. ‘omment
highways would bring about less
lcongestion, less accidents, reduce our
dependency on foreign oil and
improve air quality in our state. The
jexamples are out there where
highway development has caused a
Inegative quality of life due to the time
frame people spend in their
jautomobiles to got to their place of
employment each day-for example,
[Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and the|
list goes on. Let NC be a leader in
bringing rail systems into the
transportation plan.
239 | WIN-243 | (B) air traffic needs the passenger rail[See response to comment number
Topic: _ |service now, 32 SPR-032.
Alternative
240| WIN-243  |(C) highway travel is a nightmare in [One of the goals of the proposed
Topic: _|most large cities, ISEHSR is to provide a viable
Alternative lalternative to travel by auto on
lcongested roadways.

242] WIN-248 || don't believe Winston-Salem is a |The comment made at the Tier |
Topic:  |bump. It is actually a straight line IDEIS hearing referring to Winston-
Alternative |between Charlotte and DC. Atleast [Salem as a “bump” makes reference

lone of the routes bypasses a lot more |to the fact that Winston-Salem is a
population basis than such abump __ |ittle further north and west of the
ould provide. INCRR right-of-way, which appears to}
lbe more of a straight line connecting
Imost of the piedmont communities.
36 WIN-250 _ it is just 15 miles. That's all that [The additional schedule time
Topic: |bumped on the map is 15 miles. We [required to add a stop in Winston-
Alternative \have a large number of people in this [Salem _ is in:
lcommunity who would take advantage|- limited speeds from Winston-Salem
lof high-speed rail. | think some of the |to Lexington,
calculations particularly based upon __F stop time at Winston-Salem to
hat 15 miles instead of showing an __|change the direction of the train at
Imost 3/4 hour difference from the the terminal stop (necessary for
length of the trip going from Charlotte jdoing required safety checks if this is
ito Washington. It should probably be a pull-in stations versus a pull
closer to a half-hour addition based _through station), and
upon 60 miles an hour for the train _-in the additional length of travel.
land a 10-minute stop. Again, that is
based on some riding high-speed rails
lin England and i
os : (Vie So: i o :
37 | CAR-013 |The Cary Mayor writes a Resolution |Given the programmatic nature of the
Topic: — |offering support of the NCRR Tier | Draft Environmental Impact
Community \alignment of the SEHSR Corridor and |Statement, a general assessment
ithe Cary town manager writes a letter was made of community impacts.
lof concerns and possible impacts [These community impacts included
such as compliance with land use and social and physical aspects, physical
transportation plan & noise and safety.jaspects, visual environment, land

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-20
)


mment Nu bel mment —

Res|

"88 | SPR-012 [Rail line should not serve asa barrier
Topic: _ |to local walking and bicycling across
Design _ {the rail line.

IC

ptual desig grade
railroad crossings included
pedestrian and cycling safety
measures to allow safe passage
lacross railroad right-of-way.

89 | SPR-025 || recommend maximum use of bridges|
Topic: _ jor tunnels, and minimum grade
Design _ [crossings for safety and public
lperception. Every train-vehicle
accident at a grade crossing seems
too decrease public support for rail, no
matter how unfairly.

Conceptual designs of highway
railroad crossings included grade
lseparations where possible, quad
gates with flashing lights, and
lconsolidating/closing the remaining
crossings where practical.

Topic: Earth Mineral Resources :

90 | AGE-007 |NOAA writes to reveal comments after|
Topic: _ |review of the DEIS. The letter warns of
Earth _ |possible impacts to geodetic control

Mineral |monuments by the proposed SEHSR.

Resources

he NCDOT and the VDRPT would
practice avoidance of all geodetic
control markers to the maximum
lextent practicable. The NCDOT and
|the VDRPT would work with the
lappropriate agencies to re-establish
lany geodetic control markers should
lany be displaced by the project. In
lany Tier Il document, a more detailed}
alignment would be studied, anda
comprehensive analysis of impacts

ould be conducted.

91 | AGE-015 |The US geological Survey historical
Topic:  jand active mines, quarries, and pits
Earth __|database is very incomplete. The

Mineral _ |Division of Mineral Resources has

Resources ffield located all mineral resource sites

lin the eastern two-thirds of Virginia.

\These locations are digitized and table;

lor map prints could be made

lavailable. We would need a map at a

scale of at least 1:100,000 of the

lproposed route to plot the locations.

Also, the use of a Web site for geology|

lalong the proposed project when more}

detail geologic data is available is a

ery weak part of the document.

(Thank you for your offer to provide
further information. In any Tier II
document, a more detailed alignment
ould be studied, and a
comprehensive analysis of impacts
ould be conducted. The NCDOT
land the VDRPT would contact your
department regarding the additional
mineral resource sites information
lalong this detailed alignment, and the
additional information would be
included in any Tier Il document

92 | SPR-008 [Route 95 has Stony Creek titanium
Topic: mine.
Earth
Mineral
Resources

In any Tier Il document, a more
detailed alignment would be studied,
land a comprehensive analysis of
impacts would be conducted. The
NNCDOT and the VDRPT would be
contacting the Virginia Department
Mines, Minerals and Energy- Division
lof Mineral Resources regarding
additional mineral resource sites
information along this detailed
lalignment. It is likely that the Stoney
Creek titanium mine would be

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

3-41

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


istop at one but not the other
community. Two trains would run
nonstop between Raleigh and
(Charlotte.

[The two ALT A express trains cover
ithe distance between Raleigh and
(Charlotte in two hours 10 minutes
ith the multistop trains taking two
hours twenty minutes for the journey.
(On ALT C, the two nonstop trains
lbetween Raleigh and Charlotte take
lone hour 52 minutes, the three one
stop frequencies take one hour 57
minutes, and the three two stop
itrains take two hours two minutes.

[Unlike the two minute average
spread in travel times between ALT
IA and ALT C shown in Table 2.17
there is in fact, a 28 minute
\difference in travel times between the|
fastest trains in ALT C and the
slowest trains in ALT A between
Raleigh and Charlotte. The time
\difference between the fastest trains
lon each route is 18 minutes and the
difference for the multistop trains
aries from 18 to 23 minutes. The
revenue, ridership and operating cost
forecasts were derived using these
schedule patterns developed by the
nsultants in January 2000, and not

he average trip times shown in

able 2.17.

75

DUR-015
Topic:
Design

How fast will the train be going when it/It is important to understand the
Igoes through downtown Durham? difference between projected speed
[This is a critical issue as it relates to jand operating speed. Projected
‘the Tier Il study and needs to be lspeed is the speed attainable based
‘studied as it impacts downtown lon existing or proposed track and
Durham. safety improvements. Operating
lspeed is the actual speed at which
he train functions. The projected
lspeeds through Durham vary
(depending on location, track
jeometry (curve speed), and
rossing safety. For the purpose of
he comparison required for this
tudy, projected speeds were
valuated. Also a decisive factor for
speeds through Durham is the high

probability of most trains stopping

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-37
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



location and magnitude of each
laction, such as number of tracks,
types of structures, station location
land configuration, routing within
existing right of way, bypasses, etc.
As Tier Il documents are completed,
|the permitting process (as
lappropriate) would be initiated and
completed, and the construction

process could proceed.

233

DUR-003
Topic:
Water

Resources

|For water supply occurrences, have
lyou factored in the total
ipopulations/projected populations
served by the watersheds?

All water-supply watersheds received
equal consideration when potential
impacts to them were analyzed for
this Tier | document. The concern for
lall water- supply watersheds is to
protect their water quality. Impacts to
communities and projected
community growth are addressed in
lother sections of the document.

234

GRE-001
Topic:
Water

Resources

ater quality with regard to the new
IRandleman Reservoir is a concern
that needs to be noted.

[The proposed 3000-acre Randleman
Reservoir is an on-going project that
lis planned to serve as a water supply
for the City of Greensboro, NC and
lsurrounding communities. The GIS
\data set used for analysis in this
document did not include the

atershed area for the Randleman
Reservoir. This water-supply

atershed was designated in late
1998. During any Tier II evaluation,
information regarding this new
reservoir would be incorporated into
jthe report. Investigations of the water|
quality impacts of the SEHSR
corridor for the Randleman Reservoir|
ould be included in the subsequent
Tier Il evaluation. Also, any
applicable requirements in the
Nutrient Management Strategy for
jthe Randleman Reservoir (15A
INCAC 02B .0248 though .0251)

ould be included.

235

WIN-006
Topic:
Water

Resources

inston-Salem draws only a small
percentage of its drinking water from
‘Salem Lake and as a policy does not
draw any drinking water from the lake

hen the lake’s water level has
dropped by 12 inches. Therefore, the
(City’s sensitivity to water consumption

from this watershed is very low.

|All water-supply watersheds received
lequal consideration when analyzing
for potential water quality impacts for
this Tier | document.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-92


_ Response

It is also important that any

E

ing stations would be used to

Topic: _ subsidiary features such as stations, |the greatest extent possible, thereby
Infrastructure|parking lots, maintenance facilities, _ |minimizing potential impacts to
letc. be considered as you evaluate thewetlands and other resources.
lalternatives. Those features may See response to comment number
lultimately involve greater potential 105 AGE-011 above.
impacts to wetlands and other
resources than the rail line itself.
107 | CAR-010 |Issues of importance include facilities |Cycling facilities at stations will be
Topic: _ for unboxed bicycles, bicycle access considered during the design of
Infrastructure|to stations, and bicycle storage at specific stations. Station locations
stations would be a plus. The biggest were not identified for this study.
lobstacle to increased public usage of |Therefore, specific design criteria for
bicycling transportation is perception |station amenities and signage were
lof safety. This can easily and Inot addressed, and would be too
inexpensively be remedied through _ detailed for a program level study.
isible support and encouragement — |These items will be noted and
signage, bike lanes, racks, public- Iconsidered in the design phase. See
service announcements. Please response 76 DUR-014.
include support for cycling in your
lans and publications
108 | DUR-018 |Adequate parking facilities must ‘Station locations were not identified
Topic: accompany each stop. Stops should _jfor this study. Therefore, specific
Infrastructurelalso have local dining and shopping _ design criteria for station amenities
close by. land signage were not addressed,
land would be too detailed for a
rogram level study.
109] RIC-020 You mentioned that it wouldn't affect [Existing passenger rail service
Topic: Amtrak's current route or routing. shares existing tracks with freight rail
Infrastructure|Does that mean that there’s going to _|service. The addition of any service
be a substantial amount of new track; |to existing track would require some
lor is there already enough track there |additional track construction. The
jto share between the two uses here? amount of new track would be based
lon actual and projected use by
freight, existing passenger rail and
lhigh speed passenger rail services.
110] RIC-027 (Are the consultants looking at the Main Street Station in Richmond, VA
Topic: _ |Acca to the Main Street Station? lhas been identified as the potential
Infrastructure station location for the SEHSR.
Service to this station would proceed
from ACCA Yard through Richmond
ito Main Street Station.
111} RIC-028 Would this substantial upgrading be |Improvements to the existing bridge
Topic: — |required south of Main Street Station? and tracks south of Main Street
Infrastructure Station would be required to
laccommodate the additional train
Itraffic.
112] SPR-018 would like to see the proposed [The SEHSR would provide through
Topic: |SEHSR integrated with the other HSR [service to the northeast by
Infrastructure|corridors as well as other modes of _|connecting with the Northeast High

transportation.

[Speed Passenger Rail. Future high
speed rail corridors have already

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-46


iment

Res|

stations at 30-mile intervals, and
signal systems for electrified rail are
2 to 3 million dollars per mile.
Previous feasibility studies indicate
ithe optimum return for the SEHSR
corridor is at the 110 mph top speed

ithin our planning horizon. These
requirements are adequately met

ith fossil fuel locomotives without
incurring the additional
lenvironmental impacts from
substation construction; the
ladditional costs (decreasing the
lbenefit cost for public investment);
safety concerns and overhead
clearance requirements.

12

DUR-020
Topic:
Alternative

How can time between Raleigh and
(Charlotte be affected if route uses
same track as TTA? How does

ith TTA, Amtrak, and freight?

TTA will share right-of-way for a
short portion of the SEHSR. The
INCDOT Rail Division is presently

ISEHSR plan to coordinate use of trackjcooperating with TTA (as well as with

Amtrak and the freight railroad
companies) on designs to
laccommodate all users of the right-
lof-way. The two systems vary in
lboth purpose and technology.
Commuter rail (TTA) uses lightweight
rain sets to travel short distances

ith frequent stops. Freight railroads
require a different and separate
track system from the track system
for their heavy rail services.
\Therefore, TTA will have it's own
system of tracks that will not
significantly affect the SEHSR.

(Coordinating Amtrak, SEHSR and
freight will be accomplished using
‘state-of-the-art signaling systems for
train traffic, lengthening passing
sidings to accommodate longer
trains, and separating through tracks
ifrom service-oriented tracks.

13

GRE-005
Topic:
Alternative

Have you considered high speed mag
lift rail as opposed to mag lev? Have
ou explored placing mag lift in the
median of the interstates? In other
ords, utilize the interstates ROW we
lall own as opposed to RR corridors
that were fine in 1900 but not very
populated in 2001. | understand that
leven though commerce has moved

Monorail is an infrastructure
technology. Maglev is a propulsion
technology. Monorail-based
transportation systems are short
distance systems associated with
special purpose services (i.e. airline
terminals, amusement area
connector). This purpose is
inconsistent with the long distance,

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-14


ment Number

planned regi

around the area. Thus the rail to rail
itrips should not be diverted, they
should be transfers.

179

SPR-026
Topic:
Ridership

Air travel is best for long distance, but
rail travel is best for the 170-200 mile
range.

\One of the premises for the high
speed rail service concept is that it
can serve the 100-300 mile trip
lmore effectively than the airlines. A
Inumber of people that participated in
jthe SEHSR public involvement
lprogram expressed their frustrations
ith both the cost and the difficulties
lof trying to use air travel for trips of
this nature. Most of the air trips in this}
distance range required a
jtransfer/plane change and out of
direction travel, as well as long
lsecurity delays. Connections were
\difficult and expensive. Air travel also
Imay involve a long trip by auto to get
to an airport that would provide the
service. For example USAir is
stopping all service out of the
ilson/Rocky Mount airport,
requiring residents to commute to the!
[Raleigh Durham airport (50 to 70
lmiles away) in order to get a flight to
‘a location that might be 300 miles
laway and require a change of
lanes.

180

SPR-037
Topic:
Ridership

rites a follow up letter on 11/12/01 tol
lhis letter on 10/17/01. In the letter he
lapplies a gravity model to estimate
ridership and a revenue-to-cost ratio.

jThe ridership and revenue forecasts
(October 2000) for the SEHSR
alternatives were developed using
information assembled for the
ISEHSR Study and Market Demand
Analysis (KPMG-1996) the Piedmont
\High Speed Corridor Ridership and
[Revenue Potential Study Phase I-
Raleigh to Charlotte Corridor
(PHSC- by KPMG November 1996).
[Complete documentation of the
inputs is contained in these reports.
The zone system, travel data, and
existing service characteristics for rail
jand other modes from these studies
were used in the analysis of
improvements in the SEHSR
corridor.

|The spreadsheet model used in this
lanalysis (Mr. Tennyson's) represents
la modified version of the model used
in the PHSC study. This demand

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-74



: jthrough Star.

la Fee ae Oph
139 INCDWQ (North Carolina Departmen
Topic: _jof Water Quality) does not have single|chapter 1 of this document for why E
Other _|preferred alternative, but would like —_ jand H were eliminated. DWQ
lalternatives B, E, or H studied in detail|recommended B based on service to
he heavily urbanized piedmont
‘corridor of NC, and Alternative A also)
serves this corridor.
140} AGE-011 As set forth below, EPA rates the he Tier | DEIS for the SEHSR
Topic: |SEHSR Tier 1 DEIS as EC-2 project is a program level document,
Other —|(Environmental Concerns-Insufficient |which has included a high level of

Information). This rating is based on
[the conclusion that, although the
impacts from this proposal are likely
Inot substantive, the document does
not fully explore some key areas of
potential impact to the human and
Inatural environment.

nalysis of potential environmental
impacts to facilitate a decision on the
lbest of the 9 study areas that were
onsidered for possible
implementation of high speed rail.
Based on this purpose, potential
limpacts were generally identified to
provide information to comparatively
valuate the 9 study area

Iternatives. Only limited fieldwork
as done, and existing and
econdary data sources were heavily,
elied upon to create the database
for the comparative analysis. In
laddition a great deal of previous
lstudy has already been conducted in
the corridor and an extensive public
involvement effort was conducted to
lget public input and issues. The large
Istudy area was more conducive to
his more general approach. During
potential Tier II studies, more
detailed examination would be made
lof all potential impacts within a
specified alignment identified within
he recommended study area. At that
ime all needed fieldwork, on-site
surveys, mapping and primary data
ould be developed to facilitate the
lidentification, analysis and
issessment of potential impacts.
Mitigation measures and measures
fo minimize harm would also be
leveloped. Thus this more extensive
alysis you refer to would be
lconducted as part of the next phase
f the project development if the
lecision is made to move forward on
he proposed project.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-56


Response —

conditions between the Chicago to
St. Louis project and the SEHSR
project, it is anticipated that similar
findings will exist along the SEHSR
corridor when the Tier II detailed
studies are performed. This
conclusion supports the use of the
INCRR corridor (alternatives A, B, D,
IE, G and H) where the overall
purpose and need of the project is
best met. Best management
practices will also be applied for both
noise and vibration during the Tier II
lstudies in order to help minimize the
increases in noise and vibration
throughout the project corridor.
Examples of such practices include
\grade separations were practicable,
luse of continuous welded rail,
trenching, berming, noise walls,
ballast mats, etc., as well as design
features of the actual train sets.

133

AGE-011
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

If this level of detail is available on this
criterion, why is there not similar detail
lon the noise (and air quality) impacts?
(This refers to previous comment,

hich says "The extent of residential
relocations defined in Table 4.38 is
Inotable and needs explanation since
tthe assumption is that the SEHSR
ould occupy existing ROW. ")

See response to comment number
131 AGE-011. Section 4.3.1.5 of the
IDEIS provides a detailed description
lof how the residential relocations
ere determined and why these
ould be needed even though we
lare proposing on implementing the
ISEHSR service within existing
railroad rights-of-way to the extent
practicable. An errata has been
lprepared to add a sentence to
Section 4.10 proceeding Table 4.38,

hich directs the reader to refer back|
to the appropriate impact section for
details on each impact area featured
in the table.

134

AGE-011
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

Noise impacts are likely to become an
important issue. The noise associated
ith both increased freight traffic and
lpassenger train traffic may need to be
considered if the proposed new tracks

ill be utilized by both forms of traffic.
(The discussion regarding noise
impacts does not provide any impact
information directly relevant to the
SEHSR project (chapter 4). It is not
possible to separate the noise impacts!
information for affected receptors from)
that for vibration impacts.

IBased upon the program level nature!
lof this study, no monitoring of
existing noise levels was undertaken,
nor were any noise models run to
determine future noise levels with the
lproposed SEHSR train operations

ith or without freight. This was
joutside the scope of this study and
these types of more detailed noise
lanalysis would be conducted during
any Tier Il environmental analysis. At
this point in the study, we were
seeking a fairly high level criteria to
indicate the potential magnitude of

possible noise and vibration impacts

l
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-54


‘Comment Number]

“Response

parking at reasonable rates. Inter-
connectivity between transportation
modes should be a very high priority in|
planning this system.

[Greensboro and Raleigh Durham,
INC. Some of the potential station
stop sites in Virginia are being
renovated such as the historic Main
[Street Station in downtown
Richmond.

151 In this briefing | haven't seen what the |See the response to comment
lgeneral operating mode of this system|number 144 CAR-008.
lis. In other words, how many trains a
\day do you run? Do you run two a day
lor do you run ten a day? This is
important.
152 | would like to point out that the Both NCDOT and VDRPT have as
lexpense of this high-speed rail service|their goal the efficient operation of
e do not want to disrupt the freight both passenger and rail service. It is
service that currently exist on this line |very likely that any improvements
las well as the future service that we |made to existing railroad rights of
hope to see provided by. future ay as a result of proposed HSR
industrial development. We would like |related improvements would upgrade
[to call your attention and. caution to _jboth track and infrastructure
hat. As we all know, Amtrak is highly |conditions thus improving both
lsubsidized and we would like to see operating speeds and conditions for
hat this particular rail section stands passenger and freight trains,
lon its own and on its own merit lincreasing capacity while easing
Ithrough ridership as well as freight.  |congested areas within the right of
ay. Both NC and VA have active
rail improvement programs that
involve the rail crossing safety
lprogram and various track
improvements including double
tracking in these rights of way.
(Chapter 2 of the Tier | DEIS provides!
land overview of these improvements,
153 INeed to address congestion on route |See response to comment number
IA; a new rail line will do this. 152 WIL-009.
154 Meanwhile, our city bus service has __|It is widely believed in the

already set the standard for being a
fiscal liability, as the buses remain
[75% empty. Indeed, a dichotomy
exists within the DOT in terms of
simultaneously advocating
expenditures for both roads and
bridges, while attempting to bring HSR|
ito our area. And where will the
envisioned myriad of passenger’s park|
itheir cars? Undoubtedly, additional
parking fees will prevail, as well,
‘serving to parallel the mercenary
concept of a toll road in our state.

transportation industry that the future
lof continued, good mobility for all of
jour areas must include a variety of
ravel modes that provide the public

ith viable options. We must look not}
lonly at maintaining our current
roadway network, but also at building
land enhancing other modes of travel.
[The USDOT has encouraged the
development of other modes through
the provision of federal funding
grants for the development of HSR
land other transit modes. As travel b'
lother modes becomes more

lavailable, rail becomes a more

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-60



(Comment Nu’

grants for the development of H

land other transit modes. As travel b
Inon-highway modes becomes more
available, and as air quality problems
increase, rail becomes a more
lefficient and effective way to travel
for more people. In addition, existing
rail traffic congestion in the

ashington DC to Charlotte corridor
lis one of the reasons for some of the
current planned improvements by
lboth VA and NC.

All of the 9 Study area alternatives
lexamined in the Tier | DEIS are
projected to carry over 1 million
passengers per year by 2025. Under
current rail passenger service,
jannual rail ridership along the
corridor connecting Washington, DC

ith Charlotte, NC is projected to
igrow from its current level of
418,000, to 498,000 in 2015 and to
543,000 in 2025 or slightly more than
lone percent per year.

[The proposed SEHSR program
laddresses the existing rail passenger]
service problems by improving travel
times and increasing capacity, while
providing a safer and more efficient
Imode of travel as compared with the
lprivate motor vehicle. The
ashington, D.C. to Richmond,
irginia Passenger Rail Study found
ithat if travel times between
ashington and Richmond could be
reduced to 90 minutes, ridership in
ithe I-95 corridor would triple by 2015.
[The proposed SEHSR service would
reduce travel time from Washington,
IDC to Charlotte from the current ten
hours to an estimated six to seven
land one half hours. The proposed
ISEHSR service is anticipated to
impact the travel corridor by diverting
trips from auto and air, and by
producing some induced travel
(additional trips that individuals would
not otherwise make), thus improving
‘overall mobility within the travel
corridor. The proposed service could

divert over 1,000,000 passenger trips

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

3-64

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


alternative performs best or worst in
his regard. For example, there is no
information about how many homes

lalternative. This information is given
for sensitive receptors, but not for
homes.

ot be determined which, if any,

are within a certain distance from eac!

lserving over half the population of
North Carolina which lives within 30
miles of the I-85 corridor (the NCRR
corridor utilized by alternatives A, B,
ID, E, G and H). The rural southern
‘outing would also fail to fully meet
he project purpose and need in
reas related to diversions from
ighway and air travel, overall energ
savings, overall air quality
improvements and increased mobility;
ptions for the elderly and
isadvantaged.

