985 at Martin Road, just north of SR 13

I-20 @ Hwy 138 

Interchange Improvements Rockdale County Interchange improvements at Hwy 138 

I-285/I-20 Interchange Improvements DeKalb County Construct capacity and operational improvements to general 

purpose interchange at I-285/I-20 in DeKalb (eastern wall)

I-285 @ I-20 Managed Lane 

Interchange DeKalb County Construct new managed lane ramps between managed lane systems on I-285 and I-20

I-285 @ Bouldercrest Rd 

Interchange Improvements DeKalb County Construct interchange improvements at I-285 @ Bouldercrest Rd

I-75 Northbound Collector/

Distributor Lanes Clayton/Fulton Counties Construct northbound collector/distributor lanesfrom Forest Pkwy to I-285

SR 316 Grade Separation

@ SR 11 Barrow County Corridor operational and capacity improvementsalong SR 316 (a major metro Atlanta arterial)

SR 316 Grade Separation

@ SR 81 Barrow County Corridor operational and capacity improvementsalong SR 316 (a major metro Atlanta arterial)

SR 316 Grade Separation

@ SR 53 Barrow County Corridor operational and capacity improvementsalong SR 316 (a major metro Atlanta arterial)

US 78/SR 10 Widening McDuffie County Widening of US 78/SR 10 from SR 43 to Smith Mill Rd

SR 17/SR 10 Widening McDuffie/Wilkes County Widening of SR 17/SR 10 from Smith Mill Rd to Washington 

Bypass

SR 10 Passing Lanes Oglethorpe County Construct passing lanes throughout

Oglethorpe and Wilkes County

SR 72 Widening Madison/Elbert County Widen SR 72 from Comer to Broad River

US 129/SR 11 Widening Jackson/Hall County Widen US 129/SR 11 from SR 332 to SR 323

US 129/Cleveland Hwy Widening Hall County Widen US 129/Cleveland Hwy from Limestone Pkwy

to south of Nopone Rd

US 23/Buford Hwy Widening Gwinnett/Hall County Widening US 23/Buford Hwy from Sawnee Ave. to SR 347
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-17

Project Name County Description

H-JAIA Inbound Roadway 

Improvements Fulton/Clayton Upgrades to H-JAIA’s internal roadway network. 

H-JAIA New Cargo Warehouse Fulton/Clayton The new Cargo C building will complete the existing South 

Cargo Facility complex.

H-JAIA Concourse C 

Midpoint Expansion Fulton/Clayton 

The project will expand and renovate a total of approximately 

52,000 square feet of space. The project will include two new 

escalators for passengers to connect from the Plane Train 

system up to the concourse level. 

SOUTH CAROLINA

I-85 Widening Spartanburg County, Cherokee 

County Widen I-85 from Gossett Rd (MM 80) to NC state line 

I-26 Widening Spartanburg County I-26 from Us 176 (MM 15) to SC 296 (MM 22)

I-85 at SC 290 (MM 63)

Interchange Improvement Spartanburg County Improve Interchange on I-85 at SC 290 (MM 63) (2 lane exit)

I-85 Widening Cherokee County Widen I-85 from SC 18 (MM 96) to near NC State Line 

(MM 106)

I-85 Widening from SC 153 (MM 

40) to SC 85 (MM 69) Spartanburg County I-85 widening from SC 153 to SC 85 (MM 40 to MM 69)

I-85 Widening from SC 57 (MM 80) 

to SC 18 (MM 96) 

Spartanburg County, Cherokee 

County I-85 Widening SC 57 (MM 80) to SC 18 (MM 96)

I-85 Widening Greenville County Widen I-85 from US 25 (MM 43) to SC 129 (MM 67)

I-385 @ I-85 Interchange Redesign Greenville County Redesign interchange at I-385 (MM 36) and I-85 (MM 51)

I-385 Widening Greenville County Widen I-385 from West Georgia Rd (MM 29) to I-85 (MM 

36)

I-85 Widening Greenville County I-85 Widening from SC 153 (MM 40 to SC 85 (MM 69)

I-85 over Rocky Creek Bridge Greenville County Replace the culvert over the Rocky Creek with a bridge. 

I-85 over Seneca River Anderson County Bridge Replacement - I-85 NB & SB over Seneca River

I-85 over Three & Twenty Creek Anderson County Bridge Replacement I-85 NB & SB over Three & Twenty 

Creek 

I-85 Corridor Improvements Anderson County I-85 Corridor Improvements from GA State Line to Exit 20 

I-77 Corridor Improvements Chester, York Counties I-77 Corridor Improvements from SC 9 (Exit 65) to US 21 

(Exit 77) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-18

Project Name County Description

I-20/I-26/I-77: Corridor 

Improvement

Lexington/Richland/Fairfield 

Counties Corridor management plan (MM 34 TO MM 48) 

I-20/I-26/I-126 - Corridor 

Improvements Lexington/Richland Counties Increase interstate capacity / mobility 

I-26 @ US 1 (Augusta Rd) Lexington County Interchange improvements (HWY US21, MM119) 

I-20 Widening Lexington County Interstate widening from US 378 to Longs Pond Rd (MM61 

to MM 51)

I-20 & US 1 Lexington County Bridge Replacement 

I-26 Widening Lexington/Richland County Interstate widening from US 176 to SC 202 (MM 85 to MM 

101)

I-126 Bridge Replacement over SCL 

Railroad Richland County Bridge Replacement 

I-26 (Near MM 96 to near MM 101) 

- S-58 (Koon Road) Richland County Bridge Replacement 

I-26 (Near MM 96 to near MM 101) 

- S-80 (Shady Grove) Richland County Bridge Replacement 

SC 277 NB over I-77 Richland County Bridge Replacement 

I-77 (I-20 to Killian Road (Exit 22)) Richland County 

Widening I-77 NB/SB (I-20 and Exit 22 Killian Road); 

Rehab of SB lanes from Killian Rd to Blythewood Rd; 

Widening of 10 mainline bridges.

NORTH CAROLINA

Charlotte Gateway Station Project Mecklenburg County 

Construction of a new station in Uptown Charlotte that will 

provide seamless integration of various rapid transit modes. 

The City of Charlotte and NCDOT began construction on the 

railroad infrastructure for the new station in 2018, which will 

be completed in 2022. The City and NCDOT are also 

preparing engineering design for and pursuing funding to 

complete the station building by 2025.

NS Bulk Transfer Facility Mecklenburg County New intermodal facility for transfer of freight between truck 

and rail, located near I-485 within CLT airport property.

US 74 (Independence Blvd) Mecklenburg County 

Convert Bus Lanes to HOT Lanes. NC 27 to I-277. Laneage 

and jersey barriers are already in place. The scope of this 

project would include gantries, new striping and gates.

I-485 Mecklenburg County Construct one express toll lane in each direction within the 

existing median. I-77 to US 74.

I-85 Interchange at Cox Rd Gaston County Construct new interchange at Cox Rd @ I-85

I-85 Widening Gaston County Widen I-85 to 8 lanes from US 321 to NC 273
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-19

Project Name County Description

Piedmont Improvement Program Mecklenburg County 

Corridor-wide railroad improvement program to increase 

capacity and expand intercity passenger rail service for up to 

five daily North Carolina state-supported round-trip corridor

trains between Raleigh and Charlotte.

Harrisburg to Charlotte

Railroad Improvements

Mecklenburg 

and Cabarrus County 

This project involves constructing about 12 miles of second 

track and realigning curves along the North Carolina Railroad 

(NCRR) corridor in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties.

Charlotte Rail and Locomotive 

Maintenance Facility Mecklenburg County 

This project involves constructing a new facility to service 

state-supported Piedmont and Carolinian trains during 

layovers in Charlotte.

South Land Acquisition Mecklenburg County Land acquisition at CLT airport for future airport expansion

CATS West Corridor Transit Study Mecklenburg and Gaston County

CATS is conducting a planning study to evaluate transit 

alternatives between the existing LYNX Gold Line and the 

CLT airport, including consideration of light rail within the 

NS ROW. 

Sources: State DOTs’ STIPs and MPOs’ TIPs and LRTPs

GEORGIA PROJECTS SUMMARY 10

Projects in Georgia fall into two categories: rail-related and non-rail. The two rail-related projects are both 

located in Fulton County (Atlanta). One is the planned Georgia MMPT in downtown Atlanta; the other is the 

Amtrak station relocation in midtown Atlanta. These two projects are included in the Atlanta MPO LRTP, 

which lists the region’s funding priorities through the year 2040. 

Most of the non-rail projects in Georgia are roadway projects that address regional and sub-regional travel. 

A majority of these roadway projects add capacity or operational improvements for major arterials and 

freeways. The most notable are the Interstate widening and managed lane projects, namely on I-85 northeast 

of Atlanta, approaching South Carolina. 

Based on H-JAIA’s construction report, there are three upcoming aviation projects scheduled for construction, 

comprising of upgrades to the internal road network, new storage facilities, and expansion of one of its 

concourses.11 

10 GDOT. http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Pages/STIP.aspx (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

ARC. http://atlantaregionsplan.org/regional-transportation-plan/ (accessed on 1212/8/2017) 

Gainesville-Hall MPO. https://www.ghmpo.org/101/Documents (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

Athens MPO. http://www.macorts.org/documents.html (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

Augusta MPO. http://www.augustaga.gov/1312/Long-Range-Transportation-Plan (accessed on 1212/8/2017). 

11 Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. http://next.atl.com (accessed on 1212/8/2017) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-20

SOUTH CAROLINA PROJECTS SUMMARY 12

Rail projects in South Carolina are currently committed in lump-sum programming categories in support of 

rail crossing and railroad hazard elimination safety projects.13 Focusing on the condition and performance of 

the existing road and bridge network, South Carolina is bringing its system back into a state of good repair 

through statewide system improvement, bridge replacement, improving overall system travel time reliability 

at various bottlenecks, and addressing capacity along numerous interstate corridors. This includes upgrades 

to I-85, I-385, I-77, I-26, I-20, and various associated interchanges. 

The GSP Airport Master Plan from December 2003 developed a phasing plan for its airport expansion; 

however, a timetable for construction projects has not been established. 

NORTH CAROLINA PROJECTS SUMMARY 14

The most notable rail-related projects in North Carolina are the NCDOT Piedmont Improvement Program 

(PIP) and the construction of Charlotte Gateway Station. Through the PIP investments, NCDOT will have the 

capability to expand intercity passenger rail service up to five daily North Carolina state-supported round-trip 

corridor trains in Charlotte. Building on the PIP investments, the Charlotte Gateway Station project will 

relocate intercity passenger rail service to a new multimodal station in Uptown Charlotte. The Charlotte 

Gateway Station is the southern terminus for the corridor cleared under the Southeast High-Speed Tier 1 EIS. 

The improvements to intercity passenger rail facilities in North Carolina and Charlotte will offer direct 

connectivity to the Atlanta-Charlotte PRCIP in this Project. 

NCDOT Piedmont Improvement Program: 

In 2010 and 2011, FRA provided $542 million from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) 

program to NCDOT for the Piedmont Improvement Program (PIP) to improve and expand the state-supported 

intercity passenger rail service between Raleigh, NC and Charlotte, NC. This program includes the 

construction of new or upgraded passenger stations and maintenance facilities, rehabilitation of intercity 

passenger rail equipment, construction of thirteen highway-rail grade separations, and installation of 

additional capacity on the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) corridor. This investment enables NCDOT to 

operate up to five daily North Carolina state-supported round-trip passenger trains between Raleigh and 

Charlotte, of which the fourth frequency began service in 2018. This program also includes the construction 

of an initial phase of a new Locomotive and Railcar Maintenance Facility (LRMF) in Charlotte for the 

servicing and maintenance of the state-supported passenger rail equipment. The LRMF is adjacent to Charlotte 

12 Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport. https://www.gspairport.com/airport-planning-documents/ (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

South Carolina DOT. http://www.scdot.org/multimodal/pdf/SC_MTP_Rail_Plan_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

South Carolina DOT STIP. http://www.scdot.org/inside/planning-stip.aspx (accessed on 2/18/19); 

Anderson MPO. http://www.cityofandersonsc.com/anderson-area-transportation-study (accessed on 12(accessed on 12/8/2017); 

Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study. http://www.gpats.org/plans/horizon2040 (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

Spartanburg Area Transportation Study. http://spatsmpo.org/planning/ (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

Columbia Area Transportation Study. https://centralmidlands.org/about/transportation-planning.html (accessed on 12(accessed on 12/8/2017). 

13 SCDOT http://www.scdot.org/inside/planning-stip.aspx (accessed on 2/18/19);

14 Gaston-Cleveland-Lexington MPO. http://gclmpo.org/plans-programs-and-studies/tip/ (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

Charlotte MPO. https://www.crtpo.org/plans-programs (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

NCDOT Rail Projects. http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/rail/projects.html (accessed on 1212/8/2017); 

NCDOT STIP. https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/default.aspx#0 (accessed on 12(accessed on 12/8/2017) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-21

Gateway Station at the north end of the Project corridor; however, there is limited capacity at the facility to 

provide full support for layover or servicing of the SEHSR Atlanta to Charlotte equipment. 

Charlotte Gateway Station: 

The City of Charlotte and NCDOT are sponsoring the development of the Charlotte Gateway Station project 

to serve as a comprehensive multimodal transportation facility in Uptown Charlotte. The station is envisioned 

to provide convenient, walkable access to Uptown Charlotte with direct connections to local and intercity bus, 

local and regional transit, and intercity and high-speed passenger rail. The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 

Charlotte Gateway Station in April 2009, which defined the multimodal transportation use and evaluated 

environmental impacts associated with the project. In 2015, the USDOT provided a $250,000 grant from the 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program to NCDOT and the City of 

Charlotte to prepare a Multimodal Station Area Plan (MSAP) to provide a final vision for the CGS as a 

multimodal hub and transit oriented district.15 Additionally, in 2017, the USDOT awarded a $30 million grant 

to the City of Charlotte from the TIGER program to construct the railroad access components of CGS, 

including two dedicated station tracks with a passenger platform and ground level access to the multimodal 

facility. The MSAP envisions the development of CGS in phases corresponding to the incremental expansion 

in transportation services, including the future implementation of SEHSR service between Atlanta and 

Charlotte. The railroad access components are planned for completion in 2022. The City of Charlotte and 

NCDOT are also preparing engineering designs for the passenger amenities at the station, while the City is 

pursuing a partnership with a private developer to construct the larger multimodal transportation center, 

anticipated for completion by 2025. Upon completion of the Charlotte Gateway Station, the Amtrak and 

NCDOT passenger service is planned to relocate to Uptown Charlotte, providing a direct connection to the 

future SEHSR service between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Non-rail projects in North Carolina are primarily geared toward adding capacity and improving operations on 

the Interstate. The CLT airport, per its master plan, is currently acquiring additional land for its airport 

expansion plans, which it refers to it as the South Land Acquisition Area.16 

2.2.2.2 Phase 2 - Refinement of Corridor Alternatives 

In addition to the No Build Alternative, GDOT is evaluating the three Corridor Alternatives that scored the 

highest under the Phase 1 screening – the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives. 

A critical component for each Corridor Alternative is the manner in which it would transition into the Atlanta 

metropolitan area (hereafter referred to as the Atlanta Approach). Due to the density of the developed urban 

environment and the complex railroad network in Atlanta, the selection of a preferred route into Atlanta is 

deferred to a future Tier 2 EIS, but two options are considered in this Tier 1 EIS. Another critical component 

15 For the Final CGS MSAP Report: http://charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/charlotte-gateway-station/Documents/CGS%20MSAP%20-

%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

16 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. http://www.cltairport.com/AboutCLT/Pages/LandAcquisition.aspx (accessed 12(accessed 

12/8/2017).
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-22

is the equipment technology options and associated operating speeds. A more detailed discussion is located 

in Section 2.2.2.4, but general assumptions for each Corridor Alternative are summarized here. 

The following section provides descriptions of each Corridor Alternative, including refinements and new 

considerations introduced during the Phase 2 analysis. Exhibit 2-8 illustrates these three Corridor 

Alternatives, including the refinements made to potential station locations as a result of Phase 2 analysis, 

further described in Section 2.2.2.3. 

Exhibit 2-8: Phase 2 - Three Corridor Alternatives Advancing 

Source: HNTB 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-23

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 1: SOUTHERN CRESCENT 

The location of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative remains as described in Phase 1 (Section 2.2.1.1), 

where the 268-mile route primarily follows the existing NS freight rail corridor that also hosts Amtrak’s 

Crescent passenger rail service. GDOT assumes this Corridor Alternative would use diesel technology. 

Additional description of the corridor is provided below. 

1) In North Carolina, this corridor follows the NS ROW for 41 miles on shared tracks operating at speeds up 

to 79 mph. The route begins at Charlotte Gateway Station, passes adjacent to the CLT airport and continues 

to Gastonia and Kings Mountain. This route serves three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, 

CLT airport, and Gastonia. 

2) In South Carolina, this corridor continues along the NS ROW for 122 miles on shared tracks. There is one 

17-mile section where the alignment has the potential to support speeds up to 110 mph if a dedicated 

passenger track is constructed alongside the existing freight tracks. This route serves four stations in South 

Carolina: Spartanburg, Greer, Greenville, and Clemson. 

3) In Georgia, this corridor continues along the NS ROW for 95 miles from the state line to Howell Junction 

in Atlanta where it transitions to a common NS and CSX route for 15 miles through downtown to a 

southern terminus at H-JAIA. Within Georgia, the route includes the potential for approximately 36 miles 

of higher speed track where the alignment can support speeds up to 110 mph, otherwise the speed is limited 

to 79 mph due to geographic and operational constraints. This route serves six stations in Georgia: Toccoa, 

Gainesville, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA. 

This Tier 1 EIS also considers a potential alternate approach for the Southern Crescent Corridor from 

Gainesville, GA northeast of Atlanta to Howell Junction. This alternate approach diverges from the NS 

ROW near Gainesville, GA via a greenfield connection to near Auburn, GA, then follows the CSX 

Abbeville Subdivision to the CSX Atlanta Belt Line to rejoin with the NS ROW at Howell Junction. This 

route adds stations on the CSX approach in Lawrenceville and Tucker, GA to substitute stations on the NS 

approach in Suwanee and Doraville, GA. 

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 2: INTERSTATE 85 

The I-85 Corridor Alternative remains as described in Section 2.2.1.1, where the 255-mile route generally 

follows I-85 between Atlanta and Charlotte. The exception is in the approaches into each terminus. GDOT 

assumes that dedicated passenger rail tracks would be constructed in the I-85 median or immediately adjacent 

to the interstate. GDOT also assumes that either diesel or electric technology could be employed for this 

Corridor Alternative. Additional description of the corridor is provided below. 

1) In North Carolina, this corridor follows the NS ROW for 25 miles on dedicated passenger tracks from 

Charlotte Gateway Station to stations at the CLT airport and Gastonia, NC. Where following NS ROW, 

this corridor supports speeds up to 110 mph. At the interchange with State Highway 274, the corridor 

transitions to the I-85 ROW for approximately 15 miles to South Carolina. This route serves three stations 

in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, and Gastonia. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-24

2) In South Carolina, this corridor continues along the I-85 ROW for approximately 105 miles serving three 

stations in Spartanburg, Greenville, and Anderson, SC. The construction of aerial viaducts may be required 

within the Greenville and Spartanburg metropolitan areas where the I-85 ROW is constrained. This 

corridor is capable of supporting speeds up to 125 mph with diesel technology or up to 180 mph with 

electric technology.17 However, top speeds may only be sustained for short segments due to corridor 

geometry, topography, and station stops. 

3) In Georgia, this corridor continues along the I-85 ROW for approximately 65 miles to northeast of 

Suwanee, GA near the Hamilton Mill Road interchange, where the route transitions westward to the NS 

ROW via a 5-mile-long greenfield connector. From Suwanee, GA, the corridor follows the NS ROW for 

25 miles to Howell Junction in Atlanta where it transitions to a common NS and CSX route for 15 miles 

through downtown to a southern terminus at H-JAIA. This route serves four stations in Georgia: Suwanee, 

Doraville, downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA. Within the shared ROW portion of this 

corridor, operating speeds are generally less than 80 mph with diesel technology and less than 110 mph 

with electric technology. 

This Tier 1 EIS also considers a potential alternate approach for the I-85 Corridor from northeast of Atlanta 

to Howell Junction. This alternate approach diverges from the I-85 ROW near Braselton, GA via a 

greenfield connection to near Auburn, GA, then follows the CSX Abbeville Subdivision to the CSX 

Atlanta Belt Line to rejoin with the NS ROW at Howell Junction. This route adds stations on the CSX 

approach in Lawrenceville and Tucker, GA to substitute stations on the NS approach in Suwanee and 

Doraville, GA. 

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 3: GREENFIELD 

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative remains as described in Section 2.2.1.1, where the 274-mile route 

generally follows a new dedicated alignment between the CLT airport and northeast Atlanta. GDOT assumes 

this Corridor Alternative could use either diesel or electric technology. Additional description of the corridor 

is provided below. 

1) In North Carolina, this corridor follows the NS ROW for 10 miles on dedicated passenger tracks, 

operating between 80 and 110 mph, from Charlotte Gateway Station to the CLT airport station before 

transitioning to a new greenfield alignment just west of the Catawba River crossing. From the Catawba 

River, the greenfield alignment extends for approximately 15 miles passing southeast of Belmont, NC to 

a station at South Gastonia near the state line. This route serves three stations in North Carolina: Charlotte 

Gateway, CLT airport, and South Gastonia. Once on greenfield alignment, this corridor can sustain 

speeds up to 125 mph using diesel or 220 mph using electric technology. 

2) In South Carolina, this corridor continues along a greenfield alignment for 65 miles passing east of Kings 

Mountain State Park to a route paralleling I-85, approximately 10 miles to the southeast, then diverging 

westward to a station near the GSP airport. From the GSP airport, this corridor returns eastward to a route 

17 The maximum design speed for the I-85 Corridor Alternative is 220 mph; however, the maximum sustainable speed is 180 mph due to 

geographic constraints along the interstate ROW and acceleration capability of equipment operated in this service. Federal regulations require 

that all highway-rail crossings be grade-separated where train speeds exceed 125 mph. Requirements for operation through crossings at speeds 

above 110 mph are very rigorous; none have been authorized to date. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-25

paralleling I-85, approximately 15 miles to the east, for 50 miles to the state line at the Savannah River 

with a station in Anderson, SC. This Corridor Alternative can support 125 mph (diesel) or 220 mph 

(electric) throughout most of South Carolina until reaching the first stop in Georgia. 

3) In Georgia, this corridor continues along a greenfield alignment for 55 miles to a station in Athens, GA. 

From Athens, this corridor diverges westward along a greenfield alignment for 25 miles to join the route 

of the I-85 Corridor Alternative near Braselton, GA. From Braselton, this corridor continues along the 

I-85 ROW for approximately 9 miles to northeast of Suwanee, GA near the Hamilton Mill Road 

interchange, where the route transitions westward to the NS ROW via a 5-mile-long greenfield connector. 

From Suwanee, the corridor follows the NS ROW for 25 miles to Howell Junction in Atlanta where it 

transitions to a common NS and CSX route for 15 miles through downtown to a southern terminus at 

H-JAIA. This route serves five stations in Georgia in Athens, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta 

(Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA. Within the shared ROW of the Atlanta Approach, speeds are generally 

between 70 mph and 110 mph for both diesel and electric options. 

This Tier 1 EIS also considers a potential alternate approach for the Greenfield Corridor from northeast of 

Atlanta to Howell Junction. This alternate approach diverges from the greenfield route near Auburn, GA, then 

follows the CSX Abbeville Subdivision to the CSX Atlanta Belt Line to rejoin with the NS ROW at Howell 

Junction. This route adds stations on the CSX approach in Lawrenceville and Tucker, GA to substitute stations 

on the NS approach in Suwanee and Doraville, GA. 

ATLANTA APPROACH 

Multiple sub-Corridor Alternatives exist in the Atlanta area that could accommodate the approach of the three 

Corridor Alternatives from northeast of I-285 to Howell Junction north of downtown Atlanta, including the 

potential use of two freight railroad corridors. As illustrated in Exhibit 2-9, the three Corridor Alternatives 

could transition to either of two Atlanta Approaches: the Southern Crescent ROW (operated by NS) from 

northeast of Suwanee, GA, into Atlanta, or the CSX ROW, from northeast of Lawrenceville, GA, into Atlanta. 

Both approaches converge at Howell Junction, where all alternatives follow a common Class I railroad ROW 

along the NS/CSX corridor to access a station in downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT) and H-JAIA. GDOT 

assumes the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative could use either approach; however, operating on shared 

tracks due to the modest level of service and limited operating speed. GDOT also assumes the I-85 and 

Greenfield Corridor Alternatives could use either approach; however, operating on dedicated tracks sharing 

the freight railroad ROW. 

Due to the complex environment of the approaches to and through Atlanta and the nature of a tiered NEPA

process, this Tier 1 EIS defers the selection of the preferred Atlanta Approach to a future Tier 2 EIS. Therefore, 

in Chapter 3 of this Tier 1 EIS, GDOT evaluated both the NS and CSX approaches for potential environmental 

impacts. For this corridor-level review, the operational analysis uses the NS approach as the representative 

common approach into Atlanta. The selection of NS’s ROW as the common Atlanta Approach provides a 

consistent comparison of the operations of the three Corridor Alternatives within this Tier 1 EIS. The ADR 

in Appendix B provides data allowing for a preliminary comparison of the two Atlanta Approaches. In 2015, 

GDOT and FRA agreed upon this method for the Tier 1 EIS due to the minimal differences between ridership 

and revenue of the two Atlanta Approaches documented in the ADR. GDOT proposed this method in a letter 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-26

to FRA dated April 20, 2015 with references to sections of the ADR containing supporting data. FRA 

responded with a letter dated June 11, 2015 expressing agreement with GDOT’s proposal. See Appendix B

for copies of the pertinent correspondence. 

In addition to the two potential Atlanta Approaches defined herein (NS and CSX), a future Tier 2 EIS could 

also identify additional feasible approaches or construction methods traversing the Atlanta area, such as use 

of public or private rights-of-way with at-grade, elevated (bridge or viaduct), or below-grade (tunnel) 

infrastructure, and could consider other intercity and commuter rail plans. FRA and GDOT will defer the 

definition and evaluation of any additional approaches along the aforementioned NS and CSX approaches to 

the Tier 2 analysis. 

Exhibit 2-9: Atlanta Approach Options 

Source: HNTB 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-27

This Tier 1 EIS evaluated the use of the common NS and CSX ROW from Howell Junction through downtown 

Atlanta to East Point, GA, then to a terminus on the west side of H-JAIA on the CSX Atlanta and West Point 

(A&WP) Subdivision; however, multiple alternate routes may also be available for consideration. The Atlanta 

Approach analysis deferred to a Tier 2 analysis will also include the refinement of the route from north of 

downtown Atlanta through to the southern terminus at H-JAIA. 

For reference, FRA and GDOT completed a Tier 1 EIS with a ROD for the Atlanta to Chattanooga High 

Speed Ground Transportation Project in 201718, which also includes service to a station in downtown Atlanta 

(Georgia MMPT) and at H-JAIA. The Atlanta-Chattanooga project evaluated a corridor following I-75 from 

north of Howell Junction through a tunnel under downtown Atlanta to a southern terminus on the east side of 

H-JAIA; however, the Tier 1 EIS for that project also referenced the potential use of the common NS and 

CSX ROW similar to that considered for the Atlanta-Charlotte service. 

The development of a consolidated corridor to carry both services through downtown Atlanta to H-JAIA could 

provide many efficiencies to benefit each service. The cost for infrastructure and ROW acquisition required 

to construct a consolidated corridor with shared stations in downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT) and H-JAIA 

is likely much less than constructing two parallel systems. Interconnectivity for passengers in downtown 

Atlanta and at H-JAIA will also provide the opportunity for transfers between systems, which would generate 

higher ridership. FRA and GDOT recommend the consideration of a route through downtown Atlanta 

(Georgia MMPT) to H-JAIA that consolidates both the Atlanta-Charlotte and Atlanta-Chattanooga services 

during the Atlanta Approach analysis in the future Tier 2 EIS. The Tier 2 analysis may also consider other 

feasible proposals for connecting rail service into Atlanta. 

2.2.2.3 Station Opportunities 

During Phase 1 screening, GDOT identified initial cities, airports, and multi-modal hubs as station 

opportunities for each of the initial six Corridor Alternatives; these initial station opportunities were 

influenced by the Project’s Purpose and Need as well as input from stakeholders and the public. During the 

Phase 2 analysis of the three refined Corridor Alternatives, which is summarized in this section and detailed 

in the ADR, GDOT analyzed ridership and travel-time impacts of stations, and used the results to make 

decisions where multiple options exist to serve an area. GDOT did not determine the precise station locations 

through this analysis, but identified generalized areas as potential station locations. A Tier 2 analysis will 

further refine these locations using specific service-related metrics and further environmental analysis of the 

preferred Corridor Alternative. GDOT will also utilize FRA’s Station Area Planning for High-Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail (2011) to guide station decisions during the Tier 2 analysis. 

The following describes station opportunities for each of the three Corridor Alternatives, which are affected 

by refined location and technology assumptions made during the Phase 2 analysis. 

COMMON STATIONS 

GDOT assumed the following station opportunities would be common throughout the three Corridor 

Alternatives, listed from north to south: the future Charlotte Gateway Station; the CLT airport; Doraville, an 

18 For the Tier 1 Combined Final EIS and ROD: http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoChattanooga 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-28

Atlanta suburb with MARTA service; the proposed Georgia MMPT in downtown Atlanta; and H-JAIA. These 

five locations are located along all three Corridor Alternatives and help meet the Purpose and Need by 

providing airport connectivity, transit access, and service between the downtowns of Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Due to the dispersed nature of Atlanta’s population and development, Doraville provides an important access 

point along the NS Atlanta Approach for the northern and eastern suburbs and is situated near two major 

Interstates, I-285 and I-85, as well as MARTA rail. Should the CSX Atlanta Approach be advanced during 

the Tier 2 analysis, a station in Tucker would substitute for Doraville to provide access to I-285. The ultimate 

station locations will be refined in the Tier 2 analysis, particularly in the Atlanta and Charlotte Metro areas 

where routings are most subject to refinement. 

SOUTHERN CRESCENT CORRIDOR 

The existing Amtrak service stops along the Southern Crescent Corridor are considered logical station 

opportunities since this alternative follows the existing Amtrak alignment. From north to south, these stations, 

plus the aforementioned common stations, are as follows: Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, Gastonia, 

Spartanburg, Greenville, Clemson, Toccoa, Gainesville, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta (Georgia 

MMPT), and H-JAIA. Amtrak does not have an existing station in Suwanee, however GDOT identified it as 

an opportunity due to its proximity to the Southern Crescent Corridor, its population center, and its Interstate 

access. Additional suburban stations are beneficial for attracting ridership in the greater Atlanta area due to 

the dispersed nature of development. At 20 miles apart, stations at both Doraville and Suwanee could serve 

north and east metro Atlanta. Should the CSX Atlanta Approach be advanced during the Tier 2 analysis, 

stations in Lawrenceville and Tucker, GA would substitute for stations on the NS approach in Suwanee and 

Doraville, GA. 

I-85 CORRIDOR 

GDOT initially identified population centers near the I-85 corridor as station opportunities then reviewed 

ridership and travel time from the ADR, detailed in Appendix B, to optimize the number and location of 

stations. The following station opportunities exist for the I-85 Corridor: Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, 

Gastonia, Spartanburg, Greenville, Anderson, Commerce, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta (Georgia 

MMPT), and H-JAIA. The ADR informed GDOT that a GSP airport station between Greenville and 

Spartanburg would not capture sufficient additional ridership to balance the longer travel time. Stations 

serving the cities of Greenville and Spartanburg better serve the population and employment centers for this 

alternative. Should the CSX Atlanta Approach be advanced during the Tier 2 analysis, stations in 

Lawrenceville and Tucker, GA would substitute for stations on the NS approach in Suwanee and Doraville, 

GA. 

GREENFIELD CORRIDOR 

This corridor’s high speed technology benefits from fewer station locations, which was factored into the 

operational analysis performed for the ADR. Station opportunities for the Greenfield Corridor include: 

Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, South Gastonia, GSP airport, Anderson, Athens, Suwanee, Doraville, 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-29

downtown Atlanta (Georgia MMPT), and H-JAIA. As a result of the analysis detailed in Appendix B, GDOT 

found that Greenville and Spartanburg could be served by one station at the GSP airport in between the two 

cities. GDOT initially identified stations at Fountain Inn and Roebuck, then eliminated them at this stage due 

to their travel time impacts outweighing ridership benefits. In response to public comments and stakeholder 

agency feedback, GDOT added a station in the Athens vicinity, which analysis showed would add substantial 

ridership to the Greenfield Corridor. GDOT evaluated a downtown Athens station and a northern suburban 

Athens station. They generated very similar ridership, however GDOT estimates that the northern suburban 

location would be cheaper to construct and result in fewer impacts to existing development. A northern 

suburban location was also favored by stakeholders and the public. Should the CSX Atlanta Approach be 

advanced during the Tier 2 analysis, stations in Lawrenceville and Tucker, GA would substitute for stations 

on the NS approach in Suwanee and Doraville, GA. 

ATLANTA APPROACH 

The Atlanta Approach and exact station locations will be selected during a Tier 2 analysis, when the preferred 

Corridor Alternative and additional technology and service characteristics are known. As with the three 

Corridor Alternatives, potential opportunities for stations exist along the NS and CSX Atlanta Approaches. 

This Alternatives Analysis uses the NS Atlanta Approach as the representative route for comparing operating 

analyses of the three Corridor Alternatives, as described earlier in this chapter and detailed in Appendix B. 

As such, the preceding discussion addresses station opportunities at Doraville and Suwanee along the NS 

Atlanta Approach line. On the CSX approach, GDOT identified Lawrenceville and Tucker, two suburban 

town centers along the CSX line, as potential station opportunities. 

Exhibit 2-10 displays station opportunities identified by this Tier 1 EIS along each of the three Corridor 

Alternatives and the two Atlanta Approaches. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-30

Exhibit 2-10: Station Opportunities 

Southern 

Crescent 

(NS)

Southern 

Crescent 

(CSX)

I-85

(NS)

I-85

(CSX)

Greenfield

(NS)

Greenfield

(CSX)

H-JAIA H-JAIA H-JAIA H-JAIA H-JAIA H-JAIA

Georgia MMPT Georgia MMPT Georgia MMPT Georgia MMPT Georgia MMPT Georgia MMPT

Doraville, GA Tucker, GA Doraville, GA Tucker, GA Doraville, GA Tucker, GA

Suwanee, GA Lawrenceville, GA Suwanee, GA Lawrenceville, GA Suwanee, GA Lawrenceville, GA

Gainesville, GA Gainesville, GA Commerce, GA Commerce, GA Athens, GA Athens, GA

Toccoa, GA Toccoa, GA Anderson, SC Anderson, SC Anderson, SC Anderson, SC

Clemson, SC Clemson, SC Greenville, SC Greenville, SC GSP Airport GSP Airport

Greenville, SC Greenville, SC Spartanburg, SC Spartanburg, SC South Gastonia, NC South Gastonia, 

NC

Spartanburg, SC Spartanburg, SC Gastonia, NC Gastonia, NC CLT Airport CLT Airport

Gastonia, NC Gastonia, NC CLT Airport CLT Airport Charlotte Gateway 

Station

Charlotte Gateway 

Station

CLT Airport CLT Airport Charlotte Gateway 

Station

Charlotte Gateway 

Station

Charlotte Gateway 

Station

Charlotte Gateway 

Station

Source: HNTB 

2.2.2.4 Rail Equipment Technology and Speed Options 

This section identifies potential high-speed rail equipment technology options appropriate for each Corridor 

Alternative and subsequently estimates operating speeds, daily round-trip frequencies, and potential travel 

schedules associated with each technology option and Corridor Alternative. 

The three Corridor Alternatives can generally be classified into two categories of operating speed: an 

anticipated maximum operating speed between 79 mph and 125 mph utilizing diesel-electric locomotive 

power, compared to an anticipated operating speed up to 220 mph on an electrified corridor. Therefore, each 

Corridor Alternative has been evaluated for two operating technologies in the ADR, summarized in the 

following section. In addition, the alternatives have unique corridor and operational attributes that impact the 

rail equipment technology options. Therefore, GDOT has evaluated the rail equipment that best suits each 

Corridor Alternative, which is described in this section and detailed in Appendix B. 

Rail equipment is part of the overall system, and as such, the identification of system requirements of various 

equipment must be carefully integrated with the other elements of the railroad in order to achieve a safe, 

reliable, and cost effective solution. Appendix B provides substantial detail and analysis of potential operating 

plans and technology options. 

Should this study process recommend a Corridor Alternative with electrified HSR technology, the Project 

could be developed incrementally, starting service with a lower (less expensive) technology and upgrading to 

the high-speed technologies as ridership and revenue increase throughout the life of the Project. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-31

RAIL EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 

Train speed and rail equipment technology work in tandem. This Tier 1 EIS groups the technologies into two 

categories: diesel-powered and electric powered trainsets either paired with conventional (non-tilting) or 

tilting passenger coaches. Below is a brief description of each category along with illustrations. The speeds 

listed for each technology are top speeds, as opposed to average operating speeds, and are dependent on the 

geometry of the tracks. 

1) Diesel - This Tier 1 EIS evaluated diesel powered trains paired with both conventional (non-tilting) and 

tilting technologies. Conventional trains travel at speeds ranging from 79 mph to 115 mph compared to 

trains with tilting cars that can travel at speeds up to 125 mph. Tilting cars allow trains to maintain speed 

on some curves that would otherwise limit travel speed. While the use of tilting cars does not significantly 

affect overall travel time, it is important to passenger comfort. An example of non-tilting passenger 

coaches is shown in Exhibit 2-11 below. 

2) Electric - Electric train technology utilizes electric power delivered directly to the trainset from a 

distribution system along the railroad system, typically via overhead catenary power lines. The electric 

power feeds “traction” motors either on a locomotive or in distributed motors integrated with the passenger 

coaches. This Tier 1 EIS evaluated electric train technology with tilting passenger coaches in alternatives 

with speeds above 125 mph up to 220 mph. A current example of an electric trainset with tilting passenger 

coaches is Amtrak’s Acela, which operates on the Northeast Corridor between Boston, MA and 

Washington, DC. The Acela is powered by electric locomotives with tilting passenger coaches and is 

capable of operating up to 160 mph. Another example of an electric trainset is the Deutsche Bahn IntercityExpress (ICE) high-speed train in Europe, which utilizes passenger coaches, without tilt, integrated with 

distributed electric motors capable of 200 mph operation. An example of this technology is shown in the 

Exhibit 2-12 below. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-32

Exhibit 2-11: Conventional Trainset: Diesel-Electric Locomotive with Non-Tilting Passenger Coaches 

Image Credit: Amtrak 

Exhibit 2-12: Electric High-Speed Trainset: Passenger Coaches with Distributed Power 

Image Credit: Eurail 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-33

See Appendix B for a detailed discussion on the technologies and speed capabilities for each Corridor 

Alternative. Below is a summary of the technology assumptions made in this Tier 1 EIS for the purposes of 

analyzing and comparing each Corridor Alternative. Two options are evaluated for each. 

1. Southern Crescent: 

A. Diesel trains using shared tracks with freight traffic and conventional (non-tilt) cars. 

B. Diesel trains using a combination of shared tracks and new dedicated passenger tracks in places 

where topography and geometry allow higher speeds if separated from freight traffic. This 

option includes tilting cars. 

2. I-85: 

A. Diesel trains on dedicated tracks with grade-separated roadway crossings mostly within 

Interstate ROW; within the Atlanta and Charlotte approach areas, tracks would follow shared 

freight rail ROW. 

B. Electric trains on dedicated tracks with grade-separated roadway crossings; within the Atlanta 

and Charlotte approach areas, tracks would follow shared freight rail ROW. 

3. Greenfield: 

A. Diesel trains on dedicated tracks with grade-separated roadway crossings, mostly outside 

existing ROW; within the Atlanta and Charlotte approach areas, tracks would follow shared 

freight rail ROW. 

B. Electric trains on dedicated tracks with grade-separated roadway crossings, mostly outside 

existing ROW; within the Atlanta and Charlotte approach areas, tracks would follow shared 

freight rail ROW. 

TRAIN OPERATING SPEEDS AND TRAVEL TIME 

The previous section identified two general types of technologies, diesel and electric, and associated top travel 

speeds. Operating speeds vary along a corridor and are a function of several factors beyond technology type, 

including: track infrastructure and geometry, corridor topography, the presence of at-grade roadway crossings, 

the use of dedicated or shared tracks (and associated freight volumes), and the number and location of station 

stops.19 In the future, a diesel option could be electrified to improve speed and level of service; however, top 

speeds would still be limited by track geometry, particularly curves. In addition, trains operating in NS or 

CSX right-of-way may need to comply with requirements set by the host railroad, which may impact operating 

speed. 

GDOT calculated operating speed and travel time using TEMS LOCOMOTION Train Performance 

Calculator, a simulation model known as TPC. GDOT used TPC to estimate operating speeds at each mile 

point for each Corridor Alternative using known assumptions about geometry, technology, and infrastructure. 

19 At locations with at-grade roadway crossings, FRA regulations restrict train speeds to 110 mph. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-34

Below is a summary of the TPC results for each Corridor Alternative and technology option presented in the 

previous section. 

1. Southern Crescent 

A. For the diesel shared track option, trains are capable of a max speed of 79 mph at select locations 

along the corridor. Along most of the corridor, operating speeds are between 60 and 70 mph. 

Estimated trip time is 5 hours and 34 minutes. 

B. For the diesel option using a combination of shared and dedicated tracks, trains are capable of 

operating between 79 and 110 mph along four stretches where new dedicated passenger tracks 

would be constructed, comprising of approximately 20 percent of the corridor. Along the 

remaining 80 percent of the corridor, operating speeds are generally between 70 and 79 mph. 

Estimated trip time is 4 hours and 35 minutes. 

2. I-85 

A. For the diesel option, a max speed of 125 mph may be possible at a few locations for short distances 

due to the grade and curvature of the interstate alignment. Along the rest of the corridor, speeds 

generally range between 80 and 110 mph, and less than 90 mph in the Atlanta and Charlotte 

approach areas. Estimated trip time is 2 hours and 50 minutes. 

B. The electric option faces the same curve issues that limit speeds in the diesel option and, to a lesser 

degree, the same grade challenges. However, with electric technology, trains may reach up to 180 

mph along a few short segments. Along most of the corridor, operating speeds are generally 

between 125 and 150 mph, with speeds less than 100 mph in the Atlanta and Charlotte approach 

areas. Estimated trip time is 2 hours and 42 minutes. 

3. Greenfield 

A. For the diesel option, trains are capable of traveling at a top speed of 125 mph for much of the 

corridor outside the Atlanta and Charlotte approach areas. Within the approach areas, operating 

speeds generally range between 70 and 110 mph. The reduced curvature and fewer number of 

station stops, relative to other Corridor Alternatives, allows trains to reach and sustain their 

maximum design speed. Estimated trip time is 2 hours and 44 minutes. 

B. For the electric option, trains are capable of traveling at a top speed of 220 mph for most of the 

corridor outside the Atlanta and Charlotte approach areas. Within the approach areas, speeds 

generally range between 70 and 110 mph. As with the diesel option, the reduced curvature and 

fewer number of station stops allows trains to reach and sustain their maximum design speed. 

Estimated trip time is 2 hours and 6 minutes. 

TRAIN TRAVEL FREQUENCIES 

Train speed and technology determine train running times and establish train schedules. GDOT used speed 

and trip time results from the TPC simulator, described above, to calculate the number of daily round trips 

possible for each Corridor Alternative and technology option. Generally, a higher-speed corridor with a 

relatively shorter trip time and greater ridership can support more daily round-trip trains on the system. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-35

Appendix B provides details from this analysis and Exhibit 2-13 provides a summary. The ranges shown in 

Exhibit 2-13 represent the two equipment technology options evaluated for each Corridor Alternative, 

described earlier in this section. 

Exhibit 2-13: Summary of Operating Speed, Travel Time, and Frequencies 

Corridor Alternative Top Operating Speed Travel Time

(hours:minutes) Round Trips per Day 

Southern Crescent 79 to 110 mph 4:35 to 5:34 4 

I-85 125 mph to 180 mph 2:42 to 2:50 14

Greenfield 125 mph to 220 mph 2:06 to 2:44 16 - 2220

Source: HNTB 

The number of round trips was based on multiple factors, such as travel time, station location, train 

length/capacity, and expected ridership (discussed in Section 2.2.2.5). Due to the faster operating speed and 

shorter run time, GDOT determined that the Greenfield would support the most round-trip frequencies among 

the Corridor Alternatives; therefore, it would generate the highest ridership. The number of round trips 

provided are preliminary and calculated for the purposes of comparing the alternatives. The schedules will be 

re-evaluated independent of this Tier 1 EIS within a future Tier 2 analysis for the Preferred Alternative. 

Appendix B includes details of the schedules developed for each Corridor Alternative. 

POTENTIAL TRAVEL SCHEDULES 

Based on the calculated train running times GDOT developed train timetables (schedules) to simulate service 

on the three Corridor Alternatives. The schedules included station stopping patterns for each alternative that 

reflect anticipated patterns of daily demand, and comprised of a combination of express and local services. 

The schedules were arranged to maximize the accommodation of riders going between both ends of the 

corridor as well as intermediate points. Reflecting a common industry practice, the schedules avoid departing 

an originating station before 6 AM or arriving after midnight; however, GDOT found it to be unavoidable to 

maintain frequencies at the fringes of the operating schedule. Detailed results are documented in Appendix 

B. The travel frequencies and train schedules are applied to the calculation of ridership and revenue forecasts, 

described in the following section. 

2.2.2.5 Ridership and Revenue 

This Tier 1 EIS includes forecasts for ridership and revenue for each of the Corridor Alternatives. Ridership 

and revenue (ticket sales) highly correlate, as the higher ridership numbers translate into higher revenues 

collected. Multiple factors affect ridership and revenue including destinations, travel time, schedule, and 

frequency. Another component that affects the competitiveness of a Corridor Alternative is the number and 

location of stations (see Section 2.2.2.3). 

GDOT used nationally accepted demand forecasting tools to analyze ridership and revenue which addresses 

four distinct travel markets: intercity travel, intra-urban travel, airport diversion, and induced demand. More 

20 At 220 mph, the Greenfield Corridor Alternative ridership can support up to 22 round trips per day. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-36

information concerning the demand forecasting methodology and results is provided in Appendix B. GDOT 

estimated projected revenue and ridership for each Corridor Alternative for the years 2025 and 2050. These 

two timeframes represent the incremental implementation of high-speed rail service, with 2025 representing 

a potential opening year for rail service and 2050 being the full build-out implementation of service year. 

Of the three corridors, GDOT estimates that the Greenfield will have the highest number of annual riders as 

well as the highest revenue; I-85 came in second, and the Southern Crescent third. Based on the ridership 

analysis, GDOT estimated the annual revenue generated by the system. Collectively, the forecasted annual 

revenue includes the farebox revenues and revenues from onboard services (food and beverage sales), which 

is referred to as “System Revenues.” Ranges shown in the table reflect the two equipment technology options 

analyzed for each Corridor Alternative, described in Section 2.2.2.4. 

Exhibit 2-14 illustrates the anticipated ranges for ridership and revenue for both 2025 and 2050 forecast 

timeframes. Ranges shown in the table reflect the two equipment technology options analyzed for each 

Corridor Alternative, described in Section 2.2.2.4. 

Exhibit 2-14 Ridership and Revenue Forecasts 

2025 2050

Corridor 

Alternative 

Forecasted Annual 

Ridership 

Forecasted Annual 

Revenue21

(2012$)

Forecasted Annual 

Ridership 

Forecasted Annual 

Revenue 

(2012$)

Southern Crescent 0.81 M to 1.01M $37.0 M to $48.2M 0.94M to 1.18M $43.5M to $56.9 M

I-85 4.65 M to 4.75M $305.6M to $312.8M 5.50M to 5.62M $369.0M to $377.2M

Greenfield 4.58 M to 5.37M $326.8M to $397.0M 5.38M to 6.30M $397.9M to $475.8M

Source: HNTB 

Part of the ridership and revenue estimation, and ultimately the projected output, is the number of travelers 

diverting from air travel and choosing rail service instead. Airport choice diversion was only modeled for 

I-85 and the Greenfield Corridor Alternatives, as GDOT determined that the level of service provided by the 

Southern Crescent would not be sufficient to constitute a viable option for air travelers due to the longer travel 

time. Where airport choice diversion was modeled, GDOT assumed that passengers would have to purchase 

separate rail and air tickets. More information about modeling airport choice can be found in Appendix B. 

The ridership and revenue analysis revealed three main trends: 

1) Although the collective ridership for the Atlanta or Charlotte urban areas was the highest along the 

corridor, ridership at some individual stations within each urban area demonstrated lower ridership 

than stations in smaller communities along the corridor. This is due to a distribution of riders in the 

urban area among multiple stations. For example, the GSP airport station showed the greatest ridership 

potential along the Greenfield Corridor Alternative; however, this was due to only one station serving 

the Greenville-Spartanburg area compared to three each in the Charlotte and Atlanta urban areas. 

21 Forecasted Annual Revenue includes ticket sales and on-board service (food and beverage sales), which are calculated on a passenger-mile 

basis for this Tier 1 EIS. Passenger-miles are calculated as the number of passengers multiplied by the miles traveled. Additional detail is 

documented in the ADR. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-37

2) For the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, a strong intra-urban travel demand market serves the 

exurban Atlanta market in the Gainesville, Commerce, and Toccoa, GA, areas. The populations in 

these areas are more than 50 miles from the nearest international airport (either H-JAIA or GSP). 

A similar trend could be expected for exurban stations in the I-85 and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives. 

3) The intercity travel trend among midpoint stations within the corridor is relatively high, but urban 

areas were primarily either the origin or destination for the vast majority of the forecasted trips. 

2.2.2.6 Capital Costs 

Costs for the Project fall into two categories: capital, and operations and maintenance (O&M). Capital

represents the costs of building the Project, such as constructing track and bridges or trainsets. O&M

represents costs associated with delivering and sustaining the service, such as train crews, fuel or electric 

power, or track maintenance. Collectively, the forecasted O&M costs are also referred to as “Operating 

Costs.” 

To develop a consistent costing methodology, the capital cost estimates for each Corridor Alternative follow 

the FRA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) guidance for the development of all capital cost estimates, as shown 

in Exhibit 2-115.

22 All cost estimates are in 2012 dollars, which reflects the base year of the data collected, 

and include a 30 percent contingency across all cost categories. See Appendix B for a detailed discussion of 

cost methodology and results for each Corridor Alternative. 

Exhibit 2-115: FRA Standard Capital Cost Categories 

Standard Cost Categories

10 Track Structures and Track

20 Stations, Terminals, Intermodal

30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings

40 Sitework, ROW, Land, Existing Improvements

50 Communications and Signaling

60 Electric Traction

70 Vehicles

80 Professional Services

90 Unallocated Contingencies23

100 Finance Charges

Source: FRA

As shown in Exhibit 2-16 below, the I-85 Corridor Alternative has the most expensive capital costs (ranging 

from $13.3 billion to $15.4 billion), primarily due to the modifications to the interstate to accommodate the 

22 California High-Speed Train (Merced to Fresno) http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/merced-fresnoeir/final_EIR_MerFres_TR_CapitalCost.pdf (accessed on 12/8/2017)

23 Unallocated contingencies were not included in the cost estimates. These typically include more widespread uncertainties, such as schedule 

delays, changes in contracting, or other similar issues that are associated with individual construction activities. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-38

Project. Since high-speed rail requires extensive curve improvements and protection from the adjacent 

roadway traffic, the I-85 Corridor Alternative includes reconstruction of highway medians and overpasses, 

and construction of an elevated rail viaduct in segments where there is no space available in the median for 

installation of tracks. The Greenfield is the second most expensive, with a range of $6.2 billion to $8.4 billion, 

primarily due to the construction of an entirely new transportation corridor. Lastly, the Southern Crescent was 

the least expensive, ranging $2 billion to $2.3 billion, primarily attributable to sharing an existing railroad 

corridor, and partial coordination with freight and passenger rail service. The cost ranges for the three Corridor 

Alternatives account for the various technologies applicable to each corridor (see Appendix B). 

Exhibit 2-16: Capital Cost Estimates 

Corridor Alternative Capital Cost (in 2012 dollars)

Southern Crescent $2.0 B to $2.3 B

I-85 $13.3 B to $15.4 B

Greenfield $6.2 B to $8.4 B

Source: HNTB 

2.2.2.7 Operating and Maintenance Costs 

This Tier 1 EIS includes forecasts for O&M costs for years 2025 and 2050. Appendix B provides O&M 

calculation methodology and unit costs. Exhibit 2-17 summarizes cost categories for O&M and their 

drivers. 

Exhibit 2-17: Operating Cost Categories and Primary Cost Drivers 

Drivers Cost Categories

Train Miles 

(number trains multiplied by the number 

of miles traveled)

Equipment Maintenance

Energy and Fuel 

Train and Engine Crews 

Onboard Service (OBS) Crews

Passenger Miles

(number of passengers multiplied by 

the number of miles traveled)

Insurance Liability 

Ridership and Revenue

(number of passengers and proceeds 

from ticket sales and on-board 

services)

Sales and Marketing 

Fixed Costs

(overhead and administrative costs that 

do not change with the amount of 

service provided)

Service Administration 

Track and ROW maintenance 

Station Costs 

Source: HNTB 

A summary of O&M costs for years 2025 and 2050 are shown in Exhibit 2-18. The range of values reflect 

the two equipment technology options evaluated for each Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield is the most 

expensive for O&M, ranging from $164.2 million to $197.8 million annually (in the year 2025), primarily 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-39

due to the impact of higher operating speeds on equipment and infrastructure as well as more frequent service. 

I-85 is the second highest in O&M costs, ranging $146.8 million to $150.9 million annually (year 2025), also 

due to higher operating speeds. The Southern Crescent is the least expensive for O&M costs, ranging $58.1 

million to $60.7 million annually (year 2025), primarily due to the lower level of service and lower operating 

speeds. 

Exhibit 2-18: Operating and Maintenance Annual Cost Estimates 

Corridor Alternative O&M Cost (in 2012 dollars)24

2025 2050

Southern Crescent $58.1 M to $60.7 M $63.2 M to $66.1 M

I-85 $146.8 M to $150.9 M $169.9 M to $192.9 M

Greenfield $164.2 M to $197.8 M $205.7 M to $211.9 M

Note: Growth in annual O&M cost over time reflects expenses related to growing ridership and greater maintenance needs as equipment 

and infrastructure ages. 

Source: HNTB 

2.2.2.8 Financial Analysis 

The financial analysis represents a particular Corridor Alternative’s performance for the overall revenues, 

costs, and any surplus or deficits. Operating surpluses indicate that the service generates more system revenue 

than operating costs, and can be a positive indicator of financial stability, while operating deficits indicate the 

need for financial assistance (e.g., public subsidy). The comparison of System Revenues and Operating Costs 

does not include the capital costs required to construct the Project. An explanation of the revenues and costs 

that comprise the financial analysis follows: 

• System Revenues: These include the fare box revenues and revenues from onboard services (food and 

beverage sales). This information is based on the ridership and revenue analysis discussed in 2.2.2.5 and 

detailed in Appendix B. 

• Operating Costs: These are the O&M costs associated with operating passenger rail service such as fuel, 

equipment maintenance, ROW maintenance, and it includes onboard service costs. This information is 

based on the O&M analysis discussed in Section 2.2.2.57 and detailed in Appendix B. 

An operating surplus makes an important contribution to the overall business case for building the high-speed 

rail service or system. If there is an operating surplus, the system will not require a subsidy to operate or 

maintain, and the surplus can contribute toward repayment of the capital costs to construct the system. In 

addition, because the system is generating a positive cash flow, a Public-Private Partnership (P3) or other 

innovative financing method could be a means to operate the system, and possibly contribute toward the cost 

of its construction. Conversely, if there is an operating deficit, the system will require public funding to operate 

and maintain the system once built, and there will be no operating surplus to support repayment of the capital 

costs required to build the system. The requirement for a subsidy can reduce the economic performance of the 

system and offset some of the economic benefits. GDOT calculated the operating ratio for each Corridor 

Alternative by dividing the system revenues by the operating costs. Positive operating ratios (>1.0) indicate 

24 The range of values reflect the two technology options evaluated for each Corridor Alternative (described in Section 2.2.4), The first value 

listed is associated with the lower speed option. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-40

an operating surplus, while negative ratios (<1.0) indicate an operating deficit. In the ADR, a Net Present 

Value (NPV) over the 30-year life of the system was calculated; NPV information is available in Appendix 

B. 

Exhibit 2-19 displays the results of GDOT’s financial analysis. The range of values reflect the two technology 

options analyzed for each Corridor Alternative. In summary, the financial analysis projected the Greenfield 

corridor as having the largest annual operating surplus of the three Corridor Alternatives for the 2025 analysis 

year, ranging from $162.6 million to $199.2 million. I-85 would also have an annual operating surplus, 

ranging from $154.7 million to $166.1 million. The Southern Crescent would be the only one with an 

operating deficit, ranging between -$12.5 million and -$21.1 million. The positive operating surpluses 

calculated for the I-85 and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives indicate that projected ridership and revenues 

outweigh the higher operating costs discussed in the previous section. 

Exhibit 2-19: Financial Analysis Summary25

Corridor 

Alternative 

Annual Operating Surplus 

(or Deficit)26 Operating Ratio 

(over 30-year period) 2025 2050

Southern Crescent ($21.1 M) to ($12.5 M) ($19.6 M) to ($9.1 M) 0.66 to 0.82

I-85 $154.7 M to $166.1 M $176.1 M to $207.3 M 2.05 to 2.30

Greenfield $162.6 M to $199.2 M $192.1 M to $263.9 M 2.08 to 2.32

Source: HNTB 

Lastly, GDOT also calculated a benefit-to-cost ratio (B-C) to illustrate the Corridor Alternative that had the 

highest returns from a return on investment perspective. The B-C calculation was performed based on an 

interest rate of three percent, then an additional calculation was performed based on a seven percent interest 

rate for the purposes of providing a conservative estimate. A three percent interest rate reflects the cost of 

long-term government bonds. For this Tier 1 EIS, GDOT used the more conservative seven percent interest 

rate to define the value of the Project. Appendix B provides additional information about the financial analysis 

conducted for the three Corridor Alternatives. 

The Greenfield had the highest B-C ratio among the three Corridor Alternatives, and was the only alternative 

to generate a positive benefit of 1.22. Although the I-85 and Greenfield Corridors generated similar operating 

costs and system revenues, the higher infrastructure cost of the I-85 Alternative reduced the B-C ratio to 0.60. 

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative produced the lowest B-C ratio of 0.44 because its ridership was 

unable to generate enough revenue to offset the Operating Costs. 

25 The range of values reflect the two technology options evaluated for each Corridor Alternative (described in Section 2.2.4), The first value 

listed is associated with the lower speed option. 

26 Operating Surplus (or deficit) is calculated by subtracting the O&M costs described in Section 2.2.2.7 from the revenues described in Section 

2.2.2.5. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-41

2.3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

GDOT initially screened six Corridor Alternatives and retained three, the Southern Crescent, I-85, and 

Greenfield, for further consideration because of their ability to best meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. 

GDOT then identified potential equipment technologies, presented two Atlanta Approach options, calculated 

various service-related metrics, and performed a financial analysis of these three Corridor Alternatives. 

Exhibit 2-20 provides a summary of results for each Corridor Alternative and their service characteristics. 

The ranges presented here reflect two technology options evaluated for each Corridor Alternative. The 

Southern Crescent was evaluated for two options using diesel technology, one following shared tracks and 

one with a combination of shared and dedicated passenger tracks. The I-85 Corridor Alternative was evaluated 

using a diesel and electric option, both following dedicated tracks. Likewise, the Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative was also evaluated for a diesel and electric option, both following dedicated tracks. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-42

Exhibit 2-20: Summary of Alternatives Analysis 

Alternative 

Top 

Operating 

Speed27

(MPH) 

End to 

End 

Travel 

Time

(hrs:min)

Frequency 

(daily 

round 

trips) 

Capital 

Cost28

2050 Annual

Ridership 

2050 Annual 

Revenue29

2050 Annual 

O&M Cost31

2050 Operating 

Surplus 

(or Deficit)31

Operating Ratio 

(over 30-year 

period) 

Benefit/Cost 

Ratio 

(7% Interest 

Rate) 

Southern 

Crescent 79 to 110 4:35 - 

5:34 4 $2.0 B to 

$2.3 B 

0.94 M to

1.18 M 

$43.5 M to 

$56.9 M 

$63.17 M to 

$66.1 M 

($19.6 M) to 

($9.1 M) 0.66 to 0.82 0.44 to 0.52

I-85 125 to 180 2:42 - 

2:50 14 $13.3 B to 

$15.4 B 

5.50 M to 

5.62 M 

$369.0 M to 

$377.2 M 

$192.9 M to 

$169.9 M 

$176.1 M to 

$207.3 M 2.05 to 2.30 0.59 to --0.60

Greenfield 125 to 220 2:06 - 

2:44 16 – 2230 $6.2 B to $8.4 B 

5.38 M to 

6.30 M 

$397.9 M to 

$475.8 M 

$205.7 M 

to $211.9 M 

$192.1 M to 

$263.9 M 2.08 to 2.32 1.19 to 1.22

Source: HNTB 

 

27 As described in Section 2.2.2.4, operating speeds are a function of equipment technology, geometry, topography, and other corridor characteristics. Generally, top 

speeds are only sustained for portions of the trip, the extent of which varies by Corridor Alternative. 

28 Costs shown in 2012 dollars, reflecting the year of analysis 

29 Revenue includes tickets and on-board services 

30 With a sustained operating speed of 220 mph, the Greenfield Corridor Alternative can support up to 22 round trips per day. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

 DRAFT / DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 2-43

2.4 TIER 2 ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

As stated in Section 2.2.2.2 of this Tier 1 EIS, some analysis will be deferred to the Tier 2 level. This includes 

station locations, interfaces with airports (H-JAIA, GSP, and CLT), project alignment, equipment technology, 

additional service details, and the approach into and through Atlanta. For instance, in the Atlanta-Chattanooga 

FEIS/ROD, the I-75/I-85 corridor was identified as a possible route through downtown Atlanta.31 Separate 

Tier 2 NEPA documentation could be pursued for the Atlanta Approach, which could also consider other 

intercity passenger rail corridors and planned commuter rail corridors in the Atlanta area. A Tier 2 analysis 

will also validate the assumptions made here regarding the approach into Charlotte to CLT and the terminal 

Charlotte-Gateway Station. Concerning equipment technology, a Tier 2 analysis may explore a phased 

approach that would initially use diesel technology with the option to electrify the corridor over time, as 

funding allows. Tier 2 EIS work could also explore phasing construction for the preferred alignment. 

The “reliability” of the Project will also be explored during a Tier 2 analysis.

32 The Southern Crescent, with 

its dependence on shared tracks and frequency of at-grade roadway crossings, may have reliability issues that 

are beyond the scope of a Tier 1 EIS. 

