APPENDIX I

DC2RVA RECOMMENDATION REPORT




TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 1 

 

May 8, 2018

DC2RVA Recommendation Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................I

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1

RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................1

2.1 Project Overview.............................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Recommended Preferred Alternative and Rationale.................................................. 2

2.3 Alternative Area 1: Arlington Long Bridge Approach—CFP 110 to CFP 109.3... 12

2.4 Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia CFP 109.3 to CFP 62.................................... 13

2.5 Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads—CFP 62 to 

CFP 48 15

2.6 Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia Crossroads to Doswell—CFP 48 to CFP 19 18

2.7 Alternative Area 5: Ashland Doswell to I-295—CFP 19 to CFP 9.......................... 20

2.8 Alternative Area 6: Richmond I-295 to Centralia—CFP 9 to A011 ........................ 24

REFINED OPERATIONS ANALYSIS MODELING .............................................................................1

3.1 Operations Modeling Overview.................................................................................... 1

3.1.1 Background and Federal Requirements of Operations Simulations in 

Passenger Projects ................................................................................................1

3.1.2 Passenger and Freight Train Performance Goals.............................................2

3.2 Operations Modeling CONDUCTED FOR DC2RVA................................................. 2

3.2.1 Purpose and Phases of Operations Modeling Conducted for DC2RVA 

Project.....................................................................................................................2

3.2.2 Modeling Scenarios for Phases 1 and 2 .............................................................5

3.2.3 Results of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Modeling .........................................................6

3.2.4 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Modeling Summary .........................................................9

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.........................................................................................................................1

4.1 Public Involvement and Outreach................................................................................. 1

4.1.1 Notice of Availability (NOA)..............................................................................1

4.1.2 Project Website......................................................................................................2

4.1.3 Postcard Mailing...................................................................................................2

4.1.4 Email.......................................................................................................................2
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

ii

4.1.5 Social Media ..........................................................................................................3

4.1.6 Static Displays, Fliers, and Rack Cards .............................................................3

4.1.7 Media Relations ....................................................................................................3

4.1.8 Public Information Officer/Communication Manager Outreach 

Coordination .........................................................................................................4

4.1.9 Environmental Justice and Other Special Targeted Outreach .......................4

4.1.10 Title VI and Limited English Proficiency..........................................................4

4.2 Draft EIS Public Hearings and Public Comment Period............................................ 5

4.3 Overview of Draft EIS Comments................................................................................. 6

4.3.1 Comment Trends..................................................................................................7

4.3.2 Ashland/Hanover County Area (Alternatives Area 5) Alignments.............9

4.3.3 Richmond Area (Alternatives Area 6) Alignments .........................................9

4.3.4 Secondary Issue Trends .....................................................................................10

4.3.5 Agency Comments .............................................................................................10

4.4 Town of Ashland/Hanover County Area CAC Process.......................................... 10

4.4.1 Purpose of the CAC............................................................................................11

4.4.2 CAC Approach ...................................................................................................11

4.4.3 CAC Meetings.....................................................................................................12

4.4.4 Build Alternatives Considered by the CAC....................................................12

4.4.5 Public Comments................................................................................................14

4.4.6 Least Objectionable Alternatives......................................................................14

4.5 Commonwealth Transportation Board Engagement................................................ 15

ATTACHMENT A: CTB RESOLUTION ................................................................................................1

ATTACHMENT B: SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS.................................................................1

B.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................... 1

B.2 State.................................................................................................................................... 3

B.3 Local................................................................................................................................... 4

B.4 Transportation Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 6

B.5 Other Organizations ........................................................................................................ 7

Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce.......................................................... 7

Historic Richmond ............................................................................................... 8

B.6 Elected Officials.............................................................................................................. 10
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Commonwealth Recommended Preferred Alternative .......................................2-11

Figure 2-2: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Arlington Area)...........................2-12

Figure 2-3: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Northern Virginia Area).....................2-13

Figure 2-4: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Fredericksburg Area).................2-15

Figure 2-5: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Central Virginia Area)..................2-18

Figure 2-6: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Ashland Area).............................2-20

Figure 2-7: DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative (Richmond Area) .........................2-24

Figure 3-1: Passenger and Freight Train Performance Modeling Results From 

Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis Simulations (Averaged Results 

from 5 Randomized Cases)......................................................................................3-10