It should be noted that all alternatives,
hat utilize routings where portions of
rack were previously removed
(Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, F) have
lhe potential to introduce new noise
ind vibration for buildings built within
he last 15-30 years in close
proximity to the tracks.

IDue to the program level of this
locument, and the fact that this
locument is looking at 6 mile wide
study areas versus specific
lignments, as well as the lack of
urrent aerial photography for the
ntire study area, and the size of the
tudy area being considered (over
11200 miles of existing rail rights-of-
ay), it was not deemed appropriate
fo run a detailed noise model or to
identify individual residential
eceptors (Category Il receptors) for
he Tier | analysis. Other detailed
tudies of similar projects proved
elpful in considering the potential fon
ignificant new noise or vibration
impacts. Studies performed for the
Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail
matched the conditions of the Tier |
ISEHSR EIS in a number of important)
areas, mainly:

-eight new passenger round trips
daily, mixed with existing freight
use

-fossil fuel locomotives

-train sets composed of 2
locomotives with 6 cars

-max speed over most of the
route at 110 mph (with a short

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC *
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-52


[Comment Number]

Topic:
Community

5. The line is located in close
proximity to properties which

have been developed since the}

line was abandoned and will
adversely impact many of
these properties

resources within more
specific alignments through
background research and
field surveys, assessment of
the effects, and consultation
with interested parties, the
State Historic Preservation
Offices (SHPO), and the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in compliance
with the guidelines set forth
by North Carolina and
Virginia’s State Historic
Preservation Offices. If an
adverse effect is anticipated,
the agency will consult with
the SHPO and others in an
effort to find ways to make the
undertaking less harmful.
Potential mitigation could
include avoiding historic sites
by shifting the alignment,
minimizing the area of impact
through engineering design,
or adding other aesthetic
enhancements to eliminate or
lessen visual impacts.

. Given the programmatic

nature of the Tier | Draft
Environmental Impact
Statement, a high level
assessment was made of
community impacts. No
significantly negative
community impacts were
found at the programmatic
level in the Tier | DEIS. In
addition, at this point in the
EIS process, adverse impacts
are considered “possible,”
since passenger equipment
type, freight use, and
frequencies and time of use
all play a part in any adverse
impact determination. This
information will not be known
until Tier II analysis begins.
More detailed study of
community impacts will be
undertaken for the
recommended alternative(s)

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-24


in this updated information.

locate
[This information will be included in
lany Tier Il document.
93 | SAL-002 || think that if our National Energy IBased on information from the
Topic: _ |Policy depends on petroleum products[Transportation Energy Data Book.
Energy _|and if the majority of petroleum rains are more energy efficient than
products are coming out of the middle aircraft or autos on a per mile basis.
least, if things become less stable typical passenger train driven by a
there, it will further increase the iesel locomotive consumes about
lenergy effectiveness. | think your 50,000 BTU’s of energy per vehicle
study shows that the energy mile. A typical automobile consumes
leffectiveness of high-speed rail is for jabout 6,500 BTU’s of energy per
superior to the individual automobile mile. With the higher passenger
capacity of the train it is more
lefficient than a single occupant
94 | AGE-011 Page 4-69: Conclusions from Minority [Pages 4-63 to 4-69 provide a
Topic: |and Low-Income Population Findings. |discussion of minority and low-
Environ- |The first sentence states that the income population impacts. In
mental _ |preceding analysis yielded some particular, Tables 4.25 and 4.26 and
Justice _ [insights on this issue, but does not list Figures 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 provide
lor discuss them. This is illustrative of |comparisons of minority and low-
this kind of finding that could be income populations by study area
\discussed further in this document andjalternatives. On Page 4-69:
[then brought out in a thoughtful (Conclusions from Minority and Low-
isumimary/comparison or alternatives. {Income Population Findings, the first
sentence will be revised to begin with
“As seen in the previous sections, ...”
ito clarify the section.
95 | CAR-002 |Our position as it relates to SEHSR is |In order to help identify issues,
Topic: _ |let’s get it done”, yet we want to be _|concerns, and desired outcomes for
Environ- assured that the African American andla given community or
mental __|Latino-American communities are not junderrepresented group,
Justice _joverlooked. The lack of involvement environmental justice focused
lby these communities usually has us_|interviews were conducted with
relegated to being reactionary at most.jcommunity leaders in each of the 26
ith this situation, we hope to be locations of the 2000 public
Imore proactive by asking you and orkshops. Individuals cited
our colleagues for inclusion. representing over 150,000
constituents within the study area,
land in several cases represented
Imore than one constituency group.
Some examples of represented
jorganizations include: Central
irginia Housing Coalition, La
\Movidita Radio, City of Raleigh
'Human Relations Commission,
Emporia Department of Social
‘Services, NAACP, and the National
Organization for the Advancement of

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-42



lesponse

Equity Act for the 21* Century (PL
105-178, Section 7201). ISTEA
stated,

(Comment Number

‘It is the policy of the United States to}
ldevelop a National Intermodal
\Transportation System that is
leconomically efficient and
lenvironmentally sound, provides the
foundation for the Nation to compete
lin the global economy and will move
people and goods in an energy
lefficient manner.”

[The high speed rail corridor program
as established by ISTEA as one
component of this intermodal system,
In 1992, the USDOT designated the
ISEHSR Corridor one of five original
national high speed rail corridors.
Further extensions to the corridor
ladded connections south into South
(Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

176 | ROA-024 ill stops be prioritized according to [Not necessarily, although the level of
Topic: _ |ridership or trip diversions? projected ridership at a station is a
Ridership factor to be considered in the

development and location of stations.
177 | ROA-030 Is ridership or travel time a higher [The evaluation criteria were not

Topic: _ |priority? ranked. However in order for a
Ridership lproposed service like SEHSR to be
lsuccessful it must offer some sort of
travel time-savings in order for
lpeople to consider using it for their
itravel needs. Thus travel time-
savings is an important factor to be
considered.
178) SPR-018 hen discussing diversions from auto|lf SEHSR were implemented, it

Topic: _ |to rail and air to rail, why not also ould not serve all of the same
Ridership |consider rail to rail diversions that mayllocations as conventional rail. Any
ladd to ridership numbers station that currently has Amtrak
(conventional) service would
continue to receive that service. Thus)
jhe markets or geographic areas
, lbeing served by the two services
Imay not be the same. The plan is to
develop a network of passenger rail
service that would be
complementary, not competitive. For
example if | traveled from

ashington DC to do business in the}
Raleigh/Durham area, ideally | could
itake high speed rail to
Raleigh/Durham and transfer to the
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-73
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



int Number
GRE-010
GRE-020
GRE-020
GRE-001

ater Resources
cation: Hendél 4
Alternative 16__| HEN-001

17 HEN-020

Cost 49 HEN-002
Design 79 HEN-008
80 HEN-014

Proposed Action 146 | HEN-020
Public Involvement 156 | HEN-013
Socio-economic 207 __| HEN-005
208 | HEN-016

20

ocation: Raleigh :

4 (f) 1 | RAL-007
Cultural Resources 70 RAL-009
71 RAL-015

Design 84 RAL-009
Natural Resources 128 | RAL-007
Proposed Action 148 | RAL-012
Ridership RAL-014
Safety RAL-007
Alternative ROA-010
ROA-015

ROA-016

Cost ROA-001
ROA-014

Proposed Action 149 _|ROA-008
Ridership 175 _|ROA-013
176 _|ROA-024

177 __|ROA-030

Safety ROA-017
ROA-018

‘Socio-economic ROA-013
ROA-019

Location: Salish co

Alternative SAL-002
SAL-007

Energy SAL-002
Natural Resources SAL-008

[Socio-economic SAL-001

Cost SAN-003
[Public Involvement 159 | SAN-002

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


‘ou know, attend a meeting — you
know, get on a train in the morning,
attend a meeting, and get on a train
back home at night. And clearly,

itest very clearly. You know, maybe
Richmond to Raleigh would probably
pass. Was that taken into account with|
the ridership presumption and the
diversion from air?

ashington to Charlotte would fail thatiridership in the I-95 corridor would

Richmond, Virginia Passenger Rail
\Study found that if travel times
between Washington and Richmond

lcould be reduced to 90 minutes,

tiple by 2015. The proposed SEHSR'
lservice would reduce travel time from|
ashington, DC to Charlotte from
he current ten hours to an estimated
lsix to seven and one half hours. The
proposed SEHSR service is
lanticipated to impact the travel
corridor by diverting trips from auto
land air, and by producing some
induced travel (additional trips that
individuals would not otherwise
make), thus improving overall
mobility within the travel corridor.

184] SPR-045 [Passenger counts are meaningless. |See response to comment
Topic: 'e need to know passenger miles Inumber182 SPR-039
Ridership |and/or fare revenue.
185} WIL-011  |Ridership: | question the route There is more population on the A
Topic: [between Raleigh, Henderson and line in NC than on the S line,
Ridership |Richmond that has projected higher [however the S line is a faster
ridership than Raleigh, Rocky Mount |connection between the population
land Richmond route. Please explain |centers of NC and the Northeast
lassumptions in traffic model. The corridor, thus generating more
imodel does not seem to reflect reality joverall riders, and longer average
lof route 2 because route 2 has higher [trips with their associated higher
concentrations of and serves more __ profit margins.
eople.
186 | WIN-266 |The 2000 census reveals that the See response to comment number
Topic: |Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High 171 GRE-010.
Ridership [Point metropolitan statistical area is

tthe 37th largest in the US, with a
lpopulation of over 1.25 million
residents. The Piedmont Triad MSA is
larger than Raleigh-Durham, ranked
‘41st with a population of 1.19 million
residents, and Richmond-Petersburg,
ranked 51st with a population of
(997,000 residents. Greensboro-
inston-Salem-High Point follows
Charlotte (ranked 34th), New Orleans
(ranked 35th), Salt Lake City (ranked
36th) and is ranked ahead of Austin,
TX (38th), Nashville (39th) and
Providence (40th). One would never
skip a New Orleans, Salt Lake City,
(Austin or Nashville in a high speed rail
corridor. It would be a travesty to skip

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-76


Response

forecasting model is ‘based on

coefficients describing sensitivities to
{travel cost, travel time, frequency
land other modal characteristics in
the corridor. These coefficients were
loriginally developed using the
\database created for SEHSR.

|The model used for this study was
lrevalidated to match Amtrak 1999
fiscal year ridership on its southeast
Itrain services. This model also
laddresses markets within Virginia
land the Northeast Corridor, which
jare also served by the southeast
trains. In addition, time of day
schedule sensitivity improvements to
the model included in the 1998
lanalysis of extending the Piedmont
|train to Atlanta was retained. These
lappropriately discount the market for
middle of the night departures on the
(Crescent, and Silver trains.

181

SPR-039
Topic:
Ridership

lis there any way we can know if the
count that you've talked about is
based on airline fares, or bus fares, or
lin between Amtrak fares. | wondered if
ithe fares were based on airline fares,
bus fares, Amtrak fares, or something
lin between.

[The ridership and revenue
projections were based upon Amtrak
fares.

182

SPR-039
Topic:
Ridership

‘ou mentioned travel locally —
because of the passenger count it
\doesn’t mean anything — if everybody
traveled Winston-Salem to
IGreensboro, you would have nothing
leven if it is a big number. So is there
lany way we could get passenger
miles? The passenger count is sort of
meaningless, because you don’t know
if it is a short trip, 27 miles, or a 300
mile trip, which makes a big difference|
in the income.

Passenger miles were not generated
jas a part of the ridership projections
\developed for this study. However,
both through trips (trips with an origin
lor destination in the corridor) and
local trips (between points in the
corridor) were included in the counts.

183

SPR-040
Topic:
Ridership

[On the ridership — it’s sort of a related
question — of the little bit of work | was
involved in with Amtrak and putting
their ACELA program in place, one of
the things that some of the people
directly involved in that said was a
criteria for substituting ground for air
as sort of a three hour — the ability to}
Imake a day trip essentially between
the two cities, a day business trip,
granted more than eight hours, but

[The proposed SEHSR program
laddresses the existing rail passenger
service problems by improving travel
times and increasing capacity, while
providing a safer and more efficient
mode of travel as compared with the
private motor vehicle. It could serve
las a more attractive alternative to
lautomobile, air and bus intercity
travel between Washington, DC and
(Charlotte. The Washington, D.C. to

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-75



ent Num!

: mment . Respo le
192] RIC-016 [One of the biggest safety concerns in |Crossing protection improvements
Topic: jour community with rail is establishing would be based on existing and
Safety ja secure crossing, properly handling [projected highway traffic volumes as
the crossing for traffic flow in the areaswell as existing and projected

lof the most accidents, | believe. What [railroad traffic volumes. These

does HSR require in terms of lvolumes would determine the
lupgrades of these crossings to be as_|requirement for grade separations,
lsafe as they can be, and has it been |quad gates, crossing consolidations,
considered in this study and howit _jor crossing closings. These

laffects different economic areas improvements have been
[throughout the corridor? incorporated in this study.

Economic impacts are a function of
\development and labor more than
crossing safety. These impacts also
vary with the type and variety of
\development in very small segments
lalong the corridor.

193 | ROA-017 |Have safety measures been re- Amtrak, along with all other modes of|
Topic: _ |evaluated due to the September 11" transportation, has been analyzing
Safety _|tragedy? their safety systems since the

tragedy of September 11. This
process will continue for the
foreseeable future.

194) ROA-018 |The increased rail speed will be [Thank you for your comment. During
Topic: _ |further jeopardizing our safety. Things |the Tier II studies all planning efforts
Safety —_|should be slowing down rather than ill be made to provide a safe
Ispeeding up. transportation system both for the
riders and for those located near the
isystem.
195 | SPR-025 || recommend maximum use of bridges|Conceptual designs of highway
Topic: jor tunnels, and minimum grade railroad crossings included grade
Safety _|crossings for safety and public separations where possible, quad
perception. Every train-vehicle gates with flashing lights, and

laccident at a grade crossing seems _[consolidating/closing the remaining
too decrease public support for rail, no|crossings where practical.

matter how unfairly.
196 | STA-005 le are also concerned about safety [Thank you for your comment. During
Topic: |because Montgomery County has had |the Tier II studies all planning efforts
Safety _|a lot of train derailments. ill be made to provide a safe
transportation system both for the
riders and for those located near the
system. See Chapter 1 of this
document for further comments on
safety of rail versus highway travel.
197 | STA-012 jl am concerned about the safety of my|The safety of individuals or families is)

Topic: _ |children. Inot a factor of train speed. It is the
Safety responsibility of individuals to respect
and yield right-of-way to all trains.
198 | STA-013 |The I-85 corridor is too busy, (Thank you for your comment.
Topic: _ |congested.
Safety

Topic: Schedul

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-78
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



Comment i Response _
rea downtown, the residential area _ [be identified. At this high level
ill not be able to withstand. | don't [study we cannot determine any
think any speeds that are more than [specific impacts. Your concerns
hat they have now because of the _fabout potential vibration impacts
buildings are rather old. They have _ these areas has been noted.
been preserved and taken care of but
that's for what it is now. | know that it a
dead-end line now. | know there is just!
‘one track. | know when we built our
house everywhere we asked in town,
‘several people said this track can
barely withstand what goes through it
now. It had been fixed but you don't
have to worry about any high-speed
coming through or anything.
71 RAL-015 [The Railroad House Historical In the Tier | DEIS, the assessment of|
Topic: Association and the Triangle Land limpacts to historic properties is at a
Cultural |Conservancy write to call attention to |very broad level. During any
Resources |significant natural areas and lsubsequent Tier II evaluation, a more|
(Conservancy properties that segment |detailed alignment would be studied,
20 and 21 of the SEHSR may impact. jand field surveys and studies would
lbe completed to identify and
determine the eligibility of historic
properties in the area of potential
leffects. The determination of
[eligibility of properties for inclusion
ion the National Register of Historic
Places would be made during any
subsequent Tier II study process.
72 SPR-007_|I’m interested in the cultural resource |In the Tier | DEIS, the assessment of
Topic: impacts. Need to improve contacts impacts to historic properties is at a
Cultural between the communities in NC and very broad level. During any
Resources NA. subsequent Tier II evaluation, a more
detailed alignment would be studied,
land field surveys and studies would
lbe completed to identify and
determine the eligibility of historic
properties in the area of potential
effects. Contacts with local
lpreservation commissions and
lplanners will occur at that time. The
(determination of eligibility of
properties for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places
ould be made during any
subsequent Tier II study process.
: Topic: Desi : Z Pee
73 | AGE-011 |The document is not clear at all about [Because the incremental approach
Topic: _ the required width expansions to lutilizes the existing infrastructure to
Design _ {existing rights-of-way. Basic ithe maximum extent practicable, the
information such as what present R-O-cross section and associated right of
could accommodate (for an ay width would vary greatly over

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-35


(Comment Nu

Re: ise

luse, safety, mobility and accessibility,
provision of public services,
leconomic conditions, displacements,
land potential community impacts as
la component of environmental
lcomplexity. No substantially negative
community impacts were found at the|
programmatic level in the Tier | DEIS.|
More detailed study of community
impacts would be undertaken for the
recommended alternative(s) in any
[Tier Il documentation. Any Tier II
lenvironmental analyses would take
into consideration more localized
impacts such as compliance with
land use and transportation, as well
las noise and public safety.
38 | PET-004 |Mr. W.C. Scheid, Director of Planning |Staff from the Virginia Department of
Topic: _ {for Dinwiddie County, Virginia writes toRail and Public Transportation held a
Community \express to communities concerns overimeeting with representatives from
tthe proposed SEHSR. Mr. Scheid lists Chesterfield Co., Dinwiddie Co.,
jten concerns ranging from Colonial Heights, and Petersburg on
lenvironmental impacts to property IDec. 20, 2001 at the Chesterfield Co.
impacts: Administration Building to address
these issues.
1. Portions of this line have been 1. Based on the Tier |
studied as an East Coast identification of public parks,
Greenway trail and have within the 500-foot Study
received State and National Area Alternative buffer and
recognition as such. The with no specific alignment set,
Dinwiddie County Parks and there is little variation
Recreation Department have between the study areas in
embraced this study the number of public parks.
Study areas range froma
high of 16 to a low of 11, with
most areas having 15 public
park areas. Study areas
which utilize the S-line have
14 (Alternative A), 15
(Alternative B), and 11
(Alternative C) public park
areas respectively. Tier II
study and analysis will allow
for greater consideration of
localized impacts and need
for avoidance or mitigation as
more specific route
alignments are determined.
2. The State Comprehensive 2. Please refer to responses to
Outdoor Recreation Plan has #1 and #4. Also, this track
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-21

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


(Comment Numbe

County/ State/private funds

Topic: have been expended
Community amounting to millions of dollars
to develop this area and the
proposed S-line will run
through the middle of this area,
This situation must be studied
carefully.
39 RIC-008 |The Town Council of Ashland, VA Refer to response provided for
Topic: [highlights interests to the community. |comment number 37 CAR-013.
Community |The concerns are: sound and noise

vibration levels, barrier effect,
aesthetics, compatibility with
community goals, safety at grade
crossings, mobility and accessibilit

Topic: Cos

40

The document does

mtrak is assumed to be the

AGE-011 not define who
Topic: ill be the project operator, but we loperator in that they are the only
Cost lassume it will be Amtrak. If this is the |entity with statutory authority
case, Amtrak's cost guidelines may bejrequiring the underlying railroad
relevant and should be included in the companies to work with them. Amtrak
\document. Also, the required subsidy |cost factors were used in calculating
ersus system revenue generation _ {the net operating contribution (see
should likewise be presented. |Table 2.17) which measures
tential income or loss
41 | AGE-011 [Purpose and Need: While this is not [The Tier | (program level) document
Topic: jan actual proposal to fund the laddresses the purpose, the need, the
Cost construction of the project, there was potential regional impacts, the
Ino data on what constitutes a viable {general route, and comparisons to
(cost-effective) rail project by the FTA |other travel options. Economic
lor the FRA. This information should bejinformation is included in the
included in the document, since it is document as a factor in alternative
probably in the feasibility studies evaluations (see Table 2.17), and in
referenced in the DEIS. [Chapter 1 of this Tier | FEIS in the
business analysis The preferred
lalternatives shown in this document
show a positive net income
contribution using conservative
ridership estimates
42 | AGE-012 jl also have acomment about the 10 {Ten million dollars is discussed twice
Topic: illion discussed in the background. _|in the background data. First in the
Cost Factoring in additional riderships for irginia initiatives referring to the

Alternative C should not have resulted
lin additional conceptual capital cost.
\These costs had already been
\determined and would not have been
laffected by the ridership adjustment.

RE-related capital improvements.
This is in the RF&P portion of the
corridors that is common to all
lalternatives. A second reference is to
‘over $9 million” in the North Carolina
initiatives. This refers to the sealed-
corridor program used for crossing
safety improvements throughout

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-27



Response

Topic:
Community

4. The line traverses some major
Civil War Battlefields identified
as such by the National Park
Service. The Board of
Supervisors has endorsed the
Park Service’s Battlefield
Epicenter Plan (October 2001)
and is in the process of
reflecting this action in the
update of the County’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan

. The numbers of National

properties that might be
acquired will be more
thoroughly defined during the
Tier I! environmental process.
In addition, information would
need to be gathered about
the properties and occupants
and relocation benefits and
sites would be specified. All
persons whose property is
acquired or who are displaced!
as a result of a Federal or
Federally-assisted project are
ensured of fair, consistent,
and equitable treatment
through the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 and the
Uniform Relocations Act
Amendments of 1987. State
rules and regulations
regarding property acquisition
would also apply.

Register Historic Sites and
Study List Historic Sites
located within a 1,500-foot
study buffer (which equates to]
a total width of approximately
0.5 mile) were identified for
each Study Area Alternative
in the Tier | DEIS. The current
number of National Register
Historic Sites range from 333
in Alternatives A, B, D, and E
fo 291 in Alternative J. The
existing number of Study List
Historic Sites ranged from
168 in Alternative G and H to
58 in Alternative C. The |
highest combined number of
National Register and Study
List Historic Sites, estimated
at 498, are located within
Alternatives D and E while the
least number, estimated at
362, are located within
Alternative C. Future
evaluation in Tier II will
involve the identification of
historic and architectural

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-23



additional track) is lacking. Some

cross-sectional diagrams with widths
ould certainly help.

jthe entire corridor. It is anticipated
the right of way width would typically
ary from 100 to 200 feet. In some
lareas where commuter, freight, and
passenger rail coexist, six or more
racks may be required. In other
lareas as few as two lines would be
ladequate. For the most part,
ladditional right-of-way would only be
Ineeded to accommodate necessary
lcurve straightening.