31 http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoChattanooga

32 Reliability in this context refers to the operability of a corridor under non-everyday conditions such as inclement weather, changes in freight 

rail operations or roadway operations, and myriad issues stemming from human error. 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-i 

Table of Contents 

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................. 3-7

͵ǤʹǤͳ No-Build Alternative .......................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.2 Corridor Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 3-11

3.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .......................................................................................... 3-11

3.3.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.3.3 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-12

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 3-30

3.3.5 Potential Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-41

3.3.6 Subsequent Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-42

3.4 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 3-44

3.4.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .......................................................................................... 3-44

3.4.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3-46

3.4.3 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-46

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 3-46

3.4.5 Potential Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-47

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-48

3.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION .......................................................................................... 3-49

3.5.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .......................................................................................... 3-49

3.5.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3-49

3.5.3 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-53

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 3-57

3.5.5 Potential Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-58

3.5.6 Subsequent Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-59
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-ii

3.6 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .................................................................... 3-60

3.6.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .......................................................................................... 3-60

3.6.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3-60

3.6.3 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-62

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 3-71

3.6.5 Potential Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-73

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-73

3.7 Parklands, Wildlife Refuges, and Recreational Areas ..................................................... 3-75

3.7.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .......................................................................................... 3-75

3.7.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3-76

3.7.3 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-76

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 3-83

3.7.5 Potential Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-84

3.7.6 Subsequent Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-85

3.8 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-86

3.8.1 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................... 3-87

3.8.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3-89

3.8.3 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-97

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 3-121

3.8.5 Potential Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 3-123

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-124

3.9 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-125

3.9.1 Legal and Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................... 3-125

3.9.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 3-130

3.9.3 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 3-132

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 3-147

3.9.5 Potential Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................................ 3-148

3.9.6 Subsequent Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-150

3.10 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-152

3.10.1Legal and Regulatory Context ........................................................................................ 3-152
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-iii

3.10.2Methodology ................................................................................................................... 3-153

3.10.3Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 3-156

3.10.4Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 3-178

3.10.5Potential Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 3-180

3.10.6Subsequent Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-181
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-iv

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 3.1-1: Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative ................................................................................. 3-2

Exhibit 3.1-2: I-85 Corridor Alternative ........................................................................................................ 3-3

Exhibit 3.1-3: Greenfield Corridor Alternative ............................................................................................. 3-4

Exhibit 3.1-4: Environmental Screening Areas ............................................................................................. 3-5

Exhibit 3.2-1: Summary Potential Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 3-9

Exhibit 3.3-1: Comparison of Existing Travel Modes and Proposed Corridor Alternatives ....................... 3-13

Exhibit 3.3-2: ADT and LOS Trends on I-85 in the Project Study Area (2016 and 2040) ......................... 3-14

Exhibit 3.3-3: ADT and LOS Trends on I-20 and I-77 in the Project Study Area (2016 and 2040) ........... 3-15

Exhibit 3.3-4: CSX and NS Rail Service in Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina................................. 3-16

Exhibit 3.3-5: Trains per Day ...................................................................................................................... 3-17

Exhibit 3.3-6 North Carolina Passenger Train Service ................................................................................ 3-21

Exhibit 3.3-7: Airports Potentially Served by the Corridor Alternatives .................................................... 3-30

Exhibit 3.3-8: Committed Transportation Projects in the Study Area ......................................................... 3-30

Exhibit 3.3-9: Summary of Corridor Alternative Frequency, Travel Times, and Ridership ....................... 3-35

Exhibit 3.3-10: Number of Remaining Auto-trips (in millions) and Percent Diverted ............................... 3-36

Exhibit 3.3-11: Number of Remaining Inter-City Bus-Trips (in millions) and Trips Diverted .................. 3-38

Exhibit 3.3-12: Comparison of Existing Travel Modes and Proposed Corridor Alternatives ..................... 3-39

Exhibit 3.3-13: Annually Diverted Trips from Air Service ......................................................................... 3-40

Exhibit 3.4-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Criteria Pollutant .......................... 3-44

Exhibit 3.5-1: FRA Screening Distances for Noise Assessments................................................................ 3-51

Exhibit 3.5-2: FRA Land-Use Categories Sensitive to High-Speed Train Noise ........................................ 3-52

Exhibit 3.5-3: Screening Distances for Vibration Assessments .................................................................. 3-52

Exhibit 3.5-4: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors with the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-54

Exhibit 3.5-5: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors with the I-85 Corridor Alternative .................... 3-54

Exhibit 3.5-6: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative....... 3-55

Exhibit 3.5-7: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors within the NS Atlanta Approach ....................... 3-56

Exhibit 3.5-8: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors within the CSX Atlanta Approach .................... 3-56

Exhibit 3.5-9: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors Summary ........................................................... 3-57
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-v 

Exhibit 3.6-1: Listing of Counties within Corridor Alternatives ................................................................. 3-61

Exhibit 3.6-2: Historic and Existing Population by County, 1970 - 2010 ................................................... 3-63

Exhibit 3.6-3: Historic and Existing Employment by County, 1970 - 2010................................................ 3-64

Exhibit 3.6-4: Projected Population and Employment Growth by County, 2010 - 2040 ............................ 3-65

Exhibit 3.6-5: Projected Demographic Data Changes by County, 2010 - 2040 .......................................... 3-66

Exhibit 3.6-6: Community Facility Inventory ............................................................................................. 3-68

Exhibit 3.6-7: Community Facility Summary by Corridor Alternative ....................................................... 3-68

Exhibit 3.6-8: 2010 EJ Population Characteristics by County .................................................................... 3-69

Exhibit 3.6-9: EJ Census Block Groups by Corridor Alternative ................................................................ 3-70

Exhibit 3.7-1: Parks and Recreation Areas within the Southern Crescent Corridor North of Atlanta 

Approach ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-78

Exhibit 3.7-2: Parks and Recreation Areas within the I-85 Corridor North of the Atlanta Approach ........ 3-80

Exhibit 3.7-3: Parks and Recreation Areas within the Greenfield Corridor North of the Atlanta Approach 

...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-81

Exhibit 3.7-4: Parks and Recreation Areas within the NS Atlanta Approach ............................................. 3-81

Exhibit 3.7-5: Parks and Recreation Areas within the CSX Atlanta Approach ........................................... 3-82

Exhibit 3.7-6 Summary of 4(f) and 6(f) Resources by Corridor Alternative............................................... 3-84

Exhibit 3.8-1: Cultural Resources Summary Table ..................................................................................... 3-86

Exhibit 3.8-2: Cultural Resources Summary Table ..................................................................................... 3-97

Exhibit 3.8-3: Summary of Historic and Archaeological Resources in Southern Crescent Corridor and 

Approaches .................................................................................................................................................. 3-98

Exhibit 3.8-4: Southern Crescent Corridor - National Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts ... 3-98

Exhibit 3.8-5: Southern Crescent Corridor Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach - National Register of 

Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts ......................................................................................................... 3-100

Exhibit 3.8-6: Southern Crescent Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach - National Register of Historic Places 

Listed Sites/Districts .................................................................................................................................. 3-101

Exhibit 3.8-7: Southern Crescent Corridor– State and Local Determination Eligible Sites/Districts ....... 3-102

Exhibit 3.8-8: Southern Crescent Corridor (not including Atlanta Approaches) – Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites .................................................................................................................................. 3-104

Exhibit 3.8-9: Southern Crescent Corridor Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach – Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites .................................................................................................................................. 3-105
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-vi

Exhibit 3.8-10: Southern Crescent Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach – Previously Recorded Archaeological 

Sites ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-106

Exhibit 3.8-11: Summary of Historic and Archaeological Resources in I-85 Corridor and Approaches . 3-106

Exhibit 3.8-12: I-85 Corridor - National Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts...................... 3-107

Exhibit 3.8-13: I-85 Corridor Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach (including Greenfield section) - National 

Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts ...................................................................................... 3-108

Exhibit 3.8-14: I-85 Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach - National Register of Historic Places Listed 

Sites/Districts ............................................................................................................................................. 3-108

Exhibit 3.8-15: I-85 Corridor - State Listed or Recognized Eligible Resources/Districts ......................... 3-109

Exhibit 3.8-16: I-85 Corridor– Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites .............................................. 3-111

Exhibit 3.8-17: I-85 Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach –Recorded Archaeological Sites ..................... 3-114

Exhibit 3.8-18: I-85 Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach –Recorded Archaeological Sites .......................... 3-114

Exhibit 3.8-19: Summary of Historic and Archaeological Resources in Greenfield Corridor and Approaches

.................................................................................................................................................................... 3-115

Exhibit 3.8-20: Greenfield Corridor - National Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts ........... 3-115

Exhibit 3.8-21: Greenfield Corridor with NS Approach - National Register of Historic Places Listed 

Sites/Districts ............................................................................................................................................. 3-116

Exhibit 3.8-22: Greenfield Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach - National Register of Historic Places Listed 

Sites/Districts ............................................................................................................................................. 3-116

Exhibit 3.8-23: Greenfield Corridor Alternative - State Listed or Recognized Eligible Resources/Districts 

.................................................................................................................................................................... 3-117

Exhibit 3.8-24: Greenfield Corridor Alternative–Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites .................. 3-118

Exhibit 3.8-25: Greenfield Corridor Alternative with NS Atlanta Approach –Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites .................................................................................................................................. 3-120

Exhibit 3.8-26: Greenfield Corridor Alternative with CSX Atlanta Approach –Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites .................................................................................................................................. 3-121

Exhibit 3.9-1: Summary of Water Resource Data Collection .................................................................... 3-130

Exhibit 3.9-2: Wetlands within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative ........................................... 3-133

Exhibit 3.9-3: Surface Waters within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative .................................. 3-134

Exhibit 3.9-4: Impaired Waters within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative ................................ 3-134

Exhibit 3.9-5: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative ................... 3-135

Exhibit 3.9-6: Wetlands within the I-85 Corridor Alternative ................................................................... 3-136

Exhibit 3.9-7: Surface Waters within the I-85 Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 3-137
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-vii

Exhibit 3.9-8: Impaired Waters within the I-85 Corridor Alternative ....................................................... 3-138

Exhibit 3.9-9: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the I-85 Corridor Alternative .................................... 3-138

Exhibit 3.9-10: Wetlands within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative ...................................................... 3-140

Exhibit 3.9-11: Surface Waters within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative ............................................. 3-142

Exhibit 3.9-12: Impaired Waters within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative........................................... 3-142

Exhibit 3.9-13: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative ....................... 3-143

Exhibit 3.9-14: Wetlands within the NS Atlanta Approach ...................................................................... 3-144

Exhibit 3.9-15: Surface Waters within the NS Atlanta Approach ............................................................. 3-144

Exhibit 3.9-16: Impaired Waters within the NS Atlanta Approach ........................................................... 3-144

Exhibit 3.9-17: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the NS Atlanta Approach ....................................... 3-145

Exhibit 3.9-18: Wetlands within the CSX Atlanta Approach .................................................................... 3-145

Exhibit 3.9-19: Surface Waters within the CSX Atlanta Approach .......................................................... 3-145

Exhibit 3.9-20: Impaired Waters within the CSX Atlanta Approach ........................................................ 3-146

Exhibit 3.9-21: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the CSX Atlanta Approach ..................................... 3-146

Exhibit 3.9-22: Summary of Water Resources within the Atlanta Approaches ........................................ 3-147

Exhibit 3.9-23: Summary of Water Resources within the Corridor Alternatives ...................................... 3-148

Exhibit 3.10-1: Ecoregions in Georgia....................................................................................................... 3-157

Exhibit 3.10-2: Ecoregions in South Carolina ............................................................................................ 3-158

Exhibit 3.10-3: Ecoregions in North Carolina ............................................................................................ 3-159

Exhibit 3.10-4: Federal-Listed Protected Species and Federal Candidate Species Potentially Occurring 

within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative ................................................................................... 3-162

Exhibit 3.10-5: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative.................................................................................................................................................. 3-164

Exhibit 3.10-6: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative ... 3-165

Exhibit 3.10-7: Federal-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within I-85 Corridor Alternative 

.................................................................................................................................................................... 3-166

Exhibit 3.10-8: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within I-85 Corridor Alternative . 3-168

Exhibit 3.10-9: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within I-85 Corridor Alternative ......................... 3-169

Exhibit 3.10-10: Federal-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative.................................................................................................................................................. 3-170

Exhibit 3.10-11: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative.................................................................................................................................................. 3-173
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-viii

Exhibit 3.10-12: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within Greenfield Corridor Alternative ............. 3-174

Exhibit 3.10-13: Federal-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Atlanta Approaches 

.................................................................................................................................................................... 3-175

Exhibit 3.10-14: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Southern Crescent CSX, I85 CSX, and Greenfield CSX Atlanta Approaches ................................................................................... 3-176

Exhibit 3.10-15: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within each Atlanta Approach ........................... 3-177

Exhibit 3.10-16: Threatened and Endangered Species Habitats ................................................................ 3-179
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-1 

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Alternatives Analysis in Chapter 2 recommended four alternatives proceed forward for study: the 

three build alternatives, Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, the I-85 Corridor Alternative, the 

Greenfield Corridor Alternative, and the No-Build Alternative. Each of the build alternatives will have 

sub-alternatives for the two Atlanta Approaches, one along the existing Norfolk Southern (NS) 

Railroad and the other following the existing CSX line. While GDOT is deferring selection of the 

Atlanta Approach to a Tier 2 analysis, presumably an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

information on potential environmental impacts are presented in this Tier 1 EIS. Refer to Chapter 2 

for additional information on the Corridor Alternatives moving forward for further study. As 

discussed in Chapter 2, the Tier 2 analysis may consider additional build alternatives.. 

In this chapter, the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions in the Study Area, as 

defined in Chapter 2, will be described. The potential for permanent and temporary (constructionrelated) impacts within the three Build Corridor Alternatives, including the two Atlanta Approach 

sub-alternatives, and the No-Build Alternative will be reviewed and considered. As discussed in 

Chapter 1, GDOT and the FRA are using a tiered process to complete the NEPA environmental review 

of the Project. GDOT and FRA are preparing a Tier 1 EIS to identify a Preferred Corridor Alternative 

(generalized area of travel). The assessment of impacts is primarily qualitative based on readily 

available data. This chapter will also present potential strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the 

identified effects of the Project. In addition, a broad review and presentation of secondary and 

cumulative effects will be provided. 

The No-Build Alternative is carried forward to serve as a baseline against which GDOT will measure 

the build alternatives. The two sub-alternative approach corridors into the City of Atlanta, along the 

existing NS Railroad and the existing CSX line, converge near Howell Junction, just north and west 

of downtown Atlanta. South of Howell Junction, both follow the same existing alignment to 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (H-JAIA). The existing rail lines along the 

approaches into Atlanta are located within a highly developed urban area and GDOT expects minimal 

impacts from use of either line. Exhibits 3.1-1 through 3.1-3 illustrate the three Corridor Alternatives 

with the two approach sub-alternatives into Atlanta. 

Successful conclusion of the Tier 1 EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) should result in FRA selecting 

a Preferred Corridor Alternative for further analysis. After the Tier 1, GDOT could pursue additional 

Tier 2 analysis, should GDOT identify and secure additional funding. The Tier 2 analysis would 

presumably be an EIS, but it could be multiple Tier 2 documents. The Tier 2 analysis will further 

evaluate and develop the Preferred Corridor Alternative and select the sub-alternative approach into 

Atlanta. More in-depth studies and evaluations would be conducted, and specific mitigation 

commitments identified during a Tier 2 analysis as well. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-2 

Exhibit 3.1-1: Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-3 

Exhibit 3.1-2: I-85 Corridor Alternative 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-4 

Exhibit 3.1-3: Greenfield Corridor Alternative 

This Tier 1 EIS analysis typically considers 600-foot wide Corridor Alternatives. However, depending 

on the nature of each resource, GDOT chose to use wider screening areas and document potential 

impacts outside the 600-foot wide Corridor Alternative for some resources, as described in Exhibit 

3.1-4. The term “environmental screening area” is used in this chapter to refer to the geographic areas 

GDOT evaluated for environmental resources. Subsequent Tier 2 analysis will further refine Corridor 

Alternatives to a more precise width of 100 to 250 feet, which will represent the specific alignment 

required to construct the Project. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-5 

Exhibit 3.1-4: Environmental Screening Areas

Resource 

Environmental 

Screening Area 

Width (feet)

Rational if different from the 600-foot wide 

Corridor Alternative Width 

Transportation Entire Study Area 

Unlike other topic areas, GDOT evaluated the project’s 

impacts on various modes of transportation between 

Atlanta and Charlotte, covering the entire Study Area 

(defined in Chapter 1, Exhibit 1-4). 

Noise 200-1,300’ 

FRA recommends specific screening distances 

depending on the existing noise environment and train 

speeds. Reduced screening distances are recommended 

where intervening buildings exist and may block noise.

Vibration 20-275’

FRA recommends specific screening distances 

depending on existing land uses, train speed and train 

frequency. Screening distances are wide enough to 

capture potential ground-borne vibration impacts.

Socioeconomics 1,000’

1,000-foot screening distance is intended to identify 

demographics, including minority and low-income 

populations that may be impacted by new rail 

infrastructure, ancillary facilities, and associated impacts, 

like traffic. 

Parklands, Wildlife Refuges, and 

Recreational Areas 

600’ along Corridor 

Alternatives and 

1,000’ around stations

Due to the potential for additional activity and impacts 

near stations, GDOT evaluated a larger area than the 

standard 600-foot wide Corridor Alternative.

Historic Resources 1,000’

Due to the potential for direct effects to historic 

resources, such as visual effects or vibration, a 1,000-

foot environmental screening area for historical 

resources was defined for each Corridor.

Archaeological Resources 600’ The 600-foot wide Corridor Alternative is adequate to 

identify potential archaeological impacts. 

Water Resources

600’ along Corridor 

Alternatives and 

1,000’ around stations

Due to the potential for additional activity and impacts 

near stations, GDOT evaluated a larger area than the 

standard 600-foot wide Corridor Alternative.

Biological Resources 600’ The 600-foot wide Corridor Alternative is adequate to 

identify potential biological impacts. 

Note: Categories not evaluated in this Tier 1 EIS include: solid waste disposal, coastal zone management (not present in Study 

Area), production and consumption of energy, use of other natural resources, elderly and handicapped, public health, and safety.

The broad scope of the Tier 1 EIS cannot provide a determination of impacts based on a corridor level evaluation.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-6 

The methodology used in assessing the potential effects of the Corridor and No-Build Alternatives on 

the social, economic, and environmental resources reported in this Tier 1 EIS is in accordance with 

FRA procedures guidance. As explained above, the width of the Corridor Alternative environmental 

screening area is generally 600 feet wide throughout the analysis, except where noted otherwise for 

specific resources. 

The resources listed below are the focus of this Tier 1 EIS. These resources were assessed for three 

reasons: 1) they occur in the proposed Corridor Alternative environmental screening area; 2) a 

determination of the effects on these resources can be made at the current program level (Tier 1) of 

evaluation; and 3) potential effects on these resources may vary among the Corridor Alternatives and 

will assist in the selection of the best build alternative to advance for further study if one is chosen. 

• Transportation: assess impacts on other travel modes 

• Air Quality: assess the consistency of the alternatives with Federal and state plans for the 

attainment and maintenance of air quality standards 

• Water Resources, including wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S., floodplains, and 

water quality: assess the alternatives on the consistency with Federal and state standards and 

impacts on Waters of the U.S. 

• Noise and Vibration: assess the effects of the alternatives based on Federal, state and local 

noise and vibration standards 

• Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice: assess the effects of the alternatives on the number 

and industry of jobs, the potential for community disruption or cohesion, the possibility of 

demographic shifts, and local services and revenues, and on minority and low-income 

populations, and land use changes 

• Recreational Areas and Opportunities: assess impacts on recreational activities, and their 

designated areas

• Natural Ecological Systems: assess the effects of the alternatives on wildlife and vegetation, 

including endangered species impacted by the alternatives, and the possible changes to the 

natural landscape 

• Cultural Resources: assess the impacts of the alternatives on historical, architectural, 

archaeological, or cultural artifacts of significance 

Because of the broad scope of a Tier 1 EIS, and because a determination of impacts cannot be 

evaluated from a corridor-level, or the category is not present in the Study Area, the following 

resources were not evaluated in this Tier 1 EIS: solid waste disposal, coastal zone management (not 

present in Study Area), production and consumption of energy, use of other natural resources, elderly 

and handicapped, public health, and safety. 

Subsequent Tier 2 analysis of resources will require a site-specific design and more precise discussion 

of the direct and indirect effects within the selected Corridor Alternative, than is possible in this broad, 

Corridor-level assessment. If this Tier 1 process results in FRA selecting a Preferred Corridor 

Alternative, subsequent Tier 2 analysis will include site-specific research and fieldwork, effects 

analysis will be performed on all issues and resources in compliance with NEPA and FRA guidelines, 

and other relevant Federal and state laws. Should additional funding be identified and secured, GDOT 

and FRA will conduct additional and more extensive consultation with agencies and with the public 

as part of the Tier 2 analysis. 

Each section in this chapter describes the affected environment and potential consequences of the 

Project. A “Subsequent Analysis” subsection is included to describe the next, specific analysis that 

will take place in Tier 2. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-7 

3.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The Tier 1 analysis of environmental consequences described in this chapter determined that the 

Project, as well as the No-Build Alternative, have the potential to affect the human and natural 

environment. 

͵ǤʹǤͳ No-Build Alternative

The extent to which the planned and funded projects in the No-Build Alternative would have impacts 

on the human and natural environment, and whether those impacts could be avoided or minimized, 

can only be determined through environmental analysis to be undertaken by the sponsors of those 

projects. See Exhibit 2-7 for a list of the planned and funded projects within the Study Area. Key 

findings of this Tier 1 EIS are that the No-Build Alternative: 

• Could increase roadway capacity in selected portions of the Study Area’s transportation 

network, but would not adequately enhance passenger mobility between the metropolitan areas 

and airports of Atlanta and Charlotte; 

• Would not adequately address the transportation needs of projected population and 

employment growth in the Study Area, would not increase transportation options, would not 

increase airport and intermodal connections, would not fully address transportation limitations 

on economic growth, and would not provide faster and more reliable ground transportation as 

an alternative to highway, intercity bus and air travel; 

• Would not reduce the quantity or the growth rate of mobile source emissions resulting from 

vehicle miles traveled on the highway network in the Study Area; and 

• Could potentially have impacts on communities, parks, wildlife refuges and recreational areas, 

cultural resources, water resources, and biological resources resulting from other planned 

projects in localized areas. 

3.2.2 Corridor Alternatives 

Key findings from the Tier 1 EIS of the three Corridor Alternatives are that any of the build 

alternatives would improve passenger mobility and accessibility in the Study Area and specifically: 

• Would address some of the transportation needs of projected population and employment 

growth in the Study Area, particularly increasing transportation options, increasing airport and 

intermodal connections, addressing transportation limitations on economic growth, providing 

faster and more reliable ground transportation as an alternative to highway, intercity bus and 

air travel; 

• Could improve air quality by providing a transportation option that does not increase mobile 

source emissions resulting from vehicle miles traveled on the highway network in the Study 

Area; and 

• Could potentially have impacts on communities, parks, wildlife refuges and recreational areas, 

cultural resources, water resources, and biological resources.

For human and natural environment impacts, the Tier 1 EIS revealed several differences among the 

Corridor Alternatives excluding the Atlanta Approach: 

• Transportation Right-of-Way: The I-85 Corridor Alternative would use the greatest amount 

of existing highway transportation right-of- way (ROW) and the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative would use a large amount of existing railroad ROW. The Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative would use the least amount of existing transportation ROW. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-8 

• Transportation Modes and Air Quality: The Greenfield has the greatest potential to divert 

trips from highway and air travel, followed closely by I-85, whereas the Southern Crescent 

Corridor, while more competitive with bus travel, only diverts a negligible amount of highway 

and air travel. GDOT expects that the Greenfield and I-85 Corridor Alternatives would have 

the greatest reduction in vehicular emissions, based on modal shift projections. 

• Noise and Vibration: Using land use and property data, GDOT calculated the number of noise 

and vibration receptors that could potentially be impacted. The Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative has the greatest number of noise-receptor impacts, followed by the Greenfield, 

then the I-85 Corridor Alternative. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative has the greatest 

number of potential vibration-receptor impacts, followed by the Crescent, then the I-85 

Corridor Alternative. 

• Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice: GDOT evaluated the potential impacts to 

environmental justice (EJ) populations by reviewing 2010 Census data at the block-group level 

to identify where EJ populations are located. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative has 

the greatest percentage of block-groups meeting EJ criteria for both minority and low-income 

populations, followed closely by the I-85, then the Greenfield Corridor Alternative. Not all 

Corridor Alternatives serve the same proposed station locations or the same EJ populations. 

For example, only the Greenfield Corridor Alternative would serve the proposed Athens 

station area and only the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative would have a station serving 

the Gainesville area. Therefore, depending on the Corridor Alternative, some EJ populations 

along each corridor would be served by a station and some would not. 

• Parklands and Wildlife Refuges: Since the Southern Crescent and I-85 Corridor Alternatives 

mostly follow existing transportation facilities, impacts to parks and wildlife refuges are 

unlikely. However, the number of state and local parks within the screening areas are greater 

for these two Corridor Alternatives than for the Greenfield Corridor Alternative. In general, 

parks near station areas may experience more impacts than those near rail line, due to the more 

expansive footprints and active nature of station areas. 

• Cultural and Historic Resources: The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative has more than 

twice the number of known cultural and historic resources as the I-85 or the Greenfield 

Corridor Alternatives. 

• Wetlands, Streams, and Floodplains: Since it follows less existing ROW, the Greenfield 

Corridor Alternative would potentially introduce more new or expanded stream and open 

water crossings than the other Corridor Alternatives. The I-85 and Greenfield Corridor 

Alternatives have similar impacts to wetlands, while the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative has fewer potential impacts than the other two in all three areas. 

• Threatened and Endangered Species Habitats: All three Corridor Alternatives are home to 

approximately the same number of threatened and endangered species. The Greenfield 

Corridor Alternative is the least developed of the three and contains the highest acreage of 

natural terrestrial habitat area, followed by the Southern Crescent, then the I-85 Corridor 

Alternative. 

Exhibit 3.2-1 summarizes the data findings for the three Corridor Alternatives, including the two 

Atlanta Approaches; these data are discussed in the remaining sections of this chapter. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-9 

Exhibit 3.2-1: Summary Potential Environmental Impacts 

Corridor Alternative

Measures 

Southern 

Crescent 

with NS 

Atlanta 

Approach

Southern 

Crescent 

with CSX 

Atlanta 

Approach

I-85

with NS 

Atlanta 

Approach

I-85

with CSX 

Atlanta 

Approach

Greenfield 

with NS 

Atlanta 

Approach

Greenfield 

with CSX 

Atlanta 

Approach

Percentage of 

automobile trips 

diverted to rail 

(2050, rounded)

1% 3% 4%

Percentage of air 

trips diverted to rail 

(2050, rounded)

n/a* 8% 10%

Percentage of 

intercity bus rips 

diverted to rail 

(2050, rounded)

19% 19% 15%

Number of 

potential noise 

receptor impacts 

11,872 11,310 7,163 6,963 9,628 9,246

Number of 

potential vibrationreceptor impacts 29 37 21 26 145 149

Percentage of 

Census Block 

Groups meeting 

EJ criteria for 

Minority Population

44.7% 43.2% 42.1% 41.8% 37.7% 37.2%

Percentage of 

Census Block 

Groups meeting 

EJ criteria for LowIncome Population

34.1% 30.11% 26.8% 23.7% 22.7% 19.02%

Parklands and 

Wildlife Refuges 

Sites (number)

28 33 21 26 17 22

Parklands and 

Wildlife Refuges 

(acres) 

950.7 937.65 74.88 107.71 48.01 66.18

Known Historic 

Resources 

(number)

117 110 52 49 44 37
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-10

Corridor Alternative

Measures 

Southern 

Crescent 

with NS 

Atlanta 

Approach

Southern 

Crescent 

with CSX 

Atlanta 

Approach

I-85

with NS 

Atlanta 

Approach

I-85

with CSX 

Atlanta 

Approach

Greenfield 

with NS 

Atlanta 

Approach

Greenfield 

with CSX 

Atlanta 

Approach

Community 

Facilities (number) 366 354 187 185 120 116

Wetlands (acres) 45 100 148 194 130 169

Waterbody 

Crossings 

(number)

169 270 462 525 566 629

Floodplains (acres) 494 918 762 1,181 738 1,129

Known Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species Habitats 

(number)

38 41 38 41 35 38

Natural Terrestrial 

Habitat (acres) 6,312 7,517 2,688 3,893 10,520 10,854

Note: Analysis of environmental resources is presented for each combination of Corridor Alternative and Atlanta Approach, except 

for transportation impact, since the two Atlanta Approaches have similar performance from an operational and ridership standpoint. 

The NS option is used as the representative Atlanta Approach for transportation impacts. 

Sources and methodologies for each resource are discussed in the following sections of this chapter. 

*As described in Appendix B, air travel diversion was modeled for the I-85 and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives, but not the 

Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative. GDOT determined that the level of service provided by the Southern Crescent would not 

be competitive with air travel, primarily due to the longer travel time. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-11

3.3 TRANSPORTATION

This section describes the existing roadway, transit, freight rail, passenger rail, and air transportation 

facilities and services within the Study Area. In addition, it discusses the potential network-wide 

effects of the Corridor Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative on existing transportation facilities 

within the Study Area, and identifies potential measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects. 

The potential effects include effects on ridership, travel time, level of service (LOS), connectivity, 

and operations. 

3.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Context 

The effects of the Corridor Alternatives on both passenger and freight transportation were broadly 

considered in this Tier 1 EIS using FRA’s Environmental Procedures as guidance.1

3.3.2 Methodology 

The methodology employed for this section is a mix of a qualitative discussion and quantitative 

assessment of existing conditions of the transportation network within the Study Area. Using this 

methodology, GDOT identified potential impacts on the transportation network within the Study Area 

resulting from the No-Build Alternative, and the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield Corridor 

Alternatives. In addition, GDOT evaluated the Study Area in its entirety from Atlanta to Charlotte, as 

opposed to the methodology used in evaluating other resource areas where the approaches to Atlanta 

were evaluated separately from the rest of the Alternatives. 

GDOT coordinated with Project partners South Carolina (SCDOT) and North Carolina (NCDOT), as 

well as with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other organizations, to obtain readily 

available transportation data and long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), including information 

related to existing and planned transportation facilities for each of the transportation modes along the 

Study Area. GDOT collected information regarding Levels of Service (LOS) and Average Daily 

Traffic (ADT) for major highways and interstates in the Study Area (Exhibit 3.3-1 below) primarily 

from MPOs and statewide travel demand models. The following MPOs and local or regional planning 

departments provided data for this section: 

• Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC); 

• Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS); 

• Gainesville-Hall Metropolitan Planning Organization (GHMPO); 

• Augusta Planning and Development Department; 

• Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study (GPATS); 

• The Spartanburg Area Transportation Study (SPATS); 

• Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG); and 

• Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO). 

In addition, GDOT collected information regarding intercity and regional bus and transit services, and 

existing freight and passenger rail services from the respective operators for these modes. GDOT 

 

1 The FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR1999-05-26/99-13262 (accessed 2/13/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-12

utilized airport and air travel information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.2 In addition, 

airlines’ websites and masterplans contain information on their services, including scheduled flight 

times, frequency of services, capacity, and fares. 

GDOT will identify conceptual mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 2 analysis. 

Additionally, the Tier 2 analysis will identify the need for further traffic and transportation 

assessments and the development of detailed mitigation strategies. Transportation topics 

recommended for more detailed analysis in a Tier 2 analysis include traffic studies, intersection 

improvements, local and regional transit connectivity, and more fully developed ingress and egress 

near the station sites. 

3.3.3 Affected Environment 

3.3.3.1 Automobile 

Automobile travel is the most widely used mode connecting Atlanta and Charlotte, particularly via 

Interstate highways I-85, I-20, I-77, and I-26.3

 I-85 provides the most direct path for automobile travel 

between Atlanta and Charlotte (see Exhibit 3.3-1). As discussed in Chapter 1, projections show that 

automobile traffic volumes will increase and congestion will worsen for each of the metropolitan areas 

along the roadways within the Study Area, particularly on the Interstates. Furthermore, traffic 

projections indicate that automobile demand for I-85 will exceed capacity in the Atlanta, Greenville, 

and Charlotte metropolitan areas, causing significant delay for highway travelers throughout the Study 

Area.4 GDOT collected highway capacity data analyses from MPOs and State DOTs to determine the 

current and projected Level of Service (LOS) and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the Study Area 

and illustrate current and projected driving patterns, particularly travel demand between Atlanta and 

Charlotte. As discussed in Chapter 1, travel by automobile provides competitive travel times 

compared to other modes, only second to air travel as shown in the exhibit below. However, the 

average air travel time only accounts for direct flight time and does not consider the additional time 

required for security, which increases travel time between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

 

2

 The Air Carrier Statistics database, also known as the T-100 data bank, contains domestic and international airline market and 

segment data. Certificated U.S. air carriers report monthly air carrier traffic information using Form T-100; The Airline Origin and 

Destination Survey (DB1B) is a 10% sample of airline tickets from reporting carriers collected by the Office of Airline Information of 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Data includes origin, destination and other itinerary details of passengers transported. This 

database is used to determine air traffic patterns, air carrier market shares and passenger flows. More information on these data 

sources can be found at the Bureau for Transportation Statistics website: www.transtats.bts.gov (accessed 2/1/18) 3 Atlanta to Charlotte PCRIP Alternatives Development Report. “Ridership and Revenue Methodology Technical Memorandum”, May 

2013

4 Atlanta Regional Commission, http://atlantaregionsplan.org; Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization 

http://www.crtpo.org/PDFs/MTP/2045/2045_MTP.pdf; Augusta Regional Transportation Study, 

https://www.augustaga.gov/2120/Transportation-Vision-2040; Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study, 

http://www.gpats.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/GPATS_Horizon2040_10_15_2018.pdf; Columbia Area Transportation Study 

Moving the Midlands 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan http:/centralmidlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2040-LONG-RANGETRANSPORTATION-PLAN-APPROVED-AUGUST-27-2015.pdf (accessed on 3/20/19)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-13

Exhibit 3.3-1: Comparison of Existing Travel Modes and Proposed Corridor Alternatives 

Travel Mode 

Frequency 

of Trips 

(One-Way)

Average Travel Time between Atlanta and Charlotte 

Automobile

I-85 N/A 3 hours, 45 minutes5

I-20, I-77 N/A 4 hours, 43 minutes6

Intercity Bus 14 5 hours, 15 minutes , depending on carrier

Intercity Rail

Amtrak 

Crescent

2 5 hours, 17 minutes7

Air 36

American 18 1 hour 17 minutes (direct flight time only)8

Delta 18 1 hour, 10 minutes (direct flight time only)9

Sources: HNTB Revenue and Ridership Results, May 2013; Google maps

VOLUMES OF AUTOMOBILES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE 

Exhibits 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 display traffic volumes and LOS as reported in MPOs’ LRTPs which presents 

the LOS and ADT at representative points on the roadway network between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Each MPO LRTP reviewed by GDOT uses 2040 as its future horizon year, and either 2010, 2015, or 

2016 for the current (or base) year. Some MPOs choose to report LOS as a range of values (ex. A-C 

or LOS E or Worse). 

As described in Chapter 1, LOS is a measure used to describe operational conditions within a traffic 

stream. There are six levels identified by the letters A through F. LOS A represents free flow traffic 

where drivers are virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles, while LOS F represents 

operating conditions in which demand exceeds capacity. These projections highlight the increase in 

automobile congestion and the declining LOS expected through much of the Study Area. 

 

5 Travel times reflect start/end points from city-centers of Charlotte and Atlanta Google Maps Driving Directions, assumes vehicles 

are driving the posted speed limits 6 Travel times reflect start/end points from city-centers of Charlotte and Atlanta. Google Maps Driving Directions, assumes vehicles 

are driving the posted speed limits 

7 Amtrak, http://www.amtrak.com/home (accessed on 1/31/18) 8 Estimate based on information provided by searching for weekday flights between Atlanta and Charlotte 

9 This number is dependent on which rail alternative is preferred. However, The Volpe Center in their “Evaluation of High-Speed Rail 

Options in the Macon-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte Rail Corridor.” (2008) provides this estimate. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-14

Exhibit 3.3-2: ADT and LOS Trends on I-85 in the Project Study Area (2016 and 2040) 

Metropolitan 

Area

I-85 Interstate Corridor 

Analysis Points 

Number of 

Lanes 

Current ADT 

(2016)*

Current 

LOS

(2016)

Future 

AADT 

(2040)

Future 

LOS

(2040)

Atlanta I-85/75 north of I- 20 

(Downtown Connector)

10 250,932 F 282,717 F 

Atlanta I-85/75 south of 14 St. Exit 14 362,234 F 401,743 F

Atlanta I-85 north of I-75/I-85 Split at 

Armour Dr. NE

10 248,990 F 277,610 F 

Atlanta I-85/SR403 between I-285 & 

Chamblee Tucker Rd

14 224,469 E 258,915 E 

Atlanta I-85 north of Steve Reynolds 

Blvd to Pleasant Hill Rd 

approaching 316

12 267,480 F 345,827 F 

Spartanburg I-85 at I-29/Warren H 

Abernathy Hwy SC 290 to 

US-29 

7 92,800 D 117,800 E** 

Spartanburg I-85 at I-26 SC 85 to I- 26 4 69,000 C 93,100 D

Spartanburg I-85 at 221 SC 85 TO US 221 8 81,200 C 111,200 E

Greenville I-85 N at 185/Southern 

Connector

6 32,800 D 46,400 F 

Greenville I-85 at US-276 6 41,500 C 52,700 D

Greenville I-85 at I-385 6 60,500 C 76,100 D

Greenville I-85 at Pelham Rd. 7 61,000 E 76,900 F

Greenville

(Greenville 

Spartanburg 

Airport Corridor)

I-85 at Aviation Dr. 6 56,300 E 70,300 F 

Charlotte I-85 at I-485 8 144,200 LOS E or 

worse

178,200 LOS E or 

worse

Charlotte I-85 at Moores Chapel Rd. 9 143,200 LOS E or 

worse

177,100 LOS E or 

worse

Charlotte I-85 at Beatty Dr. 8 133,100 LOS E or 

worse

172,600 LOS E or 

worse

*Traffic data for Atlanta is from 2015

**There is a project to widen this portion of I-85 to 8 lanes with planned completion in 2030. When that is done the LOS is 

expected to be C.

Sources: Atlanta Regional Commission, Greenville County Department of Planning, Spartanburg Area Transportation Study 

MPO, SCDOT, NCDOT, Augusta Planning and Development Department
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-15

Exhibit 3.3-3: ADT and LOS Trends on I-20 and I-77 in the Project Study Area (2016 and 2040) 

Metropolitan 

Area

I-20 Interstate Corridor 

Analysis Points 

Number of 

Lanes 

Current ADT 

(2016)*

Current 

LOS

(2016)

Future 

AADT 

(2040)

Future 

LOS

(2040)

Atlanta I-20 east of I-75/85 & Capitol 

Ave @ Cherokee Ave. 9 212,309 F 258,336 F 

Atlanta I-20 west of I-285 near 

Columbia Dr 7 97,348 D 131,338 E 

Atlanta I-20 east of Panola Rd @ 

Fairington Rd 6 127,628 C-E 149,856 F 

Atlanta I-20 at GA 138 6 68,278 C 94,107 D

Augusta I-20 at I-520 5 87,900 A-C 115,000 D

Augusta I-20 at Washington Rd 7 75,800 A-C 105,000 D

Columbia I-20 at Augusta Rd. 4 67,800 D 88,900 C

Columbia I-20 at US-378 6 86,400 C 96,200 D

Columbia I-20 at I-26 6 80,700 C 114,600 D

Columbia I-20 at US-321 7 98,600 D 110,800 D

Columbia I-20 at SC-277 6 83,500 C 92,300 C

Columbia SC-277 at I-77 4 53,400 D 51,900 D

Charlotte I-77 at NC-16 9 183,000 LOS E or 

worse 226,900 LOS E or worse

Charlotte I-77 at US-74 8 147,700 LOS E or 

worse 178,500 LOS E or worse

Charlotte I-77 at I-485 7 157,200 LOS E or 

worse 205,200 LOS E or worse

Charlotte I-77 at Arrowood Rd. 8 160,600 LOS E or 

worse 210,200 LOS E or worse

Charlotte I-77 at Westinghouse Blvd. 7 141,700 LOS E or 

worse 185,000 LOS E or worse

*Traffic data for Atlanta is from 2015 and LOS data for Augusta utilized a 2010 base year

Sources: Atlanta Regional Commission, Greenville County Department of Planning, Spartanburg Area Transportation Study 

MPO, SCDOT, NCDOT, Augusta Planning and Development Department

In the year 2040, all I-85 segments analyzed between Atlanta and Charlotte operate at LOS D or worse 

in 2040 throughout the Study Area. Of the 16 segments analyzed along I-85, six experienced LOS F 

and all of the I-85 segments in the Charlotte area are projected to be LOS E or worse. The segments 

with LOS F are located in metropolitan Atlanta and Greenville, SC. There is a planned project in 

Spartanburg to widen a portion of I-85 to eight lanes with planned completion in 2030. When that is 

completed, SCDOT expects LOS C for the segment of I-85 at “I-29/Warren H Abernathy Hwy SC 

290 to US-29”. All segments on I-85 will see an increase in traffic volume from the Current Year 

(2016) to the Future Year (2040). 

On the I-20 and I-77 corridors linking Atlanta to Charlotte, every road segment operates at LOS D or 

worse in 2040 except for two, I-20 at SC-277 and I-20 at Augusta Road in Columbia, SC. According 

to the SCDOT Office of Planning, I-20 at Augusta Road improves from LOS D to C between by 2040 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-16

due to a construction project that adds capacity to I-20 and I-77. Most roadway segments on I-20 and 

I-77 are projected to see an increase in traffic volume by 2040. 

3.3.3.2 Freight Rail 

The efficient movement of freight is a common goal for all three states, especially given that two of 

the top five ports for imported cars or container port tonnage – Savannah and Brunswick – are located 

in Georgia and served by the freight rail network. The freight rail network also serves the Port of 

Charleston in South Carolina. Multiple companies provide freight rail service in the Project Study 

Area. NS and CSX, both Class I railroads, are the two dominant rail companies providing service in 

the three states. Exhibit 3.3-4 provides a map of CSX and NS service rail lines in the three states. 

Exhibit 3.3-5 below illustrates daily train counts within the Project Study Area, based on data 

collection conducted in 2012.10 The Southern Crescent Corridor is a key part of NS’s intermodal 

network in the southeast. 

Exhibit 3.3-4: CSX and NS Rail Service in Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina 

Source: HNTB 

 

10 RTC analysis done by TEMS, August 2012 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-17

Exhibit 3.3-5: Trains per Day 

Sources: HNTB 

GEORGIA 

Two Class I railroads and 29 Class III railroads (short line railroads, smaller local, switching, and 

terminal railroads) operate the Georgia freight rail system. The system consists of 4,643 total route 

miles.11 

Class I carriers CSX and NS own 3,631 route miles, and both utilize Atlanta as their southeast rail 

hub. 12 Short line railroads and the State of Georgia own the remaining 1,012 route miles in the state. 

Georgia’s Class I and Class III railroads provide vital connectivity to the Ports of Savannah and 

Brunswick. At the Port of Savannah’s Garden City Terminal (the largest single container terminal in 

North America), CSX provides access to the Chatham Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF). 

NS also serves the Port of Savannah’s Garden City Terminal, as well as the Ocean Terminal. 13

Georgia’s freight railroads carried over 189 million tons of freight or more than 3.9 million rail cars 

of various commodities that originated or terminated within Georgia, or traveled through the state in 

2011. Forecasts indicate total rail freight flows in the state will increase through 2040 at a compound 

annual growth rate of 0.5 percent.14 The Association of American Railroads estimates that 187.4 

 

11 Georgia State Rail Plan (2015) http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/StateRailPlan/2015GeorgiaStateRailPlan-1-

26-16.pdf 12 Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Study 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/AboutGeorgia/Board/Presentations/StatewideFreightandLogisticsPlan.pdf (accessed 12/22/17) 13 Georgia State Rail Plan (2015) 

14 Georgia State Rail Plan (2015) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-18

million tons of freight originated in, terminated in, or moved through Georgia by rail in 2014.15 In the 

Project Study Area, the NS Greenville District Main Line runs between Atlanta and Greenville. The 

NS R-Line, also part of the Piedmont Division, connects Augusta, GA to Columbia, SC. From 

Columbia, the Piedmont Divisions’ Columbia District connects Columbia to Charlotte.16

Additionally, the CSX Abbeville and Georgia lines are within the Project Study Area. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Twelve rail carriers operate within the South Carolina rail network. Two are Class I carriers, CSX and 

NS, and the remainder are local carriers or switching and terminal companies. CSX owns 1,269 route 

miles, representing 56 percent of the statewide rail system of 2,258 miles. The NS, with 679 route 

miles, accounts for 30 percent of the state rail system. Palmetto Railways, a branch of the South 

Carolina Department of Commerce, operates three railroad subdivisions. In South Carolina, 

forecasted rail tonnage will increase from 70.3 million in 2011 to 101.4 million in 2040, a cumulative 

increase of 44.3 percent. 

The Association of American Railroads estimates that 67.6 million tons of freight originated in, 

terminated in, or moved through South Carolina by rail in 2014.17 As mentioned in the previous 

section, the NS Piedmont Divisions’ Columbia District connects Columbia to Charlotte. Additionally, 

the NS Charlotte District of the Piedmont Division route connects Greenville to Charlotte and serves 

the Greer Inland Port. Spartanburg, SC connects to Columbia by the NS W line, also part of the 

Piedmont Division.18 The CSX Spartanburg line of the Florence Division is within the Project Study 

Area.19

NORTH CAROLINA 

Today there are over 3,200 miles of railroad in North Carolina, serving 86 of the state’s 100 counties. 

Two Class I railroads – NS and CSX – and 20 short line railroads operate within the state of North 

Carolina. In addition, the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) Company owns and manages a 317-mile 

corridor extending from the Port of Morehead City to Charlotte. NS operates along the corridor 

through an operating and maintenance agreement. Twenty Class III railroads operate in North 

Carolina ranging from three to 173 miles. Two federally-owned railroads are also located in North 

Carolina, providing access to Camp Lejeune and Military Ocean Terminal – Sunny Point.20

CSX operates approximately 1,111 miles of track in North Carolina. NS operates approximately 1,213 

miles of track. NS’ primary corridor parallels I-85 through the central part of the State connecting 

Charlotte and Greensboro with Atlanta, Georgia and the Northeast. The North Carolina State Rail 

Plan highlights that 58.3 tons originated and terminated in the state in 2012. The Association of 

American Railroads estimates that 85 million tons of freight originated in, terminated in, or moved 

through North Carolina by rail in 2014.21 Charlotte connects to Spartanburg/Greenville and Columbia 

by the NS Charlotte District line and Columbia District lines respectively. Both of these lines are part 

 

15 Association of American Railroads, U.S. Freight Railroad Snapshot: Georgia; https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroadsstates#state/GA (accessed 1/13/18) 16 Norfolk Southern System Overview, http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/system-overview.html (accessed 12/15/17) 17 Association of American Railroads, U.S. Freight Railroad Snapshot: South Carolina, https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroadsstates#state/SC (accessed 1/13/18) 18 Norfolk Southern System Overview, http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/system-overview.html (accessed 12/15/17) 

19 CSX System Map, https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/maps/csx-system-map/ (accessed 2/15/17) 20 North Carolina State Rail Plan (2015), https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/rail/Pages/rail-plan.aspx (accessed 3/19/2019) 21 Association of American Railroads, U.S. Freight Railroad Snapshot: North Carolina; https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroadsstates#state/NC (accessed 1/13/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-19

of the NS Piedmont Division of rail lines.22 CSX Charlotte Subdivision enters Charlotte through a 

connection to Monroe Subdivision rail line that travels through parts of South Carolina as part of the 

Florence Division of CSX rail lines.23

3.3.3.3 Passenger Rail 

Amtrak passenger rail serves Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. 

GEORGIA 

Four Amtrak long-distance intercity rail passenger routes operate within Georgia. Amtrak’s Crescent, 

Palmetto, Silver Meteor, and Silver Star routes all originate in New York City with terminating points 

in New Orleans, Savannah, Orlando, and Miami, respectively. Amtrak’s Crescent service is the only 

route located within the Project Study Area. There are five Amtrak stations in Georgia: Atlanta, 

Gainesville, Jesup, Savannah, and Toccoa.24

In FY17, the Crescent route in Georgia recorded approximately 86,651 passengers at the Atlanta, 

Gainesville, and Toccoa train stations, all of which are located in the Project’s Study Area. Amtrak 

station usage in Georgia totaled to 153,479 passengers in FY17. The boarding and alighting at each 

Georgia station in FY17 were: 

Crescent Route: 

• Atlanta: 77,751 

• Gainesville: 5,493 

• Toccoa: 3,407 

Silver Meteor/Silver Star/Palmetto Route: 

• Jesup: 9,648 

• Savannah: 57,18025

SOUTH CAROLINA 

South Carolina is served by the same four long-distance routes that operate in Georgia – the Crescent, 

Palmetto, Silver Meteor, and Silver Star routes. South Carolina has eleven Amtrak stations: Camden, 

North Charleston, Clemson, Columbia, Denmark, Dillon, Florence, Greenville, Kingstree, 

Spartanburg, and Yemassee.26 

In FY17, the Crescent route in South Carolina recorded a total of approximately 17,683 passengers at 

the Greenville and Spartanburg train stations, both of which are located in the Project Study Area. 

Clemson station was closed in FY 17 due to a highway project. Amtrak station usage in South Carolina 

totaled to 195,906 passengers in FY17. The boarding and alighting at each South Carolina station in 

FY17 were: 

 

22 Norfolk Southern System Overview, http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/system-overview.html (accessed 12/15/17) 

23 CSX System Map, https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/maps/csx-system-map/ (accessed 2/15/17) 24 Rail Passengers Association, Fact Sheet: Amtrak in Georgia; https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1183/ga.pdf (accessed 

1/4/18)

25 Amtrak Fact Sheet FY 17. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/GEORGIA17.pdf 

26 Rail Passengers Association, Fact Sheet: Amtrak in South Carolina; https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1213/sc.pdf 

(accessed 1/4/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-20

Crescent Route: 

• Greenville 14,135 

• Spartanburg 3,548 

• Clemson: (Closed in FY 17 for adjacent highway project; Ridership was 3,127 in FY 16) 

Silver Meteor/Silver Star/Palmetto Route: 

• Camden: 3,531 

• Charleston: 66,759

• Columbia: 32,695 

• Denmark: 3,604 

• Dillon 6,692 

• Florence 43,304 

• Kingstree 11,187 

• Yemassee 10,45127

NORTH CAROLINA 

As shown in Exhibit 3.3-6, North Carolina’s passenger services include the state-supported Piedmont 

and Carolinian, which are regional trains serving the state’s most heavily populated corridor, between 

Raleigh and Charlotte. The Carolinian service extends up the East Coast to New York City, while the 

Piedmont currently operates between Raleigh and Charlotte with plans to extend service to the 

Northeast Corridor in the future. Other long distance passenger rail services that travel through North 

Carolina include Amtrak’s Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor and Palmetto.

28 

 

27Amtrak Fact Sheet FY17. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/SOUTHCAROLINA17.pdf 

28 Rail Passengers Association, Fact Sheet: Amtrak in North Carolina; https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1206/nc.pdf

(accessed 1/4/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-21

Exhibit 3.3-6 North Carolina Passenger Train Service 

Source: NC State Rail Plan, 2014, pg. 2-13

North Carolina has eighteen Amtrak stations: Burlington, Cary, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, 

Gastonia, Greensboro, Hamlet, High Point, Kannapolis, Lexington---BBQ Fest,29 N.C. State Fair,30

Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Salisbury, Selma—Smithfield, Southern Pines, and Wilson. 

In FY17, the Crescent stations in North Carolina recorded approximately 333,642 passengers at the 

Charlotte, Gastonia, Greensboro, High Point, and Salisbury train stations, all of which are located in 

the Project Study Area. However, some of these boardings and alightings could be attributed to the 

Carolinian/Piedmont route. Amtrak station usage in North Carolina totaled to 860,680 passengers in 

FY17. The boarding and alighting at each North Carolina station in FY17 were: 

Crescent Route: 

• Charlotte: 168,144 

• Gastonia: 1,345 

• Greensboro: 111,187 

• High Point: 30,818 

• Salisbury: 22,148 

Carolinian/Piedmont Route: 

• Cary: 81,685 

 

29 The Lexington, NC Amtrak station is a temporary station that is used once a year during the Lexington Barbeque Festival, which is 

one-day festival held every year in October. 

30 The NC State Fair Amtrak station is a temporary station that is used once a year during the North Carolina State Fair. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-22

• Charlotte: 168,144 

• Durham: 71,924 

• Greensboro: 111,187 

• Burlington: 21,404 

• High Point: 30,818 

• Salisbury: 22,148 

• Raleigh: 150,919 

• Rocky Mount: 52,343 

• Wilson: 55,579 

• Selma-Smithfield: 13,724 

• Kannapolis: 18,043 

Silver Meteor/Silver Star/Palmetto Route: 

• Rocky Mount: 52,343 

• Wilson: 55,579 

• Selma-Smithfield: 13,724 

• Raleigh: 150,919 

• Cary: 81,685 

• Southern Pines: 7,065 

• Hamlet: 4,37631

NCDOT has invested in the modernization of the state's railways through a series of railroad and 

highway construction projects and enhancements known as the Piedmont Improvement Program, or 

PIP. The PIP includes constructing rail-roadway grade separations, eliminating at-grade crossings, 

adding second main tracks and passing sidings, and easing curves, all of which have combined to 

significantly increase passenger and freight train speeds, shortening travel times in the RaleighCharlotte corridor. New or re-constructed stations and purchasing and rebuilding of trains were also 

part of the PIP. More information about the PIP can be found in Section 2.2.2.1. 

3.3.3.4 Existing Transit Services 

The following local and regional rail and bus transit systems operate in the Project Study Area: 

GEORGIA 

Atlanta Metropolitan Area 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA): During FY 2016, MARTA provided 

approximately 133 million passenger trips.32 MARTA’s rail system consists of 47.6 miles of 

operational double track and 38 fully functioning stations. The rail system has lines running in eastwest and north-south directions with the main lines intersecting at the Five Points Station, located in 

 

31 Amtrak FY17 Fact Sheet. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/NORTHCAROLINA17.pdf 

32 MARTA, Popular Annual Financial Report 2016; 

http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/More/About_MARTA/2016%20Annual%20Report_web.pdf (accessed 12/18/17)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-23

Atlanta’s Downtown Business District. MARTA’s bus fleet and facilities consists of 569 diesel and 

compressed natural gas buses; a heavy maintenance facility and three operating garages; several parkand-ride lots and an extensive system of patron bus shelters and stops. MARTA operates 100 different 

bus routes providing approximately 25.2 million annual vehicle miles.33 Rail service operates from 

4:45 AM to 1:00 AM Monday through Friday, and weekends and holidays from 6:00 AM to 1:00 

AM. Bus service operates from 5:00 AM to 1:00AM Monday through Friday and weekends from 5:00 

AM to 12:30 AM.34

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)/Xpress: Xpress bus service, operated by the 

GRTA, offers 27 commuter bus routes and 27 park and ride lots in 12 metro Atlanta counties 

(Cherokee, Clayton, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, 

and Rockdale) and carries more than 1.8 million passenger trips annually. GRTA also contracts with 

Cobb Community Transit (CCT) to operate some Xpress routes to and from Cobb County. Xpress 

service operates Monday through Friday, generally between 5:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. for morning trips 

to Atlanta and 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. for afternoon trips to Cobb County. Xpress draws ridership 

from 44 counties and provides a connection between 3.4 million residents and 375,000 jobs. 

Additionally, GRTA estimates that Xpress bus service annually removes 55 million miles of 

congestion from the region’s interstates.35

GRTA also offers a vanpool program and provides financial incentives to riders to maximize program 

participation and contracts with private sector vendors who supply the vans and place individual riders 

in vanpool groups. Vans range in capacity from 7-15 passengers.36

Gwinnet County Transit (GCT): GCT operates express commuter bus, local bus and paratransit 

service. Express bus service to/from Atlanta operates Monday through Friday and includes six routes 

using the High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane on I-85.37 Park and ride lots at I-985, Sugarloaf Mills and 

Indian Trail have been built or upgraded to provide free parking for bus riders. Local bus service 

operates five routes Monday through Saturday connecting neighborhoods and businesses to Gwinnett 

County locations. Paratransit service for qualifying persons with disabilities operates in conjunction 

with the local bus service.38

 

33 MARTA, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2015&2016; 

http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/More/About_MARTA/2016_CAFR_Web.pdf (accessed 12/18/17)

34 MARTA, Train Stations and Schedules; http://www.itsmarta.com/train-stations-and-schedules.aspx; http://www.itsmarta.com/busschedules.aspx (accessed 12/18/17)

35Xpress FAQ and About; http://www.xpressga.com/faq/; http://www.xpressga.com/about/ (accessed 12/18/17) 36 State Roadway and Tollway Authority, Vanpool; http://www.srta.ga.gov/vanpool/ (accessed 12/18/17) 37 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes allow registered transit, three or more person carpools, motorcycles, emergency vehicles, and 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) with the proper AFV license plate (does not include hybrid vehicles) to use the Express Lanes tollfree. Vehicles with fewer than three occupants, including solo drivers, will be able to choose whether to use the general purpose lanes 

or pay for a more reliable trip in the Express Lanes. Vehicles with 2+ axles and/or 6+ wheels will not be allowed in the Express 

Lanes, as is the case in the HOV lanes. Georgia Department of Public Safety, I-85 Express Lanes (HOT Lanes); 

https://dps.georgia.gov/i-85-expres-lanes-hot-lanes (accessed 1/14/18) 38Gwinnett County, Gwinnett County Transit: About Us and Routes and Schedules; 

https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/portal/gwinnett/Departments/Transportation/GwinnettCountyTransit; 

https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/portal/gwinnett/Departments/Transportation/GwinnettCountyTransit/RoutesandSchedules (accessed 

12/18/17)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-24

Athens-Clarke County

Athens Transit/The Bus: The Athens Transit local bus system (The Bus) is owned and operated by 

the Athens Clarke County Unified Government. The Bus operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 

AM to 10:00 PM and Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. The Bus offers fixed-route 

bus service on 19 routes with 28 handicap-accessible transit buses. In FY 2015, ridership on The Bus 

totaled approximately 1.5 million riders. Athens Transit also offers “The Lift”, a curb-to-curb para 

transit service offered within one mile of the fix-route services, with three handicap-accessible vans.39

40

University of Georgia Athens: The University of Georgia campus transit system provides 

transportation services to the University community through a variety of fixed-route, paratransit and 

custom services. UGA provides transit service focused on the central UGA campus and to campus 

facilities located in neighboring areas. UGA’s 11 routes shuttle students, faculty and staff to and from 

various parts of campus. All fixed routes are fare-free and open to anyone including students, faculty, 

staff, and visitors. The service is funded primarily by a transportation fee paid by students each 

semester.41 During FY 2010, the system served approximately 9.4 million passengers.42

Gainesville/Hall County 

Hall Area Transit: Hall Area Transit is a public transportation system that has served the City of 

Gainesville and Hall County since 1983. The Gainesville Connection bus service provides fixed-route 

bus services throughout the City of Gainesville and parts of the City of Oakwood and unincorporated 

Hall County. The six routes are Routes 10, 20, 30, 40, 41, and 50 and encompass approximately 17 

square miles.43 Buses operate five days a week from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Mobility Plus provides 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) approved riders with the option to call and receive a ride 

directly to a Gainesville Connection bus stop or to their desired destination.44 In addition, the Dial-ARide service provides riders with the option to call ahead 48+ hours to reserve van service that picks 

them up from their current location and takes them directly to their desired location.45 Total ridership 

in 2015 was 149,594 passengers.46

 

39 Athens-Clarke County, About ATS; https://www.athensclarkecounty.com/1775/About-ATS (accessed 12/18/17) 40 Athens-Clarke County, Athens Transit Feasibility Study; https://www.athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/35279

(accessed 12/18/17)

41 Athens-Clarke County, Athens Transit Feasibility Study; https://www.athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/35279 

(accessed 12/18/17) 42 University System of Georgia, The University of Georgia Campus Transit System; 

http://www.usg.edu/assets/fiscal_affairs/documents/UGA_Transit_BOR0511.pdf (accessed 12/18/17) 43 Gainesville Hall Metropolitan Planning Organization, Hall Area Transit Development Plan; 

http://www.ghmpo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/568 (accessed 2/4/2018)

44 The Americans with Disabilities Act is a 1990 civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in 

all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. 

https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm 

45 Gainesville, Georgia, Hall Area Transit Bus Services; https://www.gainesville.org/hall-area-transit (accessed 2/4/2018) 46 Gainesville Hall Metropolitan Planning Organization, Hall Area Transit Development Plan; 

http://www.ghmpo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/568 (accessed 2/4/2018) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-25

Augusta/Richmond County 

Augusta Public Transit: Augusta Public Transit (APT) provides bus service throughout Richmond 

County. APT operates nine fixed routes of bus service. The hours vary by route but the buses run 

approximately between 6:00AM and 8:00PM. All routes have weekday and Saturday operations 

except for Routes 4 and 9. There is no Sunday bus service. In addition, APT offers paratransit and 

rural transit services. The Augusta-Richmond County Commission/Council and the Department of 

Transportation began operating the Richmond County Transit System in September of 1989. This 

service runs on reservations and appointments can be made up to a week in advance. APT services 

travel over 2,313 miles each weekday to more than 3,000 daily customers, or 1,095,000 riders per 

year.47

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Greenville 

GreenLink: GreenLink offers 11 fixed routes across Greenville County and is operated by the City 

of Greenville under contract to Greenville Transit Authority. All GreenLink buses are accessible for 

mobility devices and the GreenLink system also features a service called “GAP”, an ADA paratransit 

service. In FY 2016, GreenLink provided approximately 1 million passenger trips.48 

Clemson 

Clemson Area Transit/CATBus: The CATBus service area includes Clemson University, the City of 

Clemson, the City of Seneca, and the Towns of Central and Pendleton. Clemson Area Transit provides 

fare-free fixed-route bus through federal, state, and local partnerships. The CATBus system currently 

offers nine routes.49 The FY 2017 ridership for CATBus was 1,769,505.50 

Clemson University/Tiger Transit: Clemson University operates Tiger Transit, which features oncampus shuttles and service to its Greenville campus. The Student Patrol, a student organization 

affiliated with the Clemson University Police Department (CUPD), operates tiger Transit under the 

direction of the Division of Student Affairs. Tiger Transit serves all Clemson University students, 

faculty, staff and visitors. Tiger Transit does not operate when Clemson University is not in session.51

Spartanburg 

SPARTA (Spartanburg Area Regional Transit Agency): The SPARTA provides low-cost, convenient 

public bus service across Spartanburg, as well as some destinations outside the city limits. The 

SPARTA bus offers eight fixed routes that vary in service frequency and service hours by route.52 The 

 

47 Augusta, Georgia, Public Transit; http://www.augustaga.gov/232/Public-Transit (accessed 2/4/2018) 48 City of Greenville, GreenLink About and GreenLink Comprehensive Operations Analysis; 

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/152/About; https://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/9759 (accessed 2/4/2018) 49 CATBus; Clemson Reimagining Final Study; http://www.catbus.com/images/stories/clemson-reimaging-study-final-report-may2017_protected.pdf (accessed 12/15/2017) 50Moody, Keith (General Manager of CATBus). “Re: Question about Clemson Area Transit Ridership.” Message to Ashley Finch. EMail. (accessed 12/13/17) 

51 Clemson University, Tiger Transit; https://www.clemson.edu/cusafety/cupd/tiger-transit.html (accessed 12/15/2017) 52 City of Spartanburg, SPARTA Routes; http://www.cityofspartanburg.org/sparta/routes (accessed 12/15/2017)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-26

FY 2017 yearly ridership total for SPARTA buses was 397,546.53 Through the Spartanburg County 

Transportation Service Bureau, SPARTA offers a low-cost, door-to-door Paratransit van service to 

help meet the needs of mobility-impaired residents.54 

Columbia 

Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority (CMRTA)/The Comet: The Comet bus serves Richland 

and Lexington counties in the Columbia metropolitan area of South Carolina. Eighteen standard, allday routes serve metropolitan Columbia, while eight peak hour routes and one weekend special route 

are also operated by CMRTA.

55 CMRTA also offers Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) service, an originto-destination, advance reservation, shared-ride transportation service for riders with disabilities. Each 

bus is equipped with a wheelchair lift and can accommodate four wheelchairs.56 In FY 2017, CMRTA

total ridership was 2,496,462.57

University of South Carolina/Carolina Shuttle: The University of South Carolina (USC) offers six 

fixed campus shuttle routes to USC students. The Carolina Shuttle day service runs weekdays from 

7:30 AM to 6:00 PM. An evening shuttle service runs on a fixed-route on weekdays from 6:00 PM to 

12:20 AM. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Gastonia 

Gastonia Transit: The Gastonia Transit bus fleet consists of eight 35-foot transit buses, and three 

demand response vans. Gastonia Transit covers over 299,000 miles per year, providing service to over 

282,000 passengers annually. The buses operate weekdays from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM and on 

Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Gastonia Transit offers eight fixed routes.58

Charlotte 

Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS): The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) is the public 

transit system in Charlotte, North Carolina. It operates bus and rail service around the Charlotte 

metropolitan area. In FY 2017, CATS total ridership was approximately 22.7 million. 

CATS offers a bus rapid transit line called the Sprinter, local bus service, a light rail line called the 

LYNX Blue Line, and a streetcar line called CityLYNX Gold Line. The Sprinter provides a direct 

connection between Charlotte Douglas International Airport and Center City Charlotte. CATS 

operates 323 buses with 73 bus routes. More than 30 local bus routes provide stops within the city, 

with most operating from 4:49 AM to 2:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, and 5:25 AM to 2:00 AM

on Sundays. Twelve express routes provide faster trips from the suburbs to the uptown area. In FY 

2017, CATS fixed route buses carried 17,094,269 passengers. 

 

53 Gonzalez, Luis (General Manager of SPARTA). “Re: Question about SPARTA Ridership.” Message to Ashley Finch. E-Mail. 

(accessed 12/12/17) 

54 City of Spartanburg, SPARTA Paratransit Service; http://www.cityofspartanburg.org/sparta/paratransit (accessed 12/15/2017) 55 The Comet, About Us; http://catchthecomet.org/about-us/ (accessed 12/15/2017) 56 The Comet, DART Service; http://catchthecomet.org/dart-service/ (accessed 12/15/2017)

57 Federal Transit Administration, Central Midlands Transit:2017 Annual Agency Profile; 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2017/40141.pdf (accessed 3/1/19) 58 City of Gastonia, City Bus Service; https://www.cityofgastonia.com/city-bus-service.html (accessed 12/15/2017)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-27

The LYNX Blue Line is the Charlotte region's first light rail service. The line is 9.6 miles long and 

operates from I-485 at South Boulevard to Uptown Charlotte. The LYNX Blue Line contains 15 

stations including seven park and ride locations. LYNX operates seven days a week, with weekday 

service operating from 5:26 AM to 1:26 AM. LYNX service is available every 10 minutes during 

weekday rush hour and every 15 minutes during non-peak hours. Weekend service operates every 20 

minutes during the day and every 30 minutes during late night hours. In FY 2017, the LYNX Blue 

Line light rail system carried 4,762,081 passengers.59 In March 2018, CATS opened its Blue Line 

light-rail extension. The 9.3-mile extension runs from the 7th Street Station in Charlotte’s Center City 

to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Campus.60 

The CityLYNX Gold Line is a fare-free 10-mile streetcar system and provides a direct link to the 

heart of Uptown Charlotte with connectivity to bus and light rail service. The Gold Line operates 

seven days a week, running every 15 minutes during peak hours and every 20 minutes during nonpeak hours. The Gold Line runs from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM Monday through Thursday, 6:00 AM to 

12:00 AM on Fridays, 8:00 AM to 12:00 AM on Saturdays, and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Sundays. In 

FY 2017, the CityLYNX Gold Line streetcar system carried 445,176 passengers.61

CATS Special Transportation Service (STS) provides ADA paratransit service and is a prereservation, shared-ride, door to door service. In FY 2012, STS operated 84 vehicles and provided 

227,996 rides. In FY 2017, Paratransit carried 271,158 passengers. 62

INTERCITY BUS SERVICE 

 

Two intercity bus services operate in the Project Study Area. One operates inter-city bus service 

between Atlanta and Charlotte, with six one-way departures daily, including weekends. The trip takes 

4 hours and 15 minutes on an express trip bus, 6 hours and 5 minutes on a non-express bus, and 8 

hours and 15 minutes on a bus with a transfer stop in Columbia, SC. The standard adult fare is 

approximately $33.00 one-way and $66.00 round trip (2017). 