Figure 3-2: Passenger and Freight Train Performance Modeling Results From 

Phase 2 Network-Wide Analysis Simulations (Averaged Results 

from 5 Randomized Cases)......................................................................................3-11

Figure 4-1: Top Primary Issues Coded.........................................................................................4-8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Evaluation of Northern Virginia Area Alternative Against the Purpose 

and Need and its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment.................2-14

Table 2-2: Evaluation of Fredericksburg Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and 

Need and their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment.....................2-16

Table 2-3: Evaluation of the Central Virginia Area Alternative Against the Purpose 

and Need and Its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment.................2-19

Table 2-4: Evaluation of Ashland Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need 

and Their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment..............................2-21

Table 2-5: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need 

and Their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment..............................2-26

Table 3-1: Summary of Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis Modeling Results 

(Averaged Results from 5 Randomized Cases).......................................................3-6

Table 3-2: Summary of Phase 2 Network-Wide Analysis Modeling Results (Averaged 

Results from 5 Randomized Cases) ..........................................................................3-7

Table 3-3: Phase 1 and 2 Modeling Results Compared with Performance Goals ..............3-13

Table 4-1: Public Hearings...........................................................................................................4-5

Table 4-2: Comments Received....................................................................................................4-6
1-1

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the recommendations of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) 

and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) for the Recommended 

Preferred Alternative for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 

(DC2RVA) Project. The purpose of the DC2RVA Project is to increase capacity to deliver higher 

speed passenger rail, support the expansion of commuter rail, and accommodate growth of 

freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. These recommendations 

are based on the alternative’s ability to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need, consideration of 

impacts to the human and natural environment, costs, and operability/constructability, along 

with the public and agency comments received following the publication of the Tier II Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the DC2RVA Project on September 8, 2017.

DRPT has prepared this Recommendation Report to document the Commonwealth’s 

Recommended Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Project, as defined in the Draft EIS 

and further refined in this report, and to seek concurrence from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) on this recommendation. Subject to FRA approval, DRPT will 

advance the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative as the Preferred 

Alternative for the DC2RVA Project in the Final EIS.

DRPT acknowledges that this Recommendation Report, or FRA concurrence with this report, is 

non‐binding. FRA, as the lead Federal agency for the preparation of the EIS under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), will formally define the Preferred Alternative in the Final 

EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) for the DC2RVA Project. The Final EIS will provide detailed 

responses to the many comments received on the Draft EIS and will document the impacts of 

the Project on the human and natural environments. The ROD will confirm the Preferred 

Alternative for the Project as defined in the Final EIS. The Project cannot be advanced until 

FRA has signed the ROD.

1
2-1

RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The FRA and Virginia DRPT are working to improve intercity passenger rail service in the 

north-south corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger rail 

service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project. The purpose of the DC2RVA Project is 

to increase capacity to deliver higher speed passenger rail, support the expansion of commuter 

rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail 

corridor. The DC2RVA Project will enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation 

choice for intercity travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, and beyond. The 

DC2RVA Project extends 123 miles along an existing rail corridor owned by CSX Transportation 

(CSXT) from Arlington, VA, (CSXT control point RO at milepost CFP 110.1, in Arlington County 

just south of the Long Bridge across the Potomac River) to Richmond, Virginia (CSXT control 

point Centralia at milepost S 10.9, in Chesterfield County south of Richmond).

The proposed improvements of the DC2RVA Project include the following:

 Construct additional main line tracks and track crossovers

 Straighten curves in existing tracks to allow for higher speeds

 Improve intercity passenger rail stations and station areas

 Improve sidings and signals

 Implement roadway crossing safety improvements

 Add an additional nine passenger train round trips in the corridor 

The DC2RVA Project is being evaluated by FRA and DRPT through the framework of an EIS to 

satisfy the requirements of NEPA. NEPA requires projects that have a federal nexus and may 

have a significant impact on the natural and/or built environment to be evaluated through a 

rigorous process that allows the public to understand and comment on the benefits and impacts 

of the project. On September 8, 2017, FRA released the DC2RVA Tier II Draft EIS for public 

review and comment. The Draft EIS documents the environmental effects of the proposed 

DC2RVA improvements along with measures to avoid, minimize, and otherwise mitigate those 

effects. The Draft EIS evaluates multiple alternatives defined in six areas of the 123-mile 

corridor and includes DRPT’s recommendations for a preferred alternative by area. The public 

comment period for the Draft EIS ended November 7, 2017. DRPT held five public hearings and 

conducted additional public outreach to answer questions and solicit public comments during 

the comment period.

