May 2019 

Prepared by

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

and

Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation

TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

AND FINAL SECTION 4(f ) EVALUATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION &

PROJECT OVERVIEW

PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS & MITIGATION

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Overview of Public Involvement & Agency Coordination

Appendix A Errata to the Draft EIS

Appendix B Agency and Organization Comments

Appendix C Detailed Responses to Public Comments

Chapter 5 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative

Chapter 6 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Preface Project Commitments

Appendix D Updated Cultural Resources Reports

Appendix E Updated Section 106 and Section 4(f) Comments and Coordination

Appendix K Draft Memorandum of Agreement

Appendix M Updated Environmental Resource Mapbooks

Chapter 7 Overview of Future Steps

Chapter 3 Additional Information

Chapter 4 Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Appendix F Rened Operations Analysis Modeling Technical Memos

Appendix G Final Town of Ashland /Hanover County Community

 Advisory Committee Summary Report

Appendix H Resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board

Appendix I DC2RVA Recommendation Report for the Preferred Alternative

Appendix J Richmond Turning Wye Memo

Appendix L Preferred Alternative Mapbook

The Final EIS contains detailed information on the topics summarized

in this Executive Summary, as shown in the below table.

TOPIC FINAL EIS CONTENT

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A.

B.

C.

D. FUTURE STEPS

Copies of the Draft and Final EIS documents and 

their technical appendices are available on the 

Project website: www.DC2RVARail.com

A.

B.

C.

D.

INTRODUCTION & PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . 1

PROJECT RECAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ALTERNATIVE AREAS RECAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10

DRAFT EIS BUILD ALTERNATIVES RECAP . . . . . . . . 23-24

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS & MITIGATION . . . . 28

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECAP . . . . . . . . . 29-32

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . 33-35

FUTURE STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-41

This Executive Summary provides a high-level, concise summary of 

the Preferred Alternative for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA 

Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project, as evaluated in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is not intended to 

present all data and analyses, but rather to summarize key changes 

since the publication of the Draft EIS in September 2017 and to 

present the Preferred Alternative, which is new to the Final EIS. 

Readers who are interested in the full detailed analyses should 

refer to the chapters and technical appendices of the Final EIS, as 

summarized on the inside cover of this Executive Summary.

TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 123-mile corridor, consisting primarily of two existing 

main tracks

• Northern Terminus: South of Long Bridge 

(across the Potomac River) in Arlington, VA 

• Southern Terminus: Centralia in Chesterfield County, 

VA (south of Richmond)

• Shared rail corridor:

• Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service

• VRE provides commuter rail service

• CSX Transportation (CSXT) owns the tracks 

and provides freight rail service

• The Project will increase passenger trains speeds, 

where practicable, up to 80 to 90 mph

• The Project includes both passenger rail service and 

rail infrastructure improvements:

• Increased intercity passenger train frequency 

(i.e., more trains)

• Improved on-time performance of existing 

service

• Increased rail capacity (i.e., an additional track)

• Improved station areas and roadway crossings, 

as needed

• The Draft EIS for the Project:

• Evaluated 23 Build Alternatives in six 

Alternative Areas

• Was published in September 2017

• Was followed by a 60-day review period with 5 

public hearings

DC2RVA PROJECT QUICK FACTS:

A. INTRODUCTION & PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) are 

proposing passenger rail service and rail infrastructure 

improvements in the 123-mile north-south corridor 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA—collectively 

known as the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA Southeast 

High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project.

WHAT IS THE FINAL EIS FOR THE 

DC2RVA PROJECT?

The Project is being evaluated through the mechanism 

of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to satisfy the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Final EIS follows the Draft EIS for the Project, 

which was published for public review in September 2017.

 

The Final EIS focuses on information that is new, revised, or 

updated since the publication of the Draft EIS. It is presented 

in a “condensed” format, consistent with the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) recommendations, that allows 

the reader to easily identify the reasons for selecting the 

Preferred Alternative (which is new to the Final EIS) and the 

potential environmental impacts and avoidance/mitigation 

measures associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

PURPOSE AND NEED

• The DC2RVA Project’s stated purpose is 

to increase railroad capacity between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA to deliver 

higher speed passenger rail service, while also 

supporting the planned expansion of Virginia 

Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail service 

and accommodating the forecasted growth of 

freight rail service.

• The Project is a Tier II NEPA study that builds 

upon the previous Tier I documentation for 

the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor 

between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC 

that established:

• The use of existing fossil fuel 

locomotive technology

• The use of existing rail corridors (in 

preference to new alignments)

• Building the corridor in incremental 

sections as funds become available

HOW IS THE FINAL EIS DIFFERENT 

FROM THE DRAFT EIS FOR 

THIS PROJECT?

The main elements of the Draft EIS are provided below, with 

comparison to the Final EIS. The Final EIS format references 

and summarizes information presented in the Draft EIS, 

but to avoid duplication, does not republish the Draft EIS 

content to the same level of detail. 

• Purpose and Need: There are no changes (only 

clarifications) to the Purpose and Need between the 

Draft and Final EIS.

• Alternatives: The Draft EIS summarized the alternatives 

development process and provided details on the 

six alternative areas of the corridor and the 23 Build 

Alternatives within those areas. The Final EIS evaluates the 

Preferred Alternative; it connects a Build Alternative from 

each of the six alternative areas evaluated in the Draft EIS 

to form the 123-mile route through the Project corridor 

that makes up the Preferred Alternative. Alternatives 

evaluations in both the Draft and Final EIS are based on 

conceptual engineering (approximately a 10 percent level 

of design). All design modifications that occurred after 

the Draft EIS are noted in the Final EIS.

• Affected Environment: The Draft EIS presented a full 

description of existing conditions of the Project corridor, 

which have not significantly changed since that time.

• Environmental Consequences: The Draft EIS presented 

the potential effects on the environment of all 23 Build 

Alternatives, while the Final EIS presents potential impacts 

of only the Preferred Alternative. Refinements to the 

conceptual engineering resulted in design changes – and 

therefore changes to anticipated environmental impacts 

– between the Draft and Final EIS. 

• Section 4(f) Evaluation: The Final EIS presents the 

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation in the same format as the 

Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, with updates to ongoing 

coordination and findings, but no changes to the 

evaluation process. 

• Public Involvement and Agency Coordination:

Both documents summarize the agency coordination 

and public outreach during the development of the 

Project to date.

THE SEHSR CORRIDOR

PROJECT RECAP

1 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
HOW IS THE TIER II DC2RVA 

PROJECT DIFFERENT FROM 

PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION? 

The DC2RVA Project is the second part of a two-tiered 

environmental process. A first-level Tier I EIS and Record of 

Decision (ROD) were completed in 2002 for the 500-mile 

SEHSR corridor between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC.

The 2002 Tier I EIS defined much of the framework upon which 

the DC2RVA Project is based, including: using existing fossil 

fuel locomotive technology, upgrading existing rail corridors 

in preference to new alignments, and building the corridor in 

incremental sections as funds become available.

The 2002 Tier I EIS also established the overall purpose for the 

SEHSR corridor: to provide a competitive transportation choice 

to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh, 

and Charlotte travel corridor.

This DC2RVA Tier II EIS carries forward the Purpose and Need 

of the 2002 Tier I EIS and further builds upon it by recognizing 

and incorporating several key corridor-specific items that are 

unique to the Project: 

It is important to note that subsequent to the 2002 Tier I EIS, 

the SEHSR corridor was extended south and east to Hampton 

Roads, VA (to destinations in Norfolk and Newport News). In 

2012, FRA and DRPT completed a Tier I EIS and ROD for the 

Richmond to Hampton Roads (R2HR) project to cover the 

SEHSR extension. The proposed service plan for the DC2RVA 

Project includes new train service from both the 2002 Tier I EIS 

and the 2012 R2HR project – see Section B of this Executive 

Summary for details.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN THE 

DRAFT EIS AND THE FINAL EIS?

The selection of the Preferred Alternative, as presented in the 

Final EIS, included the following considerations that occurred 

after publication of the Draft EIS:

Public, agency, and organization comments on the 

Draft EIS during the 60-day comment period

Extensive outreach and communication with the 

public, stakeholders, and elected officials, including 

five public hearings for the Project

Additional rail operations simulation analysis to test 

the infrastructure proposed in the Draft EIS

Recommendation of the Town of Ashland/Hanover 

County Community Advisory Committee (CAC)

Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) 

Resolution for the Project

Refinement of feasible alternatives of the Long 

Bridge project, a separate project by the District 

Department of Transportation (DDOT) in 

Washington, D.C.

Refinement to the conceptual engineering, which 

resulted in both design changes to the proposed 

Project infrastructure as well as changes to 

anticipated environmental impacts of the Project, 

from: • Further minimization of potential impacts, 

based on comments from the public and 

review agencies

• New data either provided or discovered 

during the Draft EIS review period

Recognition that the Project corridor is owned and 

operated by CSXT

Creation of a 90 mph maximum authorized speed 

for intercity passenger trains

Accommodation of VRE commuter trains, which 

operate within a portion of the corridor

Accommodation of CSXT’s freight service

90

3 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY4
The 60-day comment period for the Draft EIS was from 

September 8, 2017 to November 7, 2017. During this 

time, DRPT received comments from 34 agencies and 

organizations, and more than 14,000 comments from 4,247 

individual commenters, with most citizens commenting 

on several topics or issues. DRPT and FRA have reviewed 

and taken into consideration all comments received on the 

Draft EIS during the decision-making process, which led to 

the selection of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS.