While at least one express bus provides non-stop service, others have various stops including: 

Duncan, SC, Norcross, GA, Gainesville, GA, Anderson, SC, Greenville, SC, and Spartanburg, SC. 

Another service operates inter-city bus service between Atlanta and Charlotte, with two departures 

daily, including weekends. Each trip takes approximately 5 hours and 45 minutes. There is one stop 

in Athens, GA on the way to Charlotte from Atlanta. The standard adult fare ranges $5.00 to $27.00 

each way with the lowest fares offered to riders who book early. Ridership figures are not available 

for either bus service.

3.3.3.5 Existing Air Transportation 

Three air carrier airports are identified as potential station locations along the three Corridor 

Alternatives. The airports provide commercially significant regional and international links, as well 

 

59 Kopf, Larry. ”Re: Question about CATS Ridership.” Message to Ashley Finch. E-Mail. (accessed 12/12/17) 60 City of Charlotte, “Blue Line Extension;” http://charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/blue-line-extension/Pages/default.aspx

(accessed 12/20/17) 

61 Kopf, Larry. ”Re: Question about CATS Ridership.” Message to Ashley Finch. E-Mail. (accessed 12/12/17) 62 Kopf, Larry. ”Re: Question about CATS Ridership.” Message to Ashley Finch. E-Mail. (accessed 12/12/17) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-28

as provide multimodal connectivity, as outlined as an evaluation criteria for the Corridor Alternatives 

in Chapter 2. 

HARTSFIELD-JACKSON ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (H-JAIA) 

H-JAIA is located near Interstates 20, 75, 85, and 285. It is approximately 20 minutes south of 

downtown Atlanta during normal traffic. The airport is mostly in unincorporated areas in Fulton and 

Clayton counties. However, sections of the airport carry into the city limits of Atlanta, College Park, 

and Hapeville. MARTA's Red and Gold rail lines serve the H-JAIA domestic terminal. H-JAIA is 

owned and operated by the City of Atlanta. 

• Aviation Travel Demand: Since 1998, H-JAIA has been ranked as the world’s busiest 

airport.63 H-JAIA currently ranks first in the world in passenger arrivals and departures, as well 

as for scheduled flights. ATL ranks 13th in air cargo volume. H-JAIA serves 150 U.S. 

destinations and more than 75 international destinations in 50 countries with 2,500 arrival and 

departures daily. The airport serves approximately 250,000 passengers a day, or about 91.3 

million passengers per year.64

• Airlines: 22 airlines provide passenger service, 15 airlines provide international passenger 

service, and 17 airlines provide cargo service.65

• Capacity: There are 29,550 public parking spaces, including 13,566 covered spaces, 7,800 

economy parking spaces, and 8,184 airport “park and ride” spaces. 

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (GSP) 

The Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport (GSP) is located in South Carolina on the county 

line separating Greenville and Spartanburg counties, approximately 15 miles southwest of downtown 

Spartanburg, 12 miles northeast of downtown Greenville, and two miles south of the City of Greer. 

The airport covers approximately 3,600 acres and features one runway, one passenger terminal, 

several general aviation facilities, two air cargo terminals, a cargo apron with a customs and 

immigration building, and numerous support facilities.66 GSP is owned by the Greenville–

Spartanburg Airport District and operated by the Greenville–Spartanburg Airport Commission. 

• Aviation Travel Demand: GSP serves more than 2 million passengers each year and averages 

50 non-stop daily departures with direct service to 14 major cities and 15 major airports across 

the U.S. Approximately 180,000 passengers arrive and depart from GSP monthly.67

• Airlines: There are five major passenger airlines that serve passengers at GSP. In addition to 

passenger flights, GSP is home to a 120,000 square-foot FedEx facility and handles flights from 

other cargo services. Nearly 30,000 tons are loaded on and off planes at GSP every year. 

 

63 Airports Council International, “ACI releases preliminary 2016 world airport traffic rankings;” 

http://www.aci.aero/News/Releases/Most-Recent/2017/04/19/ACI-releases-preliminary-2016-world-airport-traffic-rankingsRobustgains-in-passenger-traffic-at-hub-airports-serving-transPacific-and-East-Asian-routes (accessed 12/13/17)

64Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, “ATL Fact Sheet;” http://www.atl.com/about-atl/atl-factsheet/ (accessed 1/10/18) 65 Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, “ATL Fact Sheet;” http://www.atl.com/about-atl/atl-factsheet/ (accessed 

1/10/18)

66 GSP International Airport, “Existing Setting;” https://www.gspairport.com/site/user/files/39/MAS2.pdf (accessed 1/10/18) 67 GSP International Airport, “Passenger Statistics;” https://www.gspairport.com/passenger-stats/ (accessed 1/10/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-29

• Capacity: There are two parking garages in the passenger terminal area, as well as surface 

parking. The parking garages are located within the terminal loop system and provide short-term 

parking as well as spaces for rental car pickup and drop-off. The large surface lots adjacent to 

the loop system provide short-term, daily, and long-term parking. There are 4,840 total parking 

spots available with 3,129 short-term spaces and 1,711 long-term spaces. 

CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (CLT) 

Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) is located approximately seven miles from Charlotte’s 

central business district. The airport occupies approximately 5,800 acres of land located within the 

City of Charlotte, and is accessible from I-85, I-77, I-485 and uptown Charlotte. The Airport ranks 

sixth nationwide and seventh worldwide in landings and departures, according to 2016 Airports 

Council International (ACI) preliminary rankings. For passenger traffic preliminary rankings, CLT 

ranks 11th nationwide and 32nd worldwide.68 CLT is owned by the City of Charlotte and operated by 

the City of Charlotte Aviation Department. 

• Aviation Travel Demand: CLT serves over 44 million passengers per year with approximately 

3 million international passengers, 27 million air carrier passengers, and 13 million regional 

passengers. CLT has over 700 daily departures. CLT offers nonstop service to 170 destinations.69

• Airlines: Seven major domestic carriers serve passengers at CLT. In addition, the Airport is 

home to 16 regional carriers and three foreign flag carriers.70 CLT moved 154,477 tons of cargo 

in 2016, boosting the Airport’s cargo ranking to 28th nationwide.71

• Capacity: CLT has approximately 30,631 parking spaces, staging and parking for buses, taxis 

and limousine.72 

Commercial air service gate-to-gate travel times between Atlanta and Charlotte is approximately 1 

hour and 30 minutes. This does not include the time spent parking, entering and leaving the terminal, 

security screening, and walking to/from the gate. Additional delays can be experienced as a result of 

weather, air traffic control restrictions, or congestion on the airfield. The flight time between Atlanta 

and Greenville/Spartanburg is approximately 50 minutes and the flight time between Charlotte and 

Greenville/Spartanburg is approximately 45 minutes. The airports potentially served by the Corridor 

Alternatives are shown in Exhibit 3.3-7 below: 

 

68 Charlotte Douglas International Airport, “Report of Achievement;” 

http://www.cltairport.com/News/Documents/ReportofAchievement/cltreportofachievement2016.pdf (accessed 1/6/18) 69 Charlotte Douglas International Airport, “Fast Facts;” http://www.cltairport.com/AboutCLT/Pages/Fast%20Facts.aspx (accessed 

1/6/18)

70 Charlotte Douglas International Airport, “Fast Facts;” http://www.cltairport.com/AboutCLT/Pages/Fast%20Facts.aspx (accessed 

1/6/18)

71 Charlotte Douglas International Airport, “Report of Achievement;” 

http://www.cltairport.com/News/Documents/ReportofAchievement/cltreportofachievement2016.pdf (accessed 1/6/18) 72 Charlotte Douglas International Airport, “Fast Facts;” http://www.cltairport.com/AboutCLT/Pages/Fast%20Facts.aspx (accessed 

1/6/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-30

Exhibit 3.3-7: Airports Potentially Served by the Corridor Alternatives 

 Source: HNTB 

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes a passenger rail system would not be built between Atlanta and 

Charlotte. Passenger service between the two cities would consist of existing bus and transit services, 

air travel, and continued automobile travel along I-85, I-20, I-77, and ancillary roadways. The NoBuild Alternative projects currently planned would increase roadway capacity, expand transit service, 

and improve transportation operations in selected portions of the Study Area transportation network, 

but would not enhance regional passenger mobility throughout the Study Area or between 

metropolitan areas and the major commercial service airports. Chapter 2 highlighted committed 

projects in the Study Area, which is duplicated in Exhibit 3.3-8. 

Exhibit 3.3-8: Committed Transportation Projects in the Study Area 

Project Name County Description

Georgia

Transit

Amtrak Station Relocation Fulton County Relocate current station to US 41 (Northside Dr.)/17th Street

Georgia Multimodal Passenger 

Terminal (MMTP) Fulton County Construct new multimodal hub in downtown Atlanta

Revive 285 - I-285 North Corridor 

High Capacity Rail 

Service - Protective Right Of Way 

Acquisition

Fulton

ROW acquisition for high capacity transit along the northern 

segment of I-285 in the corridor between I-75 (Windy Hill Road) 

and I-85. This rail project would intersect the MARTA North Line 

at Perimeter Center.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-31

Project Name County Description

Clifton Corridor Light Rail 

Transit - Phase 1 DeKalb County 

Expand MARTA light rail transit from Lindbergh MARTA Station 

to North Decatur Station (Near 

Intersection of SR 155 (Clairmont Road) And North Decatur Road)

I-20 East Transit Initiative - Phase 

I Heavy Rail Transit 

Extension 

Fulton/DeKalb County 

Expand MARTA heavy rail transit from Indian Creek MARTA 

Station to Wesley Chapel Road and Bus Rapid Transit Service 

from Five Points Marta Station to Wesley Chapel Road 

Clayton County High Capacity 

Transit Initiative - Phases 

1 and 2

Clayton County From East Point Marta Rail Station to Lovejoy via Jonesboro 

GA 400 Transit Initiative - Phase 

1 

The Georgia 400 Corridor Transit Initiative to identify potential 

and feasible transit alternatives in the Georgia State Route 400 (GA 

400) corridor. 

Connect Cobb / Northwest 

Atlanta Transit Corridor 

Bus Rapid Transit 

Cobb County 

Expand mobility for all users along the Northwest

Transit Corridor, a 25-mile stretch linking northern Cobb County to 

Midtown Atlanta 

Automobile

I-85 Widening Jackson County Widen I-85 from SR 53 to US 129/SR 11

I-85 Widening Jackson/Barrow County Widen I-85 from SR 211 to SR 53

I-85 Widening Gwinnett/Barrow County Widen I-85 from Hamilton Rd to SR 211

I-85 Managed Lanes Gwinnett County Construct managed lanes on I-85from Old Peachtree Rd to 

Hamilton Mill Rd

I-85 Managed Lanes (2) Gwinnett County Expand current managed lane system on I-85 by adding a second 

lane in each direction between I-285 and Old Peachtree Road

I-285 East Managed Lanes DeKalb County Construct two new managed lanes on I-285 between I-85 and I-20

I-20 East Managed Lanes DeKalb County Construct two new managed lanes on I-20 between I-285 and 

SR 124

I-85 New Interchange

@ Gravel Springs Rd Gwinnett County Construct new interchange at Gravel Springs Rd at I-85

I-85 New Interchange

@ McGinnis Ferry Rd Gwinnett County Construct new interchange at Gravel Springs Rdat McGinnis Ferry Rd

I-85 New Interchange @ SR 60 Hall County Construct new interchange at SR 60

I-985 New Interchange @ Martin 

Road Hall County Construct new interchange at Martin Road, just north of SR 13 

I-20 @ Hwy 138 Interchange 

Improvements Rockdale County Interchange improvements at Hwy 138 

I-285/I-20 Interchange 

Improvements DeKalb County Construct capacity and operational improvements to general purpose interchange at I-285/I-20 in DeKalb (eastern wall)

I-285 @ I-20 Managed Lane 

Interchange DeKalb County Construct new managed lane ramps between managed lane systems on I-285 and I-20

I-285 @ Bouldercrest Rd 

Interchange Improvements DeKalb County Construct interchange improvements at I-285 @ Bouldercrest Rd 

I-75 Northbound 

Collector/Distributor Lanes Clayton/Fulton Counties Construct northbound collector/distributor lanesfrom Forest Pkwy to I-285

SR 316 Grade Separation

@ SR 11 Barrow County Corridor operational and capacity improvementsalong SR 316 (a major metro Atlanta arterial)

SR 316 Grade Separation

@ SR 81 Barrow County Corridor operational and capacity improvementsalong SR 316 (a major metro Atlanta arterial)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-32

Project Name County Description

SR 316 Grade Separation

@ SR 53 Barrow County Corridor operational and capacity improvementsalong SR 316 (a major metro Atlanta arterial)

US 78/SR 10 Widening McDuffie County Widening of US 78/SR 10 from SR 43 to Smith Mill Rd

SR 17/SR 10 Widening McDuffie/Wilkes County Widening of SR 17/SR 10 from Smith Mill Rd to Washington 

Bypass

SR 10 Passing Lanes Oglethorpe County Construct passing lanes throughout

Oglethorpe and Wilkes County

SR 72 Widening Madison/Elbert County Widen SR 72 from Comer to Broad River

US 129/SR 11 Widening Jackson/Hall County Widen US 129/SR 11 from SR 332 to SR 323

US 129/Cleveland Hwy Widening Hall County Widen US 129/Cleveland Hwy from Limestone Pkwy

to south of Nopone Rd

US 23/Buford Hwy Widening Gwinnett/Hall County Widening US 23/Buford Hwy from Sawnee Ave. to SR 347

Air

H-JAIA Inbound Roadway 

Improvements Fulton/Clayton Upgrades to H-JAIA’s internal roadway network. 

H-JAIA New Cargo Warehouse Fulton/Clayton The new Cargo C building will complete the existing South Cargo 

Facility complex.

H-JAIA Concourse C Midpoint 

Expansion Fulton/Clayton 

The project will expand and renovate a total of approximately 

52,000 square feet of space. The project will include two new 

escalators for passengers to connect from the Plane Train system 

up to the concourse level.

South Carolina

Automobile 

I-85 Widening Cherokee County Widen I-85 from Gossett Rd (MM 80) to NC state line 

I-20/I-26/I-77: Corridor 

Improvement

Lexington/Richland/Fairfield 

Counties Corridor management plan (MM 34 TO MM 48) 

I-26 @ US 1 (Augusta Rd) Lexington County Interchange improvements (HWY US21, MM119) 

I-20 Widening Lexington County Interstate widening from US 278 to Long Pond Rd (MM 61 to 

MM 51)

I-26 Widening Lexington/Richland County Interstate widening from US 176 to St. Andrews Rd (MM 85 to 

MM 101)

I-26 Interstate Corridor 

Improvement Newberry County Pavement and general upgrades to I-26 in Newberry County (MM 

60 to MM 75).

I-85 Widening Greenville County Widen I-85 from US 25 (MM 43) to SC 129 (MM 67)

I-385 @ I-85

Interchange Redesign Greenville County Redesign interchange at I-385 (MM 36) and I-85 (MM 51)

I-385 Widening Greenville County Widen I-385 from West Georgia Rd (MM 29)to I-85 (MM 36)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-33

Project Name County Description

I-85 Widening Greenville County I-85 Widening from SC 153 (MM 40 to SC 85 (MM 69)

I-26 Widening Spartanburg County I-26 from US 176 (MM 15) to SC 296 (MM 22

I-85, SC 290 (MM 63) Improve 

Interchange Spartanburg County I-85 MM 63 SC 290 Improve Interchange (2 lane exit) 

I-85 Widening Spartanburg County I-85 Widening SC 18 (MM 96) to near NC State Line (MM 106) 

I-85 Widening SC 153 (MM 40) 

to SC 85 (MM 69) Spartanburg County I-85 Widening SC 153 to SC 85 (MM 40 to MM 69)

I-85 Widening from Gossett SC 

57 (MM 80) to SC 18 (MM 96) Spartanburg County I-85 Widening SC 57 (MM 80) to SC 18 (MM 96)

I-85 Widening Greenville County Widen I-85 from US 25 (MM 43) to SC 129 (MM 67)

I-85 over Rocky Creek Bridge Greenville County Replace the culvert over the Rocky Creek with a bridge. 

I-85 over Seneca River Anderson County Bridge Replacement - I-85 NB & SB over Seneca River

I-85 over Three & Twenty Creek Anderson County Bridge Replacement I-85 NB & SB over Three & Twenty Creek 

I-85 Corridor Improvements Anderson County I-85 Corridor Improvements from GA State Line to Exit 20 

I-77 Corridor Improvements Chester, York Counties I-77 Corridor Improvements from SC 9 (Exit 65) to US 21 (Exit 

77)

I-20/I-26/I-77: Corridor 

Improvement

Lexington/Richland/Fairfield 

Counties Corridor management plan (MM 34 TO MM 48) 

I-20/I-26/I-126 - Corridor 

Improvements Lexington/Richland Counties Increase interstate capacity / mobility 

I-26 @ US 1 (Augusta Rd) Lexington County Interchange improvements (HWY US21, MM119) 

I-20 Widening Lexington County Interstate widening from US 378 to Longs Pond Rd (MM61 to 

MM 51)

I-20 & US 1 Lexington County Bridge Replacement 

I-26 Widening Lexington/Richland County Interstate widening from US 176 to SC 202 (MM 85 to MM 101) 

I-126 Bridge Replacement over 

SCL Railroad Richland County Bridge Replacement 

I-26 (Near MM 96 to near MM 

101) - S-58 (Koon Road) Richland County Bridge Replacement 

I-26 (Near MM 96 to near MM 

101) - S-80 (Shady Grove) Richland County Bridge Replacement 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-34

Project Name County Description

SC 277 NB over I-77 Richland County Bridge Replacement 

I-77 (I-20 to Killian Road (Exit 

22)) Richland County 

Widening I-77 NB/SB (I-20 and Exit 22 Killian Road); Rehab of 

SB lanes from Killian Rd to Blythewood Rd; Widening of 10 

mainline bridges.

North Carolina

Transit and Passenger Rail 

Charlotte Gateway Station 

Project Mecklenburg County 

Construction of a new station in downtown Charlotte that will 

provide seamless integration of various rapid transit modes. The 

City of Charlotte and NCDOT began construction on the railroad 

infrastructure (bridges/tracks) for the new station in 2018, which

will be completed in 2022. The City and NCDOT are also 

preparing engineering design for and pursuing funding to complete 

the station by 2025.

Piedmont Improvement Program Multiple Counties 

Corridor-wide railroad improvement program to increase capacity 

and expand intercity passenger rail service for up to five daily 

round-trip trains between Raleigh and Charlotte.

CATS West Corridor Transit 

Study 

Mecklenburg and Gaston 

County

CATS is conducting a planning study to evaluate transit 

alternatives between the existing LYNX Gold Line and the 

CLT airport, including consideration of light rail within the 

NS ROW. 

Freight Rail

NS Bulk Transfer Facility Mecklenburg County 

New intermodal facility for transfer of freight between truck and 

rail, located near I-485 within Charlotte Douglas International 

Airport property.

Harrisburg to Charlotte

Railroad Improvements

Mecklenburg 

and Cabarrus County 

This project involves constructing about 12 miles of second track 

and realigning curves along the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) 

corridor in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties.

Charlotte Rail and Locomotive 

Maintenance Facility Mecklenburg County 

This project involves constructing a new facility to service statesupported Piedmont and Carolinian trains during layovers in 

Charlotte.

Automobile

US 74 (Independence Blvd) Mecklenburg County 

Convert Bus Lanes to HOT Lanes. NC 27 to I-277. Lanes and 

jersey barriers are already in place. The scope of this project would 

include gantries, new striping and gates.

I-485 Mecklenburg County Construct one express toll lane in each direction within the existing 

median. I-77 to US 74.

I-85 Interchange at Cox Rd Gaston County Construct new interchange at Cox Rd @ I-85

I-85 Widening Gaston County Widen I-85 to 8 lanes from US 321 to NC 273

Air

CLT Airport Expansion Mecklenburg County Runway, terminal, and roadway improvements to increase airport 

capacity 

Sources: State DOTs’ STIPs and MPOs’ TIPs

The No-Build Alternative projects would not individually or collectively provide regional corridorwide benefits for faster and more reliable ground transportation service to the traveling public as an 

alternative to highway, intercity bus, and air travel. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-35

3.3.4.2 Corridor Alternatives 

EFFECTS ON ROADWAYS 

Travelers to destinations that would be served by a passenger rail system would have the option of 

using the passenger rail service as opposed to intercity bus or an automobile on the highway system. 

In general, GDOT anticipates that the Project will benefit the Study Area roadway network, as it 

would provide intercity travel capacity to supplement congested interstate highways in the Study 

Area. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the varying travel times for each Corridor Alternative are

reviewed in Exhibit 3.3-9 below. 

Exhibit 3.3-9: Summary of Corridor Alternative Frequency, Travel Times, and Ridership 

Alternative Frequency (round trips) 

End to End Travel 

Time 

(hrs:min)

2025 Ridership 

Southern Crescent 4 4:35 – 5:34 0.81M – 1.01M

I-85 14 2:42 – 2:50 4.65M – 4.75M

Greenfield 16 – 22* 2:06 – 2:44 4.58M – 5.37M

Source: HNTB 

*With high-speed technology, 22 round trips can be supported

As a baseline comparison for the three Corridor Alternatives, Exhibit 3.3-10 below illustrates the 

potential number of intercity auto-trips diverted for the years 2025 and 2050 for scenarios without 

high-speed passenger rail (No Build) and scenarios with high-speed passenger rail service. Base-year 

trips (2012) are also displayed to represent existing No-Build conditions. For each Corridor 

Alternative, Exhibit 3.3-10 illustrates how the total annual auto-trips projected for the No-Build 

Alternative are impacted by introducing a passenger rail service into the Study Area. The 2025 NoBuild annual auto-trip total is just over 108 million but with the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, that 

number reduces to just over 104 million, therefore demonstrating the Greenfield Alternative as 

diverting close to four million auto-trips. GDOT estimates that the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative would result in the fewest automobile trip diversions (under one million in 2025 and 2050, 

a negligible number), which is attributed to its less frequent and relatively slower service compared 

to the other two Corridor Alternatives. The I-85 Corridor Alternative would divert around 2.4 million 

automobile trips in 2025 and 3.9 million in 2050.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-36

Exhibit 3.3-10: Number of Remaining Auto-trips (in millions) and Percent Diverted 

NoBuild Southern 

Crescent 

Southern 

Crescent 

Trips 

Diverted 

Southern 

Crescent 

Trips 

Diverted 

(Percent)

I-85

I-85 

Trips 

Diverted 

I-85 

Trips 

Diverted 

(Percent) 

Greenfield 

Greenfield 

Trips 

Diverted 

Greenfield 

Trips 

Diverted 

(Percent) 

2012 

Base 

Auto 

Trips

95.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2025 

Forecast 

Auto 

Trips

108.7 107.86 0.84 0.7% 105.31 3.39 3.1% 104.88 3.82 3.5%

2050 

Forecast 

Auto 

Trips

119 118.03 0.97 0.8% 115.11 3.89 3.3% 114.67 4.33 3.6%

Source: Revenue and Ridership Results, May 2013

Regionally, rider choice to use passenger rail service instead of the existing highways could impact 

traffic near potential station locations. The local and regional effect on roadways due to the Preferred 

Project Alternative would be analyzed in the Tier 2 analysis. In general, the change in driving patterns 

would potentially affect roadway LOS, particularly in places where roadways already experience 

some congested time periods. Using the highway LOS as a measure of regional traffic operations, 

many locations along I-85, I-20, and I-77 may experience changes in the projected LOS and AADT 

discussed earlier in this Chapter. GDOT projects that many segments observed on the highways 

connecting Atlanta and Charlotte will experience LOS D or worse throughout most of the corridor by 

2040. 

Locally, the Preferred Corridor Alternative would change travel patterns near proposed stations as 

people travel to and from the stations. Localized roadway improvements may be required to 

accommodate roadway impacts resulting from the Project. Such improvements would relate to 

managing circulation, accommodating added traffic volume, and considering safety of pedestrians 

and bicyclists. Stations have the potential to induce re-zoning and development in the area around 

stations. For example, transit-oriented development (TOD), which increases the density of residential 

and commercial land uses, can change vehicular, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel patterns. In 

coordination with local and state planning officials, each proposed station location will be examined 

during the Tier 2 analysis. Necessary improvements will be identified and recommended as warranted 

and reasonably feasible. 

A large portion of the I-85 Corridor Alternative would be within the existing highway ROW. Use of 

existing highway ROW will minimize the need to acquire additional ROW and lessen impacts to the 

natural and built environment. GDOT anticipates that the Preferred Corridor Alternative would not 

change the number of highway and travel lanes on the affected highways. Since high-speed rail 

requires extensive curve improvements and protection from the adjacent roadway traffic, the I-85 

Corridor Alternative would include the reconstruction of highway medians and overpasses, and 

possibly the construction of 88 miles of elevated rail viaduct in segments where there is no space 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-37

available in the median or adjacent land for installation of tracks. The Tier 2 analysis will determine 

if roadway crossings are required and evaluate potential road closures and/or realignments. GDOT 

will coordinate with local governments to resolve rail- roadway design concerns. Roadway crossings 

would be guided by FRA’s 2009 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High Speed Passenger 

Rail which focuses on safety issues such as warning systems and traffic controls, train controls, 

barriers, and requires grade separations for high speed operation. Thus, the I-85 and Greenfield 

Corridor alternatives are not expected to have any at-grade crossings. 

During construction, the Project has the potential to temporarily affect roadway operations due to 

construction staging, access requirements, and other activities. These impacts for each Corridor 

Alternative would be examined in the Tier 2 analysis. 

EFFECTS ON EXISTING RAIL 

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative and the Atlanta Approaches could have a direct effect on 

existing rail conditions and facilities. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative would utilize the 

NS track between Atlanta and Charlotte, with the potential to construct new sections of track within 

the ROW, depending on the selected operational speed. The existing freight rail ROW hosts the 

Amtrak Crescent service that travels from New York, N.Y., to New Orleans, LA. This Corridor 

Alternative follows the NS Piedmont Division mainline track from Charlotte in a southwest direction 

through Gastonia, N.C.; Spartanburg and Greenville, S.C.; Toccoa and Gainesville, GA.; before 

reaching Atlanta on the NS Georgia Division. On the proposed approach to the Georgia MMPT, which 

would be located in Atlanta’s downtown business district, the route travels through Howell Junction 

before transitioning to the Class I CSX/NS corridor and then into the Georgia MMPT. The route 

continues south from the Georgia MMPT onto the NS Griffin line to East Point, GA, before 

transitioning to the CSX Atlanta and West Point A&WP mainline track to approach the H-JAIA area 

station.73 

Because the Southern Crescent Alternative would utilize existing freight ROW, this Corridor 

Alternative has the potential to increase freight delays and congestion. Freight trains also may conflict 

with passenger service on shared use tracks.74 From Charlotte Gateway Station to Howell Junction in 

Atlanta, the segment is a mixture of single (33 percent) and double (66 percent) track sections, with 

the number of daily freight trains ranging from 14 to 30 trains. From Howell Junction to the Georgia 

MMPT, the track geometry includes extensive curvature, which limits the ability to achieve desirable 

passenger speeds. This segment follows the representative alignment along the NS/CSX corridor. In 

addition, this entire segment is depressed and grade separated from all roadway crossings. 

Operations at speeds up to 110 mph require an upgrade of the track class to FRA Class 6, along with 

supplemental improvements at grade crossings and an enhanced signal system. Heavy freight use will 

increase the maintenance costs associated with shared use tracks. To accommodate passenger trains, 

the existing NS corridor would need a substantial increase in capacity. Once constructed, these 

improvements must be maintained to FRA standards required for reliable and safe operations. 

Typically, the passenger operator would provide funding for maintaining any tracks that are added to 

the corridor either for its own use, or for mitigating delays to freight trains. 

 

73 Appendix B (ADR) pg. 27 

74 “Shared use” refers to the sharing of track in an existing and active freight rail corridor 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-38

Low- level platforms are permissible when the platform is accessed by tracks shared with freight 

traffic to avoid clearance conflicts. Use of a high-level platform would require construction of a 

separate, parallel track for passenger use only. Potential platform designs for the proposed stations 

should be evaluated to highlight the impacts on passenger and freight operations. While more costly, 

a high-level platform served by a dedicated passenger track can offer more fluidity to both freight and 

passenger train movements to help maintain the performance of both services. 

Within the approaches to Atlanta and Charlotte, both the I-85 and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives 

would transition to dedicated passenger rail tracks in a shared-use freight corridor to access the 

stations including the Georgia MMPT, H-JAIA, CLT and Charlotte Gateway Station. GDOT

anticipates that existing freight railroads will maintain the track and ROW that they own and the cost 

of track maintenance will be resolved through negotiations with the railroads.

EFFECTS ON EXISTING INTERCITY, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL TRANSIT 

Trip diversion from intercity bus travel is larger than automobile trip diversion. All three Corridor 

Alternatives have similar numbers of diverted bus trips (between 40,000 and 50,000 trips) in 2025 

and 2050. Base-year counts are also provided for comparison purposes. 

Exhibit 3.3-11: Number of Inter-City Bus-Trips (in millions) and Trips Diverted 

Intercity Bus Trip Diversion Results 

Corridor Alternative 2011 2025 2050

No Build Bus Trips (Millions) 0.22 0.23 0.26

Southern Crescent Bus Trips (Millions) n/a 0.18 0.21

Southern Crescent Bus Trips Diverted (Millions) n/a 0.05 0.05

Southern Crescent Bus Trips Diverted (Percentage) n/a 21.7% 19.2%

I-85 Bus Trips (Millions) n/a 0.19 0.21

I-85 Bus Trips Diverted (Millions) n/a 0.04 0.05

I-85 Bus Trips Diverted (Percentage) n/a 17.4% 19.2%

Greenfield Bus Trips (Millions) n/a 0.19 0.22

Greenfield Bus Trips Diverted (Millions) n/a 0.04 0.04

Greenfield Bus Trips Diverted (Percentage) n/a 17.4% 15.4%

*2011 was used as a base year for intercity bus trips.

Source: HNTB Revenue and Ridership Results, May 2013

Existing intercity bus travel is expected to provide a viable travel option in future years but as 

illustrated in Exhibit 3.3-11, faster passenger rail service would divert some intercity bus travelers. 

As shown in Exhibit 3.3-12, the projected travel times for each Corridor Alternative would be 

competitive with intercity bus service. While the Southern Crescent Alternative would be comparable 

in travel time to inter-city bus service, the I-85 and Greenfield Alternatives would be significantly 

shorter than existing inter-city bus trip travel time. This chart below shows a comparison of the travel 

times between Atlanta and Charlotte for existing modes and proposed passenger rail. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-39

Exhibit 3.3-12: Comparison of Existing Travel Modes and Proposed Corridor Alternatives 

Travel Mode Frequency of Trips 

(Round Trips) 

Average Travel Time between 

Atlanta and Charlotte 

Automobile

I-85 N/A 3 hours, 45 minutes75

I-20, I-77 N/A 4 hours, 43 minutes76

Intercity Bus 14 5 hours, 14-16 minutes, depending on carrier

Intercity Rail

Amtrak Crescent 1 5 hours, 17 minutes77

Air 36

American 18 1 hour 17 minutes (direct flight time only)78

Delta 18 1 hour, 10 minutes (direct flight time only)79

Passenger Rail Proposed 

Corridor Alternatives

Crescent 4 4 hours, 35 minutes to 5 hours, 34 minutes 

I-85 14 2 hours, 42 minutes** to 2 hours, 50 minutes

Greenfield 16-22* 2 hours, 6 minutes** to 2 hours, 44 minutes

* With electric high-speed technology, 11 round trips can be supported

** Potential travel times for electric high-speed technologies 

Sources: HNTB Revenue and Ridership Results, May 2013; Websites of Greyhound, Megabus, and Amtrak; Google maps 

As noted in Section 1.4, connectivity of the Project with existing transit services is an important need. 

Potential linkages will be studied during a Tier 2 analysis, including connections to Atlanta’s MARTA 

heavy rail system and Charlotte’s transit system. In addition, each Corridor Alternative may introduce 

new stations that could affect local and regional bus transit routes. Some bus routes may also change 

to accommodate changes in traffic patterns resulting from the locations of stations. During 

construction, surface transit operations on roadways within the construction area could experience 

delays which would affect existing bus service.

EFFECTS ON AIR TRANSPORTATION 

The introduction of a high-speed rail service with one or more stations at hub airports can produce 

changes in levels and patterns of commercial air travel. Regarding airport choice modeling, air 

passengers typically choose an airport for a long-distance trip based on factors that include: access, 

 

75 Travel times reflect start/end points from city-centers of Charlotte and Atlanta Google Maps Driving Directions, assumes vehicles 

are driving the posted speed limits 

76 Travel times reflect start/end points from city-centers of Charlotte and Atlanta. Google Maps Driving Directions, assumes vehicles 

are driving the posted speed limits 

77 Amtrak, http://www.amtrak.com/home (accessed on 1/31/18) 78 Estimate based on information provided by searching for weekday flights between Atlanta and Charlotte 

79 This number is dependent on which rail alternative is preferred. However, The Volpe Center in their “Evaluation of High-Speed 

Rail Options in the Macon-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte Rail Corridor.” (2008) provides this estimate 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-40

distance from final destination and travel time; the range of destinations offered; and flight 

frequencies, times, and fares. Hub airports offer more choices and can be more attractive to 

passengers as they serve as gateways for passengers to connect to flights to numerous domestic and 

international destinations, as well as connection points for many longer-distance trips. As a result of 

H-JAIA and CLT being major hubs, there are two distinct types of air trips that are strong candidates 

for diversion to rail. With improved rail access between two major hub airports, passengers currently 

flying to H-JAIA and CLT from feeder airports like GSP, where passengers are likely making a 

connection at the hub airports, might divert from feeder air to rail to make those connections. In 

addition, passengers traveling between CLT and H-JAIA (in either direction) and then connecting to 

another flight could be presented with a new choice of whether to connect to one airport via highspeed rail rather than flying between CLT and H-JAIA. 

Exhibit 3.3-13 provides the total number of trips, both for air and high-speed passenger rail service, 

occurring at the three primary airports in the Study Area. These trips are categorized by mode in order 

to illustrate the number of trips diverted from the air service to high-speed passenger rail service. The 

chart provides the potential diverted trips for each airport as well as for the entire corridor. For each 

of the Corridor Alternatives, the trip diversion was the greatest at the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport, 

averaging over 30 percent. As a result of a high-share of connecting air traffic and short travel 

distances (ATL to GSP is around 150 miles; CLT to GSP is around 100 miles), air trips may be 

diverted from GSP as travelers consider Atlanta or Charlotte as a possible alternate origin/destination 

of their air trips if high-speed rail offers competitive travel times to the hub airports. 

At H-JAIA and CLT, the projection on average is 4 to 6 percent diversion of trips to a high-speed 

passenger rail service. GDOT expects this lower diversion due to higher volume of annual riders. As 

stated in Chapter 2, airport choice diversion was only modeled for I-85 and the Greenfield Corridor 

Alternatives, as GDOT determined that the level of service provided by the Southern Crescent would 

not be sufficient to constitute a viable option for air travelers due to the longer travel time. 

Exhibit 3.3-13: Annually Diverted Trips from Air Service 

Corridor Alternative ATL CLT GSP Corridor 

I-85 2025

Flights* 2,647,141 2,645,823 952,634 6,245,598 

HSR 103,269 152,058 279,114 534,441 

Total 2,750,410 2,797,881 1,231,748 6,780,039 

Diversion Percentage 4% 6% 29% 9%

I-85 2050

Flights* 3,529,521 3,797,745 1,190,792 8,518,058

HSR 137,692 218,260 348,892 704,844

Total 3,667,213 4,016,005 1,539,684 9,222,902 

Diversion Percentage 4% 6% 29% 8%

Greenfield 2025

Flights* 2,634,333 2,623,417 905,762 6,163,512

HSR 116,076 174,464 325,985 616,525

Total 2,750,409 2,797,881 1,231,747 6,780,037

Diversion Percentage 4% 7% 36% 10%
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-41

Corridor Alternative ATL CLT GSP Corridor

Greenfield 2050

Flights* 3,512,444 3,765,585 1,132,203 8,410,232

HSR 154,768 250,421 407,482 812,670

Total 3,667,212 4,016,006 1,539,684 9,222,902

Diversion Percentage 4% 7% 36% 10%

HSR = High Speed Rail

Source: Revenue and Ridership Results, May 2013 

Note: Southern Crescent Corridor not included due to having little to no effect on air service trip diversion 

* Flights represents the number of travelers taking a connecting flight to/from a corridor airport to their destination (or from their 

origin) or air trips that are contained within the corridor. 

The Greenfield Corridor is projected to have a slightly larger number of diverted air trips than the I-85 

Corridor, at 10 and 9 percent respectively. This is likely due to slightly faster projected rail travel 

times on the Greenfield Corridor than the I-85 Corridor. As illustrated in Exhibit 3.3-13, the number 

of diverted trips is projected to increase; this growth trajectory demonstrates how high-speed 

passenger rail could become a viable travel mode for intercity travel between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Effects on Local Parking 

The need for vehicular parking at or near stations will be assessed during the Tier 2 EIS, based on the 

selected station locations, land use, and existing parking. 

3.3.5 Potential Mitigation 

3.3.5.1 Operations 

If a Preferred Corridor Alternative is selected, GDOT will make an effort to avoid and minimize 

negative impacts on transportation facilities as the Preferred Corridor Alternative advances. GDOT 

will consider a number of strategies to mitigate impacts. Strategies that would mitigate the Project’s 

impacts on highways, local roads, transit operations, and parking will vary depending on the nature 

of the impact. For example, near stations or where the Preferred Corridor Alternative crosses existing 

roadways, improvements may be required at intersections or roadway cross-sections to facilitate 

access and safe circulation. Improvements to at-grade roadway crossings may also be considered to 

mitigate traffic impacts. Mitigation strategies may also include improvements to accommodate 

existing and growing freight traffic on shared rail right-of-way, such as bypass routes, additional 

tracks, signalization, and coordination with the host railroad. 

Station, parking, and maintenance facility designs could include operational and geometric 

improvements that maintain, wherever reasonably feasible, vehicle traffic conditions at acceptable 

levels of service. Mitigation could include the realignment of local traffic patterns and the creation of 

additional parking. Examples of roadway improvements to facilitate station access include turn lanes 

at intersections, local roadway capacity improvements, traffic control measures, coordination with 

local transit operations, and improvements in pedestrian and bicycle access. Landscape and 

streetscape enhancements could improve integration of stations with adjacent land uses. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-42

3.3.5.2 Construction 

The temporary construction effects to roadways and surface transit would be addressed by Best 

Management Practices during construction. 

To the extent possible, work would be staged during night-time, weekends, or off-peak hours to 

minimize service outages and disruptions to the traveling public. Contract specifications would 

require road closures and detours to be coordinated so that drivers can take practical and short detour 

routes. Temporary closures and detours would be done in sequence as the Project progresses. During 

such closures and detours, the construction contractor would be required to post detours for traffic 

and implement other measures to ensure that traffic flow can be accommodated in an efficient manner 

as may be both practical and safe. 

The Project sponsors would also coordinate with local agencies regarding hauling construction 

materials and debris on public streets to identify acceptable routes and times of operation. Traffic 

would be managed by detailed traffic control plans. The contractor, with the Project sponsors, would 

coordinate with potentially affected public services in planning traffic control measures. Construction 

activities that might substantially disrupt traffic would not likely be performed during peak travel 

periods to the maximum extent practicable. Access to all businesses and residences would be 

maintained. 

Warning signs would be used as appropriate to provide notice of road hazards and other pertinent 

information to the traveling public. Signage and barricades would be used as part of the typical 

roadway construction traffic controls. Temporary traffic signal adjustments and/or temporary manual 

traffic control could be required when construction occurs at signalized intersections on adjacent 

arterials or roadways. The effectiveness of the traffic control measures would be monitored during 

construction and adjustments would be made, as necessary. The local news media would be notified 

in advance of road closures, detours, and other construction activities. Information would also be 

posted on the Project website.

3.3.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The Tier 2 analysis will include more detailed planning and engineering to address connections to 

existing transportation systems, as well as potential effects on capacity requirements of transportation 

facilities affected by the project. For example, the Tier 2 analysis will examine any connections to 

the MARTA heavy rail system. The process will also include detailed planning and engineering to 

establish connections to local and regional bus systems since they are not fixed guideway modes and 

can be dynamically altered over time based upon shifting demands and trip-making behaviors. These 

inputs are harder to anticipate but easier to adjust once station locations are determined. The owners 

of the bus services could adjust the planning and development of local and regional bus routes and 

schedules after the Tier 2 process is completed. 

The effects and mitigation measures that could be taken to address the capacity requirements of local 

roadway, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle networks generated by stations and TOD will be 

undertaken in the Tier 2 analysis. A more in-depth discussion of the effects to, and resulting from, 

land use changes will be addressed in that process. The need for vehicular parking will also be 

assessed during Tier 2, based on the selected station locations and the associated community planned 

land use and existing parking availability. All stations would be designed to comply with the ADA

to accommodate the safety and accessibility for disabled patrons. For example, the passenger cars 

would provide allocated space and/or priority seating for individuals who use wheelchairs. Also, 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-43

stations would be designed to minimize physical barriers that prohibit or restrict access. A full range 

of necessary transportation-related mitigation commitments will be developed in Tier 2 EIS. 

When a Preferred Corridor Alternative is selected, more detailed analyses would be performed to 

analyze travel demand, which would include the development of an optimized passenger rail operating 

timetable for the selected Corridor Alternative. The analysis would be an iterative process that would 

address optimal frequency and time of day requirements by market, while also considering the cost 

required to provide the service. The analysis would have implications on the Project’s ridership, 

capital costs, and operating costs. The timetable optimization process would be coordinated with 

other rail corridor initiatives within the region. Depending on the amount of time that passes between 

completion of this Tier 1 EIS and additional analysis, updated travel market data, demographic data 

and forecasts may be required in the travel demand model. The update would include the latest 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) base year and future year highway networks; the latest 

MPO, statewide, and national socio-economic data and forecasts; and the latest air travel market data. 

The selected Corridor Alternative would be subjected to the plan development processes of review 

and approvals by the States of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the FRA. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-44

3.4 AIR QUALITY

This section describes the existing air quality status of the Study Area and discusses qualitatively the 

potential impact of modal diversion on air pollution levels. At this broad-level Tier 1 EIS, there is no 

substantial difference in air quality impacts among the Corridor Alternatives, therefore this section 

will focus on the differences between the No-Build Alternative and the Project. In addition, some of 

the Corridor Alternatives under consideration use electric power; however, the source of the electric 

power is beyond the scope of a Tier 1 EIS and was not a consideration in the determination of potential 

air quality impacts. 

3.4.1 Legal and Regulatory Context 

The Federal agency that develops and enforces the regulations that help govern air quality is the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, led the 

EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants to 

protect the public from health hazards associated with air pollution. The six criteria air pollutants are: 

carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter 

(PM10 and PM2.5)

80, and lead (Pb). The sources of these pollutants, their effects on human health, and 

their concentrations in the atmosphere vary. Exhibit 3.4-1 shows the NAAQS for each criteria 

pollutant. 

Exhibit 3.4-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Criteria Pollutant 

Pollutant Primary/ 

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form

Carbon Monoxide Primary 

8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 1-hour 35 ppm

Lead Primary and 

Secondary

Rolling 3 month 

average

0.15 μg/m3

Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary Annual 53 ppb Annual Mean

Ozone Primary and 

Secondary 8-hour 0.07 ppm

Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr 

concentration, averaged 

over 3 years 

 

80 The EPA classifies particulate matter in two size categories. PM10 refers to particles 10 micrometers in diameter and smaller. 

PM2.5 refers to particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-45

Pollutant Primary/ 

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form

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 

Primary 1 hour 75 ppb

99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years

Secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year

Source: EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table, last accessed 

10/08/2018

Key: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter; ppb = parts per billion; 

The EPA designates areas that do not meet NAAQS as “nonattainment” and can designate areas that 

were previously in nonattainment to “maintenance” status. The EPA delegates authority to the states 

for monitoring and enforcing air quality regulations. The three states within the Study Area have 

State Implementation Plans (SIP), developed in accordance with the CAA and contain the major 

requirements with respect to air quality. Under the authority of the CAA, Federal entities are 

prohibited from taking actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas that do not conform to the SIP 

for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Conformity analyses ensure that Federal activities 

do not interfere with established emissions budgets in the SIPs, that Federal activities do not cause or 

contribute to new violations, and that States achieve overall attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. FRA Actions are covered under the EPA General Conformity Regulations (58 CFR 63214). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-46

A project conforms to the SIP if it is included in a conforming metropolitan transportation plan. This 

Project’s three Corridor Alternatives overlap with several metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPO): 

• Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO), 

• Spartanburg Area Transportation Study (SPATS), 

• Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study (GPATS), 

• Gainesville-Hall Metropolitan Planning Organization (GHMPO), 

• Madison-Athens-Clark-Oconee MPO (MACORTS), 

• Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and

• Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG) 

At this time, the MPOs have not identified funding for subsequent phases of the Project in their Long 

Range Plans or Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). 

3.4.2 Methodology 

GDOT obtained data on existing air quality conditions from Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources-Environmental Protection Division, South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control, and North Carolina Environmental Quality. The Tier 2 analysis will include 

a conformity determination and hot spot analysis at the points in time and places where congestion is 

greatest or in areas of sensitive receptors. 

3.4.3 Affected Environment 

According to the EPA, seven counties in the Atlanta metropolitan area are designated as a 

nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3); four of those are within the Study Area: Gwinnett, DeKalb, 

Fulton, and Clayton. The Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC- area is designated as maintenance for 2008 8-

hour O3 and 1997 O3; this maintenance area includes Mecklenburg, Gaston, and York Counties. 

Mecklenburg County, NC is also in maintenance status for Carbon Monoxide (CO). All other counties 

within the Study Area are in attainment for all criteria pollutants. EPA reclassified Georgia’s and 

ozone maintenance area from nonattainment in 2016. In 2017, EPA re-classified Georgia’s and North 

Carolina’s fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) non-attainment areas to attainment. 

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build alternative assumes passenger rail would not be built between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Passenger service between the two cities would consist of existing bus services, air travel, and 

continued automobile use along I-85, I-20, and I-77. The air quality pollutant concentrations related 

to auto, bus, and air travel could worsen with the No-Build Alternative compared to the Corridor 

Alternatives, primarily due to emissions increases from heavier volumes of vehicular traffic in the 

future. Some emissions could be offset by increased use of more fuel-efficient automobiles. Any 

future, non-related construction projects within the Study Area could also have an impact on air 

quality. A list of committed projects in the Study Area that could have an impact on air quality in the 

future is located in Exhibit 3.3-7. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-47

3.4.4.2 Corridor Alternatives 

Criteria air quality pollutants can cause serious health effects. According to the EPA, exposure to 

pollutants could lead to a variety of health problems, including heart or lung disease, arrhythmia, 

asthma, decreased lung function, and other respiratory issues.81 Regardless of the rail technology 

selected, it is not likely that any of the alternatives will cause or contribute an increase in criteria 

pollutants emissions. Any of the alternatives could result in net reduction of criteria pollutants within 

the Study Area and so, would have positive long-term health benefits for the region. Each of the 

alternatives has the potential to positively affect regional air quality by attracting riders to rail service 

from other modes of transportation, particularly the widely-used automobile. 

Section 3 of this chapter discusses the impact of the Corridor Alternatives on existing transportation 

usage, including the projected modal diversion to rail, which may have positive benefit to air quality. 

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative has the greatest potential to attract riders from automobile use (4 

percent), thereby reducing emissions within this area as compared to the No-Build alternative. See 

section 3.3.4.2 for more information the potential of each Corridor Alternative to divert trips to 

passenger rail from automobile, bus, and air. Reduced travel by single occupancy vehicles could 

directly reduce combustion engine emissions, thereby having a positive benefit on regional air quality. 

These air quality benefits could be further realized with the project’s connection to local and regional 

transit service. 

Temporary emissions from construction equipment to construct the Project are expected to be much 

less than the total emissions from other industrial and transportation sources in the region, and are not 

expected to cause a violation of the NAAQS. Fugitive dust emissions could occur during demolition, 

ground excavation, materials handling and storage, movement of equipment at the construction site, 

and transport of material to and from the construction site. 

3.4.5 Potential Mitigation 

3.4.5.1 Operations 

Since GDOT anticipates that none of the Corridor Alternatives would cause or contribute to an 

increase in criteria pollutant emissions in Georgia, South Carolina or North Carolina, mitigation 

measures would not be required for operations. 

3.4.5.2 Construction

GDOT anticipates minor, temporary construction impacts. The Project would adhere to the GDNR 

EPD 2010 Fugitive Dust regulation 391-3-1-02(2)(n) and the APC Regulation for Fugitive Dust 

(Chapter 1200-3-8). 

Construction activities can result in short-term, localized effects on ambient air quality and generate 

a temporary increase in Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions. These potential effects include 

direct emissions from construction equipment and trucks, increased emissions from motor vehicles 

on the streets due to disruption of traffic flow, and fugitive dust emissions. Emissions from 

construction equipment and trucks are expected to be much less than the total emissions from other 

industrial and transportation sources in the region, and therefore, are not expected to cause a violation 

of the NAAQS. Fugitive dust emissions could occur during demolition, ground excavation, material 

 

81 https://www.epa.gov/air-research/research-health-and-environmental-effects-air-quality (accessed 2/1/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-48

handling and storage, movement of equipment at the site, and transport of material to and from the 

site. 

Project-level assessments intended to develop construction emission mitigation measures would 

benefit from a number of technologies and operational practices that should help lower short-term 

MSATs. For instance, a number of diesel retrofit projects have been implemented using funding from 

the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. The EPA has listed a 

number of approved diesel retrofit technologies; many of which can be deployed as emissions 

mitigation measures for equipment used in construction. Best Management Practices would be 

implemented during construction and all required permits would be obtained prior to start of 

construction. 

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The Tier 2 analysis will include a detailed air quality assessment, including direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts, of the Preferred Alternative and the stations and maintenance facilities. The air 

quality analysis will consider existing conditions in the Study Area of the Preferred Alternative, as 

well as the potential impacts and benefits of the Project on regional air quality. The analysis will 

evaluate the Project’s impact on motor vehicle emissions due to traffic to and from stations and of 

locomotives and other sources operating in rail yards. A Tier 2 analysis will also analyze specific 

construction impacts. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-49

3.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION

This section provides an overview of the potential noise and vibration effects of the Project. It 

includes an inventory of land use types that are noise- and vibration-sensitive, and the number of 

potential noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors within the Corridor Alternatives. Noise/vibrationsensitive receptors are locations or areas where dwelling units or other fixed, developed sites of 

frequent human use occur. Noise sensitive receptors include homes, schools, parks, religious 

structures, and other locations where noise could potentially be disruptive. Vibration-sensitive 

receptors are very similar to noise-sensitive receptors, but also include structures where vibrations 

may disrupt specialized equipment. This section also identifies the number of potential at-grade 

highway crossings, which may result in additional horn noise impacts, but defers detailed analysis of 

horn noise to Tier 2. 

This Tier 1 EIS identifies potential receptors as a measure of potential impacts. This level of analysis 

does not indicate a negative noise or vibration impact, but the estimated number of possible noise and 

vibration receptors located within each Corridor Alternative. A Tier 2 analysis will conduct a detailed 

noise and vibration analysis of the Preferred Corridor Alternative, and explore noise and vibration 

impacts related to construction activities and station areas. The Tier 2 analysis will also identify 

mitigation strategies for the selected alignment, technology, and station areas. 

3.5.1 Legal and Regulatory Context 

Due to the range of speed and technologies under consideration during this Tier 1 EIS, GDOT has 

reviewed both FRA’s and FTA’s guidance for evaluating noise and vibration impacts resulting from 

rail projects. FRA’s guidelines published in High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment ͅʹ provide guidance for determining the potential noise and vibration effects 

associated with high-speed and conventional speed rail projects with speeds of 90 to 250 miles per 

hour. 

The FTA provides guidance on assessing noise and vibration impacts of proposed mass transit projects 

in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. ͅ͵ The purpose of this guidance is to assist with 

the preparation of NEPA documents. All types of bus and rail transit projects are covered. The 

guidance contains procedures for assessing impacts at different stages of project development, from 

early planning, before sponsors select mode and alignment, through preliminary engineering, and 

final design. The focus is on noise and vibration impacts during operations, but construction impacts 

are also covered. The FTA guidance describes a range of measures for controlling excessive noise 

and vibration. 

Because this Tier 1 EIS includes a wide range of train speeds, GDOT applied both FRA and FTA 

methodology and impact criteria. 

3.5.2 Methodology 

Each Corridor Alternative under study has unique characteristics associated with existing noise and 

vibration levels. Urban areas generally experience higher noise levels from a variety of sources as 

compared to rural areas. Higher noise levels are also associated with frequently used rail and highway 

corridors. In these urban areas and transportation corridors, the introduction of new noise and 

 

82 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04090 (accessed on 4/20/2018)

83https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/fta-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment

(accessed 4/20/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-50

vibration sources is less detectable due to existing sources. GDOT applied FRA and FTA guidance to 

determine the number of noise and vibration receptors for each Corridor Alternative. Since the 

existing land uses, development conditions, and the proposed train speed of each Corridor Alternative 

differ, the specific screening distance for each varies, as explained in the following sections. GDOT 

collected land use data from county governments in the form of GIS maps and supplemented these 

maps with aerial imagery to identify noise and vibration receptors. 

3.5.2.1 Noise 

Due to the range of the three Corridor Alternatives’ operating speeds, GDOT applied both FTA’s and 

FRA’s noise procedures to this analysis, as described in the previous section. For the Southern 

Crescent Corridor Alternative, the maximum operating speed ranges between 79 mph and 110 mph; 

therefore, FTA’s procedures are applicable. The I-85 and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives have 

maximum operating speeds ranging from 125 to 220 mph; therefore, FRA’s procedures are applicable 

for the electric option. 

FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment provides screening distances for train speeds 

less than 110 mph, which is 700 feet (on either side of the centerline) in unobstructed locations and 

350 feet (on either side of the centerline) in areas with intervening buildings. GDOT applied this 

methodology to the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative only. 

For the I-85 and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives, GDOT conducted a preliminary noise evaluation 

according to the screening procedures outlined in the FRA manual. GDOT applied these procedures 

to identify locations with noise-sensitive land uses within FRA’s recommended screening distances. 

GDOT did not assess noise from ancillary sources, such as electrical substations, maintenance 

facilities, and increased roadway traffic near stations at this stage due to lack of detail and placement 

of the potential noise sources. GDOT will determine the extent and severity of impacts in a detailed 

noise assessment during the Tier 2 analysis, when specific alignments and associated infrastructure 

are known. 

FRA recommends screening distances for potential noise impacts based on three variables: train 

speed, corridor type, and the existing noise environment. These screening distances are summarized 

here and detailed in Appendix D: Supporting Technical Documentation. 

According to FRA guidance, high-speed trains (greater than 110 mph) generate a total wayside noise 

consisting of several individual noise-generating mechanisms depending on the speed. FRA 

categorizes these noise sources into three speed regimes: 

• Regime I (125 mph or less): propulsion or machinery noise; 

• Regime II (between 110 mph and 150 mph): mechanical noise resulting from wheel-rail 

interactions and/or guideway vibrations and; 

• Regime III (greater than 150 mph): aerodynamic noise resulting from airflow moving past the 

train, including the pantograph.84

GDOT used Regime II screening distances for initial screening of noise-sensitive receptors where 

speeds could potentially exceed 110 mph (with a maximum speed of 150 mph). GDOT used Regime 

 

84 Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson, Inc., Parsons Transportation Group, United States, Office of Railroad Development, High-Speed 

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Railroad Development, 2006).
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-51

III screening distances in areas where speeds are anticipated to exceed 150 mph. Exhibit 3.5-1 

provides a summary of the distances that were used for initial screening. 

FRA defines two noise environments: Urban/Noisy Suburban and Quiet Suburban/Rural. FRA further 

categorizes Urban/Noisy Suburban as either being unobstructed or having intervening buildings. 

Noise environments relate to density of development and not specifically to land uses. GDOT selected 

screening distances for each Corridor Alternative based on the assumed speed regime and noise 

environment. Urban/Noisy Suburban noise environments are generally more densely populated areas, 

and for this analysis, GDOT relied on the defined Urbanized Area from the 2010 Census. All other 

areas were defined as Quiet Suburban/Rural. FRA guidance also uses a reduced screening distance 

where intervening buildings exist, and may block noise. FRA defines intervening buildings as rows 

of buildings located approximately 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 feet away from the rail centerline. 

Exhibit 3.5-1 displays FRA’s suggested screening distances for noise impacts based on corridor type, 

existing noise environment, and train speed. 

Exhibit 3.5-1: FRA Screening Distances for Noise Assessments 

Corridor Type Existing Noise Environment Screening Distance in Feet*

Regime II

(110 mph to 150 mph)

Regime III

(>150 mph)

Existing Railroad Corridor Urban/Noisy Suburban - unobstructed 300 feet 700 feet

Urban/Noisy Suburban - intervening buildings** 200 feet 300 feet

Quiet Suburban/Rural 500 feet 1,200 feet

Existing Highway Corridor Urban/Noisy Suburban - unobstructed 250 feet 600 feet

Urban/Noisy Suburban - intervening buildings** 200 feet 350 feet

Quiet Suburban/Rural 400 feet 1,100 feet

New 

Location

Urban/Noisy Suburban - unobstructed 350 feet 700 feet

Urban/Noisy Suburban - intervening buildings** 250 feet 350 feet

Quiet Suburban/Rural 600 feet 1,300 feet

* Measured from centerline of guideway or rail corridor. 

** Rows of buildings assumed to be at 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 feet parallel to guideway. 

Source: FRA. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Table 4-1.

Once the appropriate screening distances were determined, GDOT identified noise-sensitive land 

uses within those areas along each Corridor AlternativeǤThe types of land uses that are sensitive to 

noise impacts, according to FRA, are listed in Exhibit 3.5-2. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-52

Exhibit 3.5-2: FRA Land-Use Categories Sensitive to High-Speed Train Noise 

Land Use 

Category Description of Land Use Category 

1 Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. 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 with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls. 

2 Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where 

a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

3 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, 

and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and 

concentration on reading material. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and 

museums can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites, parks, campgrounds, and 

recreational facilities are also included. 

Source: FRA. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Table 3-2.

3.5.2.2 Vibration 

As with the noise analysis, GDOT used FRA’s guidance to identify vibration-sensitive land uses close 

enough to the Corridor Alternative for potential ground-borne vibration impacts to be possible. FRA 

recommends screening distances based on the proposed train speed, frequency, and land use type, 

displayed in Exhibit 3.5-3. 

Exhibit 3.5-3: Screening Distances for Vibration Assessments 

Land Use Train Frequency*

Screening Distance (feet)

By Train Speed 

Train Speeds 

< 100 mph

Train Speeds

100 to 200 mph

Train Speeds 

200 to 300 mph

Category 1: 

High-Sensitivity 

Buildings

Frequent to Occasional 100 160 220

Infrequent 20 70 100

Category 2: 

Residential 

Frequent or Occasional 120 220 275

Infrequent 60 100 140

Category 3: 

Institutional 

Frequent or Occasional 100 160 220

Infrequent 20 70 100

*Frequent or Occasional = greater than 70 pass-bys per day. Infrequent = less than 70 pass-bys per day.

Source: FRA. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Table 8-1.

FRA guidance outlines three categories of land use. The first category addresses high-sensitivity 

buildings where vibration will interfere with operations within the building, such as vibrationsensitive electronic research and manufacturing equipment, hospitals with vibration-sensitive 

equipment, and university research operations. In this application, “residential” land uses include any 

buildings where people sleep including hotels and hospitals. “Institutional” land uses include schools, 

places of worship, and other institutions that contain quiet office spaces and do not have vibrationsensitive equipment. FRA’s guidance describes “frequent or occasional” operations as 70 or more 

train pass-bys per day; the frequencies proposed for this Project are fewer than 70 per day, so GDOT 

applied the “infrequent” screening distances. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-53

3.5.3 Affected Environment 

3.5.3.1 Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

NOISE 

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative will utilize either diesel trains on shared tracks (maximum 

speed of 79 mph) or diesel trains on a combination of shared and dedicated tracks (maximum speed 

of 110 mph). Accordingly, GDOT applied the FTA screening distances for train speeds less than 110 

mph, which is 700 feet (on either side of the centerline) in unobstructed locations and 350 feet (on 

either side of the centerline) where intervening buildings exist. Since FTA recommends using the 

same screening distance for all speeds less than 110 mph, GDOT’s analysis of potential noisesensitive receptors is the same for both Southern Crescent speed options. Exhibit 3.5-4 shows that 

7,544 potential noise receptor impacts could occur within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, 

exclusive of the Atlanta Approach. 

The large number of potential noise receptor impacts is mainly because the Southern Crescent 

Corridor travels through more urbanized areas with greater development density compared to the other 

Corridor Alternatives. Most of these urbanized areas have residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, 

and other noise-sensitive land uses within close proximity to the existing rail corridor. Some older 

communities located along the Southern Crescent Corridor consist of residences and other structures 

built especially close to the rail line. 

The Southern Crescent is the only Corridor Alternative following an existing rail corridor and 

including at-grade crossings, which would result in horn noise from approaching trains. The Tier 2 

analysis will quantify the number of noise-receptors impacted by horn noise for the Preferred Corridor 

Alternative, if applicable. The Southern Crescent Corridor currently has 230 at-grade crossings and 

carries between 14 and 30 freight trains per day, which are generally louder than passenger trains, in 

addition to two daily Amtrak passenger trains. Train horn noise at the 230 crossings are a common 

existing condition due to the existing 14 to 30 daily freight trains and two daily Amtrak trains; 

therefore GDOT anticipates that the additional horn noise from four new daily high-speed passenger 

trains at these crossings would be minimal. 

VIBRATION 

For the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative with diesel trains using shared tracks (maximum speed 

of 79 mph), GDOT utilized a 20-foot screening distances for institutional and high-sensitivity 

buildings and a 60-foot screening distance for residential land use. Exhibit 3.5-4 shows that twentyone potential vibration-receptor impacts could occur with the shared track option. 

For the Southern Crescent with diesel trains using a combination of shared and dedicated tracks 

(maximum speed of 110 mph), GDOT utilized a 20-foot screening distance for institutional land use 

and high-sensitivity buildings, in areas where train travel speeds are estimated to be below 100 mph. 

For the same categories, GDOT used a screening distance of and 70 feet where trains speeds are 

greater than 100 mph. For residential land uses, GDOT used a 60-foot screening distance where train 

speeds are below 100 mph and 100 feet where speeds are greater than 100 mph. In this Corridor 

Alternative, GDOT estimates only a few short sections will allow for train speeds greater than 100 

mph, topping at 110 mph. Most of these locations are in rural areas with less adjacent development. 

Even though the screening distance is wider in these areas, there are very few potential vibration 

receptors. As shown in Exhibit 3.5-4, the shared-dedicated track option generates one additional 

vibration-sensitive receptor.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-54

Exhibit 3.5-4: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors with the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative 

Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

Shared Tracks 

(up to 79 mph) 

Shared & 

Dedicated Tracks 

(up to 110 mph)

Shared Tracks 

(up to 79 mph) 

Shared & 

Dedicated Tracks 

(up to 110 mph)

Georgia* 2,397 2,397 21 22

South Carolina 3,816 3,816 4 4

North Carolina 1,331 1,331 0 0

Total 7,544 7,544 25 26

*Excludes Atlanta Approach

Source: HNTB

3.5.3.2 I-85 Corridor Alternative 

NOISE 

Compared to the other Corridor Alternatives, I-85 travels through fewer urbanized areas and noisesensitive land uses are generally further set back from the interstate freeway than they are from longerestablished freight railroads. No at-grade crossings are proposed. 

For the I-85 Corridor Alternative diesel option (maximum speed of 125 mph), GDOT utilized FRA’s 

Regime II screening criteria to identify 2,906 potential noise receptors. For the I-85 Corridor 

Alternative using electric rail technology (maximum speed of 180 mph), GDOT utilized FRA’s 

Regime III screening criteria and identified 3,223 potential noise receptors. The geometry along I85, however, limits the locations where Regime III-level speeds are possible. 

Exhibit 3.5-5 summarizes the number of potential noise receptors within the I-85 screening distance. 

The higher speed associated with the electric option results in a greater number of noise-sensitive 

receptors than the diesel option, due to the wider screening distance applied to greater speeds. 

VIBRATION 

GDOT applied the appropriate screening criteria outlined in Exhibit 3.3-4 for speeds less than 100 

mph and speeds between 100 and 200 mph. GDOT identified twenty-one vibration-sensitive receptors 

along the I-85 Corridor Alternative for both speed options, as displayed in Exhibit 3.5-5. 

Exhibit 3.5-5: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors with the I-85 Corridor Alternative 

Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

Diesel Option 

(up to 125 mph)

Electric Option 

(up to 180 mph)

Diesel Option 

(up to 125 mph)

Electric Option 

(up to 180 mph)

Georgia* 1,701 1,773 21 21

South Carolina 376 621 0 0 

North Carolina 829 829 0 0 

Total 2,906 3,223 21 21

*Excludes Atlanta Approach

Source: HNTB
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-55

3.5.3.3 Greenfield Corridor Alternative 

NOISE 

For the Greenfield Corridor Alternative with diesel technology (maximum speed of 125 mph), GDOT 

utilized Regime II screening criteria to identify 3,176 noise receptors. For the electric rail technology 

option (maximum speed of 220 mph), GDOT utilized Regime III screening criteria and identified 

5,511 noise receptors. Because of the higher train travel speeds resulting in wider screening distances, 

this corridor and rail technology combination has the second largest number of noise-sensitive 

receptors within the specified screening distances, as compared to the other Corridor Alternatives. No 

at-grade crossings are proposed. 