74

AGE-012
Topic:
Design

[Even though Alternative C is shown as}
having the fastest average travel time
lbetween Washington, DC and
(Charlotte of 6.20 hours, | don’t
lunderstand why it is only .03 of an
hour faster than Alternative A, the
current preferred alternative and the
lalternative closest to Alternative C.
IFrom Petersburg to Charlotte,
Alternative A has potentially up to
three more stops than does
Alternative C. How much time does it
ake for only one stop? Alternative C is|
lalso 20 miles shorter in length than
Alternative A. Taking these things into
consideration, | would think that
Alternative C should be more likely .30
lof an hour faster rather than .03 of an
hour.

ALT A and ALT C both use the S
Line north of Raleigh to Richmond,
las well as the same route between
Richmond and Washington DC, the
divergence in ALT A and ALT C’s
routes occurs only between Raleigh
land Charlotte. Between Washington
IDC and Richmond VA it is assumed
lboth ALT A and ALT C trains will
Imake an average of two stops with
Ino difference in travel times between
the Alternatives. Between Richmond
‘A and Raleigh NC it is assumed
both ALT A and ALT C trains will
stop in Petersburg and two of the
four daily frequencies will also stop in
Henderson NC producing no
difference in travel times between the
Alternatives.

[This changes dramatically in Raleigh,
IALT A trains proceed west over the
INCRR with potential stops in seven
intermediate communities. There will
lbe eight daily one way frequencies
jover this 174 mile NCRR route
segment. It is assumed for estimation)
lpurposes that two express trains will
stop only in Durham and
Greensboro, while the other six trains)
ill make a maximum of four
intermediate stops with each en
route community being served at
least three times a day in each
direction.

IALT C trains travel between Raleigh
and Charlotte over a 154 mile
lsegment of CSXT and ACWR. For
planning purposes it is assumed that
three trains stop at Cary and
‘Sanford, and three trains make a

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-36


Comment

‘e should now consider bus

Thank you for your comment. \

Topic: |commuter systems for Forsyth, have been and plan to continue to
Alternative \Guilford, and Davidson Counties tied |coordinate with the Piedmont
lin to the chosen rail route. When Authority for Regional Transportation
evaluations are made for 2010/2020- (PART) and their efforts in planning
passenger rail service, these counties jand implementing regional
should have cooperatively developed |transportation programs for the Triad,
their commuter traffic potential. As a
[testimonial to commuter choices other
than highway congestion “road wars”,
ICATS vans are parked in Lexington
grocery lots today. If commuters will
ride a bus to Charlotte, why not more
so to Triad cities and PTI airport? With
construction costs for rail at $5.5
million and highways at $12 million pen
mile now, the use of modern rail
service will be even more cost
effective and advantageous in the
future. Plus economic development
ill be boosted in the Triad by the best
overall transportation system.
26 | SOU-007 ould like a station/stop at LaCrosse, Thank you for your comment. Station
Topic: irginia. stops have not yet been determined.
Alternative See response 17 HEN-20. |
27 | SOU-009 it is my opinion that this project should/Your proposal is interesting but we
Topic: _|merge with the Government and lare unable to evaluate it as a part of
Alternative implement my idea of a land-saving, __|this study. Present technology for
highway semi-truck accident reducing, |building an underground system is
lemissions controlling, overall advance |cost prohibitive for the benefit
iin transportation utilizing these routes |received during our planning horizon.
ith an underground freight See response 13 GRE-05
jtransportation and passenger
transportation. A machine can be
made to bore under the highway and
lay tunnels and tracks simultaneously.
[There will be no railroad crossings for
this high speed service, less semi-
trucks on the roads, and less buses
land vehicles. The cost for this style
ould be more expensive but the lives
saved far outweigh any price.
28 | SPR-020 [Don’t try to save a buck by avoiding _| This Tier | FEIS identifies as
Topic: —|\major population areas like Winston-  |preferred Alternatives A&B which
Alternative |Salem. In the long run it will be better jincludes a connection to Winston-
to include them (unless existing ‘Salem.
lsystems will tie into SEHSR).
29 SPR-030_ |Make train stations downtown, not in a|Station locations have not yet been
Topic: _ [rural area like Richmond. determined. However, historically
Alternative downtown stations have been the

mainstays of inter-city rail travel both
lin America and Europe.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-18



Comment _

Alternative A were chosen the
following issues would need to be
addressed "....

229

PET-006
Topic:
Summary

IPage 1 through 35? (Matrices)

Pages 1-35 of the document do
contain a number of matrices, which
lare designed to provide the reader
with a tabular summary of the vast
material that is presented in the
\document. The details by which
these matrices were developed are
included in the chapters of the

Topic:

echnology

\document.

230

Magnetic levitation technology

RIC-025 ‘ou mentioned the magnetic levitation
Topic: _|technology wasn’t quite feasible at this|(Maglev) feasibility is a combination
Technology |point. What is that going to mean for of cost, system reliability, and
this corridor when that technology integration with existing modes of
ldoes come to be in the next 10 years? transportation. The high cost
ould we be starting over? Is it going (approximately $39-85 million per
ito be a higher upgrade? route mile), lack of currently
loperating systems, and the
proprietary guideway make its
implementation an unlikely solution
ito the transportation problems in the
Southeast Corridor.
Any implementation of Maglev would
lbe “starting over” due to the
proprietary nature of the guideway
lsystem.
231 | SPR-021 (Use existing steel rail technology. The [Thank you for your comment.
Topic: cost for securing ROW for “maglev’ is
Technology |cost prohibitive. Existing “Talgo”

technology is excellent. Don’t try to
reinvent the wheel since the
Europeans already have excellent

itrain systems.
eS : Topic: Tier Il

232

Ri
Topic:
Tier Il
Topic:
Tier Il

Tier | study now, the
higher review. You are moving to the
Tier Il study beginning next year
(2002). Tier Il is also environmental?

. Following this Tier | FEIS, a
\determination will be made by the
transportation departments of

irginia and North Carolina whether
[to move forward to implement a high
speed rail program through both
states. If the decision is made to
move forward with a build alternative,
ithe states will work together to
develop a final rail plan that is
consistent with the Tier | FEIS
[Record of Decision. This final plan
would identify the specific actions
Ineeded to fully implement high speed|

rail in North Carolina and Virginia.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-90


Response
ithe Piedmont Triad Region.
et pic: Safety oe
187 | AGE-018 Se All train operations on CSX he SEHSR shares this commitment
Topic: |property must be conducted with a fo safety. With proper SEHSR
Safety [paramount commitment to safety. To |investment in signaling,
that end, we believe that any mixed communications, passing sidings,
lpassenger-freight train operations land additional tracks, mixed freight
ishould not operate at speeds land high speed passenger rail
lexceeding 90 mph on tracks owned byjservice (to 110 mph maximum) can
ICSX. Separate and dedicated lines _|share tracks. Cooperation and
lcould achieve higher speeds. We also |commitment to safety by all parties
believe that the elimination of grade ould be required for safe operation
crossings is a major issue that needs of all services.
|to be addressed in a comprehensive [Elimination of highway-railroad at-
manner prior to the initiation of high rade crossing hazards is essential
speed service. fo safe high speed rail operations.
(Conceptual capital improvements for
lhe SEHSR grade-separates
lhighway-railroad crossings where
possible, installs quad gates, or
lconsolidates/closes at-grade
crossings. Most crossings are
lupgraded in the conceptual capital
improvements.
188 | DUR-002 |A high speed rail through downtown he conceptual capital improvements}
Topic: |Durham raises concerns about jto the high speed rail corridor provide}
Safety _ |safety... safe access across railroad right-of-
ay. Impacts to specific properties
lcannot be determined in a program
level study.
189 | DUR-004 |My house is close to the tracks now. [Thank you for your comment. During
Topic: With HSR running 110mph itis not jthe Tier II studies all planning efforts
Safety _|safe for me or my family. ill be made to provide a safe
transportation system both for the
riders and for those located near the
system.
190] DUR-017 |In light of safety concerns, will the Tier/Any Tier I] study would provide
Topic: _ ||l study determine the method by further detail of highway-railroad
Safety hich the trains will come through crossings and associated
\downtown? At grade? Via a tunnel? improvements. Specific construction
ia a “ditch” like in Gastonia, NC? Imethods cannot be determined ina
rogram level study.
191] RAL-007 {there are going to be some problems iffThe SEHSR conceptual capital
Topic: ‘ou try to cross over the track when a jimprovements limit these problems
Safety {train is coming by grade separating crossings, by
installing quad gates to limit access
to crossings, or by
consolidating/closing at-grade
crossings. See response 189 DUR-
(004
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-77

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



Response::

comments were received as a
lof the Tier | DEIS public hearing
process. Public comments were
reviewed and analyzed to determine
ithe public’s preferences of study
larea alternatives. Thirty-nine
comments expressed a study area
lalternative preference, favoring
IStudy Area Alternatives A and B.
About 83 percent of the comments
lon the DEIS were favorably disposed
ito the overall proposed SEHSR
project. Only one percent of the
commenting public opposed the
roject.

157 | PET-010
Topic:

Other

ls there a possibility one (copy of the
DEIS) could be at the city?

[The DEIS was made available to the
lpublic and other interested parties at
18 locations, coinciding with public
hearing sites. In Petersburg, the
IDEIS is available for review at the
(Crater Planning District Commission,
1964 Wakefield Street, Petersburg,
\VA. An additional copy was provided
to Petersburg City so that the DEIS
lcould also be viewed at a city office.

158| RIC-023
Topic:

Other

At the equivalent hearing here in
Richmond a year ago, more or less, |
commented about the need to
consider Hampton Roads. And | know
hat if | - if | read it correctly, there
as no opportunity for Hampton
Roads’ participation in this process,
lsay for the possibility that they might
come to Emporia or Petersburg. Is
[Harnpton Roads, which is a defined
corridor, part of this process?

[The US Department of
[Transportation designated the
‘Southeast High Speed Rail
(SEHSR) corridor in 1992. The
designation identified Washington,
IDC, Richmond, VA, Raleigh, NC, and
Charlotte, NC as the major urban
lareas to be connected. The SEHSR
corridor has been extended to
include Hampton Roads VA, as well
las South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
jand would connect the Northeast
(Corridor, the southeast, and the gulf
coast. For the purpose of this
[Environmental Impact Statement,
Inine SEHSR Study Area Alternatives
lalong the 500-mile corridor from
ashington DC through Richmond,
ICA and Raleigh, NC to Charlotte,
INC, were selected for review. High
speed rail service to Hampton Roads
lis being considered under a separate
study being undertaken by the state
lof Virginia .

159 | SAN-002
Topic:

Other

here would we get most of
opposition?

A total of 784 comments were
received as a result of the Tier | DEIS)
public hearing process. A review of
these comments shows 650

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-62


Response

ao

refers to comment, which says “The
‘extent of residential relocations
defined in Table 4.38 is notable and
Ineeds explanation since the
lassumption is that the SEHSR would
loccupy existing ROW. “)

done as a part of the conceptual
lengineering effort on the project to
identify existing conditions within the
railroad rights of way and in areas

here we may have need to go
loutside of the rights of way. This
information was also needed to be
lable to develop credible order of
Imagnitude capital cost estimates,

hich were also a part of the
evaluation criteria.

Noise and vibration analysis, and air
quality analysis, require modeling
that is beyond the scope of a
program level document. The more
detailed noise and vibration and air
quality analysis will be done during
ithe Tier Il documentation when
lanalyses of specific alignments and
designs are considere

ful “Topic: ‘Air Quality.

[The half million pounds of toxins

3 WIL-008 Looking at the impacts of the
Topic: emissions that are to be generated —|(NOx) is the amount removed from
Air Quality {from the trains going through the area the environment by use of trains,
lhas there been any consideration or | |based on the number of trips diverted
should say, | hope there will be rom auto to rail. This is a positive net
consideration and further to the air _[benefit to air quality.
quality issue that Raleigh contends
With. | think they have the highest air
quality problem in the country at
present. So just looking at the fact that
the tables indicate that we may have
half a million pounds of toxins going
into the air from the trains traveling
jthrough the state would be considered
at some point.
: i = Topic: Alternative =
4 AGE-011 “Table 2. 10 and 2.11: Please update |The information provided in this
Topic: _ |these tables. The 1295/64 flyover is | |comment has been incorporated in
Alternative \complete, not planned. The Dulles ithe respective tables via errata
Airport expansion is underway, not _|sheets. These tables will be updated
planned e.g. the underground further and as needed during any
alkway. future Tier Il environmental
Idocumentation that may result from
ithe Tier | Record of Decision.
5 AGE-011 |Table 4,29: To a non-railroad engineerTable 4.29 graphs the potential daily
Topic: _ {this table is unreadable. Please schedule conflicts between high
Alternative \explain in the text and in the table speed rail and commuter rail in the
legend how to interpret this table or _|congested corridor between
remove it if it doesn't add much useful |Fredericksburg, Va. and Washington,
information. D.C. The information contained in
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-10

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


Comment

lof scarce funds.

[The projected decrease in revenues
lappears overstated. A 30,000 drop in
ridership shows a $5.1 million drop in
revenues. How much are you valuing
leach rider? This would amount to
close to $150,000 per ticket.

60 SPR-004 |The cost of commuting maybe a [The fare for the proposed SEHSR
Topic: concern for citizens residing in certain |service is planned to be competitively
Cost areas of the alternative routes. priced to make it attractive to
potential riders. It should be noted
that this is a proposed intercity
passenger rail project rather that a
commuter or transit project.
61 | SPR-005 |How much federal funding isin the {Congress has not specified the level
Topic: orks? lof federal funding for the SEHSR as
Cost lof the publication of this document
62 | SPR-006 [Although we haven't talked about [Federal funds were appropriated for
Topic: funding yet for this part, was the ithe construction and operation of the
Cost northern section ~ was there federal Northeast High Speed Passenger
Imoney for the D.C. to Boston? Rail Service.
63 | SPR-018 |How are the net operating income was|The net operating income or loss is
Topic: derived? Are non ticket revenue items |the result of subtracting annual
Cost included? loperating expenses from annual
ticket revenues. Expected revenues
are also included from non-ticket
items including food and beverage
services.
64 | WIL-008 what are the expectations if known for |See response to comment number
Topic: — |local share of the contribution to the 49 HEN-002.
Cost loverall project
65 | WIN-003 |Cost/Funding should be 75% from RR |The exact funding ratio for the
Topic: _|and the rest from Winston-Salem. proposed SEHSR has not been
Cost \determined. Cost and funding
iscenarios would be refined during
the next phases of project
development
241] WIN-243 ((D) the US Treasury Dept. had over [Thank you for your comment. See
Topic: wo trillion dollars in surplus, until the |response 65 WIN-003 above
Cost 9/11 disaster, for a source of money
for this work,
66 | WIN-267_ |The future potential growth of ridership/Table 2.17 indicates a reduction in
Topic: ill be higher by including Winston- _|ridership of approximately 40,000
Cost Salem rather than by passing the city. with an increase in revenue of

lapproximately $2 million. The only
[‘drop” occurs in net operating income
ith a reduction of approximately $1
million. The increased expenses of
ladding the mileage and stop to
service Winston-Salem reduce net
operating income.

_ Topic: Cultural Res

67

AGE-001
Topic:
Cultural
Resources

le recommend that a Memorandum
lof Agreement be completed for the
project in order to outline procedures
for dealing with cultural resource
issues

[Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires Federal
lagencies to take into account the
leffects of their undertakings on
historic properties. The NCDOT and

ithe VDRPT would identify historic

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-33


Col

otal for Alternative C is significantly
lower than for the other alternatives.

‘et, if | am a current, or potentially,
Inew rider north of Petersburg, and my
destination was to at least Raleigh,
Alternative C would be chosen. It is
ithe shortest and it has the fewest
stops, potentially only one south of
Petersburg. It seems to me that for the
current totals to be accurate, the
majority of trip diversions would have
[to come south of Petersburg. In my
lopinion, the majority of trip diversions

ill come from north of Petersburg
(Richmond, DC, etc.). So, | would
think that Alternative C would have the|
highest total for trip diversion rather
than the lowest.

lin revenue between the two options
demonstrates that intermediate point
ridership is greater on Alternative A
than Alternative C and that
Alternative C must rely more heavily
jon end point travel between Raleigh
land Charlotte for riders and
revenues. Similarly the trip diversions|
lattributed to Alternative C are less
jthan for Alternative A because
Alternative C’s route has a smaller
population base, serves no
significant en route communities
between Raleigh and Charlotte and
therefore has less potential to cause
Ichanges in modal choices.

highway system. Following the
interstates and the local major
thoroughfares opens the commuter to

168 | AGE-012 |Table 2.17 in the Draft Tier | EIS Bypassing large communities such
Topic: _ |shows the operational and physical jas Durham, Burlington, Greensboro
Ridership |characteristics summary information jand High Point puts Alternative C at
for the study area alternatives. The _a distinct disadvantage in generating
numbers for Alternative C are ridership and revenues when
lunusually low for annual ridership, net [compared to Alternative A, as well as
loperating income, and trip diversions, |all of the other alternatives that do
hen compared to the others. These |not use the southern route of the
jare three important categories in ACWR. In addition, there is a 28
\determining the preferred alternative. {minute difference in travel times
[The only reason for these differences Ilbetween the fastest trains in
lcan come up with is the additional Alternative C and the slowest trains
riderships that would be picked up by |in Alternative A between Raleigh and
fall of the other alternatives on the (Charlotte. The time difference
EIRPS lines south of Petersburg that [between the fastest trains on each
Alternative C has separated from and llroute is 18 minutes and the
don’t believe that would explain it fully. |difference for the multistop trains
aries from 18 to 23 minutes. The
revenue, ridership and operating cost
forecasts were derived using these
ischedule patterns and not the
laverage trip times shown in Table
2.17.
169} DUR-025 [In your calculations of annual trip It does include trips in between
Topic: diversions, are you estimating only —_ {Charlotte and Washington.
Ridership |trips between Charlotte and DC or
does it include stops in between?
170 | GRE-004 | If | want to build a transit system hile use of the interstate system
Topic: —|\designed for maximum use/ridership, liinitially appears to present some
Ridership \would follow the current interstate potential advantages, it also presents

some very serious challenges,
primary of which is where in the
interstate right of way do we place

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-69


Comment “

Topic:
Ridership

7 lof my
ridership. Using the current path of thelreference.

es is to maximize

rail lines will do very little to promote
ridership. | therefore am curious as to
hy you are seriously studying such a
line. Can you explain? And to that
lend, | am offering you a copy of my
Imap laying out the NC/triad area lines
for your study. Please let me know if
‘ou are interested. As | said, | think
‘ou will find the map compelling in
terms of potential ridership, 30 year
loperating costs, increased public
confidence in mass transit as an
lalternative to the car, safety, etc.

the kind of cost numbers you

'e are not aware of any long
\distance, urban, commuter line haul
Imonorail systems with which to
evaluate your proposed concept.

Our initial ridership and revenue
projections are strong and most of
ithe proposed alternatives with the
lexception of a few segments
generally serve the population
centers. Census data from 1990 to
1999 shows that the metropolitan
lareas along the proposed SEHSR
corridor experienced rapid population
growth. The Washington, DC-MD-
NVA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) grew 12.2%, the Richmond-
Petersburg, VA MSA grew 111.1%,
fine Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
IMSA grew 28.8%, the Greensboro-

inston-Salem-High Point, NC MSA
grew 12.3%, and the Charlotte-
IGastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA
lgrew 22.0% during that period. The
population within the Richmond to

ashington portion of the study area

lis expected to grow from about 2.8
million in 1990 to more than 3.5
million in 2014. Approximately one-
lhalf of North Carolina's population
lies within the “Piedmont Crescent”
corridor between Raleigh and
(Charlotte. In addition, the population
lin the Piedmont Crescent is expected}
to grow over one-third in the next 20

ears and by over 50% in the next 30)

ears. The population within the
North Carolina urban corridor
represented by Raleigh-Durham-
(Chapel Hill, Greensboro-High Point-

inston Salem, and Charlotte-

Kannapolis is expected to increase
lby 36 percent between 1990 and
2010. Thus the population centers in
jthe region should be well served by
jhe proposed SEHSR alternatives.

171

GRE-010
Topic:
Ridership

For this project to be viable, the route
must run through Greensboro (and
lmaybe Winston-Salem) in order to

Six of the nine SEHSR alternatives
lunder consideration serve the
Piedmont Triad area. Of those six all

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-71



‘Response

lattract p. Itis inconceivable _
that 1.2 million people would be
bypassed.

nd |

ould serve Greensboro directly
hree would serve Winston-Salem
directly.

172 | GRE-020 [Please provide: Impact as a [The proposed SEHSR service is
Topic: percentage of the proposed system onlanticipated to impact the travel
Ridership |highway & air travel projected out to _|corridor by diverting trips from auto
2025 land air, and by producing some
induced travel (additional trips that
individuals would not otherwise
make), thus improving overall
mobility within the travel corridor. By
12025, the proposed SEHSR service
lis projected to divert up to 779,500
{trips from the highway and 278,700
from air and result in up to 52,950
induced trips.
173| GRE-020 [Please provide: impact of true high  |See response to comment number
Topic: speed and elevated rail along the 170 GRE-020. We have no
Ridership (interstates would have on highway _ [information on elevated rail along the
land road travel to 2025 interstate system.
174] RAL-014 |The plans should be flexible enough to/Your comment is noted. The
Topic: _ provide high frequency service — at or |proposed SEHSR is being designed
Ridership |near the levels of the northeast to connect with the Northeast
corridor. Conservative ridership corridor to provide a high level of
lestimates are fine for this process, butitrain service for the east coast. While!
the capital expenses and operating lhe SEHSR is being proposed for
expenses should be at a higher level incremental development, the goal is
of frequency. he provision of a viable, attractive
modal travel option to help create a
lbalanced transportation system. The
lexpense of providing service
frequencies comparable to those of
he NEC would be premature for the
service being proposed and studied
for the SEHSR corridor.
175 | ROA-013 hy don't the railroads concentrate e cannot speak for the railroads
Topic: |more on developing the freight traffic |nor do we know their specific long
Ridership |rather than the passenger traffic. If we|term plans for action. The concept for]

lcould develop a rail system that took
lover even 50% of the freight that now
travels by trucks on the highway then
lour highways would be back where
they used to be for the passenger
cars.

ithe development of passenger rail
service is not being sponsored by the|
railroads. The proposed Southeast
High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project is
part of a plan by USDOT to develop
la nationwide high speed rail network.

Authorization for a program of
national high speed rail corridors was|
included in the Intermodal Surface
[Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA-PL102-240, Section 1036)

land continued in the Transportation

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-72



m t

required. We also share Norfolk
Southern's views regarding "net
loperating income" from the project.
hile this is not clearly defined in the
draft, we assume that the proponents
lexpect to make some amount of profit
from the operations. We have looked
lat passenger operations throughout
tthe world, and to the best of our
knowledge there is not a single
loperation that makes a profit when
capital costs are factored into rates of
return.

Capital costs are not operating
lexpenses, but long-term
investments. Maintenance and
replacement of capital improvements
lare included in operating costs.

48

GRE-004
Topic:
Cost

lor build on the surface a whole new
set of tracks to handle an Acela or a
Imag lev train? You may as well
compare that to taking advantage of
he highway corridors to understand
the differences. What about
jautomation vs. having to man each
train? How does that cost compare?
hat about 30 year operating
numbers? At the end of the day, | am
lextremely concerned that if we follow
ithe path of the current rails, and if we
\decide to use surface rail whether
regular or high speed, or if we decide
jthe whole high speed line must be
elevated and we still follow the current
rail lines, we end up with a system
costing far more over a 30 year period
lof operation as compared to a
Imonorail system built from the outset
jalong the highway corridors and major
thorough fares.