DRPT and FRA do not view the public comment process as a 

“vote counting” exercise but rather one seeking substantive 

comments that benefit the FRA and DRPT in their final 

decision-making process. The public comment process is 

also an opportunity for the public to inform FRA or DRPT 

of potential concerns or conditions that were not identified 

during the preparation of the Draft EIS.

Responses to substantive comments – those that question, 

with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information and 

methodology in the Draft EIS or present new information 

not considered in the Draft EIS – are incorporated and 

addressed by way of providing additional or revised 

information and analyses, as needed, in the appropriate 

sections of the Final EIS.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 1:

Introduction

This chapter guides the reader on how information is 

presented in the Final EIS. It provides the Project background, 

including how it relates to previous projects in the corridor, 

as well as the Project overview, which provides a concise 

synopsis of the Draft EIS documentation and the Project 

Purpose and Need.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 2: 

Overview of Public Involvement

and Agency Coordination

This chapter describes the public involvement and agency 

outreach that has occurred since the initiation of the Project. 

It includes a summary of comments received on the Draft 

EIS; a complete compilation of comments and responses are 

included as Appendix B and C to the Final EIS.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 3:

Additional Information

This chapter presents additional material that provides 

the reader with a better understanding of various Project 

elements, in response to comments received on the Draft 

EIS. FRA and DRPT developed this additional material to 

document ongoing activities and coordination efforts that 

extended beyond the Draft EIS that were relevant to the 

selection of the Preferred Alternative, including historical 

context within the corridor and additional rail operations 

modeling simulations.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 4:

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

This chapter presents the elements of the Preferred Alternative 

in each of the six alternative areas in the Project corridor, and 

the reason for the selection of each. It also describes any 

modifications to the Preferred Alternative since publication 

of the Draft EIS.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 5:

Environmental Consequences

of the Preferred Alternative

This chapter documents the potential impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative to each of the environmental resources 

presented in the Draft EIS. The quantitative range of impacts 

of the other Build Alternatives from the Draft EIS are provided 

for comparison purposes only, and efforts to further 

minimize and mitigate impacts for the Preferred Alternative 

are described.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 6: 

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

This chapter presents the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, which 

includes updates since the Draft evaluation, results of agency 

coordination, a summary of all Section 4(f) comments, a least 

harm analysis, and the basis for a finding that there are no 

feasible or prudent alternatives to the use of any Section 4(f) 

properties, when applicable.

FINAL EIS CHAPTER 7: 

Overview of Future Steps

This chapter describes the anticipated sequence of events 

following the publication of the Final EIS. 

FINAL EIS APPENDICES

The text and figures that comprise the Final EIS are 

supported by a series of detailed appendices, as summarized 

in the table on the inside cover of this Executive Summary. 

Two appendices provide updated mapping of the Preferred 

Alternative: Appendix L provides a detailed mapbook of the 

Preferred Alternative, including permanent and temporary 

limits of disturbance, and Appendix M provides updated 

environmental resource mapbooks, as required.

FOR REFERENCE:

The chapters of the Final EIS are arranged in chronological order, representing the sequential order of events

since the publication of the Draft EIS.

FOR DETAILED RESPONSES TO COMMENTS, REFER TO:

• Appendix B for agency and organization responses

• Appendix C for general public responses

The responses include reference to information provided in both 

the Draft and Final EIS documents; some responses are the outcome 

of ongoing analyses and coordination that have occurred since the 

publication of the Draft EIS that are revised and/or updated in the 

Final EIS. 

The following types of comments were received:

HOW WERE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL EIS?

Overall position/opinion for or against the Project

Preference for and/or opposition to a specific 

Build Alternative or infrastructure/service element 

that was evaluated in the Draft EIS, both in general 

as well as with specific concerns

Suggestion of additional alternatives to consider, 

many of which were considered but dismissed 

during the 2002 Tier I EIS, do not align with the 

implementing actions that were the outcome 

of the 2002 Tier I EIS, or do not align with the 

DC2RVA Purpose and Need

Request for detailed information or data that is 

beyond the scope of an environmental document 

and would be developed during future design 

phases of the Project

5 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
B. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

• Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) service operates 

between New York and North Carolina through Virginia. 

The Project will accommodate 4 new daily Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) round trips (8 total trains per day) to/

from North Carolina, with station stops in the DC2RVA 

corridor in: Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Richmond 

(both Staples Mill Road and Main Street Station). The 

new service aligns with the proposed intercity passenger 

train service between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, 

NC from the 2002 Tier I EIS, and will extend from North 

Carolina north into Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

• Northeast Regional (Virginia) service provides regional 

passenger rail service from Boston and New York to 

serve routes in Virginia. Trains make all local station stops. 

The Project will add 5 new daily Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) round trips (10 total trains per day) to/from 

Virginia, with station stops in the DC2RVA corridor in: 

Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, Fredericksburg, 

Ashland, and Richmond (both Staples Mill Road and 

Main Street Station). Of the new service, 3 new daily 

round trips start/end in Norfolk, 1 new daily round trip 

starts/ends in Newport News, and 1 new daily round 

trip starts/ends in Richmond. The new service completes 

the service plan defined in the 2012 R2HR EIS, and adds 1 

daily round trip to/from Main Street Station in Richmond, 

which was added to the Project to provide early morning/

late evening service from/to Richmond connecting to 

Washington D.C. and Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

• Long Distance service operates from New York and 

continues through Washington, D.C. and Virginia to 

other out-of-state locations, with limited station stops 

within the Project corridor. The Project will not affect 

the frequency (i.e., number) of Long Distance trains in 

service, but will modify routing/scheduling of those 

trains within the corridor and improve their operating 

reliability within the corridor to meet Project goals. 

The Project will add one additional stop for these trains 

at Main Street Station in Richmond.

• Auto Train service operates as a daily nonstop, overnight 

train between dedicated station facilities in Lorton, VA and 

Sanford, FL, and carries passengers and their automobiles. 

The Project will not affect the frequency, routing, or 

scheduling of the Auto Train within the corridor, but 

will improve operating reliability within the corridor to 

meet Project goals.

Under the proposed service plan, intercity passenger trains 

will operate between Washington, D.C. and Richmond 

every 1 to 2 hours in each direction during the day and 

early evening. 

Independent of the Project, intercity passenger, VRE, and 

freight trains will continue to operate in the Project corridor. 

The Project does not add VRE or freight train frequencies, 

but does accommodate their planned future growth, as 

described in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS.

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DC2RVA PROJECT

Note for figure/text descriptions in this section: CSXT uses prefixes to denote track mileposts within subdivisions:

“CFP” is the milepost prefix designating the RF&P subdivision of CSXT,

and “A” is the milepost prefix designating the North End (A-Line) subdivision of CSXT

The Preferred Alternative includes the following in the 

DC2RVA corridor:

Descriptions for each of the six alternative areas provided on 

the following pages are based on conceptual engineering 

designs for the Preferred Alternative, which is approximately 

a 10 percent design level and appropriate for decisions to 

be made during the NEPA process. FRA and DRPT have 

assumed the Preferred Alternative would be in place by 

2025 for purposes of the NEPA evaluations and planning. 

The conceptual engineering will be further refined during 

future design phases of the Project. Additionally, the actual 

size, design, configuration, and service amenities (such as 

baggage service or number of parking spaces) of each 

intercity passenger rail station will be determined by DRPT, 

Amtrak, and/or the station owners when the proposed 

service is initiated.

WHAT IS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DC2RVA PROJECT?

WHAT NEW TRAINS ARE PART OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE?

The Project proposes to add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day), which will be 

incorporated into Amtrak’s existing intercity passenger network, subject to available capacity and future operating schedule: 

An intercity passenger rail service plan with 

increased passenger train frequency (i.e. more 

trains) and improved on-time performance of 

existing intercity passenger rail service

A physical infrastructure modification plan to 

provide an additional track (to provide more 

capacity for more trains) as well as station 

area and roadway crossing improvements (to 

provide better train performance)

7 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
ALTERNATIVE AREAS RECAP

The Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project identified potential Build Alternatives in six alternative areas 

along the corridor.

An approximately 1-mile section in Arlington from the 

south side of the Potomac River to Crystal City that includes 

the approach to the existing two-track Long Bridge, which 

crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. and 

Arlington, VA. The Long Bridge is the subject of a separate 

environmental study being led by DDOT to expand 

capacity of the crossing to four-tracks. There are no intercity 

passenger rail stations located in Area 1.

A 47-mile section from Crystal City in Arlington to the 

Dahlgren Spur just north of the Rappahannock River at 

Fredericksburg, which passes through developed urban 

areas and crosses several major waterways, including 

the Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek, and 

Aquia Creek. It is the most congested area in the Project 

rail corridor, with intercity passenger trains, VRE commuter 

trains, and CSXT freight trains utilizing capacity on the 

existing tracks. Three intercity passenger rail stations are 

in Area 2 at Alexandria, Woodbridge, and Quantico. VRE 

provides commuter service to the three intercity passenger 

rail stations in Area 2 as well as at six other stations in Crystal 

City, Franconia/Springfield, Lorton, Rippon, Brooke, and 

Leeland Road. A new VRE station at Potomac Shores is 

scheduled to open in 2020.