2
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-2

Virginia’s CTB establishes the administrative policies and oversees transportation projects and 

initiatives for the Commonwealth’s transportation system. The CTB, made up of 17 members 

appointed by the governor, allocates transportation funding to specific projects, locates routes, 

and considers funding for highways, rail, and public transportation projects. The CTB Rail 

Committee, a subgroup of the CTB, meets separately and works with DRPT staff on policies, 

procedures, special projects, and reports related to rail.

Based on agency and public comments on the Draft EIS and additional public outreach, the CTB 

voted in December 2017 to adopt DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative as the 

Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for improvements along the DC2RVA 

corridor. 

2.2 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND RATIONALE

The Draft EIS included DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for the majority of the 

DC2RVA Project with the exception of Areas 1 and 5. DRPT deferred the recommendation of a 

preferred alternative for Area 1 until the completion of a separate EIS for the Long Bridge over 

the Potomac River. This report confirms DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative from the 

Draft EIS with the inclusion of Build Alternative 5A in Ashland, and continued the deferral of a 

recommendation for Area 1 until an alignment for the construction of additional capacity over 

the Long Bridge is determined in a separate study, the Long Bridge Project Alternatives 

Development Report, being conducted by FRA and the District of Columbia Department of 

Transportation (DDOT). After completion of the public review and comment period for the 

Draft EIS, DRPT presented the Recommended Preferred Alternative for the full DC2RVA 

Project with the deferral of a decision for Area 1 to the CTB in November 2017, which the CTB 

endorsed as the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative in its December 6, 2017,

resolution (Attachment A). The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative is based 

on the following findings as they support the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project:

 Expanded passenger, commuter, and freight service on the corridor is an important 

component to addressing congestion in the I-95 corridor.

 Northern Virginia has the most rail traffic congestion in the corridor and is the DC2RVA 

priority for implementation.

In determining its Recommended Preferred Alternative, the Commonwealth fully considered 

the Project’s Purpose and Need, all of the information and analysis contained in the Draft EIS, 

the comments received during the formal comment period and through the Town of 

Ashland/Hanover County Community Advisory Committee (CAC) process, and the additional 

infrastructure validation and operations modeling conducted in support of the Project. DRPT 

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

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

Recommended Preferred Alternative was informed by extensive outreach and communications 

undertaken with the public, stakeholders, and elected officials in the DC2RVA corridor, plus 

prior corridor studies, including the 2002 Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Tier I EIS and 

ROD. 

The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative includes a service plan that would 

improve the reliability of the intercity passenger service while adding nine additional daily 

intercity passenger round trips (18 trains per day). Four of these new round trips would provide 
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-3

regional service from Hampton Roads through Richmond to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor

(NEC). One new round trip would originate at Richmond’s Main Street Station. An additional 

four round trips would provide interstate service from North Carolina through Virginia, 

continuing on to Amtrak’s NEC. From Washington, D.C., DRPT intends for all of the new trains 

to continue on to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, subject to available capacity and future 

operating schedules on the NEC. The service plan also includes a maximum authorized 

passenger train speed for the corridor of 90 mph with a reduced trip time (where practicable),

and improved on-time performance of the intercity passenger train service.

In the Draft EIS, DRPT evaluated rail alignment Build Alternatives in six areas along the DC2RVA 

corridor, as well as the No Build Alternative. In the SEHSR Tier I EIS, FRA and the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that the No Build Alternative did not meet the Tier I 

Purpose and Need of the Project, but it was included in the DC2RVA Draft EIS to provide a basis 

for comparison with the Build Alternatives. Each of the six alternative areas contains one or more 

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

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

alternative areas to form a contiguous “best-fit” alternative for the 123-mile DC2RVA corridor.

All alternatives selected meet the DC2RVA Purpose and Need to increase railroad capacity 

between Washington, D.C., and Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, support the 

expansion of commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and 

reliable multimodal rail corridor. Adding capacity supports increased frequency, improved 

reliability, and reduced travel time of passenger rail operations in Virginia and beyond.