[How much is it going to cost to elevate!

(An Acela (electrified high speed rail
lsystem) would cost approximately 9
to 10 million dollars per route mile to
lconstruct. Maglev technology is
estimated to cost approximately $39-
85 million per route mile to
implement. Automated train
technology has seen rapid
ladvancements recently, but the
ladvancements apply to light rail
{transit and freight yard operations.
Implementing an automated train
isystem requires automation
lequipment installation on both public
land private sector equipment. This
lalso requires a central control of train
itraffic since multiple freight
companies operate within the same
region. See response 13 GRE-05.

49

HEN-002
Topic:
Cost

hat would be the cost if any to
county residents? Cost from
|Henderson to Raleigh?

Funding for the high speed rail
project would be from federal and
state funds. Counties and cities
ould not fund improvements nor
lsubsidize operations for this
passenger rail service.

[The costs of specific improvements
have not been determined for this
program level document. Only
lconceptual capital costs for each
lalternative were developed for
comparison purposes. Specific costs
ican only be determined with more
\detailed design, which will be
prepared during the Tier I! studies.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-30


leveryday commuters; whereas the
rural areas would become more
lattractive to economic development.
Alternative H will exacerbate the gulf
between the “haves” and “have-nots”.
[Thanks for listening.

“ Jpublic hearing and public input

revenues for both
Carolina.

[The Southeastern Economic Alliance
(SEA), a Coalition of thirteen
Ichambers of Cornmerce from across
lsix Southeastern states, cite that the
loverall investments in capital and
loperation expenses in the proposed
[Southeast corridor improvements
lare estimated to return $2.54 in
benefits for every dollar invested
creating a positive impact on the
region. The rural communities are
lexpected to share in this benefit.
[However the evaluation factors used
to compare the alternatives were not
eighted, but input from the DEIS

received throughout the project has
lbeen summarized and considered in
[the evaluation process.

203

CHA-010
Topic:
Socio-

economic

hat will happen to our businesses.
What about noise and vibration.

During the Tier II studies, the specific|
lbusinesses that would be affected by
[the SEHSR would be identified and
the types of impacts would be
\determined, including potential noise
land vibration impacts and means to
mitigate these impacts.

lf your business would be acquired
land you would have to relocate, you
‘ould be ensured of fair, consistent
land equitable treatment through the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and
IReal Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public law 91-646) and
the Uniform Relocations Act
(Amendments of 1987 (Public law
100-17). The Uniform Act contains
specific requirements that govern the
Imanner in which a government entity
lacquires property for public use. The
llaw is designed to ensure just
compensation for all acquired
properties and minimal impact on the
lcurrent owners and lessees.

204

CHA-011
Topic:
Socio-

economic

(Am | going to have to move? Will | be

lcompensated for the price of my

lbusiness? What about noise and
ibration?

‘See Response to comment number
(203 CHA-010 above.

205

DUR-002
Topic:

IA high speed rail through downtown
Durham raises concerns about...

[The potential impacts of a high

speed rail through downtown

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-82


Table 3-3
Virginia Comment Numbers by Location and Topic

Subject

Loc sd Lg |

Design |_77 | FRE-006
Petersburg

(Community 38 PET-004
(Cost 50 PET-001
51 PET-011

Design 81 PET-005
82 PET-012

83 PET-014

Natural Resources 127 __| PET-002
INoise/Vibration 136__| PET-003
(Other 142 | PET-009
Proposed Action 147__| PET-011
Public Involvement 157__| PET-010
[Socio-economic 210 | PET-013

Summary

2ichm: :

Alternative RIC-014
RIC-019

RIC-024

[Community RIC-008
Cost RIC-001
RIC-002

RIC-003

RIC-004

Design RIC-021
RIC-022

RIC-031

Infrastructure RIC-020
RIC-027

111 RIC-028

Land Use 119 | RIC-018
Public Involvement 158 | RIC-023
Safety 192 | RIC-016
‘Schedule 199 | RIC-029
Technology 230 _| RIC-025
Tier Il 232 __| RIC-002
is on th Hill oe
Alternative 26 | SOU-007
27__|SOU-009

[Socio-economic 214 |SOU

ocation: Springfie! |

Alternative 28 SPR-020
29 SPR-030

30 SPR-032

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC!
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



[Hazardous Materials STA-005

INoise/Vibration STA-002

STA-005

(Other STA-014

Safety STA-005

STA-012

STA-013

[Socio-economic STA-003
ae ocation: Wi i

Air Quality WIL-008

Alternative 34 WIL-012

(Cost 64 WIL-008

Environmental Justice 97 WIL-015

Natural Resources 130 | WIL-008

Proposed Action 152 _| WIL-009

153 | WIL-014

Ridership 185 _| WIL-011

[Socio-economic 219 | WIL-008
Location: Winston-Sale :

Alternative 35 WIN-217

239 | WIN-243

240 | WIN-243

242 | WIN-248

36 WIN-250

Cost 65 WIN-003

241 | WIN-243

66 WIN-267

Proposed Action 154 | WIN-246

Ridership 186__| WIN-266

‘Socio-economic 220 | WIN-001

221 __| WIN-008

222 _| WIN-020

223 _| WIN-024

224 | WIN-025

225 _| WIN-237

238 | WIN-243

226 _| WIN-343

ater Resources 235 | WIN-006

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


Res

coe

“30

~ SPR-032

Use

ISR as the core line to ISEHSR is proposed to be a part of
Topic: _|connect major population locations. _ fan integrated transportation system
Alternative |Use regional, slower speed trains to _ for the southeastern region. The
connect smaller cities to SEHSR. lproposed service would be designed
ito work cooperatively and effectively
ith other modes providing the
Imaximum mobility options for the
lsystem user.
31 SPR-036 || recommend maximum interchange |See response to comment number
Topic: ith airports-travel between the 30 SPR-032.
Alternative |modes should be seamless, not
lcompetitive.
32 | SPR-042 |And how many cities, more or less? In|Station stops have not yet been
Topic: _ jother words, how many stops? And | |determined. For the purpose of this
Alternative \say more or less. | mean I’m not trying|study, it was assumed that all
to pin you down ona final number. _ stations currently served by Amtrak
ell, what it comes down to is the ould continue to be served. See
Inumber of stops impinges or affects response 17 HEN-20
our average speed or your travel
time. In other words, every time you
stop, there are X amount of minutes
llost in accelerating and decelerating,
plus the standing time in the station.
Amtrak is figuring that out up there in
[that Boston to New York run.
33 | SPR-043 ‘as consideration given to marketing [The SEHSR is an intercity passenger;
Topic: as a potential commuter rail between [rail service with appropriate service
Alternative [Richmond and Washington? frequencies. Commuter rail service
requires a much higher frequency of
service. Therefore, the SEHSR was
inot considered a potential cornmuter
service in any service area.
34 WIL-012 hy not examine route link between [The SEHSR study identifies the A-
Topic: _|Raleigh and Rocky Mount via direct __ line from Centralia, VA to Selma, NC
Alternative |route or Raleigh to Wilson via a direct jand the NCRR from Selma, NC to
route? Eliminate Selma and shorten |Charlotte, NC as the study corridor.
route from Raleigh to Richmond. (These two routes are not within the
study corridor based on the findings
lof earlier feasibility studies.
35 | WIN-217 |The building of more highways has not\See the response regarding monorail
Topic: _ |satisfied or created more efficient lin comment number 13 GRE-005.
Alternative |means of moving people. The costs

for moving people should be directed
linto efficient rail and highway
construction. The examples of more
highways can be seen in the I-40, I-85
and US-52 that has caused
lcongestion and fatal accidents. It

ould seem to me that on existing
highways such as I-40, I-85, I-77 and
|US-52 that the development of
monorail systems to run over these

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



Table 3-4

Substantive Comments and Responses by Topic

Comment

Topic: 4 (f)

1 RAL-007

Topic:
4()

triangle Land Conservancy

urchased a track of about 500 acres
in Lee County in October of 2001 with

joney from the North Carolina Clean

later Management Trust Fund. The

ite includes an indoor iron furnace,

hich is a 30-foot high iron furnace
hat was used before the Civil War
land is a site of great historical
significance. The Triangle Land
(Conservancy (TLC) will transfer the
land to the state of North Carolina.
(The plan is to open the furnace apart
leventually. The southern route, as
proposed, will pass through this
property. Because the land is not yet al
park, the preliminary assessment did
inot identify this land as a park so that
did not factor into the assessment. |

ould like to strongly applaud the
development of mass transit between
North Carolina and Metropolitan areas
particularly rail. | would urge you to
continue your efforts in developing the
rail alternatives in North Carolina. But
lwould urge you all to consider strongly
Inot using a southern route because of
lits adverse impacts on the triangle
land conservancy site.

[Thank you for this information, it will
lbe added to our inventory of parks
for future reference. Impacts to this
resource have been avoided through
the choice of Alternatives A and B for
ithe preferred routing (neither A nor B
lutilize this corridor)

“Topic: Air Quali

AGE-011
Topic:
Air Quality

If this level of detail is available on this’
icriterion (residential locations), why is
there not similar detail on the air
quality (and noise) impacts? (This

(The resident Ins were on
ithe footprint of the conceptual design
las identified from limited field
lobservation and mapping. This was

SEHSR Washington,

DC to Charlotte, NC

3-9

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


Topic:
Tier Il

Following development of the final
rail plan, the appropriate Tier II
lenvironmental studies (project level)
ould be performed for those
specific actions. A decision on the
itype of Tier Il environmental
ldocumentation to be prepared would
lalso be made at that time. The Tier II
studies could include any of the
following of three types of
lenvironmental documents based
lupon 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)

= Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) for projects,
where it is known that the
action could have significant
environmental effect.

\USDOT (FHWA and FRA)
environmental regulations and
procedures [23CFR 771.117 (c and
d) and 64 FR 28545] list potential
actions that meet the criteria for CE
\documentation.

The Tier II studies would be detailed
lin nature, as appropriate to the
action, and would continue the public
involvement effort already begun in
ithis first Tier. These detailed
lenvironmental analyses will assess
ithe environmental impacts of each
laction and identify ways to avoid,
minimize and mitigate impacts. The
state transportation departments and
Federal Agencies would use the Tier

|| studies to determine the exact

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

3-91

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


laccess to the servi id to make
sure that we can maintain the
projected speed of the service. If
SR stops too often it would not be
lable to reach and maintain the high
speed for which it is designed.

Due to the public input from the
[Henderson area we are aware of the
potential positive benefits that are
lanticipated for your area. All of this
linformation would be more carefully
lexamined and supplemented during
any Tier II studies.

lextremely important aspect of the
leconomy in this county. If we bypass
this town (Roanoke Rapids) with high-
speed rail, then how much is that
itraffic (is) the passengers and the
lpeople who now drive I-85 and spend
ithe night in Roanoke Rapids? How
lmany of those are going to go
zooming by (to) the next stop in Rocky}
Mount?

208| HEN-016 ould efforts to enhance commercial |Any enhancement effort would be
Topic: _|\development around the local stations |developed cooperatively with the
Socio- [be part of this project? representatives of the local
economic communities and businesses along
the proposed. Any Tier Il studies
ould examine potential
lopportunities for economic.
209) HEN-020 ould this project bring any new jobs |See response to comment number
Topic: ito Vance County? 202 CAR-012 above.
Socio-
economic
210) PET-013 (Under your exhibit ES-6, under all the [See response to comment number
Topic: alternatives, there seem to be 201 AGE-011.
Socio- _ {relocations for residential and
economic |business use. But if the railroad is
\going to be using existing rights-of-
ay, why do business and residents
have to be relocated?
211 | ROA-013 (That) while putting passengers on thelAt this point in time we are unable to
Topic: {trains is a great thing, and | love to _ determine the potential impact of the
Socio- _|ride trains, this county depends a proposed service on tourism in your
economic |great deal on tourism. Tourism is an _|county. In addition we do not

currently have the data needed to
determine the impacts if the HSR
trains bypassed your city without a
lstop. We are aware of the concerns
land expectations of the people in the
[Roanoke Rapids area based upon
our input to the DEIS Public
hearings and the SEHSR ongoing
public involvement program. This
input has been summarized and

included in the evaluation of

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-84


: Comment : Response =
relocation. Winston-Salem State lalignment has been determined and
University, R.J. Reynolds, and other {details on the precise properties to
larea businesses are converting their [be acquired would be developed
property, and the business relocations jduring any Tier II studies.
for the SEHSR should be less than
Imight otherwise be expected.

222 | WIN-020 inston-Salem is the fourth largest ‘e are aware of the concerns and
Topic: —\community in NC. With the population jexpectations of the people in the
Socio- jin Northwest NC, Winston-Salem mustWinston-Salem area based upon

economic be in the plan. It is very imperative thatlyour extensive input to the public
e consider these facts and the hearings and the ongoing public
importance to Northwest NC and involvement program. This input has
inston-Salem business been summarized and included in
\development, Wake Forest University |the evaluation of alternatives.
lexpansion into the high tech industry,
land just plain needs of transportation.
People demand that Winston-Salem
be given a high priority into the overall
jame plan.

223 | WIN-024 inston-Salem is home to one of the [See response to comment number
Topic: top medical centers in the country, top|222 WIN-020. Medical facilities and
Socio- _|colleges and universities, many colleges and universities are

economic |businesses and the city and itraditionally a good source of activity
surrounding areas — if left out of the and therefore have great potential for
IHSR system it would be a huge ridership.
disservice to the people not only in our|
larea but the entire state.

224] WIN-025 In favor of high speed rail coming ISee response to comment number
Topic: {through Winston-Salem, NC to 222 WIN-020.

Socio- __ {facilitate growth in the biotech field.

economic This would be a stimulus to growth
particularly because of our transfer of
business between Winston-Salem and
Raleigh.

225| WIN-237 |Recently this area has suffered a [See response to comment number
Topic: great deal with loss of employment in (222 WIN-020. The Southeastern
Socio- __ {the textile and other industries. Economic Alliance (SEA), a coalition

economic |Inclusion of Forsyth County in the planlof thirteen chambers of Commerce

lis vital to the economic viability and _ from across six Southeastern states,

\development of this area. cite that the overall, investments in
capital and operation expenses in the|
proposed Southeast corridor
improvements are estimated to return)
$2.54 in benefits for every dollar
invested creating a positive impact
ion the southeast region.

238 WIN-243  |(A) the time is now to use unemployedilt is anticipated that the construction
Topic: people to work and build the needed and operation associated with the
Socio- __|railroads. proposed SEHSR program would

economic spur economic activity creating
additional jobs; and income and
sales that generate additional tax

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-87


mment Number,

Topic:
Community

6.

8.

There are considerable at
grade rail crossings with the
County's secondary roads.
There are safety concerns with
this situation. It is understood
that grade separation is
expensive to construct and,
generally, considered as a “last!
resort’. Obviously, road
closures will occur which will
cause inconveniences to the
citizens of Dinwiddie County

There are environmental
considerations which will
impact on adjacent properties

The County will not receive
any long term benefit from the
rail line and will lose any option
for alternative uses of the line
in the future. As explained by
representatives from the North
Carolina and Virginia Rail
Divisions, ownership of the line’
will be vested with the State
and tax revenue will not be
derived by the County. During
initial discussions there were

statements made that clearly

in the Tier II environmental
documents. This will include
consideration of more
localized impacts such as
compliance with land use and
transportation, as well as
noise and public safety.

Also refer to response to #3.

. With respect to potential

impacts to at-grade crossings,
Study Area Alternatives
utilizing the S-line rank lower
than their counterparts that do|
not utilize the S-line. At-
grade crossings range from
544 for Alternative C (uses S-
line) to 666 for Alternative E.
At-grade crossings for other
S-line Alternatives are 548 for|
Alternative A and 613 for
Alternative B. During Tier II
studies, a comprehensive
study will be needed — similar
to NCDOT’s Traffic
Separation Studies — to
evaluate the need for grade
separations, improved grade
crossing protection, and
potential road closures as
part of SEHSR
implementation. Grade
crossing concerns will also be
addressed through continued
and targeted public outreach.

Refer to response provided

” for CAR-013-37.

. Ownership of the line has not

been established.
Consequently, tax revenue
benefits to the state and/or
county are unknown. Public
passenger rail service has
historically co-shared line use
with freight/industrial rail
service providers.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-25



3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

This chapter contains comments received from federal, state, and local agencies and the
general public during the public comment period for the Tier | Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Tier | DEIS). The Notice of Availability for the Tier | DEIS appeared in the Federal
Register on August 5, 2001. This began the standard 45-day comment period. The comment
period was extended and closed on December 28, 2001 after 18 public hearings in Virginia and
North Carolina. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), public and
agency comments were reviewed and incorporated into this Tier | FEIS. These public and
agency comments are taken into consideration by the Boards of Transportation for Virginia and
North Carolina Departments of Transportation in the decision making process.

Public comment was encouraged at each of the public hearings and in newsletters, other
publications, and the project hot line. It was made known that responses to these comments
would be published in the Tier | FEIS. The following presents the SEHSR Tier | EIS comment
and response process.

3.1 Comment Receipt and Review

Comment Receipt

Comments on the Tier | DEIS included both written correspondence and oral testimony received
during the public comment period. All comments received during that period are included in the
Comments section.

Comment Review

In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1503.4, comments were assessed
and considered as follows: <

« Each comment letter and oral testimony was assigned an identification number (e.g.
RAL-001) and were read and reviewed carefully.

e Within each comment letter or testimony, substantive comments were identified and
given a key number (e.g. 32). The identification number and the key number are used
together to identify each substantive comment (e.g. comment number 32 RAL-001).
Three guidelines were used for determining substantive comments:

1. The comment questioned or provided remarks on the proposed action,
alternatives, the analysis/evaluation of alternatives or other components of the
proposed SEHSR construction and implementation.

2. The methodology of the analysis or results was questioned or clarification was
requested.

3. The use, adequacy, or accuracy of data was questioned or clarification was
requested. .

« Non-substantive comments were those expressing opinions regarding the proposed
SEHSR or some component of it but did not require a specific detailed response. These
comments are identified solely by their identification number (e.g. RAL-001).

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-1
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


(Comment Number

Response

revenues for both Virginia and No!
Carolina.
Construction of the proposed SEHSR|
could potentially create new jobs for
individuals to upgrade the roadbed,
install signal and safety devices,
build frontage/service roads, improve
grade crossings, and build bridges to
replace grade crossings. Additional
jobs, potentially within the Study
Area Alternatives, could be created
ithin the manufacturing sector to
lproduce the equipment and devices
Ineeded to make these
improvements. The extent to which
these jobs can and would be filled
from the ranks of the unemployed is
Inot known.

226

WIN-343
Topic:
Socio-

economic

(A must for Winston-Salem to regain its}
top position in industrial leadership
jthat was once noted nationwide. A
Imust to meet the environmental air
control state and federal requirements.
(A must to attract new business,
lenlarge present business and utilize
jthe vast job market with Forsyth
County. To keep and attract the age
group 21-38 yrs of age, which is the
Imain request of the most prosperous
land successful metropolitan areas.

[See comment number 222 WIN-020.

Topic: Summary.

227

AGE-011
Topic:
Summary

Topic:
Summary

Notwithstanding the fact that this is a
[Tier | document, EPA believes that the|
[Tier | EIS could do a better job
discussing and ranking each
lalternative relative to key
lenvironmental or social issues.

At the end of each impact
jassessment section included in
(Chapter 4 (Environmental
(Consequences) there is either a
conclusions section which identifies
hich alternative was the best for
this particular area, or there is a
summary table that presents the
results of the analysis of the
particular. In some cases this
information is specifically called out
lin a section labeled conclusions
impacts by alternative/comparison of|
lalternatives; in others it is a part of a
summary table and still in others it is
la part of the closing paragraph in that
section. This is the case for the
following impact areas: section 4.1.1-|
ater resources, section 4.1.6-
mineral resources, section 4.1.7-
lnazardous materials sites, section

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-88


meen aRSY Gomi

right of way is intact.

120) SPR-035 (Corridor is needed and appropriate for,

Topic: long-distance (pedestrian and bike)
Land Use {rails that should be integrated with rail
service. The DC to Fredericksburg, VA\
segment is aligned with the Potomac
Heritage National Scenic Trail. The
DC to Raleigh, NC segment is aligned

ith the East Coast Greenway. Land
acquisition and project engineering
should incorporate plans for paved
shared use trails making for a multi-
modal travel corridor. Trails along
lactive rail lines are physically and
operationally feasible and might
improve track maintenance.

At this early point in the design of the
proposed service (conceptual
lengineering only), the level of design
detail reflecting other modes such as
bike and pedestrian has yet to be
developed. These issues would be
appropriately addressed during Tier
ll studies.

Topic: Natural Reso

i a
121| AGE-005 |FEMA suggests coordination with the
Topic: |Floodplain Management Officer of the
Natural _|appropriate community to assure that
Resources {the project meets the requirements of
{their floodplain management
ordinance.

lappropriate for the next phase, Tier
ll, of the project. During Tier Il, as a
detailed alternative is identified, the
\designated community Floodplain
|Management Officers would be
contacted and each community's
floodplain requirements would be
laddressed.

122| AGE-011 |Table ES-3; Please indicate what unit
Topic: he wetland impacts are in; acres,
Natural |hectares, or number of wetland
Resources (crossings.

[The correct units (acres) are
indicated on errata sheet.

123} AGE-011 |Table 4.38 has some conflicting data,
Topic: suchas Alt. J with far less floodplain
Natural _ jimpacts but high wetland impacts.

Resources

[There is not necessarily a
relationship between the number of
floodplains impacted and the
jacreage wetland impacts. Also, not
fall rural communities participate in
IFEMA’s floodplain mapping program,
therefore at some locations
floodplain impacts may be
lunderrepresented.