A 14-mile section through Fredericksburg, from the 

Dahlgren Spur just north of the Rappahannock River to 

Crossroads, VA (the southern terminus of VRE’s service). The 

corridor in this area crosses the Rappahannock River, passes 

through the City of Fredericksburg, and traverses several 

historic and cultural resources including the Fredericksburg 

National Military Park. The Fredericksburg Station in the 

City of Fredericksburg is served by both Amtrak and VRE. 

Additionally, VRE serves Spotsylvania Station at Crossroads 

in the southern end of Area 3.

ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG

ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA

ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON

A 29-mile section from Crossroads to Doswell, through a 

largely rural area with multiple small waterway crossings and 

extensive wetlands. This portion of the corridor represents 

the best opportunity for passenger trains to achieve and 

maintain the 90 mph maximum authorized speed identified 

for the Project. There are no intercity passenger rail stations 

located in Area 4.

ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA

A 10-mile section including the Town of Ashland and rural 

portions of Hanover County, extending from Doswell to 

I-295. There is one intercity passenger rail station in Area 5 at 

Ashland. Near the center of the area, the existing two-track 

main line runs at-grade for approximately two miles on 

narrow right-of-way through the center of Railroad Avenue/

Center Street in the Town of Ashland. 

ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND

A 23-mile section from I-295 to Centralia, VA, that includes 

Henrico County, the City of Richmond, and Chesterfield 

County. There are two intercity passenger rail stations in 

Area 6 at Staples Mill Road Station (in Henrico County) and 

Main Street Station (in downtown Richmond). Two rail routes 

diverge at Acca Yard, north of Richmond, and reconnect at 

Centralia (the southern terminus of the Project):

• The A-Line is the western rail line around Richmond, 

currently used by the majority of north-south passenger 

and freight trains. It is CSXT’s principal freight route to 

points north and south and is approximately 14.3 miles 

from the south end of Acca Yard to Centralia.

• The S-Line runs through the downtown center of 

Richmond and is currently used primarily by local freight 

to serve industry and passenger rail service to Newport 

News. It is approximately 15.6 miles from the south end 

of Acca Yard to Centralia.

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND

The Preferred Alternative connects a Build Alternative from each of the six alternative areas 

evaluated in the Draft EIS to form the 123-mile route through the Project corridor.

9 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10
DESCRIPTION

Beginning south of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Alternative 1B will add two additional main

line tracks west of the existing tracks in Arlington to Crystal City, generally staying within the existing right-of-way.

Alternative 1B consists of:

AR E A 

1

BASIS FOR SELECTING 1B

DRPT identified the approximately 1-mile Alternative 

Area 1, located immediately south of the Long Bridge 

across the Potomac River, to evaluate potential 

connections between the DC2RVA Project and a 

future recommendation from the separate Long 

Bridge project by DDOT. In the Draft EIS, DRPT 

assumed that an additional two tracks would be 

added across the Potomac River as part of the Long 

Bridge project and identified three DC2RVA Project 

Build Alternatives in Area 1 that added two tracks in 

various configurations to connect to potential future 

Long Bridge recommendation options. 

Subsequent to the Draft EIS on June 19, 2018, DDOT 

released the Alternatives Development Report 

for the Long Bridge project that advanced two 

alternatives, both of which add two tracks upstream 

(west) of the existing two-track bridge. Both Long 

Bridge alternatives align with DC2RVA Alternative 1B, 

and do not align with DC2RVA Alternatives 1A or 1C. 

Therefore, Alternative 1B is the Preferred Alternative 

for the DC2RVA Project.

CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT EIS

In addition to the Long Bridge alternative selection, 

comments from the public and review agencies 

(such as from Arlington County regarding the Long 

Bridge Park project), combined with new data either 

provided or discovered during the Draft EIS review 

period, resulted in modifications to the conceptual 

engineering for Alternative 1B:

• Minimizations to impacts by adding or extending 

retaining walls

• Adjustments to track curves for train operations or 

impact mitigations

• Track improvements, such as crossovers, proposed 

between the existing tracks or between the 

existing and proposed track(s) for train operations

ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON (LONG BRIDGE APPROACH)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1B

ADD TWO MAIN TRACKS ON THE WEST (CFP 110.0 TO CFP 109.3)

George Washington Memorial Pkw

Lo

y

ng Bridge Park

Roaches Run

CFP 109.3

Additional track planned

under Long Bridge Rail

Capacity Study

Arlington

To Washington D.C.

To Richmond

Work by Others

CFP 110

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1B

Add Two Tracks on the West

Length: 0.7 miles Approximate Cost: $42.5 million

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1B

Add Two Main Tracks on the West

Length: 0.7 miles Approximate Cost: $42.4 million

• Constructing two main tracks on the west side of 

existing tracks, with minor track shifts to improve 

speed through some curves

• Alignment of the alternatives that are part of the 

separate Long Bridge project by DDOT, which 

proposes to increase railroad capacity across the 

Potomac River by adding two tracks upstream 

(west) of existing rail bridge

• Track improvements generally within 

existing right-of-way

• No intercity passenger stations in the area

• No changes to existing public roadway crossings

AR E A 

1ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON (LONG BRIDGE APPROACH)

11 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12
AR E A 

2

AR E A 

2

• Constructing one main track*, with realignment of 

some curves to improve speed, to create:

• A fourth track from Crystal City in Arlington 

to Alexandria

• A third track from Alexandria to north 

of Fredericksburg

*Work completed by others in this area includes 

the installation of a third track in the following 

sections: Alexandria to Franconia; Franconia to 

Occoquan; and Powells Creek to Arkendale (the 

portion of this project from North Possum Point 

to Arkendale is currently under construction, and 

construction of the remainder is postponed until 

additional construction funding is available).

• Track improvements generally within 

existing right-of-way

• Intercity Passenger Stations:

• Station improvements at Alexandria (parking 

improvements) and Woodbridge (platform 

improvements) 

• Proposed new DC2RVA service at Alexandria, 

Woodbridge, and Quantico (as shown on 

map)

• Track alignments to accommodate 

platform and other improvements planned 

by VRE at Alexandria, Woodbridge, and 

VRE-only stations

• Public At-Grade Crossings:

• Close one existing crossing in Stafford, VA 

(Mount Hope Church Road), with alternate 

access provided 

• No new grade separations proposed

• All other crossings remain with 

safety improvements

• Reconstructing some existing grade separations 

to allow for the addition of a third main line 

track under bridges with limited horizontal or 

vertical clearance

• Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco 

Creek, Powells Creek, and Aquia Creek

BASIS FOR SELECTING 2A

In the Draft EIS, DRPT considered and dismissed 

alternative alignments that increased speed and/

or capacity but extended outside the CSXT rightof-way in Area 2 in order to reduce impacts to 

property, wetlands, and existing infrastructure in 

this congested area. By adding a fourth track to 

the existing triple-track section from Crystal City 

in Arlington to Alexandria and adding a third track 

in locations that currently only have two tracks 

from Alexandria to Fredericksburg, where required, 

Alternative 2A will support expanded intercity 

passenger service, VRE commuter service, and CSXT 

freight service, improve reliability, add capacity, and 

increase passenger train speeds where practicable. 

New structures will carry the additional track across 

the river crossings adjacent to the existing rail 

bridges. Preferred Alternative 2A will also remain 

primarily within the existing CSXT right-of-way.

CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT EIS

Comments from the public and review agencies, 

combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted 

in modifications to the conceptual engineering for 

Alternative 2A:

• Coordinating with adjacent active projects - 

Atlantic Gateway; Powells Creek to Arkendale 

Third Track project; and, VRE Station expansions/

improvements

• Addressing access impacts to driveways and 

properties along the corridor, including access at 

Railroad Avenue in Woodbridge, VA

• Incorporating crossing improvements (e.g. 

additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, potential locations of gates and 

equipment sheds)

• Adjustments to track curves for train operations 

or impact mitigations, and adding crash walls to 

protect highway bridge piers

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2A

ADD A THIRD OR FOURTH MAIN TRACK (CFP 109.3 TO CFP 62)

95

CFP 100

CFP 90

CFP 80

CFP 109.3

Quantico Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Woodbridge Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Rippon Station (VRE only)

Potomac Shores Station (Proposed)

(VRE only)

Brooke Station (VRE only)

Leeland Road Station (VRE only)

Arkendale Third Track

Under Construction

Existing 3 Tracks

Additional Track Planned

under Atlantic Gateway

Franconia to Occoquan

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2A

Add One Track/improve Existing Track

Length: 47.3 miles Approximate Cost: $1,778.9 million 

CFP 70

CFP 62

Arlington

Springeld

Woodbridge

Quantico

To Washington D.C.

To Richmond

Crystal City Station (VRE only)

Lorton Station

(Amtrak Auto Train only) 

(VRE only)

Alexandria Station (Amtrak & VRE)

Lorton Station (VRE only)

 NS Manassas Line

Work by Others

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2A

Add a Third or Fourth Main Track

Length: 47.3 miles Approximate Cost: $1,778.9 million

ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA (CRYSTAL CITY STATION TO DAHLGREN SPUR)

DESCRIPTION

Alternative 2A will add one additional main line track and realign existing tracks in some curves to improve speed. 