DRPT seeks FRA concurrence on the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative 

as defined in the Draft EIS and further refined in this Recommendation Report, including:

Area 1: Retain Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C;

Area 2: Build Alternative 2A, Add One Track / Improve Existing Track;

Area 3: Build Alternative 3B, Add One Track East of Existing;

Area 4: Build Alternative 4A, Add One Track / Improve Existing Track;

Area 5: Build Alternative 5A, Maintain Two Tracks Through Town; and

Area 6: Build Alternative 6F, Full Service Staples Mill Road / Main Street Stations. 

FRA and DRPT did not include a Recommended Preferred Alternative for Area 5 in the Draft 

EIS; however, after consideration of comments received on the Draft EIS and through the 

CAC process, the Commonwealth recommends including Build Alternative 5A (Maintain 

Two Tracks Through Town) as the Preferred Alternative through Ashland. Subject to FRA 

approval and documentation in the Final EIS and ROD, the Preferred Alternative for the 

DC2RVA Project will include a contiguous 123-mile route consisting of Build Alternatives 

1A/1B/1C, 2A, 3B, 4A, 5A and 6F.

The following summarizes some of the key considerations by the CTB in developing their 

Recommended Preferred Alternative within each Alternative Area:

Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach)

Virginia recognizes the critical importance of increasing rail capacity across the Potomac River 

at the Long Bridge north of Arlington and is working with FRA, DDOT, and other stakeholders 

to evaluate alternatives that address this issue in a separate EIS. DRPT identified the 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-4

approximately one-mile Alternative Area 1 immediately south of the Long Bridge to evaluate 

potential connections between the DC2RVA corridor and the future recommendation from the 

separate Long Bridge EIS. In the Draft EIS, DRPT evaluated three alternatives to add two tracks 

within existing CSXT right-of-way to connect to multiple future Long Bridge recommendation

options:

 1A. Add two tracks east

 1B. Add two tracks west

 1C. Add one track west and one track east

Each of these Area 1 alternatives supports expanded intercity passenger service, VRE commuter 

service, and CSXT freight service. All project improvements in Area 1 are within existing CSXTowned right-of-way.

The Commonwealth recommends that FRA defer selection of a preferred alternative in Area 

1 through Arlington in the Final EIS and ROD for the DC2RVA Project until determination 

of an alignment for the construction of additional capacity over the Long Bridge in a separate 

EIS being conducted by FRA/DDOT. The Long Bridge Project Alternatives Development 

Report is expected to be released later this year and include a recommended preferred 

alternative. 

Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia

Alternative Area 2 is the most congested area on the rail corridor, with intercity passenger

trains, VRE commuter trains, and CSXT freight trains occupying space on the existing tracks. 

This 47.3-mile area of the corridor, from Crystal City to Fredericksburg, also passes through 

developed urban areas and crosses several major rivers, including at the Occoquan River, 

Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek and Aquia Creek. In the Draft EIS, DRPT considered and 

dismissed alternative alignments that increased speed and/or capacity but extended outside the 

CSXT right-of-way in Area 2 in order to reduce impacts to property, wetlands, and existing 

infrastructure. The Commonwealth recommends Alternative 2A, which would add a fourth 

track to the triple-track section from Crystal City to Alexandria and add a third track in 

locations that currently have only two tracks from Alexandria to Fredericksburg. The 

recommended preferred alternative would support expanded intercity passenger service, VRE 

commuter service, and CSXT freight service. Project improvements are largely within existing 

CSXT-owned right-of-way, and locations of river crossings have been carefully selected to 

reduce impacts to natural and built resources. The recommended preferred alternative increases 

passenger train speeds where practicable while keeping project improvements within the CSXTowned right-of-way; speed increases are variable, with increased speeds of 80 to 90 mph 

achieved in some sections.

The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for Area 2 is Build Alternative 

2A (Add One Track / Improve Existing Track), as defined in the Draft EIS, and the 

Commonwealth seeks FRA concurrence to adopt this as the Preferred Alternative for Area 2 

through Northern Virginia in the Final EIS for the DC2RVA Project.

Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg

Alternative Area 3 extends approximately 14 miles through Fredericksburg, from the Dahlgren 

Spur just north of the Rappahannock River to VRE’s Spotsylvania Station at Crossroads, VA.