124] AGE-011 |The Tier 1 DEIS makes clear that the
Topic: [alternatives will cross many state and
Natural _ {federal Scenic Rivers. The document
Resources |does not clearly identify the magnitude;
lof disturbance associated with these
crossings. For example, it cannot be
\determined if new bridges,
replacement bridges or refurbished
bridges will be required at the Scenic
River crossings. This is a potentially
important issue that may have some
bearing on which alternative is
chosen. EPA’suggests a more

[The study corridors for this Tier |
document cover a six-mile wide area
lalong the entire 500-mile length. It is
currently unknown where any river
ould be crossed and no location
specific designs have been prepared]
Analysis of the magnitude of
disturbance at Scenic River crossing
lis not possible at this time. The
potential impacts to Scenic Rivers

‘ould be identified and analyzed
during the Tier II studies.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

3-48

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


onnections. Since tral cost.
ashington are electrified, this is
ladded justification for further Seamless connection with the NEC
consideration of the electric traction ould be accomplished either by
locomotive on the SEHSR. lusing a push/pull configuration of
both fossil fuel and electric
locomotives, or changing engines in
[the DC area as is currently done.
7 AGE-018 |The preferred "A-Plus Alternative" Operations over any of the
Topic: contemplates operations over the lalternatives under consideration
Alternative jabandoned S-Line, which is owned by Would require appropriate
|CSX Transportation. At various times [agreements with the
lover the last several years, jowners/operators of the existing right
\discussions have focused on two lof way and infrastructure. These
alternatives regarding ownership and jagreements will be negotiated, and
control of the S-Line. The first las such they will reflect the
alternative would be for CSX to sell _—_ [conditions acceptable to all parties
jthe S-Line to a responsible buyer. Thisjinvolved.
ould give the acquiring party control
lover the operations on the line. A [The existence of the S-line as an
second alternative, suggested at intact transportation corridor is
arious times from the State of North |recognized as a valuable asset by
Carolina, would be some type of both VA and NC.
partnership, with CSX retaining
loperating rights for freight service.
hile we are still opened minded on
ithe issue , our current preference
ould be to sell the S-Line. Our A-Line
loffers us a high quality freight line that
meets our current and future operating
Ineeds. We also think that separating
lhigh speed rail from slower moving
freight trains makes a good deal of
sense in the long-term. As will be
\discussed further below, our cormpany
policy is to not allow mixed freight and
passenger operations in excess of 90
Imph. A word should also be said
labout the unique nature of the S-Line.
In today's world of "not in my
backyard" local politics, the ability to
laccess a fully connected right-of-way
lof 140 miles from Cary, NC to
Petersburg, VA is a significant
‘opportunity. If this were a highway
project, the planners would not
hesitate a moment to recognize the
importance of this assembled corridor
land pay the full up-front cost of
lacquisition, realizing the benefits that
icome from ownership.
8 AGE-018 |Capacity: We must be able to operate |Capital irnprovements to the A-line
Topic: jour network and serve our current andwere evaluated in this study. These
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-12

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


ithis le is useful as a planning tool
jto better coordinate schedules
between high speed rail and
commuter rail. It notifies both high
speed rail and commuter rail that
future studies may require additional
consideration of passenger capacity,
track use, and station access due to
the potential number of passengers.
|The readability of this table has been
frproved by adding an explanation in
he text and in the legend and the
lchange is noted in an errata sheet
6 AGE-011 |Some technology options for powering/The early ridership revenue models
Topic: _ |the trains were dropped from ere run at a variety of speeds to
Alternative \consideration without full explanation. |test the effect of speed on ridership.
Both states dropped the electric [These models showed that within our}
traction option apparently due to high |20 year planning window, increasing
costs relative to ridership. One speeds above 110 mph ( via
Inegative factor was the lack of verticaljelectrification) did not significantly
clearance in some places and the increase ridership, and yet would
isual impact of overhead wires. The increase cost from 200% - 300%
document does not indicate whether
third rail power supply instead of [Third rail power presents unique
loverhead wires was considered, This [problems for the incremental
laction would eliminate the need for —_ japproach that utilizes both a shared
loverhead wires. Third rail may be a _|corridor with mixed commuter,
iable option, especially since efforts freight, and passenger service and
ill have: already been made to "seal" |shared lines (freight and passenger
ithe corridors (in part for safety). The jusing the same actual track) with at-
lelectric traction option would not only {grade crossings. A third rail operation|
Imeet, but would exceed the ould ideally need to be totally
joperational requirements for speed. It separated from the other corridor
ould also be superior to diesel luses from a safety standpoint. In the
lbecause it would minimize the incremental approach, it is
lenvironmental impacts associated withlimpractical to effectively seal the
Inoise and polluting air emissions. This |system against trespassers, and
lis important because several areas here would be greatly increased
ithin the study corridor have existing |risks for workers maintaining the
lor projected air attainment difficulties. jother corridor uses.
IOne key performance factor to win
land retain riders is to ensure that rail [The term "seal" in the Tier | DEIS
itravel time is less than vehicular travel |refers to FRA guidance concerning
time. In the future, as demand he use of four quadrant gates and/or
increases for more station stops, the j|median barriers to keep vehicles
diese! locomotive will not have the rom going around the gates when in
lincreased performance potential that jthe down position. Third rail also
electric has in terms of acceleration, uses low voltages, which require that
top speed and deceleration to he substations are much closer
compensate for more stops. To furtherjtogether than high voltage systems.
reduce delays, every effort should be This greatly increases the overall
made to provide seamless lenvironmental impacts as well as
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-11

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



Response

lefficient and a more feasible way to
travel for more people. With any new
lservice we would have to determine
the need for passenger parking and
identify ways to efficiently and
conveniently provide that parking to
lpatrons. Often charging for parking ati
fa rail /transit stop is a disincentive to
ridership. Innovation ways to provide
parking for transit have been
lidentified across the country
including shared parking at shopping
jcenters, shared use parking at
churches, schools and other activity
centers whose peak usage time may
Inot be the same as the peak use
period for the transit service. Specific|
locations for parking would be
lidentified if needed during any Tier II
lenvironmental documentation. It is
during this stage of the proposed
project when station locations would
lbe tied down and refined operating
scenarios and ridership projections
ould be made.

155 | CAR-001 |My main concern is making sure there |SEHSR public involvement activities
Topic: _ |is enough support in the public's mind |nave been and would continue to be
Other _ {for the creation of such an enjoyable the presentation of factual

mode of transportation. | don’t believe |information and collection of public

the simple announcing of its existence and agency comments about the

lis sufficient to develop the ridership —_ environmental and operational

Ineeded to survive. | hope to see more [impacts of the alternatives under

promotion of the advantages of rail study. SEHSR public involvement

travel in the public arena. lactivities would continue as the
project moves into Tier II
\documentation. It would build upon

he current public involvement

rogram which is described in
(Chapter 5 of the DEIS.

* Public feedback recorded at
workshops, through the project
hotline, mail-in comment forms,
and in community leadership
interviews.

156 | HEN-013 ill all the support for the projects |All comments received on the Tier |
Topic: _ {received in mailings also be IDEIS have been considered in the
Other _|considered? analysis of study area alternatives. At

leach hearing, the public was
provided the opportunity to give
comments on the Tier | DEIS
verbally, in writing, to a certified court
reporter, or by mail within 10 days of
[the public hearing date. A total of 784)

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-61



Service.

Errata

AGE-011
Topic:
Errata

All the tables and figures in this
document need to be updated and
reviewed for clarity, completeness.
IEPA found several examples of tables
lor figures lacking legends or with
incomplete legends or the tables with
out-of-date data.

All tables and figures will be
reviewed and updated as appropriate|
land as available data permits. Figure
land table changes will be reported in
the errata sheets for the document.
Please note when the DEIS was
developed the most recent and
lavailable data was used. Most
notably, 2000 Census data has not
et been formally released and is
therefore not available for use in this
ldocument. The 2000 census data will
lbe used for Tier Il documentation. In
dition with such a large study area,
\developing maps and graphics at a
scale that would show the entire area)
lin a report size format was difficult
land explains why there are
Inumerous 11 x 17 fold out graphics,
hich still present limitations for
depicting this large study area.

99

AGE-011
Topic:
Errata

It is stated that the Tier 1 FEIS may
Inot identify a preferred alternative
(page 2-43). This seems to be an
impediment to overall decision-making}
for the project. We suggest that
ladequate deliberations occur with
public input fully considered, now, in
jorder to move to Tier 2 with a
preferred corridor and other technical
laspects decided. CEQ prescribes that
a preferred alternative be defined by
ithe FEIS.

At the time of the writing of the DEIS
lit was not certain that there would be
lenough comparative differences
lbetween alternatives to indicate a
preferred alternative. As the process
continued through the DEIS public
hearing stage, comments received
lby the public demonstrated more of a
lpreference for some alternatives over
jothers. This public input, combined
ith the technical analysis led to a
Kdecision to identify a recommended
alternative for study in the FEIS. The
final Recommendation Report was
published in March of 2002 and was
signed by the Secretaries of
Transportation for both VA and NC.

100

AGE-011
Topic:
Errata

Tables 4.36 and 4.36 (two) are
confusing.

here is an error in the table
Inumbering. The second table 4-36
lon page 4-105 should be table 4-37
land the title should be changed to
‘Areas of High Engineering
(Complexity by SEHSR Alternatives’.
(Table 4-36 is correctly titled. The
lareas of environmental and
lengineering complexity were two
indices we developed to provide an
lorder of magnitude indicator of the
level of difficulty related to avoiding

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-44


Comment Response
lalternatives. The specific location o
stations would be determined as part
lof any Tier II analysis.
212| ROA-019 Encourage a corridor route through |See response number 211 ROA-013
Topic: _|Roanoke Rapids/Weldon and Eastern
Socio- _|NC. As the most economically
economic |stressed area of the state, such a
route would be very cost effective.
213| SAL-001 |The railroad will bisect the Chesson ‘e are aware of the concerns and
Topic: _ |property, which will limit access to the expectations of the people in the
Socio- estern portion of the tract. Cutting offfRoanoke Rapids area based upon
economic |this access will make the land virtually your input to the DEIS Public
orthless by land locking the property |hearings and the SEHSR ongoing
~ as there is no other access to it. public involvement program. This
input has been summarized and
included in the evaluation of
alternatives
214| SOU-001 |Whatare the “buffer areas” associated|These relocations were based upon
Topic: ith the residential and business the 200' wide footprint of the
Socio- _ |relocations? conceptual design. Each of the nine
economic Study Area Alternatives would
require varying degrees of right of
ay acquisitions and varying
Inumbers of relocations. The
projected right of way impact and
projected number of relocations were
calculated based on conceptual
lengineering results and assumptions,|
Potential relocations were estimated
using the USGS quarter quad
sheets. Building outlines were used
ito calculate the square footage of
potential business relocations. The
lexact number and types of
businesses to be displaced would be
researched during any Tier II
lanalysis once the specific alignment
lis determined.
215| SPR-002 |(l am) Concerned vision is lacking (One of the goals of a program such
Topic: _ |regarding Richmond to DC. This has _ [as the SEHSR is to help create a
Socio- {tremendous opportunity to become a _ |more balanced transportation system
economic |commuter line if attractively priced. DCjwith travel options for passengers.
lis incredibly expensive to live in, The better and more efficient the
forcing people further out. VRE helps options the more likely people are to
lus commute to DC and so should use the service. Thus making sure
SEHSR. that SEHSR works well and in an
integrated manner with other existing
modes is a part of developing this
integrated and balanced

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-85


57

ROA-014
Topic:
Cost

[The line from Norlina to Weldon - the
collateral damage that is going to be
\done is going to be much more
lexpensive than the construction costs.
\You say you are going to consolidate
lor close crossing and there is an
lawfully lot of lake property and other
property along the north side of what
jthe existing railroad is. If you are
talking about the existing right of way.
If you go closing these crossings then

ou are going to cut off a lot of
isubdivisions and potential for
subdivisions in this area. | think that is
going to be very expensive. It is going
jto greatly exceed, | believe, the cost of|
jthe construction itself. It makes sense
\to follow the existing lines that you
lhave in place, | think, from Norlina, |
Imean from Weldon on through Wilson
land across. | think the crossing from
INorlina to South Hills going across the
llake that bridge is going to be mighty
lexpensive to put in. CSX is
supposedly closed it because it was
lunsafe. | don’t think that you can put a
high-speed train on a track that was
lunsafe when they took it up and
stopped using it. So | think that is
going to be an expensive proposition
for you.

(Construction costs are a quantifiable
lelement of any study. Collateral
damage is a matter of perspective.
[The consolidation/closing of
crossings is based on the current use|
lof existing crossings. No existing
residences would be left isolated
from access to a highway right-of-
ay (i.e. some form of access would
lbe provided). Future subdivisions
lor developments would have to
successfully negotiate with the
lexisting railroad right-of-way owner
for cross-access.
[The necessary improvements to the
bridge across Lake Gaston was a
factor in the development of
conceptual capital costs for the
lalternatives that include this
segment.

58

SAN-003
Topic:
Cost

(Cost comparison on regional basis or
national basis?

(The purpose of this study is to
lcompare costs associated with the
loptions available for this corridor,
including the option of doing nothing
lor “no-build”. A cost comparison to
regional or national projects of a
similar nature would not assist in
determining the preferred alternative,
including the no-build alternative.

59

SPR-003
Topic:
Cost

Concerned about limited funds
available for transportation projects in
‘A. SEHSR will serve a limited
Inumber of Virginians directly (their
own trips) and indirectly (less crowded
roads and airways). With big ticket
transportation projects currently
lunderway (Springfield interchange,
ilson Bridge), others looming (I-81
corridor, metro to Dulles) and
lincreasingly limited state revenues, |
onder if this is the most effective use

[The concern that created the “big-
|ticket” highway projects is the same
lconcern driving this project, including
jovercrowded highways and airport
terminals causing travel delays. The
most effective use of scarce funds is
to fund a program that provides the
best alternative to resolve the
concerns. That is the purpose of this
study.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-32


detailed analysis of this issue in the
Final Tier 1 document.

125 | AGE-017 |As you continue to develop the Incorporating measures to avoid and
Topic: _ |project, regardless of the alternative, {minimize wetland impacts is of great
Natural |measures to avoid and minimize importance. If this process proceeds
Resources |impacts to wetlands should be to Tier 11 documentation, these
incorporated wherever practicable. In factors along with concepts for
addition, you should be developing _ compensation would be addressed.
Iconcepts for compensating for ISee page 4-10 for a discussion on
lunavoidable impacts to wetlands, etland mitigation measures
since obtaining such compensation _ including avoidance, minimization
lcan be difficult in certain parts of VA jand compensation.
\due to the availability of suitable sites.
126 | AGE-017 [At the current level of detail, it is IDue to the 6 mile width of the study
Topic: _ (difficult to ascertain the extent of corridors and inequitable level of
Natural impacts to streams. While the number |small stream mapping available
Resources of river crossings are identified for lalong the 500-mile project length, it
leach alternative, the number of small was decided to only quantify river
stream crossings is not. crossings. The number of rivers
crossed by each alternative should
be indicative of its potential surface
ater impacts. If a preferred corridor
is approved and detailed design
alternatives are identified for Tier II
studies, intensive small stream
mapping would be completed and
the impacts would be quantified.
127| PET-002 |The number of at grade crossings andlYes, the number of crossings
Topic: etlands are high. included in the Tier | DEIS was
Natural incorrectly counted (they included
Resources lboth existing crossings, and all

crossings on the conceptual design,
thus double counting most crossings.
|The new numbers for crossings are
recorded in the errata sheets, and
jare approximately half the original
Inumber. The number of existing at-
grade crossings is based on field
lobservations of actual crossings
during reconnaissance of the study
corridors. There may be some
ariation in the totals done for the
future detailed studies due to the
inaccessibility of some private
crossings or newly constructed public
crossings. Existing crossings listed in
tables include all known crossings
lalong the study corridor in both North
(Carolina and Virginia. Conceptual
crossings listed in tables reflect
lupgrades, consolidations and
closures of existing crossings.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-49



Res
50 | PET-001 |The cost estimate of $2.6 billion (Conceptual capital cost includes
Topic: _|doesn’t even pay for the trackage. lestimated costs for purchasing right-
Cost lof-way, improving track geometry
land condition, improving safety at
highway railroad at-grade crossings,
land grade-separating highway
railroad crossings.
51 PET-011 [How would this project be funded? —‘ [The high speed passenger rail
Topic: project would be funded by federal
Cost land state funds.
52 RIC-001 |Another question we heard back in the|More than $770 million in needed
Topic: _|(inaudible) — in the DC to Richmond _ [capital improvements for the
Cost corridor where there is some funding ashington, D.C. to Richmond, VA
available and things are progressing a|corridor have been identified.
little further, the question related to Approximately $380 million of the
that from, especially from (inaudible) {total would be state funds
shortly things that speed up that trip. [programmed for the projects, with
[The stretch from Acca Yards to the _ other contributions coming from VRE,
station is in significant need of ICSXT, NS, Amtrak, and FRA. The
considerable upgrading. And I’m just exact timeframe for these
curious whether that (inaudible) improvements would depend on the
lupgraded, and I'm (inaudible) current javailability of funds and the ability to
funding and time frame? incrementally make the
improvements.
53 RIC-002 ‘ou are in the Tier | study now, the [Any Tier Il study would include
Topic: {higher review. You are moving to the further refinements in the conceptual
Cost Tier Il study beginning next year. Is __ [capital cost as well as operating
there a financial study? Tier Il is also jrevenue and expense. Tier II is an
lenvironmental? environmental” study in name, but it
ould also include the financial study,
lof a project.
54 RIC-003 [Can we get information from you From a program level document, the
Topic: — |about the financial study? financial portions of the study are the
Cost iconceptual capital cost of
improvements and projected
lestimates of operating revenues and
lexpenses. These are included in the
Tier | EIS.
55 RIC-004 (Financial Study) We will start hearing |See response to comment number
Topic: {more about that in Tier II? 53 RIC-002 above.
Cost
56 | ROA-001 (How much will this cost each citizen? [The cost would be funded from
Topic: federal and state funds as a portion
Cost lof the overall tax revenues generated!

lby each government entity. Some
form of bond funding has also been
lproposed, The individual cost to each)
Icitizen as a portion of the total taxes
paid by that citizen cannot be
determined at this time.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-31



Response

fot a
ork, and | know that the train | get on|
ill have possibly no stops south of
Petersburg before | get to Raleigh, or
lonly one stop (Raleigh) before | get to
Charlotte, I’ll take that train verses one
that may have three or more stops.

routes occurs only between Raleigh
ind Charlotte. Between Washington
iC and Richmond VA it is assumed
lboth Alternative A and Alternative C
trains would make an average of two
istops with no difference in travel
times between the Alternatives.
IBetween Richmond VA and Raleigh
INC it is assumed both Alternative A
land Alternative C trains would stop in
[Petersburg and two of the four daily
frequencies would also stop in
Henderson NC producing no
difference in travel times between the|
Alternatives.

This changes dramatically in
Raleigh. Alternative A trains precede
est over the NCRR with potential

stops in seven intermediate
communities (for our modeling
lpurposes). There would be eight
daily one-way frequencies over this
174-mile NCRR route segment. It is
jassumed for estimation purposes
jthat two express trains would stop
lonly in Durham and Greensboro,
hile the other six trains would make|
la maximum of four intermediate
stops with each en route community
being served at least three times a
day in each direction.

166

AGE-012
Topic:
Ridership

If this was true and Alternative C was
jthat much faster than all of the other
alternatives, there would be additional
ridership, more net operating income,
land more trip diversions for Alternativel
IC.

hile the travel times between
Raleigh and Charlotte vary
lmeasurably between Alternative A
land Alternative C, Alternative A
boards more passengers and
generates more revenues than
Alternative C because of its
significantly larger population base.
Bypassing large communities such
las Durham, Burlington, Greensboro
land High Point in exchange for a
lstop at Sanford NC, puts Alternative
IC at a distinct disadvantage in
generating ridership and revenues
hen compared to Alternative A.

167

AGE-012
Topic:
Ridership

Some factoring may also be needed
for the net operating income on
Alternative C. The trip diversion totals
lare particularly confusing to me. The

[The fact that the percentage increase
iin ridership between Alternative A
land Alternative C is substantially
higher than the percentage increase

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-68


Subject
32 SPR-042
33 SPR-043
Cost 59 SPR-003
60 | SPR-004
61 SPR-005
62 SPR-006
63 SPR-018
(Cultural Resources 72 SPR-007
Design 88 SPR-012
89 SPR-025
Earth/Mineral Resources 92 SPR-008
Errata 101 | SPR-016
Infrastructure 112 __|SPR-018
113 | SPR-029
114 | SPR-031
115 | SPR-033
116 | SPR-034
117 __| SPR-044
Land Use 120 | SPR-035
Proposed Action 150 _| SPR-028
151 | SPR-041
Purpose and Need 161 SPR-038
Ridership 178 | SPR-018
179 | SPR-026
180 __| SPR-037
181 | SPR-039
182 | SPR-039
183 | SPR-040
184 | SPR-045
Safety 195 | SPR-025
‘Socio-economic . 215 | SPR-002
216 | SPR-010
217 | SPR-013
(Technology 231 | SPR-021

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


Comment N

Topic:
Community

shown portions of this
abandoned track as serving
recreational needs for County
residents and connecting
historically significant sites

. Several County citizens have

purchased portions of this
railroad property to access
their property and/or have built
structures within the
abandoned rail line

has not gone through the
legal abandonment process
and is therefore inactive
versus abandoned, and is still
is owned by a freight rail road}
company

. The Tier | DEIS found that

each of the Study Area
Alternatives would require
varying degrees of right-of-
way acquisitions and varying
number of relocations.
Precise numbers are not
possible at the program level
of review and analysis.
Projected total right-of-way
acquisitions range from 620
acres for Alternative D to 930
acres for Alternatives C (uses
S-line). Other S-line
Alternatives A and B are
projected at 678 acres and
731 acres respectively.
Projected total residential
relocations range from 156 for]
Alternative J to 411 for
Alternative E. Alternatives
that utilize the S-line are
projected have the following
residential relocations: 365 for
Alternative A, 371 for
Alternative B, and 220 for
Alternative C. Projected total
business relocations range
from 130 in Alternative D to
234 in Alternative B (uses S-
line). Other S-line Alternatives
A and C are projected to have
144 and 132 business
relocations respectively.
Right-of-way acquisitions
could result from realigning
curves to obtain/maintain the
maximum operating speed
and/or preservation of natural
and man-made features,
which may require a new
location for the rail alignment.
The need for land acquisition
and the number and types of

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-22



omment Num
transportation system.
216 | SPR-010 Low impact to public? [The use of existing railroad rights-of-
Topic: ay that are established travel
Socio- corridors is proposed for the SEHSR
economic service as a means to reduce the
potential impacts to adjacent
lcommunities.
217| SPR-013 [As adeaf consumer, | am concerned lYour concern is noted. If we move
Topic: about the number of deaf home into any Tier Il analysis and a
Socio- owners whose properties may be specific alignment is identified, we
economic |impacted. ould be able to determine the exact
properties affected. As the project
\development moves forward from
that point we would identify the
laffected property owners. During the
right-of-way acquisition phase
property owners would be contacted
land those with special needs would
lbe paired with staffers that can
lanswer your questions and concerns,|
218| STA-003 |i believe the value of my property will |Studies conducted on various other
Topic: _ |decrease. rail projects in North America are
Socio- inconclusive about the impact of
economic ransit on adjacent properties. This is
due primarily to the fact that there
lare so many elements that affect
property values and it is difficult, at
best, to isolate any one factor to
lattribute any changes in property
value. In some situations the
presence of a rail line and the
‘significant infrastructure investment it}
represents has a positive impact on
lsurrounding property values.
219} WIL-008 /|I'm curious to see how this particular |What this particular impact may be
Topic: _ |effort may help the textile industry in cannot be determined at this point in
Socio- _|terms of getting products to market or |the study process. However, any
economic |somehow serves a relationship to that |investment in the SEHSR would also
industry relative to this public improve and upgrade the existing rail
investment. linfrastructure in the railroad rights of
ay. This would result in better and
faster rail service and improve the
lability of the freight system to deliver
goods.
220 | WIN-001  |Convenient and rapid rail service will [Positive benefits to local businesses
Topic: |help local business. lare possible based upon the
Socio- lproposed investment in the SEHSR.
economic
221 | WIN-008 [Much of the area that will likely cause [See response to comment number
Topic: business relocations if the SEHSR 214 SOU-001. Also this kind of
Socio- {comes through Winston-Salem are _|information would be taken into
economic |already undergoing conversion and ___|consideration when the exact

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-86



fe Nurmi

Com

Response ©

146

HEN-020
Topic:
Other

When would this project start?
Completed?