The additional track will be located on either the east or west side of the existing tracks, based on rail operations, 

site constraints, and potential impacts. Alternative 2A will consist of:

ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA (CRYSTAL CITY STATION TO DAHLGREN SPUR)

13 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14
AR E A 

3

• Constructing one main track, with realignment of 

some curves to improve speed

• Within the city, the additional track will be 

added to the east of existing tracks with a new 

elevated railway at the station

• Track improvements generally within 

existing right-of-way

• Intercity Passenger Stations:

• Station improvements at Fredericksburg 

(including building, platform, and parking 

improvements) 

• Proposed new DC2RVA service 

at Fredericksburg

• No changes to VRE’s Spotsylvania Station

• Public At-Grade Crossings:

• No closures proposed

• Grade separate one crossing (Lansdowne Road)

• All other crossings remain with 

safety improvements

• Reconstructing some existing grade separations to 

allow for the addition of a third main line track under 

bridges with limited horizontal or vertical clearance

• Major water crossing at Rappahannock River: new 

bridge structure added east (downstream) of existing 

rail bridge

BASIS FOR SELECTING 3B

In the Draft EIS, DRPT screened multiple alignments 

and evaluated three Build Alternatives in detail. 

Maintaining two tracks through the City of 

Fredericksburg (i.e., Build Alternative 3A as evaluated 

in the Draft EIS) does not provide sufficient capacity 

to support the Project Purpose and Need. Adding 

a two-track bypass to the east of the city (i.e., Build 

Alternative 3C as evaluated in the Draft EIS) provides 

sufficient capacity, but would incur substantial 

impacts to wetlands, historic and cultural resources, 

property, and infrastructure. In addition, there was 

strong local opposition to a new greenfield bypass. 

Therefore, Alternative 3B, which adds a third main track 

to link existing sections of three or more tracks and 

provides a continuous three track corridor through 

the city, was selected as the Preferred Alternative.

CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT EIS

Comments from the public and review agencies, 

combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted 

in modifications to the conceptual engineering for 

Alternative 3B:

• Addressing train operations improvements within 

the existing/proposed track limits

• Addressing local planning comments to eliminate 

a highway bridge replacement at White Oak Road, 

and to plan for a pedestrian culvert at Naomi Road

• Addressing access impacts to driveways and 

properties along the corridor

• Including crossing improvements, e.g. additional 

paving widths for crossing and pedestrian safety, 

potential locations of gates and equipment sheds

• Adding a fourth track/siding to allow trains to 

pass a stopped or slow-moving train south 

of Fredericksburg

• Extending the west side platform at the 

Fredericksburg station to the maximum 

allowable by site constraints while avoiding/

minimizing impacts

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3B

ADD THIRD MAIN TRACK THROUGH THE CITY, ADD A THIRD MAIN TRACK NORTH

AND SOUTH OF THE CITY (CFP 62 TO CFP 48)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3B

Add Third Main Track Through the City,

Add a Third Main Track North and South of the City

Length: 14 miles Approximate Cost: $559.4 million

Dahlgren Spur

Existing 3 Tracks

CFP 48

CFP 60

CFP 62

Spotsylvania Station (VRE only)

Fredericksburg Station (Amtrak & VRE)

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Add One Track East of Existing

Length: 14 miles Approximate Cost: $559.4 million

Fredericksburg

To Richmond

To Washington D.C.

ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG (DAHLGREN SPUR TO CROSSROADS)

DESCRIPTION

Alternative 3B will add one additional main line track in areas with only two existing tracks and realign existing 

tracks to improve speed, while remaining largely within the existing CSXT right-of-way. The additional track will be 

located on either the east or west side of existing tracks, based on rail operations, site constraints, and potential 

impacts. Alternative 3B consists of:

AR E A 

3ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG (DAHLGREN SPUR TO CROSSROADS)

15 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16
AR E A 

4 DESCRIPTION

Alternative 4A will add one additional main line track and realign existing tracks in some curves to improve speed. 

The additional track will be located on either the east or west side of the existing tracks based on rail operation 

considerations, site constraints, and potential impacts. Alternative 4A consists of:

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4A

ADD A THIRD MAIN TRACK (CFP 48 TO CFP 19)

• Constructing one main track with 

realignment of some curves to 

improve speed

• Track improvements generally within 

existing right-of-way

• No intercity passenger stations in the area

• Public At-Grade Crossings:

• Close one existing crossing (Colemans 

Mill Road)

• No new grade separations proposed

• All other crossings remain with 

safety improvements

• Reconstructing some existing grade 

separations to allow for the addition of a third 

main line track under bridges with limited 

horizontal or vertical clearance

• Multiple crossings of small waterways 

and wetlands

AR E A 

4ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA (CROSSROADS TO DOSWELL)

BASIS FOR SELECTING 4A

In the Draft EIS, DRPT screened multiple alignments 

to improve capacity and reach the 90 mph speed, 

while minimizing impacts to wetlands, waterways, 

and other resources, and carried one alternative 

forward for further evaluation in the Draft EIS—

Alternative 4A, which adds a third main track to the 

west of the existing two tracks through most of 

Area 4. Alternative 4A was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative as it increases passenger train speed and 

will add Project improvements largely within the 

existing CSXT-owned right-of-way. It will support 

expanded intercity passenger service and CSXT 

freight service, while minimizing impacts to wetlands 

and property.

CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT EIS

Comments from the public and review agencies, 

combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted 

in modifications to the conceptual engineering for 

Alternative 4A:

• Addressing train operations improvements, 

including crossovers, within the existing or 

proposed track limits

• Addressing access impacts to driveways and 

properties along the corridor

• Incorporating crossing improvements (e.g. 

additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, potential locations of gates and 

equipment sheds)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4A

Add a Third Main Track

Length: 29 miles Approximate Cost: $1,143.7 million

95

1

To Richmond

Caroline 

County

Hanover

County

Caroline 

County

Ruther 

Glen

Milford

Arcadia

Athens

Bowling 

Green

 Doswell

CFP 40

CFP 30

CFP 20

CFP 19

CFP 48

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4A

Add One Track / Improve Existing Track

Length: 29 miles Approximate Cost: $906.1 million

To Washington D.C.

Buckingham Branch Railroad

ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA (CROSSROADS TO DOSWELL)

17 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18
AR E A 

5

• Constructing one main track north and south of 

town, with track shifts to improve speed through 

some curves

• Maintaining two existing tracks (no construction 

of new track/no additional capacity) 

through town

• Track improvements generally within the 

existing right-of-way

• No station improvements at existing 

Ashland Station

BASIS FOR SELECTING 5A

FRA and DRPT deferred the recommendation of 

a preferred alternative for Area 5 to the Final EIS, 

and DRPT established the Ashland/Hanover Area 

Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to advise and 

inform DRPT on DC2RVA alternatives and issues in the 

Ashland/Hanover County area. The CAC was tasked 

with reassessing all previous options considered 

for greater rail capacity in the area and identifying 

potential options that could meet the Purpose and 

Need of the DC2RVA Project, while also minimizing or 

avoiding potential impacts to the community. 

Based on the information and analyses of the seven 

Build Alternatives presented for Area 5 in the Draft EIS, 

public comments on the Draft EIS, information and 

comments developed through the CAC process, and 

subsequent refined rail operations analyses, DRPT 

selected Alternative 5A as the Preferred Alternative. 

It provides sufficient railroad capacity to support the 

Purpose and Need while having the least impact 

on property, wetlands and other natural resources, 

historic and cultural resources, and the built 

environment. Alternative 5A also best addresses the 

community’s concerns, including strong opposition 

to a bypass from Hanover County residents, and 

strong opposition to adding a track through Ashland 

from Town residents and Randolph-Macon College. 

CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT EIS

Comments from the public and review agencies, 

combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted 

in modifications to the conceptual engineering for 

Alternative 5A:

• Addressing agency comments and the CTB 

resolution to reduce impacts to the Town of 

Ashland between Vaughan Road/Archie Cannon 

Drive and Ashcake Road that include:

• Eliminating Project-related 

station improvements

• Reducing/minimizing Project footprint 

outside of existing CSXT right-of-way

• Reassigning crossing safety improvements in 

the Town of Ashland to a future study by the 

town and DRPT (separate from this DC2RVA 

Project)

• Addressing access impacts to driveways and 

properties along the corridor

• Addressing train operations improvements, 

including crossovers, within the existing or 

proposed track limits

• Addressing effects of additional information 

at Washington Highway (Route 1), requiring 

replacement of the existing overpass due to 

insufficient horizontal clearance for an additional 

track and crash wall

Ashland Station improvements, including new 

low-level side platforms, are part of a separate 

plan by Amtrak for improvements to comply 

with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2019.