VIBRATION 

Under the Greenfield Corridor Alternative with diesel technology (maximum speed of 125 mph), 

GDOT used a 70-foot screening distance for institutional land use and high-sensitivity buildings, 

where speeds are between 100 and 200 mph. The screening distance for the same technology and 

building categories is 20 feet where speeds are below 100 mph. GDOT used a 100-foot screening 

distance for residential land use where speeds are between 100 and 200 mph, and 60 feet where speeds 

are below 100 mph. As shown in Exhibit 3.5-6, GDOT identified eighty-two vibration-sensitive 

receptors under the diesel option. 

Under the Greenfield Corridor Alternative electric technology option (maximum speed of 220), 

GDOT increased the screening distances to 100 feet for institutional and high-sensitivity buildings 

and 140 feet for residential land use, where speeds are greater than 200 mph. As shown in Exhibit 3.5-

6, in the electric technology option with wider screening distances captures more vibration-sensitive 

receptors than the diesel option. 

Exhibit 3.5-6: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative 

Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

Diesel Option 

(up to 125 mph)

Electric Option 

(up to 220 mph)

Diesel Option 

(up to 125 mph)

Electric Option 

(up to 220 mph)

Georgia* 2,044 2,592 35 51

South Carolina 989 2,390 47 86

North Carolina 143 529 0 1 

Total 3,176 5,511 82 138

*Excludes Atlanta Approach

Source: HNTB

3.5.3.4 Atlanta Approaches 

Since the selection of an Atlanta approach is deferred to the Tier 2 EIS, GDOT identified and tabulated 

the potential noise and vibration receptors in each approach separate from the three Corridor 

Alternatives. To identify noise receptors, GDOT applied FTA’s screening criteria for train speeds less 

than 110 mph since the two options both follow existing freight rail. To identify vibration receptors, 

GDOT applied screening distances for speeds less than 100 mph and between 100 and 200 mph, where 

appropriate. 

NS APPROACH 

Exhibit 3.5-7 summarizes the total number of noise and vibration receptors impacts by each of the 

three Corridor Alternatives including the NS Atlanta approach. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-56

Exhibit 3.5-7: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors within the NS Atlanta Approach

 Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

 Train Speeds up to 

79 mph

Train Speeds up to 

110 mph

Train Speeds up to 

79 mph

Train Speeds up to 

110 mph

Southern Crescent 4,328 4,328 0 3 

Diesel Option Electric Option Diesel Option Electric Option

I-85 3,940 3,940 0 0 

Greenfield 4,027 4,117 2 7 

Source: HNTB 

Note: number of receptors reflects only the Atlanta approach portion of each Corridor Alternative 

CSX APPROACH 

Exhibit 3.5-8 summarizes the total number of noise and vibration receptors impacts by each of the 

three Corridor Alternatives including the CSX Atlanta approach. 

Exhibit 3.5-8: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors within the CSX Atlanta Approach

 Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

 Train Speeds up 

to 79 mph

Train Speeds up to 

110 mph

Train Speeds up to 

79 mph

Train Speeds up to 

110 mph

Southern Crescent 

with CSX Approach 3,766 3,766 4 11

Diesel Option Electric Option Diesel Option Electric Option

I-85 with CSX Approach 3,540 3,740 2 5 

Greenfield 

with CSX Approach 3,535 3,735 2 11

Source: HNTB

Note: number of receptors reflects only the Atlanta approach portion of each Corridor Alternative

3.5.3.5 Summary of Corridor Alternatives 

Exhibit 3.5-9 shows the numbers of noise and vibration receptors within the applied screening distance 

for each of the Corridor Alternatives and Atlanta approaches. Unlike the other environmental 

resources evaluated in this chapter, noise and vibration impacts are highly dependent on train speed; 

therefore, GDOT evaluated both speed options for each Corridor Alternative. GDOT followed FTA 

and FRA guidelines for screening distances based on speed and land use characteristics. In all three 

Corridor Alternatives, the higher speed option generated a greater number of potential impacts. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-57

Exhibit 3.5-9: Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors Summary 

Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

Corridor 

Alternative

Train Speeds up 

to 79 mph

Train Speeds up 

to 110 mph

Train Speeds up 

to 79 mph

Train Speeds up 

to 110 mph

Southern Crescent with 

NS Atlanta Approach 11,872 11,872 25 29

Southern Crescent with 

CSX Atlanta Approach 11,310 11,310 29 37

Noise Receptors Vibration Receptors 

Corridor 

Alternative

Diesel Option 

(up to 125 mph)

Electric Option 

(up to 220 mph)

Diesel Option 

(up to 125 mph)

Electric Option 

(up to 220 mph)

I-85 with NS 

Atlanta Approach 6,846 7,163 21 21

I-85 with CSX 

Atlanta Approach 6,446 6,963 23 26

Greenfield with NS 

Atlanta Approach 7,203 9,628 84 145

Greenfield with CSX 

Atlanta Approach 6,711 9,246 84 149

Source: HNTB

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes no new passenger rail between Atlanta and Charlotte. Passenger 

service between the two cities would consist of existing rail and bus service, air travel, and continued 

automobile use along the highway system. The No-Build Alternative would not increase rail capacity 

or expand rail service. The No-build Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Project. 

In general, the noise and vibration levels along the major highway corridors are likely to increase in 

the future, primarily due to heavier volumes of vehicular traffic in the No-Build Alternative. As the 

geographic scope and nature of any No-Build Alternative projects would be limited, the potential 

effects of the projects are likely to be contained to the vicinity of the individual construction projects. 

3.5.4.2 Corridor Alternatives 

All three Corridor Alternatives have noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses that could be affected by 

new passenger rail operations. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative has the most noise 

receptors, while the I-85 Corridor Alternative has the least. This could be because development along 

I-85 consists of land uses more compatible with highway operations and associated noise. The I-85 

Corridor Alternative also has the fewest vibration receptors within the screening distance, while the 

Greenfield has the most. Due to the Greenfield’s rural setting, however, there are fewer highsensitivity buildings than in other Corridor Alternatives. Residential development constitutes the 

majority of vibration receptors in the Greenfield Corridor Alternative. 

Following FRA’s and FTA’s guidance, GDOT used wider screening distances where higher speeds 

are possible, resulting in a greater number of impacts. For the Greenfield, which is the only Corridor 

Alternative that operates at speeds greater than 200 mph, this means 145 or 149 potential vibration 

receptors, substantially greater than the other Corridor Alternatives, which were evaluated using much 

smaller screening distances. 

The Southern Crescent is the only Corridor Alternative with at-grade roadway crossings, resulting in 

potential horn noise impacts. GDOT identified 230 potential at-grade crossings, which are all existing 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-58

crossings used by freight trains today. The Tier 2 analysis will further explore these potential impacts 

of horn noise, if relevant to the selected Corridor Alternative. The detailed analysis for noise and 

vibration performed during the Tier 2 EIS would also quantify the differences in impact between 

diesel and electric technologies. 

3.5.4.3 Construction 

Typical construction activities may include, but are not limited to, track-laying and relocation, station 

construction, and construction of parking facilities. Noise and vibration levels from construction 

activities for the Corridor Alternatives would be temporary. The potential for exposure to 

construction-related noise and vibration levels varies depending on the types of construction and the 

types of equipment used for each stage of work. This topic will be explored during a Tier 2 EIS. 

3.5.5 Potential Mitigation 

3.5.5.1 Potential Noise Mitigation Strategies 

The Tier 2 analysis will include a detailed noise analysis, including quantifying potential noise effects. 

In the Tier 2 analysis, GDOT will also examine specific strategies to avoid and minimize noise effects 

for feasibility and incorporate them as necessary into the Project as design progresses. The Tier 1 EIS 

identifies the following noise control and mitigation strategies that could apply to a high-speed 

passenger rail project: 

• Install noise barriers – depending on the height and location relative to the tracks, noise barriers 

can achieve between 5 and 15 dB (decibel) on noise reduction. The primary requirements for an 

effective noise barrier are that the barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the lineof-sight between the sound source and the receiver, be of an impervious material with a minimum 

surface density of 4 pounds per square foot, and not have any gaps or holes between the panels or 

at the bottom. Because many materials meet these requirements aesthetics, durability, cost, and 

maintenance considerations usually determine the selection of materials for the construction of 

noise barriers. Depending on the situation, noise barriers can become visually intrusive, which 

the Tier 2 analysis would take into consideration. Coordination with affected communities and 

property owners will be required to determine the appropriateness of noise barriers. 

• Building sound insulation – sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings to improve 

the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction is a potential mitigation measure. Although this approach 

has no effect on noise in exterior areas, it can provide noise reduction for residential/institutional 

interiors, which can be especially important where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable for 

buildings where indoor sensitivity is of serious concern. The Tier 2 analysis will further evaluate 

sound insulation based on noise impact analysis of the refined alignment and train technology, 

and in accordance with applicable GDOT, SCDOT, NCDOT, and FRA policies on noise 

abatement. 

• Source Treatments – source treatments include measures to reduce noise through the train vehicles 

and rails, due to materials and quality of construction of wheels, the vehicle body type, propulsion 

and ventilation systems used, and materials and quality of construction of the vehicle guideway 

support. For instance, the use of continuously welded rail may produce less wayside noise than 

jointed rail. In the procurement of a high-speed passenger rail vehicle, the Project can set 

performance limits for noise levels in order to reduce community noise effects throughout the 

corridor. The types of technology available and cost considerations will inform the potential to 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-59

reduce the noise throughout the corridor through various vehicle and guideway design 

considerations. Specific potential source treatments will be determined in Tier 2. 

• Quiet Zones – provided sufficient infrastructure is in place, local governments and public agencies 

can apply to FRA to create Quiet Zones to reduce horn-sounding noise in local communities, in 

accordance with 49 CFR Part 222, known as the Train Horn Rule. Quiet Zones can eliminate the 

use of horns at certain crossings or restrict horns during certain times of day. Additional advance 

warning signage may be required along roadways approaching grade crossings in Quiet Zones. 

The use of pole-mounted warning horns, or wayside horns, at grade crossings are also possible 

mitigation efforts. Pole-mounted horns are activated by an approaching train and make sound until 

the train reaches said crossing, thereby reducing the extent and duration of the noise impact. 

• Grade Separations - the Southern Crescent includes 230 potential at-grade roadway crossings. 

Grade separating crossings can mitigate the need for horn noise. 

• Routine Maintenance: conducting routine maintenance on rails and wheels, including wheel 

truing, can reduce wayside noise. 

3.5.5.2 Potential Vibration Mitigation Strategies 

Resilient track design can help control ground-borne vibration that exceeds the FRA effect criteria. 

Depending on the track design, there are different methods to control vibration. For steel-wheel slab 

track, resilient direct fixation fasteners are an option for mitigation. For ballast and tie track, shredded 

tire aggregate or rubber ballast mats are appropriate mitigation. Specific mitigation for the selected 

Corridor Alternative and technology selected will be determined in the Tier 2 analysis. 

3.5.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The Tier 2 analysis will include a detailed noise and vibration evaluation for the selected Corridor 

Alternative. In the Tier 2 analysis, GDOT will recommend an alignment within the Preferred Corridor 

Alternative, along with the preferred technology, exact station and maintenance facility locations, and 

the necessary infrastructure to support these facilities. The analysis will identify the noise and 

vibration levels from the new high-speed rail service, including the proposed number of locomotives 

necessary for efficient operations, proposed efficient speeds, and proposed hours of operations. The 

Tier 2 analysis will evaluate the effects of the related electrical substations, the passenger stations, 

and maintenance facility operations. If the selected Corridor Alternative has at-grade roadway 

crossings, the Tier 2 analysis will evaluate potential horn noise impacts and mitigation. It will also 

quantify specific noise and vibration effects, identify strategies for avoidance and mitigation of those 

effects, and make final recommendations. Noise and vibration control measures will comply with all 

applicable Federal, state, and local construction regulations. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-60

3.6 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

This section broadly describes the socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice (EJ) 

populations within the 1,000-foot wide screening area for each of the three Corridor Alternatives. It 

also presents the potential effects of the Project on these conditions and populations. As the proposed 

station locations vary among the Corridor Alternatives, distinguishing factors potentially include the 

specific populations, employment areas, and EJ populations in proximity to proposed station 

locations. The ratio of EJ populations to non-EJ populations in each Corridor Alternative varies. This 

section also broadly describes the potential effects to population, employment, demographic 

characteristics, neighborhoods, community resources, community disruption or cohesion, and 

commerce. The detailed impacts such as property acquisitions or displacements, and effects on 

children, per Executive Order 13045-Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety 

Risks, would be further evaluated in the Tier 2 analysis. 

3.6.1 Legal and Regulatory Context 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 

1500 et. seq.): Section 1502.1 states that the Federal government must fully and fairly discuss 

significant environmental impacts and the reasonable alternatives that avoid or minimize those effects 

on the human environment. Section 1508.27 requires Federal agencies to consider the significance of 

the impacts from a proposed action by considering the intensity and context of the impacts.

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 11, 1994): Requires Federal 

agencies to provide public involvement for low-income or minority populations. This includes 

demographic analysis identifying and addressing potential action impacts on low-income or minority 

populations that may experience a disproportionately high and adverse effect. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2(a), Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations, published April 15, 1997: Outlines the DOT’s commitment to the 

principles of environmental justice and presents a program for department-wide implementation. 

Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, published 

December 10, 1997: Presents CEQ’s guidance on addressing environmental justice issues under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 

Final Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in Clean Air Act 309 Reviews, 

published July 1999: Provides EPA guidance and answers often-asked questions about environmental 

justice85. 

3.6.2 Methodology 

3.6.2.1 Socioeconomics 

GDOT analyzed historic and projected population and employment data for each of the counties 

containing one or more of the three Corridor Alternatives, as displayed in Exhibit 3.6-1. The purpose 

of this analysis is to document shifting population and employment concentrations over time and to 

provide a high-level estimation of each Corridor Alternative’s ability to serve areas of greater 

population and employment concentrations. GDOT collected historic population data from the U.S. 

 

85 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/enviro_justice_309review.pdf 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-61

Census Bureau and historic employment data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA) for the years 1970 through 2010. The employment data presented here 

represents the number of full- and part-time jobs by place of work. Woods and Poole Economics 

projected population, employment, median age, income, and household size at the county level for 

the year 2040 using historic data from the Census and BEA. To account for inflation, income 

projections are presented in 2005 dollars. 

Exhibit 3.6-1: Listing of Counties within Corridor Alternatives 

County State

Southern 

Crescent 

with NS 

Approach

Southern 

Crescent 

with CSX 

Approach

I-85

with NS 

Approach

I-85

with CSX 

Approach

Greenfield 

with NS 

Approach

Greenfield 

with CSX 

Approach

Banks GA x x x x

Barrow GA x x x x x

Clarke GA x x

Clayton GA x x x x x x

DeKalb GA x x x x x x

Elbert GA x x

Franklin GA x x

Fulton GA x x x x x x

Gwinnett GA x x x x x x

Habersham GA x x

Hall GA x x x x

Hart GA x x

Jackson GA x x x x x

Madison GA x x

Stephens GA x x

Cleveland NC x x x x

Gaston NC x x x x x x

Mecklenburg NC x x x x x x

Anderson SC x x x x

Cherokee SC x x x x x x

Greenville SC x x x x x x

Laurens SC x x

Oconee SC x x

Pickens SC x x

Spartanburg SC x x x x x x

York SC x x

3.6.2.2 Environmental Justice 

The EJ analysis identifies the presence of minority and low-income populations within the 1,000-foot 

wide screening areas for each of the three Corridor Alternatives. Minority populations include persons 

who are American Indian or Alaska Native, black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-62

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Low-income populations are defined as persons whose 

household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty 

guidelines. The 1,000-foot width is intended to encompass and account for the improvements that 

would be associated with each of the alternatives, including infrastructure improvements (such as 

embankments, aerial structures, and track improvements), ancillary facilities (such as stations, 

substations, yards, and parking structures), or service changes. 

GDOT identified minority populations using U.S. Census Bureau Census 2010 block group-level data 

for race and ethnicity, collected from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimate. 

Similarly, GDOT identified low-income populations using ACS 5-year Estimates 2010 block grouplevel data for persons living below the poverty level. The classification of census block groups was 

based on criteria provided in the CEQ’s 1997 guidance on environmental justice analysis in NEPA 

documents. Based on this guidance, a block group contains a high concentration of either minority 

or low-income population if: 

• At least 50 percent of the population in the census tract is minority or low-income; or, 

• The minority or low-income population in the tract is “meaningfully greater” than the average 

of the minority or low-income population in the county in which the tract is located. For this 

Tier 1 EIS, a census tract meets the “meaningfully greater” threshold if the percentage of 

minority or low-income residents is 50 percent, or higher than the percentage in the 

corresponding county. 

3.6.3 Affected Environment 

3.6.3.1 Socioeconomics 

The socioeconomic factors included in this section include population, employment, age, income, 

household size, community facilities, and environmental justice, which includes minority and lowincome populations. 

POPULATION 

Exhibit 3.6-2 shows the populations and population growth for each county within one or more of the 

three Corridor Alternatives, between 1970 and 2010. There are 26 counties included in the Study 

Area evaluation. Of the 26, there are five counties whose 2010 populations are approaching or have 

exceeded 500,000. In the south end of the Study Area, the counties with the largest populations are 

DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties in the Atlanta metropolitan area. In the north end, 

Mecklenburg County, NC is home to nearly one million people and Greenville County, SC is nearly 

500,000 people. For each decade evaluated, the total population of the 26 counties included generally 

grew by about 21 percent. Some of the counties with the greatest growth rates over the 1970-2010 

time period were in the northeastern Atlanta suburbs, like Gwinnett (998%), Barrow (311%), and Hall 

(201%). Counties with the lowest average growth rates tend to be more rural, like Elbert (17%), 

Stephens (28%), Laurens (34%), Cleveland (34%), and Gaston (39%). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-63

Exhibit 3.6-2: Historic and Existing Population by County, 1970 - 2010 

County State 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Banks GA 6,833 8,714 10,379 14,544 18,415

Barrow GA 16,986 21,477 30,106 46,520 69,731

Clarke GA 65,557 75,023 88,058 102,401 116,668

Clayton GA 99,857 151,298 182,769 238,079 259,623

DeKalb GA 420,318 483,875 549,655 668,271 692,902

Elbert GA 17,235 18,791 18,981 20,464 20,112

Franklin GA 12,837 15,243 16,705 20,314 22,048

Fulton GA 604,835 591,977 650,697 816,190 926,197

Gwinnett GA 73,664 169,432 356,979 595,584 808,719

Habersham GA 20,823 25,098 27,799 36,095 43,080

Hall GA 59,919 76,101 96,215 140,993 180,253

Hart GA 15,888 18,604 19,825 23,046 25,217

Jackson GA 21,242 25,469 30,195 41,845 60,706

Madison GA 13,670 17,814 21,214 25,800 28,167

Stephens GA 20,424 21,823 23,474 25,482 26,193

Cleveland NC 72,979 83,456 85,221 96,357 98,050

Gaston NC 148,879 163,095 175,132 190,679 206,213

Mecklenburg NC 355,716 406,202 515,605 700,458 923,427

Anderson SC 106,167 133,900 145,538 166,304 187,269

Cherokee SC 36,738 41,056 44,657 52,649 55,397

Greenville SC 242,196 289,109 321,857 380,949 452,859

Laurens SC 49,602 52,468 58,423 69,428 66,500

Oconee SC 41,032 48,864 57,699 66,434 74,359

Pickens SC 59,446 79,734 94,470 111,062 119,217

Spartanburg SC 174,560 203,673 227,580 254,443 284,713

York SC 86,027 107,292 132,348 165,620 226,971

Total 2,843,430 3,329,588 3,981,581 5,070,011 5,993,006

Percent Change from Previous 

Decade -- 17% 20% 27% 18%

Source: U.S. Census

EMPLOYMENT 

Exhibit 3.6-3 shows employment growth from 1970 to 2010 using U.S. Census data. The Atlanta 

metropolitan area is the economic engine of Georgia. The counties within the Corridor Alternatives 

that have the greatest employment levels are in metropolitan Atlanta (Gwinnett, Fulton, and Clayton 

Counties), Charlotte (Mecklenburg County), and Greenville (Greenville County). On average, the 26 

counties evaluated experienced 31-35 percent growth in employment each decade between 1970 and 

2000. Between 2000 and 2010, employment in the same counties only grew by average of five 

percent, likely due to the Great Recession during the late 2000s. The counties with the greatest rate 

of employment growth between 1970 and 2010 are: Gwinnett (2,044%), Clayton (409%), Banks 

(350%), Barrow (252%), Mecklenburg (220%), and Hall (216%). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-64

Exhibit 3.6-3: Historic and Existing Employment by County, 1970 - 2010 

Employment

County State 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Banks GA 2,007 2,763 3,852 6,336 9,039

Barrow GA 7,137 9,666 11,751 18,029 25,101

Clarke GA 36,102 48,542 62,324 75,611 84,336

Clayton GA 28,664 59,908 102,791 140,061 146,003

DeKalb GA 153,800 251,100 346,873 410,987 437,556

Elbert GA 7,558 8,996 9,586 9,880 9,040

Franklin GA 5,173 6,164 8,365 11,696 11,617

Fulton GA 490,433 590,837 709,581 903,380 896,220

Gwinnett GA 17,512 58,894 181,330 349,854 375,440

Habersham GA 8,666 11,766 15,687 18,672 18,514

Hall GA 29,688 39,846 55,487 81,481 93,830

Hart GA 5,925 7,232 9,833 10,771 9,312

Jackson GA 8,222 9,325 13,010 20,159 23,585

Madison GA 2,694 3,929 4,803 7,234 7,741

Stephens GA 9,629 11,199 13,064 13,538 12,513

Cleveland NC 33,385 39,777 44,144 46,868 41,891

Gaston NC 69,787 82,989 95,449 99,292 91,507

Mecklenburg NC 214,018 291,243 433,620 608,751 684,021

Anderson SC 47,457 60,109 67,977 84,571 84,790

Cherokee SC 13,958 18,267 21,931 25,820 23,198

Greenville SC 124,669 172,492 228,056 288,306 305,843

Laurens SC 21,178 23,392 24,923 26,626 25,548

Oconee SC 20,755 22,704 30,991 32,421 30,582

Pickens SC 25,003 35,389 43,067 48,137 49,912

Spartanburg SC 83,175 106,595 129,391 148,023 148,324

York SC 38,137 47,723 61,434 77,815 99,715

Total 1,504,732 2,020,847 2,729,320 3,564,319 3,745,178

Percent Change from 

Previous Decade -- 34% 35% 31% 5%

Source: Woods and Poole Economics

Generally, much of the population and employment growth occurred in either metro-Atlanta, 

Charlotte, or Greenville, and along the I-85 corridor. 

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 

Exhibit 3.6-4 summarizes population and employment projections for the year 2040 by county for 

each of the 26 counties touched by one or more of the three Corridor Alternatives. Overall, for all 

counties studied, population and employment by 2040 are projected to grow by 52 percent and 61 

percent, respectively. The counties with the greatest growth projections are: DeKalb (GA), Fulton 

(GA), Gwinnett (GA), Greenville (SC), and Mecklenburg (NC). Summing the counties within each 

of the Corridor Alternatives proves very little difference in the growth rates among the three. But the 

Greenfield Corridor counties contain slightly more population and employment than the other two. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-65

Exhibit 3.6-4: Projected Population and Employment Growth by County, 2010 - 2040 

County State

Population Employment 

2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth

Banks GA 18,415 30,167 64% 9,039 15,155 68%

Barrow GA 69,731 108,637 56% 25,101 39,682 58%

Clarke GA 116,668 138,907 19% 84,336 114,687 36%

Clayton GA 259,623 378,719 46% 146,003 233,132 60%

DeKalb GA 692,902 878,552 27% 437,556 655,337 50%

Elbert GA 20,112 19,793 -2% 9,040 9,464 5%

Franklin GA 22,048 24,991 13% 11,617 14,900 28%

Fulton GA 926,197 1,176,203 27% 896,220 1,315,105 47%

Gwinnett GA 808,719 1,740,454 115% 375,440 760,915 103%

Habersham GA 43,080 48,727 13% 18,514 23,262 26%

Hall GA 180,253 259,18 44% 93,830 144,843 54%

Hart GA 25,217 30,023 19% 9,312 12,727 37%

Jackson GA 60,706 87,860 45% 23,585 36,543 55%

Madison GA 28,167 39,387 40% 7,741 11,185 44%

Stephens GA 26,193 28,229 8% 12,513 14,678 17%

GA subtotal 3,298,031 4,989,829 51% 2,159,847 3,401,615 57%

Cleveland NC 98,050 119,186 22% 41,891 53,782 28%

Gaston NC 206,213 253,355 23% 91,507 117,977 29%

Mecklenburg NC 923,427 1,698,408 84% 684,021 1,283,513 88%

NC subtotal 1,227,690 2,070,949 69% 817,419 1,455,272 78%

Anderson SC 187,269 284,899 52% 84,790 136,045 60%

Cherokee SC 55,397 65,853 19% 23,198 32,484 40%

Greenville SC 452,859 627,171 38% 305,843 478,346 56%

Laurens SC 66,500 73,413 10% 25,548 31,703 24%

Oconee SC 74,359 88,736 19% 30,582 42,871 40%

Pickens SC 119,217 183,583 54% 49,912 81,499 63%

Spartanburg SC 284,713 374,197 31% 148,324 217,576 47%

York SC 226,971 361,485 59% 99,715 157,741 58%
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-66

County State

Population Employment

2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth

SC subtotal 1,467,285 2,059,337 40% 767,912 1,178,265 53%

All Counties Total 5,993,006 9,120,115 52% 3,745,178 6,035,152 61%

Crescent Corridor 

Counties Total 5,169,617 7,691,540 49% 3,369,393 5,470,475 63%

Crescent Corridor 

Counties with CSX 

Approach Total* 5,300,054 7,888,037 49% 3,413,079 5,546,700 63%

I-85 Corridor Counties 

Total 5,285,062 8,150,994 54% 3,393,941 5,527,589 62%

Greenfield Corridor 

Counties Total 5,341,660 8,228,679 54% 3,452,179 5,604,480 62%

Source: Woods and Poole Economics

Note: The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative with the CSX Atlanta Approach contains two additional counties, Barrow 

and Jackson, that are not included in the Southern Crescent with NS Approach. 

AGE, INCOME AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE 

Exhibit 3.6-5 presents projected changes to median age, per capita income, and household size 

between the years 2010 and 2040. Projections in Exhibit 3.6-5 indicate a small increase in median 

age, a 59 percent increase in per capita income, and a slight reduction in household size. Results at 

the state and county levels show a wider fluctuation in these variables. The Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative counties have a slightly greater increase in average age (1.8 years) than the other two 

Corridor Alternatives, but the other metrics are very similar among the three Corridor Alternatives. 

Exhibit 3.6-5: Projected Demographic Data Changes by County, 2010 - 2040 

County State

Median Age

(Years)

Per Capita Income 

(2005 dollars)

Persons per 

Household

2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040

Banks GA 38.46 40.27 26,212 35,828 2.75 2.71

Barrow GA 33.63 35.78 26,771 40,151 2.88 2.84

Clarke GA 25.90 46.87 23,618 37,216 2.37 2.33

Clayton GA 31.61 34.20 23,921 34,589 2.82 2.78

DeKalb GA 34.30 36.39 36,986 62,015 2.50 2.46

Elbert GA 41.01 43.07 26,255 41,298 2.47 2.44

Franklin GA 40.81 43.60 26,246 43,232 2.51 2.48

Fulton GA 34.19 36.14 51,963 76,759 2.36 2.33

Gwinnett GA 33.72 32.79 29,976 48,930 2.98 2.93

Habersham GA 38.58 39.87 25,464 39,721 2.63 2.59

Hall GA 34.52 35.61 28,513 43,650 2.91 2.87

Hart GA 42.60 46.49 23,573 36,198 2.43 2.39
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-67

County State

Median Age

(Years)

Per Capita Income 

(2005 dollars)

Persons per 

Household

2010 2040 2010 2040 2010 2040

Jackson GA 37.08 37.70 27,541 41,856 2.80 2.76

Madison GA 39.39 42.25 27,271 39,182 2.66 2.62

Stephens GA 40.76 42.79 27,311 44,723 2.49 2.45

GA average 36.44 39.59 28,775 44,357 2.64 2.60

Cleveland NC 40.34 42.40 28,430 47,823 2.49 2.48

Gaston NC 38.91 41.01 30,764 49,955 2.54 2.53

Mecklenburg NC 33.90 33.48 39,306 66,389 2.50 2.49

NC Average 37.72 38.96 32,833 54,722 2.51 2.50

Anderson SC 39.73 39.08 28,149 41,800 2.50 2.50

Cherokee SC 38.28 37.07 23,140 36,826 2.54 2.54

Greenville SC 37.20 35.77 33,396 54,358 2.49 2.49

Laurens SC 39.85 38.45 26,709 41,484 2.51 2.51

Oconee SC 43.40 38.99 29,314 46,894 2.39 2.39

Pickens SC 34.88 38.61 25,592 40,659 2.48 2.48

Spartanburg SC 38.04 34.93 28,333 43,916 2.53 2.53

York SC 37.22 37.90 31,046 46,599 2.59 2.58

SC Average 38.58 37.60 28,210 44,067 2.50 2.50

All Counties Average 37.58 38.72 29,939 47,715 2.55 2.53

Southern Crescent 

Corridor Counties 

Average 36.94 37.52 30,538.8 48,314.7 2.59 2.57

Southern Crescent with 

CSX Approach 36.79 37.46 30,209.4 47,121.0 2.58 2.56

I-85 Corridor Counties 

Average 37.28 38.04 29,978.5 47,121.0 2.58 2.56

Greenfield Corridor 

Counties Average 36.64 38.45 30,114.5 47,021.8 2.56 2.54

Source: Woods and Poole Economics
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-68

COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

GDOT identified community facilities within the Corridor Alternatives using state-level databases 

from Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.86 The environmental screening area for purposes 

of this analysis consists of a 600-foot wide area centered along each Corridor Alternative, to represent 

actual physical impacts of the Project on existing community facilities. Exhibit 3.6-6 provides a 

listing of the type and number of community facilities identified within the three Corridor 

Alternatives; GDOT identified 489 facilities total. 

Exhibit 3.6-6: Community Facility Inventory 

Facility Number Facility Number Facility Number

Amphitheatre 1 EMS 2 Park 51

Arena 1 EMS and Fire 4 Police Station 16

Auditorium 1 Fire Station 13 Post Office 10

Cemetery 43 Golf Course 7 Recreation Facility 28

Church 193 Hospital 7 School 40

City Hall 1 Library 16 Theatre 6 

College 13 Medical 17 Town Hall 1 

Courthouse 1 Meeting Hall 3 

TOTAL 489

Daycare 11 Museum 3 

Source: ESRI; Georgia GIS; South Carolina GIS; NC One Map; Google Maps

Exhibit 3.6-7 lists the number of community facilities within each of the Corridor Alternatives and 

Atlanta Approach combinations. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative contains the greatest 

number of facilities, while the Greenfield Corridor Alternative contains the least. 

Exhibit 3.6-7: Community Facility Summary by Corridor Alternative 

Corridor Alternative Number of Community Facilities

Crescent Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 366

Crescent Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 354

I-85 Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 187

 

86 “Base Map Data.” ESRI, 2008. DVD. 

“Clearinghouse: Map Data & Aerial Photography.” Georgia GIS. Georgia GIS, n.d. Web. https://data.georgiaspatial.org/index.asp 

(accessed on 05/23/2016)

“Data.” South Carolina Geographic Information Systems. South Carolina Geographic Information Systems, 2008. Web, 

http://www.gis.sc.gov/data.html (accessed on 05/23/2016)

“Geospatial Portal.” Google. Google, 2015. Web. https://www.google.com/maps 

“GeoSpatial Portal.” NC One Map, Version 1.2.2. NC One Map, n.d. Web, 

http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page(accessed on 05/23/2016)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-69

Corridor Alternative Number of Community Facilities

I-85 Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 185

Greenfield Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 120

Greenfield Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 116

Source: ESRI; Georgia GIS; South Carolina GIS; NC One Map; Google Maps

3.6.3.2 Environmental Justice 

Exhibit 3.6-8 shows 2010 U.S. Census minority and low-income characteristics for all counties in the 

three Corridor Alternatives, collected from the American Community Survey 5-year update. The total 

population in these counties that identify themselves as minority is 2,663,519, or 46 percent of the 

total population; 851,283 persons, or 15 percent of the total population, meet the definition of lowincome. Definitions of these protected groups are described in the Methodology within Section 

3.6.2.2. Higher concentrations of minority populations exist in Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett 

Counties in Georgia, which are part of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Generally, counties outside 

metropolitan Atlanta and Charlotte have smaller minority populations than the rest of the counties 

evaluated. 

The highest percentage of low-income population among the 26 counties is in Clarke County, GA, at 

31 percent. Clarke County, GA, includes the University of Georgia, which has a large student body 

living off campus. Low- income populations do not include students living in dormitories, but does 

include students living in off-campus housing.87 The counties with the next greatest percentage of 

low-income populations are located in mostly rural areas: Elbert (GA), Hart (GA), and Union (SC). 

See Appendix A: Map Books for EJ populations mapped. 

Exhibit 3.6-8: 2010 EJ Population Characteristics by County 

County Minority 

Population 

Percent 

Minority 

Population

Low-Income 

Population 

Percent 

Low-Income 

Population

Georgia

Banks 1,808 10% 2,833 16%

Barrow 16,126 24% 8,295 13%

Clarke 48,492 42% 35,134 31%

Clayton 219,072 84% 42,408 16%

DeKalb 481,346 70% 107,715 16%

Elbert 7,286 36% 4,657 23%

Franklin 3,028 14% 3,883 18%

Fulton 514,966 58% 131,531 15%

Gwinnett 413,526 53% 85,096 11%

Habersham 8,034 19% 7,410 18%

Hall 62,078 35% 25,132 14%

Hart 5,855 23% 5,477 22%

 

87 U.S. Census Bureau website (accessed 1/25/2018): 

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/subject_definitions/2010_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-70

County Minority 

Population 

Percent 

Minority 

Population

Low-Income 

Population 

Percent 

Low-Income 

Population

Jackson 9,391 16% 8,677 15%

Madison 3,752 13% 4,888 18%

Stephens 4,117 16% 4,636 18%

South Carolina

Anderson 38,145 21% 28,348 15%

Cherokee 13,934 25% 10,581 19%

Greenville 125,587 29% 59,885 14%

Laurens 20,475 31% 12,430 19%

Oconee 9,974 14% 12,008 16%

Pickens 14,522 12% 18,115 15%

Spartanburg 81,408 29% 40,096 14%

Union 9,757 34% 5,681 20%

York 57,359 27% 26,422 12%

North Carolina

Cleveland 24,824 25% 18,439 19%

Gaston 47,023 23% 33,210 16%

Mecklenburg 421,634 48% 108,296 12%

Total 2,653,762 45% 845,602 14%

Exhibit 3.6-9 shows the number of census tracts within each Corridor Alternative that meet EJ criteria 

for low-income and minority populations. This information is also mapped in the Appendix A map 

book. 

Exhibit 3.6-9: EJ Census Block Groups by Corridor Alternative 

Number of Census Block Groups Meeting EJ Criteria

Corridor Alternative Minority Population Low-Income Population

Southern Crescent Corridor with NS Atlanta 

Approach

173 132

Southern Crescent Corridor with CSX Atlanta 

Approach

167 118

I-85 Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 126 80

I-85 Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 125 71

Greenfield Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 93 56

Greenfield Corridor with CSX Atlanta 

Approach

55 47

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-71

The following data summarizes the EJ block groups within each of the three Corridor Alternatives, 

exclusive of the Atlanta Approach. 

• The Southern Crescent Corridor intersects 387 total block groups, 35.7percent of which meet 

the EJ criteria for minority population and 29.7 percent of which meet the EJ criteria for lowincome population. 

• The I-85 Corridor intersects 299 block groups, 32.8 percent meet the EJ criteria for minority 

population and 22.7 percent meet the criteria for low-income population. 

• Greenfield Corridor: intersects 247 block groups, 26.3 percent meet the EJ criteria for minority 

population and 17.8 percent meet the criteria for low-income population. 

This data demonstrates that the Southern Crescent Corridor, which contains more urban and 

developed areas, has greater concentrations of minority and low-income population. The Greenfield 

Corridor, which traverses more rural areas, contains fewer block groups meeting EJ criteria than the 

other two Corridor Alternatives. The EJ findings in Exhibit 3.6-9 are in line with the previously 

presented county-level socioeconomic data in Exhibit 3.6-8, which reveals more diverse populations 

in the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative. 

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes the rail connection would not be built between Atlanta and 

Charlotte. Passenger service between the two cities would consist of existing bus services, air travel, 

and continued automobile use along I-85. As the geographic scope and nature of the No-Build 

Alternative projects is limited, the potential effects of the projects are likely to be limited to the area 

in which the Project is located. The No-Build Alternative would have no additional direct effects to 

population and employment growth beyond what is projected. The limited scale of other planned 

transportation projects would have minimal impact on economic development. In the No-Build 

Alternative, all populations, including EJ populations, may experience changes in mobility with the 

existing transportation network due to increased demand associated with population and employment 

growth over time. The limited scope of other planned transportation improvements may not 

adequately address future needs, and all populations would be impacted by increased congestion. The 

added mobility benefits of rail would not be provided in the No-Build Alternative. 

3.6.4.2 Corridor Alternatives 

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Each of the Corridor Alternatives would improve mobility in the region by adding a new mode of 

transportation to increase accessibility to employment, air transportation, and opportunities for 

education, recreation, and commercial facilities. While all Corridor Alternatives serve the same end 

points, they don’t all serve the same intermediate populations. For example, only the Greenfield 

Corridor serves Athens. Therefore, depending on the Corridor Alternative, different populations 

would receive the accessibility benefits from the proposed service. 

Population and employment levels within the Study Area are expected to increase by 2040. The 

largest population and employment growth is expected to occur within Gwinnett County (MetroAtlanta) and Mecklenburg County (Metro-Charlotte). Population and employment levels could 

further grow due to land development occurring at proposed station locations and along the corridor 

as an indirect effect of the Project. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-72

Populations along the Corridor Alternatives could experience either potential direct effects such as 

property acquisition or physical alternations to property, or proximity effects, such as noise, access, 

or visual effects. Visual and noise effects could be more noticeable along sections of elevated rail or 

guideway and in areas adjacent to storage yards or stations. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH 

The potential of the Corridor Alternatives to affect economic development, compared to the No-Build 

Alternative, was assessed in two ways: first by considering the potential for contingent development 

that could occur surrounding proposed station locations, and second, but more broadly, by considering 

development triggered by improved market access conditions across the entire transportation network 

within the Study Area. The potential market access improvement that would be offered by the 

Corridor Alternatives matters to existing and prospective employers as they gauge their competitive 

reach into supplier, customer, and labor markets. Wider market reach results in productivity and cost 

benefits, which ultimately support job growth greater than the No-Build Alternative. 

The potential growth in population resulting from the potential increase in economic activity also 

would affect the public sector by increasing tax revenues while also increasing the need for 

educational, health care, and recreational facilities. Potential economic impacts would tend to be 

localized and stem from indirect effects such as changes in land use that, in turn, would cause 

economic activity shifts, or land takings in settings with a lack of available parcel to accommodate 

business relocations or future intended development. Potential direct localized economic effects could 

result if motor vehicle traffic must be re-routed such that access to businesses and general mobility is 

affected. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

As described previously, not all Corridor Alternatives serve the same proposed station locations or EJ 

populations. The highest percentage of minority EJ census block groups are located in Clayton, 

DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett counties in Georgia and in Mecklenburg County in North Carolina, all 

of which could be served by each Corridor Alternative. The county with the highest percentage of 

low-income population is Clarke County, Georgia, which is served only by the Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative. These populations could be affected by noise and vibration from the rail service, station 

construction and operation, and increased traffic and congestion around the stations. Each of these 

impacts will be evaluated in the Tier 2 EIS, and will be more refined as the alignment and station 

locations are selected. 

The use of existing ROW would minimize impacts to the identified EJ communities. The analysis 

shows that the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income 

communities would be minimal, but positive impacts could be significant by improving access to jobs, 

shopping, and recreational areas. Potential benefits of the Corridor Alternatives could include 

improved connection within and outside the region, reduced travel times, lower commuting costs, and 

greater employment opportunities. These benefits would be experienced by all populations within 

each of the Corridor Alternatives. 

ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION 

The Project could have negative effects on populations and businesses that would be acquired for 

ROW and/or station construction. However, since the Project would be constructed within existing 

ROW, wherever reasonably feasible, the number of acquisitions and relocations is expected to be 

minimized. The I-85 and Southern Crescent Alternatives would potentially have fewest acquisitions 

and relocations because the alternatives follows existing ROW. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-73

COMMUNITY COHESION 

The Project could result in a disruption to community cohesion. If a proposed station or rail guideway 

is built within an existing neighborhood or community, it could act as a divide that physically 

separates existing populations from the surrounding community. This issue may be more relevant to 

the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, which proposes using new right-of-way. In addition to permanent 

effects, all populations may experience temporary effects during construction, including effects to 

access and construction traffic, noise, and visual effects. 

3.6.5 Potential Mitigation 

If a preferred Corridor Alternative is selected, specific impacts will be determined during a Tier 2 

analysis for the Preferred Corridor Alternative and station locations. From there, the impacts on 

socioeconomic conditions and EJ communities will be identified in detail. Potential mitigation will 

depend on the nature and extent of impacts to the local communities, including displacements, noise 

and vibration, access, view-shed, and safety. Public and agency input will help to identify appropriate 

mitigation. Potential site-specific mitigation strategies might include accommodation of pedestrian 

access at proposed station sites, measures to reduce the impacts of noise and vibration, coordination 

with localities to determine primary emergency routes, and construction Best Management Practices 

to lessen the temporary effects on area residents during construction. Mitigation will be implemented 

in accordance with state and local regulations and policies. If it is not possible to avoid impacts to 

residential property, mitigation measures will include relocation assistance and compensation, as 

appropriate. All acquisitions and relocations (residences and businesses) will be conducted in 

accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970, as amended. This law requires that fair and equitable assistance be provided to those persons 

being displaced by Federal or Federally-funded actions. The Project will also follow state laws 

relevant to relocation and acquisition, such as: Georgia’s Eminent Domain Law (Title 22 of GA

Code), South Carolina’s Eminent Domain Procedure Act (Title 28, Chapter 2 of SC Code of Law), 

and North Carolina’s Uniform Regional Assistance and Real Property Act of 1971.(Chapter 133 of 

NC General Statutes). Mitigation will include providing translators to non-English speaking 

communities and additional explanations and guidance to provide better understanding of these 

procedures and how the communities and individuals will be affected by the Project. 

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis 

In the Tier 2 analysis, GDOT will determine the proposed station locations, storage and maintenance 

facility locations, and the exact alignment configuration. The analysis will also further explore 

impacts to EJ and socioeconomics, related to the following topics: 

• Property acquisitions and residential and business relocations, 

• Relocation analysis to determine adequate real estate availability, 

• Community cohesion, including residential neighborhoods, 

• Environmental health and safety risks to children, 

• Population and employment growth as a result of the project, 

• Viewshed and aesthetics impacts on the surrounding communities, and 

• Demand on community facilities. 

A more detailed and refined analysis will be completed for impacts to EJ populations and a 

determination of whether there would be a disproportionately high and adverse impact on those 

communities. The Tier 2 will analyze Census data for the specific alternative and alignment and will 

map the specific effects. In addition, information on potential minority and low-income communities 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-74

will be gathered through public outreach activities such as listening sessions, community meetings, 

and one-on-one conversations with public officials. These activities will provide a better 

understanding of the demographics of the communities and the issues and concerns of the EJ 

populations. The Tier 2 analysis will document the locations and characteristics of these communities 

along with any issues or concerns with the project. The assessment will also consider the following: 

• The number of acquisitions in EJ communities compared to the Study Area population, 

• The number of noise and vibrations impacts in EJ communities compared to the Study Area 

population, 

• The number of impacts to parks and recreation facilities in EJ communities compared to the 

Study Area population, 

• The effects on community cohesion, and 

• Any transportation or access effects in EJ communities compared to the Study Area 

population. 

GDOT will also identify the potential for environmental health risks, and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. Potential risks will also include disproportionately high effects of 

air quality, exposure to hazardous materials, and safety risks from at-grade crossings. The Tier 2 

analysis will ensure avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of these impacts to children. The 

discussion of the effects of the Project will also consider the benefits of the Project to EJ communities. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-75

3.7 PARKLANDS, WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND RECREATIONAL AREAS

This section identifies parklands, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas within the Corridor 

Alternatives, and provides a qualitative assessment of the potential effects to those resources. 

3.7.1 Legal and Regulatory Context 

Public parklands, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, as well as historic properties listed 

on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are protected under 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. ͅ ͅ Section 4(f) states that the 

Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any program or project that requires the “use” of any 

publically-owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, 

state, or local significance, or publically or privately owned land of a historic site of national, state, or 

local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible 

and prudent alternative to the use of such land. The USDOT is required to seek concurrence from the 

U.S. Department of Interior before making these findings. “Use” of a Section 4(f) property can be 

considered the physical taking of the property, or an effect to the property that causes a substantial 

impairment when the activities, features, or attributes of the resource that contributes to the 

significance or enjoyment are substantially diminished. 

Parklands that have received funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) are 

afforded additional protection under Section 6(f) of the LWCF. ͅͻ Under Section 6(f), the U.S. 

Department of Interior provides funding for state, county, and local efforts to advance public 

recreation. Once LWCF funds are used for a particular recreation project, conversion of that park 

facility for any non-recreational purpose is prohibited unless alternatives are assessed and steps are 

taken to identify, evaluate, and supply replacement parkland, at fair market value. In addition, the 

Secretary of Interior must grant prior approval for the conversion and replacement of the parkland. 

In addition to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) additional protections are provided under the following 

laws. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provides guidance to the 

Department of Interior to manage and protect the National Refuge System, a network of wildlife 

habitats.90 The National Trail Systems Act of 1968 establishes the National Trail System, including 

national scenic trails and national recreation trails. In 1978, the law was amended to include national 

historic trails. Scenic and historic trails are designated by an Act of Congress, whereas the Department 

of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture may designate recreation trails. The National Park 

Service, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management each are responsible for administering 

national trails.91 The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 allows the Department of Interior 

to designate rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System for preservation due to their wildlife, 

recreational, or scenic value.92 

 

88 49 U.S.C. § 303. More information on Section 4(f) can be found here: https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-andguidance/environmental-programs/section-4f 

89 54 U.S.C. § 2003. More information on Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act can be found here: 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm 

90 16 U.S.C. § 668dd. More information on National Wildlife Refuge System can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/ 

91 16 U.S.C. § 1241-125. More information on the National Trail System can be found here: 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationaltrailssystem/national-trails-system-act-legislation.htm 

92 16 U.S.C. § 1271-1287. More information on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program can be found here: 

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1912/index.htm 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-76

3.7.2 Methodology 

For the identification of parklands, wildlife refuges, and recreational areas, GDOT evaluated a 600-

foot wide environmental screening area for each of the three Corridor Alternatives. However, due to 

the potential for additional activity, noise, and construction near stations, GDOT defined a 1,000-foot 

wide screening area (500 feet radius) around each identified station location. The width of the 

environmental screening area is sufficient to: 

• Account for potential effects from the improvements associated with each Corridor Alternative, 

including infrastructure improvements (such as embankments, aerial structures, and track 

improvements), ancillary facilities (such as stations, yards, and parking structures), or service 

changes.

• Account for contiguous parklands and wild and scenic rivers that may extend beyond the 

Corridor Alternative. 

• Consider areas outside of the Corridor Alternative for proximity effects related to noise and 

vibration and visual and aesthetic changes. While noise and vibration, and visual and aesthetic 

changes could extend beyond the analysis area, this methodology assumes that the more 

prominent effects would occur close to the proposed improvement. A wider buffer around station 

locations intends to capture additional potential effects related to increased traffic, construction, 

and other activity related to stations. 

GDOT collected GIS mapping data for federal, state, county, and municipal recreation areas and 

parks, scenic areas, state campgrounds, and national wildlife refuges. Information sources included 

city and county websites, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), South Carolina 

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, 

National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. 

For this Tier 1 corridor-level of analysis, GDOT described potential effects to parklands, wildlife 

refuges, and recreation areas broadly and qualitatively. Since site-specific locations of the proposed 

rail alignment, stations, and facilities are not identified during a Tier 1 environmental analysis, it is 

premature to determine precise Project effects on parks, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas. The 

Tier 2 EIS will identify specific impacts on these resources for the selected Corridor Alternative as 

design is further defined. 

3.7.3 Affected Environment 

3.7.3.1 Wildlife Refuges 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Their mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the U.S. for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Nationally, 

nearly 600 refuges and protected areas covering 150 million acres are protected by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. These lands and waters provide habitat for endangered and threatened 

species as well as migrating birds and recreation opportunities for visitors.ͻ͵ 

 

93 https://www.fws.gov/refuges/about
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-77

There are no wildlife refuges as designated by the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System within any 

of the Corridor Alternatives’ environmental screening area.ͻͶ 

3.7.3.2 National Parks, Trails, and Forests 

The National Park Service (NPS), a bureau of the U.S. Department of Interior, oversees 418 parks 

nationwide.95 The NPS’s mission is to preserve, unimpaired, the natural and cultural resources and 

values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future 

generations. No national parks exist within the analysis area for any of the three Corridor Alternatives. 

The NPS also oversees National Trails System, which includes trails of historic, scenic, and 

recreational value, and was created in 1968 by the National Trails System Act. The Overmountain 

Victory National Historic Trail begins in Abingdon, Virginia ending at Kings Mountain National 

Military Park in South Carolina. It follows the route of assembly of the American Patriot Army which 

defeated an American Loyalist army at Kings Mountain. The trail is 220 miles long and is maintained 

by a cooperative effort of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, local government agencies, local citizens’ groups, historical societies, and the States of 

Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Today the historic trail is only accessible at 

select locations, but a commemorative motor route follows the original path as closely as possible 

using existing state highways. Near Gaffney, South Carolina, this commemorative motor route 

follows SC 11 and SC 18 which intersect with the I-85 and the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternatives. 

GDOT identified one designated National Forest, the Chattahoochee, within the environmental 

screening area of the Corridor Alternatives. The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in North 

Georgia spans nearly 867,000 acres, 26 counties, thousands of clear-running streams and rivers, 

approximately 850 miles of recreation trains, and dozens of campgrounds, picnic areas, and other 

recreation activity areas. Only the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative is located within the 

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest and approximately 856.94 acres of the 867,000-acre forest are 

within the environmental screening area. Existing rail, used by freight and Amtrak passenger trains, 

travels through this section of the forest today for roughly 10 miles south of Toccoa, Georgia and runs 

adjacent to the forest boundary north of Toccoa toward the South Carolina border for roughly five 

milesͻ͸. 

3.7.3.3 State Parks 

There are no state parks within the Corridor Alternatives in Georgia or North Carolina. The I-85 

Corridor Alternative runs adjacent to Lake Hartwell State Park and Recreation Area in South Carolina. 

Approximately 0.44 acres of the 680-acre state park are located within the environmental screening 

area of the Corridor Alternative. GDOT identified no other state parks within or adjacent to the 

environmental screening area of the Corridor Alternatives. 

 

94 National Wildlife Refuge System: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/refugeLocatorMaps/index.html 

95 National Park System: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/national-park-system.htm 

96 More information about the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest and a location map can be found here: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/conf
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-78

3.7.3.4 Local Parks and Recreaction Facilites 

There are numerous county, municipal, and other local public parks and recreation areas located 

within and adjacent to the Corridor Alternatives. Exhibits 3.7-1 through 3.7-3 summarize, by Corridor 

Alternatives, local resources along with other state and national resources discussed in this chapter. 

The tables include total park acreage and the acreage within the Corridor Alternatives. Resources that 

are protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act are denoted.97 

Exhibit 3.7-1: Parks and Recreation Areas within the Southern Crescent Corridor North of Atlanta 

Approach 

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

National Forest

ChattahoocheeOconee 

National Forest

Georgia 867,000 856.94 X 

Municipal/Local Parks and/or Recreation Areas

(pocket park)* Fulton, GA N. Church St. East 

Point, GA 30344

0.39 0.39 X

Harris Park Fulton, GA 2584 Milledge St., East 

Point, GA 30344

10.13 2.91 X

Rose Circle 

Triangle

Fulton, GA Rose Circle/White St. 

SW, Atlanta, GA 30310

1.36 1.33 X

Brookline Park Fulton, GA Brookline St./Elbert St. 

SW (near Murphy Ave) 

Atlanta, GA 30310

0.19 Adjacent** X

Adair Park Fulton, GA 866 Murphy Ave., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30310

11.48 3.14 X

Fire Station No 

5 Park

Fulton, GA Trinity Ave. SW/Spring 

St., Atlanta, GA 30303

0.15 Adjacent** X

(pocket park) Fulton, GA Spring St. SW and 

Martin Luther King Jr. 

Dr. SW 30303

3.62 0.13 X

Cornelia City 

Park

Habersham, GA City Park Dr.

Cornelia, GA 30531

18.69 10.98 X

Doyle Street 

Ball Park

Stephens, GA Frankie Flemming St., 

Toccoa, GA 30577

14.82 9.07 X

Century Park Greenville, SC Brushy Creek Rd.,

Greer, SC 29650

27.59 6.84 X X

Recreation 

Department

Spartanburg, SC 110 Pepper St., Central, 

SC 29630

4.78 3.49 X

Liberty 

Recreation 

Department

Pickens, SC 520 Mills Ave.,

Liberty SC 29657

8.68 7.11 X

 

97 Section 4(f) includes all public parklands, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges. All but two parks identified in this 

document are publicly funded; Candler Field and Lullwater Park are located on the campus of Emory University, a private school in 

Atlanta. Section 6(f) includes only those parklands and wildlife areas that are recipients of funding from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act, which is a relatively small number of the total parklands and other resources identified in this section. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-79

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

Victor Park Spartanburg/ 

Greenville, SC

108 S Line St.,

Greer, SC 29651

5.10 2.21 X X

Wards Creek 

Park

Spartanburg, SC Elmer St.,

Greer, SC 29651

132.80 1.24 X X

Veterans 

Memorial Park

Spartanburg, SC Palmetto St.,

Cowpens, SC 29330

1.11 0.77 X

Bessemer City 

Park

Gaston, NC 220 S. 14th St., 

Bessemer City, NC 

28016

19.12 3.84 X X

Uptown Park Gaston, NC W Virginia Ave./W. 

Pennsylvania Ave., 

Bessemer City, NC 

28016

4.00 4.00 X

(pocket park) Gaston, NC W Main Ave. and S 

South St., Gastonia, NC 

28052

1.12 0.98 X

Gateway 

Nature 

Preserve 

(adjacent to 

Catawba River 

to the east)

Mecklenburg, 

NC

Highway 29/74

Charlotte, NC 28214 

139.77 8.67 X

Wilmore 

Neighborhood 

Park

Mecklenburg, 

NC

900 Spruce St.

Charlotte, NC 28203 

5.42 2.66 X

Total 867,410.32 926.70 21 4

Source: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; South Carolina 

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

The environmental screening areas for parklands and recreation areas are defined as being 600 feet in width along each of the 

Corridor Alternatives and 500 feet radius around proposed station locations. 

Notes: * “Pocket Parks” are used to describe small unnamed parks. **Some parks are adjacent to the Corridor Alternative but do 

not overlap, therefore an area calculation is not applicable.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-80

Exhibit 3.7-2: Parks and Recreation Areas within the I-85 Corridor North of the Atlanta Approach 

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area 

within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

State Park and/or Recreation Area

Lake Hartwell State Park 

and Recreation Area

Fair Play, SC located off SC-11, Fair 

Play, SC 29643

680 0.44 X X

Municipal/Local Park and/or Recreation Area

(pocket park)* Fulton, GA N. Church St. East Point, 

GA 30344

0.39 0.39 X

Harris Park Fulton, GA 2584 Milledge St., East 

Point, GA 30344

10.13 2.91 X

Rose Circle Triangle Fulton, GA Rose Circle/White St. 

SW, Atlanta, GA 30310

1.36 1.33 X

Brookline Park Fulton, GA Brookline St./Elbert St. 

SW (near Murphy Ave) 

Atlanta, GA 30310

0.19 Adjacent** X

Adair Park Fulton, GA 866 Murphy Ave., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30310

11.48 3.14 X

Fire Station No 5 Park Fulton, GA Trinity Ave. SW/Spring 

St., Atlanta, GA 30303

0.15 Adjacent** X

(pocket park) Fulton, GA Spring St. SW and 

Martin Luther King Jr. 

Dr., SW Atlanta, GA 

30303

3.62 0.13 X

Hurricane Shoals County 

Park

Jackson, GA 416 Hurricane Shoals 

Rd.,

Maysville, GA 30558

161.92 29.79 X X

Lake Hartwell State Park Oconee, SC 19138-A S Carolina 11

Fair Play, SC 29643

680.00 0.44 X

Milliken Arboretum Spartanburg, SC Frontage Rd/Miliken 

Rd., Spartanburg, SC 

29303

308.04 9.88

(pocket park) Gaston, NC W Main Ave and S South 

St., Gastonia, NC 28052

1.12 0.98 X

Gateway Nature Preserve 

(adjacent to Catawba 

River to the east)

Mecklenburg, 

NC

Highway 29/74

Charlotte, NC 28214

139.77 8.67 X

Wilmore Neighborhood 

Park

Mecklenburg, 

NC

900 Spruce St.

Charlotte, NC 28203

5.42 2.66 X

Total 2,003.59 60.76 13 2

Source: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; South Carolina 

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

The environmental screening areas for parklands and recreation areas are defined as being 600 feet in width along each of the 

Corridor Alternatives and 500 feet radius around proposed station locations. 

Notes: * “Pocket Parks” are used to describe small unnamed parks. **Some parks are adjacent to the Corridor Alternative but 

do not overlap, therefore an area calculation is not applicable.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-81

Exhibit 3.7-3: Parks and Recreation Areas within the Greenfield Corridor North of the Atlanta 

Approach 

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

(pocket park)* Fulton, GA N. Church St. East Point, 

GA 30344

0.39 0.39 X

Harris Park Fulton, GA 2584 Milledge St., East 

Point, GA 30344

10.13 2.91 X

Rose Circle Triangle Fulton, GA Rose Circle/White St. 

SW, Atlanta, GA 30310

1.36 1.33 X

Brookline Park Fulton, GA Brookline St./Elbert St. 

SW (near Murphy Ave) 

Atlanta, GA 30310

0.19 Adjacent** X

Adair Park Fulton, GA 866 Murphy Ave., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30310

11.48 3.14 X

Fire Station No 5 Park Fulton, GA Trinity Ave. SW/Spring 

St., Atlanta, GA 30303

0.15 Adjacent** X

(pocket park) Fulton, GA Spring St. SW and Martin 

Luther King Jr. Dr. SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303

3.62 0.13 X

Gateway Nature 

Preserve (adjacent to 

Catawba River to the 

east)

Mecklenburg, 

NC

Highway 29/74

Charlotte, NC 28214

139.77 8.67 X

Wilmore 

Neighborhood Park

Mecklenburg, 

NC

900 Spruce St.

Charlotte, NC 28203

5.42 2.66 X

Total 172.51 19.23 9 0

Source: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; South Carolina 

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

The environmental screening areas for parklands and recreation areas are defined as being 600 feet in width along each of the

Corridor Alternatives and 500 feet radius around proposed station locations. 

Notes: * “Pocket Parks” are used to describe small unnamed parks. **Some parks are adjacent to the Corridor Alternative but do 

not overlap, therefore an area calculation is not applicable.

Exhibits 3.7-4 and 3.7-5 summarize all parklands, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas located within 

the two Atlanta approach options, NS and CSX. The resources listed for each Atlanta approach are 

the same regardless of which Corridor Alternative it’s combined with. The one exception is Hoschton 

Park in Jackson County, Georgia, which only coincides with the Greenfield Corridor Alternative using 

the NS approach. This combination travels east-west between Athens and Suwannee, unlike any of 

the other combinations. 

Exhibit 3.7-4: Parks and Recreation Areas within the NS Atlanta Approach 

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area 

within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

(pocket park)* Fulton, GA State St. NW, Atlanta, GA 

30363

0.86 Adjacent** X

(pocket park)* Fulton, GA Camellia Ln., NE and Main 

St NE, Atlanta, GA 30324

0.19 Adjacent** X

Brookhaven Park DeKalb, GA 4158 Peachtree Rd., NE, 

Brookhaven, GA 30319

17.24 2.03 X
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-82

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area 

within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

Ashford Park DeKalb, GA 2980 Redding Rd., NE, 

Brookhaven, GA 30319

4.21 3.50 X

Thrasher Park Gwinnett, GA 93 Park Dr.,

Norcross, GA 30071

2.29 1.48 X

Pinckneyville Park Gwinnett, GA 4758 S. Old Peachtree Rd., 

Norcross, GA 30071

58.10 16.59 X

Duluth Town Green Gwinnett, GA Knott St., NW

Duluth, GA 30096

3.42 0.40 X

Hoschton Park*** Jackson, GA 374 Cabin Dr. Hoschton, 

GA 30548

38.97 4.78 X

Total 125.28 28.78 8 0

Source: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; South Carolina Department 

of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

The environmental screening areas for parklands and recreation areas are defined as being 600 feet in width along each of the Corridor 

Alternatives and 500 feet radius around proposed station locations.

Notes: * “Pocket Parks” are used to describe small unnamed parks. **Some parks are adjacent to the Corridor Alternative but do not 

overlap, therefore an area calculation is not applicable. ***Hoschton Park is only within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative. 

Exhibit 3.7-5: Parks and Recreation Areas within the CSX Atlanta Approach 

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

Tanyard Creek 

Urban Forest

Fulton, GA Goodson Ln. NW, 

Atlanta, GA 30309

7.24 5.33 X

Tanyard Creek 

Park

Fulton, GA Collier Rd./Walthall 

Dr., Atlanta, GA 30309

17.55 2.22 X

Ardmore Park Fulton, GA Ardmore Rd., Atlanta, 

GA 30309

2.23 1.48 X

Zonolite Park DeKalb, GA Zonolite Rd NE

North Druid Hills, GA 

30306

17.84 0.86 X

Candler Field* DeKalb, GA Emory University, 

Druid Hills, GA 30322

6.43 2.59

Lullwater Park* DeKalb, GA Emory University, 

Druid Hills, GA 30322

117.13 17.25

Ira B. Melton 

Park

DeKalb, GA Desmond Dr.

North Decatur, GA 

30033

18.65 6.81 X

Mason Mill 

Park

DeKalb, GA 1340 McConnell Dr

Decatur, GA 30033

11.85 0.01 X

Harmony Grove 

Soccer Complex

Gwinnett, GA 119 Harmony Grove 

Rd, Lilburn, GA

18 13.07 X

Lanford Park Gwinnett, GA 25 Rockbridge Rd., 

Lilburn, GA 30047

7.06 4.02 X

Lilburn City 

Park

Gwinnett, GA 76 Main St. NW

Lilburn, GA 30047

9.40 1.97 X

Lawrenceville 

City Lake 

(Rhodes Jordan 

Park)

Gwinnett, GA 100 E. Grogan St., 

Lawrenceville, GA 

30046

159.46 11.18 X

Total 392.84 64.2 10 0
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-83

Park County/State Address Area 

(acres) 

Area within 

corridor 

(acres)

Section 

4(f) 

Section 

6(f) 

Source: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; South Carolina Department 

of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

The environmental screening areas for parklands and recreation areas are defined as being 600 feet in width along each of the Corridor 

Alternatives and 500 feet radius around proposed station locations.

*Candler Field and Lullwater Park are privately owned and do not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 4(f) 

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.7.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes no new passenger rail service between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Passenger service between the two cities would consist of existing bus service, air travel, and 

continued automobile use along the highway system. In the No-Build Alternative, the impacts to 

parklands, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas could potentially occur if additional ROW is needed 

or if substantial changes to traffic and transit volumes or operations lead to proximity effects such as 

changes in noise levels and visual effects. As the geographic scope and nature of the No-Build 

Alternative projects is limited, the potential effects of the projects are likely to be contained to the 

areas in which the projects are constructed. The potential for impacts to parklands, wildlife refuges, 

and recreation areas would be determined through the environmental processes for those separate 

transportation improvements identified in the No-Build discussion in Chapter 2 of this document. 

3.7.4.2 Corridor Alternatives 

In this Tier 1 EIS, notwithstanding future design efforts to avoid or minimize potential impacts, GDOT 

identified the number and acreage of parklands, wildlife refuges, and recreational facilities that have 

the potential to be impacted by any of the three Corridor Alternatives, their respective station 

locations, and the two Atlanta approaches. 

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative (north of the Atlanta approach) has the potential to impact 

21 locations, including 856.94 acres of the Chattahoochee National Forest and portions of 18 other 

local parks and recreation areas totaling 69.76 acres. The unnamed pocket park in Fulton County (0.39 

acre) and Uptown Park in Gaston, NC (4.0 acres) are completely within the Corridor Alternative. Two 

additional local parks are adjacent to, but not within, the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative. All 

21 locations classify as Section 4(f) resources and four locations classify as Section 6(f) resources.