Right now it is estimated that the
proposed SEHSR service could
lactually be in service by 2010. This
jassumes that a build alternative
ould be chosen through the NEPA
lprocess, the needed funding would
lbe in place when needed and that
ithe service would be developed
lusing the proposed incremental
lapproach, which allows for the
continued development of the service!
following a program of planned
lincremental improvements over time.

147

PET-011
Topic:
Other

ho would operate it once it is
completed? And where does Amtrak
ffit in, if you can address those?

[The operator for the proposed project
lat this point in time could be Amtrak.
(The proposed service would be put
lout to bid for interested operators to
develop a proposal for offering this
service.

148

RAL-012
Topic:
Other

‘our information on service features
seems somewhat vague at this point.

IAt this point in time and in the
Idevelopment of the proposed
ISEHSR, we are at a very early
planning level of detail. Thus we
ave developed conceptual,
generalized operating scenarios for
|the purposes of assessing potential
impacts, possible operating and
capital cost and potential revenues.
[These early figures would be refined
if we move into the next phase (Tier
Il) of development when a specific
alignment and potential station areas
ould be identified.

149

ROA-008
Topic:
Other

‘Stops should be in the areas where
there is the most likely ridership.
Project objectives need to be
prioritized.

At this point in the study, exact
station stops have not been
identified. We have made some
lassumptions about potential station
stops for the purposes of developing
ridership estimates. These
lassumptions are based upon locating]
he service to provide access to the
highest potential ridership. Project
lobjectives have been clearly stated
lin Chapter 1 of the DEIS —Purpose
land Need. They have not been
rioritized.

150

SPR-028
Topic:
Other

Particular attention and importance
should be placed on inter-modal
iservices when developing station
locations such as rail/local regional
bus lines/DC Metro rail — air carrier;
land in all cases, long term vehicle

iThere is already a great deal of
attention being paid to inter-modal
connectivity with inter-modal stations
and centers being developed by local
communities along the potential
SEHSR alignments in Charlotte,

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-59


_ Response

" leconomic vitality. The high speed

rail

Socio- [Durham would depend greatly upon
economic |could divide downtown into two parts. |the specific alignment, which would
What impact would the rail line have [be determined during any Tier Il
lon future development of the studies. We are aware of the
American Tobacco property on Iconcerns from Durham residents
Brightleaf Square and future based upon their input through the
development of the Liggett properties [public involvement process. Currentl
lalong West Main Street. These the railroad tracks are a dominant
projects represent significant private [feature of downtown Durham and a
land public sector investment, tax basejdetailed assessment of the potential
growth and future employment limpact of adding high speed rail
lopportunities. lservice would be conducted if that is
ithe alignment identified for the
proposed high speed rail service. As
la part of any Tier II analysis all
proposed and planned developments
lalong the alignment would have to be}
lidentified. We would coordinate with
the developers and the municipal
representatives to develop a design
lof the HSR service that would
lcompliment and not disturb or
damage the goals set forth for
Durham. In many cities across the
United States rail transit service is
lbeing successfully integrated into
lurban settings and in some cases is
proving to be a catalyst for
development and redevelopment.

206 | DUR-017 |In light of economic vitality concerns, |See response to comment number
Topic: ill the Tier Il study determine the 205 DUR-002. The method by which
Socio- {method by which the trains will come [the HSR would serve downtown

economic |through downtown? At grade? Viaa_ [Durham would be identified during
jtunnel? Via a “ditch” like in Gastonia, any Tier II studies.
NC?

207 | HEN-005 [Please strongly consider routing the |The exact station stops have not
Topic: _ jfuture HSR through Henderson. A lbeen identified. We have made
Socio- stop in Henderson would serve many |some assumptions about potential

economic |communities and be a great economic\station stops for the purposes of

benefit. We are located close to
Raleigh and have easy access from all
directions. Henderson could also
serve Southern Virginia, bringing retail
sales and taxes to North Carolina.

(developing ridership estimates. Exact
station locations would be
determined as a part of any Tier II
analysis. During the DEIS public
lhnearings and throughout the public
involvement process for the project
fe have had a lot of feedback from
ithe Henderson area requesting a
station. This information has been
summarized and used in the
evaluation of alternatives conducted
lin the DEIS. The number and
location of station stops have to be
carefully planned to allow for good

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-83


Comment Number

.1.8-air quality, section 4.1.9 noise
land vibration, section 4.1.10 energy,
section 4.1.11 prime farmland,
section 4.2.1 protected species,
lsection 4.2.2 wild and scenic rivers,
section 4.3.1.1 community impacts
lsection 4.3.1.2 environmental justice,
section 4.3.1.4 land use, section
4.3.1.6 transportation impacts,
section 4.3.1.7 utility impacts, section|
4.3.1.8 historic and architectural
resources, and section 4.6 Section
4(f) and 6 (f) properties. These
comprise the majority of the impact
lareas examined in the document.
[Some impacts areas such as visual
jthere were virtually no difference
between the 9 alternatives. Table 4-
[38 was included at the end of
\Chapter 4 to allow a comparative
summary of impacts and benefits by
lalternative.

|Our approach was to provide general
information to facilitate an
lassessment of impacts that would
lallow a comparative assessment of
the alternatives. We did not want to
try and draw conclusions that might
Inot be warranted by the level of
information we had available to
complete our analysis.

228

AGE-011
Topic:
Summary

|The Document narrative does not
make clear which alternative appears
best from an operational stand point,
hich is potentially the most disruptive
to communities or which alternative
Imay be the most impacting to natural
resources. A discussion of each

for decision makers. For example, we
lsuggest that you provide a summary
lof each alternative in a manner similar
jto the following: "a review of the
information for Alternative A shows
that it performs the best from a
ridership and net operating income

lstand point. Further analysis shows
hat Alternative A has one of the
‘ewest wetlands impacts but has one
lof the higher impacts to historic
properties. It scores moderately in
lareas of environmental complexity. If

[See response to comment number
227 above. Table ES-2 of the
Executive Summary of the Tier |
EIS provides a summary of the
operational characteristics of the
lalternatives. A companion report to
the Tier | DEIS and the decision

lalternative in this light would be helpfulldocument that identifies the

recommended alternative and
includes this sort of analysis you
reference in your comment is the
March 2002, Recommendation
Report which has been reviewed by
ithe boards of transportation for both
INC and VA and has been signed by
the Secretaries of Transportation in
both states.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-89


(Comment Number _ Comi ee : Response _ |
163 | AGE-012 [As stated in my previous comments, | |In Table 2.17 (page 2-45), the line
Topic:  |do not believe that Alternative C has [entitled “Year 2025 Ticket Revenue”
Ridership |been given equal consideration in the |this figure includes revenues for all
lannual ridership totals. | believe that trains that are projected to be
jthe totals for the other alternatives loperating between North Carolina
contain the projected numbers for land Virginia in 2025 and then adds
riders who will be getting on and off |SEHSR revenue by route alternative
the anticipated local stops between __ {to that total. This is done so that all
Petersburg and Raleigh and also connecting revenue on other trains is
lbetween Raleigh and Charlotte. Theselalso captured. This type of analysis,
ould be those riders who have the __ however, tends to dilute the
loption of traveling by high-speed rail {differences between options and
lor by the EIRPS. And, to some extent, often includes revenues from
jthe numbers for riders north of passengers who never board an
Petersburg whose destinations are |SEHSR train.
lsomewhere between Petersburg and
Raleigh and to a lesser extent [The same is true for the “Year 2025
between Raleigh and Charlotte would |Ridership.” The figure includes all
lalso be included. Either these passengers on all trains operating
numbers should be factored out of the between North Carolina and Virginia
totals for the other alternatives or lin 2025, which once again minimizes
factored into the total for Alternative C.lthe differences between route
If my assumption on annual ridership |alternatives because SEHSR
is true, then the amount for net ridership is only part of the total
loperating income will also increase for|forecasted patronage for all trains.
Alternative C and become more in line
ith the other alternatives. Even [The comparisons between
hough it may be explained in the DraftAlternatives A and C, once the
[Tier | EIS and | missed it, | will point _ {statistics for all the other NC/VA
jout that whereas the annual ridership trains are removed, are more marked
for Alternative A is currently shown as |than before. There is 33% greater
labout 28% more than ridership for ridership and 27% greater revenue
Alternative C, the net operating lgenerated on Alternative A than on
income for Alternative A is now shown Alternative C. When all other trains
lbeing 100% more than the net lare removed, Alternative C’s inability
loperating income for Alternative C. _jto generate equivalent levels of
‘ouldn’t this mean that the difference |ridership and revenue owing to its
lin the ridership totals had to represent |lack of intermediate points (Durham,
riders north of Petersburg, who would |Burlington, Greensboro, High Point
lbe paying a higher fare, rather than _jand Salisbury) becomes more
riders south of Petersburg mentioned |pronounced.
lin the previous paragraph?
hen the total revenues of
Alternative A (ticket plus
lfood/beverage of $103,330,500) and
[the total revenues of Alternative C
(ticket plus food/beverage of
$81,658,000) are debited for each
alternative’s operating costs
(Alternative A: $80,833,000 vs.
Alternative C: $74,745,000) it
lbecomes apparent that for an eight
ercent increase in operating costs,
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-66

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



: Com

ith a HSR, | fear that crossing
closed and no person adjoining my _jaccess. Specific highway-railroad
property has been willing to sell or closings and the design of alternative
give me a means to reach an existing jaccess is too detailed for a program
state road, which would keep one fromllevel study.
having to cross the RR track. Other
property owners would be affected in
lsome way.

80 | HEN-014 ould RR crossings have the lighted [Crossing safety would be a major
Topic: arms to come down at all crossings? |design concern for the SEHSR.
Design |Speeds through Henderson? Improvements to existing highway-

railroad at-grade crossings would
include grade separations,
lconsolidations/closings, and warning
signal installations. These
improvements would aid in improving
train speed.

Specific crossing design will be
discussed in the Tier II studies.

81 PET-005 Owns property that is bounded on the |No existing property interests would
Topic: est and north by the old Seaboard _/be left without access as a result of
Design [Railway bed, and by Stony Creek ithe project unless appropriate

aterway on the south. He is bounded|compensation is paid. See response
ion the east by land owned by 57 ROA-014.
Dinwiddie County, the African Zion
(Church, and I-85. His only outlet is
state route 1401 to US 1.

82 | PET-012 |The most disturbing number is grade |Crossing safety would be a major
Topic: _ |crossings — over a thousand. That’s design concern for the SEHSR.
Design _ |going to get in the way of speed. Improvements to existing highway-

railroad at-grade crossings would
linclude grade separations,
consolidations/closings, and warning
signal installations. These
improvements would aid in improving
train speed.

83 PET-014 [And also if Amtrak is already in Design of the SEHSR would include
Topic: existence, will we be using the same _|studies of existing facilities to
Design _ {tracks in — at 110 mph, at that speed? |determine whether to use the

(The tracks that are there now, will theyjexisting tracks, to refurbish the ties

support it? land ballast, to replace the rails, or to
Icompletely rebuild the track structure.|
[Specific design of the track structure
lis too detailed for a program level
study.

84 | RAL-009 ill this be stopping at these smaller [Conceptual designs for this study
Topic: towns or will they have to use the lallowed at least two crossings in
Design _|crossing and make one crossing in _jeach town/community to provide an

leach town? Because | know in Wake
Forest there is already one or two
crossings being closed so now we
lonly have one or two ways to get from

alternative means of access across
ithe railroad for emergency response.
[The travel time from one side of town
ito the other would be a function of

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-39


a Comment

ponse

RIC-029

Once these things get into place for
ithe high speed from DC to Richmond,,.
hat is the time frame?

It is estimated that the proposed
ISEHSR service could actually be in
lservice by 2010. This assumes that
the needed

funding would be in place when
Ineeded and that the service would
lbe developed using the proposed
incremental approach, which

lallows for the continued development!
lof the service following a program of
planned incremental improvements
lover time.

200 | AGE-011
Topic:
Socio-

economic

Topic:
Socio-
economic

[Table 4.24: Explain how population
density was measured. Is it persons
lper square mile or kilometer?
Moreover the 5000 plus or minus
Inumber for average population densit
lseems very high for what is a largely
rural corridor.

In reviewing this comment,
calculation error was found that
resulted from incorrectly including the}
northern segment with all other
segments for study area alternative
ldata comparisons. The northern
segment is common to all study area
alternatives and was originally
separated out from the other route
segment data. A revised Table 4.24
has been prepared. Since the error
lhad a proportional effect on each
lstudy area, changes to Table 4.24 do}
not alter any conclusions or findings
lpresented in the DEIS. The
methodology for determining average|
population density is explained
below.

Average population density is
lmeasured in population of the 300-
foot buffer (150 feet from each side
lof the center line of the existing or
proposed railway) per square mile.
[To determine average population
density, the following steps were
followed in the GIS analysis for each
study area alternative:

1. Geocode the SEHSR route
combinations.
Calculate a 300-foot buffer
impact area by route
combination.
Identify the 1990 Census
Block Group (CBG) data sets
that intersect the impact

2.

areas. [Note: The CBG was

SEHSR Washington,

DC to Charlotte, NC

3-79

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)



Comment

lone side of town to the other. Ik

crossings but they will close on of
those probably. The town of
IFrariklinton, it goes through the
historical part of Franklinton. If you
close all of these for safety measures
jthen the town is cut in half. If there is
lan emergency problem on one side of
flown and traffic on Highway 98 on
Number 1 is so bad, how long is it
going to take to get from one side of
parts of town to the other side.

the town of Youngsville has one or twojcapacity, signal timing, travel speed,

land motorists yielding to emergency
ehicles. These factors will be
studied in detail in the engineering
land Tier II evaluation phases.

ays and structures. For example: (1)
lis CWR assumed throughout, (2) is
existing special track to remain, (3) is
la signal system planned throughout,
(4) what changes in existing freight
land passenger rail services are
lassumed, (5) how many stops/stations|
lalong the way?

85 RIC-021 {One of your comments during the On some segments of the SEHSR
Topic: _ |presentation was that Amtrak service |freight and high speed passenger rail
Design _ {that exists today would still be intact, \would operate on the same tracks

hich would provide shorter routes. ith adequate passing sidings, and

(And | am curious, the addition of lin some segments complete new
janother train, a high speed rail, does double tracking or triple tracking may
jthat require a whole other set of lbe needed. The need for complete
tracks? Is there already enough track |separation of tracks is a function of
lout there that this won’t be all new lspeed and the requirements of any
itrack? joperating agreements established

with the freight railroads, as well as

specific requirements that FRA may

: have.

86 RIC-022 ill the freight run on a different track See response 85 RIC-021 above.
Topic: _ |than the high speed train? Is it
Design _|possible to know what NC has

\decided? (in regards to using separate|
ltrack for passenger and freight)

87 RIC-031 _ |It would help us to assess the study if The base assumption for
Topic: e knew what was assumed in the —_ implementation of high speed rail is
Design ay of engineering parameters for _|the shared use of track and facilities

by both freight and high speed rail.
[The conceptual design did assume
jthe use of continuous welded rail
(CWR), as well as an appropriate
signal system for high speed service

The changes assumed for existing
freight and passenger rail services
lare those changes necessary to add
high speed rail service with minimal
impact.

[The exact number of stops/stations
aries with each alternative.
Alternatives A, B, D, E and J
lassumed 15 stops. Thirteen stops

ere assumed for Alternatives C and
F. While Alternatives G and H
lassumed 17 stops.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-40



sponse

|

to determine if there were differences)
between the alternatives under
|consideration.

135

DUR-004
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

Noise and vibration is a big concern
for my family. My house is close to the
tracks now.

[The extent of possible noise and
ibration impact would greatly
\depend upon the distance of your
lhouse from the train operations, the
nature of the construction of your
house, how fast the train is going,
soil conditions as well as other
[occ If the proposed action
roceeds to Tier II studies, a more in-
depth analysis of these impacts
ould be determined for a more
specific alignment that may or may
not be near your house. If you are on
ithe alignment chosen for
implementation of high speed rail,
jthe potential environmental impacts
including noise and vibration to
sensitive receptors such as your
house will be studied in detail in Tier
1 documentation. At that time
potential mitigation will be explored.

136

PET-003
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

IMy question is about Lincoln Street
crossing in Petersburg, VA. Will a wall
lbe built for homeowners near the train
|track? Two homes are only 150 ft.
from the track. What about the noise
land vibration?

IAt this point in the study, we are ata
ery general level, and the need for
land location of potential walls to
mitigate noise impacts has yet to be
determined. During any potential Tier
ll studies, a more in-depth analysis of
jthese impacts would be determined
for a more specific alignment that
lmay or may not be near your house.
‘ou have been included on the
project mailing list and will receive
information as the study progresses.
‘ou can continue to be involved and
\determine if you are on the alignmen
for implementation of high speed rail.

137

STA-002
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

| am concerned about the noise level.

ISee response to comment number
135 DUR-004. Also note that
preferred alternative does not impact
[this area.

138

STA-005
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

We live within 50 feet of the current
IRR track. It’s currently used for
loading mainly RR cars. This is very
noisy, especially at 2:30AM. My house
lis close enough that it vibrates it when
ithe train goes by. So | am very
lconcerned about HSR and property
impacts. Our yard runs along the
track. We are against HSR going

See response to comment number
135 DUR- 004. Also note that
preferred alternative does not impact
[this area.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-55,


(Comment

North Carolina.
\To effectively increase ridership, the
lalternative would have to be more
|‘attractive” to passengers than the
lother alternatives. Since high speed
rail indicates a faster method of
transportation, thereby reducing
travel times, the way to attract more
lpassengers to Alternative C would be}
to reduce the travel times by
spending more capital funds to
improve the track and route.

43 | AGE-012 || had submitted comments favoring _ [The figures for Alternative C are
Topic: Alternative C. In my comments | had_ [based on the fact that a major
Cost lstated that Alternative C was unique |segment of the route would operate
from the others because it actually lin a sparsely populated section of
separated from existing intercity rail [North Carolina, with revenue
lpassenger service (EIRPS) lines at [producing stops only in Raleigh and
[Petersburg to form another line. | went|Charlotte, also the location of the
jon to say that | felt some of the figures|study corridor between Washington
for Alternative C were skewed, or IDC and Raleigh is identical for
lunderstated, because of that Alternatives A, B, and C As for the
separation at Petersburg. At the increased income and increased
[December 11 meeting, you indicated {conceptual capital cost, only an
that because of my comments anotherjincrease in ridership can increase the!
Imodel had been run and the net income. To effectively increase
joperating income for Alternative C hadiridership, the alternative would have
increased by about $2 million but at _jto be more “attractive” to passengers
the same time, conceptual capital costithan other travel modes. Since high
lhad increased by about $10 million. {speed rail indicates a faster method
Since the meeting, | have been f transportation, thereby reducing
thinking about Alternative C and still travel times, the way to attract more
believe that the figures for it may still |passengers to Alternative C would be!
lbe understated and not truly Ito reduce the travel times by
representative. | am submitting some |spending more capital funds to
ladditional comments for your further improve the track and route in
consideration. lan effort to further improve the travel
times. The conceptual capital costs
ere generated from improvement
programs that would provide the
same level of service for each
lalternative, not give any alternative
lan unfair advantage over the
remaining alternatives.
44 | AGE-014 |The Commonwealth has developed [Conceptual capital costs are based
Topic: _ |cost estimates for the Richmond to DCjon perceived improvements to the
Cost corridor. These were completed in the [corridor in addition to known

1994-1997 time frame. Those
lestimates showed a cost of about $3.5}
million per mile and about $250 for

improvements that are planned but
Inot constructed. The FRA study was
lused for planned improvements.

electrification. These costs have

However, since the Washington, D.C.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-28


‘Response

Petersburg hearing the Director of
Public works requested a copy for
[the City offices. This copy was

forwarded to the City as requested.

143

STA-014 ©
Topic:
Other

| am concerned about the amount of
travel of the SEHSR. (in the area
laround Star, NC)

A number of people at the Star
[Hearing expressed concern about
[the increase in train traffic that would
loccur should the SEHSR proposed
service use the southern route (the
IACWR RR right of way), which
passes through Star. NCDOT and

DRPT have identified Alternative A
(NCRR & S-line), modified with
passenger connectivity to Winston-
‘Salem (Alternative B) as the
alternative that best meets the
project's purpose and need while
minimizing environmental impacts
(hereafter termed "Alternative A-
Plus"). This alternative could be
studied further during potential Tier II
lenvirorimental documentation efforts.
[The southern route is not
recommended for further study at
this point in time.

144

CAR-008
Topic:
Other

Once the HSR service starts, how
many trains will be in service on a
daily basis? What type of trains would
serve the southeast?

[The travel demand model used for
ithe SEHSR Tier | DEIS assumed four
\daily round trips between Charlotte,
Raleigh, Richmond, Washington, and)
INew York, and four daily round trips
between Charlotte and Raleigh, for a
total of eight daily round trips
between Charlotte and Raleigh. For
ithe analysis, each train is assumed
ito consist of two diesel locomotives,
ifive coaches, and one cafe-lounge
car.

145

DUR-023
Topic:
Other

If the train goes through downtown
Durham, how often will it stop? Has
your initial estimate of 6 to 8 stops

Ichanged? If so, why?

At this point in the study the exact
station stops and schedules have not
been finalized. We have made some}
lassumptions about potential station
stops and schedules for the
purposes of developing ridership
estimates. Exact station locations
ould be determined as a part of any
Tier Il analyses. Our assumption is
that this question refers to the
number of trains that will daily stop in
Durham, since there would only be
lone stop location in a given town. For
purposes of our model, six to eight
trains stopped in Durham depending
on the day of the week.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-58


Alternative A produces revenues that
lare 27% percent greater than
Alternative C and ridership that is
133% higher. This efficiency in
loperation is why Alternative A
produces a net income of
$22,497,000 as compared to a net
income for Alternative C of
$6,913,500.

164

AGE-012
Topic:
Ridership

| recommend that Table 2.17 be
revisited to assure the accuracy and
equal consideration and comparison
lof all factors for all alternatives. In my
opinion, the totals for Alternative C are|
potentially understated for annual
ridership, net operating income, and
itrip diversions. Additionally, there may
be a greater difference in average
itravel time separating Alternative C
land the next closest alternative. This
lexhibit plays an important part in the
lselection of the preferred alternative.

Unlike the two minute average
spread in travel times between
Alternative A and Alternative C
shown in Table 2.17 there is in fact, a
28 minute difference in travel times
between the fastest trains in
Alternative C and the slowest trains
lin Alternative A between Raleigh and
Charlotte. The time difference
lbetween the fastest trains on each
route is 18 minutes and the
difference for the multistop trains
varies from 18 to 23 minutes. The
revenue, ridership and operating cost
forecasts were derived using these
Ischedule patterns developed by the
consultants in January 2000, and not
jthe average trip times shown in
[Table 2.17.

hile the travel times between
Raleigh and Charlotte vary
measurably between Alternative A
land Alternative C, Alternative A
boards more passengers and
igenerates more revenues than
Alternative C because of its
significantly larger population base.
Bypassing large communities such
las Durham, Burlington, Greensboro
land High Point in exchange for a
stop at Sanford NC, puts Alternative
IC at a distinct disadvantage in
generating ridership and revenues
hen compared to Alternative A.