In accordance with the December 2017 

Commonwealth Transportation Board 

resolutions, DRPT commits to working with 

the Town government, Randolph-Macon 

College, CSXT, FRA, and other stakeholders to 

develop safety improvements for public road 

and pedestrian/bicycle crossings in Ashland, 

separate from the DC2RVA Project.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 5A

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements)

Add a Third Main Track North and South of Town

Length: 10 miles Approximate Cost: $431.8 million

• Public At-Grade Crossings:

• No closures proposed

• Two grade separations proposed (Vaughan Road/

Archie Cannon Drive and Ashcake Road)

• No improvements to at-grade road or pedestrian 

crossings within town

• Crossings north and south of town remain with 

safety improvements

• Reconstructing some existing grade separations to allow 

for the addition of a third main line track under bridges 

with limited horizontal or vertical clearance

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 5A

MAINTAIN TWO TRACKS THROUGH TOWN (NO STATION IMPROVEMENTS)

ADD A THIRD MAIN TRACK NORTH AND SOUTH OF TOWN (CFP 19 TO CFP 9)

DESCRIPTION

Through the Town of Ashland, Alternative 5A will maintain the existing two tracks, which will be used by freight 

and passenger trains similar to current conditions, and does not include any station improvements at the existing 

Ashland Station. One new track will be constructed north and south of town, where there will be some shifts to 

improve speed throughout the area. Alternative 5A consists of:

ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND (DOSWELL TO I-295)

AR E A 

5ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: ASHLAND (DOSWELL TO I-295)

19 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 20
DESCRIPTION 

Alternative 6F includes one additional main track through the area via the S-Line to provide improved service 

at Staples Mill Road Station and Main Street Station (Full Service), where both stations remain operational. The 

additional track will be located on either the east or west side of the existing tracks based on rail operation 

considerations, site constraints, and potential impacts. Alternative 6F consists of:

AR E A 

6

BASIS FOR SELECTING 6F

In the Draft EIS, DRPT identified eight alternatives in the 

Richmond area as summarized on pages 23-24. The 

five Build Alternatives that would rely on the A-Line 

to carry additional passenger service (Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G from the Draft EIS) 

were eliminated from further consideration as being 

unable to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. 

Three Build Alternatives rely on the S-Line: Alternatives 

6B–S-Line, 6D, and 6F from the Draft EIS. Alternative 

6B–S-Line is feasible and could meet the Project 

service performance goals, but the Boulevard Station 

location would not be consistent with prior FRA and 

Commonwealth decisions and does not meet FRA and 

Amtrak guidance for intercity passenger trains to serve 

the city center. Alternative 6D: Main Street Station Only 

(S-Line) would not meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need due to insufficient track and platform capacity 

at Main Street Station.

Alternative 6F is feasible and supports passenger 

service and freight service to meet the Purpose and 

Need. Alternative 6F is also consistent with prior FRA 

and Commonwealth decisions regarding the SEHSR 

program and Main Street Station as Richmond’s 

downtown intercity passenger station, including 

decisions documented in the 2002 Tier I ROD, 

Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I ROD (2012), and 

Richmond to Raleigh Tier II ROD (2016).

CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRAFT EIS

Comments from the public and review agencies, 

combined with new data either provided or 

discovered during the Draft EIS review period, resulted 

in modifications to the conceptual engineering for 

Alternative 6F:

• Addressing comments to minimize right-of-way 

impacts by adding or extending retaining walls

• Addressing access impacts to driveways and 

properties along the corridor

• Incorporating crossing improvements (e.g. 

additional paving widths for crossing and 

pedestrian safety, potential locations of gates and 

equipment sheds)

• Addressing train operations improvements within 

the track limits, including extending the west 

platforms at Main Street Station and adding crew 

walkways at both ends of these platforms to reduce 

the footprint of these improvements

• Addressing effects of extending the tracks across 

Hermitage Road (RF&P Line), which requires 

the replacement of the at-grade crossing with 

a proposed overpass to avoid blockage of the 

crossing during train operations at Acca Yard

• Addressing the expansion of the existing parking 

lot at Staples Mill Road Station by DRPT, Amtrak, and 

the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

in June 2018, which meets the projected parking 

demand for DC2RVA, and no further parking 

improvements are recommended

• Limiting impacts in Richmond’s Shockoe Valley 

in response to public and agency comments, 

specifically: 

• Relocating the proposed turning wye and 

service yard to Bellwood, which reduces the 

Project footprint at Brown St. Yard and reduces 

private property impacts 

• Removing the proposed parking deck on 

the east side of Main Street Station, thereby 

reducing adverse effects on cultural resources 

and private property; DRPT will coordinate 

with the city as they develop a parking plan for 

Main Street Station when service is instituted 

When future stages of the DC2RVA Project are funded, 

improvements would advance under the DC2RVA 

Project design in the area between Main Street Station 

and Centralia, VA where DC2RVA and R2R overlap. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 6F

STAPLES MILL ROAD STATION AND MAIN STREET STATION

FULL SERVICE WITH S-LINE IMPROVEMENTS (CFP 9 TO A 11)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 6F

Staples Mill Road Station and Main Street Station Full Service with S-Line Improvements 

Length: 23 miles Approximate Cost: $1,667 million

• Constructing one main track along portions of 

existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line 

(through Richmond), with track shifts to improve 

speed, generally within existing right-of-way 

• Intercity Passenger Stations: Staples Mill Road 

Station and Main Street Station

• All passenger trains that stop in Richmond will 

serve both stations (as shown on map)

• Improve both stations to include new/modified 

station buildings and platforms

• Public At-Grade Crossings:

• Close five crossings (St James Street, N 2nd 

Street/Valley Road, Dale/Trenton Avenue, 

Brinkley Road, and Old Lane) 

• Grade separate four crossings (Hungary Road, 

Hermitage Road (RF&P), Hospital Street/N 7th 

Street, and E Commerce Road)

• All other public roadway crossings remain with 

safety improvements (note this differs from 

R2R’s proposal to grade separate all crossings 

between the James River and Centralia, VA)

• Reconstructing some existing grade separations to 

allow for the addition of a third main line track under 

bridges with limited horizontal or vertical clearance

• Major water crossing at the James River

• Constructing a new passenger train service facility at 

the Bellwood wye track

• No changes to CSXT freight service routes 

through Richmond. Moving all passenger train 

service (except Auto Train, which does not stop 

in Richmond) to the S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (i.e., the 

A-Line), will reduce rail congestion/delay

AR E A 

6

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND (I-295 TO CENTRALIA)

ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND (I-295 TO CENTRALIA)

21 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 22
DRAFT EIS BUILD

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

AREA 1:

ARLINGTON

Three Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 1, the major difference being which side of the existing track

the new track would be added (as indicated in the Build Alternative names). There are no intercity passenger

rail stations in this area.

1A Add Two Tracks

on the East Within the Arlington Bridge approach, two tracks would be added to the east side of the existing tracks.

1B Add Two Tracks

on the West

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative aligns with both alternatives identified in the Alternatives Development Report for the separate

Long Bridge Study.

1C Add One Track East

and One Track West

Within the Arlington Bridge approach, one track would be added to the east side of the existing tracks and one track would

be added to the west side of the existing tracks.

AREA 2:

NORTHERN VIRGINIA:

The sole Build Alternative evaluated in Area 2 adds one main track within the existing railroad right-of-way.

There are three intercity passenger rail station in the area: Alexandria, Woodbridge, and Quantico.

2A

Add One Track /

Improve Existing

Track

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative adds a third or fourth main track, mostly within existing right-of-way, through the area. 

AREA 3:

FREDERICKSBURG: 

Three Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 3, including both two- and three-track options on the existing

alignment through the city and a two-track bypass alignment around the city. The Fredericksburg Station

is within this area.

3A Maintain Two Tracks

Through City

Within Fredericksburg, there would be no construction of new track/no additional rail capacity, and train operations

would continue through the city similar to existing conditions, with station improvements. North and south of the city,

there would be construction of one additional track within the existing railroad right-of-way.

3B

Add One Track

Through City

East of Existing

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative adds a third main track through the city, and adds a third or fourth main track north and south of

the city, mostly within existing right-of-way.

3C Add Two-Track

Bypass East of City

A new two-track bypass east of Fredericksburg would be constructed to serve freight and passenger trains that do not

stop in the city, which would require additional right-of-way. The existing rail corridor would be maintained in the city

and the station would be improved. North and south of the city, there would be construction of one additional track

within the existing railroad right-of-way.

AREA 4:

CENTRAL VIRGINIA

The sole Build Alternative evaluated in Area 4 adds one main track within existing railroad right-of-way.

There are no intercity passenger rail stations in this area.

4A

Add One Track/

Improve Existing

Track

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative adds a third main track, mostly within existing right-of-way.

AREA 5:

ASHLAND

Seven Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 5, varying from track alignment options through town to a new bypass.

The alternatives include two different location options for the Ashland Station: a Downtown Station (which would maintain

the existing station location with improvements) and an Ashcake Station location (which would close the existing station

location and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road). North and south of town, all Build Alternatives would

include construction of one additional track within the existing railroad right-of-way.

5A

Maintain Two

Tracks Through

Town

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative maintains the existing two-track corridor through downtown, with no improvements to the existing

station location, and adds a third main track north and south of town, mostly within existing right-of-way.

5A–

Ashcake

 Maintain Two Tracks

Through Town

(Relocate Station

to Ashcake)

This alternative is the same as 5A (the Preferred Alternative), but would relocate the

station to Ashcake Road.

5B

Add One Track

Through Town East

of Existing

Within town, one track would be added adjacent to the east side of the existing tracks, which would require additional

right-of-way and closure of an existing at-grade crossing within town. The existing station would be improved.

4A

3B

2A

1B

5A

DRAFT EIS BUILD

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

5B–

Ashcake

Add One Track

Through Town East

 of Existing (Relocate

Station to Ashcake)

This alternative is the same as 5B (as summarized on the previous page) but would relocate the station

to Ashcake Road.

5C Add Two-Track

Western Bypass

A new two-track bypass west of Ashland would be constructed to serve freight and passenger trains that do not

stop in town, which would require additional right-of-way. The existing rail corridor would be maintained

in the city and the station would be improved.