The corridor in this area crosses the Rappahannock River, passes through the City of 
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-5

Fredericksburg, and traverses extensive historic and cultural resources including the 

Fredericksburg National Military Park. In the Draft EIS, DRPT screened multiple bypass 

alignments, and evaluated three alternatives in detail:

 3A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town

 3B. Add One Track Through Town East of Existing Tracks

 3C. Add a Two-Track Bypass East of Town

Maintaining two tracks through the City of Fredericksburg (and therefore having only two 

platform edges at the Fredericksburg Station) does not provide sufficient capacity to support 

increased intercity passenger service, support VRE commuter service, and accommodate CSXT 

freight service through the City, and does not meet Purpose and Need of the Project. Adding a 

two-track bypass to the east of the City does provide 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, the 

Commonwealth recommends Alternative 3B to add a third main track to link existing sections 

of three or more tracks and provide a continuous three track corridor through the City. 

Alternative 3B provides the capacity to support intercity passenger service, VRE commuter 

service, and CSXT freight service. This alternative would have fewer impacts to property, 

wetlands, and infrastructure than a bypass, and occurs largely within the existing CSXT-owned 

right-of-way. Alternative 3B supports past and ongoing investments by the Commonwealth and 

VRE, and has local government support.

The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for Area 3 is Build Alternative 3B 

(Add One Track East of Existing), as defined in the Draft EIS, and the Commonwealth seeks

FRA concurrence to adopt this as the Preferred Alternative for Area 3 through Fredericksburg 

in the Final EIS for the DC2RVA Project.

Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia

Alternative Area 4 extends approximately 29 miles, from Spotsylvania 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 achievable speed. 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. DRPT 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, increases passenger train speed, and would put project 

improvements largely within the existing CSXT-owned right-of-way. The Commonwealth 

recommends Alternative 4A. The recommended preferred alternative would support expanded 

intercity passenger service and CSXT freight service, while minimizing impacts to wetlands and 

property. 

The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for Area 4 is Build Alternative 

4A (Add One Track / Improve Existing Track), as defined in the Draft EIS, and the 

Commonwealth seeks FRA concurrence to adopt this as the Preferred Alternative for Area 4 

through Central Virginia in the Final EIS for the DC2RVA Project.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-6

Alternative Area 5: Ashland

Alternative Area 5 extends approximately 10 miles along the CSXT corridor, from Doswell to I295. Near the center of Area 5, the existing two-track main line runs at-grade for approximately 

two miles on very narrow right-of-way through the center of Railroad Avenue/Center Street in 

the Town of Ashland. DRPT conducted extensive public outreach in the Ashland/Hanover 

County area, and during development of the Draft EIS screened multiple at-grade, aboveground, below-ground, and bypass alignments, including use of the existing Buckingham 

Branch Railroad east of I-95. In the Draft EIS, DRPT evaluated seven alternatives in detail:

 5A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (3-2-3 Option)

 5A–A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake)

 5B. Add One Track Through Town East of Existing Tracks

 5B–A. Add One Track Through Town East of Existing Tracks (Relocate Station to 

Ashcake)

 5C. Add Two-Track Western Bypass

 5C–A. Add Two-Track Western Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake)

 5D–A. Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track), Relocate Station to 

Ashcake

During preparation of the DC2RVA Draft EIS, DRPT recognized that many of the alternatives 

for greater rail capacity in the Town of Ashland and Hanover County area generated 

community concerns. DRPT subsequently 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 Ashland/Hanover County 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. The CAC process was initiated to 

run in parallel to the Draft EIS. The Committee was specifically requested to:

 Review all alternatives studied to date as presented in the Draft EIS.

 Recommend alternative(s), including new alternatives or modifications to alternatives, 

to meet the DC2RVA Purpose and Need.

 Identify and represent the concerns of members’ communities.

 Apply a structured and transparent approach seeking consensus.

After careful and deliberate consideration of over 30 options for greater rail capacity in the 

Ashland/Hanover area, the CAC was unable to reach consensus on a community preferred 

alternative, but did agree that the following were the least objectionable options for each 

category of alternatives. The CAC identified the following Least Objectionable Alternatives:

 Alternative 5A – The option to add a third track north and south of town and maintain 

two tracks through town (3-2-3 option) was the least objectionable option for adding rail 

capacity through the Town of Ashland at-grade. 

 Three-Track Trench – An option to construct a three-track trench emerged through the 

CAC process as a variant of Alternatives 5B-Ashcake and 5D-Ashcake to construct three 
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-7

tracks through the Town of Ashland, and was the least objectionable option for adding 

capacity below grade. This option would close the downtown Ashland station. 