165

AGE-012
Topic:
Ridership

| would also like to point out when
considering cumulative impacts, the
Inumbers for Alternative C improves.
By this, | mean when considering
ridership north of the study area (DC).
If my starting point is in Boston or Ne\

[Since Alternative A and Alternative C
both use the S-Line north of Raleigh
ito Richmond, as well as the same
route between Richmond and
‘ashington DC, the divergence in

ternative A and Alternative C’s

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-67


nt Number

sers — Norfolk, VA

Infrastructure 106 |AGE-017
Natural Resources 125 _|AGE-017
126 _|AGE-017

Res

“Agency: VA Department of
nee = Richmond

‘Cultural Resources l

67

[AGE-001

Table 3-2

North Carolina Comment Numbers by Location and Topic

CAR-009

Alternative 10

(Community 37 CAR-013

Environmental Justice 95 | CAR-002
96 CAR-006

Infrastructure 107__| CAR-010

Proposed Action 144 | CAR-008

Public Involvement 155 | CAR-001
202 (|C.

12

[Socio-economic

Alternative

[Socio-economic

CHA-004
CHA-010
CHA-011

Alternative

DUR-020

Design DUR-015
236 _|DUR-016

76 DUR-019

Infrastructure 108 |DUR-018
Noise/Vibration 135 _|DUR-004
Proposed Action 145 |DUR-023
[Ridership 169 | DUR-025
Safety 188 |DUR-002
189 _|DUR-004

190 _|DUR-017

[Socio-economic 205 | DUR-002
DUR-017

ater Reso DUR-003
Alternative GRE-005
GRE-008

GRE-009

(Cost GRE-004
Design GRE-011
(Other 237 __|GRE-020
Ridership 170 _|GRE-004

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-4



Response ,

lbeen designated from Raleigh,
lsouth to Columbia, SC, Savannah,
IGA, and Jacksonville, FL, and from
(Charlotte, NC southwest to Atlanta,
IGA, Birmingham, AL, and New
(Orleans, LA. These corridors connect
ito other corridors at Jacksonville, FL
land New Orleans, LA.
113] SPR-029 [Third track is necessary between Existing train traffic between

Topic: |Richmond and DC because of CSX__ Richmond, VA and Washington, D.C,
Infrastructurettraffic. lincludes freight service by CSX and
INS, Amtrak, and VRE. The existing
itrack structure is at or above
capacity. Therefore, the need for a
ithird track is to improve the quality
and timeliness of all existing
services. This improvement has
lindependent utility from the SEHSR
project and falls under other studies

Comment

lby VDRPT
114| SPR-031 [Reopen the downtown Richmond ‘See response to comment number
Topic: _ station. 110 RIC-027 above.
Infrastructure
115] SPR-033 ork on making improvements to Improvements to existing tracks and
Topic: _ |existing lines between now and stations are the basis for the
Infrastructure|SEHSR completion. incremental approach. Both VA and

INC are upgrading or installing
crossing improvements, signal
systems, and passing sidings as
initial phases of these improvements.
116 | SPR-034 [Trains should accommodate unboxed |See response to comment number
Topic: _ bicycles and stations include secure |107 CAR-010 above.
Infrastructure|bicycle storage (parking) facilities.
117| SPR-044 [Are you going to have ample parking, \See response to comment number
Topic: jor are you supposed to find another 108 DUR-018 above.
Infrastructure get to the train?

sa pics Lk

118| AGE-011 ; INo table for the Category 2 land use (See response to comment number

ae

Topic: _ |could be found. 132 AGE-011, Topic: Noise/Vibration
Land Use
119} RIC-018 [Are there any ongoing efforts to Both states (NC and VA) have a
Topic: _|preserve the ROW of the old policy to protect the S-line right of

Land Use |Seaboard Line south of Petersburg? |way south of Petersburg. Since the
tracks have been removed from the
IS-line section south of Petersburg all
ithe way to Norlina, small sections of
[the right of way have been sold to
private owners and have been
\developed. Other development in the
larea has encroached on the right of
ay or exists in close proximity to the
right of way. For the most part, the

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3-47
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


Comment Number]

‘Response

lor mitigating potential environmental
impacts and of designing and
constructing the proposed
alternatives. This error will be
corrected through the use of errata
sheets.

101

SPR-016
Topic:
Errata

Map #3 — identify what S-line is.

[This comment is in reference to the |
public hearing maps that were used
lat the DEIS hearings and that were
lon display at the 18 viewing sites for
jthe DEIS document. All of the names
for the railroad rights of way were
listed on the map in their shorthand
(acronym) format. The S-line refers
ito the former Seaboard Airline
railroad that is now the CSXT-

a

‘Op! Hazardou Mate

102

AGE-011
Topic:
Hazardous
Materials

able 4.11 does not contain any
irginia data, please explain.

[The Virginia data table 4.11 was
inadvertently omitted. It will be added
just prior to the NC Data Table 4.11.

103

AGE-011
Topic:
Hazardous
Materials

Having defined numerous sensitive
laquatic/water supply resources along
ithe alternative routes. there should be
lan assessment of diesel fuel spill risks
land a comparison of the pollution risks}
lof fuel spillage with the electric traction)
locomotive alternative.

|A discussion of emergency response
procedures for handling dangerous
lgoods/hazardous materials incidents
lhas been added to the document. It
ill be located just prior to Table 4.1
in the DEIS.

104

STA-005
Topic:
Hazardous
Materials

(Our other concerri is hazardous waste
being transported in the future.

(A discussion of emergency response
procedures for handling dangerous
\goods/hazardous materials incidents
lhas been added to the document. It
ill be located just prior to Table 4.1
in the DEIS.

infrastructure:

105

AGE-011
Topic:
Infrastructure}

ip.
It would be inappropriate to consider
lsuch a mass transit project without
considering the other modal entities
land infrastructure necessary to get
riders to and from the stations. It
lappears as though both States are
committed to doing such facilities
improvements. We would suggest that|
la competitive evaluation factor should
lbe incorporated in the process that
identifies which communities along the|
lalternative alignments are most
lready/likely to accept rail service
based on their capital investments.

[One of the goals of the incremental
lapproach is to provide service at all
lexisting stations along the high
Ispeed route, Our public involvement
process revealed strong support from
local officials at all existing stop
locations, and both VA and NC are
lactively investing in all present
istation locations.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-45


(Com

Topic:
Ridership

more of a door-to-door type of transit
far more effective than following the
existing RR corridors. ... If you
lpersonally want to travel from your
loffice in Raleigh to Charlotte, will you
really want to get on a HSR that goes
through downtown Burlington, then
\Gibsonville, and Whitsett just to name
la few towns in our area? What are the
risks in terms of down time/delays
from at grade accidents, traffic
lcongestion, and little point to point
lcapability. What is the convenience
factor of going through such
destinations? Selling the cost issue to

labout a rail system that follows RR
tracks and never gets to high speed?
ho is going to patronize such a
Isystem? How much is it going to cost
Ito elevate or build on the surface a
hole new set of tracks to handle an
lAcela or a mag lev train? You may as
ell compare that to taking advantage
lof the highway corridors to understand
ithe differences. What about
lautomation vs. having to man each
train? How does that cost compare?
What about 30 year operating
numbers? At the end of the day, | am
lextremely concerned that if we follow
ithe path of the current rails, and if we
decide to use surface rail whether
regular or high speed, or if we decide
ithe whole high speed line must be
elevated and we still follow the current
rail lines, we end up with a system
costing far more over a 30 year period
lof operation as compared toa
Imonorail system built from the outset
lalong the highway corridors and major
jthorough fares. Again, ridership is the
key to this, nothing more, nothing less,
| have a map showing such a system
for the triad area that incorporates a
high speed line from Raleigh to
(Greensboro, and on to Charlotte,
lusing the interstate ROW for much of
ithe NC route. | also have on the same
map a triad regional system that
lbreaks off from and ties back into the
INC line. | think you would find the
layout compelling. The goal of either

[the transit line. If it is in the median it
Ineeds to be elevated, which will
increase the cost of construction and
lalso pose significant issues with
linterstate bridges and overpasses.
Safe transfer of passengers to the
stations, and the location of parking
lare also significant issues. If the
system is at grade along the side of
the interstate, it will potentially have
to be grade separated at each
interchange or entrance and exit, and
laccess questions are challenging
Stations must be logically placed to
give riders convenient enough

jthe public is tricky, | concede, but whatlaccess to make the system attractive}

to use, and there must be sufficient
interstate right of way for the
placement of transit. It may not be
laccurate to assume that all.of the
lland adjacent to the highway is
publicly owned and available for use
at low or no cost. Both the interstate
land the railroad rights-of-way have
the advantage of being established
jtravel corridors. In addition a number
lof the small towns, such as those
‘ou mention.in your letter actually
lgrew up around and because of the
railroad. Some of these towns are
interested in having rail service
reinstated because of the potential
leconomic benefits.

e are not always in the position of
having to build a whole new set of
tracks. In some cases we would be
lirnproving existing tracks,
straightening curves or adding a
isecond track.

(We do not have 30-year operating
costs and some of the other
extensive cost information you
discuss in your comments. This is an
early planning study with a 20-year
plan horizon. We have completed a
conceptual engineering effort
(approximately 10% engineering).

e also do not have a specific
alignment chosen at this point. We
ould need a lot greater level of
lengineering detail in order to develop!

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-70


Comment —

laway from RR corridors, that the road
crossings continue to weigh heavily as:
ia high cost safety issue. Would not
placing monorail in the median be a
project worth researching relative to
speed, ridership, costs, safety, low
environmental impact, and the like?
[Especially in terms of cost over a 30

ear period of time. | would like to ask
ithat if you have done such a study, |

ould very much appreciate reviewing
lit. In terms of “door to door”, | look at
ithe triad area and | can point out on a
Imap the “employment centers”, that is,
those areas where we work, shop,
dine, entertain, even attend
luniversities and other schools. This to
Ime is door to door which means that |
can park my car at a metro station and
lcommute via express or multi-stop
monorail throughout the triad. In fact I
lhave drawn a map showing such a
system. Same could be applied to an
linterstate-aligned monorail system.
From Downtown Raleigh, through
IRTP, to RDU.... Utilize the mag lift
system throughout the state, and use
either mag lift or a Bombardier/OTG/or
‘Severn Lamb type system for the local
rail. Connecting station for the state
system in our area would be placed at
Lee Street exit off |-85. We then run
ithe local system through the triad and
the state system continues on to
(Charlotte via I-85. Simple, fast,
convenient and | believe could be built
ith a profit motive in mind due to a
far higher ridership. Selling
lsponsorships along the way for
\developments such as Grandover in
Greensboro, which might purchase
laccess to a station at its convention
center along I-85.

system considered in this
study. Therefore, monorail was not a
jtechnology considered in this study.

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) and
related technologies hold a great
\deal of promise for the future,
lespecially as it relates to higher
lspeeds. FRA is presently sponsoring
two pilot projects for maglev
jtechnology, and the initial estimates
for these projects is between 39-85
million dollars per mile. Based on the
Ineeds of the SEHSR corridor within
lour planning horizon (see response
11 CHA-O4), this high cost is not

arranted for the SEHSR corridor at
[this time.

[The incremental approach allows us
to maximize the existing rail system,
las well as the other existing
transportation systems as we
develop a program of rail ridership in
the SEHSR corridor.

14

GRE-008
Topic:
Alternative

After carefully analyzing the
information in Exhibits ES-6 and ES-
20 | have concluded that Alternative C
lis clearly best overall. It would also
provide an alternative route to existing
Amtrak service via Greensboro and
[Rocky Mount. | assume there would
lbe some intermediate stops at places
like Petersburg, Henderson,
lsomewhere near Sanford (perhaps

(Although the exact location of
stations would occur at a later date,
preliminary locations for the purpose
lof this study included Petersburg,

‘A, Henderson, NC and Sanford,
INC. Star and Troy were not
considered in this study.
|The analysis put forth in the Tier |
IFEIS has identified Alternatives A &
IB as best meeting the purpose and

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-15


net

Response |

AGE-016

Topic:
Other

Based on the information available at
{this time, including information
provided in documents, meetings and
lpublic hearings attended by my staff
regarding the subject project, we
concur that either Alternative A or B
are the alternatives that should be
carried forward for further analysis.

see response to comment number
139 AGE-003.

237

GRE-020

Topic:
Other

Please provide: compare projected
INOI (Net Operating Income) on the
two A vs. B.

lin order to determine relative
leconomic viability (between the
different study areas), alternatives
ere examined based on the
potential net operating contribution
jand the conceptual capital cost. Net
\Operating Contribution is the
revenue generated less the operating|
lexpenses for each routing.
(Conceptual costs were based on
using current cost factors applied to
la conceptual engineering design
(approx. 5-10% engineering level)
ith a 60% contingency added. The
Inet operating contribution is
comparative only, and not intended
ito predict actual future revenue,
hich would be dependent upon
future operating conditions and
requirements. The capital cost
lefficiency factor is the net operating
contribution divided by the
conceptual capital cost and multiplied
by 1000. This gives a form of a
lbenefit/cost ratio for comparison
lbetween the different alternatives.
Both alternatives A and B have 2025
Inet operating contributions of almost
$25 million (in year 2000 dollars) and
capital efficiency factors of almost
$10 million. These factors are slightly;
higher for Alternative A when
compared to Alternative B.

142

PET-009
Topic:
Other

[You noted that there were copies of

jthe EIS at — where did you say, at

local locations? | note on here one
as Chesterfield, and the other one
as at a planning district office.

[The Tier | DEIS and a set of maps
ere made available at over 18
locations through out the study area.
[These locations were in cities where
tthe public hearings were held. In
Petersburg this included the Crater
Planning District (1964 Wakefield
Street-Petersburg, VA) and the
(Chesterfield County Transportation
\department (9901 Lori Road-
(Chesterfield, VA). In addition, at the

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-57



Response

comments expressing support for
ISEHSR, 11 comments expressing
lopposition, and 123 comments
expressing neither support nor
lopposition. Of the 11 comments
lexpressing opposition to SEHSR, the
distribution is as follows: Winston-
Salem, NC (1); Henderson, NC (2);
Roanoke Rapids, NC (1); Durham,
INC (1); and Star, NC (6).

In addition, 39 comments from the
IDEIS public hearings expressed a
preference for or against a specific
study alternative. (Some of these
comments expressed preferences for
land/or against multiple study area
lalternatives.) Four alternatives had
lone comment each of preference
lagainst them expressed: Alternative
IC, Alternative H, Alternative J, and
Alternative F.

160

AGE-011
Topic:
Other

[The cumulative impacts of both the

the corridors is a key analysis, which
as not addressed in this document.

ISEHSR and the freight traffic usage ofjand freight use of the corridor were

[The cumulative impacts of passenger

lgenerally addressed because this is
la program level document. The issue|
lis discussed in various locations
through out the Tier | DEIS including
\Chapter 1 on Purpose and Need.
[The extent of the joint activity level is
described in detail in section 2.4.1 of
Chapter 2 (Description of Study Area
Segments) and also in section
4.3.1.6 (Transportation Impacts) of
(Chapter 4. These potential impacts

ould be more thoroughly addressed
lin the Tier Il documentation when we
lhave a more specific alignment
identified and when operating
lscenarios have been refined
including more information from the
interfacing with the freight operators
during that project phase.

161

SPR-038
Topic:
Other

lls there really that much traffic
between Charlotte and D.C. to
necessitate something like this?

[The future of continued, good
mobility must include a variety of
travel modes that provide the public
ith viable options. We must look at
Imaintaining our current roadway
network, as well as building and
lenhancing other modes of travel. The:
IUSDOT has encouraged the
development of other modes through
ithe provision of federal funding

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-63


particular map. Can you comment on
is that in or out of the matrix of the
route segment consideration?

-Response
IRF&P line.

(One of the key purposes for this
\document is the identification of
general routing south of Richmond
through Raleigh to Charlotte (all
alternatives under consideration
lutilize a common corridor north of
Richmond).

20

RIC-024
Topic:
Alternative

‘Another question about it in terms of
[Hampton Roads, and this comment |
Ihave read periodically, which is one --
ll cannot conceive of whenever it is
\done that it would not include the
IPetersburg/Norfolk Southern, and
Norfolk and Virginia Beach in the
future as a separate (inaudible).

All of these railroad lines are outside
scope of this present study, however,
during the Tier II studies connecting
corridors will be examined as
appropriate for the segment under
consideration that that time.

21

ROA-010
Topic:
Alternative

[Had the high-speed train for all the
lextremely important and salient
reasons that have been expressed
tonight but in addition possibly and in
lcoordination with you guys, possibly
having that steam train so that it can
boost the economy in this area. As
possible as well, such a steam train
could be put together with private
dollars so it would involve government
laid in that respect and really see the
leconomy boost as a result.

Thank you. That comment is outside
the scope of this present study, but
ill be noted for future consideration
las appropriate.

22

ROA-015
Topic:
Alternative

| would ask that you consider in the
study, if it has not already been
lconsidered, when you run a train, it
should run from Alexandria to
(Charlotte as the same train and
hopefully with the same engineer and
lavoid two or three hours in Richmond
land other places where the current
trains lay over.

Thank you. That comment is noted
for future consideration as
lappropriate.

23

ROA-016
Topic:
Alternative

My only comment is that in order to
get the Weldon, you have to come
through Garrysburg. My question to

ou, are you planning on having any
more stops or are you just going to
luse the existing stops.

Station stops have not yet been
determined. See response 17 HEN-
20.

24

SAL-002
Topic:
Alternative

| think that high-speed rail is the right
thing to do. The event ... something
‘ou have not mentioned is that the
events of September 11, when the
entire airline industry was shut down
fer a period of several days. | think
hat illustrates the importance of
\developing additional modal choices.

Thank you for your comment.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-17


ymment Number

Errata 98 AGE-011
99 _|AGE-011
100 _|AGE-011
Hazardous Materials 102 |AGE-011
103 |AGE-011
Infrastructure 105 |AGE-011
Land Use 118 |AGE-011
Natural Resources 122 |AGE-011
123 |AGE-011
124 _|AGE-011
Noise/Vibration 131 |AGE-011
132 |AGE-011
133 |AGE-011
134 _|AGE-011
(Other 140 _|AGE-011
Purpose and Need 160 |AGE-011
Ridership 162 |AGE-011
‘Socio-economic 200 |AGE-011
201 _|AGE-011
Summary 227 __|AGE-011

Natural Resources

Agency:
(Cost 42 AGE-012
43 AGE-012
Design 74__|AGE-012
Ridership 163 |AGE-012
164 |AGE-012
165 _|AGE-012
166 _|AGE-012
167 |AGE-012
168 |AGE-012

igrs = Raleigh, NC|
141 __[AGE-016

gency: |
Earth/Mineral Resources AGE-007

US Department of the Interior — Petersburg,
VA
Cultural Resources [| 69 [AGE-013

91 AGE-015

vi

: [AGE-014

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


: Re:
ithere, with the commensurate
slowing and startup.

236 | DUR-016 |Howwill the train intersections be Specific intersection design elements
Topic: _|designed at Blackwell Street and Dukeare too detailed for a program level
Design _|Street? Will the designs allow for study, but will be taken into

pedestrians and vehicle safety, and _|consideration during the appropriate
complement the linkage among our _|Tier II studies.

\downtown districts (American

[Tobacco/Brightleaf/Inside the Loop,

letc.)? It is absolutely critical that these

key downtown intersections allow

leasy pedestrian and car movement

between the distinct downtown

districts North and South of the

railroad tracks.

76 | DUR-019 ill SEHSR have room for bikes? Cycling on railroad rights-of-way is
Topic: jan on-going safety and liability
Design lconcern. With high speed rail having

la maximum speed of 110 mph,
cycling on the right-of-way used by
ithe SEHSR would be prohibited.

. Accommodating the storage of
bicycles on the train can provide
‘service for cyclists using the SEHSR.

77 FRE-006 hat, if any, train control system will |A specific train control system has
Topic: {be used on the Virginia-NC corridor? |not been identified by this study. The
Design ill most of the trains run faster than |selection of this system would occur

|79mph within VA and NC? jthrough negotiations between all

parties operating within the corridor.
[Only the high speed passenger trains
lare expected to operate at speeds |
higher than 79 mph. However, since
the tracks would be constructed for
ithe higher speed passenger service,
lother trains that can operate safely at
lspeeds greater than 79 mph may be
lallowed to operate at those speeds.

78 | GRE-011 |The route from DC to Charlotte must |All of the alternatives have curves
Topic: _ |be properly banked to allow for hat require reducing speed below
Design _ |continuous high speeds. Major he maximum. The issue of

problem exists with current DC to [‘banking” the curves is a function of

Boston high speed service where the |the maximum speed attainable at the

bullet train does not maintain high rate of curvature. Conceptual

Ispeeds but has curves that reduce designs for the purpose of estimating

lspeed to 15-20mph in sections. conceptual capital cost included the
cost of curve improvements to
lsupport both high speed and freight
services.

79 | HEN-008 || own property adjacent to the existing |Existing access across railroad right-
Topic: _ {track and the only means | have to getjof-way would either be improved to
Design _ |to my property is to access the track atprovide greater safety at that

ithe Union Chapel Methodist Church. [crossing or the state would have to

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-38


used because the resolution
of these data sets is
commensurate with the
overall Tier | study objectives.
Moreover, the Census Data is}
comprehensive,
demographic, primary source
data and is readily available
for all segments of the study
area by Census Block (for
race and ethnicity) and for
Census Block Group (for
income).]

4. Calculate an area ratio for
each intersection of CBG and
300-foot buffer — the area of
the 300-foot buffer segment
through the CBG (sq. miles)
divided by the total area of
the CBG (sq. miles).

5. Calculate population for each
intersection of the CBG and
300-foot buffer — total
population of the CBG
multiplied by area ratio (#4).

6. Calculate the population
density of each intersection off
CBG and 300-foot buffer —
intersection population (#5)
divided by 300-foot buffer
impact area (sq. miles) (#2).

7. Calculate average population
density — sum all intersection
population densities (#6) and
divide by the number of
intersections.

High population densities can be a
result of small area. For example, in
lone study alternative, the areas of
CBG and 300-foot buffer
intersections range from 0.000016 to
0.449941 sq. miles. When the
lestimated populations of
intersections are divided by these
Ismall numbers, larger population
densities can result. In addition, the
Northern segment (the former RF&P.
line and S-line from Washington, DC
ito Centralia, VA) is common to all
alternatives. When considered
separately from other route

segments, the population density of _|

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

3-80

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


er

Respon'

Topic:
Community

established this as a
passenger service line and not
for industrial purposes. Recent
discussions have softened on
this matter to the point there is
confusion. Also, some
comments have been offered
regarding train stop(s) and/or
station(s) as enticements for
support of the line

9. There is an active rail line
located to the east. A parallel
line, alternate “A”, could be
built with much less impact on
adjacent property owners and
the community

10. There is considerable concern
with the line location in the
northern portion of the County
as it relates to Chaparral Steel
and the County's Enterprise
Zone. Clearly, this matter must
be addressed before the
County considers endorsement

of this project. The

9.

10.