5C–

Ashcake

Add Two-Track

Western Bypass

(Relocate Station

to Ashcake)

This alternative is the same as 5C (as summarized above), but would relocate the station to Ashcake Road.

5D–

Ashcake

Three Tracks Centered

Through Town

(Add One Track,

Relocate Station

to Ashcake)

Within town, one track would be added with centering of all three tracks on the existing alignment. This would

require additional right-of-way and preclude use of the existing station in town. The station would be relocated

to Ashcake Road.

AREA 6:

RICHMOND:

Eight Build Alternatives were evaluated in Area 6: five single-station options (which would consolidate

all service to a single station location) and three two-station options (which would divide service

between two stations). Use of the A-Line or S-Line varied by alternative, based primarily on the ability

to serve station locations and optimize passenger and freight routes.

6A Staples Mill

 Road Station Only

The existing Staples Mill Road Station would be improved to become the single passenger station to serve

Richmond, and existing Main Street Station would be closed to service. One main track would be added along

the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city).

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station

Only, A-Line

A new Boulevard Station would be constructed to become the single passenger station to serve Richmond,

and existing Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations would be closed to service. One main track would

be added along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city).

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station

Only, S-Line

This alternative is similar to 6B–A-Line (as summarized above), but would add one main track on the S-Line

(through the city).

6C Broad Street

Station Only

A new Broad Street Station would be constructed to become the single passenger station to serve Richmond,

and existing Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations would be closed to service. One main track would be

added along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city).

6D Main Street

Station Only

The existing Main Street Station would be improved to become the single passenger station to serve Richmond,

and existing Staples Mill Road Station would be closed to service. One main track would be added along

the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the S-Line (through the city).

6E

Split Service,

Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations

Both existing Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations would be improved and remain operational,

with the majority of intercity passenger trains stopping only at Staples Mill Road. One main track would

be added along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the A-Line (through the city).

6F

Full Service,

Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations

SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative improves the S-Line through Richmond and allows for all intercity passenger trains that stop

in Richmond to serve both stations.

6G

Shared Service,

Staples Mill Road/

Main Street Stations

Both existing Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations would be improved and remain operational,

with the majority of intercity passenger trains stopping at both stations, but some trains following

the A-Line to bypass downtown and only serve Staples Mill Road Station. One main track would

be added along the RF&P Line (north of the city) and the S-Line (through the city).

6F

DRAFT EIS BUILD ALTERNATIVES RECAP

23 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24
HOW MUCH DOES THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INFRASTRUCTURE COST?

Capital infrastructure costs represent the total cost associated 

with the design, management, land acquisition and 

construction of the infrastructure improvements, including 

communications and signaling systems associated with 

track and crossing improvements, of the DC2RVA Project. 

These costs include a 30 percent contingency for unknown 

conditions or unidentified infrastructure. Estimated costs 

are based on a conceptual (10 percent) level of design for 

the proposed improvements as described at the beginning 

of this section, and are based on projected unit costs 

for the year 2025 (i.e., the year that FRA and DRPT have 

assumed the Preferred Alternative would be in place for the 

purposes of the NEPA evaluation and planning). The total 

capital infrastructure cost for the Preferred Alternative is 

shown in the table below.

WHAT OTHER COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED 

WITH IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT?

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The estimate of long-term operations and maintenance 

(O&M) costs include both train operations and 

infrastructure maintenance. Operations consists of labor 

costs, fuel and other supplies, and other factors required to 

keep the DC2RVA Project in service, whereas maintenance 

includes routine servicing of vehicles, maintenance of 

the tracks, signals, communications, and other systems 

needed to keep the system safe and reliable. 

DRPT estimates that O&M costs for the Preferred Alternative 

in the Year 2045 would be $100.3 million (in 2015 dollars). 

The 2045 Preferred Alternative conditions represent 

approximately a doubling of today’s intercity passenger 

service and ridership. Accordingly, the O&M costs for the 

Preferred Alternative are also approximately double the 

costs of today’s service (2015), recognizing that frequency 

and level of service are the key drivers of operating and 

maintenance costs.

COSTS OF ROLLING STOCK

Rolling stock consists of the locomotives, passenger cars, 

and baggage cars that may be necessary to implement the 

new service as proposed by the Project. DRPT anticipates 

the cost for rolling stock to support this additional service 

would be shared by Amtrak and those states that share 

in the cost of the service; the cost would be apportioned 

through negotiated agreements at the time of service 

implementation and is not available at this time.

Alternative Area Preferred Alternative Capital Cost

(2025 $millions)

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 1B: Add Two Main Tracks on the West $42.4 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A: Add Third or Fourth Main Track $1,778.9

Area 3: Fredericksburg

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through the City $559.4

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A: Add a Third Main Track $1,143.7

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295)

5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town

(No Station Improvements) $431.8

Area 6: Richmond

(I-295 to Centralia)

6F: Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Full Service with S-Line Improvements $1,667.0

Total Capital Infrastructure Cost for the Preferred Alternative $5,623.2

CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

25 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 26
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

The Environmental Consequences section of the Final EIS 

(Chapter 5) documents the potential effects on the human, 

physical, and natural environments that may result from 

construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative 

and indicates any changes in impacts since the Draft EIS 

evaluation. Impacts of the DC2RVA Project are associated 

with the addition of 9 new daily intercity passenger round 

trips (18 total trains per day) and the construction of new 

or modification to existing infrastructure. While the Project 

accommodates future planned growth in freight and VRE 

train frequencies, the Final EIS does not attempt to quantify 

additional impacts from potential future changes in their 

service; the actual growth of. these services during the 

NEPA period of analysis may increase or decrease beyond 

planned levels due to external demands separate from the 

DC2RVA Project.

HOW ARE IMPACTS ESTIMATED?

The environmental impacts for the Project are estimated 

directly from the design of the Preferred Alternative. 

Physical impacts to environmental resources are estimated 

within the Preferred Alternative’s Limits of Disturbance 

(LOD), which are defined as the boundary within which all 

construction, materials storage, grading, landscaping, and 

related activities will occur. • Permanent effects (as presented in the table on pages 

33 to 35) include all areas where Project infrastructure 

will physically replace existing conditions and will not be 

restored after completion of construction. 

• Temporary effects are areas required for construction of 

the Preferred Alternative, such as for construction access 

or staging and storage of equipment, that will temporarily 

modify the existing conditions, but will be restored after 

completion of construction. 

In general, permanent LOD are 0 to 40 feet outside of existing 

CSXT railroad right-of-way, but extend to a maximum offset 

of 650 feet for proposed station improvements. Temporary 

LOD are generally 10 to 15 feet outside of the permanent 

LOD, but extend to a maximum offset of 50 feet. 

While natural resources are generally affected by direct 

encroachments or physical effects of the Preferred 

Alternative permanent and temporary LOD above, the area 

of potential impact for the human environment, including 

viewsheds, noise, and air quality are typically larger to 

account for factors such as community sizes, geographical 

and political boundaries, and census boundaries, which 

have not changed since the Draft EIS evaluations.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS & MITIGATION

THE FOLLOWING PAGES PRESENT: • A recap of the 23 environmental resources 

that are included in the evaluation

• A quantitative summary of permanent 

impacts for the Preferred Alternative for 

all environmental resources

Refer to Chapter 5 of the Final EIS for details of this 

summary, including temporary impacts as well as 

comparison to the environmental impacts that were 

reported in the Draft EIS.

27 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 28
NATURAL RESOURCES 

Natural resources include water and biologic resources, 

such as rivers, streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife 

(including threatened and endangered species) and their 

habitats. The existing rail corridor is rich in natural resources, 

spanning more than 350 rivers and streams and over 50 

major floodplains; nearly one-third of the lands within 

500 feet of the rail bed are forested and contain nearly 

500 acres of wetlands as well as potential habitat for more 

than a dozen species of threatened and endangered plants 

and animals.

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

Geologic resources include: topography, geology, and soils; 

mineral resources; and agricultural lands, which includes 

agricultural/ forestal districts and prime, unique, and statewide important farmland soils. The landscape of the existing 

rail corridor is dominated by low rolling hills with sharper 

topography along streams and rivers. Approximately onequarter of the acreage within 500 feet of the existing rail 

line consists of prime and unique farmland soils, and nearly 

100 acres are located within designated agricultural/forestal 

districts. Additionally, well over half of the soils are identified 

as unsuitable for transportation-related construction.

SOLID WASTES & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials include substances with the potential 

to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment. 

Solid wastes and hazardous materials must be disposed of 

per regulations specific to those substances. Documented 

reports show that there are just over 1,000 hazardous 

material sites and facilities within 500 feet of the existing 

rail bed, the majority of which are petroleum facilities or 

locations of past spills.

AIR QUALITY 

The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to establish air quality standards for pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment. 

As part of the NEPA process, transportation projects are 

evaluated to determine their potential effect on air quality 

relative to the EPA standards. All cities and counties along 

the corridor are in compliance with applicable national 

air quality standards, except for the Northern Virginia 

area. A DC2RVA Project Purpose is to improve air quality 

by diverting automobile and other trips to rail, as well as 

increasing the reliability and efficiency of freight to divert 

movement of goods to rail.