 Modified Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake – The western bypass closest to the Town of 

Ashland, which was identified as AWB 1 and screened out in the Draft EIS, was the least 

objectionable option for adding rail capacity outside the Town of Ashland as a variant of 

Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake —with the provision that the alignment would be 

adjusted to avoid directly impacting a commercial facility, and to minimize impacts to 

residential properties. 

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, and information and comments developed 

through the CAC process, and subsequent infrastructure validation and rail operations 

analyses, the Commonwealth recommends Alternative 5A as the Preferred Alternative for Area 

5. Alternative 5A provides sufficient capacity to support intercity passenger rail service and 

CSXT freight service while keeping improvements largely within existing CSXT-owned rightof-way. Alternative 5A has the least impact on property, wetlands and other natural resources, 

historic and cultural resources, and the built environment compared to other project 

alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need. Alternative 5A also best addresses the larger 

Ashland/Hanover 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. 

In comparison to Area 3 through Fredericksburg, the Commonwealth determined that two 

tracks and two platform edges at the existing Ashland Amtrak station provide sufficient 

capacity in Ashland, but would be insufficient in Fredericksburg. The rail corridor through 

Fredericksburg is more congested with greater train volumes and levels of service at the station. 

In Fredericksburg, the existing tracks and platforms serve 16 daily VRE commuter trains (8 

round trips) in addition to intercity passenger trains and CSX freight trains. While the same 

intercity passenger trains pass through both Fredericksburg and Ashland, more trains stop in 

Fredericksburg. Therefore, the Commonwealth determined that two tracks would be sufficient 

for the Project in Ashland.

The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for Area 5 is Build Alternative 

5A (Maintain Two Tracks Through Town), as defined in the Draft EIS, and the 

Commonwealth seeks FRA concurrence to adopt this as the Preferred Alternative for Area 5 

through Ashland in the Final EIS for the DC2RVA Project.

Alternative Area 6: Richmond

In the Richmond area, DRPT identified alternatives by station location and service combinations 

along the two main north-south rail routes through the City: the CSXT A-Line on the west and 

the CSXT S-Line running through the city center. DRPT evaluated eight Build alternatives for 

Area 6 in the Draft EIS —five are single station alternatives and three are two-station 

alternatives:

 6A. Staples Mill Road Station Only (A-Line)

 6B–A-Line. Boulevard Station Only (A-Line)

 6B–S-Line. Boulevard Station Only (S-Line)

 6C. Broad Street Station Only (A-Line)
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-8

 6D. Main Street Station Only (S-Line)

 6E. Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (A-Line)

 6F. Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (S-Line)

 6G. Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (A-Line and S-Line)

Richmond area alternatives that would rely on the A-Line (Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, 

and 6G) to carry additional passenger service were eliminated from further consideration in the 

Draft EIS as being unable to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. Rail operations analyses 

show that passenger and freight rail performance goals cannot be met using the A-Line without 

additional track capacity; however, the existing A-Line through Richmond runs in a trench 

down the middle of I-195, which itself is within a trench. These alternatives would also require 

a new third track on a bridge across the James River. An additional track cannot be added to the 

A-Line without expanding both the rail trench and the I-195 trench, creating extensive 

infrastructure and property impacts. 

The three Richmond area alternatives that rely on the S-Line (Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, and 

6F) were retained primarily because they would consolidate passenger service on the S-Line 

through downtown Richmond leaving the A-Line primarily for CSXT freight operations. 

Although the S-Line route from Centralia to Staples Mill Road is one mile longer than the ALine and passes through the urbanized core of Richmond, there is more opportunity to 

construct necessary capacity improvements on the S-Line than on the A-Line. Additionally, the 

S-Line alternatives 6D and 6F allow for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service to 

Richmond Main Street Station, which is nearer to the City’s Central Business District.

Alternative 6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only (S-Line) is feasible and could meet the DC2RVA 

passenger and freight service performance goals. However, the Boulevard Station would not be 

consistent with prior FRA and Commonwealth decisions regarding the SEHSR program, and 

does not meet FRA and Amtrak guidance for intercity passenger trains to serve the city center. 

Furthermore, the Boulevard Station option was not endorsed by political leaders from the City 

of Richmond or Henrico County.