The I-85 Corridor Alternative (north of the Atlanta approach) has the potential to impact 13 locations, 

including 0.44 acres of the Lake Hartwell State Park in South Carolina and portions of eleven other 

local parks totaling 60.32 acres. The unnamed pocket park in Fulton County (0.39 acre) is completely 

within the Corridor Alternative and 1.33 acres of the 1.36-acre Rose Circle Triangle Park is within 

the Corridor Alternative. Two additional local parks are adjacent to, but not within, the I-85 Corridor 

Alternative. All 13 locations classify as Section 4(f) resources and two classify as Section 6(f) 

resources. 

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative (north of the Atlanta approach) has the potential to impact nine 

local parks or recreation areas, totaling 19.23 acres. The unnamed pocket park in Fulton County (0.39 

acre) is completely within the Corridor Alternative and 1.33 acres of the 1.36-acre Rose Circle 

Triangle Park is within the Corridor Alternative. Two of these parks are adjacent to, but not within, 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-84

the Corridor Alternative. All nine locations classify as Section 4(f) resources and none classify as 

Section 6(f) resources. 

GDOT identified seven local parks within the NS Atlanta approach and twelve local parks within the 

CSX Atlanta approach. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative combined with the NS approach contains 

one additional park, Hoschton Park in Jackson County, GA, for a total of eight local parks. All of 

these identified parks are classified as Section 4(f) resources except for two located within the CSX 

approach on the Emory University campus, a private school. Candler Field and Lullwater Park are 

owned and operated by the University but are available for use by the public. In order to be protected 

under Section 4(f), however, a resources must be publicly-owned. None of these locations classify as 

Section 6(f) resources 

Exhibit 3.7-6 Summary of 4(f) and 6(f) Resources by Corridor Alternative 

Corridor Alternative Section 4(f) Resources Section 6(f) Resources 

Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 21 4

I-85 Corridor Alternative 13 2

Greenfield Corridor Alternative 9 0

NS Atlanta Approach 8 0

CSX Atlanta Approach 10 0

Source: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) website; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; South Carolina 

Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

The environmental screening areas for parklands and recreation areas are defined as being 600 feet in width along each of 

the Corridor Alternatives and 500 feet radius around proposed station locations.

3.7.5 Potential Mitigation 

For this Tier 1 EIS, specific rail alignment, stations, and facilities, as well as their potential impacts, 

are not identified. As these are refined in the Tier 2 analysis, avoidance and mitigation measures will 

be explored to reduce, as much as possible and practical, impacts to the identified facilities. If a 

Corridor Alternative is selected and design is further defined and delineated in the Tier 2 analysis, 

potential impacts on parks and recreation areas will be identified in detail. 

The types of mitigation that will be identified depends on the nature and extent of impacts (e.g., 

displacements, noise and vibration impacts, access, and safety). Public and agency input may help 

identify appropriate mitigation. Potential site-specific mitigation strategies might include 

replacement or enhancement of functions of parks and recreation areas; and ongoing consideration 

during design of ways to minimize Project effects. 

For Section 4(f) resources that are also protected under Section 106 as an historic resource, mitigation 

procedures would include continued agency consultation and a Memorandum of Agreement outlining 

the agreed upon mitigation strategy.98 Mitigation for resources protected under Section 6(f) must 

include replacement of land with similar value, location, and usefulness.99

 

98 36 CFR 800.6

99 36 CFR 59.3
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-85

3.7.6 Subsequent Analysis 

In this section, GDOT identified all relevant resources that are located within, or adjacent to, the 600-

foot wide Corridor Alternative and the 500-foot radius screening area around each station location, 

resulting in a comprehensive list of locations that could have potential impacts, given that the actual 

alignment will be proposed within the generous buffer area. During a subsequent Tier 2 analysis, a 

specific alignment will be selected and additional environmental review will identify specific parks 

and recreation areas within the alignment and station areas. Selection of the alignment will consider 

methods of avoiding Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources as well as other parklands and recreation 

areas. Detailed property mapping and information on the extent of public access, use, and ownership 

will be determined through consultation with public officials and property owners and officials with 

jurisdiction. Consultation will also be undertaken to determine appropriate and reasonably feasible 

mitigation commitments where warranted and reasonably feasible 

If required, the Tier 2 analysis will include completion of a Section 4(f) evaluation that documents 

use of Section 4(f) properties, including a determination whether the use is considered a “permanent 

use”, “constructive use”, or “temporary use”, and whether the use would be considered de minimus. 

In the case of a use, the evaluation will address Section 4(f) requirements, as applicable, involving 

feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, least harm alternative, and all possible measures to 

minimize harm. Coordination with officials having jurisdiction, including the U.S. Department of 

Interior, if necessary, will be initiated. The Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation will be circulated as 

part of a Tier 2 document. If a Section 6(f) property is identified, a Section 6(f) Evaluation will be 

prepared and circulated, as required. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-86

3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section provides a general overview of the cultural resources within the Corridor Alternatives 

environmental screening area, as well as a qualitative assessment of the potential effects of the 

Corridor Alternatives on these resources. The term “cultural resources” refers to a variety of built and 

natural places related to the “traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions 

of any community...” (U.S. Department of Interior, NPS 1998). The number of known historic 

resources within the Corridor Alternatives is a distinguishing factor that suggests varying potential 

for impacts among the Corridor Alternatives. 

The historic and archaeological resources analysis has been conducted by GDOT in support of the 

Tier 1 EIS, and the level of detail for this evaluation reflects the level of planning completed to this 

point. The analysis consisted of desktop review using existing electronic databases for listed and 

eligible National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) resources. The data is presented to facilitate 

future planning and to advance the selection of a Preferred Alternative for the Atlanta to Charlotte 

PRCIP in consultation with other environmental factors as part of the Tier 2 analysis. 

A summary of the cultural resources within the three Corridor Alternatives, coupled with the Atlanta 

approaches, is included in Exhibit 3.8-1. 

Exhibit 3.8-1: Cultural Resources Summary Table 

Corridor Alternative 

History - 

NRHP Listed 

Properties*

History - State 

Eligible 

Properties

Archaeology - 

identified 

Sites**

Southern Crescent Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 66 51 21

Southern Crescent Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 59 51 26

I-85 Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 36 16 59

I-85 Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 33 16 61

Greenfield Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 27 13 32

Greenfield Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 24 13 34

Source: National Register of Historic Places 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 1,000 feet in width along the Corridor Alternatives for historic 

properties and 600 feet in width for archaeological properties 

* 5 NRHP-listed historic properties are included in both Atlanta Approach Alternatives. 

** Previously identified and determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Official determinations of eligibility from the 

SHPOs deferred to Tier 2. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-87

3.8.1 Regulatory Context 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and associated 

implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 require federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings100 on historic properties (any prehistoric or historic district, site, 

building, structure, or object listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP).

36 CFR 800.16 defines historic properties to include archaeological sites, prehistoric and historic 

districts, sites, buildings, structures or any object that may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as 

maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. In order to qualify for inclusion, properties must meet 

certain criteria and possess integrity as defined by the Secretary. These criteria are set forth in 36 

CFR 60.4, and are defined below:

“The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and 

culture that is present in districts, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and that are associated with events 

that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; that are 

associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; that 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; and that have yielded, or may be 

likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” 

As explained in the previous section, historic properties also are protected under Section 4(f), which 

prohibits actions by the Secretary of Transportation that require “use” of a historic property that is 

listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, unless a determination is made that there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and all possible planning has been undertaken 

to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. 

Each federal agency is required under Section 106 to identify all federally recognized Native 

American Tribes and Native American groups (32 CFR §229.7(b)(2)) having aboriginal or historic 

ties to its jurisdictional land and seek to determine through the relevant Tribal official(s) the location 

and nature of TCPs (32 CFR §229.7(b)(1). 

A “sacred site” is a specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location identified by a Native American 

Tribe or authorized Tribal representative to a federal agency as sacred by virtue of its religious 

significance to, or ceremonial use by, a Native American religion (Presidential E.O. 13007, Indian 

Sacred Sites, issued May 24, 1996). This order mandates that federal agencies accommodate Tribal 

access and use of Native American sacred sites to the extent practicable and avoid adverse impacts to 

such sites. TCPs and Native American Sacred Sites are not necessarily NRHP eligible, but are 

evaluated under NEPA (see 40 CFR §§1508.8, 1508.14).

 

100 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation defines a Federal undertaking in 36 CFR 800.16(y) as a project, activity, or 

program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on 

behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or

approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-88

In addition to federal laws and regulations regarding cultural resources, the following state laws are 

also applicable for cultural resources: 

3.8.1.1 Georgia 

The following laws and regulations govern preservation and archaeology programs and projects in 

Georgia:101

• State Historic Preservation Office (1986); 12-3-50.1: Establishes historic preservation as 

public policy and authorizes the Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Natural 

Resources to carry out a statewide historic preservation program, similar to those duties 

outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act. 

• Georgia Historic Preservation Act (1980, 1989); 44-10-20 et seq.: Establishes uniform 

guidelines for local governments in creating historic preservation commissions and 

designating historic properties. 

• Georgia Register of Historic Places (1989); 12-3-50.2: Provides state designation for 

historic properties. The criteria for designation are the same as the National Register. 

• Georgia Environmental Policy Act (1991) 12-16-1 et seq.: Requires state agencies to 

prepare environmental assessments on actions that impact the environment, including historic 

properties. 

• Council on American Indian Concerns (1992, 2002); 44-12-280 et seq.: Creates a Council 

on American Indian Concerns to advise on repatriation issues. 

• Grave Protection and Repatriation (1992); 44-12-260/264; 12-3-620 et seq.; 31-21-6; 31-

21-44 et seq.: Establishes policies for burials, skeletal material and funerary objects regarding 

archaeological research, public display, buying/selling artifacts and repatriation. 

• Abandoned Cemeteries and Burial Grounds (1991); 36-72-1 et seq.: Strengthens cemetery 

protection laws by authorizing local governments to preserve and protect abandoned 

cemeteries, and to issue permits prior to any disturbance of burials. 

3.8.1.2 South Carolina 

The following laws and regulations govern preservation and archaeology programs and projects in 

South Carolina:102

• Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; 51-1-60 thru 51-1-90, SC Code of Laws:

A duty of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism is development of a coordinated 

plan utilizing the state’s resources as a tourist attraction. The plan should include the 

preservation of the state’s historical heritage by “acquiring and owning, recognizing, marking 

and publicizing areas, sites, buildings and other landmarks and items of national and statewide 

historical interest and significance to the history of our State." The Department is authorized 

to allocate funds to historic sites

• Heritage Trust Program; 51-17-10 to 51-17-150, SC Code of Laws: Creates the Heritage 

Trust program in the Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of the program is to 

inventory, evaluate, and protect the elements considered the most outstanding representatives 

of the state’s natural and cultural heritage. The Trust accepts easements on significant 

 

101 More Georgia state laws regarding cultural resources can be found here: http://georgiashpo.org/preservationlaws (accessed 

5/10/2018)

102 More South Carolina state laws regarding cultural resources can be found here: http://shpo.sc.gov/res/Pages/Laws.aspx

(accessed 5/10/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-89

properties and establishes heritage preserves by acquiring properties through purchase or 

donation.

• Preservation and Protection of Abandoned and Unmaintained Cemeteries; 6-1-35, SC 

Code of Laws: Authorizes counties and municipalities to preserve and protect any cemetery 

within their jurisdictions that the counties or municipalities determine has been abandoned. 

Authorizes counties or municipalities to spend public funds or use inmate labor for these 

cemeteries.

3.8.1.3 North Carolina 

The following laws and regulations govern preservation and archaeology programs and projects in 

North Carolina:103

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act, North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 70, 

Article 2: Modeled after the federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, this 

statute applies to all state-owned, occupied or controlled property except for highway rightsof-way

• North Carolina Archaeological Record Program, NCGS 70, Article 4: This statute 

provides a mechanism for protecting archaeological resources on private lands in North 

Carolina, through a voluntary system of site registration, and with applications of the state 

ARPA (G.S. 70, Article 2) permitting system for registered sites

• North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, NCGS 113A, Article 1: This statute declares a 

continuing state policy of conservation and protection of its natural resources and preservation 

of "the important historic and cultural elements of our common inheritance."

• Protection and Enhancement of the Historical and Cultural Heritage of North Carolina, 

Executive Order XVI: Under the gubernatorial mandate, patterned after federal Executive 

Order 11593, state agencies are directed to survey properties under their jurisdiction and 

identify those eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

• Protection of Properties in the National Register, NCGS 121-12(a): This portion of the 

General Statutes provides an advisory and coordinative mechanism on the state level patterned 

after that set up on the federal level for the protection of National Register properties. The 

North Carolina Historical Commission (which with added members forms the State 

Professional Review Committee) is responsible for the approval of all properties submitted to 

the National Park Service for nomination to the National Register

• Cemetery Protection, NCGS 14, G.S. 65: State statutes for protecting cemeteries 

3.8.2 Methodology 

To comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, based on this literature review, all properties in the Area 

of Potential Effects (APE) were identified that are listed, or potentially eligible for listing, in the 

NRHP. The NHPA defines APE as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may 

directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties.104 For this Tier 1 

EIS, the APE falls within the 1,000 foot-wide environmental screening area described in more detail 

below. According to 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), “the area of potential effects is influenced by the scale 

and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the 

undertaking.” A Tier 2 analysis of a Preferred Corridor Alternative would likely use a narrower APE 

than the one used in this Tier 1 EIS. 

 

103 More North Carolina state laws regarding cultural resources can be found here: https://www.ncdcr.gov/ (accessed 5/10/2018)

104 36 CFR Part 800.16(d)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-90

In this Tier 1 EIS and notwithstanding future design efforts to avoid or minimize potential impacts, 

the number of NRHP listed, eligible and potentially eligible cultural resources in a Corridor 

Alternative was used to suggest the relative potential for direct or indirect impact on or adverse effect 

to cultural resources. After selection of a Preferred Corridor Alternative, the Tier 2 analysis will 

include a detailed assessment of effects in compliance with Section 106. 

Based on the files of the respective State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina,105 and the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed 

properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL),106 GDOT compiled an inventory of 

all architectural resources. The inventory includes buildings, sites, objects, and structures, and 

previously identified archaeological sites107 in the environmental screening area for the three Corridor 

Alternatives and the Atlanta Approaches. 

Based on previous experience with similar projects, GDOT used a 1,000-foot wide (500 feet on either 

side of each Corridor Alternative) environmental screening area to account for direct impacts to 

historic resources. 

For archaeological resources, GDOT used a 600-foot wide Corridor Alternatives environmental 

screening area, which consists of areas where the Project would result in the disturbance of existing 

land surfaces. This screening area is used to accommodate anticipated construction-related soil 

disturbance, as well as minor alignment shifts or ancillary Project elements. 

GDOT identified potential consulting parties and Native American tribes within the vicinity of the 

Corridor Alternatives for the Tier 1 EIS evaluation (See Appendix C: Agency and Public 

Coordination). Correspondence was sent from FRA and all responses from the tribes are documented 

in Appendix C. During subsequent analysis, additional outreach to consulting parties and tribes will 

occur. 

The identification of resources for each Corridor Alternative was completed through the review of the 

literature available from the sources discussed in the following subsections. 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

This analysis of historic resources was completed using desktop sources and records of previously 

identified eligible and listed NRHP historic properties. It is a screening-level analysis intended to 

inform and assist in the Tier 2. During the future Tier 2 analysis, additional formal consultation with 

the Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina SHPOs, as well as Native American Tribes, other 

potential consulting parties, including local jurisdictions and potentially the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP), and key stakeholders will be will be completed. For this Tier 1 EIS: 

 

105 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division Georgia Natural, Archaeological, and Historic 

Resources GIS (GNAHRGIS) http://georgiashpo.org/register/survey; South Carolina Department of Archives & History, ArchSite 

(GIS) http://shpo.sc.gov/research/Pages/ArchSite.aspx; North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, HPOWEB (GIS) 

http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/ (accessed on 02/24/2018). 106 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places database (NRIS) 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.htm; NPS, National Historic Landmarks Program lists of National Historic 

Landmarks (accessed on 02/24/2018).

107In coordination with their respective SHPOs, archaeological site records are managed collaboratively by the Georgia 

Archaeological Site File at the University of Georgia (Athens, Ga.) and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and 

Anthropology at the University of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.). The N.C. SHPO manages its files through it Office of State 

Archaeology.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-91

• As described, a 1,000-foot wide environmental screening area for historical resources was defined 

for each Corridor Alternative to account for direct effects, including potential visual, noise, or 

vibration effects. 

• Local, state, and federally designated historic and architectural properties were identified within 

the screening area, including resources listed on or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

• GDOT completed a desktop survey of identified historic structures using Georgia’s Natural, 

Archaeological, and Historic Resources GIS (GNAHRGIS), South Carolina’s ArchSite, and North 

Carolina’s Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service (HPOWEB). 

• Previous historic property surveys and other related studies completed for Section 106 compliance 

were reviewed where readily available. 

• Where applicable, the identified resources were verified using online aerial street-level mapping 

such as Google Earth Pro. 

• Known architectural resources designated or determined eligible for listing as an NHL were 

identified. 

• Potential impacts, particularly potential direct impacts (e.g., demolition, alteration, or damage from 

construction), to any listed or eligible historic property were identified. The potential for secondary, 

or indirect (e.g., change in setting or character of the surrounding area), and cumulative effects is 

also discussed. Further evaluation and an assessment of adverse effects will be conducted for a 

Preferred Corridor Alternative in the Tier 2 analysis. 

• Potential mitigation measures to minimize any potential adverse effects to listed historic properties 

are discussed, although further analysis of listed and eligible historic properties will be included in 

the Tier 2 analysis. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

GDOT identified potentially sensitive archaeological resources in the archaeology screening area that 

were previously identified and determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, because of the 

varying types of categorization of archaeological resources by the three states in the Study Area, some 

eligible resources may be excluded from this list. These issues would be addressed in subsequent Tier 

2 analysis. More information on data collection discrepancies can be found in the next section. 

GDOT did not publish the exact locations of the archaeology sites in the Tier 1 EIS − only the 

corresponding site numbers and state because of their sensitivity to human disturbance. During the 

Tier 2 analysis, the final APEs for the Preferred Corridor Alternative will be delineated in consultation 

with the SHPOs, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties in accordance with Section 106. As 

described, a 600-foot wide screening area was defined for potentially sensitive archaeological 

resources for each Corridor Alternative for the purposes of the Tier 1 EIS to accommodate anticipated 

construction-related soil disturbance, as well as minor alignment shifts or ancillary Project elements. 

During the Tier 2 analysis, a full field reconnaissance-level archaeological resources survey will be 

conducted, and official determinations of eligibility from the SHPOs will be sought for archaeological 

resources. In addition, the Tier 2 analysis will include an assessment of potential effects to previously 

identified archaeological sites. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-92

3.8.2.1 Data Collection 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

GDOT collected the data presented in the Tier 1 EIS from appropriate state repositories, the Atlanta 

Regional Commission (ARC), the National Park Service’s (NPS) National Register Information 

System (NRIS), and the Database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL). Additionally, the FHWA’s 

Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway 

System (“Final List”) has been consulted considering the presence of I-85 within the Project 

corridor(s). 

The SHPOs for Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina are responsible for maintaining 

geographic information system (GIS) data on cultural resources within their states. The ARC, 

Atlanta’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), acts as a secondary repository for spatial data 

on historic resources in the greater Atlanta area and was also consulted. 

GDOT processed this data, removed duplicated data entries, and cross-checked and verified NRHPlisted properties with the NRIS database. Data determined to represent historic resources considered 

“Not eligible” for the NRHP were removed from the dataset. GDOT created four categories and 

applied them to the length of each Corridor Alternative to present the amassed data: 

• NRHP listed includes properties identified as listed in the NRHP. These properties were crosschecked with the NRIS database; 

• State/Local NRHP eligible determination includes: 

 Section 106 eligibility determination: a property that has been determined eligible for listing 

on the NRHP by SHPO as a result of a previous survey but has not been nominated for listing;

 State-maintained historic registry properties; and 

 Local historic designated properties (i.e., local landmark, local district). 

• Located in an NRHP- listed historic district includes properties that likely contribute to the NRHPlisted historic district; and 

• Unknown NRHP eligibility includes properties listed in data requests but whose eligibility 

determination was either not included or ambiguous.

The Tier 1 EIS only resources categorized as “NRHP listed” or “State/Local NRHP eligible.” 

Accompanying Map Books are presented for each Corridor Alternative in Appendix A.108 Data 

categorized as “Located in a NRHP listed historic district” or “Unknown NRHP eligibility” are 

included in Appendix D: Supporting Technical Data. Due to the general density of historic resource 

data for “Located in a NRHP listed Historic District” and “Unknown Eligibility,” specifically for 

communities throughout Georgia, these datasets are not presented in map form. These properties will 

be further analyzed during Tier 2. 

Some data limitations existed during this Tier 1 EIS that will be improved upon during Tier 2 and will 

utilize field examinations of historic resources: 

 

108 Data has not been field confirmed; errors originating at the source, in field collection and/or recordation, for example, remain a 

possibility.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-93

• Time sensitivity – some historic properties may not be covered in older surveys that were used 

for this analysis 

• Changes or alterations may have occurred to previously identified historic properties, 

potentially altering their eligibility status 

• Some eligibility data may not yet be available electronically 

Regardless of the data limitations, the information is sufficient for the purpose and scope of the tiered 

review of historic properties. The assembled data provide a corridor-ide snapshot for each Corridor 

Alternative and provides a broad context for future analysis to be completed in the Tier 2 analysis. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

The three states included in the Archaeological Assessment are in the process of converting their 

archaeological site mapping and data into GIS databases. However, each state’s approach to this 

process is somewhat different, and they are at different points in completing this process. As a result, 

the process of collecting comparable data from each state’s records required different procedures. 

All three states are consistent in categorizing sites that have been formally determined Eligible for the 

NRHP or Not Eligible for the NRHP, although formal eligibility determinations for archaeological 

sites in all the states are relatively rare. However, there is additional variability in how sites without 

formal determinations of eligibility are categorized, to reflect either a positive or negative assessment 

of potential eligibility. Georgia includes a category indicating a negative assessment of potential 

eligibility: “Recommended Ineligible.” Like Georgia, South Carolina has an additional category that 

reflects a negative assessment of potential eligibility: “Probably Not Eligible.” South Carolina also 

includes two additional categories that reflect a positive assessment of potential eligibility. The term 

“Potentially Eligible” is used to reflect a positive determination that a site appears to potentially meet 

the criterion for eligibility, while the term “Additional Work” indicates that additional investigation 

is recommended to further assess NRHP status. For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, resource tables 

will only identify potentially sensitive archaeological resources in the archaeology screening area that 

were previously identified and determined “Eligible for Listing” in the NRHP. 

The following paragraphs discuss the specific data collection GDOT utilized for Georgia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina. 

3.8.2.2 Georgia 

The Georgia Historic Preservation Division (HPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

manages Georgia’s Natural, Archaelogical and Historic Resources GIS (GNAHRGIS) database. It is 

an interactive Web-based registry and geographical information system designed to catalog 

information about the natural, archaeological, and historic resources of Georgia. 4F

109 This information 

has been compiled by the HPD (the SHPO) in collaboration with the Georgia Archaeological Site File 

at the University of Georgia. In the GNAHRGIS system, historic properties include buildings, 

structures, historic sites, landscapes, and districts included in the HPD’s Historic Resources Survey 

or listed in the NRHP. 

 

109 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, “Historic Resources Survey/GNAHRGIS,” 

http://georgiashpo.org/registerandsurvey (accessed on 2/18/2018).
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-94

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The GNAHRGIS system has some limitations: 

• Survey data is not routinely or systematically updated to the GNAHRGIS system 

• Qualitative data concerning a particular data points’ NRHP status is not included 

Every effort was made to verify these data prior to classification and/or removal by utilizing Google 

Earth Street View.5F

110 Where a definitive “Not eligible” classification could not be made, the data point 

was coded “Unknown NRHP eligibility” and remained in the dataset as such. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

A desktop survey of identified previously recorded archaeological sites was completed using the 

GNAHRGIS system, which allowed for the definition of resources within the 600-foot wide 

environmental screening area and the capture of GIS data for any previously identified archaeological 

sites that fell within a portion of the screening area. GIS maps were created within the GNAHRGIS 

platform and hard copies of the maps and associated site data tables were printed and used for the 

archaeological analysis. Copies of scanned site files and site data forms were collected and used to 

cross check the information contained in the GIS data tables. 

3.8.2.3 South Carolina 

South Carolina’s ArchSite combines data from the South Carolina Department of Archives and 

History (SCDAH) and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) to 

provide researchers access to information on the state’s archaeological and built heritage. ArchSite is 

a web-based site that utilizes GIS mapping and contains datasets for: National Register-listed 

properties; buildings and structures evaluated for National Register eligibility (surveyed after 1990); 

areas surveyed for cultural resources (primarily since 1998); countywide historic architectural survey 

data for 13 counties; archaeological sites; and civil war earthworks thematic survey data. 6

111 Historic 

resources identified during Section 106 surveys are consistently uploaded to ArchSite resulting in an 

updated and fairly comprehensive data source. 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Data from ArchSite were coded and symbolized according to the four established categories regarding 

eligibility. For South Carolina, NRHP eligibility is clearly identified in nearly every case, and there 

is only one site classified as “Unknown NRHP eligibility.” 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

Archaeological data for South Carolina was collected in coordination with the staff of the SCIAA. 

They provided the team with the digital data that was used to produce mapping and tabular data for 

analysis. As with the Georgia sites, copies of scanned South Carolina site files and site data forms 

were collected and used to cross check the information contained in the GIS data tables. 

 

110 Specific imagery dates vary on Google Earth Street View 2018. 

111 South Carolina Department of Archives & History, “Consultant’s Guide to Survey & National Register Files,” 

http://shpo.sc.gov/tech/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 2/15/18).
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-95

3.8.2.4 North Carolina 

North Carolina’s Historic Preservation Office (HPO) maintains a statewide database of historic 

properties available for public review via the HPOWEB Map Service. 7F

112

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The HPO provided data for historic resources, which are classified in one of five classes established 

by HPO, including: 

• NR – Listed in the NRHP; 

• SL – Study Listed, which includes properties identified by the National Register Advisory 

Committee as potentially eligible for the NRHP; 

• DOE – Determination of Eligibility, which includes resources that have been determined eligible 

by SHPO through the Section 106 Process; 

• LL – Local Landmarks, which are locally designated landmarks and districts; and 

• S – Surveyed, which includes resources recorded by field surveys that do not have an official 

historic designation. 

Data considered not eligible, or ineligible, and data that included notes indicating the property had 

been demolished, were coded “Not eligible” and were removed from the dataset. Every effort was 

made to verify these data prior to classification and/or removal by utilizing Google Earth Street 

View.8F

113 Where a definitive “Not eligible” call could not be made, the data point was coded 

“Unknown NRHP eligibility” and remains in the dataset as such. North Carolina included 26 resources 

within the environmental screening areas without an associated NRHP eligibility. 

HPOWEB updates the state-wide dataset monthly resulting in a fairly comprehensive data source. 

Given the date of the data transfer, data in HPOWEB was compared to the North Carolina dataset, 

and these reexaminations resulted in one newly identified (in 2013) NRHP-eligible historic resource 

within the screening area for the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative and one change in eligibility 

status from Unknown to NRHP Listed. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

Through coordination with the HPO archaeological staff, GDOT found that there were relatively 

few archaeological sites recorded within the environmental screening area located in North 

Carolina. 

3.8.2.5 National Park Service’s NRIS Inventory and Database of National Historic Landmarks 

The National Park Service’s NRIS database includes more than 84,000 entries of historic sites that 

are currently listed, were once listed but removed, or are pending nominations in the National Register. 

The NRIS dataset was utilized to cross-reference NRHP-listed resources recorded by each state. Cross 

examination of the data did not reveal any omissions from state-maintained records. 

A review of the database of NHLs was also completed. No NHLs or NHL nominations are located 

within the Corridor Alternatives. 

 

112 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, “GIS Metadata: Data Sources, Data Status, and Data Disclaimers,” 

(4/3/2014). http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/gis/CountyDisclaimers.html (accessed on 2/15/18). The source contains multiple links and 

general information pertaining to accuracy and limitations of assembled data. 

113 Specific imagery dates vary Google Earth Street View 2013. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-96

3.8.2.6 Agency Coordination 

As part of the cultural resources effort, FRA sent coordination letters on July 9, 2015, to the state 

historic preservation officers of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and to historic 

preservation-focused agencies and organizations to request information on known eligible historic 

properties within the screening area. The following are organizations that received the Tier 1 early 

coordination letters: 

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; 

• Atlanta Regional Commission; 

• Atlanta Urban Design Commission; 

• Charlotte Regional History Consortium; 

• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission; 

• Georgia Mountains Regional Commission; 

• Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer; 

• National Park Service - Southeast Region; 

• North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer; 

• North Carolina Office of Archives and History; 

• Northeast Georgia Regional Commission; and 

• South Carolina Department of Archives and History - State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Letters were received from the Georgia SHPO on July 27, 2015, and from the North Carolina 

Department of Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office on August 13, 2015. An email 

was received from the Atlanta Urban Design Commission on August 25, 2015; all responses are 

included in Appendix C. 

FRA has also coordinated with several tribes via early coordination letters sent on July 9, 2015 

(Appendix C). These tribes were identified using a compiled list of documented, federally recognized 

tribes with former and current habitation in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina within the 

screening area. The list of tribes that were sent early coordination letters for the Tier 1 EIS includes: 

• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; 

• United Keetoowah Band; 

• Cherokee Nation; 

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians; 

• Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; 

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council; 

• Kialegee Tribal Town; 

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation; 

• Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 

• Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; 

• Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-97

• Catawba Indian Tribe; and 

• Tuscarora Nation. 

One phone call and follow-up email was received on August 3, 2015, from the Catawba Indian Tribe 

noting that their concerns are more specific to Section 106 once a route has been established. An email 

from the United Keetoowah Band was received on August 19, 2015, stating they want to be involved 

in the consultation for the Project. A letter from the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas dated August 

27, 2015, was received stating that there are no known impacts to cultural assets of the tribe based on 

the Project; however, they requested information as the results become available (see Appendix C). 

FRA will use input from the tribes, including their Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), to 

identify cultural resource issues of concern to be addressed in future Tier 2 analyses, and Section 106 

consultation will continue not only with Native American tribes, but also with the SHPOs and other 

consulting parties 

3.8.3 Affected Environment 

Exhibit 3.8-2 presents historical resources listed on the NRHP and those that are potentially eligible 

for listing that are known to exist within each Corridor Alternative and Atlanta approach. Exhibits 

3.8-3 through 3.8-26 provide more detail by Corridor Alternative. The archaeological review 

identified sites in each Corridor Alternative are also listed. A summary of the cultural resources can 

be found in Exhibit 3.8-2 below. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative with either Atlanta 

Approach has the highest number of NRHP listed historic properties, as was as the highest number of 

state eligible historic properties. The I-85 Corridor Alternative with either Atlanta Approach has the 

highest number of identified archaeological sites in the screening area. There are no previously 

identified NRHP-eligible historic resources in the NS Atlanta Approach or the CSX Atlanta 

Approach. 

Exhibit 3.8-2: Cultural Resources Summary Table 

Corridor Alternative 

History -

NRHP 

Listed 

Properties*

History - State 

Eligible 

Properties

Archaeology - 

identified 

Sites** 

Southern Crescent Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 66 51 21

Southern Crescent Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 59 51 26

I-85 Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 36 16 59

I-85 Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 33 16 61

Greenfield Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach 27 13 32

Greenfield Corridor with CSX Atlanta Approach 24 13 34

Source: HNTB and PB

 Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as 1,000 feet in width for historic properties and 600 feet for 

archaeological properties. 

* 5 NRHP-listed historic properties are included in both Atlanta Approach Alternatives. 

** Previously identified and determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Official determinations of eligibility from the 

SHPOs deferred to Tier 2. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-98

3.8.3.1 Southern Crescent Corridor 

Exhibit 3.8-3 below summarizes the number of listed, eligible, or identified historic and 

archaeological resources located within the Southern Crescent Corridor environmental screening area. 

A listing of the National Register of Historic Places listed sites and districts for the Southern Crescent 

Corridor and the Southern Crescent Corridor Atlanta Approaches can be found in Exhibit 3.8-4 

through Exhibit 3.8-6. 

Exhibit 3.8-3: Summary of Historic and Archaeological Resources in Southern Crescent Corridor 

and Approaches 

Corridor Alternative History - NRHP Listed 

Properties

History - State 

Eligible Properties

Archaeology 

identified sites*

Southern Crescent Corridor 50 51 19

Southern Crescent - NS Atlanta Approach 16** N/A 2 

Southern Crescent - CSX Atlanta 

Approach 9** N/A 7 

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, Georgia Archaeological Site Files, South

Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the 

National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* Eligibility for Archaeology sites not identified in summary chart – only previously identified sites 

** 5 NRHP-listed historic properties are included in both Atlanta Approach Alternatives. 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as 1,000 feet in width for historic properties and 600 feet in width for 

archaeological properties along the Corridor Alternative. 

*** The railroad corridors of both Crescent and CSX are considered NRHP-eligible resources but are not included in the overall 

number; however, the railroads will be evaluated in the Tier 2 EIS.

HISTORY 

A review of previously identified NRHP-Listed historic resources for the Southern Crescent Corridor 

and Atlanta Approaches are found in Exhibits 3.8-4 through Exhibit 3.8-6. These resources are also 

mapped in Appendix A. 

Exhibit 3.8-4: Southern Crescent Corridor - National Register of Historic Places Listed 

Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81218 College Park Historic District 1893 District Fulton GA NRHP 1 of 51

80795 East Point Industrial District 1875-1949 District Fulton GA NRHP 1 of 51

81760 Oakland City Historic District 1880 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 51

81620 Adair Park Historic District 1897 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 51

81291 West End Historic District 1894 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 51

80625 Atlanta University Center Historic District 1865 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 51

80221 Castleberry Hill Historic District 1890s-1959 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 51

81120 Selig Company Building 1900-1949 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 51
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-99

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81059 Cooledge, F. J., and Sons, Company--

Hastings' Seed Company 1913 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 51

81675 Westinghouse Electric Company Building 1923 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 51

81687 Southern Railway North Avenue Yards 

Historic District 1925 District Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 51

81053 Atlanta Spring and Bed Company--Block 

Candy Company 1900 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

80890 Atlanta Buggy Company and Warehouse--

Hatcher Bros. Furniture Company 1903 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

81683 Means Street Historic District 1869 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

85002244 Lula Residential Historic District 1873-1934 District Hall GA NRHP 15 of 51

80047 Irvin General Merchandise Store 1911 Building Habersham GA NRHP 17 of 51

81647 Loudermilk Boarding House 1911 Building Habersham GA NRHP 17 of 51

11000879 Toccoa Downtown Historic District 1850-1974 District Stephens GA NRHP 20 of 51

80178 Stephens County Courthouse 1907 Building Stephens GA NRHP 20 of 51

80186 Schaefer-Marks House 1897 Building Stephens GA NRHP 20 of 51

792 Southern Railway Passenger Station 1885 Building Oconee SC NRHP 23 of 51

97 Seneca Historic District 1873 District Oconee SC NRHP 24/25 of 

51

336 Ram Cat Alley Historic District 1887 District Oconee SC NRHP 25 of 51

806 Easley High School Auditorium 1909 Building Pickens SC NRHP 29 of 51

115 Woodside Cotton Mill Village Historic 

District 1902 District Greenville SC NRHP 31 of 51

7 Southern Bleachery and Print Works 1924-1952 Building Greenville SC NRHP 33 of 51

139 Greer Depot 1913 Building Greenville SC NRHP 34 of 51

302 Greer Downtown Historic District 1910-1930 District Greenville SC NRHP 34 of 51

310 Davenport House 1921 Building Greenville SC NRHP 34 of 51

386 Arcadia Mill Historic District 1923 Building Spartanburg SC NRHP 37 of 51

800 Cowpens Depot 1896 Building Spartanburg SC NRHP 39 of 51

34/35 Gaffney Residential Historic District ca. 1890-ca. 

1930 District Cherokee SC NRHP 41 of 51

49 Gaffney Commercial Historic District 1875-1950 District Cherokee SC NRHP 41 of 51

310 Jefferies House 1884 Building Cherokee SC NRHP 41 of 51

811 Carnegie Free Library 1914 Building Cherokee SC NRHP 41 of 51

CL0350 Margrace Mill Village Historic District 1919 District Cleveland NC NRHP 45 of 51

CL0955 West End Historic District 1882-1955 District Cleveland NC NRHP 45 of 51

CL0783 King Street Overhead Bridge 1938 Structure Cleveland NC NRHP 45 of 51

CL0785 Southern Railway Company Overhead 

Bridge 1919 Structure Cleveland NC NRHP 45 of 51

CL0349 Central School Historic District 

Late 19thearly 20th

Century

District Cleveland NC NRHP 45 of 51
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-100

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

GS1572 Bessemer City Downtown Historic District c.1880-1950 District Gaston NC NRHP/

HPOWEB 46 of 51

GS0503 Loray Mill Historic District 1900-1935 District Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 51

GS0594 Loray Mill Historic District Boundary 

Expansion 1901-1920 District Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 51

GS1093 Downtown Gastonia Historic District Late 19th early 

20th Century District Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 51

GS0016 Third National Bank Building 1923 Building Gaston NC NRHP 48 of 51

GS0405 Robinson-Gardner Building 1897 Building Gaston NC NRHP 48 of 51

GS0015 First National Bank Building 1916-17 Building Gaston NC NRHP 48 of 51

GS1076 Mayworth School 1921 Building Gaston NC NRHP 48 of 51

GS0024 Belmont Historic District 19-20th 

Century District Gaston NC NRHP 49 of 51

GS0030 (former) United States Post Office 1939 Building Gaston NC NRHP 49 of 51

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, North Carolina 

SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to Map Book in Appendix A.

Exhibit 3.8-5: Southern Crescent Corridor Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach - National Register 

of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81131 King Plow Company** 1900-

1949 Buildings Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

81764 Howell Interlocking Historic District** 1889 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

81421 Ashby Street Car Barn** 1927 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

81082 Van Winkle, E., Gin and Machine Works** 1889; 

1912 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

80626 Atlanta Waterworks Hemphill Avenue 

Station 1892 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

80182 Peachtree Southern Railway Station 1918 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

81028 Brookwood Hills Historic District** 1925-

1974 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

80830 Garden Hills Historic District 1925-

1949 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 51

81117 Peachtree Highlands-Peachtree Park Historic 

District

1900-

1974 District Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 51

80955 Oglethorpe University Historic District 1915 District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 51

80119 Norcross Historic District 1870 District Gwinnett GA NRHP 6 of 51

81599 The Superb (Southeastern Railway Museum) 1911 Structure Gwinnett GA NRHP 7 of 51

80046 John Quincy Allen House 1911 Building Gwinnett GA NRHP 9 of 51

81020 Bona Allen House 1911 Building Gwinnett GA NRHP 9 of 51
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-101

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

80120 Flowery Branch Commercial Historic District 1871-

1934 District Hall GA NRHP 11 of 51

80729 Chicopee Mill and Village Historic District 1927 District Hall GA NRHP 12 of 51

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, North Carolina 

SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A; 

** Resources included in both Norfolk Southern and CSX Atlanta Approaches (5 sites total).

Exhibit 3.8-6: Southern Crescent Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach - National Register of Historic 

Places Listed Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81131 King Plow Company** 1900-

1949 Buildings Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 15

81764 Howell Interlocking Historic District** 1889 District Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 15

81421 Ashby Street Car Barn** 1927 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 15

81082 Van Winkle, E., Gin and Machine Works** 1889; 

1912 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 15

81783 Berkeley Park Historic District 1900-

1974 District Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 15

81028 Brookwood Hills Historic District** 1925-

1974 District Fulton GA NRHP 4 of 15

81448 Druid Hills Historic District 1900-

1949 District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 15

81634 Emory Grove Historic District 1900-

1949 District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 15

249543 Decatur Waterworks 1928-

1948 District DeKalb GA NRHP 5 of 15

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of 

NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A;

** Resources included in both Norfolk Southern and CSX Atlanta Approaches (5 sites total).

Certain historic property types are associated with a historic railroad corridor and may include rail 

depots, rail yards and industrial building types, e.g., mills and warehouses. Many of the NRHP-listed 

resources within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative with Norfolk Southern Approach and 

CSX Approach appear to have a historic association with the railroad itself. Other resources identified 

are associated with commercial uses and generally include downtown historic districts. It is not 

surprising to find historic commercial and/or downtown districts in close association with the railroad 

corridor (See Appendix A). The 51 eligible state and local sites are found in Exhibit 3.8-7.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-102

Exhibit 3.8-7: Southern Crescent Corridor– State and Local Determination Eligible Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

770311-8 Southern Railway Buildings – Multiple 

Property Resource 

1907-1926 Buildings Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 51

770311-11 Circle Wye Railroad Junction and 

Associated Railroad Corridors

1846 Site Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 51

770311-24 Wilder Manufacturing Company Building 1907 Building Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 51

770311-27 Nelson Street Bridge 1906 Structure Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 51

770311-28 Peters Street Bridge 1935 Structure Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 51

58329 Coats and Clark Administrative Offices 1944 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58294 Hudgin’s Furniture (present) 1944 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58295 Troup’s Studio/Hallmark Cards 1914 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58296 Dr. MacBath House 1904 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58297 Hudgin’s House (historic) 1934 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58298 Hogsed House (historic) 1915 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58299 Railroad Maintenance Building 1944 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58300 Railroad Station 1915 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58301 Burrell’s Chevrolet (historic) 1944 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58348 Robert Groves (Graves) house 1914 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58271 Old Toccoa Post Office; Toccoa 

Municipal Building

1931 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58491 House (Central Hall) 1892 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58375 Brewer Stark House 1924 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58378 House 1934 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58389 Collins House 1894 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58390 House (New South Cottage) 1904 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58426 House 1929 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58391 House 1932 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58392 House 1932 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58393 House (Colonial Revival and EVR) 1937 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58394 House (Georgian Cottage) 1914 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58430 House 1929 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

58526 Hartwell Mill 1884 Building Stephens GA GNAHRGIS 20 of 51

17414 Site Number 0050 Unknown Building Oconee SC ArchSite 23 of 51

5662 Seneca Depot ca. 1910 Building Oconee SC ArchSite 25 of 51

698 Central Roller Mills Historic District 1903 District Pickens SC ArchSite 27 of 51

17418 Site Number 0082 1890; 1990s Building Pickens SC ArchSite 29 of 51

6481 Dunhams Bridge/Site Number 1263 1925 Structure Greenville SC ArchSite 30/31 of 

51

543 F.W. Poe Manufacturing Company Store 

and Office Building 

ca. 1900 Building Greenville SC ArchSite 32 of 51

554 Dr. James Nesbit House 1894, 1917 Building Greenville SC ArchSite 33 of 51
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-103

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

687 Pacific Mills Mill Village Historic District 1920s District Spartanburg SC ArchSite 35 of 51

7078 Jones-West House Unknown Building Spartanburg SC ArchSite 35 of 51

9093 Site Number 186-0051 Unknown Building Cherokee SC ArchSite 40 of 51

7058 Vassy Homeplace 1835; 1880s Building Cherokee SC ArchSite 40 of 51

CL0584 Grover Historic District Unknown District Cleveland NC HPOWEB 44 of 51

CL0013 First Andrew Manney House ca. 1872 Building Cleveland NC HPOWEB 45 of 51

GS0896 Bridge No. 165 (DOT 350165) 1919 Structure Gaston NC HPOWEB 46 of 51

GS0404 Myrtle Mill Village Historic District Unknown District Gaston NC HPOWEB 47 of 51

GS0400 Arlington Mill Village Historic District Unknown District Gaston NC HPOWEB 47 of 51

GS1614 Arlington School and Peedin School 1922, 1949 Buildings Gaston NC HPOWEB 47 of 51

GS1625 Piedmont and Northern Railway Linear 

Historic District

1910-1916 Linear 

District

Gaston, 

Mecklenburg

NC HPOWEB 48/49/51 

of 51

GS0382 Lowell Teacherage ca. 1924 Building Gaston NC HPOWEB 48 of 51

GS0135 Bank of Belmont 1926-1927 Building Gaston NC HPOWEB 49 of 51

MK2983 W.P.A. Douglas Airport Hanger 1936-1937 Building Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 50 of 51

MK3071 Ford Motor Company Automotive Parts 

Distribution Center

1952 Building Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 50 of 51

MK2932 Wilmore Local Historic District Unknown District Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 51 of 51

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, North Carolina 

SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A 

There are no previously identified NRHP-eligible historic resources in the NS Atlanta Approach or 

the CSX Atlanta Approach. Further study may reveal historic structures associated with either railroad 

including but not limited to previously unrecorded railroad bridges and other associated structures. 

The railroad corridors, along with the potential for adverse effects to it and other historic resources, 

would be considered during a Tier 2 analysis. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

A review of previously identified cultural resources for the Southern Crescent Corridor resulted in the 

identification of 19 archaeological sites (See Exhibit 3.8-8). The Georgia SHPO has determined one 

site, 9FU91 in Georgia, to be eligible for the NRHP. Four sites in South Carolina have been evaluated 

as potentially eligible (38GR0190, 38PN0039, 38PN0044 and 38SP0310). There are two sites 

identified in the Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach and seven sites in the CSX Atlanta Approach 

with one site, 9DA355, listed on the NRHP (See Exhibit 3.8-9 and Exhibit 3.8-10).
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-104

Exhibit 3.8-8: Southern Crescent Corridor (not including Atlanta Approaches) – Previously 

Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site Number State Site Name 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Status

Temporal 

Affiliation Site Type Notes 

9FU90 GA None Unknown Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Lithic Scatter Cultivated and eroded.

9FU91 GA Atlanta City 

Garbage 

Crematory

Determined 

Eligible 

Historic:

Unknown 

Historic 

garbage 

crematory 

Disturbed and eroded.

9FU410 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th Century Historic Scatter Associated railroad and 

warehouse district. 

9FU582 GA OrmeMagnolia

Trolley Line

Recommended 

Ineligible 

20th Century Abandoned 

trolley tracks 

Destroyed.

9HL435 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th Century Stone Culvert Railroad culvert, 

endangered by natural 

erosion, railroad 

improvements.

9HL436 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th Century Stone Culvert Railroad culvert, 

endangered by slope 

erosion, railroad 

maintenance.

9HL443 GA Oakwood 

Pottery 

Undetermined 20th Century

(1895-1910)

Historic 

Stoneware 

Pottery 

Stoneware Kiln remnants 

and waste dump of the circa 

1900 Oakwood Pottery 

Site; largely destroyed.

9HL592 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th Century 19th-20th 

Artifact Scatter

Scatter of late 19th-20th 

century artifacts along a 

railroad junk yard and 

tracks. Filled in well on 

site. 

38GR0190 SC American 

Mill Village 

Potentially 

Eligible 

19th-20th Century Former Mill 

Village 

Mill village built in the last 

decade of the 19th century 

and destroyed in the late 

1930s. Roads, sidewalks, 

cement stairs, brick piers 

throughout. 

38GR0236 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric: 

Unknown

19th-20th Century

House site, 

Lithic Scatter 

No subsurface features 

found.

38GR0238 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

19th Century Surface Scatter Widely dispersed mid to 

late 19th century historic 

scatter.

38GR0276 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

20th Century Farm House 

and Historic 

Scatter 

House also has an 

associated farm complex 

consisting of a barn, a 

modern two car garage, 

storage and equipment 

shed.

38PN0039 SC SCHD 

Pickens 2

Potentially 

Eligible

Historic Surface Scatter None

38PN0044 SC SCHD 

Pickens 7 

Potentially 

Eligible 

19th-20th Century Surface Scatter Remaining structural 

materials are deteriorating 

wooden timbers, stone 

foundations, rusting iron 

bedstead, ornamental 

shrubbery and open well.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-105

Site Number State Site Name 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Status

Temporal 

Affiliation Site Type Notes 

38SP0238 SC BMW-1-85 Additional Work Historic House site Structural remains consist 

of well, house pad, several 

large trees including one 

cedar and a fenced-in yard 

area.

38SP0280 SC Site 1 Probably Not 

Eligible

20th Century Surface Scatter No cultural features.

38SP0310 SC Wallace 

DuPre House 

Potentially 

Eligible 

Late 19th Century House Site Home site of affluent 

family with associated 

outbuildings and landscape 

features.

31MK112 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric: 

Unknown

Lithic scatter Disturbed by erosion.

31MK114 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric: 

Unknown

Lithic scatter Disturbed by railroad 

construction activity.

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct impacts. 

Exhibit 3.8-9: Southern Crescent Corridor Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach – Previously 

Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site Number State Site Name 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Status

Temporal 

Affiliation Site Type Notes 

9GW153 GA Barrett No determination Multi-component 

Prehistoric 

Surface artifact 

scatter

Amateur collection

9GW167 GA None No determination Historic Old railroad 

station

No notes

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct impacts.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-106

Exhibit 3.8-10: Southern Crescent Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach – Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites 

Site Number State Site Name 

NRHP 

Eligibility 

Status 

Temporal 

Affiliation Site Type Notes 

9DA354 GA 1993 DIGIT Recommended 

Ineligible 

Prehistoric 

Unknown Historic 

Lithic Scatter. 

House Site 

Disturbed

9DA355 GA Decatur 

Waterworks 

NRHP Listed 19th century Historic 

waterworks

Undisturbed

9DA356 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th century Historic 

Artifact Scatter

Surface scatter only

9GW515 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th century House site Shallow and eroded

9GW516 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

20th century Historic 

Artifact Scatter

Modern artifacts

9GW593 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

20th century House site Disturbed

9JK236 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

20th century House site Gutted house with scattered 

modern trash and 

foundation stones.

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct impacts.

3.8.3.2 I-85 Corridor 

 Exhibit 3.8-11 below summarizes the number of listed, eligible, or identified historic and 

archaeological resources located within the I-85 Corridor environmental screening area. A listing of 

the National Register of Historic Places listed sites and districts for the I-85 Corridor and the I-85 

Corridor Atlanta Approaches can be found in Exhibit 3.8-12 through Exhibit 3.8-14. 

Exhibit 3.8-11: Summary of Historic and Archaeological Resources in I-85 Corridor and 

Approaches 

Corridor Alternative History - NRHP Listed 

Properties

History - State 

Eligible Properties

Archaeology 

identified sites*

I-85 Corridor (not including Atlanta 

Approaches) 24 16 55

I-85 - NS Atlanta Approach*** 12** N/A 4 

I-85 - CSX Atlanta Approach*** 9** N/A 6 

Source: HNTB, PB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, Georgia Archaeological Site Files, South 

Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the 

National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

 * Eligibility for Archaeology sites not identified in summary chart – only previously identified sites 

** 5 NRHP-listed historic properties are included in both Atlanta Approach Alternatives based on proximity. 

*** The railroad corridors of both Crescent and CSX are considered NRHP-eligible resources but are not included in the overall 

number; however, the railroads will be evaluated in the Tier 2 EIS. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-107

HISTORY 

A review of previously identified historic resources for the I-85 Corridor and the two Approaches are 

identified in Exhibit 3.8-12, Exhibit 3.8-13 and Exhibit 3.8-14 (see also Appendix A). 

Exhibit 3.8-12: I-85 Corridor - National Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81218 College Park Historic District 1893 District Fulton GA NRHP 1 of 50

80795 East Point Industrial District 1875-

1949

District Fulton GA NRHP 1 of 50

81760 Oakland City Historic District 1880 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 50

81620 Adair Park Historic District 1897 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 50

81291 West End Historic District 1894 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 50

80625 Atlanta University Center Historic District 1865 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 50

80221 Castleberry Hill Historic District 1890s1959District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 50

81120 Selig Company Building 1900-

1949

Building Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 50

81059 Cooledge, F. J., and Sons, Company--Hastings' 

Seed Company

1913 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 50

81675 Westinghouse Electric Company Building 1923 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 50

81687 Southern Railway North Avenue Yards 

Historic District

1925 District Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 50

81053 Atlanta Spring and Bed Company--Block 

Candy Company

1900 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

80890 Atlanta Buggy Company and Warehouse--

Hatcher Bros. Furniture Company

1903 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

81683 Means Street Historic District 1869 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

330 New Hope Farm 1885 Buildings/

Farm

Spartanburg SC NRHP 35 of 50

GS0503 Loray Mill Historic District 1900-

1935

District Gaston NC NRHP 46 of 50

GS0594 Loray Mill Historic District Boundary 

Expansion

1901-

1920

District Gaston NC NRHP 46 of 50

GS1093 Downtown Gastonia Historic District Late 

19th 

Centuryearly 

20th 

Century

District Gaston NC NRHP

46 of 50

GS0016 Third National Bank Building 1923 Building Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 50

GS0405 Robinson-Gardner Building 1897 Building Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 50

GS0015 First National Bank Building 1916-17 Building Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 50

GS1076 Mayworth School 1921 Building Gaston NC NRHP 47 of 50
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-108

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

GS0024 Belmont Historic District 19th 

Centuryearly 

20th 

Century

District Gaston NC NRHP

48 of 50

GS0030 (former) United States Post Office 1939 Building Gaston NC NRHP 48 of 50

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, South 

Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of 

NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A.

Exhibit 3.8-13: I-85 Corridor Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach (including Greenfield section) - 

National Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81131 King Plow Company** 1900-

1949

Buildings Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

81764 Howell Interlocking Historic District** 1889 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

81421 Ashby Street Car Barn** 1927 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

81082 Van Winkle, E., Gin and Machine Works** 1889; 

1912

Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

80626 Atlanta Waterworks Hemphill Avenue Station 1892 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

80182 Peachtree Southern Railway Station 1918 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

81028 Brookwood Hills Historic District** 1927 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

80830 Garden Hills Historic District 1925-

1949

District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 50

81117 Peachtree Highlands-Peachtree Park Historic 

District

1920 District Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 50

80955 Oglethorpe University Historic District 1915 District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 50

81599 The Superb (Southeastern Railway Museum) 1911 Structure Gwinnett GA NRHP 7 of 50

80119 Norcross Historic District 1870 District Gwinnett GA NRHP 6 of 50

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of 

NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A; ** 5 NRHP resources included in both Norfolk Southern and CSX Atlanta Approaches. 

Exhibit 3.8-14: I-85 Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach - National Register of Historic Places Listed 

Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81131 King Plow Company** 1900-

1949

Buildings Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81764 Howell Interlocking Historic District** 1889 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-109

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

81421 Ashby Street Car Barn** 1927 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81082 Van Winkle, E., Gin and Machine Works** 1889, 

1912

Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81783 Berkeley Park Historic District 1900-

1974

District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81028 Brookwood Hills Historic District** 1925-

1974

District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81448 Druid Hills Historic District 1900-

1949

District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 12

81634 Emory Grove Historic District 1900-

1949

District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 12

249543 Decatur Waterworks 1928-

1948

District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 12

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of 

NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A; ** 5 NRHP resources included in both Norfolk Southern and CSX Atlanta Approaches.

It is worth highlighting the scarcity of NRHP-listed historic resources in the screening area for the I85 Corridor Alternative that are not shared with the Southern Crescent Corridor. The I-85 Corridor 

includes only one NRHP-listed rural historic resource outside of the greater Atlanta and Charlotte 

metropolitan areas (See Appendix A: Map Books). Eligible state and local sites are found in Exhibit 

3.8-15. 

Exhibit 3.8-15: I-85 Corridor - State Listed or Recognized Eligible Resources/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

770311-24 Wilder Manufacturing Company 

Building

1907 Building Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 50

770311-28 Peters Street Bridge 1935 Structure Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 50

770311-8 Southern Railway Buildings 1912 Buildings/ 

Multiple 

Property

Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 50

770311-27 Nelson Street Bridge 1906 Structure Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 50

770311-11 Circle Wye Railroad Junction and 

Associated Railroad Corridors

1846 Site Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 50

17075 Site Number 0901 Unknown Unknown Greenville SC ArchSite 33 of 50

GS1327 Wolfe Family Dairy Farm Late-1800s Buildings/ 

Farm

Gaston NC HPOWEB 46 of 50

GS0404 Myrtle Mill Village Historic District Unknown District Gaston NC HPOWEB 46 of 50

GS0400 Arlington Mill Village Historic District Unknown District Gaston NC HPOWEB 46 of 50

GS1614 Arlington School and Peedin School 1922, 1949 Buildings Gaston NC HPOWEB 46 of 50

GS1625 Piedmont and Northern Railway Linear 

Historic District

1910-1916 District Gaston/ 

Mecklenburg

NC HPOWEB 46/47/50 of 

50

GS0382 Lowell Teacherage ca. 1924 Building Gaston NC HPOWEB 47 of 50

GS0135 Bank of Belmont 1926-27 Building Gaston NC HPOWEB 48 of 50
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-110

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)* 

MK2983 W.P.A. Douglas Airport Hangar 1936-37 Building Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 49 of 50

MK3071 Ford Motor Company Automotive Parts 

Distribution Center

1952 Building Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 50 of 50

MK2932 Wilmore Local Historic District Unknown District Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 50 of 50

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, South Carolina 

Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed 

properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

Note: * “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A

ARCHAEOLOGY 

The I-85 Corridor generally follows I-85 between Atlanta and Charlotte. The exception is in the 

approach segments into each terminus. A review of previously identified historic resources for the 

I-85 Corridor resulted in the identification of 55 archaeological sites (See Exhibit 3.8-16). One of 

these, site 9FU91 in Georgia, has been formally determined Eligible for the NRHP and one site in 

South Carolina, site 38GR0224, has been formally determined Eligible. Seven sites in South Carolina 

have been evaluated as Potentially Eligible (38GR0179, 38GR0222, 38GR0223, 38SP0094, 

38SP0159, 38SP0268 and 38SP0272). There are four sites identified in the Norfolk Southern Atlanta 

Approach and six sites in the CSX Atlanta Approach with one site, site 9DA355, listed on the NRHP 

(See Exhibit 3.8-17 and Exhibit 3.8-18). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-111

Exhibit 3.8-16: I-85 Corridor– Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9FU90 GA None Unknown Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Lithic Scatter Cultivated and eroded.

9FU91 GA Atlanta City 

Garbage 

Crematory

Determined 

Eligible 

Historic:

Unknown 

Historic Scatter Disturbed by erosion.

9FU410 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

19th-20th Century Historic Scatter Associated railroad and 

warehouse district.

9FU582 GA OrmeMagnolia

Trolley Line

Recommended 

Ineligible 

20th Century Abandoned 

trolley tracks 

Destroyed.

38AN0174 SC SCHD 

Anderson 5

Probably Not 

Eligible 

19th-20th Century Surface Scatter Several buildings (not 

surveyed) probably are part of a 

tenant farm. Slope erosion.

38AN0215 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible

Middle Archaic Lithic Scatter Low density lithic scatter 

(Morrow Mountain Point).

38CK0081 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Late 19th-20th 

Century 

Surface Scatter The site consists of a low 

density non-diagnostic 

prehistoric lithic scatter and a 

moderate density late 

nineteenth/early twentieth 

century historic scatter.

38CK0082 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Late 19th-20th 

Century 

Surface Scatter The site consists of a 

moderately low density nondiagnostic prehistoric lithic 

scatter and moderately dense 

late nineteenth/early twentieth 

century historic scatter 

representing an old house 

location.

38GR0163 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Early 20th Century 

Surface Scatter, 

Building Debris 

Freshly bulldozed area with 

numerous historic artifacts of 

early 20th century to recent age. 

Appears to be debris from 

recent removal of one or more 

houses. Houses indicated on 

current USGS for site location. 

Large area of natural quartz 

scatter also present.

38GR0179 SC Salem 

Methodist 

Church 

Cemetery 

Potentially 

Eligible 

18th-19th Century Church Site and 

Cemetery 

Cemetery is situated on hill top 

overlooking Saluda River flood 

plain, containing from 20 to 30 

interments, historic Salem 

Methodist Church founded in 

1700s.

38GR0180 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

20th Century

Surface Scatter Light surface scatter of mixed 

prehistoric and historic artifacts. 

38GR0183 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible 

20th century

(1937-1980s)

Brick School 

Foundation 

WPA built school constructed 

in 1937, demolished in the early 

1980s.

38GR0221 SC None Not Eligible 19th-20th Century House Site Site is a subsurface deposit of 

19th and 20th century artifacts 

indicative of an occupation or 

dwelling. Concrete capped well 

or privy remains.

38GR0222 SC None Potentially 

Eligible 

19th-20th Century House Site Tenant shack associated with a 

limited early 20th century 

deposit.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-112

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

38GR0223 SC None Potentially 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

19th Century

House Site Structure is an occupied IHouse built c. 1860. Its integrity 

is good and the condition of the 

structure is fair.

38GR0224 SC None Eligible 19th Century House Site Building #293-0902 is a 

Hall/Parlor house c. 1880 and 

its integrity and condition are 

both good. A stained glass 

transom and sidelights are the 

only Greek Revival elements. 

Two outbuildings exist. 

38GR0356 SC Find 2 Probably Not 

Eligible

19th-20th Century Surface Scatter Possible trash dump associated 

with house.

38GR0357 SC NSA07 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Sparse prehistoric lithic artifact 

scatter likely impacted by the 

urban development Home 

Depot store.

38OC0150 SC Redneck Site Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Low-density lithic scatter; 

flooding and wave activity have 

caused artifacts to wash from 

bank.

38OC0156 SC DD Probably Not 

Eligible 

Woodland

19th Century

Lithic Scatter High-density scatter of lithic 

and a handful of sherds at 

water’s edge in extensively 

eroded and disturbed low 

contour.

38OC0157 SC EE Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Isolated flakes observed on 

steep slope, in cut swath; appear 

to be deposited by erosion 

(sheet wash).

38SP0094 SC SCHD 

Spartanburg 

18

Potentially 

Eligible 

Middle – Late 

Archaic 

Prehistoric 

Scatter 

Some erosion.

38SP0146 SC SCHD 

Spartanburg 

61

Probably Not 

Eligible 

Early – Late Archaic

20th Century 

Lithic scatter

Historic Scatter 

Heavily eroded.

38SP0147 SC SCHD 

Spartanburg 

62

Probably Not 

Eligible 

18th-20th Century Surface Scatter High density historic scatter.

38SP0148 SC SCHD 

Spartanburg 

63

Probably Not 

Eligible 

Early Archaic, Late 

Woodland, 

Mississippian 

19th-20th Century

Surface Scatter I-85 Improvements Project. 

Low density prehistoric lithics, 

moderate density historic. 

38SP0149 SC SCHD 

Spartanburg 

64

Probably Not 

Eligible 

19th-20th Century Surface Scatter Sparse surface scatter.

38SP0150 SC SCHD 

Spartanburg 

65

Probably Not 

Eligible 

20th Century House Site Structural remains.

38SP0151 SC None Probably Not 

Eligible

19th Century Surface Scatter Collapsed shed with fieldstone 

piers.

38SP0159 SC BMW-1-23 Potentially 

Eligible

19th/20th Century House Site BMW Plant, house/ 

outbuildings/well/midden.

38SP0185 SC BMW-1-19 Probably Not 

Eligible

19th/20th Century House site BMW Plant. Concrete capped 

well or privy remains.

38SP0186 SC BMW-1-20 Probably Not 

Eligible

20th Century Surface scatter BMW Plant – Historic scatter.

38SP0187 SC BMW-1-21 Probably Not 

Eligible

20th Century House site BMW Plant. Extant 1860s Ihouse. Good integrity. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-113

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

38SP0188 SC BMW-1-22 Probably Not 

Eligible 

20th Century House site BMW Plant. Extant c 1880 Hall 

& Parlor house (#293-0902), 

Good integrity and condition. 

Outbuildings

38SP0189 SC BMW-1-24 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

20th Century

Lithic Scatter BMW Plant. Small prehistoric 

scatter. Possible trash dump 

associated with house. Eroded

38SP0199 SC BMW-1-35 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 20th 

Century 

House Site BMW Plant. Extant 

house/barn/well. North portion 

of site may be intact under a 

parking lot.

38SP0200 SC BMW-1-36 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 20th 

Century

Lithic Scatter BMW Plant. Small prehistoric 

and historic scatter. 

38SP0217 SC BMW-1-54 Probably Not 

Eligible

Early Archaic , 

Mississippian

Lithic Scatter BMW Plant. Scatter on exposed 

surfaces.

38SP0218 SC BMW-1-55 Probably Not 

Eligible

19th/20th Century Surface Scatter BMW Plant. Historic surface 

scatter.

38SP0219 SC BMW-1-56 Probably Not 

Eligible

20th Century Dump BMW Plant. Brick and 

cinderblock shed.

38SP0264 SC JR1-1 Probably Not 

Eligible

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Surface grabs collection. Field 

is severely eroded.

38SP0268 SC Geer 1 Potentially 

Eligible

19th/20th Century House Site Foundations, well, privy and 

midden.

38SP0269 SC Geer 2 Not Eligible Middle Woodland

20th Century 

Lithic and 

Historic Scatters

Bulldozed terrace.

38SP0270 SC Geer 4 Not Eligible 20th Century House Site School/tenet house.

38SP0271 SC Well 1 Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Low density scatter.

38SP0272 SC Well 2 Potentially 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

20th Century

House Site Tenet house associated with 

Snoddy farm house.

38SP0273 SC Well 3 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

19th/20th Century

Lithic scatter, 

House Site 

Low density scatter.

38SP0274 SC Well 4 Probably Not 

Eligible

19th/20th Century House Site Low density scatter.

38SP0275 SC Well 7 Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Low Density scatter.

38SP0276 SC Well 9 Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Low Density scatter.

38SP0278 SC Wingo 

House

Not Eligible 20th Century House Site Extant mid-20th house.

38SP0317 SC Site 1 Not Eligible 19th Century Cemetery Smith Family Graveyard. Some 

graves may have been moved.

38SP0318 SC Site 2 Not Eligible 20th Century House Site House demolished.

31GS370 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Disturbed by erosion.

31MK112 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Disturbed by erosion.

31MK114 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Disturbed by railroad 

construction activity.