NOISE & VIBRATION 

Noise is defined as sound that is undesirable because it 

interferes with communication and sleep, or is otherwise 

disturbing. Vibration is an oscillatory motion, and it can 

annoy humans, interfere with sensitive equipment and 

under severe conditions cause structural damage. Existing 

train noise and vibration measurements were taken at 

various residential and industrial sites along the corridor. 

Noise - and vibration-sensitive land uses and receptors 

were identified in accordance with the FRA and the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) land use categories.

ENERGY 

Intercity travel consumes energy regardless of the mode 

of travel: rail, air, automobile, or bus. Passenger rail is 

considered the most energy efficient of these modes on 

a Passenger Miles of Travel (PMT) basis. Additionally, rail 

is the most efficient ground transportation mode on a 

mile-per-ton basis.

AESTHETIC & VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

The Project corridor exhibits a wide variety of visual 

elements ranging from undisturbed natural lands to densely 

developed urban areas. The rail line has long been a part of 

the corridor’s landscape and includes many unique visual 

elements, such as bridges over major waterways, stations, 

and other railroad structures.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES &

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

This category includes land uses, public facilities, 

populations, neighborhoods, and community cohesion, 

as well as consideration of employment trends and 

effects. The Project corridor includes parts of 150 census 

tracts. While much of the land use surrounding the rail 

corridor is agricultural and forest, there are approximately 

100 community facilities, including 35 religious facilities 

and 22 schools, within 1,000 feet of the edge of the 

rail line. Special attention is paid to Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in 

federal programs and funding. Executive Order 12898 

on Environmental Justice directs federal agencies to 

identify and address disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECAP

29 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 30
PARK RESOURCES 

Park resources include federal, state, and locally owned 

parks, outdoor recreational areas, wildlife refuges, and 

recreational trails. Resources along the existing rail corridor 

include federal, state, regional, and local parks and 

recreational areas; trails; and wildlife refuges.

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Traversing some of the most historic landscapes in the 

nation, the rail corridor includes a wide range of cultural 

resources such as historic battlefields, homes, cemeteries, 

industrial sites and districts, as well as archaeological 

remains. In all, 120 resources that are eligible for, or listed on, 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have been 

identified within the Preferred Alternative’s Area of Potential 

Effect (APE) as defined by the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA).

In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, 

effects to cultural resources resulting in one of the following 

recommendations for each resource of: 

• No Effect: There would be no effect, neither adverse nor 

beneficial, on historic properties. 

• No Adverse Effect: There would be an effect, but it is 

determined that the effect would not compromise those 

characteristics that qualify the property for listing on 

the NRHP. 

• Adverse Effect: There would be an effect that would 

compromise the physical and/or historic integrity of the 

resource. Archaeological sites may be “adversely affected” 

when they are threatened with unavoidable physical 

destruction or damage. 

SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966 (23 USC 138) applies to the use for transportation 

purposes of publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, and 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges; historic sites listed on or 

eligible for listing on the NRHP regardless of whether the 

site is in public or private ownership; and all archaeological 

sites listed on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, excluding 

those for which there is minimal value to preservation in 

place as determined by the FRA in consultation with the 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). Section 

4(f) applies to these protected resources when a “use” 

occurs as a result of the proposed action: permanent 

incorporation; temporary occupancy; or constructive use. 

Further, a de minimis use may be determined if use of a 

Section 4(f) resource is generally minor in nature as to not 

elevate to one of the three primary uses.

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

Transportation facilities include the roadway and rail 

networks between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA, as 

well as where the two modes overlap, such as highway-rail 

crossings and access to train stations.

The existing rail corridor serves eight intercity passenger 

rail stations and crosses more than 200 public and private 

roadways, the majority of which are grade-separated; 55 are 

public at-grade crossings. 

Safety & Security: Safety considerations 

along the corridor include the operations of 

the freight, commuter and intercity passenger 

services operating on the corridor today, as well 

as the projected future increases. Safety is also a 

major consideration for vehicular operations at 

public and private at-grade crossings. Security 

considerations include existing stations and rail 

yards, as well as along the railroad right-of-way.

Public Health & Safety: FRA is the primary 

authorized agency for railway safety. FRA 

administers safety regulations over all aspects of 

rail operations along the existing corridor.

Construction Impacts: Construction impacts 

associated with the proposed action are by 

definition those effects that are temporary or 

short-term in nature and that occur only during 

the period of construction.

Indirect & Cumulative Effects: The corridor 

connects several of the most rapidly developing 

regions in Virginia – where residential, 

commercial, industrial, and other transportation 

projects are constantly emerging. Indirect 

effects are those effects, positive or negative, 

that are caused by an action and occur later 

in time or are farther removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable, such as those 

related to induced changes in the pattern of 

land use, population density or growth rate, and 

related effects on natural resources. Cumulative 

effects are defined as the effects, positive or 

negative, on the environment which result 

from the incremental effect of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative effects can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over time. 

The following resources are addressed in 

qualitative discussions in the Draft and Final EIS:

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES RECAP

31 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 32
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY

See end of table for notes

33 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 34
Notes: Permanent effects include all areas where Project infrastructure will physically replace existing conditions. Temporary effects are areas required for 

construction of the Preferred Alternative, such as for staging or storage of equipment. Only permanent effects are summarized in this table. Refer to the 

detailed mapbook of the Preferred Alternative, which show the permanent and temporary LOD throughout the 123-mile Project corridor.

1. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) treated each alternative area separately; therefore, there is no "cumulative" score for the Project corridor.

2. "Change" shown compares 2045 Preferred Alternative to 2045 No Build conditions. Air Quality and Energy are analyzed corridor-wide based on the 

station alternative as selected in Richmond (6F), so only a single value is shown in this table.

3. Noise and Vibration categories defined in Section 5.7 of the Final EIS. 

4. Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania County Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive (111-0147) is both an above and below ground resource, 

and it is counted in the table twice in the “No Adverse Effect” column, as both an Archaeological Resource and a Historic Resource.

5. The historic RF&P Railroad (500-0001) traverses the Project corridor from the Potomac River on the north to Main Street Station in Richmond on the 

south; therefore, one resource has been added to the “Adverse Effect” column for “Effects on Buildings, Districts, Structures, & Objects” since it does 

not fall in a single Alternative Area.

6. Some existing grade-separated crossings will be widened/replaced as part of the Project; these crossings are separate from the proposed new grade 

separations of existing at-grade crossings that are quantified in this table.

7. "Change" shown compares 2025 Preferred Alternative to 2025 No Build conditions.

HOW HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS CHANGED SINCE THE 

DRAFT EIS?

Between the Draft and Final EIS, there have been design 

refinements to the conceptual engineering of the Preferred 

Alternative – and therefore changes to the LOD and 

associated environmental impacts. The design changes are 

documented in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS and are a result 

of either responses to public and/or agency comments 

or from new/changed data since the publication of the 

Draft EIS.

For many resources, the changes in LOD resulted in a 

reduction from what DRPT initially estimated in the Draft EIS 

for potential impacts. Additionally, for many resources, there 

are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering 

that modified impacts; rather, narrow linear increases and 

decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted in 

incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-

mile corridor compared to those reported in the Draft EIS.

WHAT ARE THE DETERMINATIONS 

OF THE SECTION 106 PROCESS FOR 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES?

DRPT identified 120 historic properties within the APE, 

defined as any resource that is eligible for, assumed eligible 

for, or listed on the NRHP: 13 archaeological sites, 96 above 

ground resources, one resource with an above ground 

and below ground component, and 10 battlefields. DHR 

has reviewed and commented on the technical reports, 

and they have concurred with resource eligibility and 

effect determinations.

FRA determined that the Preferred Alternative for the 

DC2RVA Project will have:

• No adverse effect on 69 historic properties

• No effect on 30 historic properties

• Adverse effect on 21 historic properties 

• Direct impact on 8 resources (all archaeological 

resources)

• Both a direct and indirect impact on 12 historic 

properties (all architectural resources)

• Indirect/cumulative impact on 1 resource (an 

architectural resource)

WHAT IS THE FINAL SECTION 4(f)

EVALUATION? (PARKS, RECREATIONAL

AREAS, WILDLIFE/WATERFOWL REFUGES, 

AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES)

There are 12 public parks/recreation areas and 1 wildlife 

refuge located within the LOD of the Preferred Alternative. 

Of those, all 12 are located within the temporary LOD and 

1 is also located in the permanent LOD (Walker’s Creek 

Retention Basin Park in Richmond, south of the James River). 

FRA has determined that all permanent impacts to parks 

and recreation areas will be de minimis and all temporary 

impacts to parks and recreation areas will not result in a 

Section 4(f) use.

Of the 21 historic properties determined to be adversely 

affected by the Project, FRA anticipates that the Preferred 

Alternative will result in a Section 4(f) use of 17 resources 

(permanent incorporation) and a de minimis use or no use 

of 4 resources. Of the remaining Section 106 resources in 

the Project APE, FRA determined that the Project will have 

no use or a de minimis use. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY

See end of table for notes

35 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 36
Effects to the natural and built environments were avoided 

or minimized where feasible as part of the conceptual 

engineering for the Preferred Alternative. Where negative 

effects cannot be avoided or minimized, or when no other 

reasonable or feasible alternative is available, the effects are 

mitigated where required. Mitigation can be accomplished 

through repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment. Sometimes effects are compensated for 

by replacing or providing substitute resources, such as 

purchasing wetland credits in an approved wetland bank.