The active rail line has been
included as part of the Tier I
DEIS in Study Area
Alternatives G, H, and J.
These three study areas
potentially have less impact
on adjacent property owners
in terms of acres to be
acquired, # of residential
relocations, and square
footage of business
relocations. When the study
area alternatives are
compared based on all study
criteria, only Alternative G
ranks above the bottom three|
Alternative G ranks above
other Alternatives only in
annual auto to rail diversion in|
2025, net reduction in NO,
emissions, and net energy
reductions. When Study Area
Alternatives are reviewed
based on economic viability
factors (i.e., net operating
contribution and capital cost
efficiency factors) Alternatives,
G, H, and J all rank in the
bottom three. More detailed
study will be needed in the
Tier Il DEIS to assess and
propose mitigation to possible
relocation impacts.

The Tier Il EIS analyses will
provide the opportunity for
detailed study of this area and!
the potential irnpacts.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-26



« The substantive comments were reviewed by environmental resource specialists and

other technical staff who drafted the responses. In some cases, similar comments were
assigned the same response. If the same comment was repeated within the same letter

or oral comments, it was only identified for response the first time it appeared.

¢ The individual comments were categorized by topic. These responses are organized by

topic and then consecutively by Comment Nurnber within each topic.

3.2 Locating Comments and Responses

Responses to specific comments may be accomplished a variety of ways. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and

2-3 list all substantive comment numbers sorted by agency, geographic location and topic.
Table 2-1 lists comment numbers by agency and topic. Table 2-2 lists comments from North
Carolina by location and by topic, and Table 2-3 lists comments from Virginia by location and
topic. If you are interested only in responses to comments from a certain agency or location,
these tables will help you identify the appropriate comment number to cross reference with

Table 2-4 (the comment response table). Substantive comments and responses are located in

Table 2-4 and are sorted by topic and comment number. Non-substantive comments and
responses are grouped by geographic location in Table 2-5.

Public and agency involvement is an important part of the NEPA process, and all comments are
taken into consideration by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the

North Carolina Department of Transportation in their decision making process.

The VDRPT and NCDOT would like to express appreciation for your comments. The fact that no

responses were prepared for many of the comments praising the proposed SEHSR and

requesting the proposed corridor or a station be located in or near a specific town or city does

not in any way reduce the value of your participation.

Table 3-1

Comments by Agency and Topic

Alternative

Cost

phia, PAI
ir Quality 2 AGE-011
Alternative 4 AGE-011
5 AGE-011
6 AGE-011
Cost 40 |AGE-011
41 __|AGE-011
(Cultural Resources 68 |AGE-011
Design 73 |AGE-011
[Environmental Justice 94 |AGE-011

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


|The number of crossings has been
lchanged in Table 4.38 to reflect only
the total number of existing
crossings.

[The wetland acreages were
calculated by looking at a 600’ wide
corridor. Actual construction corridors
are likely to be under 100’, thus the
jarea of wetland impacts presented in
this Tier | document are potentially
six times greater than the final
anticipated wetland impacts. No
lavoidance or minimization of impacts
lhave been completed at this time.

hen more detailed alternatives are
lidentified during Tier II evaluations,
measures to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands would further
reduce the potential wetland acreage
impacted.

curious to see what mitigation
strategies or replacements would be
loffered because based on the
scenarios projected, there is some
implications that may come to bear in
Johnston County.

128] RAL-007 || would also raise the issue of the ISee page 4-45 for a discussion on
Topic: _ |Cape Fear Shiner which is a protected|the Cape Fear Shiner.
Natural _ |species, federally endangered
Resources |species, which has its habitat or one
lof its few habitats in the reaches of he
deep river which will be where the site
ill pass.
129] SAL-008  |Mr. Max Merrill, a conservation After a comprehensive analysis of
Topic: _ |planner with The Land Trust for ithe DEIS and the comments received
Natural |Central NC, offers a letter of concern jon it, NCDOT and VDRPT have
Resources {for the environmental impacts of identified Alternative A (NCRR & S-
running the HSR through the southern|line), modified with passenger
route. connectivity to Winston-Salem
(Alternative B) as the alternative that
lbest meets the project's purpose and
Ineed while minimizing environmental
impacts. The southern alternative is
not recommended at this time.
130} WIL-008  |looking at the wetland mitigation I'm e recognize the importance of
Topic: {certain that now is premature butin _ |incorporating measures to avoid and
Natural _ {future evaluations, | would like to go [minimize wetland impacts. To be
Resources |on record as saying I'm really very conservative, the wetland impacts

presented in this Tier | document are
potentially six times greater than final
lanticipated wetland impacts. If we
Imove into Tier II, avoidance,
minimization and concepts for
compensation would be addressed.

After a comprehensive analysis of
ithe DEIS and the comments received

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-50



Comment

properties potentially affected by the
lundertaking, assess its effects, and
lseek ways to avoid, minimize or
mitigate any adverse effects on
historic properties. In the Tier | DEIS,
tthe assessment of impacts to historic!
lproperties is at a very broad level.
[During any subsequent Tier II
levaluation, a more detailed
lalignment would be studied, and field
surveys and studies would be
lcompleted to identify and determine
ithe eligibility of historic properties in
ithe area of potential effects. If
deemed necessary, a Memorandum
lof Agreement would be completed
for any Tier Il documentation.

‘still go faster than they are supposed
to sometimes so everything shakes
land rattles. | know that the historic

68 | AGE-011 |Table 4.31: Please indicate in the [The study buffer width of 1500 feet is}
Topic: _ {table the buffer width used for this Imentioned in the second paragraph,
Cultural _|calculation. second sentence on page 4-92.
Resources
69 | AGE-013 |The alternative using the "S" railway _|In the Tier | DEIS, the assessment of
Topic: _ |corridor that traverses Dinwiddie impacts to historic properties is ata
Cultural \County, VA may adversely impact ery broad level. During any
Resources (cultural landscape features on certain |jsubsequent Tier II evaluation, a more}
nationally significant Civil War detailed alignment would be studied,
battlefields in the County. The 1993 _jand field surveys and studies would
report to Congress by the Civil War be completed to identify and
Sites Advisory Commission identified |determine the eligibility of historic
nineteen class A or B battlefields in _ properties in the area of potential
[Dinwiddie County that deserve leffects. The determination of
lpreservation. As far as we can tell leligibility for inclusion on the National
from the maps provided, the "S" Register of Historic Places for the
railway corridor would pass through a |Civil War properties referenced will
portion of the Hatcher's Run lbe made during any subsequent Tier
battlefield. There are other lands in __|Il study process.
question where three additional Civil
ar battles have occurred that may
be impacted by the proposed railway
corridor. Although the battlefield sites
are not yet on the National Register of
Historic Places, they are probably
eligible for inclusion and should be
preserved for posterity. An alternative
route for this high-speed rail corridor is|
referred.
70 | RAL-009 [I've got concerns about the historical |Once a specific alignment for the
Topic: area of Wake Forest, Youngsville, proposed SEHSR has been identified
Cultural |Franklinton, and that area. | know nowdduring any Tier II studies a more
Resources |that when CSX comes through, they detailed analysis would be done of

potential noise and vibration impacts
land the need for and nature of
possible mitigation measures would

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-34



Pp ly
provided input on major community
concerns and support of high speed
rail, community involvement in similar
projects, and public participation
history and recommendations. These
types of activities would be expanded)
lin any Tier Il environmental analyses
ito continue outreach to
lunderrepresented groups.

Also refer to response provided for
comment number 155 CAR-001.

96 | CAR-006 |My only concern is that the African- [Refer to responses provided for
Topic: |American and Hispanic-American comment numbers 95 CAR-002 and
Environ-_|receive equal and fair representation |155 CAR-001.
mental _|and benefit of the proposed rail
Justice _|system. | ask that these amenities
have inclusion in the decision-making
process as well as the construction,
maintenance, and administration of
this wonderful idea.
97 | WIL-015 [Strongly favor alternatives G, H, and |A review of the net operating
Topic: J. The A-line is the most cost effective|contribution across all alternatives
Environ- |Upgrading the A-line would enable lshows those alternatives using the A+
mental _ {faster runs on Amtrak’s profitable NY line have the following net operating
Justice  |to FL routes. Eastern NC has contribution: $20.06 million (Alt. G),

lextremely poor air service. There is a
large minority population in eastern
INC that has strong cultural and family
ities to the Northeast Corridor.

[$13.57 million (Alt. H), and $4.09
Imillion (Alt. J). In contrast,
Alternatives A and B have a $26.34
million and $25.27 million net
loperating contribution, respectively.
Similar results are found when
conceptual capital cost is reviewed.
[The costs are higher for Alternatives
lusing the A-line ($2.752 -- $2.957
billion) than for Alt. A ($2.611 billion)
land Alt. B ($2.720). In addition, the
information used to model projected
ridership takes into consideration
ridership connections beyond the
ISEHSR corridor to the Northeast
(Corridor, based on historic and
demographic Amtrak data. Projected
lannual SEHSR ridership in 2025 is
lhigher for Alternatives A (1.76
million) and B (1.79 million) than for
Alternatives using the A-line (1.31-
1.67 million). The SEHSR project
does not displace current Amtrak
service. Any station that currently
lhas Amtrak (conventional) service
would continue to receive that

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-43


eSpol

idy showed
higher costs. We are working with
ICSX engineers to develop project by
project cost estimates.

RE eee ae 2

ito Richmond, VA corridor is common
ito all alternatives, the same cost was
factored into the total cost for each
lalternative.

45 | AGE-018 |Liability: CSX has a financial [The issue of insurance will be
Topic: _ |responsibility to our shareholders and addressed prior to the
Cost lemployees and we cannot expose implementation of high speed rail in
lourselves to any additional risk or ithe operating agreements that will be
liability that would occur due to the lestablished with the appropriate
introduction of new passenger service parties
lin our right-of-way. Our most recent
requirement is a minimum of $500
million in insurance per incident,
subject to upward adjustment.
However, due to ever increasing
liability exposure, we have our limits
lunder constant review and carinot
commit to any prescribed limits for
ffuture occupancies.
46 | AGE-018 |Compensation: We expect to be Compensation for right-of-way is an
Topic: |compensated for any use of our rights-issue that will be addressed prior to
Cost lof-way at fair market value. CSXT will implementation of high speed rail, in
not subsidize passenger operations byjthe operating agreements that will be
discounting property or service below {established with the appropriate
Imarket values. To be clear, we do not |parties
define market value as the current
(Amtrak rate, which is the result of a
historical bargain that relieved the
railroad of common carrier obligations
for passenger service in the early
1970s.
47 | AGE-018 'e also had some concerns about the|The incremental approach refers to
Topic: _ |language in the draft report regarding |the actual construction of
Cost lan "incremental approach" to the improvements and the funding of

project. It has been our experience
[that "incremental" is often
synonymous with trying to lessen the
Itrue long-term costs of the project. If it
iis the intent of the Southeast Coalition
‘o run high speed service in excess of
110 mph, the we believe that the
stakeholders should recognize the
(true long-term investments that will be
required. In Europe and Asia, the two
areas with the most operating
lexperience with high speed service,
ithe investments they have made are
loften $20 million/mile or more to build
orld class high speed service. We
believe that if you want that type of
service, you should state it clearly in
ithe beginning and recognize the full

llevel of investment that would be

jthose improvements. The conceptual
costs of the project account for the
improvements anticipated for
implementation of high speed rail to
la maximum speed of 110 mph. This
reflects the estimated long-term
investment that would be required to
implement this service. This
lapproach was specifically chosen
because it meets the project purpose’
land need with an efficient and
leffective use of public funds for the
design year (2025). Future planning

ill continue with input from all
lconcerned parties, as the SEHSR
corridor matures.

Net operating income, by definition,
lis the income (profit or loss) realized

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-29


-Respo

Alternative

future custom a high level of
lperformance. Regardless of the issues|
lon the S-Line, it must be noted that
the A-Line between Petersburg and
Richmond is part of our I-95 corridor,

hich is one of the busiest and most
important on our system. The
introduction of new passenger trains
originating as part of the SEHSR
(Coalition will likely require capital
improvements to ensure that our
freight rail operations are not
compromised. The Commonwealth of

‘A is also contemplating trains from
Bristol to Richmond, as well as new
Itraffic flows of Amtrak trains operating
lat Main Street Station in Richmond,
(that will likely have an impact on our
loperations.

improvements includ
second tracks where single tracks
currently exist, lengthening and
ladding passing sidings, consolidating
crossings, and improving
lsignalization. These improvements

ere designed to accommodate both
lpassenger and freight needs through
jthe design year, based on the
information available to the planning
jteam. Future detailed studies (Tier I!)

ill be coordinated with the freight
railroads to insure adequate
facilitation of existing and future
service needs.

AGE-018
Topic:
Alternative

Lastly, we do recognize that some
benefits could be obtained by CSX
from the Alternative A-Plus proposal.
[They would potentially include: 1. fair
Imarket compensation from a possible
S-Line sale, 2. operating rights on the
IS-Line if it is put back in service, 3. S-
Line could be used during the
maintenance periods on the A-Line or
imes of natural disaster to give us
increased operating flexibility, 4. some
Amtrak trains could be pulled off the
lalready congested A-Line, freeing up
lcapacity.

[These comments are statements of
jopinion that do not require
responses.

10

CAR-009
Topic:
Alternative

| just want to be sure that the SEHSR
lines intersect TTA in downtown
Raleigh in one coordinated structure.
[To have SEHSR trains come down the|
IS line and have a cross-platform
transfer the TTA system between
Morgan and Hargett Streets.

(Coordination of commuter rail and
high speed rail passenger services
lextends beyond the structures to
schedules and ridership. Specific
station design is a function of a more
detailed study, as is detailed
coordination with local/regional
commuter services and these will
itake place during the Tier II studies.
|The NCDOT Rail Division will
continue to work toward a
coordinated station in the Raleigh
larea.

11

CHA-004
Topic:
Alternative

He suggests to upgrade the Amtrak
system and dispose of any fossil fuel
train concepts.

ith the exception of the northeast
corridor, the Amtrak system uses
fossil fuel trains. The northeast high
speed rail corridor upgraded existing
lelectrification systems to operate at
higher speeds. The cost of
lconstructing overhead wires, sub-

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-13


[These diversion numbers illustrate
he proposed SEHSR program’s role
lin the creation of a balanced
transportation system.

Topic: Ridership

162

AGE-011
Topic:
Ridership

[The data tables regarding typical
diversion rates are difficult to interpret
(page 1-12). Table 1.1 defines auto
land air passenger diversions and the
total ridership anticipated in 2015 and
2025. How many auto trips are
eliminated by this diversion? In
laddition, the documents indicates that
lover 1,000,000 passenger trips would
be diverted from air and automobile.
[These numbers sound large, but are
jthey really when compared to an
interstate which may be carrying 60-
{80 thousand vehicles per day?

[Table 1.1 presents a lot of
information in a short hand format.
[The Build Alternative refers to the
lproposed SEHSR alternatives which
lare represented by one ridership
Inumber from the 9 alternatives, in
this case the highest ridership
Inumber of the 9 alternatives. The
1999 ridership number is blank for
the alternatives because the SEHSR
service did not exist in 1999. The
1999 ridership number for the No
Build is the 1999 ridership on
lconventional passenger rail service
lin the corridor. The additional
ridership number column refers to
additional rail ridership beyond the
12015 and 2025 projected ridership
levels. This additional ridership
includes induced trips (additional
{trips that individuals might not
lotherwise make), and those trips
diverted from auto and air. In 2015
hose trips diverted from auto are
lestimates at 779,500; in 2025 auto
diverted trips are estimates at
899,300. Diverted trips form auto and
lair were provided because
Icongestion and capacity problems
lexist for both roadway and the air
travel networks, which could be
improved by the implementation of
jhe proposed HSR service.

In comparison to the number of
ehicles carried on the interstate, the
1 million passengers diverted is not a
llarge number, however any reduction
in the number of trips on the network
should be of benefit. In addition,
diverted trips means travelers are
itrying rail transit for some of their trip
making needs, which could lead to
increased rail ridership if the
experience is successful and more
future trips might be taken on rail.

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-65


he Northern segment 300-ft buffer is
[3,385 persons per sq. mile, 57-140%
greater than the other segment
buffers (when excluding the Northern
segment).

201

AGE-011
Topic:
Socio-

economic

[The extent of residential relocations
defined in Table 4.38 is notable and
Ineeds explanation since the
lassumption is that the SEHSR would
loccupy existing ROW.

Residential relocations were
estimated at a broad level based
lupon conceptual engineering results
land assumptions. This information
as used to provide input to the
ldevelopment of order of magnitude
capital cost estimates for the
lalternatives. Section 4.3.1.5 of the
DEIS provides a detailed description
lof how the residential relocations
ere determined.
Right of way acquisitions could result
from realigning curves to
lobtain/maintain the maximum
loperating speed of the proposed high]
speed passenger train set. In
sections of the corridor where natural
land man-made features pose
constraints, preserving these
features could require a new location
‘or the proposed rail alignment as
ell as sufficient right-of-way to
construct, maintain and improve this
Inew proposed alignment.
Curves that are to be realigned are
proposed to be shifted “inside” the
existing curve to “flatten” the curve
for improved travel speed.
Depending on the amount of shift for
he curve realignment, the impacts
lon adjoining properties would vary
from none where the realignment is
contained within the existing right-of-
ay to residential and/or business
relocations where development is
|‘inside” the curve and close to the
lexisting right-of-way. The exact
Inumber and types of businesses to
lbe displaced would be researched
during any Tier || documentation.

202

CAR-012
Topic:
Socio-

economic |heavily in the final routing decision. I’m

l| would hope that the very long term
possible positive impacts to some of
ithe more rural areas would weigh

Inot sure how much congestion would
lbe relieved on |-40 for example for

itis anticipated that the construction
land operation associated with the
proposed SEHSR program would
spur economic activity creating
ladditional jobs; and income and
sales that generate additional tax

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-81



Response

lon it, NCDOT and VDRPT have
identified Alternative A (NCRR & S-
line), modified with passenger
lconnectivity to Winston-Salem
(Alternative B) as the alternative that
lbest meets the project's purpose and
Ineed while minimizing environmental
impacts. The southern alternative
through Johnston County is not

‘opic: Noise/Vibi

|
i

131

AGE-011
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

[Table 4.14: where is the data on
residential receptors? Related to this
lissue; explain how the number of
sensitive receptors be so low when
residential displacements are in the
[300-400 range. Table 4.20: explain
hy the number of sensitive noise
receptors is so much higher in the
100-150 buffer widths than with the

ider buffer widths. It seems that the

ider the buffer the more receptors
that would be found, If this has to do
ith diminishing sound levels as
ldistance from the tracks increases,
please explain this.

See response to comment number
132 AGE-011 under Noise/Vibration.
Note the listing of sensitive receptors
does not include residential (category
2 ) as explained in the response to
comment number 132 AGE-011.

|Table 4.14 has been modified in the
errata to include a footnote that
states category 2 land uses are not
included.

[The residential displacements are
hose dwellings that fall under the
footprint of the conceptual alignment
hich is based on a 300' right-of-
ay, these dwellings would be
removed and thus not be considered
las receptors.

|The numbers in Table 4.20 do not
reflect historic properties (properties
lon the National Register List or the
Study List, these properties were
included in Table ES-3 listing of
Category 3 sensitive receptors) and
lare not cumulative. The properties
listed for each new category
represent the increment over the
previous in that bandwidth. Note the
level of potential noise impact is
related to the type of land use, the
Inoise source as well as the distance
from that source. Table 4.20 has
lbeen modified through errata to note
that totals are not cumulative and
potential historic, and residential
receptors are not included.

132

AGE-011
Topic:
Noise/

Vibration

[Based on the Tier 1 document, it
lappears that noise and vibration are
likely to be the central NEPA issues to
be addressed. Yet from the document

Noise and vibration potential is
lminimized on the routes using the
rural ACWR corridor (Alternatives C,
J and F) however, this also avoids

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-51


Response.

section of 125 mph)
-a mixture of continuous welded
rail and some jointed rail (mainly
on special sections such as
crossovers and switches)

-a mixture of urban and rural
sections over several hundred
miles of corridor

Using the assessment methods
\described in the FRA and FTA
manuals, the Chicago to St. Louis
lstudy calculated existing and future
noise estimates for receptors located
ithin 250 feet of the track centerline|
land accounted for the projected
Ichange in train volume and operating
lspeeds throughout the corridor for
lboth passenger and freight trains.
|The appropriate FRA and FTA
Imanuals were also used for
lanalyzing potential vibration impacts.

[The noise study identified 3498
residential receptors and 71
institutional receptors within 250 feet
lof the track centerline. The three
lmajor sources of rail noise were: 1)
the steel wheel on steel rail
interaction; 2) engine noise from
fossil fuel locomotives; and 3) horn
sounding at crossings. As train
speeds exceed 80 mph the major
source of noise was the interaction of
ithe steel wheels on steel rail. The
study found that there were
increases in noise levels associated
ith all build alternatives over the no-
build alternative. However, these
increases were all less than 2.4 dBA,
with the exception of a 3.5 dBA at
lone location, and the overall
exposure at that one receptor was
less that 60 dBA. Changes of 3 dBA
or less are generally not severe, and
total resulting noise levels less than
60 dBA are not often considered
significant. Thus, even with over
3500 receptors there were no new
noise impacts, and likewise there
ere no new vibration impacts.

Because of the similarity in project

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

3-53

Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)


eed of the overall project, while
Iminimizing environmental impacts.
[Station locations and schedules will
lbe determined through the Tier II
lanning studies.

Station and loops around to Doswell,

15 | GRE-009 [Take route through Greensboro and _ [This Tier | FEIS identifies as
Topic: _ jinclude both High Point and Winston- [preferred the Alternatives A&B.
Alternative |Salem track improvements. You [These combine to include both High
lcannot leave out either city. Point and Winston-Salem.
16 | HEN-001 (As part of this project, will there be Many of the existing stations have
Topic: _|any efforts or funding to create lbeen, or are in the process of being,
Alternative |secondary services such as bus renovated, including their
service to and from local rail stops? _|connections to supporting
transportation services. These efforts,
lhave been funded separately from
tthe SEHSR corridor development,
land they will continue through the
Tier Il process.
17 | HEN-020 hat towns would the train stop? Final station stop locations will be
Topic: ldetermined during the Tier II
Alternative process. For the purpose of this
study, the cities of Washington, D.C.,
Alexandria, VA, Fredericksburg, VA,
Richmond, VA, Petersburg, VA,
IHenderson, NC, Raleigh, NC, Cary,
INC, Durham, NC, Burlington, NC,
\Greensboro, NC, High Point, NC,
Salisbury, NC, Kannapolis, NC,
inston-Salem, NC, and Charlotte,
. INC were identified for estimating
itravel time and capital costs.
18 RIC-014 |... a mention at that time of the hank you for your comment, see
Topic: _ |possibility of perhaps moving our train |response 17 HEN-20.
Alternative |station out of town up to the sewer
plant outside the Town of Ashland.
And that proposal led to the general
public outcry, | would have to say,
lafter that became public. And | just
anted to restate for the record that |
personally, and a large number of
citizens in Ashland, are not in support
lof moving our station out of downtown.
e see that as a vital part of our
community; and it is important, we
ifeel, to keep service from downtown to
Idowntown, not from sewer plant to
downtown.
19 RIC-019 {In some places | see reference to the While the overall study area includes
Topic: _ |lttle alternative loop route north of tthe old C&O line from Richmond up
Alternative |Richmond that runs from Main Street jto Doswell, the conceptual

lengineering and analyses done for

lbut it doesn’t show on there, that

this document utilize the former

SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
Tier | Final Environmental Impact Statement (abbreviated format)

3-16