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct impacts.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-114

Exhibit 3.8-17: I-85 Corridor with NS Atlanta Approach –Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9GW153 GA Barrett No 

determination 

Multi-component 

Prehistoric 

Surface artifact 

scatter

Amateur collection

9GW167 GA None No 

determination

Historic Old railroad 

station

No notes

9GW591 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

Prehistoric -

Historic

House site Destroyed

9GW592 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

Prehistoric Lithic scatter Destroyed

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct impacts.

Exhibit 3.8-18: I-85 Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach –Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9DA354 GA 1993 DIGIT Recommended 

Ineligible

Prehistoric 

Unknown Historic

Lithic Scatter. 

House Site

Disturbed

9DA355 GA Decatur 

Waterworks

NRHP Listed 19th century Historic 

waterworks

Undisturbed

9DA356 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

19th-20th century Historic Artifact 

Scatter

Surface scatter only

9GW515 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

19th-20th century House site Shallow and eroded

9GW516 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

20th century Historic Artifact 

Scatter

Modern artifacts

9GW593 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

20th century House site Disturbed

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct impacts.

3.8.3.3 Greenfield 

 Exhibit 3.8-19 below summarizes the number of listed, eligible, or identified historic and 

archaeological resources located within the Greenfield Corridor environmental screening area. A 

listing of the National Register of Historic Places listed sites and districts for the Greenfield Corridor 

and the Greenfield Corridor Atlanta Approaches can be found in Exhibit 3.8-20 through Exhibit 3.8-

22. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-115

Exhibit 3.8-19: Summary of Historic and Archaeological Resources in Greenfield Corridor and 

Approaches 

Corridor Alternative History - NRHP 

Properties

History - State 

Eligible Properties

Archaeology 

identified sites*

Greenfield Corridor 15 13 28

Greenfield - NS Atlanta Approach*** 12** None 4 

Greenfield - CSX Atlanta Approach*** 9** None 6 

Source: HNTB, PB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, Georgia Archaeological Site File, 

South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHPlisted properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

Note: * Eligibility for Archaeology sites not identified in summary chart – only previously identified sites 

Note: ** 5 NRHP-listed historic properties are included in both Approaches based on proximity. 

Note: *** The railroad corridors of both Crescent and CSX are considered NRHP-eligible resources but are not included in the 

overall number; however, the railroads will be evaluated in the Tier 2 EIS.

HISTORY 

A review of previously identified historic resources for the Greenfield Corridor and the two Atlanta 

Approaches are shown in Exhibit 3.8-20 through Exhibit 3.8-23 (also see Appendix A: Greenfield 

Corridor Map Book). 

Exhibit 3.8-20: Greenfield Corridor - National Register of Historic Places Listed Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)*

81218 College Park Historic District 1893 District Fulton GA NRHP 1 of 55

80795 East Point Industrial District 1875-1949 District Fulton GA NRHP 1 of 55

81760 Oakland City Historic District 1880 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

81620 Adair Park Historic District 1897 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

81291 West End Historic District 1894 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

80625 Atlanta University Center Historic 

District

1865 District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

80221 Castleberry Hill Historic District 1890s1959District Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

81120 Selig Company Building 1925-

1949; 

1900-1924

Building Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

81059 Cooledge, F. J., and Sons, Company--

Hastings' Seed Company

1913 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2 of 55

81675 Westinghouse Electric Company 

Building

1923 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 55

81687 Southern Railway North Avenue Yards 

Historic District

1925 District Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 55

81053 Atlanta Spring and Bed Company--

Block Candy Company

1900 Building Fulton GA NRHP 2/3 of 55
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-116

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)*

80890 Atlanta Buggy Company and 

Warehouse--Hatcher Bros. Furniture 

Company

1903 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

81683 Means Street Historic District 1869 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

80769 Shields-Ethridge Farm Unknown Buildings/ 

Farm

Jackson GA NRHP 14 of 55

Source: Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC 

ArchSite, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database 

of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to Map Book in Appendix A

Exhibit 3.8-21: Greenfield Corridor with NS Approach - National Register of Historic Places Listed 

Sites/Districts 

 Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit

(Map)*

81131 King Plow Company** 1900-1949 Buildings Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

81764 Howell Interlocking Historic District** 1889 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

81421 Ashby Street Car Barn** 1927 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

81082 Van Winkle, E., Gin and Machine 

Works**

1889; 

1912

Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

80626 Atlanta Waterworks Hemphill Avenue 

Station

1892 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

80182 Peachtree Southern Railway Station 1918 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

81028 Brookwood Hills Historic District** 1927 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

80830 Garden Hills Historic District 1925-1949 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 55

81117 Peachtree Highlands-Peachtree Park 

Historic District

1920 District Fulton GA NRHP 3/4 of 55

80955 Oglethorpe University Historic District 1915 District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 55

80119 Norcross Historic District 1870 District Gwinnett GA NRHP 6 of 55

81599 The Superb (Southeastern Railway 

Museum) 

1911 Structure Gwinnett GA NRHP 7 of 55

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, the National Park Service’s (NPS) 

inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

* “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A; ** 5 NRHP resources included in both Norfolk Southern and CSX Atlanta 

Approaches.

Exhibit 3.8-22: Greenfield Corridor CSX Atlanta Approach - National Register of Historic Places 

Listed Sites/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit*

81131 King Plow Company** 1900-

1949

Buildings Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81764 Howell Interlocking Historic 

District**

1889 District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-117

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit*

81421 Ashby Street Car Barn** 1927 Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81082 Van Winkle, E., Gin and Machine 

Works**

1889; 

1912

Building Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81783 Berkeley Park Historic District 1900-

1974

District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81028 Brookwood Hills Historic District** 1925-

1974

District Fulton GA NRHP 3 of 12

81448 Druid Hills Historic District 1900-

1949

District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 12

81634 Emory Grove Historic District 1900-

1949

District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 12

249543 Decatur Waterworks 1928-

1948

District DeKalb GA NRHP 4 of 12

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, the National Park Service’s (NPS) 

inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

 * “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A;

** Resources included in both Norfolk Southern and CSX Atlanta Approaches.

There are no NRHP-listed properties in the Greenfield Corridor Alternative in South Carolina and 

North Carolina. Because the Greenfield Corridor would utilize the Norfolk Southern corridor or CSX 

corridor in its approaches to Atlanta, all but one NRHP-listed historic resource − the Shields-Ethridge 

Farm (Site ID 80769) − within the environmental screening area for the Greenfield Corridor are 

located within the Approaches (See Appendix A: Map Book). Eligible state and local sites are found 

in Exhibit 3.8-23. 

Exhibit 3.8-23: Greenfield Corridor Alternative - State Listed or Recognized Eligible 

Resources/Districts 

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit 

(Map)*

770311-

24

Wilder Manufacturing 

Company Building

1907 Building Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 55

770311-

28

Peters Street Bridge 1935 Structure Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 55

770311-

8

Southern Railway Buildings 1912 Buildings/Multiple 

Property

Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 55

770311-

27

Nelson Street Bridge 1906 Structure Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 55

770311-

11

Circle Wye Railroad Junction 

and Associated Railroad 

Corridors

1846 Site Fulton GA GDOT 2 of 55

236673 Moriah Primitive Baptist 

Church and Cemetery

1888 Site Madison GA GNAHRGIS 19 of 55

648 McGee Farmstead 1865; 

1920

Buildings/ Farm Anderson SC ArchSite 26 of 55

17747 House-Unidentified Unknown Building York SC ArchSite 49 of 55

GS1321 Clarence Wilson Barn and 

Corn Crib

Early 20th

century

Site Gaston NC HPOWEB 50 of 55
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-118

Site ID Site Name Year(s) Type County State Source Exhibit 

(Map)*

MK2983 W.P.A. Douglas Airport 

Hangar

1936-37 Building Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 53 of 55

MK3071 Ford Motor Company 

Automotive Parts Distribution 

Center

1952 Building Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 53 of 55

MK2932 Wilmore Local Historic 

District

Unknown District Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 54 of 55

GS1625 Piedmont and Northern 

Railway Linear Historic 

District

Unknown Linear District Mecklenburg NC HPOWEB 55 of 55

Source: HNTB, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Georgia, GNAHRGIS, ARC, South Carolina SHPO, SC ArchSite, 

South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB, the National Park Service’s (NPS) 

inventory of NRHP-listed properties and database of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) 

Note: * “Exhibit (Map)” refers to map book in Appendix A

There are no previously identified NRHP-eligible historic resources in the Greenfield Norfolk 

Southern Atlanta Approach or the CSX Atlanta Approach. 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

The Greenfield Corridor is designed to allow for high speeds and eliminate interference with other 

modes of travel. A review of previously identified cultural resources for the Greenfield Corridor 

resulted in the identification of 28 archaeological sites, although only one of these, site 9FU91, has 

been formally determined Eligible for the NRHP (See Exhibit 3.8-24). There are four sites identified 

in the Norfolk Southern Atlanta Approach and six sites in the CSX Atlanta Approach with one site, 

9DA355, listed on the NRHP (See Exhibit 3.8-25 and Exhibit 3.8-26). 

Exhibit 3.8-24: Greenfield Corridor Alternative–Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Site 

Number State Site Name

NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9FU90 GA None Unknown Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Lithic Scatter Cultivated and eroded.

9FU91 GA Atlanta City 

Garbage 

Crematory

Eligible Historic:

Unknown 

Historic Scatter Disturbed by erosion.

9FU410 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

19th-20th century Historic Scatter Associated railroad and 

warehouse district.

9FU582 GA OrmeMagnolia

Trolley Line

Recommended 

Ineligible 

20th century Abandoned 

trolley tracks 

Destroyed.

9CA61 GA Newton 

Bridge 

Unknown Middle Archaic, 

Woodland, Late 

Mississippian 

Surface Scatter Surface scatter of a 

significant prehistoric 

material (points, 

ceramics, animal bone, 

shell, etc.). 

9CA82 GA Farmer 

Construction 

Company

Unknown Archaic Lithic Scatter Very close to 9CA80 

and 9CA81 may be 

continuous with them. 

9JK236 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

20th century House Site Structural remains

9MD11 GA None Ineligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Site has been adversely 

impacted.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-119

Site 

Number State Site Name

NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9HA23 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic and 

ceramic

Endangered by 

combustion turbine.

9HA39 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

Late 19th-Early 

20th

Historic House Endangered by barrow 

pit activities.

9HA120 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

19th-20th Historic Scatter Endangered by pipeline 

construction. 

9HA131 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown 

19th century

Lithic Scatter Low density lithic 

scatter, eroded. One 

19th century ceramic. 

9HA132 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Low density lithic 

scatter, eroded. 

38AN0087 SC Site -48 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Middle Archaic Surface Scatter Very light scatter with 

point and end scraper – 

Good Research 

Potential. 

38AN0222 SC None Additional Work Middle-Late 

Archaic, Middle 

Woodland

Surface Scatter -

Occupation site 

Additional Work 

Recommended.

38CK0005 SC Killdeer Site Additional Work Middle Archaic

19th century 

Surface Scatter Additional Work 

Recommended.

38CK0007 SC Site-3 Additional Work Prehistoric:

Unknown 

Historic Chimney 

House Site Stable - Additional 

Work Recommended.

38LU0195 SC DC-26 Probably Not 

Eligible 

20th century Rock Mound 

from field 

clearing 

Rock mound (1m high) 

is on moderately steep 

ridge side slope – 

Moderate erosion.

38LU0199 SC DC-30 Probably Not 

Eligible 

20th century Tin Shed Site is in middle of 

cultivated field. Small 

wooded-sided tin 

roofed shed. Probably 

for storage of farming 

equipment, seeds, 

fertilizers, etc.

38SP0264 SC JR 1-1 Probably Not 

Eligible 

Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter in a 

highly eroded clear-cut 

area.

38SP0269 SC None Not Eligible Middle Woodland 

20th Century

Lithic Scatter, 

Historic Scatter 

Surface scatter of 

prehistoric artifacts and 

modern garbage on a 

bulldozed creek 

terrace.

38SP0311 SC Revisit 1 Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Surface lithic scatter 

heavily disturbed by 

gas pipeline, fiber optic 

cable. 

38SP0318 SC Site 2 Not Eligible 20th Century House Site Concrete block 

foundation (three sides 

remain), portion of a 

wood post and wire 

fence line, brick well 

pump house with wood 

frame and asphalt 

shingle roof.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-120

Site 

Number State Site Name

NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

38SP0321 SC Site 5 Not Eligible 20th Century Surface Scatter Surface scatter of 

twentieth century 

artifacts on an eroded 

ridge slope. Material 

likely to have been redeposited.

38YK0082 SC Site-24 No Determination Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Identified via surface 

collection – eroded.

38YK0355 SC LR-1-9 Not Eligible 20th Century Surface Scatter Old house that has 

been graded. Piles of 

building rubble 

bulldozed around the 

base of a large old tree.

31MK112 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Disturbed by erosion.

31MK114 NC None Not Eligible Prehistoric:

Unknown

Lithic Scatter Disturbed by erosion.

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct 

impacts.

Exhibit 3.8-25: Greenfield Corridor Alternative with NS Atlanta Approach –Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites 

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9GW153 GA Barrett No determination Multicomponent 

Prehistoric 

Surface artifact 

scatter

Amateur collection

9GW167 GA None No determination Historic Old railroad 

station

No notes

9GW591 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

Prehistoric -

Historic

House site Destroyed

9GW592 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

Prehistoric Lithic scatter Destroyed

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct 

impacts.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-121

Exhibit 3.8-26: Greenfield Corridor Alternative with CSX Atlanta Approach –Previously Recorded 

Archaeological Sites 

Site 

Number State Site Name NRHP Temporal Site Notes 

9DA354 GA 1993 DIGIT Recommended 

Ineligible

Prehistoric 

Unknown Historic

Lithic Scatter. 

House Site

Disturbed

9DA355 GA Decatur 

Waterworks

NRHP Listed 19th century Historic 

waterworks

Undisturbed

9DA356 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

19th-20th century Historic 

Artifact Scatter

Surface scatter only

9GW515 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

19th-20th century House site Shallow and eroded

9GW516 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

20th century Historic 

Artifact Scatter

Modern artifacts

9GW593 GA None Recommended 

Ineligible

20th century House site Disturbed

Source: PB, GNAHRGIS, Georgia Archaeological Site File, SC ArchSite, and North Carolina SHPO- HPOWEB 

Note: The environmental screening areas are defined as being 600 feet in width to accommodate shifts and potential direct 

impacts. 

3.8.4 Environmental Consequences 

This section identifies the potential for the Corridor Alternatives to have an adverse effect or negative 

impact on resources protected by Section 106 of the NHPA identified in the Tier 1 EIS. This 

assessment is limited in scope since, short of demolition, what constitutes an adverse effect to an 

individual property will vary depending on the characteristics that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP. 

The potential for adverse impacts on NRHP-listed or state/locally determined NRHP-eligible historic 

or archaeological resources would be further analyzed during Tier 2 , in full compliance with Section 

106 of the NHPA, and as more detailed design information is available for review of the Preferred 

Alternative and specific service routes are identified. The Project would consist of the development 

of complementary transportation facilities along the Preferred Corridor Alternative, which may 

include but is not limited to, train stations and maintenance facilities. These complementary 

transportation facilities have not been considered in this analysis. If any adverse effects are identified 

during the Tier 2 analysis, they would be addressed through SHPO/THPO consultation and in 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 106-implementionregulations. 

As explained in Section 1.1.2.3, the initial designated section of the SEHSR was the Washington, DC 

to Charlotte, NC section, for which FRA, FHWA, NCDOT and DRPT completed a Tier I EIS and 

ROD in 2002. Subsequently, in 2017 as part of the Tier 2 EIS and ROD for the Raleigh, NC to 

Richmond, VA section of the SEHSR, FRA, NCDOT, DRPT, the VA and NC SHPOs, and the ACHP 

signed a programmatic agreement (SEHSR PA) that established responsibilities and procedures under 

Section 106 for the Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC section, with the intent that a separate 

memorandum of agreement (MOA) would be used to determine mitigation for adverse effects to any 

Section 106 resources. The SEHSR PA contemplated adding other portions of the SEHSR and other 

project components, and specifically noted the Atlanta to Charlotte corridor. FRA anticipates that, 

should additional funding for Tier 2 studies become available, the SEHSR PA will be amended to add 

the Atlanta to Charlotte corridor, and will govern Section 106 determinations. 

An adverse effect is found when a federal action alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics 

of a NRHP-listed and/or eligible historic resource in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Examples of 

adverse effects that could occur as a result of this Project include: 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-122

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 

• Removal of the property from its historic location; 

• Change of the character of the property’s use or change of physical features within the property’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance; and/or 

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s 

significant historic features (“proximity effects”).

FRA and GDOT would initiate the Section 106 review process early in a Tier 2 study of the Preferred 

Alternative. Potential consulting parties would have an opportunity to review and comment on the 

eligibility of potential cultural resources and the proposed effects of the Project on those eligible 

resources. 

3.8.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes a rail connection would not be built between Atlanta and Charlotte. 

Passenger service between the two cities would consist of existing bus services, air travel, and 

continued automobile use along I-85/75, I-20, and I-77. The No-Build Alternative does not develop 

any rail infrastructure or extend the SEHSR Corridor network from Charlotte to Atlanta, and it 

maintains Amtrak’s current and future plans for its Crescent passenger rail service. In the No-Build 

Alternative, the impacts to cultural resources could potentially occur if additional ROW is needed or 

if substantial changes to traffic and transit volumes or operations lead to proximity effects such as 

changes in noise levels and visual effects. 

As the geographic scope and nature of the No-Build Alternative projects are limited, the potential 

effects of the projects are likely to be contained to the area in which the projects will be constructed. 

The potential for impacts to cultural resources would be determined through the environmental 

processes for the already planned transportation improvements. For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, 

the No-Build Alternative would result in no adverse effects to the previously documented cultural 

resources located within the route alternatives. 

3.8.4.2 Corridor Alternatives 

As discussed in Section 3.8.2 of this Tier 1 EIS, GDOT identified all properties in the environmental 

screening area that are listed, or potentially eligible for listing, in the NRHP. After selection of a 

Preferred Alternative, at which time the design of this Project will have progressed to a point sufficient 

to enable site-specific analyses of potential effects on protected cultural resources, the Tier 2 analysis

will include a detailed assessment of effects in compliance with Section 106. 

Cultural resources located within the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield Corridor Alternatives, 

which may be in the area potentially disturbed by the proposed construction, include multiple NRHPlisted or eligible individual structures and districts. Direct impacts on NRHP resources would result 

in a change of character to the property, alter the use, or result in the loss of a structure or a portion of 

a property. Proximity effects, such as visual and noise or vibration impacts on historic resources, could 

occur within the screening area. As the Project proceeds into Tier 2, avoidance and minimization of 

adverse effects to these properties will be considered. For the Atlanta Approaches, GDOT assumes 

that the majority of the approaches would be constructed within existing railroad ROW, which would 

minimize the potential for adverse direct effects to historic properties. However, minor ROW 

acquisition may be necessary at certain locations. Proximity effects may include altering the visual 

setting, as well as increased noise and/or vibration levels due to the introduction of train traffic within 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-123

the immediate vicinity of rural historic resources. Due to the relative low density of cultural resources 

outside the urban areas, alternative alignments may have success in avoiding effects to rural historic 

resources. 

The Southern Crescent Corridor would have the potential to impact more historic resources than the 

I-85 Corridor and the Greenfield Corridor due to the route paralleling the existing railroad corridor, 

which itself is a potential historic resource.114 As a historic transportation corridor through Georgia, 

South Carolina, and North Carolina, the railroad corridor attracted economic development along its 

path, which in part explains the higher occurrence of historic resources, and particularly historic 

districts, in the Southern Crescent Corridor. GDOT assumes that the majority of the alternative may 

be constructed within existing rail ROW, which would minimize the potential for adverse direct 

effects to historic properties. However, minor ROW acquisition may be necessary at certain locations. 

As the Project proceeds into a Tier 2analysis, avoidance and minimization of adverse effects to these 

properties will be considered. 

Historic resources located within the I-85 Corridor include multiple NRHP listed or eligible structures 

and districts. Based on this screening, the I-85 Corridor would have the potential to impact more 

historic resources than the Greenfield Corridor but less than the Southern Crescent Corridor. 

Proximity effects along I-85 may include altering the visual setting as well as increased noise levels 

and/or vibration levels due to the introduction of train traffic within the immediate vicinity of historic 

resources. However, it is worth noting that in some cases, I-85 is currently an element within most of 

the previously identified historic resources’ setting and would be taken into account in the evaluation 

of potential impacts. Regardless, due to the relative low density of identified historic resources outside 

of the urban areas, alternative alignments may be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse effects 

to rural historic resources. 

The Greenfield Corridor would have the potential to impact fewer cultural resources than the Southern 

Crescent Corridor and the I-85 Corridor. However, additional resources may be identified with a more 

intense-level analysis in Tier 2. Direct impacts to NRHP resources could result in a change of 

character to the property or its use, or could result in the loss of a structure or a portion of a property. 

As the Project proceeds into Tier 2, avoidance and minimization of adverse effects to these properties 

will be considered. Due to the relative low density of cultural resources outside the urban areas, 

alternative alignments may have success in avoiding effects to rural historic resources. 

3.8.5 Potential Mitigation 

Potential mitigation measures are presented here in a general manner. If potential adverse effects are 

determined through subsequent analysis, an MOA, or multiple MOAs, with specific mitigation 

measures will be developed as warranted by GDOT, SCDOT, and NCDOT through consultation with 

the FRA, the SHPOs of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, other consulting parties and 

tribal partners in accord with NHPA Section 106 (ACHP 2004) and applicable state regulations. If 

NRHP-eligible archaeological sites cannot be avoided or protected, data recovery excavations could 

be conducted to mitigate the adverse impacts. Cemeteries and burial sites will be avoided to the extent 

 

114 In August 2018, the ACHP issued a program comment that exempts from Section 106 undertakings that might affect historic 

properties within rail rights-of-way. Should this Project progress to a Tier 2 analysis, FRA will determine whether the Program 

Comment would apply to any historic resources, including the rail corridor itself. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-124

feasible. Any effects to cemeteries that cannot be avoided will be treated in accordance with the 

federal and state requirements identified in Section 3.8.1 of this Tier 1 EIS. 

Through the analysis conducted as part of this Tier 1 EIS, only those cultural resources that were 

identified as listed in the NRHP or identified as eligible for the NRHP through state or local 

designations were evaluated for their proximity to the proposed route corridors. Because the details 

of construction and potential impacts have not been determined, it is not possible to propose mitigation 

measures. 

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis 

It should be noted that there are likely, as yet unidentified, resources to be identified, analyzed, assessed 

and avoided through an intensive cultural resources inventory to be conducted during the Tier 2 EIS. 

As explained in Section 3.8.5, FRA anticipates that, should funding for Tier 2 study become available, 

the SEHSR PA will be amended to add the Atlanta to Charlotte corridor, and the SEHSR PA will then 

govern Section 106 roles and responsibilities. In general, specific Preferred Corridor alignments will 

be defined in a Tier 2 study. At that time, all cultural resources 50 years old or older (or a time period 

determined in consultation with the SHPOs), will be identified through field work to complete the 

desktop identifications in Chapter 3.8. All resources will be evaluated to determine whether or not they 

meet the NRHP criteria. FRA, GDOT, SCDOT and NCDOT will consider NRHP eligible or listed

resources as Section 106 resources. Officials with jurisdiction will be identified and consulted for 

potential Section 106 resources. Consultation will be performed with public officials, property

owners/officials with jurisdiction, SHPOs, tribal representatives, and other consulting parties regarding 

the effects of the Project on Section 106 resources and measures to minimize harm. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-125

3.9 WATER RESOURCES

In this section, GDOT identifies water related resources including wetlands, streams, lakes, and floodplains 

that are present either entirely or partially within the Corridor Alternatives and discusses relevant federal and 

state regulations. It also briefly describes the potential impacts that the Project could have on water quality. 

In this Tier 1 EIS, GDOT identified and documented the number and acreage of water resources, including 

impaired waters. A soils analysis and concerns relative to groundwater, including the locations of aquifers 

and recharge areas, will be investigated in a future Tier 2 analysis. 

3.9.1 Legal and Regulatory Requirements 

3.9.1.1 Federal Regulatory Context 

Multiple federal authorities provide protections for water resources and are applicable to the Project, including 

the Clean Water Act115 (CWA), Executive Order 11990, DOT Order 5660.1A, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899116, the Flood Disaster Protection Act117, Executive Order 11988, DOT Order 5650, and the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act118, which are all described in the following paragraphs. Further, FRA’s

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts119 require FRA to consider water quality, wetlands, and 

ecological systems during the environmental evaluation process in addition to meeting the Clean Water Act 

and permitting programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

CLEAN WATER ACT 

Originally enacted as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972, as amended by the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and the Water Quality 

Act of 1987120, protects the surface water quality of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and regulates the 

discharge of pollutants from point sources into these resources through permitting requirements. Waters of 

the U.S. are defined in the CWA as waters used for interstate or foreign commerce, industry, or travel, waters 

subject to tidal flow, all interstate waters and wetlands, the territorial sea, tributaries of Waters of the U.S., 

and wetlands adjacent to Waters of the U.S.121 

Section 402 

Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program. Under this program, the EPA has regulatory authority over point source discharges on a sector115 33 USC § 1251, et seq. (2002). Clean Water Act of 1972. 

116 33 USC § 403. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 

117 42 U.S.C. § 4001-4128. Flood Disaster Protection Act. 

118 16 U.S.C. § 1273. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

119 64 FR 28545. FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (May 26, 1999). 

120 33 USC § 1251, et seq. More information available on EPA’s website here: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

(accessed on 04/10/2018)

121 40 CFR § 230.3(s). More information can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/about-waters-united-states (accessed 4/10/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-126

wide basis to protect water quality of the receiving waters and can designate permitting authority to the states. 

Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. 

Section 404 

Discharges of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) are regulated under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and require a permit for unavoidable impacts. The principle behind the Section 

404 permitting process is that dredged or fill material should not be discharged into the aquatic ecosystem, 

unless it can be demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an unacceptable impact either individually 

or in combination with known and/or probable impacts of other activities. The EPA developed the Section 

404 permitting program, as well as related guidance and regulations, in conjunction with the Secretary of the 

Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. Additionally, Section 401 of the CWA requires that any applicant 

for a Section 404 permit also obtain a Water Quality Certification from the state or states in which the project 

is located. 

Section 303(d) and 305(b) 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify impaired waters as part of routine monitoring and 

reporting. In this context, impaired waters are those bodies of water that contain levels of pollutants that do 

not meet the EPA’s standards for good water quality. For impaired waters, states develop a strategy for 

reducing pollutant levels and meeting water quality standards. Additionally, section 305(b) requires states to 

broadly report on the overall condition of all aquatic resources in their state. EPA supports states developing 

joint reports to satisfy both 303(d) and 305(b). 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 – PROTECTION OF WETLANDS 

In addition to the Section 404 permitting program that regulates infill, Executive Order 11990 directs federal 

agencies to avoid and minimize adverse impacts associated with the modification or destruction of wetlands, 

and to avoid new construction in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative.122 In support of this 

Executive Order, U.S. DOT Order 5660.1.A directs the DOT to avoid new construction in wetlands unless 

there is no practicable alternative and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize any 

resulting harm to wetlands. The regulatory definition of wetlands states: 

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 

swamps, bogs, and similar areas.” 123 

122 Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121. Available online here: 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11990.html (accessed 4/10/2018).

123 See 40 CFR § 239.2. See also 33 CFR § 328.3.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-127

The regulatory definition emphasizes the three essential characteristics that a wetland possesses: hydric 

soils,124 a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation,125 and a persistent wetland hydrology. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION 

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management and Protection,126 (as implemented by the Department of 

Transportation by USDOT Order 5650.2127) directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible, the long 

and short term effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. It requires efforts to 

avoid direct or indirect support of development within 100-year floodplains wherever there is a reasonable 

alternative, and prohibits floodplain encroachments which are hazardous, not economically viable, result in 

incomplete uses of the floodplain, or would cause a critical interruption of an emergency transportation 

facility, a substantial flood risk, or an effect on the floodplain’s natural resource values. 

Projects that encroach upon 100-year floodplains must be supported with additional specific information. The 

USDOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, prescribes “policies and procedures for 

ensuring that proper consideration is given to the avoidance and mitigation of floodplain effects in agency 

actions, planning programs and budget requests.” Environmental review documents should indicate potential 

risks and effects from proposed transportation facilities. 

FLOOD DISASTER PROTECTION ACT 

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA), requires the identification of all flood-prone areas, the 

provision of flood insurance where applicable, and the purchase of insurance for structures in special floodhazard areas. 128 The FDPA applies to any federally assisted project in an area identified as having special 

flood hazards. Projects should avoid construction in, or develop a design to be consistent with, FEMAidentified flood hazard areas. 

RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT

Section 10 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act regulates structures constructed over navigable waters.129 It 

defines navigable waters as those that are subject to tidal flows and/or are used for interstate or foreign trade, 

either presently or in the past.130 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over 

work in, over, or under navigable waters, including wharfs, piers, and structures (excluding bridges and 

124 Hydric soils are soils “that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop 

anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” (NRCS, 2010) 

125 Hydrophytic vegetation is plant-life that “requires or can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season.” 

(USACE, 2012) 

126 Executive Order 11988- Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 117) is available online here: 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11988.html (accessed 4/10/2018)

127 USDOT Order 5650 sets forth the USDOT’s policy for interpreting Executive Order 11988-Floodplain Management 

128 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4128. 

129 33 USC § 403. Section 10 of The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 

130 Full definition of navigable waters, per 33 CFR Section 329.3 can be found online here: 

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr329.pdf (accessed 4/10/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-128

structures permitted by the USCG), and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, 

filling, or other modifications to navigable waters. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve certain rivers with 

outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present 

and future generations.131 Rivers may be designated by Congress or, if certain requirements are met, the 

Secretary of the Interior. Designated segments need not include the entire river and may include tributaries. 

River classifications as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational are defined as follows by the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act: 

• Wild river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

• Scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

• Recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, 

that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment 

or diversion in the past.

To satisfy Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the NPS has compiled a Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory (NRI), which is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments “that are believed to 

possess one or more ‘outstandingly remarkable’ or natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local 

or regional significance.”132 Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related CEQ procedures, all federal 

agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely affect one or more NRI segments. 

Furthermore, all federal agencies must consult with the NPS regarding potential impacts to NRI-listed river 

segments prior to taking action. 

3.9.1.2 State Regulatory Context 

Similar to the Waters of the U.S. defined in the CWA, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina each 

define state waters and provide additional protections that are implemented by state environmental agencies. 

State agencies also work with USACE and EPA to implement portions of the CWA. 

GEORGIA 

The Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) § 12-7-1 defines Georgia State Waters as 

“any and all rivers, streams, creeks, branches, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, drainage systems, springs, 

wells, and other bodies of surface or subsurface water, natural and artificial, lying within or forming a 

part of the boundaries of the State which are not entirely confined and retained completely upon the 

131 16 U.S.C. § 1273. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

132 National Park Service, 2011. “National Center for Recreation and Conservation, Nationwide Rivers Inventory.” Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html (accessed on 04/10/2018) 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-129

property of a single individual, partnership, or corporation, except as may be defined in the [O.C.G.A.] 

§ 12-7-71(7).”133 

These state waters are protected by the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975, in 

compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as required under 

Section 402 of the CWA. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Environmental Protection 

Division (EPD) mandates vegetative buffers adjacent to banks of state waters (not including wetlands) to 

protect water quality and habitat. These buffers range from 25 feet to 50 feet depending on the type of water 

resource. GADNR EPD regulates the state-mandated buffers in Georgia. Certain construction activities 

within the buffer area require buffer variance to comply with the NPDES permit under Section 402 of the 

CWA. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

In South Carolina, Waters of the State are defined by the Pollution Control Act of 1976 as 

“lakes, bays, sounds, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, 

marshes, inlets, canals, the Atlantic Ocean within the territorial limits of the State, and all other bodies 

of surface or underground water, natural or artificial, public or private, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, 

which are wholly or partially within or bordering the State or within its jurisdiction.”134 

Waters of the State are jointly regulated by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control (DHEC) and the USACE, Charleston District under Section 401 and Section 404 of the CWA. Buffer 

requirements are not regulated by state laws in South Carolina. Pursuant to State Regulation 19-450, Permits 

for Construction in Navigable Waters, all navigable waters in the state are public trust properties and are 

regulated by the DHEC Bureau of Water. The DHEC requires a Construction in Navigable Waters Permit for 

impacts to state navigable waters. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

North Carolina General Statute § 143-212 defines Waters of the State as 

“any stream, river, brook, swamp, lake, sound, tidal estuary, bay, creek, reservoir, waterway, or other 

body or accumulation of water, whether surface or underground, public or private, or natural or 

artificial, that is contained in, flows through, or borders upon any portion of this State, including any 

portion of the Atlantic Ocean over which the State has jurisdiction.”135 

This regulatory definition includes all wetlands. 

Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 2B provides for definition and protection 

of riparian buffers. Under this rule, the following specific river basins receive protection and maintenance of 

existing buffers: Neuse River Basin, Catawba River Basin (below Lake James), and Tar-Pamlico River Basin. 

133 Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975, O.C.G.A. § 12-7-1, et seq.,(2011). Available at: https://gaswcc.georgia.gov/documents/ocga-12-7-1-

erosion-and-sedimentation-control-act (accessed on 4/10/2018)

134 South Carolina Pollution Control Act of 1976, South Carolina Code of Laws § 48-1-10 et seq., 2013. Available at: 

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t48c001.php (accessed on 04/10/2018)

135 North Carolina General Statue § 143-212,Article 21 Water and Air Resources, effective July 2007.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-130

Riparian state-mandated vegetative buffers are regulated by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

(DWQ) and can vary between 25 feet and 50 feet, depending on the type and location of the water resource. 

Construction variances may be required for certain construction activities within the protected buffer. The 

DWQ also regulates discharge, including dredged or fill material, into isolated wetlands and isolated surface 

waters pursuant to North Carolina code.136

The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Pollution Act of 1973 prevents erosion and sedimentation by 

prohibiting visible off-site sedimentation. The law governs all land-disturbing activities (with some exceptions 

for agriculture, mining, and forestry) and requires those that will disturb one acre or more of land to submit 

and gain approval of an erosion control plan before any land disturbing activity begins. In addition, a “buffer 

zone” is required along any natural waterway or lake. The buffer zone/strip must be wide enough to retain all 

visible sediment within the first 25 percent of the buffer zone nearest the disturbed area. Additionally, along 

trout streams, the buffer zone must be a minimum of 25 feet wide. All disturbed areas must be stabilized by 

vegetation or other suitable erosion control methods and off-site sedimentation must be prevented using 

ground cover.137

3.9.2 Methodology 

The analysis in this section focuses on identifying water resources wholly or partially located in the Corridor 

Alternatives. GDOT calculated the area of those waters for a high level comparison of the potential impacts 

for Corridor Alternative. To accomplish this, GDOT performed desktop analysis, relying on readily available 

information from various agencies, summarized in Exhibit 3.9-1. 

Exhibit 3.9-1: Summary of Water Resource Data Collection 

Resource Information Collected Source

Wetlands Location, number, and size of 

crossings

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (U.S. FWS): https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

Rivers, Streams, and 

Lakes

Location, number, and size of 

crossings 

Hydrologic unit code (HUC) and 

watershed

Designation of Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ 

U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD): 

https://nhd.usgs.gov/NHD_High_Resolution.html 

The NPS’s Nationwide Rivers Inventory: 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/rivers/nationwide-rivers-inventory.htm 

Impaired Waters Location, number, and size of 

crossings 

GA Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (DNR 

EPD): https://epd.georgia.gov/georgia-305b303d-list-documents 

SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC): 

http://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/Water/ImpairedWaters/O

verview/

136 Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H Procedures for Permits: Approvals, Section 0.1300 Discharges to Isolated 

Wetlands and Isolated Waters, effective April 2003. 

137 North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, N.C.G.S. § 113A-50, et seq.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-131

Resource Information Collected Source

NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ): 

https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/modelingassessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-report-files

100-year Floodplains 

Location, number, and size of 

crossings 

Special Flood Hazard Area 

(SFHA) type 

FEMA Digital Insurance Rate Map: https://www.fema.gov/national-floodhazard-layer-nfhl 

For each Corridor Alternative, GDOT used a 600-foot wide environmental screening area, 300 feet measured 

from the center of the Corridor Alternative. At station areas, GDOT used a 1,000-foot wide screening area, 

500 feet radius around each station. This larger environmental screening area is intended to capture resources 

that could be impacted by additional construction and activity surrounding stations, like parking facilities, and 

associated traffic, etc. 

3.9.2.1 Wetlands 

The USFWS identifies and maintains maps of vegetated wetlands on the National Wetland Inventory 

(NWI).138 These mapped wetlands have the potential to be identified as special aquatic sites by the EPA and 

regulated by the USACE under Section 404. 

GDOT collected wetland mapping data from the NWI and determined the total acreage of wetlands falling 

within the Corridor Alternatives. 

The NWI maps used for data collection in this Tier 1 EIS are based on a classification system known as the 

Cowardin System, which classifies the types of “ecosystems” related to water resources. Typical vegetated 

wetlands in the Southeast Piedmont Region include, but are not limited to, Palustrine Forested (PFO), 

Palustrine Emergent (herbaceous) (PEM), and Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS) wetlands based on the Cowardin 

classification system.139

3.9.2.2 Rivers, Streams, and Lakes 

GDOT used desktop survey to identify perennial and intermittent streams and rivers, lakes, and ponds, 

identified as Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the state in GA, SC, and NC. GDOT calculated the area in 

acres for each lake and pond crossing and calculated the length in feet of each river and stream crossing. 

In addition to the wetlands and water bodies identified using the NWI, GDOT also collected GIS data from 

the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset to identify waterbodies’ 

hydrologic unit codes (HUC), watersheds, and additional resources. GDOT also referenced the NPS’s 

138 The National Wetland Inventory is maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is available online here: 

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (accessed 4/10/2018)

139 Cowardin, L. M. et al, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

USFWS/OBS-79/31, 1979.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-132

Nationwide Rivers Inventory to identify any rivers that have been classified by the Department of the Interior 

as wild, scenic, or recreational, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.140 

3.9.2.3 Impaired Waters 

GDOT assembled a listing of 303(d) waters from the Georgia (GA) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

Environmental Protection Division (EPD), the South Carolina (SC) Department of Health and Environmental 

Control (DHEC), and the North Carolina (NC) Division of Water Quality (DWQ) websites. Similar to other 

resources, GDOT calculated the acreage of impaired waters within the Corridor Alternatives. 

3.9.2.4 Floodplains 

A floodplain is defined by FEMA as the area adjoining a river or stream that has been or may be covered by 

floodwaters during storm events. Hundred-year floodplains141 were identified using data from the Digital 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). 142 GDOT then calculated the total acreage of floodplains within each 

Corridor Alternative. Additionally, GDOT identified the type of flood zone, referred to as special flood hazard 

area (SFHA), for each 100-year floodplain. 

3.9.3 Affected Environment 

The following section describes the water resources GDOT identified for each of the three Corridor 

Alternatives (excluding the Atlanta Approach) and for each of the two Atlanta Approach options. Detailed 

maps of all resources are located in the Map Book in Appendix A. 

3.9.3.1 Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

As shown in Exhibit 3.9-22, the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative is located at least partly within 38 

wetlands, as mapped in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), totaling approximately 30 acres. The 

majority of the wetlands are located in South Carolina. Wetlands are classified in the NWI by the type of 

vegetation, source of the water, and other characteristics. All of the wetlands identified in the Southern 

Crescent Corridor Alternative are classified as palustrine, meaning non-tidal, containing no or low salt 

content, and dominated by trees or shrubs. There are several sub-classifications of palustrine wetlands present 

along the Southern Crescent, such as forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and unconsolidated shore, which are 

noted in Exhibit 3.9-2 as well. 

140 16 USC § 1271-1287. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

141 The term “hundred-year flood” refers to an event that statistically has a 1% chance of occurring annually. FEMA estimates the magnitude 

and impact of these floods to draw floodplain maps. 

142 FEMA flood maps and other data layers prepared by FEMA are available online using the National Flood Hazard Map: 

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer-nfhl (accessed 4/10/2018)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-133

Exhibit 3.9-2: Wetlands within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

Type of Wetland

State Palustrine 

Forested 

Palustrine 

Scrub-Shrub

Palustrine 

Emergent 

Palustrine

Unconsolidated 

Shore

Total 

Georgia

 Number of Crossings 2 2 0 0 4

 Acreage* 3 1 0 0 4

South Carolina

 Number of Crossings 16 4 3 1 24

 Acreage* 11 4 3 1 19

North Carolina

 Number of Crossings 3 3 2 2 10

 Acreage* 2 3 1 1 7

Total

 Number of Crossings 21 9 5 3 38

 Acreage* 16 8 4 2 30

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches. 

Sources: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS); HNTB

Most of the wetlands that GDOT identified in this Corridor Alternative occur in the floodplains of, and 

adjacent to, the following perennial streams and open waters: 

• Broad River 

• Enoree River 

• North Tyger River 

• Oconee River 

• Reedy River 

• Saluda River 

• Seneca River 

• South Fork Catawba River 

• Tugaloo River 

• Chinquapin Creek 

• Coneross Creek 

• Dicks Creek 

• Golden Creek 

• Halfway Branch 

• Kings Creek 

• Lake Wylie

• Lawsons Fork Creek 

• Paw Creek 

• Richland Creek 

• Thicketty Creek 

• Toxaway Creek

• Walton Creek 

Exhibit 3.9-3 shows the total number of rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds wholly or partly within the Southern 

Crescent, and Exhibit 3.9-4 displays the number that are considered impaired waters under Section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act. Out of the 246 total surface waters within the Southern Crescent, fifteen are listed as 

impaired due to pollution levels. Appendix D: Supporting Technical Data provides a detailed listing of the 

waterway and water body crossings by state and county and their classification as an impaired water segment. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-134

The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative is located within 15 watersheds, three of which are EPA Region 

4 Priority Watersheds: Upper Chattahoochee River (HUC 03130001), Saluda River (HUC 03050109), and 

Upper Catawba River (HUC 03050101). Portions of the Enoree River, Middle Tyger River, North Tyger 

River, Fairforest Creek, and Broad River in South Carolina have been listed on the NRI by the NPS. None of 

the rivers within this Corridor Alternative are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational per the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. 

Exhibit 3.9-3: Surface Waters within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

State Perennial

Streams & Rivers

Intermittent

Streams & Rivers Lakes Ponds

Georgia

Number of Crossings 14 19 1 7

Size* 6,583 L.F. 13,283 L.F. 4 Ac. 2 Ac.

South Carolina

Number of Crossings 66 67 4 22

Size* 37,137 LF. 48,027 L.F. 29 Ac. 8 Ac.

North Carolina

Number of Crossings 23 8 5 10

Size* 11,977 L.F. 3,459 L.F. 23 Ac. 5 Ac.

Total

Number of Crossings 103 94 10 39

Size* 55,697 L.F. 64,769 L.F. 56 Ac. 15 Ac.

*L.F. = Linear Feet; Ac. = Acre

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest linear foot or acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches. 

Sources: NWI maintained by the U.S. FWS; USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-4: Impaired Waters within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

State Surface Waters Impaired Waters 

per Sec. 303(d) of CWA

Georgia 41 3 

South Carolina 159 9 

North Carolina* 46 3 

Total 246 15

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches.

*All waters in NC are in Category 5 – 303(d) List for Mercury due to a statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species. 

Sources: State environmental agencies (GA DNR-EPD, SC DHEC, and NC DWQ); HNTB
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-135

As shown in Exhibit 3.9-5, the Southern Crescent contains portions of approximately 180 floodplain systems, 

totaling approximately 397 acres. 

Exhibit 3.9-5: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

State Number of Floodplain Crossings Area of Floodplain Crossings (acres)*

Georgia 11 38

South Carolina 122 310

North Carolina 47 49

Total 180 397

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre. 

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches. 

Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Maps; HNTB

The 100-year floodplains located within the Southern Crescent are associated with various major waterways 

and waterbodies, and their unnamed tributaries, which are listed in Appendix D by state and county and are 

mapped in the Map Book in Appendix A. Of the 180 floodplains located within the Southern Crescent 

Corridor Alternative, 29 are associated with a particular floodway, which are listed as follows: 

• Catawba River 

• Enoree River 

• Flint River 

• North Tyger River 

• Reedy River 

• South Fork Catawba River 

• South Tyger River 

• Fairforest Creek 

• Flat Creek 

• Irwin Creek 

• Lawsons Fork Creek 

• Maple Creek 

• Paw Creek 

• Perkins Creek 

• Taggart Creek 

3.9.3.2 I-85 Corridor Alternative 

As shown in Exhibit 3.9-6, the I-85 Corridor Alternative is located at least partly within 127 wetlands, as 

mapped in the NWI, totaling approximately135 acres. The majority of the wetlands are located in South 

Carolina. Wetlands are classified in the NWI by the type of vegetation, source of the water, and other 

characteristics. All of the wetlands identified in the I-85 Corridor Alternative are classified as palustrine, 

meaning non-tidal, containing no or low salt content, and dominated by trees or shrubs. There are several subclassifications of palustrine wetlands present along this Corridor Alternative, such as forested, scrub-shrub, 

emergent, and unconsolidated shore, which are noted in Exhibit 3.9-6 as well. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 136

Exhibit 3.9-6: Wetlands within the I-85 Corridor Alternative 

Type of Wetland

State Palustrine 

Forested 

Palustrine 

Scrub-Shrub

Palustrine 

Emergent 

Palustrine

Unconsolidated 

Shore

Total 

Georgia

 Number of Crossings 25 12 4 0 41

 Acreage* 31 15 3 0 49

South Carolina

 Number of Crossings 52 12 11 1 76

 Acreage* 56 12 10 1 79

North Carolina

 Number of Crossings 3 4 2 1 10

 Acreage* 2 3 1 1 7

Total

 Number of Crossings 80 28 17 2 127

 Acreage* 89 30 14 2 135

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches. 

Sources: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS); HNTB

Most of the larger wetlands that GDOT identified in this Corridor Alternative occur in the floodplains of, and 

adjacent to, the following perennial streams and open waters: 

• Broad River 

• Hudson River 

• Middle Fork Broad River 

• Middle Oconee River 

• Mulberry River 

• North Fork Broad River 

• South Fork Catawba River 

• Abernethy Creek 

• Anderson Reservoir 

• Beaverdam Creek

• Big Brushy Creek 

• Brushy Creek 

• Buffalo Creek 

• Carlan Creek 

• Chinquapin Creek 

• Dixon Branch 

• Gravelly Creek 

• Grays Creek 

• Grove Creek 

• Hurricane Creek 

• Jimmies Creek 

• Jones Creek 

• Lake Wylie

• Lake Hartwell 

• Laurel Creek 

• Lawsons Fork Creek 

• Nails Creek 

• Opossum Creek 

• Paw Creek 

• Rocky Creek

• Six and Twenty Creek 

• Stephens Creek 

• Thicketty Creek 

• Turkey Creek 

• Walnut Creek 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-137

Exhibit 3.9-7 shows the total number of rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds wholly or partly within the

I-85 Corridor Alternative and Exhibit 3.9-8 displays the number that are considered impaired waters 

under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Out of the 410 total surface water crossings, fourteen

are listed as impaired due to pollution levels. Appendix D provides a detailed listing of the waterway 

and water body crossings by state and county and their classification as an impaired water segment.

The I-85 Corridor Alternative travels through 17 watersheds, of which four are considered Region 4 

Priority Watersheds by the EPA: Upper Chattahoochee River, Upper Savannah River (HUC 

03060103), Saluda River, and Upper Catawba River. Segments of the Middle Oconee River, North 

Oconee River, and Middle Fork Broad River in Georgia, and the Enoree River, North Tyger River, 

Fairforest Creek, and Broad River in South Carolina located within the I-85 Corridor Alternative are 

listed on the NRI by the NPS. None of the rivers within this Corridor Alternative are classified as 

wild, scenic, or recreational per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Exhibit 3.9-7: Surface Waters within the I-85 Corridor Alternative

State Perennial

Streams & Rivers

Intermittent

Streams & Rivers Lakes Ponds

Georgia

Number of Crossings 47 38 4 18

Size* 26,478 L.F. 28,109 L.F. 11 Ac. 6 Ac.

South Carolina

Number of Crossings 109 85 17 19

Size* 61,035 L.F. 46,783 L.F. 63 Ac. 5 Ac.

North Carolina

Number of Crossings 33 20 6 14

Size* 18,901 L.F. 11,163 L.F. 23 Ac. 9 Ac.

Total

Number of Crossings 189 143 27 51

Size* 106,414 L.F. 86,055 L.F. 97 Ac. 20 Ac.

*L.F. = Linear Feet; Ac. = Acre

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest linear foot or acre.

Note: For the purpose of identifying water resources, Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above 

excludes the Atlanta approaches.

Sources: NWI maintained by the U.S. FWS; USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); HNTB
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-138

Exhibit 3.9-8: Impaired Waters within the I-85 Corridor Alternative

State Total Surface Waters

(number of crossings)

Impaired Waters 

per Sec. 303(d) of CWA

(number of crossings)

Georgia 107 1

South Carolina 230 10

North Carolina* 73 3

Total 410 14

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches.

*All waters in NC are in Category 5 – 303(d) List for Mercury due to a statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species.

Sources: State environmental agencies (GA DNR-EPD, SC DHEC, and NC DWQ); HNTB

As shown in Exhibit 3.9-9, the I-85 Corridor Alternative contains portions of approximately 260 

floodplain systems, totaling approximately 686 acres.

Exhibit 3.9-9: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the I-85 Corridor Alternative

State Number of Floodplain Crossings Area of Floodplain Crossings (acres)*

Georgia 29 119

South Carolina 155 486

North Carolina 76 81

Total 260 686

*Area calculations are rounded to the nearest acre. 

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches.

Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Maps; HNTB

The 100-year floodplains located within the I-85 Corridor Alternative are associated with various 

major waterways and waterbodies, and their unnamed tributaries, which are listed in Appendix D by 

state and county and are mapped in the Map Book in Appendix A. Of the 260 floodplains located 

within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, 41 are associated with a particular floodway, 

which are listed as follows:

• Catawba River • South Tyger River • Irwin Creek

• Enoree River • Abernethy Creek • Laurel Creek

• Flint River • Bromolow Creek • Lawsons Fork Creek

• Middle Tyger River • Brushy Creek • Oats Creek

• North Tyger River • Buffalo Creek • Paw Creek

• Reedy River • Cherokee Creek • Rocky Creek

• Saluda River • Fairforest Creek • Taggart Creek

• South Fork Catawba River • Grays Creek
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-139

3.9.3.3 Greenfield Corridor Alternative 

As shown in Exhibit 3.9-210, the Greenfield Corridor Alternative is located at least partly within 82

wetlands, as mapped in the NWI, totaling approximately 97 acres. Over half of the wetland acreage

is located in the South Carolina portion of the Greenfield. Wetlands are classified in the NWI by the 

type of vegetation, source of the water, and other characteristics. All of the wetlands identified in the 

Greenfield Corridor Alternative are classified as palustrine, meaning non-tidal, containing no or low 

salt content, and dominated by trees or shrubs. There are several sub-classifications of palustrine 

wetlands present along this Corridor Alternative, such as forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and 

unconsolidated shore, which are noted in Exhibit 3.9-10 as well.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-140

Exhibit 3.9-10: Wetlands within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative 

Type of Wetland

State Palustrine

Forested

Palustrine

Scrub-Shrub

Palustrine 

Emergent

Palustrine

Unconsolidated 

Shore

Total

Georgia

Number of 

Crossings

17 9 4 1 31

Acreage* 23 10 0 0 33

South Carolina

Number of 

Crossings

25 10 1 1 37

Acreage* 41 7 3 1 52

North Carolina

Number of 

Crossings

8 4 1 1 14

Acreage* 6 4 1 1 12

Total

Number of 

Crossings

50 23 6 3 82

Acreage* 70 21 4 2 97

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches.

Sources: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS); HNTB

Most of the larger wetlands that GDOT identified in this Corridor Alternative occur in the floodplains 

of, and adjacent to, the following perennial streams and rivers:

• Broad River • Brush Creek • Neals Creek

• Enoree River • Catawba Creek • Paw Creek

• Middle Oconee River • Cedar Creek • Polecat Creek

• North Oconee River • Coffey Creek • Redstone Creek

• North Tyger River • Crowders Creek • Sandy Creek

• Pacolet River • Cunningham Creek • South Fork Broad River

• Reedy River • Fairforest Creek • South Durbin Creek

• Rocky River • Gilkey Creek • South Rabon Creek

• Saluda River • Horse Creek • Stoddard Creek

• Savannah River • Jones Creek • Thicketty Creek

• South Fork Broad River • Lake Wylie • Wards Creek

• South Fork Catawba River • Little Beaverdam Creek • Weems Creek
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-141

• Allison Creek • Little Cedar Creek • West Fork Trail Creek

• Beaverdam Creek • Mountain Creek • Wilson Creek

• Broad Mouth Creek • Mulberry River

Exhibit 3.9-11 shows the total number of rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds wholly or partly within the

Greenfield Corridor Alternative and Exhibit 3.9-12 displays the number that are considered impaired 

waters under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Out of the 514 total surface water crossings, 21 

are listed as impaired due to pollution levels. Appendix D provides a detailed listing of the waterway 

and water body crossings by state and county and their classification as an impaired water segment; 

Appendix A displays these in map form. 

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative passes through 14 watersheds that include four Region 4 Priority 

Watersheds designated by the EPA: Upper Chattahoochee River, Upper Savannah River, Saluda 

River, and Upper Catawba River. Segments of the NRI-listed streams include: the Broad River in 

Georgia and South Carolina, the North Oconee River and Middle Fork Broad River in Georgia, and 

the Savannah River located on the state border between Georgia and South Carolina. None of the 

rivers within this Corridor Alternative are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational in accordance with 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act143. 

 

143 16 U.S.C. § 1271-1287. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-142

Exhibit 3.9-11: Surface Waters within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative

State Perennial

Streams & Rivers

Intermittent

Streams & Rivers Lakes Ponds

Georgia

Number of Crossings 64 27 2 38

Size* 44,904 L.F. 20,393 L.F. 12 Ac. 11 Ac.

South Carolina

Number of Crossings 103 168 1 47

Size* 58,124 L.F. 116,655 L.F. 2 Ac. 23 Ac.

North Carolina

Number of Crossings 30 20 5 9

Size* 14,725 L.F. 12,841 L.F. 28 Ac. 4 Ac.

Total

Number of Crossings 197 215 8 94

Size* 117,753 L.F. 149,889 L.F. 42 Ac. 38 Ac.

*L.F. = Linear Feet; Ac. = Acre

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest linear foot or acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches.

Sources: NWI maintained by the U.S. FWS; USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-12: Impaired Waters within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative

State Surface Waters Impaired Waters 

per Sec. 303(d) of CWA

Georgia 131 6

South Carolina 319 11

North Carolina* 64 4

Total 514 21

Note: For the purpose of identifying water resources, Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above 

excludes the Atlanta approaches.

*All waters in NC are in Category 5 – 303(d) List for Mercury due to a statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species.

Sources: State environmental agencies (GA DNR-EPD, SC DHEC, and NC DWQ); HNTB

As shown in Exhibit 3.9-13, the Greenfield Corridor Alternative contains portions of approximately 

146 floodplain systems, totaling approximately 640 acres.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-143

Exhibit 3.9-13: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative

State Number of Floodplain Crossings Area of Floodplain Crossings (acres)*

Georgia 21 138

South Carolina 71 419

North Carolina 54 83

Total 146 640

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre. 

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above excludes the Atlanta approaches.

Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Maps; HNTB

The 100-year floodplains located within the Greenfield Corridor Alternative are associated with 

various major waterways and waterbodies, and their unnamed tributaries, which are listed in Appendix

D by state and county and are mapped in the Map Book in Appendix A. Of the 146 floodplains located 

partly within the Greenfield, 40 are associated with a particular floodway, which are listed as follows:

• Catawba River

• Enoree River

• Flint River

• North Oconee River

• North Tyger River

• South Fork Catawba 

River

• South Tyger River

• Beaver Creek

• Bromolow Creek

• Catawba Creek

• Irwin Creek

• Noketchee Creek

• Paw Creek

• Sandy Creek

• Taggart Creek

• West Fork Trail Creek

3.9.3.4 Atlanta Approach 

The previous sections discussed water resources located within each of the three Corridor 

Alternatives, outside the Atlanta approach. This section summarizes water resources located within 

the two Atlanta approaches. GDOT evaluated all six combinations of Corridor Alternatives and 

Atlanta approaches. GDOT and FRA will defer a decision on the Atlanta approach to a future Tier 2 

EIS. Appendix D provides a detailed listing of water resources by state and county and the map book 

in Appendix A displays all resources within the Corridor Alternatives and their Atlanta approaches. 

NS ATLANTA APPROACH 

Exhibits 3.9-14 through 3.9-17 summarize all water resources identified within the NS Atlanta 

approach of the three Corridor Alternatives. The NS approach generally follows a ridgeline, meaning 

it crosses fewer wetlands, floodplains, and other waterbodies, as demonstrated in the following tables. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-144

Exhibit 3.9-14: Wetlands within the NS Atlanta Approach

Type of Wetland

Corridor Alternative

Palustrine 

Forested 

(PFO)

Palustrine 

Scrub-Shrub 

(PSS)

Palustrine 

Emergent 

(PEM) Total

Southern Crescent Number 3 4 4 11

L.F./Ac.* 7 3 5 15

I-85 Number 8 5 0 13

Acreage* 11 4 0 15

Greenfield Number 10 6 0 16

Acreage* 23 10 0 33

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the NS Atlanta approach only. 

Sources: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-15: Surface Waters within the NS Atlanta Approach

Corridor Alternative Perennial 

Streams

Intermittent 

Streams Lakes Ponds

Southern Crescent Number 20 8 3 5

L.F./Ac.* 15,275 L.F. 3,446 L.F. 11 Ac. 3 Ac.

I-85 Number 24 20 0 8

L.F./Ac.* 17,136 L.F. 11,198 L.F. 0 Ac. 4 Ac.

Greenfield Number 28 28 0 10

L.F./Ac.* 18,986 L.F. 18,648 L.F. 0 Ac. 5 Ac.

*L.F. = Linear Feet; Ac. = Acre; Numbers have been rounded to the nearest linear foot or acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the NS Atlanta approach only. 

Sources: NWI maintained by the U.S. FWS; USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-16: Impaired Waters within the NS Atlanta Approach

Corridor Alternative Surface Waters Impaired Waters 

per Sec. 303(d) of CWA

Southern Crescent 36 9

I-85 52 7

Greenfield 66 6

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the NS Atlanta approach only. 

Sources: State environmental agencies (GA DNR-EPD, SC DHEC, and NC DWQ); HNTB
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-145

Exhibit 3.9-17: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the NS Atlanta Approach

Corridor Alternative Number of Floodplain Crossings Area of Floodplain Crossings*

Southern Crescent 42 97 acres

I-85 54 76 acres

Greenfield 56 98 acres

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre. 

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the NS Atlanta approach only. 

Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Maps; HNTB

CSX ATLANTA APPROACH 

Exhibits 3.9-18 through 3.9-21 summarize all water resources identified within the CSX Atlanta 

approach of the three Corridor Alternatives. The CSX approach crosses more wetlands, floodplains, 

and other waterbodies than the NS approach, as demonstrated in the following tables. 

Exhibit 3.9-18: Wetlands within the CSX Atlanta Approach 

Corridor Alternative

Palustrine 

Forested 

(PFO)

Palustrine 

Scrub-Shrub 

(PSS)

Palustrine 

Emergent 

(PEM)

Total

Southern Crescent Number 22 8 2 32

L.F./Ac.* 56 11 3 70

I-85 Number 21 5 2 28

Acreage* 51 5 3 59

Greenfield Number 22 6 2 30

Acreage* 61 8 3 72

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the CSX Atlanta approach only. 

Sources: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-19: Surface Waters within the CSX Atlanta Approach

Corridor Alternatives Perennial 

Streams

Intermittent 

Streams Lakes Ponds

Southern Crescent Number 70 50 1 16

L.F./Ac.* 86,175 L.F. 32,743 L.F. 1 Ac. 10 Ac.

I-85 Number 64 35 2 14

L.F./Ac.* 82,214 L.F. 16,074 L.F. 1 Ac. 9 Ac.

Greenfield Number 66 33 2 14

L.F./Ac.* 83,452 L.F. 16,249 L.F. 1 Ac. 9 Ac.

*L.F. = Linear Feet; Ac. = Acre; Numbers have been rounded to the nearest linear foot or acre.

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the CSX Atlanta approach only. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-146

Sources: NWI maintained by the U.S. FWS; USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-20: Impaired Waters within the CSX Atlanta Approach

Corridor Alternative Surface Waters 303d listed

Southern Crescent 137 15

I-85 115 15

Greenfield 115 14

Note: For the purpose of identifying water resources, Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above 

includes the CSX Atlanta approach only. 

Sources: State environmental agencies (GA DNR-EPD, SC DHEC, and NC DWQ); HNTB

Exhibit 3.9-21: FEMA 100-year Floodplains within the CSX Atlanta Approach

Corridor Alternative Number of Floodplain Crossings Area of Floodplain Crossings*

Southern Crescent 197 521 acres

I-85 189 495 acres

Greenfield 193 489 acres

*Numbers have been rounded to the nearest acre. 

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the CSX Atlanta approach only. 

Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Maps; HNTB

ATLANTA APPROACH SUMMARY

Although there are differences among the six combinations of Corridor Alternatives and Atlanta 

approaches, the CSX approach generally includes more water resources that could experience 

potential impacts. The NS approach generally follows a ridgeline, meaning it crosses fewer wetlands, 

floodplains, and other waterbodies, as demonstrated in Exhibit 3.9-22, which summarizes the total 

number of water resources for the two Atlanta approaches. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-147

Exhibit 3.9-22: Summary of Water Resources within the Atlanta Approaches

Wetland

Crossings

Surface Water 

Crossings

303(d) Impaired 

Water Crossings

Floodplain 

Crossings

NS Approach

 Southern Crescent 11 36 9 42

 I-85 13 52 7 54

 Greenfield 16 66 6 56

CSX Approach

 Southern Crescent 32 137 15 197

 I-85 28 115 15 189

 Greenfield 30 115 14 193

Note: Corridor Alternatives are defined as 600 feet in width. Data presented above includes the Atlanta approaches only

Source: HNTB

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.9.4.1 No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and the project-related impacts to 

water resources would not occur. Minor impacts to the water quality of surface waters from the 

discharge of pollutants and/or sediment associated with ongoing construction maintenance along the 

existing rail route, including potential culvert replacements/extensions and bridge 

replacements/additions, may occur. Additionally, maintenance of the existing railway ROW 

including mowing and trimming, spraying herbicide to control vegetation, and minor construction 

associated with the upkeep of a major railroad would continue. Consequently, under the No-Build 

Alternative, the water quality of surface waters along the corridor would remain unchanged from 

current conditions. A full description of the No-Build Alternative is provided in Chapter 2. 

3.9.4.2 Corridor Alternatives

WETLAND IMPACTS

Wetland impacts could occur in specific locations of each Corridor Alternative where new rail,

stations, and parking areas are proposed in or adjacent to wetlands. Temporary, construction-related 

impacts could also occur. The I-85 Corridor Alternative potentially has the most acres of wetlands 

and, as a result, the greatest potential to impact wetlands. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative 

has the fewest acres of wetlands, and potentially less impact on wetlands.

STREAMS AND LAKES

Potential direct impacts of the Project on streams and lakes include, but may not be limited to, 

permanent clearing of riparian vegetation, fill placement in waters, and stormwater runoff from 

impervious surfaces. These actions have the potential to alter the natural characteristics of water 

resources, resulting in changes in water temperature, increased nutrients and sedimentation, and 

alterations in stream channel circulation. The Greenfield Corridor Alternative has the greatest number 

of stream crossings and the greatest number of pond and lake crossings; for this reason, it the Corridor 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-148

Alternative with the greatest potential to affect streams and lakes, with the I-85 Corridor Alternative 

close behind. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative has fewer stream, lake, and pond crossings, 

and relatively less potential to affect these resources.

FLOODPLAINS

Permanent floodplain impacts may occur in specific locations where rail, stations, parking areas, 

maintenance, and storage facilities are introduced in or adjacent to floodplains. The I-85 and 

Greenfield Corridor Alternatives have the most acres of floodplains and, therefore, the highest 

potential for floodplain impacts. The Southern Crescent Corridor Alternatives has relatively fewer 

acres of floodplains, and therefore, relatively less potential for floodplain impacts.

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Impacts to water quality may occur due to the addition of impervious areas at stations, parking areas, 

maintenance and storage facilities, and, to an extent to be determined, by the rail itself, depending on 

the technology selected and the design of the rail. In addition to the increased runoff rates and volume 

from these impervious areas, changes in drainage patterns would occur due to the piping of stormwater 

runoff into closed drainage systems that would have direct outfalls to receiving waters. After FRA 

selects a Preferred Corridor Alternative, should funding become available, a more detailed Tier 2 

analysis will determine the specific increase of impervious area that would result from the 

development of the selected Corridor Alternative.

Each Corridor Alternative potentially could have construction effects on water resources and water 

quality. Such effects can result from clearing of vegetation, exposure of soil exposed due to grubbing, 

earth moving and grading, and other construction-related activities. These activities may cause soil 

erosion and sedimentation in downstream waters. Effects on groundwater could also occur during 

blasting/drilling activities or through natural fissures. Temporary access for construction activities and 

equipment also may affect water resources. The presence of heavy equipment and construction-related 

chemicals during construction potentially would affect water resources by increasing the risk of 

contamination.

Exhibit 3.9-23 summarizes the water resources within each of the three Corridor Alternatives. 