DRPT has identified specific commitments beyond the 

level of best management practices to be implemented 

during future phases of design and construction. These 

commitments are the result of agency consultations, 

comments on the Draft EIS, and regulatory requirements for 

the Project and are provided in the Project Commitments 

section of this Final EIS. The list to the right is intended as a 

high-level summary.

CONTINUED COORDINATION

DRPT will continue to coordinate with: • Federal and state agencies, affected localities, the general 

public, and other stakeholders during the future phases 

of design in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state laws and regulations. 

• Federal and state agencies to ensure impacts to habitat, 

wildlife, surface waters, wetlands, and parks are avoided 

to the extent practicable during design and construction. 

• Appropriate regulatory agencies for all applications, 

permits, and approvals required for the design and 

construction of the Project. 

• Railroad operators to maintain existing and proposed rail 

and station operations in the Project corridor.

• Local governments for proposed non-rail infrastructure 

improvements along the Project corridor.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DRPT will continue to avoid and minimize impacts to 

environmental resources during design and construction, 

and will follow all applicable recommendations and 

requirements of federal and/or state agencies with 

jurisdiction over environmental resources, including: 

wetlands; floodplains and stormwater management; wildlife, 

habitat, and trees; hazardous materials; air quality; noise and 

vibration; parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges; and 

visual and aesthetics. DRPT will develop detailed mitigations 

of unavoidable environmental impacts, such as noise and 

vibration impacts, in coordination with public and agency 

stakeholders during future design phases of the Project.

CULTURAL RESOURCES / SECTION 106

DRPT will execute a Memorandum of Agreement as part of 

the Section 106 process for historic properties to provide 

specific mitigations to adversely affected resources, in 

coordination with the appropriate Section 106 Consulting 

Parties. In addition, mitigations associated with one 

resource (the Grave Yard for Free People of Color and 

Slaves, site 44HE1203) made outside of the Section 106 

process but as part of the NEPA process are included as 

Project commitments.

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

DRPT will develop plans to minimize construction impacts 

as part of future design phases of the Project; access to 

properties will be maintained during construction and DRPT 

will coordinate with CSXT and property owners to review or 

confirm means of access. DRPT will address and improve, 

as necessary, bike/pedestrian safety warning devices at all 

public crossings along the DC2RVA rail corridor, in keeping 

with the Project’s Basis of Design, ADA requirements, and 

applicable FRA, Amtrak, CSXT, and VDOT safety standards. 

The final design of major water crossings will at a minimum, 

match the existing horizontal and vertical openings of the 

existing crossings. DRPT will coordinate with local utilities 

and utility owners to identify and mitigate potential impacts.

RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 

Details of the construction easements and restoration 

plans will be developed in coordination with public and 

private landowners during future phases of design. The 

acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displaced 

persons and businesses will be conducted in accordance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4601), and 24 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 30–41.

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSIDERATIONS

If the Project’s final design or impacts exceed the NEPA 

commitments established in this Final EIS and ROD, 

then DRPT will re-evaluate the design and/or the NEPA 

documentation. Potential impacts to environmental 

resources as identified in this Final EIS will be reconfirmed 

as part of future phases of design and permitting.

HOW ARE THE EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT REDUCED OR MITIGATED?

37 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 38
Project Development Event Anticipated Date

Record of Decision Spring 2019

Preliminary Engineering Completion Spring 2019

Corridor Service Development Plan Completion Spring 2019

Design and construction of AF – RO 4th main track

and two crossovers in Area 4 (funded through Atlantic

Gateway program)1

2022

Funding for remainder of DC2RVA Project Undetermined at this Time

Final Design and Permitting Subject to Funding

Property Acquisition Subject to Funding

Construction Subject to Funding

DC2RVA New Passenger Service Starts Undetermined

(2025 used for planning purposes in Final EIS)

Note: 1. The Commonwealth of Virginia received a $165 million FASTLANE grant award in 2016, leveraging additional public and private funding to 

implement a $1.4 billion program of highway and rail projects along the I-95 corridor (the Atlantic Gateway program). As part of this program, DRPT 

proposes expediting design, funding, and construction of approximately six miles of fourth main track between Rosslyn (RO – CFP 110.1) and Alexandria 

(AF – CFP 104.3), referred to as the RO to AF Fourth Track project. As of the publication of this Final EIS, DRPT has confirmed funding for the RO to AF 

project through Areas 1 and 2, with construction planned to commence in 2020; refer to Section 7.7.1 of the Final EIS for more details on the project, which 

includes two new crossovers in Caroline County as well.

D. FUTURE STEPS

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS IN THE 

NEPA PROCESS?

The Record of Decision (ROD) is the final step in the EIS 

process and signifies approval of the proposed action. The 

FRA will issue the ROD, which documents the Selected 

Alternative: that it best satisfies the Purpose and Need; 

poses the least environmental impacts to the natural 

and human environments to the extent practicable; is in 

compliance with NEPA and other applicable requirements; 

and may be advanced for final design and construction. 

The ROD also commits to the measures to mitigate 

unavoidable environmental impacts. Issuance of the ROD 

allows the DC2RVA Project to proceed to the next steps, as 

outlined below.

WHICH PART OF THE PROJECT

WILL BE BUILT FIRST?

Construction of the infrastructure improvements that are 

part of the DC2RVA Preferred Alternative is not currently 

funded (other than the AF – RO Fourth Track project 

noted previously), and it is unlikely that funding for full 

construction will be available all at once. Therefore, DRPT 

has developed an approach to implement the DC2RVA 

Project in increments as funding becomes available, and 

has prioritized the six areas for construction as shown 

below, with higher priority given to areas with greater rail 

corridor congestion:

• Areas 1, 2, and 3–Arlington through Fredericksburg

• Area 6–Richmond

• Area 4–Central Virginia

• Area 5–Ashland

These incremental infrastructure construction and service 

improvements address the Commonwealth’s priorities 

for the DC2RVA Project and reasonable construction 

sequences, and link service improvements to infrastructure 

improvements in the DC2RVA Project, Long Bridge project, 

SEHSR R2R project, and R2HR project corridors. The 

incremental approach is designed so that existing freight 

and passenger rail service can be maintained during the 

Project build-out. Concurrent with the Final EIS, DRPT is 

providing the Corridor Service Development Plan for the 

Project which details DRPT's approach to delivering the 

Project infrastructure and service improvements and is a 

key step toward meeting federal funding eligibility.

WHAT OTHER RAIL PROJECTS ARE 

LINKED TO THE DC2RVA PROJECT?

FRA and DRPT acknowledge that the full benefits of the 

proposed DC2RVA service are dependent upon completion 

of intercity passenger rail infrastructure projects outside the 

DC2RVA corridor in the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) 

corridor:

• A four-track Long Bridge with a four-track route north 

of Long Bridge through L’Enfant Plaza to CP Virginia in 

Washington, D.C. is required to connect the DC2RVA 

service to Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Amtrak’s 

Northeast Corridor (NEC).

• The SEHSR R2R project included improvements/service 

between Raleigh, NC and Richmond, VA, and overlaps 

the DC2RVA Project between Main Street Station and 

Centralia, VA. The SESHR R2R project infrastructure 

improvements south of the overlap area are required to 

implement the four additional Interstate Corridor SEHSR 

trains originating in North Carolina and traveling through 

the DC2RVA corridor.

• The R2HR project included improvements/service 

between Norfolk/Newport News, VA and Richmond, 

VA, and overlaps the DC2RVA Project between Main 

Street Station and Centralia, VA. The SESHR R2R project 

infrastructure improvements south of the overlap area 

are required to support the four additional Northeast 

Regional SEHSR trains originating in Newport News and 

Norfolk and also traveling through the DC2RVA corridor 

to the Northeast Corridor.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER

THE NEPA PROCESS?

The anticipated dates provided on the right are intended 

for planning purposes and reflect what was assumed for 

the purposes of this environmental evaluation. Actual dates 

for future Project development are dependent on obtaining 

a ROD, identifying and securing construction funding, 

completing Project design, and finalizing all necessary 

approvals and permits, including agreements with Amtrak 

and CSXT. Further, FRA and DRPT understand that funding 

for construction—as well as the timelines of separate but 

related projects—may require that the DC2RVA Project 

be constructed incrementally over the 20-year planning 

horizon from 2025 to 2045. 

39 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 40
WHAT PERMITS AND REGULATORY 

APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED?

Throughout Project development, design, and construction, 

DRPT will continue to coordinate with appropriate federal, 

state, and local regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary 

permits and approvals. 

The following is a list of permits that may be required for this 

DC2RVA Project. Final determination of permit applicability 

lies with the regulatory agencies.

Permit Authorizing Regulation Regulatory Agency

Section 401 Water Quality Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality

Section 402 Discharge Permit Clean Water Act Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Section 408 Alteration to Civil Works Permit Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Subaqueous Bed Permit Code of Virginia

Chapter 2, Title 62.1

Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permit Clean Water Act U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

(MS4) Permit

Virginia Stormwater

Management Act

Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality

Section 9 Bridge Permit River and Harbors Act U.S. Coast Guard

Section 10 Work in Navigable Waters Permit River and Harbors Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

HOW CAN I LEARN MORE?

For additional information, please visit

the Project website www.DC2RVARail.com

CONTACT INFORMATION

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

600 East Main Street, Suite 2102

Richmond, VA 23219

info@DC2RVARail.com

41 TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 42