Exhibit 3.9-23: Summary of Water Resources within the Corridor Alternatives

Corridor Alternative

Wetland

Area

(acres)

Surface Water 

Crossings

303(d) Impaired 

Water Crossings

Floodplain

Area

(acres)

Southern Crescent 30 246 15 397

I-85 135 410 14 686

Greenfield 97 514 21 640

3.9.5 Potential Mitigation Strategies

3.9.5.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes

In accordance with the USACE’s goal of no net loss of wetlands, GDOT will aim to avoid and 

minimize impacts and use compensatory mitigation if necessary. As design progresses, GDOT will 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-149

examine reasonably feasible ways to avoid affecting wetlands, streams, and lakes that are appropriate 

to the scope and practicable in terms of cost. GDOT will then examine appropriate and practicable 

steps to reduce the potential impacts to wetlands, streams, and lakes as Project design is refined. 

Minimization will typically focus on decreasing the footprint of the Project in and near these 

resources. Other examples of minimization that will be considered include:

• Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity;

• Decreasing or eliminating discharges into streams;

• Minimization of activities within stream channels; and

• Use of spanning structures and bottomless culverts over streams.

Compensatory mitigation will be developed by GDOT during the Tier 2 analysis after potential 

impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent reasonably feasible. During the Tier 2 analysi, 

the Project sponsor will consult the Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System 

(RIBITS) to ensure that the necessary mitigation banks are still potentially available. The cost of 

mitigation credits is typically a function of supply and demand; thus, costs can vary and GDOT will 

explore further during Tier 2 when more information will be known about the alignment. USACE is 

charged with regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands via the Section 404 

permit program. To be eligible for a Section 404 permit, the project sponsor must demonstrate that 

steps have been taken to avoid and minimize the impact, compensation is provided for any remaining 

impact, and no significant degradation to Waters of the U.S. will result from the Project.144

3.9.5.2 Floodplains

As with wetlands, streams and lakes, GDOT will examine reasonably feasible ways to avoid affecting 

floodplains that are appropriate to the scope and degree of the potential Project effects and practicable 

in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the Project’s purpose. Minimization 

strategies could include design aspects such as right angle crossings, typical section reductions, and 

increased numbers of bridge spans or span length. GDOT will develop mitigation strategies after 

potential impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent reasonably feasible. Floodplain 

restoration is one possible strategy that would be examined, if warranted, in a future Tier 2 analysis.

3.9.5.3 Water Quality 

During a future Tier 2 analysis, surface waters would be reviewed to determine where it is possible 

and practical to avoid or minimize impacts to these resources and to water quality. Potential 

mitigation measures to be considered include the use of temporary and permanent Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize sediment pollution and water quality impacts through 

reductions in stormwater runoff from the site. Additionally, an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) 

Plan would be prepared. Permanent BMPs, such as stormwater treatment or detention/retention 

facilities, or drainage channels/facilities, would be utilized where appropriate to improve stormwater 

management/flow and water quality. The application of BMPs and the proper erosion and sediment 

control measures would reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation as well as minimize the 

 

144 More information on the Section 404 permit program can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/section-404-permitprogram
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-150

volume of stormwater discharge resulting from construction activities. These measures are a 

condition of Section 404 CWA permits. Any impacts to waters of the U.S. will require a Section 404 

permit issued by USACE, as described in the wetlands section above. 

Erosion control measures would consist of applying mulch, straw, soil reinforcement matting, 

polymers, erosion control blankets, and/or vegetative soil stabilization. Generally, vegetative soil 

stabilization includes temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, ground cover, and dormant seeding. 

Disturbance of streamside and riparian vegetation would be kept to a minimum where feasible. Instream construction and soil disturbing activities near streams would be conducted during low or 

normal flow periods in accordance with construction permits obtained prior to project construction. 

Discharge points would be protected with rock (or an alternative measure) to minimize scour and 

erosion.

Perimeter sediment control devices would be installed before commencing soil disturbing activities. 

Perimeter silt fences, stabilized construction entrances, drainage inlet protection, ditch checks, 

diversions, sediment traps, and other appropriate BMPs would be used to control sediment and runoff 

and to protect receiving waters during construction.

Stream crossings and structure sizing would be performed in accordance with state and federal 

guidelines regarding floodplain encroachment and hydraulic capacity. All new structures will comply 

with these guidelines. Stormwater facilities and discharges will be monitored and managed during 

and following construction in accordance with area requirements per the NPDES.

Other stormwater control practices may be needed to mitigate water quality impacts. In addition to 

detention facilities, other practices such as vegetated basins/buffers, infiltration basins, and bioswales 

would be evaluated to minimize transport of sediment, heavy metals, and other pollutants.

Temporary and permanent construction BMPs, such as seed, mulch, embankment protectors, grade 

techniques, inlet protection, silt fences, and vehicle tracking prevention would be used as appropriate 

during project construction. The design of these BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater runoff 

would be developed and designed in accordance with state DOTs and agencies, including GA DNR 

EPD, SC DHEC, and NC DWQ.

3.9.6 Subsequent Analysis

Should funding be available, during a future Tier 2 analysis, GDOT will identify specific potential 

impacts on water resources for the Preferred Corridor Alternative. The subsequent analysis would 

include the following:

• Field surveys of potential surface water impacts to further analyze potential impacts on water 

quality and to seek required permits from the appropriate agencies.

• Analysis of how the Project would contribute to total additional impervious ground surfaces 

and the subsequent potential additional impacts on surface run-off. This analysis would also 

identify potential mitigation measures.

• Geotechnical assessments to ensure that the Project would not pollute groundwater through 

natural fissures or during blasting/drilling activities.

• Obtaining all necessary permits.

• The usage type of each stream in the Study Area will also be documented, as well as each 

stream’s status on the EPA 303(d) list of impaired waters.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-151

• Field investigations and jurisdictional wetland delineations, which would include the 

quantification of wetland impacts.

• Determination of potential mitigation strategies to minimize potential effects.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-152

3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This chapter describes the existing wildlife/aquatic species and their habitats within the 600-foot wide 

screening area of the proposed Corridor Alternatives, reports the potential effects of the Project on 

these resources, and identifies potential mitigation that could be implemented to address potential 

effects. The number of known threatened and endangered species and their habitats potentially affected 

by the Corridor Alternatives is a distinguishing factor among the Corridor Alternatives. The data is 

presented to facilitate future planning and the advancing of a Preferred Alternative for the Atlanta to 

Charlotte PRCIP in consultation with other environmental factors.

3.10.1 Legal and Regulatory Context

The following federal and state authorities provide the statutory context for analysis of biological 

resources:

• Endangered Species Act: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

§1536), requires that any action likely to affect a species classified as federally-protected be 

subject to review by the USFWS. Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Act. It is a 

specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered 

species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include 

an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery.

• The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934: As amended in 2002, it serves to protect 

wildlife resources and to provide for wildlife conservation in water resource development 

programs by preventing the loss of and damage to such resources while providing for the 

improvement and development of the water resource system in the U.S. Section 2(a) of this 

act requires consultation with the USFWS, Department of the Interior, and the state agency 

exercising administration over the wildlife resources within a particular state wherein the 

action is proposed if the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized 

to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water 

otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose e.145

• Magnuson-Stevens Act: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. 

First passed in 1976, the MSA fosters long-term biological and economic sustainability of our 

nation’s marine fisheries. Key objectives of the act are to prevent overfishing, rebuild 

overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and 

sustainable supply of seafood. Essential fish habitat (EFH) was defined by Congress in the 

1996 amendments to the MSFCMA. 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–

712) protects all native migratory game and non-game birds with exceptions for the control of 

species that cause damage to agricultural or other interests in the U.S. and its territories. (50 

CFR 10.13, List of Migratory Birds)

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668) (BGEPA). The BGEPA prohibits anyone, 

 

145 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, 16 USC § 662(a).
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-153

without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including 

their parts, nests, or eggs. The bald eagle is listed as threatened by the State of Georgia.

• Georgia Environmental Policy Act (GEPA) of 1991: GEPA (O.C.G.A. § 12-16-1) protects 

the cultural and natural resources of Georgia that may be impacted by a state government 

agency’s actions.

• Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973: The Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act 

(O.C.G.A. § 12-6-170) Provides for the designation of officially protected plants and 

authorizes rules for the collection, transport, sale and listing of these plants.

• Georgia Endangered Wildlife Act of 1973: The Georgia Endangered Wildlife Act (O.C.G.A.

§ 27-3-130) provides for the designation and protection of rare, threatened and endangered 

species within the State of Georgia.

• South Carolina Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1974: This Act 

establishes a nongame program for “species in need of management,” which include species 

that need conservation assistance but may not be on the federal list.

• South Carolina Scenic Rivers Act of 1989: Sections 49-29-10 to 49-29-230, SC Code of 

Laws creates the State Scenic Rivers program and establishes criteria for rivers to receive this 

designation. Historic and cultural values are included in the criteria, along with scenic, 

recreational, geological, botanical, fish, and wildlife values.

• State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971: Chapter 113A Pollution Control and 

Environmental Article 1 Environmental Policy Act. The North Carolina (or state) 

Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA) requires state agencies to review and report the 

environmental effects of all activities that involve an action by a state agency, an expenditure 

of public monies or private use of public land, and the potential negative environmental effect 

upon natural resources, public health and safety, natural beauty, or historical or cultural 

elements of the state.

• Nature Preserves Act of North Carolina (G.S. 113A-164.1 to 164.11) of 2005: The purpose 

of this Article is to establish and maintain a State Registry of Natural Heritage Areas and to 

prescribe methods by which nature preserves may be dedicated for the benefit of present and 

future citizens of the State.

• NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979: Established the North Carolina Plant 

Conservation Program, which includes maintenance of the state’s list of endangered, 

threatened, and special concern plant species as well as limiting those actions that could result 

in a “take” of those species on the state’s list.146

3.10.2 Methodology 

A GIS map of recorded, limited site-specific accounts of terrestrial protected species, and more 

broadly based species locations for aquatic species, as well as areas designated as critical habitat was 

overlaid onto mapping of the screening area utilizing a GIS database maintained by the USFWS called 

the Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPAC).147 Agency coordination and literature 

 

146 North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, N.C.G.S. 106-202.12 to 106.202.19.

147 USFW. Information, Planning and Conservation System, http://www.fws.gov/athens/endangered.html (accessed 2/18/18)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-154

reviews were used to identify any known rare, threatened, endangered, or candidate species; potential 

habitat; and wildlife and wildlife corridors within the Corridor Alternatives. Agency coordination was 

based on a review area of a half mile of the Corridor Alternatives, while the GIS mapping defines all 

habitats intersecting and within the 600-foot wide screening area of each Corridor Alternative. The 

presence of common and sensitive biological resources has been documented, and the habitat’s 

potential for indicating the presence of sensitive species was evaluated. 

Data information regarding terrestrial natural habitats and developed land areas were collected from 

different sources for each state. Data from the USGS Land Cover files were used to generate GIS data 

of habitat areas. Additionally, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

(NCDENR) provided GIS Natural Heritage Program information regarding natural areas, including 

high quality natural communities and Managed Areas of conservation interest occurring in North 

Carolina.

Potential adverse impacts to ecology and the environment in the Corridor Alternatives have been 

qualitatively identified. Where potential for adverse impacts exist, measures to avoid or reduce these 

impacts will be explored. Additionally, areas where further analysis will be necessary in the Tier 2 

EIS have been identified. The potential impacts on EFH, migratory bird habitat, bald eagle habitat, 

and federally and state-protected species and habitats have been addressed, although detailed EFH, 

habitat assessments and biological assessments under Section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act 

would occur as part of the Tier 2 EIS. In addition, field investigations and jurisdictional wetland 

delineations will be conducted as required during the subsequent environmental analysis for the 

Preferred Alternative in the Tier 2 EIS. 

To analyze the biological resources present within each Corridor Alternative, the following 

designations are used throughout the document:

• Threatened and Endangered Species: The ESA defines federal “endangered” species as 

those that are “in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of [their] range,” and defines “threatened” species as “those animals and 

plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of their ranges.”148 Vertebrate animal species and subspecies, invertebrate animal 

populations, and plant species and varieties (including fungi and lichens) are eligible for listing 

under the ESA. 

• Critical Habitat: Threatened or endangered species may have designated critical habitat 

afforded for the protection of the species. According to the ESA, the term “critical habitat” for 

a threatened or endangered species means the following:

o “The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found 

those physical or biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species 

and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection; and

o Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 

 

148 U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC § 1531-1543)
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-155

listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination 

by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” 149

• Natural Habitat Areas and Wildlife: The intent of the MBTA and the BGEPA is to offer 

protection to avian species in their natural habitat areas. The MBTA makes it unlawful to 

pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell migratory birds, and the BGEPA prohibits anyone from 

“taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, without a permit issued by 

the Secretary of the Interior. In addition to protection from direct harm, the BGEPA also 

prohibits activities that disrupt eagles at nests, foraging areas, and important roosts, because 

loss of these areas can disturb or kill eagles. Among other actions, “take” includes disturbance 

of eagles to the degree that it substantially interferes with breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

behavior, or results in injury, death, or nest abandonment. The potential for occurrences of 

migratory bird nesting, foraging, or roosting areas will be studied further in the Tier 2 EIS.

• Essential Fish Habitat: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

works to identify and protect essential fish habitat. The NOAA Division called the National 

Marine Fisheries Service identifies describes, and maps EFH for Fishery Management Plans. 

NOAA also provides advice to federal agencies on smart development that minimizes or 

prevents environmental impacts to EFH. EFH is protected under the MSFCMA. EFH includes 

all types of aquatic habitats that are necessary for managed fish to complete their life cycle, 

such as areas where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity.150 According to the NOAA 

Essential Fish Habitat Mapper, no EFH is located within or near the Corridor Alternatives.

3.10.2.1 Agency Coordination 

The USFWS (IPaC) website provided information on federally listed threatened and endangered 

species as well as designated critical habitat (DCH). The Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(GADNR), South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) websites also provided data relating to state-listed 

threatened and endangered species. In addition, both the South Carolina Heritage Trust Program151

and the North Carolina Heritage Program152, which documents and protects rare, threatened, and 

endangered species and communities, provided information on federally listed threatened and 

endangered species and DCH. 

GDOT sent letters to the USFWS and state agencies requesting data regarding known occurrences of 

protected species within a half mile of the Corridor Alternatives based on preliminary plans (see 

Appendix C, Agency and Public Coordination). Continued coordination with these agencies will 

occur during Tier 2.

 

149 16 USC § 1531, as amended. 

150 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2007) “Essential Fish 

Habitat and Critical Habitat: A Comparison.” Available at: file:///C:/Users/01059978/Downloads/noaa_4188_DS1.pdf (accessed on 

4/10/18)

151 South Carolina Heritage Trust Program. http://heritagetrust.dnr.sc.gov/history.html

152 North Carolina Heritage Program. https://www.ncnhp.org/
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-156

Early coordination with the state agencies for MBTA and the BGEPA did not indicate any records of 

bald eagle nests within a half mile of any of the Corridor Alternatives. Land disturbance, wetland 

disturbance, tree and brush clearing, and culvert and bridge replacements could affect potential 

migratory bird and/or eagle nesting, foraging, or roosting areas that may be present in the Corridor 

Alternatives. Specific locations requiring clearing or structure removal would be identified in the Tier 

2 analysis when a more specific extent of project limits would be determined. At that time, 

coordination with the state agencies, GADNR, SCDNR, and NCDEQ would take place to determine 

potential locations of migratory bird and/or eagle occupancy within the Preferred Alternative, in 

addition to determining seasonal nesting, roosting, and foraging requirements of potentially affected 

species. 

To comply with the MBTA and the BGEPA, restrictions may be placed on the timing of clearing and 

other construction disturbance activities to help ensure avoidance and minimization of impacts. The 

identified above potential impacts to migratory birds/eagles are the same for all Corridor Alternatives, 

therefore there is no further discussion provided in the individual Corridor Alternative sections.

3.10.3 Affected Environment 

The following section describes the ecoregions and natural habitat areas found within the screening 

area. In addition, this section addresses threatened and endangered species and protected habitats in 

the 600-foot wide environmental screening areas of the Southern Crescent, I-85, and Greenfield 

Corridor Alternatives and the Atlanta Approaches. Preliminary data indicates that suitable habitat 

potentially occurs within the screening area counties for multiple protected species that are federally 

listed and/or listed by the states of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. 

The protected species are listed by county in Exhibit 3.10-1. Inclusion in the list does not necessarily 

mean that the threatened or endangered species is found within the screening area or within a Corridor 

Alternative. Rather, the list identifies the presence of suitable habitat for a given threatened or 

endangered species within a county as compiled from reports by the USFWS, IPaC; GADNR, 

SCDNR, and NCDEQ.

3.10.3.1 Ecoregions

The Study Area spans one major (Level III) ecoregion – the Southeast Piedmont. EPA defines an 

ecoregion as an area of similarity regarding patterns in the mosaic of abiotic and biotic, aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystem components, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, 

hydrology, land use, and wildlife, with human beings considered as part of the biota. They are shown 

in Figure 3.10-1. The Piedmont is the non-mountainous area of the Appalachian Highlands, consisting 

of plains and hills that are a transition between the coastal plain and Appalachians. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-157

Exhibit 3.10-1: Ecoregions in Georgia

Source: GDNR website: http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/ga_eco_l3_pg.pdf. 2001
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-158

Exhibit 3.10-2: Ecoregions in South Carolina

Source: EPA “Ecoregion Download Files by State - Region 4”; https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-4
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-159

Exhibit 3.10-3: Ecoregions in North Carolina 

Source: EPA “Ecoregion Download Files by State - Region 4”; https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-4

3.10.3.2 Natural Habitat Areas

Natural habitat areas include a combination of environmental factors that provide food, water, cover and space 

that a living thing needs to survive and reproduce. When natural habitat areas face fragmentation, degradation, 

or destruction it can impact biodiversity and contribute to species decline. One of the missions of the USFWS 

is to work with other agencies to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.153

Knowing the location and acreage of these habitats will help GDOT to reduce the potential effects of the

Project on threatened and critical habitats.

 

153 “Habitat,” USFWS. https://www.fws.gov/habitat/ (accessed 4/15/18)
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-160

The Southeast Piedmont Region consists primarily of forested areas dominated by pine and hardwood tree 

species. Habitat types within the Corridor Alternatives include land-use, natural terrestrial habitat, and natural 

aquatic habitat areas. Over the years, intensive agriculture and development have fragmented and reduced the 

amount of natural habitat areas. The following are brief descriptions of the land-use and natural habitat areas 

within the Corridor Alternatives, according to the National Land Cover Database 2006:154

• Developed, Open Space – Areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation 

in the form of lawn grasses. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, 

parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or 

aesthetic purposes. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total cover. 

• Developed, Low Intensity – Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation, which 

include most commonly single-family housing units. Impervious surfaces account for 20 to 49 percent 

of total cover.

• Developed, Medium Intensity – Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation, most 

commonly including single-family housing units. Impervious surfaces account for 50 to 79 percent of 

the total cover. 

• Developed, High Intensity – Highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers, 

including apartment complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial facilities. Impervious surfaces 

account for 80 to 100 percent of total cover.

• Barren Land (rock/sand/clay) – Areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic 

material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earthen 

material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15 percent of total cover.

• Deciduous Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than five meters tall, and greater than 

20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species are deciduous and shed 

foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.

• Evergreen Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than five meters tall, and greater than 

20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species are evergreen and 

maintain their leaves all year. Therefore, the canopy is never without green foliage.

• Mixed Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than five meters tall, and greater than 20 

percent of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75 percent 

of total tree cover.

• Shrub/Scrub – Areas dominated by shrub species that are less than five meters tall. The shrub canopy 

is typically greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in 

an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.

• Grassland/Herbaceous – Areas dominated by graminoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater 

than 80 percent of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, 

but can be utilized for grazing.

 

154 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) and USGS (2013) National Land Cover Database 2006, modified March 2013. 

Available at: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_leg.php (accessed on 4/10/18)
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-161

• Pasture/Hay – Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or 

the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts 

for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.

• Cultivated Crops – Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, 

tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation 

accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively 

tilled.

• Woody Wetlands – Areas where forest or shrub vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of 

vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or inundated with water.

• Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands – Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater 

than 80 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or inundated 

with water.

The following section (3.10.3.3) includes the natural habitat area acreage for each Corridor Alternative and 

their Atlanta Approaches.

3.10.3.3 Corridor Alternatives 

The following section details the federal-listed, federal candidate, and state-listed species that occur or have 

the potential to occur within the Corridor Alternatives and their Atlanta Approaches. The counties where these 

species have the potential to occur are also listed. In addition, this section lists the acreage of natural habitat 

areas located within each Corridor Alternative and their Atlanta Approaches. 

SOUTHERN CRESCENT CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 

FEDERAL-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The USFWS in conjunction with the State Heritage Programs of North Carolina and South Carolina currently 

lists 23 federal threatened or endangered species that occur or have the potential to occur in the specific 

counties of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 3.10-4. Appendix D includes

brief descriptions of the habitat requirements of each species listed below. 

Although the species listed below have the potential to occur in various suitable habitats in the screening area, 

coordination with the USFWS and State Heritage Programs indicated known occurrences within a half mile 

of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative for smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), dwarf-flowered 

heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), and Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-162

Exhibit 3.10-4: Federal-Listed Protected Species and Federal Candidate Species Potentially Occurring 

within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative

Common name Scientific Name Status State Counties

Federal-Listed Threatened And Endangered Species

Mussels

Gulf moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus E GA Clayton, Fulton

Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme E GA Clayton, Fulton

Purple bankclimber Elliptoideus sloatianus T GA Clayton, Fulton

Shinyrayed pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata E GA Clayton, Fulton

Carolina heelsplitter5 Lasmigona decorata E NC Mecklenburg

Fish

Cherokee darter Etheostoma scotti T GA Fulton

Plants

Little amphianthus Amphianthus pusillus T GA Barrow

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii E NC Mecklenburg

Black-spored quillwort Isoetes melanospora E GA, SC Clayton, Hall, Banks, 

Barrow, Pickens

Smooth coneflower1,2,3,4 Echinacea laevigata E GA, SC, 

NC

Banks, Habersham, Stephens, 

Oconee, Pickens, 

Mecklenburg

Persistent trillium Trillium persistens E GA, SC Habersham, Stephens, 

Oconee

Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T GA, SC Habersham, Oconee, 

Greenville

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf3,4 Hexastylis naniflora T SC, NC Pickens, Greenville, 

Spartanburg, Cherokee, 

Cleveland, Gaston

Mountain sweet pitcher-plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii E SC Pickens, Greenville

Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E SC Greenville

Swamp pink Helonias bullata T SC Greenville

Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E SC Greenville

Reflexed blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium dichotomum E SC Greenville

Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E NC Gaston, Mecklenburg

Reptiles

Bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii T (SOA) SC, NC Pickens, Greenville, Gaston

Mammals

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis E GA, NC Hall, Banks, Habersham, 

Stephens, Cleveland, Gaston, 

Mecklenburg
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-163

Common name Scientific Name Status State Counties

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E GA, SC Hall, Habersham, Stephens, 

Oconee

Eastern cougar* Puma concolor cougar Extinct SC Pickens, Greenville

Federal Candidate Species

Plants

White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia C GA, SC Habersham, Stephens, 

Greenville

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; T (SOA) = Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance

Source: GA – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); 

GADNR County Rare Elements http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2722 (August 2014)

SC – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); 

SCDNR Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Inventory http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/ (June 2014)

NC – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014);

NCDENR Natural Heritage Data Search http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/nhp/database-search (October 2014)

1 USFWS GA Office coordination letter (received September 26, 2013); 2GADNR coordination letter (received October 15, 2013);

3 USFWS SC Office coordination letter (received September 19. 2013); 4SCDNR coordination letter (received September 18, 2013); 

5NCDENR coordination letter (received September 26, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, Clayton, Hall, Banks, Habersham, Stephens; SC Counties – Oconee, Pickens, Greenville, Spartanburg, Cherokee; 

NC Counties – Cleveland, Gaston, Mecklenburg

*Eastern Cougar declared extinct by the USFWS on January 22, 2018 and removed from the endangered species list. Remains in this table 

because it was included in the original analysis and data collection. 

Critical habitat has been designated for oval pigtoe, purple bankclimber, Gulf moccasinshell, and shinyrayed

pocketbook in Whitewater Creek, a tributary to the Flint River located in Fayette County, GA, approximately 

14.5 miles south of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative.155 The Carolina heelsplitter has designated 

critical habitat approximately 17 miles southeast of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative in Duck Creek 

in Union County, NC.156 Additionally, designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat is located in White Oak 

Blowhole Cave in Blount County, TN, approximately 80 miles northwest of the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative.157

Critical habitat has not been designated for any other federally protected species listed as potentially occurring 

within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative. 

FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES

According to USFWS IPaC, there is one federal candidate species - white fringeless orchid - that occurs, or 

has the potential of occurring, in the specific counties of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, as shown 

in Exhibit 3.10-4. 

 

155 72 FR 57276 (November 23, 2007). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-11-15/pdf/07-5551.pdf#page=1 

156 67 FR 44502 (July 2, 2002). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-07-02/pdf/02-16580.pdf#page=1 4/10/18)

157 41 FR 41914 (September 24, 1976). Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr115.pdf 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-164

STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

There are also several state-listed threatened and endangered species that occur or have the potential to occur 

in the specific counties of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 3.10-5. Brief 

descriptions of the habitat requirements of each species listed below can be found in Appendix D.

Coordination with SCDNR and NCDENR indicated known occurrences within a half mile of the Southern 

Crescent Corridor Alternative for Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) within South Carolina and 

North Carolina. The GADNR also indicated known occurrences within a half mile for state-listed Bachman’s 

sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) and pink ladyslipper (Cypripedium acaule) in Georgia. Additionally, early 

coordination with NCDENR indicated known occurrences of state-protected plants, tall larkspur (Delphinium 

exaltatum) and bigleaf magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla), within the portion of the Southern Crescent 

Corridor Alternative located in North Carolina.

Exhibit 3.10-5: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Southern Crescent Corridor 

Alternative

Common name Scientific Name State 

Status

State Counties

Birds

Bachman’s sparrow1 Aimophila aestivalis R GA Fulton

Plants

Pink ladyslipper Cypripedium acaule U GA Fulton

Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum T SC, NC Cherokee, Gaston, 

Mecklenburg

Tall Larkspur3 Delphinium exaltatum E NC Mecklenburg

Bigleaf magnolia 3 Magnolia macrophylla T NC Gaston

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare; U = Unusual

Source: 1GADNR Coordination letter (received October 15, 2013); 2SCDNR Coordination letter (received September 18, 

2013);3NCDENR Coordination letter (received September 26, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, Clayton, Hall, Banks, Habersham, Stephens; SC Counties – Oconee, Pickens, Greenville, Spartanburg, 

Cherokee; NC Counties – Cleveland, Gaston, Mecklenburg
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-165

The SCDNR reports the following terrestrial communities within a half mile of the Southern Crescent 

Corridor Alternative:

• Chestnut Oak Forest – Spartanburg County, SC; and,

• Cove Forest – Spartanburg County, SC.

The NCDENR lists the following high quality natural communities within a half mile of the Southern Crescent 

Corridor Alternative:

• Dry-Mesic Basic Oak-Hickory Forest (Element Occurrence [EO] # 020) – contains habitat for the state 

threatened species Georgia aster – Mecklenburg County, NC; and,

• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (EO # 216) – contains habitat for the state threatened species Georgia 

aster – Mecklenburg County, NC.

GADNR does not list any high-quality natural communities within a half mile of the Southern Crescent 

Corridor Alternative. 

NATURAL HABITAT AREAS AND WILDLIFE

Developed areas comprise approximately 64 percent of the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative while 

natural habitat areas, both terrestrial and aquatic, make up approximately 36 percent. Exhibit 3.10-6 lists the 

habitat and land-use areas present within the Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative. 

Exhibit 3.10-6: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within Southern Crescent Corridor Alternative

Habitat Type Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Total

Terrestrial – Developed (in Acres)

Developed, Open Space 658 1,478 596 2,732

Developed, Low Intensity 638 1,852 1,013 3,503

Developed, Medium Intensity 466 824 557 1,847

Developed, High Intensity 562 427 262 1,251

Bare Rock/Sand/Clay* 26 41 5 72

Pasture/Hay 155 437 117 709

Cultivated Crops 0 0 2 2

 Total 2,505 5,059 2,552 10,116

Terrestrial – Natural (in Acres)

Deciduous Forest 1,053 2,295 308 3,656

Evergreen Forest 195 703 43 941

Mixed forest 16 29 5 50

Scrub/Shrub 26 44 11 81

Grassland/Herbaceous 269 640 69 978

Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0 0 1 1

Woody Wetland 3 40 3 46
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-166

Habitat Type Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Total

 Total 1,562 3,751 440 5,753

Aquatic

Streams (Linear Feet) 19,866 85,164 15,436 120,466

Lakes (Acres) 4 29 23 56

Ponds (Acres) 2 8 5 15

Source: Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (1998)

*Although this habitat type includes several natural areas, such as rock outcrops, that may be present within the Corridor Alternative, 

during the Tier 1 EIS analysis, the majority of this mapped habitat type appeared to consist primarily of disturbed areas, such as strip mines, 

quarries, and gravel lots. 

During the Tier 2 analysis, general habitat assessments will be conducted to confirm developed land and 

natural habitat areas reported above.

I-85 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 

FEDERAL-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The USFWS currently list 24 threatened or endangered species that occur, or have the potential of occurring 

in the specific counties of the I-85 Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 3.10-7. Brief descriptions of the 

habitat requirements of each species listed below can be found in Appendix D. 

Although the species listed below have the potential to occur in various suitable habitats in the Study Area, 

coordination with the USFWS and State Heritage Programs indicated known occurrences within a half mile 

of the I-85 Corridor Alternative for little amphianthus, black-spored quillwort, mat-forming quillwort, dwarfflowered heartleaf, and Carolina heelsplitter.

Exhibit 3.10-7: Federal-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within I-85 Corridor Alternative

Common name Scientific Name Status State Counties

Federal-Listed Threatened And Endangered Species

Mussels

Gulf moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus E GA Clayton, Fulton

Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme E GA Clayton, Fulton

Purple bankclimber Elliptoideus sloatianus T GA Clayton, Fulton

Shinyrayed pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata E GA Clayton, Fulton

Carolina heelsplitter5 Lasmigona decorata E NC Mecklenburg

Fish

Cherokee darter Etheostoma scotti T GA Fulton

Plants

Little amphianthus2 Amphianthus pusillus T GA Barrow, Jackson
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-167

Common name Scientific Name Status State Counties

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii E NC Mecklenburg

Black-spored quillwort Isoetes melanospora E GA, SC Barrow, Jackson, Banks

Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E GA, SC, NC Banks, Franklin, Oconee, 

Anderson, Mecklenburg

Persistent trillium Trillium persistens E SC Oconee

Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T SC Oconee, Greenville

Mat-forming quillwort2Isoetes tegetiformans E GA Jackson

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf3,4 Hexastylis naniflora T SC, NC Greenville, Spartanburg, 

Cherokee, Cleveland, 

Mountain sweet pitcher-plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. Jonesii E SC Greenville

Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E SC Greenville

Swamp pink Helonias bullata T SC Greenville

Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E SC Greenville

Reflexed blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium dichotomum E SC Greenville

Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E NC Gaston, Mecklenburg

Reptiles

Bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii T (SOA) SC, NC Greenville, Gaston

Mammals

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis E GA, NC Barrow, Banks, Franklin, Hart, 

Cleveland, Gaston, Mecklenburg

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E GA, SC Oconee

Eastern cougar* Puma concolor cougar E SC Greenville

Federal Candidate Species

Plants

White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia C SC Greenville

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T (SOA) = Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance

Source: GA – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); 

GADNR County Rare Elements http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2722 (August 2014)

SC – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); 

SCDNR Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Inventory http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/ (June 2014)

NC – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014);

NCDENR Natural Heritage Data Search http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/nhp/database-search (October 2014)

1 USFWS GA Office coordination letter (received September 26, 2013); 2GADNR coordination letter (received October 15, 2013); 3USFWS 

SC Office coordination letter (received September 19. 2013); 4SCDNR coordination letter (received September 18, 2013); 5NCDENR 

coordination letter (received September 26, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, Clayton, Jackson, Barrow, Banks, Franklin, Hart; SC Counties – Oconee, Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, 

Cherokee; NC Counties – Cleveland, Gaston, Mecklenburg

*Eastern Cougar declared extinct by the USFWS on January 22, 2018 and removed from the endangered species list. Remains in this table 

because it was included in the original analysis and data collection.
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-168

USFWS has designated critical habitat for oval pigtoe, purple bankclimber, Gulf moccasinshell, and 

shinyrayed pocketbook in Whitewater Creek, a tributary to the Flint River located in Fayette County, GA, 

approximately 14.5 miles south of the I-85 Corridor Alternative.158 The Carolina heelsplitter has designated 

critical habitat approximately 17 miles southeast of the I-85 Corridor Alternative in Duck Creek in Union 

County, NC.159 Additionally, designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat is located in White Oak Blowhole 

Cave, Blount County, TN, approximately 90 miles northwest of the I-85 Corridor Alternative.160

FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES

According to USFWS IPaC, there is one federal candidate species – white fringeless orchid - that occurs, or 

has the potential of occurring, in the specific counties of the I-85 Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 

3.10-8.

STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

There are also several threatened and endangered species listed by each state that occur or have the potential 

of occurring in the specific counties of the I-85 Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 3.10-8. Brief 

descriptions of the habitat requirements of each species listed below can be found in Appendix D. 

Coordination with GADNR indicated a known occurrence for Bachman’s sparrow, pink ladyslipper, and 

sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus) within specific locations along the portion of the Corridor Alternative

within Georgia. The SCDNR reported a known occurrence for Georgia aster in South Carolina. Additionally, 

early coordination with NCDENR reported known occurrences for Georgia aster, big leaf magnolia, and tall 

larkspur within the North Carolina portion of the Corridor Alternative.

Exhibit 3.10-8: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within I-85 Corridor Alternative

Common name Scientific Name State 

Status

State Counties

Birds

Bachman’s sparrow1 Aimophila aestivalis R GA Fulton

Fish

Sandbar shiner1 Notropis scepticus R GA Franklin

Plants

Pink ladyslipper Cypripedium acaule U GA Fulton

Georgia aster3 Symphyotrichum georgianum T SC, NC Cherokee, Gaston, 

Mecklenburg

Bigleaf magnolia 3 Magnolia macrophylla T NC Gaston

 

158 72 FR 220 (November 2007) Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-11-15/pdf/07-5551.pdf#page=1 (accessed on 4/10/18)

159 67 FR 127 (July 2002) Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-07-02/pdf/02-16580.pdf#page=1 (accessed on 4/10/18)

160 41 FR 187 (September 1976) Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr115.pdf (accessed on 4/10/18)
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-169

Common name Scientific Name State 

Status

State Counties

Tall Larkspur3 Delphinium exaltatum E NC Mecklenburg

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare; U = Unusual 

Source: 1GADNR Coordination letter (received October 15, 2013); 2SCDNR Coordination letter (received September 18, 2013); 

3NCDENR Coordination letter (received September 26, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, Clayton, Barrow, Jackson, Banks, Franklin, Hart; SC Counties – Oconee, Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, 

Cherokee; NC Counties – Cleveland, Gaston, Mecklenburg

The NCDENR listed the following high quality natural communities within a half mile of the I-85 Corridor 

Alternative:

• Dry-Mesic Basic Oak-Hickory Forest (EO # 020) – contains habitat for the state threatened species 

Georgia aster – Mecklenburg County, NC; and,

• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (EO # 216) – contains habitat for the state threatened species Georgia 

aster – Mecklenburg County, NC.

• GADNR and SCDNR do not list any high quality natural communities within a half mile of the I-85 

Corridor Alternative.

NATURAL HABITAT AREAS AND WILDLIFE

The I-85 Corridor Alternative primarily follows I-85 ROW, which has been extensively developed. Developed 

areas, including rural, residential, and urban, within the Corridor Alternative encompass approximately 86 

percent of the land area. Terrestrial and aquatic natural habitats comprise 14 percent of the Corridor 

Alternative. Exhibit 3.10-9 lists the habitat and land-use areas present within the I-85 Corridor Alternative.

Exhibit 3.10-9: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within I-85 Corridor Alternative

Habitat Type Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Total

Terrestrial – Developed (in Acres)

Developed, Open Space 1,159 2,268 660 4,087

Developed, Low Intensity 1,473 2,502 953 4,928

Developed, Medium Intensity 569 1,349 518 2,436

Developed, High Intensity 480 329 217 1,026

Bare Rock/Sand/Clay* 9 14 6 29

Pasture/Hay 218 240 39 497

Cultivated Crops 0 0 3 3

 Total 3,908 6,702 2,396 13,006

Terrestrial – Natural (in Acres)

Deciduous Forest 442 610 359 1,411

Evergreen Forest 79 184 42 305

Mixed forest 4 5 8 17
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-170

Habitat Type Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Total

Scrub/Shrub 8 10 7 25

Grassland/Herbaceous 115 151 31 297

Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0 0 1 1

Woody Wetland 49 20 4 73

 Total 697 980 452 2,129

Aquatic

Streams (Linear Feet) 54,587 107,818 30,064 192,469

Lakes (Acres) 11 63 23 97

Ponds (Acres) 6 5 9 20

Source: Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (1998)

*Although this habitat type includes several natural areas, such as rock outcrops, that may be present within the Corridor Alternative, 

during the Tier 1 EIS analysis, the majority of this mapped habitat type appeared to consist primarily of disturbed areas, such as strip mines, 

quarries, and gravel lots. 

GREENFIELD CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE 

FEDERAL-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The USFWS currently lists 22 threatened or endangered species that occur, or have the potential to occur, in 

the specific counties of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 3.10-10. Brief descriptions 

of the habitat requirements of each species listed below can be found in Appendix D. 

Although the species listed have the potential to occur in various suitable habitats in the Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative, coordination with the USFWS and the State Heritage Programs indicated known occurrences 

within a half mile of Greenfield Corridor Alternative for Carolina heelsplitter and Schweinitz’s sunflower.

Exhibit 3.10-10: Federal-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative

Common name Scientific Name Status State Counties

Federal-Listed Threatened And Endangered Species

Mussels

Gulf moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus E GA Clayton, Fulton

Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme E GA Clayton, Fulton

Purple bankclimber Elliptoideus sloatianus T GA Clayton, Fulton

Shinyrayed pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata E GA Clayton, Fulton

Carolina heelsplitter5 Lasmigona decorata E SC, NC Laurens, York, Mecklenburg

Plants

Little amphianthus Amphianthus pusillus T GA, SC Madison, Jackson, Laurens, 

York
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-171

Common name Scientific Name Status State Counties

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii E NC Mecklenburg

Black-spored quillwort Isoetes melanospora E GA, SC Jackson, Madison, Clarke

Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E SC, NC Anderson, Mecklenburg

Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T SC Greenville

Mat-forming quillwort Isoetes tegetiformans E GA Jackson

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T SC, NC Greenville, Spartanburg, 

Cherokee, York, Cleveland, 

Mountain sweet pitcher-plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii E SC Greenville

Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E SC Greenville

Swamp pink Helonias bullata T SC Greenville

Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E SC Greenville

Reflexed blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium dichotomum E SC Greenville

Schweinitz’s sunflower5 Helianthus schweinitzii E NC York, Gaston, Mecklenburg

Reptiles

Bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii T (SOA) SC, NC Greenville, Gaston

Mammals

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis E GA Hart, Cleveland, Gaston, 

Mecklenburg

Eastern cougar* Puma concolor cougar E SC Greenville

Birds

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E SC Laurens

Federal Candidate Species

Plants

White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia C SC Greenville

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T (SOA) = Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance

Source: GA – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); 

GADNR County Rare Elements http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2722 (August 2014)

SC – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); 

SCDNR Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Inventory http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/ (June 2014)

NC – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014);

NCDENR Natural Heritage Data Search http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/nhp/database-search (October 2014)

1 USFWS GA Office coordination letter (received September 26, 2013); 2GADNR coordination letter (received October 15, 2013); 3USFWS 

SC Office coordination letter (received September 19. 2013); 4SCDNR coordination letter (received September 18, 2013); 5NCDENR 

coordination letter (received September 26, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, Clayton, Jackson, Clarke, Madison, Hart; SC Counties –Anderson, Greenville, Laurens, Spartanburg, Cherokee, 

Union, York; NC Counties –Gaston, Mecklenburg

*Eastern Cougar declared extinct by the USFWS on January 22, 2018 and removed from the endangered species list. Remains in this table 

because it was included in the original analysis and data collection.

Critical habitat has been designated for oval pigtoe, purple bankclimber, Gulf moccasinshell, and shinyrayed

pocketbook in Whitewater Creek, a tributary to the Flint River located in Fayette County, GA, approximately 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-172

14.5 miles south of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative.161 The Carolina heelsplitter has designated critical 

habitat approximately 17 miles southeast of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative in Duck Creek in Union 

County, NC.162 Additionally, designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat is located in White Oak Blowhole 

Cave, Blount County, TN, approximately 110 miles northwest of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative.163

FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES

According to USFWS IPaC, there is one federal candidate species – white fringeless orchid - that occurs, or 

has the potential to occur, in the specific counties of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 

3.10-8. 

STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

There are also several threatened and endangered species listed by each state that occur, or have the potential 

to occur, in the specific counties of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 3.10-11. Brief 

descriptions of the habitat requirements of each species listed below can be found in Appendix D. 

Coordination with GADNR indicated a known occurrence within a half mile of the Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative for state-listed Altamaha shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), pink ladyslipper, and Bachman’s sparrow 

within Georgia. Coordination with the State Heritage Programs indicated known occurrences within a half 

mile of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative for Georgia aster in South Carolina and North Carolina. The 

NCDENR also reported a known occurrence for state-listed tall larkspur in North Carolina through early 

coordination.

 

161 72 FR 220 (November 2007) Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-11-15/pdf/07-5551.pdf#page=1 (accessed on 10/21/2013)

162 67 FR 127 (July 2002) Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-07-02/pdf/02-16580.pdf#page=1 (accessed on 10/21/2013)

163 41 FR 187 (September 1976) Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr115.pdf (accessed on 4/10/18)
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-173

Exhibit 3.10-11: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative

Common name Scientific Name State 

Status

State Counties

Birds

Bachman’s sparrow1 Aimophila aestivalis R GA Fulton

Fish

Altamaha shiner1 Cyprinella xaenura T GA Jackson

Plants

Pink ladyslipper1 Cypripedium acaule U GA Fulton

Georgia aster2,3 Symphyotrichum georgianum T SC, NC Cherokee, Gaston, 

Mecklenburg

Tall Larkspur3 Delphinium exaltatum E NC Mecklenburg

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare; U = Unusual

Source: 1GADNR Coordination letter (received October 15, 2013); 2SCDNR Coordination letter (received September 18, 2013); 

3NCDENR Coordination letter (received September 26, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, Clayton, Jackson, Clarke, Madison, Hart; SC Counties –Anderson, Greenville, Laurens, Spartanburg, Cherokee, 

Union, York; NC Counties –Gaston, Mecklenburg

The SCDNR reports one terrestrial community within a half mile of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative:

• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest – Anderson County, SC.

The NCDENR lists the following high quality natural communities within a half mile of the Greenfield 

Corridor Alternative:

• Dry-Mesic Basic Oak-Hickory Forest (Element Occurrence [EO] # 020) – contains habitat for the state 

threatened species Georgia aster – Mecklenburg County, NC; and,

• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (EO # 216) – contains habitat for the state threatened species Georgia 

aster – Mecklenburg County, NC.

GADNR does not list any high quality natural communities within a half mile of the Greenfield Corridor 

Alternative.

NATURAL HABITAT AREAS AND WILDLIFE

The Greenfield Corridor Alternative mainly follows a new alignment, thus natural terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat areas are more prevalent encompassing approximately 60 percent of the Corridor Alternative. 

Developed areas comprise approximately 40 percent of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative. The habitat and 

developed areas that would be directly impacted by the construction of Greenfield are listed in Exhibit 3.10-

12. 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-174

Exhibit 3.10-12: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within Greenfield Corridor Alternative

Habitat Type Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Total

Terrestrial – Developed (in Acres)

Developed, Open Space 329 498 179 1,006

Developed, Low Intensity 184 122 189 495

Developed, Medium Intensity 306 11 148 465

Developed, High Intensity 467 5 103 575

Bare Rock/Sand/Clay* 37 26 7 70

Pasture/Hay 1,418 2,271 148 3,837

Cultivated Crops 17 0 0 17

 Total 2,758 2,933 774 6,465

Terrestrial – Natural (in Acres)

Deciduous Forest 1,525 3,804 496 5,825

Evergreen Forest 458 1,353 152 1,963

Mixed forest 32 100 18 150

Scrub/Shrub 19 127 10 156

Grassland/Herbaceous 458 773 63 1,294

Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0 0 1 1

Woody Wetland 97 84 7 188

 Total 2,589 6,241 747 9,577

Aquatic

Streams (Linear Feet) 65,297 174,779 27,566 267,642

Lakes (Acres) 12 2 28 42

Ponds (Acres) 11 23 4 38

Source: Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (1998)

*Although this habitat type includes several natural areas, such as rock outcrops, that may be present within the Corridor Alternative, during the 

Tier 1 EIS analysis, the majority of this mapped habitat type appeared to consist primarily of disturbed areas, such as strip mines, quarries, and 

gravel lots. 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-175

ATLANTA APPROACHES 

FEDERAL-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The USFWS currently lists the following threatened or endangered species that occur or have the potential of 

occurring in the specific counties of the Atlanta Approaches for each Corridor Alternative, as shown in Exhibit 

3.10-13. Each Atlanta Approach include some similar species as shown on the chart. 

The species listed below have the potential to occur in various suitable habitats in the screening area. The 

Southern Crescent CSX, I-85 CSX, and Greenfield CSX Approaches include the plant Mat-forming quillwort, 

which is not listed for the NS Atlanta Approach. In addition, the Southern Crescent NS and CSX Atlanta 

Approaches include the Northern long-eared bat and the Indiana bat.

Exhibit 3.10-13: Federal-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Atlanta Approaches

Atlanta Approaches Common 

name

Scientific Name Status State Counties

Federal-Listed Threatened And Endangered Species

Mussels

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Gulf 

moccasinshell

Medionidus penicillatus E GA Fulton

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme E GA Fulton

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Purple 

bankclimber

Elliptoideus sloatianus T GA Fulton

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Shinyrayed 

pocketbook

Lampsilis subangulata E GA Fulton

Fish

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Cherokee darter Etheostoma scotti T GA Fulton

Plants

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Little 

amphianthus

Amphianthus pusillus T GA DeKalb, 

Gwinnett

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Michaux’s 

sumac

Rhus michauxii E GA Fulton, DeKalb

- Southern Crescent NS and CSX

- I-85 NS and CSX

- Greenfield NS and CSX

Black-spored 

quillwort

Isoetes melanospora E GA DeKalb, 

Gwinnett, Hall
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-176

Atlanta Approaches Common 

name

Scientific Name Status State Counties

- Southern Crescent CSX

- I-85 CSX

- Greenfield CSX

Mat-forming 

quillwort

Isoetes tegetiformans E GA Jackson

Mammals

Southern Crescent NS and CSX Northern longeared batMyotis septentrionalis E GA Hall

Southern Crescent NS and CSX Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E GA Hall

Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened

Source: GA – USFWS IPaC www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard (December 2014); GADNR County Rare Elements 

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2722 (August 2014)

1 USFWS Ga. Office coordination letter (received September 26, 2013); 2GADNR coordination letter (received October 15, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Hall

FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES

According to USFWS IPaC, there are no federal candidate species that occur, or have the potential to occur, 

in the specific counties of the Atlanta Approaches. 

STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Coordination with the GADNR did not indicate any known occurrences for state-listed species within a half 

mile of the specific counties of the Southern Crescent NS, I-85 NS, and Greenfield NS Atlanta Approaches.

Coordination with GADNR indicated known occurrences for state-listed Chattahoochee crayfish (Cambarus 

howardi) and bay star-vine (Schisandra glabra) as occurring within a half mile of the Southern Crescent CSX, 

I-85 CSX, and Greenfield CSX Atlanta Approaches, see Exhibit 3.10-14. 

Exhibit 3.10-14: State-Listed Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Southern Crescent CSX, I85 CSX, and Greenfield CSX Atlanta Approaches

Common name Scientific Name State 

Status

State Counties

Crayfish

Chattahoochee crayfish1 Cambarus howardi T GA DeKalb

Plants

Bay star-vine1 Schisandra glabra T GA DeKalb

Key: T = Threatened 

Source: 1GADNR Coordination letter (received October 15, 2013)

GA Counties – Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Barrow, Jackson, Hall
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-177

NATURAL HABITAT AREAS AND WILDLIFE

Exhibit 3.10-15 shows the acres of natural habitat and wildlife areas of each proposed Atlanta Approach. 

During the Tier 2 EIS, general habitat assessments will be conducted to confirm developed land and natural 

habitat areas reported below.

Exhibit 3.10-15: Developed and Natural Habitat Areas within each Atlanta Approach 

Southern 

Crescent 

NS

Southern 

Crescent 

CSX I-85 NS

I-85 

CSX

Greenfield 

NS

Greenfield 

CSX

Habitat Type Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Terrestrial – Developed

Developed, Open Space 826 851 831 743 801 743

Developed, Low Intensity 964 848 886 725 860 693

Developed, Medium Intensity 729 507 620 456 595 456

Developed, High Intensity 465 279 409 256 410 256

Bare Rock/Sand/Clay* 13 26 13 22 19 19

Pasture/Hay 73 233 49 151 221 255

Cultivated Crops 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Total 3,070 2,744 2,808 2,353 2,906 2,422

Terrestrial – Natural

Deciduous Forest 313 1,012 393 686 601 690

Evergreen Forest 194 399 144 362 181 403

Mixed forest 8 28 7 20 9 21

Scrub/Shrub 1 12 3 5 4 4

Grassland/Herbaceous 33 239 32 63 124 92

Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0

Woody Wetland 10 74 16 62 33 76

 Total 559 1,764 595 1,198 952 1,286

Aquatic

Streams (Linear Feet) 18,721 118,918 28,334 98,288 37,634 99,701

Lakes 11 1 0 1 0 1

Ponds 3 10 4 9 5 9

Source: Natural Resource Spatial Analysis Laboratory, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia (1998)

*Although this habitat type includes several natural areas, such as rock outcrops, that may be present within the Corridor Alternative, 

during the Tier 1 EIS analysis, the majority of this mapped habitat type appeared to consist primarily of disturbed areas, such as strip mines, 

quarries, and gravel lots. 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-178

3.10.4 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.4.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative assumes that a high-speed rail system would not be built between Atlanta and 

Charlotte. Passenger service between the two cities would consist of existing bus services, air travel, and 

continued automobile use along I-85, I-20, and I-77. The No-Build Alternative projects currently planned 

would increase roadway capacity, expand transit service, and improve transportation operations in selected 

portions of the screening area. In the No-Build Alternative, the impacts to biological resources could 

potentially occur if additional ROW or new location constructions are needed for planned projects in the 

screening area. The potential for impacts to biological resources would be determined through the 

environmental processes for the already planned transportation improvements.

Existing environmental impacts, such as erosion and sedimentation from existing railroad grades to adjacent 

water resources, as well as potential pollutant runoff and spill from railroad operational and maintenance 

activities would continue to affect any federally or state-protected species and natural terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats that may be present adjacent to the rail corridor. There is also the potential for temporary construction 

impacts from future culvert or bridge replacements along the existing rail route, as a part of ongoing 

maintenance. 

3.10.4.2 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

Within each of the Corridor Alternatives, the potential for direct impacts to protected species and their

habitat will depend on the location of those species and habitat and the ability of GDOT to refine the

selected Preferred Alternative to avoid or minimize impacts. Species and habitat in the vicinity of proposed

station locations may be vulnerable to impacts resulting from land use changes that could be induced by

the Project indirectly.

Exhibit 3.10-16 shows the number of federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species habitats 

that may occur within the Corridor Alternatives and their Atlanta Approaches. All Corridor Alternatives 

show similar potential to impact federal and state threatened and endangered species or their habitat; the I85 Corridor Alternative has the highest potential. Similarly, the Atlanta Approaches for each Corridor 

Alternative also show similar potential to impact federal and state threatened and endangered species

habitat. The Southern Crescent CSX Approach has the highest potential for impacts of the Atlanta 

Approaches. 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-179

Exhibit 3.10-16: Threatened and Endangered Species Habitats

Corridor

Alternative

Potential Number of Federal 

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Potential Number of State 

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Total

Southern Crescent 23 5 28

 NS Approach 10 0 10

 CSX Approach 11 2 13

I-85 24 6 30

 NS Approach 8 0 8

 CSX Approach 9 2 11

Greenfield 22 5 27

 NS Approach 8 0 8

 CSX Approach 9 2 11

Sources: USFWS; GADNR; SCDNR; NCDNR

The increase in train traffic may consequently increase the potential for railway animal strikes with mobile 

protected animal species or other mobile species present in the Corridor Alternatives. Due to the existing 

development along the Southern Crescent and I-85 Corridors, operation of the rail route would most likely 

not have an adverse effect on any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Construction activities, 

including tree and brush clearing, habitat disturbance, placement of fill material for additional track and 

siding, stream relocations, culvert replacements or extensions, and bridge replacements or additions could 

have the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic habitats of federally listed threatened or endangered 

species, if present. The detailed presence of most of the habitat types that are suitable for the federally listed 

species in the Corridor Alternatives would not be determined until the Tier 2 analysis.

The majority of the Greenfield Corridor Alternative extends through undeveloped and rural areas, where 

wildlife species may not have been already exposed to the noise, vibration, and other effects of 

transportation. The introduction of train traffic may consequently increase the potential for railway animal 

strikes with mobile protected animal species or other mobile species present in the screening area. The 

introduction of train traffic and railroad ROW could also increase the chances of impacts from erosion and 

sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent natural aquatic habitat, in addition to potential pollutant 

runoff and spills from operational and maintenance activities, which could affect natural habitats and the 

water quality of aquatic habitats that may be adjacent to the rail corridor. 
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-180

3.10.5 Potential Mitigation 

GDOT, SCDOT, and NCDOT will examine appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the potential effects

of the Project on threatened and critical habitats. These steps will be implemented through design 

refinements in consultation with state and federal agencies as appropriate. Minimization will typically focus

on decreasing the footprint of the Project in and near these critical habitats and alignment shifts to avoid

populations and/or habitat areas. 

Since the Project could potentially affect federally listed threatened and endangered species, consultation 

with the USFWS and the appropriate state agencies (GADNR, SCDNR, and NCDENR), as required under 

Section 7 (Interagency Cooperation) of the ESA, would be initiated as informal consultation in the early 

stages of the Tier 2 analysis. If the USFWS and the state agencies concur that the Project is not likely to 

affect any federally listed species in the Study Area, the informal consultation would be complete. However, 

if FRA’s Preferred Alternative could have the potential to affect a federally listed species, a biological 

assessment would be prepared to determine the Preferred Alternative’s potential effect on one or more 

species. Mitigation measures for unavoidable adverse impacts would be determined as part of the formal 

consultation.

Potential mitigation and minimization strategies could include but are not limited to restricting construction 

activities during time of year that is sensitive to species (i.e., breeding, nesting, migration). Although the 

location of the proposed Southern Crescent and I-85 Corridor Alternatives along existing transportation 

corridors would minimize the additional impact to natural/undeveloped areas, there would still be potential 

for cumulative impacts. Additionally, some bird and bat species roost in transportation infrastructure (such

as under bridges); therefore, mitigation strategies such as relocation or installation of new habitats of 

roosting areas within the existing transportation corridors would also be considered. Affected plants and

trees could also be relocated. Furthermore, conservation banking164 and in-lieu fee or in-kind mitigation 

could be used for unavoidable impacts to listed species and their habitats. 

When a Preferred Alternative is chosen, permanent BMPs, such as grassed channels, enhanced swales, 

infiltration trenches, stormwater ponds, and detention ponds, would provide measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts to biological resources. The types of BMPs to be used will be determined as part of the Tier 2 

analysis.

 

164 Conservation banks are permanently protected lands that contain natural resource values. These lands are conserved and permanently 

managed for species that are endangered, threatened, candidates for listing as endangered or threatened, or are otherwise species-at-risk. 

Conservation banks function to offset adverse impacts to these species that occurred elsewhere, sometimes referred to as off-site mitigation. In 

exchange for permanently protecting the land and managing it for these species, the U.S. FWS approves a specified number of habitat or 

species credits that bank owners may sell (FWS, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/conservation-banking.html) (Accessed 4/12/2018)
ATLANTA TO CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 3-181

3.10.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Tier 2 analysis will further evaluate the potential effects of the Preferred Corridor Alternative on biological 

resources. The analysis will include a detailed field survey to determine the presence of federally and stateprotected species in the Preferred Corridor Alternative, a spatial evaluation of both plant and animal species 

within the Preferred Corridor Alternative, as well as the identification of potential conflict areas. Updates to 

the USFWS database as well as the State Heritage Program databases would be reviewed to determine any 

changes to protected species listings for the counties of the Preferred Alternative Corridor. Furthermore, after 

Project design is developed, additional coordination with the USFWS and State Heritage Programs would 

take place to confirm potential occurrences of protected species and suitable habitat along the selected 

corridor. The potential for occurrences of migratory bird nesting, foraging, or roosting habitat areas will be 

further investigated during the general habitat assessments. Special Provisions in coordination with the 

USFWS and State Heritage Programs may be required for the protection of potentially suitable habitat for 

terrestrial (including migratory) and/or aquatic species. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 i 

Contents

4. COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES, STAKEHOLDERS, AND THE PUBLIC ....... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Coordination Plan ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Agency Coordination and Consultation ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.2.1 Agency Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.2 Interagency Coordination Meetings ................................................................................................. 4-4

4.2.3 Section 106 Coordination ................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.3 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 4-8

4.4.1 Public Scoping Meetings.................................................................................................................. 4-8

4.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting Comments ................................................................................................. 4-9

4.5 Communication Tools ................................................................................................................. 4-10

4.5.1 Fact Sheets ..................................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.5.2 Public Website ............................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.5.3 Master Email and Mailing List ...................................................................................................... 4-11

4.5.4 Comment Form .............................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.6 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 4-13

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit 4-1: Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies ..................................................................... 4-2

Exhibit 4-2: List of Interagency Coordination Meetings .............................................................................. 4-5

Exhibit 4 3: Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................................ 4-7

Exhibit 4 4: Public Scoping Meeting Locations and Attendance ................................................................. 4-9

Exhibit 4-5: Comments Received During Scoping ....................................................................................... 4-9

Exhibit 4 6: Survey and Comment Form Example ..................................................................................... 4-12
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-1 

4. COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES, STAKEHOLDERS, AND 

THE PUBLIC 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In compliance with the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU)1

, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)2, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)3, FRA and GDOT implemented a comprehensive program to coordinate 

with federal, state, and local agencies, and maximize participation of the many stakeholders and the public in 

the Study Area at key points in the environmental review process. The program allowed for dialogue on issues 

and alternatives and assisted in the development of solutions. This chapter describes coordination and the 

public involvement activities that were conducted as part of the Tier 1 DEIS for the Project. 

4.1.1 Coordination Plan 

Consistent with SAFETEA-LU, which calls for the development of a coordination plan for all projects for 

which an EIS is prepared under NEPA, GDOT, in coordination with FRA drafted a Public Involvement and 

Coordination Plan (PIP/CP).The Plan provided structure for coordination and communication between lead 

federal and state, cooperating, and participating agencies, including tribal governments, and was intended to 

guide the agency coordination process, make reviews more efficient, and streamline the project decisionmaking process. More specifically, the PIP/CP outlined the activities that occurred during the NEPA process 

to coordinate agency participation and comment. It was designed to provide flexibility to address changes to 

the Project. The PIP/CP also guided the public involvement process for the Project and is intended to ensure 

ongoing public involvement using a variety of tools and techniques to invite and encourage the public to learn 

about and become involved in the Project. FRA approved the PIP/CP on February 20, 2013, and a copy of the 

Plan can be found in Appendix C. GDOT submitted the plan to cooperating and participating agencies with 

the Draft Scoping Document for review and comment.

4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU promotes efficient project management by lead agencies and enhanced 

opportunities for coordination with the public and other federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies 

during project development. Because FRA served as the co-lead agency with GDOT for the Project, the 

agency coordination and consultation was conducted in accordance with CEQ regulations as well as FRA

requirements. GDOT prepared and mailed cooperating and participating agency4

 invitation letters to federal, 

state, and local government agency representatives. SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 defines lead, cooperating 

and participating, agencies as follows: 

1 Pub.L. 109-59, August 10, 2005. 

2 Pub.L. 112-141, July 6, 2012.

3 Pub.L. 91-190, January 1, 1970. 4

 Participating agencies, as defined by SAFETEA-LU, are those with an interest in the project. FHWA was originally a Lead agency in co-operation with FRA for 

the project, but has since changed status to a Participating agency. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-2 

• Lead Agency: FRA, the federal agency with primary responsibility for complying with NEPA 

on the proposed Project; 

• Cooperating Agency: Any federal agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary 

authority over the proposed action, jurisdiction by law, or special expertise with respect to the 

environmental impacts expected to result from the proposed Project; and 

• Participating Agency: Any agency that may have an interest in the Project and is afforded an 

opportunity for involvement in the development of the proposed Project. Participating agencies 

also may provide the lead and cooperating agencies access to information integral to 

understanding and assessing the proposed Project’s potential impacts and benefits. 

A full list of lead, cooperating, and participating agencies can be found in the next section in Exhibit 4-1. 

Outreach efforts to agencies affiliated with the Project included agency scoping meetings, interagency 

coordination meetings and one-on-one stakeholder agency meetings, which are described in the following 

subsections and detailed in Appendix C. 

4.2.1 Agency Scoping 

The NEPA process for the Project began with early coordination and an agency scoping process. Federal, 

state, and local agencies received invitations to participate and provide comments regarding possible concerns 

or considerations for the resource areas under their authority. A copy of the invitation letter and mailing list 

are included in the Scoping Section of Appendix C. 

The scoping process for the Project was conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 to solicit participation 

from agencies, counties, municipalities, and the public as part of the NEPA process. The scoping process was 

used to identify the range of mode technologies and corridors to be studied, the potential impacts to the human 

and natural environments, and the key issues and concerns to be addressed in the Tier 1 EIS. 

The agency scoping meeting was announced in a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS published in the 

Federal Register on May 16, 2013 (see Appendix E). Thirty-one state and federal environmental regulatory 

and review agencies, Native American tribal councils, municipalities, counties, and other government 

organizations and officials were notified of the Agency Scoping Meeting and scoping process through direct 

mailings, which also initiated the early coordination process. One agency scoping meeting was held via 

webinar on June 4, 2013. Exhibit 4-1 below displays the federal, state and local agencies invited and their 

responses on participating in the Atlanta to Charlotte Tier 1 DEIS. 

Exhibit 4-1: Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-3 

Agency Type Participation 

Level 

Accepted 

Invitation to 

Participate

Attended 

Scoping 

Meeting

Provided 

Written 

Comments

FRA Federal Federal Lead 

Agency

✓ ✓

FTA Federal Cooperating ✓ ✓

FHWA* Federal Participating ✓ ✓

U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Participating

U.S. Army Engineering Division Federal Participating ✓ ✓

Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation Federal Participating ✓ ✓

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Participating ✓ ✓ ✓

National Park Service Federal Participating

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Federal Participating ✓ ✓

GDOT State Lead State 

Agency

✓ ✓

NCDOT State Participating ✓ ✓

SCDOT State Participating ✓ ✓

Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources – Historic 

Preservation Division

State Participating 

North Carolina State Historic 

Preservation Office State Participating 

South Carolina State Historic 

Preservation Office State Participating ✓ ✓

Appalachian Regional Commission Regional Participating

Atlanta Regional Commission Regional Participating

Georgia Mountain Regional 

Commission Regional Participating 

Charlotte Regional Transportation 

Planning Organization (CRTPO) Regional Participating ✓ ✓

Greenville-Pickens Area 

Transportation Study Regional Participating 

Spartanburg Area Transportation 

Study Regional Participating ✓ ✓

Gainesville-Hall Metropolitan 

Planning Organization Regional Participating ✓ ✓
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-4 

Agency Type Participation 

Level 

Accepted 

Invitation to 

Participate

Attended 

Scoping 

Meeting

Provided 

Written 

Comments

City of Charlotte Local Participating ✓ ✓

City of Atlanta Local Participating ✓ ✓

City of Greenville Local Participating

City of Spartanburg Local Participating

City of Augusta Local Participating

City of Columbia Local Participating ✓

*FHWA initially was to serve as a cooperating agency but later decided to serve as a participating agency.

At the June 24, 2013 agency scoping meeting, GDOT provided an overview of the Project, the NEPA process, 

and the scope of the Project. After the presentation, GDOT opened the floor for agency representatives to ask 

questions, provide input, or specify analysis for consideration in the EIS process. The agency scoping meeting

is summarized in the Scoping Summary Report in Appendix C. Feedback from the agency scoping meeting 

included comments pertaining to: 

• Permitting 

• Funding 

• The Tiered EIS process 

• Declaring a Preferred Alternative 

• Corridor feasibility 

• Indirect and cumulative effects 

• Last mile connectivity 

• The definition of “shared use” in the Project 

• Operating speeds 

4.2.2 Interagency Coordination Meetings 

Coordination meetings between federal and state lead agencies took place throughout the development of the 

Tier 1 DEIS. These meetings provided opportunity for ongoing coordination and discussion of the Project 

process, products, and issues. Participating agencies were involved in, and participated in the review of 

Corridor Alternatives development, a review and update of the technical findings of the Alternatives 

Development Report (ADR), important project updates, overview of the environmental analysis, and next 

steps in the Tier 1 DEIS process. Exhibit 4-2 below shows the interagency coordination meetings that 

followed the Agency Scoping process. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-5 

Exhibit 4-2: List of Interagency Coordination Meetings 

Meeting Type Agencies Number of 

Attendees Summary Date

NCDOT Agency 

Project Update 

Meeting 

NCDOT, FHWA, 

GDOT 9 

GDOT staff presented Project background 

information and future public and stakeholder 

involvement information. NCDOT provided 

updates on Gateway Station and provided 

insight on the Project as it relates to the 

Charlotte area. More information on this 

meeting can be found in Appendix C.

August 27, 

2012

SCDOT Agency 

Project Update 

Meeting 

SCDOT, FHWA, GDOT 7 

GDOT staff presented Project background 

information and future public and stakeholder 

involvement information. SCDOT provided a 

rail update on projects across South Carolina 

and described the kick-off of their Statewide 

Multi-Modal Plan. SCDOT also provided some 

suggestions to Project staff to consider. More 

information on this meeting can be found in 

Appendix C.

August 28, 

2012

City of Atlanta 

Agency Project 

Update Meeting 

City of Atlanta, GDOT 8 

GDOT staff presented Project background 

information and future public and stakeholder 

involvement information. More information on 

this meeting can be found in Appendix C.

January 24, 

2013

CLT Airport 

Agency Project 

Update Meeting 

CLT, GDOT 8 

GDOT staff presented Project background 

information and future public and stakeholder 

involvement information. CLT provided 

updates on airport projects and future planning 

initiatives for the airport property. More 

information on this meeting can be found in 

Appendix C.

March 28, 

2013

Corridor 

Alternatives 

Development 

Meeting 

Webinar

GDOT, NCDOT, 

SCDOT 10

Overview of methodologies and findings for 

each section of the ADR. Agencies could ask 

questions/provide feedback. A copy of the 

questions, comments and responses are found 

in Appendix C.

September 

30, 2014

Agency Project 

Update Meeting 

Webinar 

GDOT, NCDOT, 

SCDOT, FRA, FHWA, 

USACE, City of 

Charlotte, ARC, City of 

Atlanta, US EPA – 

Region 4

21

GDOT briefed stakeholders on the work that 

has been completed and provided an overview 

of the findings within the ADR. GDOT also 

discussed the status of the Tier 1 DEIS, 

Corridor Alternative Screening, and the 

environmental categories being analyzed. The 

meeting minutes can be found in Appendix C.

December 

10, 2014

Augusta, GA 

Project Update 

Meeting 

City of Augusta, 

Augusta Economic 

Development Authority, 

Development Authority 

of Columbia County, 

Oglethorpe Public 

Affairs, State 

11

This meeting was to update the City of Augusta 

on the Project through the public scoping 

meetings in June 2013. The meeting focused on 

the identified study corridors that travel through 

the City of Augusta. GDOT explained the 

scoping and initial screening process and why 

those corridors were not recommended to move 

January 9, 

2014
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-6 

Meeting Type Agencies Number of 

Attendees Summary Date

Transportation Board, 

and GDOT

through to the refined evaluation. The meeting 

minutes can be found in Appendix C.

SCDOT Project 

Update Meeting SCDOT and GDOT 7 

This conference call provided SCDOT 

representatives with a recap of Project activities 

since the public scoping meetings in June 2013.

February 4, 

2014

Southeast Rail 

Coalition – 

Monthly Phone 

Conference 

FRA, SCDOT, NCDOT, 

GDOT, FDOT, DDOT, 

TDOT, VDRPT 

Varies by 

call 

Regular Project updates have been provided to 

state DOTs participating in monthly Southeast 

Rail Coalition meetings. The Southeast Rail 

Coalition aims to achieve a regional approach 

to planning, construction and operation of the 

southeast rail network.

August 

2017-

Ongoing 

Southeast Rail 

Forum 

FRA, SCDOT, NCDOT, 

GDOT, FDOT, DDOT, 

TDOT, VDRPT

200+

GDOT staff presented Project updates to 

multiple stakeholders and rail professionals at 

the Southeast Rail Forum in Greenville, SC

March 26-

28, 2018

Lead Agency 

Monthly Phone 

Conference 

FRA and GDOT 

5 – 10, 

varies by 

call

GDOT staff provides monthly Project updates 

and FRA provides feedback on the Tier 1 EIS 

document and the NEPA process.

2012 – 

Ongoing 

4.2.3 Section 106 Coordination 

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act5 (Section 106) and 36 CFR 800, 

FRA sent coordination letters on July 9, 2015, to the state historic preservation officers (SHPO) of GA, SC, 

and NC, and to historic preservation-focused agencies and organizations to request information on known 

eligible historic properties within the Study Area. The following organizations received early coordination 

letters: 

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; 

• Atlanta Regional Commission; 

• Atlanta Urban Design Commission; 

• Charlotte Regional History Consortium; 

• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission; 

• Georgia Mountains Regional Commission; 

• Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer; 

• National Park Service - Southeast Region; 

• North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer; 

• North Carolina Office of Archives and History; 

• Northeast Georgia Regional Commission; and 

• South Carolina Department of Archives and History - State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Letters were received from the Georgia SHPO on July 27, 2015, and from the North Carolina Department of 

Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office on August 13, 2015. An email was received from the 

Atlanta Urban Design Commission on August 25, 2015. Responses from these organizations are included in 

5 36 CFR Part 800. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-7 

Appendix C. GDOT and FRA will continue to consult with these entities regarding any potential cultural 

resource impacts of concern in the Study Area. 

Section 106 also requires tribal consultation. Native American Tribes may have interests in natural or cultural 

resources located in the Study Area. GDOT compiled a list of federally recognized tribes with former and 

current habitation within the Study Area in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The following tribes 

and the Georgia Natural Heritage Program were contacted via letter during the scoping process: 

• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, • Kialegee Tribal Town of the Creek Nation,

• United Keetoowah Band, • Muscogee (Creek) Nation,

• Cherokee Nation, • Thlopthlocco Tribal Town,

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians, • Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas,

• Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, • Catawba Indian Tribe, and

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council; • Tuscarora Nation.

FRA and GDOT will continue to consult with the tribes regarding potential natural and cultural resource 

impacts of concern to the tribes throughout Project development. GDOT received one phone call and followup email on August 3, 2015 from the Catawba Indian Tribe requesting to be notified once a route has been 

established for further involvement. An email from the United Keetoowah Band was received on August 19, 

2015, stating they want to be involved in the consultation for the Project. A letter from the Alabama-Coushatta 

Tribe of Texas dated August 27, 2015, was received stating that there are no known impacts to cultural assets 

of the tribe based on the Project's Study Area; however, they requested information as the results become 

available (see Appendix C). 

4.3 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Stakeholders were engaged on an ongoing basis to provide timely and ongoing feedback. Stakeholders were 

identified as any agency, organization, or group with an interest in the Project that was not designated as a 

participating agency. In addition to the scoping meetings, GDOT met with stakeholders to introduce them to 

the Project and to discuss the study corridor evaluation process, outreach process, schedule and goals. Meeting 

summaries are located in Exhibit 4-3 below as well as in Appendix C.

Exhibit 4-3: Stakeholder Meetings 

Stakeholders Number of 

Attendees Summary Date

NS, GDOT 9 

GDOT staff presented Project background information and future public 

and stakeholder involvement information. NS staff provided information 

about their passenger rail policies, discussed opportunities for shared vs 

separate track, and highlighted previous high speed rail feasibility studies. 

More information on this meeting can be found in Appendix C.

September 

14, 2012

H-JAIA, GDOT 4 GDOT staff presented Project background information and future public 

and stakeholder involvement information. H-JAIA staff described current 

projects, future planned projects, and coordination with high-speed 

March 5, 

2013
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-8 

Stakeholders Number of 

Attendees Summary Date

passenger rail service including station locations. More information on this 

meeting can be found in Appendix C. 

GSP, GDOT 9 

GDOT staff presented Project background information and future public 

and stakeholder involvement information. GSP provided an overview of 

ongoing and future projects around the GSP Airport. More information on 

this meeting can be found in Appendix C. 

March 14, 

2013

Charlotte DOT 

(CDOT), CATS, 

GDOT

7 

GDOT staff presented Project background information and future public 

and stakeholder involvement information. CDOT and CATS provided 

information about planned railroad and safety improvements. More 

information on this meeting can be found in Appendix C. 

March 28, 

2013

4.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Due to the large geographic size of the Study Area, the public involvement activities included three public 

scoping open houses (one in each state) as well as virtual outreach including a recorded PowerPoint 

presentation that was available on the website of the scoping meeting, electronic comment cards, and input 

solicitation. These activities were able to provide information to a larger group than the public meetings alone. 

4.4.1 Public Scoping Meetings 

For the public scoping process for the Tier 1 DEIS, GDOT conducted a series of interactive meetings and 

open forums designed to provide the opportunity for both agencies and the public to review and comment on 

the Project. 

Press releases, a media release, email blasts, and newspaper notices were distributed for public notification in 

Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina in late May 2013. The dates, locations, and times for the Tier 1 

DEIS public scoping meetings were advertised on the Project website. Pursuant to NEPA, a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare a Draft Tier 1 EIS for the Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan 

(PRCIP) was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2013. See Appendix E for the NOI. 

Three public scoping meetings were held in early June 2013 in Suwanee, GA; Greer, SC; and Charlotte, NC. 

Each meeting followed the format of an open house-style meeting. A brief PowerPoint presentation explaining 

the Project was displayed on a continuous loop during each meeting. Interactive topic-specific areas focusing 

on the initial Purpose and Need, Corridor Alternatives, and potential station area locations were set up along 

with display boards. Project staff members were available for one-on-one discussions with meeting attendees. 

The display boards included information on the various study corridors, technologies of the trains, the Project 

schedule, intercity passenger rail history, and the environmental process. The Project Team representatives 

were comprised of staff from GDOT, SCDOT, NCDOT, the FRA, and the Tier 1 EIS consultant team. The 

Project Team provided a welcome letter, fact sheet, and a short survey to all attendees. A copy of the 

PowerPoint presentation used at the public scoping meetings, the public scoping meeting display boards, and 

the meeting handouts were posted on the Project website (http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoCharlotte). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-9 

The times and locations of the three meetings were as follows in Exhibit 4-4: 

Exhibit 4-4: Public Scoping Meeting Locations and Attendance 

Meeting Date Meeting Location Estimated Attendance

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 Suwanee Council Chambers

232 Buford Highway 

Suwanee, GA 30024

70

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 301 East Poinsett Street

Hall C 

Greer, SC 29651

72

Thursday, June 6, 2013 2327 Tipton Drive

Charlotte, NC 28206 

40

4.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting Comments 

A total of 182 individuals attended the three public scoping meetings. A total of 139 comments were submitted 

through various means including a court reporter, a comment/survey form, email, and a survey via the online 

virtual public meeting. The comment period began on June 4, 2013, and ended on March 1, 2014. The majority 

of the attendees or those commenting via online survey responded positively (94% in favor) to the Project as 

shown in Exhibit 4-5. 

Exhibit 4-5: Comments Received During Scoping 

A summary of the takeaways from the public scoping meetings include: 

• There is an interest for overall connectivity, including connectivity to multi-modal facilities, urban 

areas and employment centers; 

• There is an interest for inclusion of higher education institutions and key stakeholders; 

• There is an interest for safe, reliable, and convenient passenger rail service; 

• There is an interest for quick and efficient service, and travel time should be the primary factor in 

determining a preferred route; 

94%

1%

5%

In Favor

Neutral

Opposed
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-10

• Ticket costs should be competitive with air travel costs for successful operation; 

• There is an interest in inter-governmental cooperation, especially between each state’s department of 

transportation; 

• There is a general interest in the potential for economic development opportunities along the route 

and around stations; 

• There is a general interest in the potential for passenger rail service to reduce congestion in urban 

areas and improve air quality; and 

• There is a general interest in a funding/financing plan and expected subsidies. 

Specific comments and questions received during the scoping process were summarized into 11 categories 

to which responses were made by FRA and GDOT, and summarized in Appendix C. The 11 categories 

include: 

• Multi-modal urban and employment connectivity; 

• Involvement of higher education institutions; 

• Safe, convenient, and reliable passenger rail service; 

• Expedited project implementation; 

• Travel time; 

• Competitive ticket pricing; 

• Intergovernmental coordination; 

• Economic development; 

• Traffic and air quality; 

• Preferred route and station selection; and 

• Funding and subsidies. 

The public comment period for the scoping period closed March 1, 2014. GDOT encourages public input 

throughout the NEPA process; however, the next official public comment period begins when the Tier 1 DEIS 

is released for public review. 

4.5 COMMUNICATION TOOLS

FRA and GDOT have maintained open and accessible communication with the public by use of the following 

communications tools. FRA and GDOT will continue to utilize these tools through the completion of the 

Atlanta to Charlotte PRCIP. 

4.5.1 Fact Sheets 

GDOT distributed two-page, color fact sheets during outreach efforts and at public meetings in both electronic 

and hard copy formats. GDOT also distributed these publications to public officials, elected officials, and 

other interested stakeholders (refer to Appendix C for copies of the fact sheets). GDOT will distribute two 

additional fact sheets: one prior to the Public Hearing and a final fact sheet at the completion of the Tier 1 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-11

4.5.2 Public Website 

GDOT established a website for the Project at http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoCharlotte to provide 

updated Project information during the Tier 1 NEPA process. The Project website includes a synopsis of the 

Project, frequently asked questions, the Alternatives Development Report, a Project fact sheet, and 

information and maps regarding the Project Study Area. Contact information for GDOT staff and a main 

Project email are included on the main page of the website. 

4.5.3 Master Email and Mailing List 

GDOT developed and maintains a master email and a mailing list database of contacts for the Project. The 

list was established by using information gathered from cities and counties in the Project Study Area, from 

FRA, and from previous studies in the area. The list is used to distribute information such as electronic fact 

sheets, information regarding upcoming meetings, and general updates to the Project. The list will continue 

to be maintained and utilized through the completion of the Project. 

4.5.4 Comment Form 

Comment forms were used during public outreach for the Project to solicit input from the public. When the 

Tier 1 DEIS document is available for public review during the public comment period, GDOT will make 

comment forms available at public meetings and on the GDOT Project website 

(http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoCharlotte). The following Exhibit 4-6 is an example of the comment 

form used for this Project during the scoping process to help inform FRA and GDOT on the public’s 

perceptions and concerns. All results from the comment forms are or will be included in the Administrative 

Record. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-12

Exhibit 4 6: Survey and Comment Form Example 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | AGENCY & PUBLIC COORDINATION

 DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 4-13

4.6 NEXT STEPS

During the 45-day public comment period for this Tier 1 DEIS, FRA and GDOT will hold public meetings. 

GDOT and FRA will determine the number of meetings and locations in coordination with SCDOT and 

NCDOT. The meetings will be an opportunity for FRA and GDOT to hear comments on the Tier 1 DEIS. 

After the close of the public comment period, FRA and GDOT will consider public and agency input as well 

as the findings of the Tier 1 DEIS. The lead agencies will then select a Preferred Corridor Alternative from 

among the alternatives considered in the Tier 1 DEIS. 

In accordance with MAP-21 and the FAST Act, FRA may issue a combined Tier 1 Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision (FEIS/ROD). The Tier 1 FEIS/ROD will identify the Preferred 

Corridor Alternative, summarize the environmental impacts, respond to public and agency comments received 

on the Tier 1 DEIS, and discuss the reasons why it was selected. During the development of the Tier 1 

FEIS/ROD, GDOT will also undertake additional public and agency coordination. GDOT will post the Tier 

1 FEIS/ROD on the Project website (http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoCharlotte), and publish notices 

in primary Project Area newspapers. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐1 

5. REFERENCES 

15 Year Future Land Use Map, 2011, Atlanta Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), NPU-M, Atlanta, 

GA. 29 Jan. 2013. 

2008. The Volpe Center. “Evaluation of High Speed Rail Options in the Macon-Atlanta-GreenvilleCharlotte Rail Corridor.” 

2014 Banks County Zoning (Draft), Banks County, GA. 1 Aug. 2014. 

2040 Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. http://www.dot.state.sc.us/Multimodal/ default.aspx. 4 

May 2016. 

42 U.S. Code § 6101 - Statement of Purpose. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ text/42/6101. 1 Feb. 

2016. 

Administrative Procedure Act – Georgia. http://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-procedureacts/georgia/#sthash.1n0kxkOh.dpuf. 17 May 2016. 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. http://www.achp.gov/progalt/FHWA Interstate Exemption.pdf. 

8 Sept. 2014. 

Americans with Disabilities Act. http://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm. 1 Feb. 2016. 

America 2050. http://www.rpa.org/. 25 Jan. 2016. 

Anderson County GIS Current Land Use Layer. Anderson County, SC. 26 June 2013. 

Anderson County GIS Future Land Use Layer. Anderson County, SC. 26 June 2013. 

Anderson County GIS Zoning Layer. Anderson County, SC. 26 June 2013. 

Anderson MPO. http://www.cityofandersonsc.com/planning/transportation/anats/ transportationimprovement-program.pdf. 16 July 2015. 

America 2050. http://www.america2050.org/megaregions.html. 24 Sept. 2015. 

Amtrak. http://www.amtrak.com/home. 31 July 2015. 

Athens-Clarke County, Georgia. https://athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentCenter/ Home/View/1568. 7 

Feb. 2006. 

Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, https://athensclarkecounty.com/Document Center/ Home/View/1571. 6 

Dec. 2006. 

Athens MPO. http://www.macorts.org/Documents/tip.pdf. 15 July 2015. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐2 

Atlanta Regional Commission. http://www.atlantaregional.com/info-center/forecasts. 26 Sept. 2015. 

Atlanta Regional Commission. http://www.atlantaregional.com/plan2040. 26 Sept. 2015. 

Atlanta Regional Commission. http://www.atlantaregional.com/transportation/ transportation-improvementprogram. 10 Sept. 2014. 

Atlanta Regional Commission. http://documents.atlantaregional.com/transportation/ TIPList-ARCNumber06-01-15.pdf. 15 July 2015. 

Augusta MPO. http://www.augustaga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6152. 16 July 2015. 

Athens-Clarke County, Georgia. https://athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentCenter/ Home/View/1571. 6 

Dec. 2006. 

EPA Publication No. 315-R-09-001. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/. 

“Base Map Data.” ESRI. 2008. DVD. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC § 668-668[c]). 

Banks County Comprehensive Plan Update 2008-2018. Banks County, GA. Oct. 2008. 

Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. “The growing distance between people and jobs in metropolitan 

America.” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/ reports/2015/03/24-jobproximity/srvy_jobsproximity.pdf. 30 Sept. 2015. 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/HomeDrillChart.asp? 

URL_SelectMonth=5&URL_SelectYear=2015. 29 July 2015. 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/ 

publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_01.html_mfd. 16 Dec. 2015. 

California High-Speed Train (Merced to Fresno). http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/ merced-fresnoeir/final_EIR_MerFres_TR_CapitalCost.pdf. 9 Dec. 2015. 

Carl Hanson, David A. Towers, Lance D. Meister, United States, Federal Transit Administration, Office of 

Planning and Environment, Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit 

Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, 2006). http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

documents/FTA_ Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. 30 Oct. 14. 

Carl E. Hanson, Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson, Inc. United States, Federal Railroad Administration, 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐3 

Assessment (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development, 2012). http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/ Details/L04090. 

30 Oct. 14. 

CATS. http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/about/Pages/default.aspx. 12 Jan. 2016. 

Central Midlands Council of Governments. http://www.scwebseek.com/pdf/ 2035lrtp/ 

2035_LRTP_draft.pdf. 

CEQ. https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm. 12 Nov. 2015. 

Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS). http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/ 

planning/facilities/gatewaystation/Pages/Projectfacts.aspx. 4 Nov. 2015. 

Charlotte Area Transit System. http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/facilities 

/gatewaystation/Pages/default.aspx. 

Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Airport/ 

AboutCLT/Pages/LandAcquisition.aspx. 16 July 2015. 

Charlotte Douglas International Airport Fast Facts. http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/ 

Airport/AboutCLT/Pages/Fast%20Facts.aspx. 25 Aug. 2015. 

Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization. http://www.mumpo.org/plansprograms/transporation-improvement-program. 10 Sept. 2014. 

Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization. http://crtpo.org/PDFs/MTP/ 

2040/Report/Ch9_Population_Land_Use.pdf. 26 Sept. 2015.

Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Analysis. http://ww.charmeck.org/fastlanes/.

Charlotte MPO. http://www.crtpo.org/plans-programs/transporation-improvement-program. 16 July 2015. 

Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Airport/ 

AboutCLT/Pages/LandAcquisition.aspx. 16 July 2015. 

Charlotte-Douglas’ Master Plan. http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Airport/Pages/ DestinationCLT.aspx. 4 

May 2016. 

Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization. http://www.crtpo.org/PDFs/ 

Charlotte_Gateway_Station/Environmental_Assessment(Prelim).pdf. 

Clean Water Act of 1972. 33 USC § 1251 et seq. (2002). http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf. 8 Sept. 

2014. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐4 

City of Atlanta, Georgia. http://gis.atlantaga.gov/apps/zoning_maps/pdf/zoning _sheet _14-077. 

City of Clemson Official Zoning Map. Clemson, SC. 4 Dec. 2013. 

City of Clemson. South Carolina. http://www.cityofclemson.org/~clemson/sites/ 

default/files/planning/entire_comp_plan.pdf. 

City of College Park, Georgia. http://www.collegeparkga.com/DocumentCenter/Home/ View/490. 20 Sept. 

2014. 

City of College Park, Georgia. http://www.collegeparkga.com/DocumentCenter/Home/ View/787. 

City of Doraville, Georgia. http://www.doravillega.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Comp-Plan-ExistingLand-Use-Map-Letter. 

City of Doraville, Georgia. http://www.doravillega.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Comp-Plan-FutureLand-Use-Map2.pdf. 

City of Greenville, South Carolina. http://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/298. 

City of Greenville Zoning Values. Greenville County, SC. 25 Nov. 2013. 

City of Spartanburg Planning Department – Central Planning District Future Land Uses. March 2010. 

City of Spartanburg Zoning Map. Spartanburg, SC. August 2013. 

City of Suwanee. http://www.suwanee.com/pdfs/Current%20Zoning%20Map.pdf.

City of Toccoa, Georgia. http://www.cityoftoccoa.com/userfiles/File/PDFzoning_map .pdf. 

City of Toccoa Historic Commercial District. Toccoa, GA. October 2007. 

 “Clearinghouse: Map Data & Aerial Photography.” Georgia GIS. Georgia GIS. 

https://data.georgiaspatial.org/index.asp. 

Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 USC § 1251 et seq. (2002). http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf. 8 Sept. 

2014. 

Columbia Area Transportation Study. http://www.centralmidlands.org/pdf/2009-2015%20TIP%206-25-

09%20-%20Revised%20October%2028,%202010-Final%20%28Official%29%20Document.pdf. 16 

July 2015. 

Cooperative Agreement of Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Cornell. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/303. 8 March 2016. 

Council on Environmental Quality, “Regulations for Implementing NEPA.” Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Pt. 1508.7 and 1508.8. (21 Dec.1984). Print. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐5 

Cowardin, L. M. et al, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

“Data.” South Carolina Geographic Information Systems. South Carolina Geographic Information Systems, 

2008. http://www.gis.sc.gov/data.html. 

DeKalb County Planning & Sustainability. 

https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/planning/pdf/2030_unified_plan_final_part1.pd

f. 

Draft Georgia State Rail Plan. 2015. 

Durley, Ray M. and Girard Lanterman Ordway. The Toxic Substances Control Act. Washington: Bureau of 

National Affairs, 1977. Print. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC § 1531-1544). 

EPA. http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/def/epa-cancer-classification.htm#a3. 12 Jan. 2016.

Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975. Official Code of Georgia § 12-7-1 et seq. July 2011.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management. 1997. President of the United States.

“Exemption,” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 46, Pp. 11929–11931: 10 March 2005.

Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977. “Protection of Wetlands.” (42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, January 19, 

1994). 

Expedia. https://www.expedia.com/Flights-Search?trip=oneway&leg1=from:ATL,to: 

CLT,departure:12/16/2015TANYT&passengers=children:0,adults:1,seniors:0,infantinlap:Y&options

=maxhops%3A0&mode=search. 

Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register. Volume 59, No. 3. 11 Feb. 1994. 

Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental 

Quality, December 10, 1997. 

Federal Register – Vol. 72, No. 37. 26 Feb. 2007. 

Federal Railroad Administration. FRA State Rail Plan Guidance. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04760. 

FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 64 FR 28545. Wetlands and Floodplains. 

FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Federal Register Vol. 64. No. 101. 26 May 1999. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐6 

Federal Railroad Administration. FRA High Speed Rail Strategic Plan April 2009. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833. 24 Sept. 2015. 

FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 64 FR 28545. Wetlands and Floodplains. 

FRA High Speed Rail Overview. https://www.fra.dot. gov/Page/P0060. 17 Aug. 2015. 

FRA. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0140. 24 Feb. 2016. 

FRA. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0427. 4 Nov. 2015. 

FRA. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02692. 29 Oct. 2015. 

FRA. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0554. 29 Oct. 2015. 

FlightStats. Departure month of November 2015. http://www.flightstats.com/company/ monthlyperformance-reports/airports/. 30 Sept. 2015. 

Florida High-Speed Rail Corridor EIS and ROD. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0403. 21 Aug. 2015. 

Florida Department of Transportation (2010). FY 10 High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Planning 

Application. Miami to Orlando Passenger High Speed Rail Corridor Investment Plan. 

Fortune 500 by City and State. http://fortune.com/fortune500/. 21 Aug. 2015. 

Federal Register (FR). Vol. 41. No. 187. (September 1976). http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/frdocs/1976/76-

28066.pdf. 21 Oct. 2013.

Federal Register (FR) Vol. 67. No. 127 (July 2002). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-07-02/pdf/02-

16580.pdf#page=1. 21 Oct. 2013. 

Federal Register (FR). Vol. 72. No. 37. page 8430. 26 Feb. 2007. 

Federal Register (FR) Vol. 72. No. 220 (November 2007). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2007-11-

15/pdf/07-5551.pdf#page=1. 21 Oct. 2013. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USC § 1251-1376). 

FHWA’s Census website. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/urbanized_ 

areas_and_mpo_tma/faq/page01.cfm. 4 May 2016. 

FHWA’s Project Development and Design Manual. http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/ 

design/pddm/Chapter_04.pdf. 30 March 2016. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 USC § 662[a]). 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Section 1301 (23 U.S.C. 138(c)/49 U.S.C. 303(e)). 

FRA, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 64 FR 28545. Wetlands and Floodplains. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐7 

Fortune 500 by City and State. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500 /2011/cities. 

Fulton County GIS Parcel Layer. Fulton County, GA. 13 April 2014. 

Gainesville Hall County GIS. http://gis1.hallcounty.org/Public/WebPages/Map/Map Viewer.aspx. 

Gainesville-Hall MPO. http://www.ghmpo.org/files/pdfs/GHMPO/2016_2019_TIP.pdf. 15 July 2015. 

Gaston County Comprehensive Planning Program, Gaston County. July 2002. 

Gaston County GIS Parcel Layer. Gaston County, NC. 2 July 2012. 

Gastonia Multimodal Center Site Suitability and Conceptual Design Study. Executive Summary. Gaston 

Urban Area MPO. May 2009. 

Gaston-Cleveland-Lexington MPO. http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GASTON-CLEVELANDLINCOLN-URBAN-AREA-METROPOLITAN-PLANNING-ORGANIZATION.pdf. 16 July 2015. 

Georgia Endangered Wildlife Act of 1973 (OCGA 27-3-130). 

Georgia Competitiveness Initiative Report 2012. http://www.georgiacompetitiveness. 

org/uploads/GCI_Report.pdf. 6 Dec. 2015. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, http://georgiashpo.org/register/survey. Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division Georgia Natural, Archaeological, and Historic 

Resources GIS (GNAHRGIS). 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Design 

Manuals/PDP/PDP.pdf#search=The%20Plan%20Development%20Process%2C%E2%80%9D%20P

olicies%20%26%20Procedures%20Section%204055%2D1. 16 Sept. 2015. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Design 

Manuals/Environmental/GDOT-EPM-Chap04.pdf. 16 Sept. 2105. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/rail/ 

Documents/HighSpeedRail/Final%20Report.pdf. 4 Nov. 2015. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/StateRailPlan. 4 Nov. 2015. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Programs/ 

Documents/SSTP/Plan/Statewide%20Strategic%20Transportation%20Plan%20Update.pdf. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Pages/ STIP.aspx. 15 July 2015. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/Atlantato Charlotte#tab-8. 14 Oct. 

2015. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐8 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Innovative/P3. 

Georgia Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoCharlotte. 

Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan, 

Alternatives Development Report. Draft. October 2015. 

Georgia’s Railroad History and Heritage. www.railga.com. 29 Sept. 2014. 

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. http://www.xpressga.com/. 12 Jan. 2016. 

Georgia State Code. http://gaswcc.georgia.gov/sites/gaswcc.georgia.gov/files/OCGA_12-7-1_2011.pdf. 10 

Sept. 2014. 

Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Study, Joint Intermodal/Statewide Transportation Plan/Strategic 

Planning Committee. http://www.dot.ga.gov/ 

AboutGeorgia/Board/Presentations/StatewideFreightandLogisticsPlan.pdf. 22 Dec. 2015. 

Georgia State Parks. http://gastateparks.org/. 11 Feb. 2016. 

Georgia Wildlife. http://www.georgiawildlife.com/. 11 Feb. 2016. 

Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973 (OCGA 12-6-170). 

“Geospatial Portal.” Google. 2015. https://www.google.com/maps. 

“GeoSpatial Portal.” NC One Map. Version 1.2.2. http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal 

/catalog/main/home.page. 

Google Maps Driving Directions. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/HartsfieldJackson+Atlanta+International+Airport+North+Terminal+Parkway,+ Atlanta,+ 

GA/Charlotte,+NC/@34.459626,-83.7662266,8z/am=t/data=!3m1!4b1!4m 13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s 

0x88f4fd2fe1035901:0x4117a3ef1892b048!2m2!1d84.4277001!2d33.6407282!1m5!1m1!1s0x88541fc4fc381a81:0x884650e6bf43d164!2m2!1d80.8431267!2d35.2270869?hl=en. 

Greenlink. http://www.greenvillesc.gov/151/Greenlink-Transit. 12 Jan. 2016. 

Greenville County GIS Parcel Layer. Greenville County, SC. 16 June 2013. 

Greenville County, South Carolina. http://www.greenvillecounty. org/gcpc/long _range_ 

planning/pdf/cp_future_land_use_map.pdf. 

Greenville County. https://www.greenvillecounty.org/gcpc/transportation_planning.asp. 

Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study. http://www.gpats.org/plans/long-range-transportation-plan. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐9 

Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport. http://www.gspairport.com/site/user/files/ MAS12.pdf. 16 

July 2015. 

Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study. http://www.gpats.org/_uploads/2011/ 12/APPROVEDGPATS-2014-2019-TIP-Document.pdf. 16 July 2015.

Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport. http://www.gspairport.com/site/user/files/ MAS12.pdf. 16 

July 2015. 

Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study. http://www.gpats.org/plans/ transportation-improvementprogram. 10 Sept. 2014. 

Greyhound website. https://www.greyhound.com/. 31 July 2015. 

Gwinnett County, Georgia. https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments 

/planning/pdf/2030_unified_plan_ final_part1.pdf. 

Gwinnett County, Georgia. https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/ 

planning/pdf/Approved_Dacula_R&D_Corridor_Approved_08252015.pdf. 25 Aug. 2015. 

Gwinnett County, Georgia. https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/ 

planning/pdf/gwinnett_county_future_development_map_2015_36x36.pdf. Feb. 2009. 

Gwinnett County, Georgia. https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/ 

planning/unified_development_ordinance/pdf/unified_development_ordinance. pdf. Updated July 

2015. 

Gwinnett County GIS Parcel Layer. Gwinnett County, GA. 24 July 2013. 

Hall County GIS Parcel Layer. Hall County, GA. 11 April 2013. 

Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson, Inc., Parsons Transportation Group, United States, Office of Railroad 

Development, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad 

Development, 2006). 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. http://www.atlanta-airport.com/ Airport/Construction/. 27 

Oct. 2015. 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. http://www.atlanta-airport.com/Airport/ 

ATL/Mayor_Welcome.aspx. 26 Sept. 2015. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐10 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Fact Sheet. http://www.atlantaairport.com/fifth/atl/atl_factsheet.aspx. 21 Aug. 2015. 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 2030 Master Plan. http://www.atlantaairport.com/Airport/MasterPlan/. 

Illinois Department of Transportation. http://www.idothsr.org/environmental_documentation/tier_ 

1/feis.aspx. 31 July 2015. 

Information on existing at-grade rail crossings was obtained from existing digital mapping from the 

following GIS datasets: 

• “Aerials.” Bing Maps. Microsoft, n.d. 

• “Street Centerline Shapefile” ESRI. ESRI, n.d. 

Information on hazardous waste sites was obtained from existing digital mapping from the following federal 

and state GIS datasets: 

• Georgia. “Landfills.” 

• North Carolina. “Active Permitted Landfills.”; 

• North Carolina. “Pre-regulatory Landfill Sites.”; 

• North Carolina. “Regional Underground Storage Tank (RUST).”; 

• South Carolina. “Above Ground Storage Tanks.” 

• South Carolina. “Drycleaners.” 

• South Carolina. “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.” 

• South Carolina. “Solid Waste Landfills.” 

• South Carolina. “Underground Storage Tanks.” 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Brownfields (ACRES).”; 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Information System (CERCLIS).”; 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Priorities List (NPL).”; 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Info.”; 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).”; and 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” 

Johnson, Tiffany (Lieutenant). “US Coast Guard Fifth District.” Personal Communication, 28 Oct. 2013. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐11 

United States. Cong. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976. (USC § 

1801-1884). 

MARTA. http://www.itsmarta.com/about-marta.aspx. 12 Jan. 2016. 

Mecklenburg County GIS Parcel Layer. Mecklenburg County, NC. 18 April 2013. 

Megabus. http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx. 31 July 2015. 

United States. Cong. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. (16 USC § 703-712). 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) and USGS (2013) National Land Cover 

Database 2006. Modified March 2013. http://www.mrlc.gov/ nlcd06_leg.php. 27 March 2014.

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 USC 4001 et seq.

National Flood Insurance Program (CFR 235-243) Title 44 Emergency and Management Assistance. 

Revised October 2006.

National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/protect.html. 30 Dec. 2015. 

National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/. 8 March 2016. 

National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fun. http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.

30 Dec. 2015. 

National Park Service National Center for Recreation and Conservation, Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 

http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html. 3 Sept. 2014.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

(2007) “Essential Fish Habitat and Critical Habitat: A Comparison.” http://www.habitat. 

noaa.gov/pdf/efhcriticalhabitatcomparison.pdf. 21 Oct. 2013. 

NEPA (42 USC 4321-4347); FRA’s Environmental Procedures (64 FR 28545); and guidelines published by 

the CEQ on implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500). 

National Conference of State Legislators. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/ chart-of-federallydesignated-high-speed-rail-corr.aspx. 25 Nov. 2015. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Local Climatological Data – Part Eastern 

Region and Part II Southern Region. 1998. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. “Title II, Council on Environmental Quality.” Amended, 

January 1, 1970, July 3, 1975, August 9, 1975, and September 13, 1982.

North Carolina’s Amtrak. http://www.ncbytrain.org/projects/rail-plan.html. 4 March 2015. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐12 

North Carolina Comprehensive Rail Plan Atlanta to Charlotte Ridership and Revenue Methodology 

North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water 

Quality (2003) “Redbook” Surface Waters and Wetland Standards. NC Administrative Code 15A 

NCAC 02B .0100, 0.200 and 0.300. 

North Carolina Natural Resources. http://www.ncdcr.gov/. 11 Feb. 2016.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.ncdot.gov/download/ performance/ 

NCDOT_2040TransportationPlan.pdf. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/ projects 

studies/rail/projects.html. 19 July 2015. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation. https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/ planning/ 

Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf. 19 July 2015. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/pip/. 4 Nov. 2015. 

North Carolina General Statute § 143-212, Article 21 Water and Air Resources, effective July 2007. 

North Carolina Regional Councils’ “North Carolina Tomorrow 2014 Report.” http://www. 

nctomorrow.org/NCRegionalandStatewideStrategies.pdf. 6 Dec. 2015.

North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (G.S. 113A-50 et seq.) 

North Carolina State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-337). 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. HPOWEB (GIS) http://gis.ncdcr.gov/ hpoweb/. 24 Feb. 

2016.

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. “GIS Metadata: Data Sources, Data Status, and Data 

Disclaimers.” http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/gis/CountyDisclaimers .html. 27 Oct. 2014. 

North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (G.S.106-202.12 to 106.202.19). 

National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places database (NRIS). NPS, National Historic 

Landmarks Program lists of National Historic Landmarks. 

http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.html. 24 Feb. 2016.

Official Zoning Map of the City of Gastonia. Gastonia, NC. 19 June 2014. 

Older Americans Act of 1965. Administration for Community Living. http://www.aoa.gov/ 

AOA_programs/OAA/. 1 Feb. 2016. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐13 

Parker, Amanda K. (2004) Geography and Environment, Conservation and Management: Man-Made 

Lakes. Modified August 2013. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/geographyenvironment/reservoirs. 14 May 2014. 

Pickens County GIS Parcel Layer. Pickens County, GA. 11 April 2013. 

“Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts.” Federal Register 64. 26 May 1999: 28545. Print. 

Quarterly, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). Name=Origin and Destination Survey. 

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=247&DB_Short_Name=Origin and 

Destination Survey Short. 28 Sept. 2015.

Real Estate Portal USA – Banks County GIS Parcel Layer. 9 Sept. 2013. 

Real Estate Portal USA – Clarke County GIS Parcel Layer. 9 Sept. 2013. 

Real Estate Portal USA – Stephens County GIS Parcel Layer. 9 Sept. 2013. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. United States Access Board. https://www.access-board.gov/theboard/laws/rehabilitation-act-of-1973. 1 Feb. 2016. 

Ridership and Revenue Methodology Technical Memorandum. May 2013. 

RTC analysis done by TEMS. August 2012. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC § 1536). 

Section 9 of The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC § 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 

1899; 30 Stat. 1151). 

Section 10 of The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC § 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 

1899; 30 Stat. 1151). 

Southeast Corridor. http://www.sehsr.org/. 31 July 2015. 

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. http://www.sehsr.org. 

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, USDOT. http://www.dot.ga.gov/IS/Rail/AtlantatoCharlotte.

Southeast High Speed Rail. Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC - TIER II Final Environmental Impact. 

Statement and Final Section 4(F) Evaluation. https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/ L17056. 25 Nov. 2015.

South Carolina Code of Laws 48-18, Environmental Protection and Conservation, Erosion and 

Sedimentation Reduction Act of 1983. 

South Carolina Code of Laws. Section 57-1-370(B)(8). 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐14 

South Carolina Code of Regulations 19-450, DHEC Bureau of Water, Permits for Construction in Navigable 

Waters, effective June 1995. 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History, (GIS). http://shpo.sc.gov/research/ Pages/ArchSite.aspx. 

South Carolina Department of Archives & History. “Consultant’s Guide to Survey & National Register 

Files.” www.shpo.sc.gov/research/Pages/ArchSite. 21 Oct. 2014. 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. https://www.scprt.com/. 11 Feb. 2016. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.scdot.org/multimodal/pdf/ 

SCMTPRailPlanFINAL.pdf. 16 July 2015. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation. STIP. http://www.scdot.org/inside/stip .aspx. 16 July 2015. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.scdot.org/multimodal/pdf/ scmtprail plan.pdf. 4 

Nov. 2015. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.state.sc.us/multimodal/ 

pdf/scmtpexecutivesummary.pdf. 

South Carolina Department of Transportation FAQs. http://www.scdot.org/inside/ planningfaq.aspx. 6 Dec. 

2015. 

South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan. http://www.dot.state.sc.us/Multimodal/ default.aspx. 4 

May 2016.

South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – Interstate Plan. http://www.scdot.org/ 

multimodal/pdf/scmtpinterstateplan.pdf. 4 May 2016.

South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – Statewide Freight Plan. http://www. 

scdot.org/multimodal/pdf/scmtpfreightplan.pdf. 4 May 2016. 

South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – Strategic Corridors Plan. http://www. 

dot.state.sc.us/multimodal/pdf/scmtpstrategiccorridorsplan.pdf. 4 May 2016.

South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan –Statewide Public Transportation and Coordination Plan. 

http://www.scdot.org/multimodal/pdf/scmtptransitplan.pdf. 4 May 2016. 

South Carolina Park. http://southcarolinaparks.com/lakehartwell/introduction.aspx. 11 Feb. 2016. 

South Carolina Pollution Control Act of 1976, South Carolina Code of Laws § 48-1-10 et seq., 

2013.http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t48c001.php. 9 Sept. 2014.

SPARTA. http://www.cityofspartanburg.org/sparta/routes. 12 Jan. 2016.
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐15 

Spartanburg Area Transportation Study. http://spatsmpo.org/bin/dl/lrtp-section-6-financial-plan.pdf. 

Spartanburg Area Transportation Study. http://spatsmpo.org/programs/tip-transportation-improvementprogram.

Spartanburg Area Transportation Study. http://spatsmpo.org/bin/dl/SPATS_ financialsummary6-8-

15SPATS.pdf. 16 July 2015. 

Spartanburg Area Transportation Study. http://spatsmpo.org/programs/tip-transportation-improvementprogram. 10 Sept. 2014.

Spartanburg County GIS Parcel Layer. Spartanburg County, SC. 1 July 2013. 

Spartanburg County, South Carolina. http://www.co.spartanburg.sc.us/govt/depts/pln/ compplan/TOC.htm. 

Sullivan, Brendan (Lieutenant). 2013. US Coast Guard Seventh District. Legal Office. Personal 

Communication. 13 Nov. 2013.

Teets John, W., Dennis Reis, Danny G. Worrell, and American Bar Association. Section of Environment, 

Energy, and Resources. RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Chicago: Section of 

Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association, 2003. Print. 

The FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA Docket No. EP-1, Notice 5, May 26, 

1999). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-05-26/pdf/99-13262.pdf. 21 Dec. 2015. 

The General Bridge Act of 1946. (33 USC § 525-533 and 33 USC § 499). 

Final Georgia 2012 Section 303(d) List, http://epd.georgia.gov/sites/epd.georgia.gov/ 

files/Y2012Streams.pdf. 8 Sept. 2014. 

Final South Carolina 2012 Section 303(d) List http://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAnd 

Environment/Docs/tmdl12-303d.pdf. 8 Sept. 2014. 

Final North Carolina 2012 303(d) http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/documentlibrary/get_ file?uuid=9d45b3b4-

d066-4619-82e6-ea8ea0e01930&groupId=38364. 

The United States Conference of Mayors. “The Economic Impacts of High-Speed Rail on Cities and their 

Metropolitan Areas.” http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/ documents/report.pdf. 28 Sept. 2015.

The Volpe Center. http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/Documents/Atl-Char/Volpe 

CenterFeasibilityStudy2008.pdf. 

The Volpe Center (2008). “Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Options in the Macon-Atlanta-GreenvilleCharlotte Rail Corridor.”
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐16 

 “Transportation” Title 49 U.S. Code. 2010 ed. Print. 

Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2B Surface Water and Wetland Standards, 

effective October 1996, amended effective May 2007.

Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H Procedures for Permits: Approvals, Section 

0.1300 Discharges to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters, effective April 2003. 

U.S. Army Code of Engineers, 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 329.3. 

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr329.pdf. 4 Sept. 2014.

U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC § 1531-1543). 

U.S. ESA (16 USC § 1531). Amended January 2002. USFWS and Department of the Interior. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html. 10 Sept. 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/. 10 Sept. 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) Region 4 Priority Watersheds. Updated January 2013. 

www.epa.gov/region4/water/watersheds/priority. 15 May 2014. 

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www2.census.gov/acs20105yr/summaryfile/2006-

2010ACSSFByStateAllTables. 4 Sept. 2014.

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/datadocumentation/ 

SubjectDefinitions/2010ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf. 24 Oct. 2014. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). USFWS/OBS-79/31, 1979. 

USEPA, 40 CFR § 239.2 and CE, 33 CFR § 328.3. 

US Department of Transportation Order 5650.2. “Floodplain Management and Protection.” April 23, 1979. 

United States Congress. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980: as amended Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Washington: GPO, 1987. Print. 

United States Congress. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Solid Waste Disposal 

Act: as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Safe Water Drinking 

Act Amendments of 1986, and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. 

Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1987. Print. 

United States Government Publishing Office. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-1999-05-26/99-13262. 

11 Feb. 2016. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | REFERENCES

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 5‐17 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/. 11 Feb. 2016. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.usda.gov/ main/conf/ home. 11 

Feb. 2016. 

Urban Collage, Inc., et. al. Future Development Map, Gainesville Comprehensive Plan. 

http://www.gainesville.org/pdfs/Community_Agenda_Complete_lowres_ 043012.pdf. Gainesville, 

GA. June 2012. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC § 1271-1287). Public Law 90-542, approved October 2, 1968 and 

amendments thereto.

Woods & Poole Economics. The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source: CEDDS. 

Washington, DC: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2011. Print. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-1 

6. LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACS American Community Survey 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADR Alternatives Development Report 

ADT Average Daily Traffic 

APC Air Pollution Control 

APE Area of Potential Effects 

APT Augusta Public Transit 

ARC 

ARPA 

Atlanta Regional Commission 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ASIP Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan 

B-C Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 

BGEPA 

BMP 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Best Management Practice 

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

CATBus Clemson Area Transit 

CATS Charlotte Area Transit System 

CDOT Charlotte Department of Transportation 

CE Categorical Exclusion 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CLT Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

CMCOG Central Midlands Council of Governments 

CO Carbon monoxide 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-2 

CR County Road 

CRTPO Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization 

CSX Chessie-Seaboard Express Railroad Transportation 

CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan 

CUPD Clemson University Police Department 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DART Dial-A-Ride Transit 

dB Decibel 

DB1B Airline Origin and Destination Survey 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DFIRM 

DHEC 

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map 

Department of Health and Environmental Control (of South Carolina) 

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DOT 

DWQ 

Department of Transportation 

Division of Water Quality 

DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ 

EPA 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPD Environmental Protection Division (of the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources) 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESC Erosion and Sediment Control 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-3 

FASTLANE Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term 

Achievement of National Efficiencies 

FD 

FDPA 

Final Design 

Flood Disaster Protection Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FY Fiscal Year 

GADNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

GCT Gwinnet County Transit 

GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation 

GEPA Georgia Environmental Policy Act 

GHBS Georgia Historic Bridge Survey 

GHG Greenhouse gases 

GHMPO Gainesville-Hall Metropolitan Planning Organization 

GIS 

GNAHRGIS 

Geographic Information Systems 

Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources GIS 

GNHP Georgia Natural Heritage Program 

GPATS Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study 

GRTA Georgia Regional Transportation Authority 

GSP Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport 

GWQC Georgia Water Quality Control 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-4 

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 

H-JAIA 

HOT 

HPD 

HPOWEB 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

High Occupancy Toll 

Historic Preservation Division 

Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service 

HSIPR High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail 

HSR High Speed Rail 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Codes 

I-24 Interstate 24 

I-77 Interstate 77 

I-285 Interstate 285 

I-85 Interstate 85 

ICTF 

IPAC 

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 

Information, Planning and Conservation System (of the USFWS) 

LEP Limited English Proficient 

LWCF 

LOD 

Land & Water Conservation Fund 

Limits of Disturbance 

LOS Level of Service 

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan 

MACORTS Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study 

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

MARTA 

MBTA 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MMPT Multi-modal Passenger Terminal 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOE Measure of effectiveness 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-5 

mph Miles per hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MS4s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

MSAP Multimodal Station Area Plan 

MSAT 

MSFCMA 

Mobile Source Air Toxics 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NAHRGIS 

NCAC 

Natural, Archaeological Historical Resources Geographic Information Systems 

North Carolina Administrative Code 

NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation 

NCRR North Carolina Railroad Company 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

NGRDC 

NHL 

North Georgia Regional Development Center 

Database of National Historic Landmarks 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxides 

NOx 

NOAA 

Nitrogen Oxides 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NPV Net Present Value 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-6 

NRHP 

NRI 

NRIS 

National Register of Historic Places 

Nationwide Rivers Industry 

National Register Information System 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory (of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) 

NS Norfolk Southern Railway 

O3 

OCGA 

Ozone 

Official Code of Georgia 

O&M Operating and Maintenance 

P3s Public Private Partnerships 

Pb Lead 

PE Preliminary Engineering 

PFO Palustrine Forested 

PEM Palustrine Emergent 

PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 

PIP/CP Public Involvement and Coordination Plan 

PIP Piedmont Improvement Program 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers and smaller 

PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers and smaller 

ppm parts per million 

PRCIP Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan 

PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 

RIBITS Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-way 

RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-7 

RTC Rail Traffic Controller 

RTP Regional Transportation Plan 

SAFETEALU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users 

SC Southern Crescent 

SCC 

SCDAH 

Standard Cost Categories 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

SCDOT 

SCIAA 

SDP 

SEHSR 

SEPA 

SFHA 

South Carolina Department of Transportation 

South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 

Service Development Plan 

Southeast High-Speed Rail 

State Environmental Policy Act (of North Carolina) 

Special Flood Hazard Area 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

SR State Route 

SPARTA Spartanburg Area Regional Transit Agency 

SPATS The Spartanburg Area Transportation Study 

SRTA State Road and Tollway Authority 

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program 

STP 

STS 

Surface Transportation Program 

Special Transportation Service 

SWTP Statewide Transportation Plan 

TCP Traditional cultural property 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF ACRONYMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 6-8 

TEA-21 

THPO 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 

TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing 

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

TIP Transportation Improvement Program 

TOD Transit-oriented development 

TTI Travel time index 

UGA University of Georgia 

US United States 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USC University of South Carolina 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDOI United States Department of the Interior 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS United States Forestry Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VMT Vehicle miles traveled 

VRE Virginia Railway Express 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-1 

7. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

100-year floodplain – Areas along or adjacent to rivers, streams, or other bodies of water that 

convey floodwaters during a 100-year frequency storm event. 

Accessibility – A measure of how reachable locations or activities are from a given site; it is 

influenced by changes in travel time, safety, vehicle operating costs, and transportation choice. 

Adverse effect – Defined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 

CFR 800.5(a) (1)). An adverse effect to a historic property occurs when the project under 

consideration alters any characteristic that qualifies the property for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property. 

Affected environment – Ambient conditions at the time an Environmental Impact Statement is 

prepared. 

Alighting(s) – The act of a passenger disembarking from a transit vehicle; see boarding(s). 

Alignment – The ground plan of a roadway, railway or other fixed route. 

Ambient air – A physical and chemical measure of the existing concentration of various chemicals 

in the outside air, usually determined over a specific time period (e.g., one hour, eight hours). 

Ambient background noise – The existing cumulative noise that is characteristic of an area based 

on current activity levels. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) – governs the excavation 

of archaeological sites on federal and Indian lands in the United States, and the removal and 

disposition of archaeological collections from those sites 

Area of Potential Effect (APE) – For purposes of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA, a 

geographic area or areas where an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the 

character or use of historic properties, if any such properties are located in the area of the project. 

At-grade – level with the ground surface. 

Atlanta Approach – The options to accommodate the approach of the three Corridor Alternatives 

for rail transition into the Atlanta downtown area 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) – The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is the regional 

planning and intergovernmental coordination agency for the 10-county area including Cherokee, 

Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale counties, as well 

as the City of Atlanta. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-2 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - The total traffic volume during a given time period, ranging from 

2 to 364 consecutive days, divided by the number of days in that time period, and expressed in 

vehicles per day. 

Best Management Practices – Specific standards utilized during construction and design to 

minimize the impact on surrounding resources. 

Boarding, passenger – The count of passengers embarking onto a transit vehicle or route for the 

purposes of measuring ridership or fare revenue. 

Capital costs – The cost to construct a transportation system such as HSGT. Costs include design 

fees, vehicle procurement, environmental mitigation, property acquisition, construction materials, 

and labor for the construction of a project. 

Census tract – A small statistical subdivision of a county defined by a local committee of census 

data users for the purpose of presenting census information every ten years. The census tract 

boundaries, which are nested within counties, generally follow visible features and governmental 

unit boundaries. 

Centerline – The line corresponding to the central geometric axis of a railroad track, road, trail or 

other transportation corridor. It is typically used as the reference point for measurements of track 

dimensions and location. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) – Legislation mandating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to set national air quality standards to protect the public against common pollutants. State 

governments are required to devise clean-up plans to meet these EPA standards. 

Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 (CAAA) – A strategy for the U.S. to address the problem of 

urban smog. It requires states and the federal government to reduce emissions from automobiles, 

trucks, buses, ships, barges, and consumer products, and to meet air quality standards. It 

particularly addresses the urban problem of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter. 

It defines how areas are designated “attainment” and allows the EPA to classify “non-attainment” 

areas as those that do not meet the federal air quality standards. 

Corridor Alternative – A generalized area of travel, 600 feet wide, under consideration as the 

proposed action during the Tier 1 EIS process. 

Cross section – The configuration of a transportation corridor (railway, trail, roadway, etc.) that 

specifies typical widths for tracks/travel lanes, related facilities, buffer areas and total right-ofway. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-3 

Comprehensive Plan – A plan required by state law to be used by local municipalities as a guide 

to decision-making about the natural and built environment. 

Commuter rail – A mode of passenger transportation where either diesel or electric-powered 

locomotives and their associated rail cars use tracks that are part of a general rail network. 

Commuter rail is distinguished from intercity rail in the relatively smaller geographic scope of 

service area. 

Conformity – A designation given to transportation plans, programs, and projects that conform to 

federally mandated state air-quality plans. 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) – Authorized under the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA), this law provided $6 billion in funding for surface 

transportation and other related projects that contribute to improvements in air-quality and reduce 

congestion. Section 1101 of MAP-21 authorizes funds for the CMAQ program and Section 1105 

amends 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4) and provides for the apportionment of funds. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – Established in the Executive Office as part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the council coordinates federal 

environmental efforts, policies, and initiatives, and ensures that federal agencies meet NEPA 

requirements. 

Cumulative impact – The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Day-lighting – pedestrian safety measure achieved by removing parking spaces adjacent to curbs 

around an intersection, increasing visibility for pedestrians and drivers and minimizing conflicts. 

Decibel – A unit of measure of sound pressure used to describe the loudness of sound on the 

A-weighted scale. 

Determination of eligibility – The decision made by the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) regarding whether historic buildings or districts are eligible for listing or listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Direct effects – Effects that occur as a direct result of the project. 

Double-track – The construction of two (usually parallel) transit lines for the purpose of 

enhancing the efficiency of operations. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) – A comprehensive study of potential 

environmental impacts related to federally assisted projects. Projects for which a DEIS is required 

are defined in the National environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-4 

Effects – Synonymous with impact, includes the result from actions that may have a beneficial or 

detrimental outcome. 

Endangered species – A species whose prospects for survival are in immediate danger based on 

a loss of habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, or disease. An endangered species 

requires immediate attention or extinction will likely follow. 

Environmental Justice (EJ) – Provides for equal protection from environmental hazards and fair 

treatment for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic status, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

Fair treatment implies that no population of people bear an unequal share of negative 

environmental impacts of pollution or environmental hazard resulting from industrial, municipal, 

and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, or local policies. 

Environmental Screening Area – Refers to the geographic areas GDOT evaluated for 

environmental resources. The Tier 1 EIS generally utilizes a 600-foot wide “environmental 

screening area” to identify and evaluate impacts to environmental resources; however, the EIS can 

define environmental screening areas as narrow as 100 feet where constrained by known resources, 

such as in developed urban areas, or as wide as 1,000 feet, depending on the resource. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – As part of the United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT), the FHWA is charged with the broad responsibility of ensuring that 

America’s roads and highways continue to be safe and technologically up-to-date. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) – Created by the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (49 U.S.C. 103, Section 3(e)(1)). Its purposes are to enforce regulations, administer railroad 

assistance programs, and conduct research and promote rail safety. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - As part of the United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT), the FTA provides financial and technical assistance to local public 

transit systems and oversees safety measures. 

Freight rail – A mode of freight transportation where either diesel or electric-powered 

locomotives and their associated rail cars use tracks that are part of a general rail network. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) – The document is published following a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). It addresses revisions in the design of the proposed 

project, incorporates public and agency comments received during the public circulation period of 

the DEIS and during the DEIS public meeting, and identifies the Preferred Corridor Alternative. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-5 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) – A system of computer software and hardware, data, 

and personnel to manipulate, analyze and present geographically referenced information or data 

that is identified according to their locations. 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) – The Georgia Department of Transportation 

plans, constructs, maintains and improves Georgia’s road and bridges. The Department also 

provides support for other modes of transportation such as freight and intercity passenger train 

service, mass transit and airports, and airport and air safety planning. 

Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP) – state-run program that inventories the 

occurrences and status of rare plant and animal species and native communities in the state. 

Grade crossing – An intersection where a roadway crosses a railway at the same elevation. 

Grade-separated – Used to describe an alignment that is elevated or below ground, or crossings 

that use an overpass or an underpass. Grade separation allows traffic or transit vehicles to pass 

stopping for opposing traffic on the crossed facilities. 

Greenspace – general term describing an area of parkland, open space or other type of natural or 

vegetated land. 

Ground-borne vibration and noise – The vibration-induced levels that propagate over ground 

between the source and a receptor such as a building; typically assessed indoors. 

Habitat – The area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or 

occurs. 

High-level platforms – Station platforms constructed at the same level as a typical train-floor, 

approximately four feet above top of rail. Done to increase passenger boarding and alighting 

speeds and to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) – High Speed Ground Transportation is a mode of 

transportation that travels at greater speeds than traditional rail technology. The FRA defines 

HSGT as having the ability to travel at a speed of greater than 110 mph. For the purposes of this 

Project, HSGT is defined as having the ability to travel at speeds at or above 180 mph. The 

technology is most often used to move passengers rather than freight, and is a self-guided intercity 

passenger transportation mode that is time-competitive with air and auto for trips of 100 to 500 

miles in length. 

Hydric soils – A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough 

during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-6 

Hydrology indicators – The presence of water at or near the surface for a designated amount of 

time. 

Hydrophytic vegetation – Plant-life that thrives in wet conditions. 

Infill –The process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban areas that are 

already largely developed. 

Intercity – traveling between two cities. 

Jurisdictional determination (JD) – Regulatory review of previously identified wetlands and 

waters of the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) in compliance with Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act. 

Land use – Classification providing information on land cover and the types of human activity 

occurring on a parcel of land, such as “commercial,” “industrial,” “residential,” or “open space.” 

Level of service (LOS) – A letter grade designation used to describe given roadway conditions 

with “A” being at or close to free-flow conditions and “F” being at or close to over-saturation of 

the roadway; usually based on the progression of vehicles through the green phase of a signal, 

driver discomfort/frustration, lost travel time, and fuel consumption. 

Low-income – Any household with income at or below the U.S. Bureau of the Census poverty 

thresholds. 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) - Signed into law Public Law 112-

141, provides funds for surface transportation programs. 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) – The principal rapid transit system 

in the metropolitan Atlanta region. 

Mass transit – Transportation that provides regular and continuing general or special 

transportation to the public; does not include school buses, charters, or sightseeing transportation. 

Master plan – An exhaustive plan that defines a short- and long-term development needs. 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – The forum for cooperative transportation 

decision making for a metropolitan area. Title 23 U.S.C. §134 requires that (1) a MPO be 

designated for each Urbanized Area (UZA) containing 50,000 or more persons based on the latest 

US Census, and (2) the metropolitan area has a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive 

transportation planning process. 

Micron – A unit of length equal to one millionth (10-6) of a meter. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-7 

Minority – A member of the following races: (1) Black or African American, (2) American Indian 

or Alaska Native, (3) Asian, (4) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, (5) Hispanic or Latino 

Origin. 

Mitigation – The actions necessary to reduce or eliminate an impact and thereby restoring the 

affected environment and personnel to manipulate, analyze and present geographically referenced 

information or data that is identified according to their locations. 

Mitigation banking – The restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation of wetlands and/or 

other aquatic resources, for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of 

authorized impacts to similar resources. 

Multi-family – A classification of housing where multiple separate housing units for residential 

(i.e. non-commercial) inhabitants are contained within one building. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) – 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; and to coordinate efforts with other planning and 

environmental reviews taking place. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) - requires federal 

agencies and institutions that receive federal funding to return Native American" cultural items" 

to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. 

Cultural items include human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural 

patrimony. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) - Legislation intended to preserve historical 

and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of 

Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation 

Offices.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) – A federal list of buildings, sites, district or other 

properties that have a historic significance. The National Register of Historic Places is maintained 

by the Keeper of the National Register. 

No-Build Alternative – The future condition of an area in the absence of a project; assumes that 

no improvements will be made with the exception of periodic maintenance and minor 

enhancements needed to maintain safe operation and those already designated in the approved 

plan. 

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) – A national freight rail company operating within the study 

area. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-8 

Off-peak period – Used to describe times where travel is not at its peak, or highest level, during 

the day. Off-peak travel usually occurs in the midday and evenings in most cities. 

Operating costs – The periodic and usual expenses a company incurs to generate revenues. 

Park-and-ride facility – A parking facility that is part of a transportation facility; an access mode 

for patrons to drive private vehicles to a transportation facility. 

Passenger Rail – A passenger railroad service that operates between cities on tracks that are 

usually part of the general railroad system. 

The Project – refers to the Tier 1 EIS for the Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor 

Investment Plan 

Record of Decision (ROD) – A formal decision made by a lead federal agency based on its 

interpretation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

Ridership – The number of people using a public transportation system during a given time period. 

River basin – The entire geographical area drained by a river and its tributaries. 

Right-of-way (ROW) – Land available for operation of transportation facilities (roadways or rail 

lines). The land is typically government-owned (local, state, or federal). A transportation facility 

may occupy all or a portion of the right-of-way. ROWs can be grade-separated or at-grade. 

Scoping – The effort taken at the beginning of a study to consider all issues that should be 

addressed in the study. It is the first phase of activity to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Secondary impact – The effect of an action that takes place sometime after a primary event has 

occurred. 

Single-family – Land use characterized by lots containing individual residential homes surrounded 

by yards. 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor – One of eleven USDOT-designated high-speed 

rail corridors. FRA plans to develop an integrated passenger rail transportation solution for the 

Southeast with high-speed rail from Washington, DC through Richmond, VA and Charlotte and 

Raleigh, NC, and from Charlotte to Atlanta, Georgia. 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – A state administrative agency responsible for 

carrying out consultation in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended and other state historic preservation regulations. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 7-9 

Steel-wheeled – The most common type of transit, characterized by that form of wheel on 

locomotives running along steel rail. 

Stormwater – Runoff water that is generated by a rain event. Storm water discharges include 

runoff from land, pavements, building rooftops and other surfaces. Storm water runoff can 

accumulate a variety of pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, and bacteria 

as it travels across land before discharging into surface and other receiving waters. Heavy surges 

in storm water runoff can cause other negative effects, including flooding and erosion, to streams 

and adjacent low-lying areas, especially in urbanized watersheds. 

Study Area – The area containing all reasonable Corridor Alternatives connecting the logical 

termini under study for the Project, for purposes of evaluating environmental impacts. Therefore, 

the boundary of the Study Area generally follows I-20 (between Atlanta and Columbia), I-77 

(between Columbia and Charlotte), and the Norfolk-Southern rail line (between Charlotte and 

Atlanta). The Study Area also contains I-85 between Charlotte and Atlanta as well as parts of 

surrounding metropolitan areas. 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A written statement, required by Section 102 

(2) (C) of the NEPA for projects that involve a federal action such as funding. The Tier 1 EIS 

serves to provide information about significant environmental impacts and informs decisionmakers and the public of practical alternatives that would prevent or minimize adverse impacts or 

improve the quality of the human environment. 

Threatened species – A species that may become endangered if surrounding conditions begin or 

continue to deteriorate. 

Topography – The surface features of a place or region. 

Wetlands – Tidal areas or swamps with water saturated soil characteristics and associated 

vegetation that meet certain criteria on which filling and development are federally- and/or state -

regulated. 
ATLANTA to CHARLOTTE PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLAN | LIST OF PREPARERS

DRAFT / MARCH 2019 PAGE 8-1 

8. LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Railroad Administration 

John Winkle 

Grant Manager 

Jessie Gatti-Fernandez 

Community Planner 

Randall Brown 

SE Region Project Manager 

Natalie Williford 

Community Planner 

Cynthia Lee 

Volpe Center 

Grace Dysico, PE 

Consultant Reviewer/MTAC for FRA 

David Phillips, AICP 

Consultant Reviewer/MTAC for FRA 

Chuck Stenzel, PE 

Consultant Reviewer/MTAC for FRA 

Georgia Department of Transportation 

Kaycee Mertz, AICP 

Rail & Transit Planning Manager 

Ashley Finch 

Rail Planner 

Carol Comer 

Director of Intermodal 

Chet Welch, PE 

Rail Program Manager 

Nancy Cobb 

Assistant Division Director of Intermodal 

Ariel Heckler 

Rail Planner 

Gail D’Avino 

Assistant State Environmental Administrator 

Consultant Team 

Brock A. Hoegh, CEP 

Consultant Project Manager

Tamrat “Tim” Kassa, Jr.

Consultant Deputy Project Manager 

Melvin S. Brown, CEP

Technical Reviewer

Adam J. Archual

Environmental Analyst

Charlotte H. Weber

Public Involvement and Cultural Resources 

Katharine Bleau

Ecology and Water Quality 

Aaron Bowe, PE

Conceptual Engineering, Track Design & Cost 

Estimating 

Matthew Spiel, AICP

Service Development Planning 

Randy Wade 

Senior Advisor 

Todd Steiss, AICP, GISP

Project Support and NEPA analysis 

Henry Ward, RPA

Lead Archeologist 

Eric Gorman

GIS Analysis and Mapping 

Alice Lovegrove

Air Quality & Energy 

Edward Tadross

Air Quality & Energy 

Chris Gay, AICP

Transportation Planning 

Carlos Gittens, PE

Engineering Lead