Alternative 6D. Main Street Station Only (S-Line) would not meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need due to insufficient track and platform capacity. Spatial constraints posed by support 

structures for I-95 and the Triple Crossing (an iconic piece of rail infrastructure in Shockoe 

Bottom where three rail lines cross each other at different elevations in a highly-constrained 

environment), limit Main Street Station to two tracks and two platform edges on the west side 

served by the S-Line. For the Main Street Station Only alternative, a third track and three

platform edges are required on the west side to support the increased passenger service, 

including all necessary passenger train crew changes, and meet passenger and freight 

performance goals. In addition, potential impacts to historic and cultural resources from a third 

track and expanded platforms are also a concern and would increase the Project’s footprint 

within the area identified for a future memorial to Shockoe Bottom’s history as a slave trading 

district.

Alternative 6F. Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations (S-Line) is feasible and does 

support passenger service and freight service to meet the Purpose and Need. In this alternative, 

only Staples Mill Road Station—with three tracks and three platform edges—would provide 

crew changes. Providing crew changes exclusively at Staples Mill Road Station would reduce 
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-9

the station dwell time at Main Street Station, thereby allowing passenger and freight 

performance goals to be met while maximizing the number of passenger trains that could stop

at Main Street Station. Under the Full Service alternative, Main Street Station would have 

platform lengths of 850 feet, minimizing the project footprint. Alternative 6F is 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 SEHSR Tier I ROD (2002), Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I ROD (2012), and 

Richmond to Raleigh Tier II ROD (2016). The alternative is also consistent with FRA and 

Amtrak guidance on providing intercity passenger service to the central business district and 

the use of a suburban station. Plus, there is strong local support for this alternative, including 

from the City of Richmond and Henrico County, and the alternative is consistent with their 

respective comprehensive plans. 

The City of Richmond, in written comments made to DRPT concerning the Draft EIS, has 

requested that Alternative 6F be revised to allow for checked baggage handling and a 1,200-foot 

platform at Main Street Station. DRPT considered and dismissed adding a third track on the 

west side of the station due to site constraints and potential impacts to cultural resources in the 

area. DRPT also considered and dismissed making the west side platforms 1,200 feet long in 

keeping with the Project’s Basis of Design to fully accommodate Long Distance trains due to site 

constraints and concerns over potential impacts to cultural resources. DRPT instead 

recommended a reduced platform length of 850 feet plus walkways extending beyond the 

platform ends on the raised viaducts to provide crew access to the entire train. The 850-foot 

platforms fully accommodate Northeast Regional and Interstate Corridor trains. The 850-foot 

platforms do not preclude checked baggage service at Main Street Station. Amenities, including 

checked baggage service, to be provided at each station for a particular passenger train service 

will be determined through coordination between Amtrak, its state funding partners, the City 

of Richmond, and other station stakeholders, and are not included as part of the DC2RVA

project.

DC2RVA’s Basis of Design, following Amtrak’s Station Program and Planning Guidelines 

(2013), calls for 1,200-foot long platforms for stations servicing Amtrak’s Long Distance 

passenger trains and 850-foot long platforms for stations serving only Regional passenger 

trains. The Basis of Design matches the length of the platforms to the length of the train consists, 

with the goal of allowing direct access from the entire train – locomotive, passenger cars, etc. –

to the platform with a single stop. Matching the platform length to the train consist optimizes 

passenger access, and allows crew members to exit the train safely at the station if needed. 

DRPT considered adding two 1,200-foot long platforms on the west side of Main Street Station

that would accommodate the full length of Long Distance trains. However, DRPT determined 

that two 1,200-foot platforms were not practical on the west side due to physical site constraints 

and potential impacts to cultural resources. Site constraints that precluded extending the 

platforms to 1,200 feet include:

 The viaduct on the west side of the station threads between two piers (located at the 

southwest corner of the station building adjacent to East Main Street) supporting I-95 

elevated above the viaduct. These piers physically prevent the west side platforms from 

extending south. 

 Approximately 500 feet north of the renovated train shed, the viaducts pass over E. 

Broad Street. The vertical clearance for Broad Street beneath the rail viaducts is 13 feet-8 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-10

inches, which is less than the VDOT standard of 16 feet-6 inches. Broad Street also slopes 

upward west of the rail viaducts to climb over I-95. Adding a platform across Broad 

Street on the west would compound the roadway clearance limitations in order to 

maintain access to an extended platform.

 The existing rail trestle bridge over Broad Street is an approximately 75-foot thru-truss 

girder span that prevents access to the tracks from a platform over Broad Street – thus 

any platform extending north from the station across Broad Street would have an 

approximately 75-foot gap with no access to the train.

The Project’s preliminary conceptual design efforts took into consideration cultural and 

archeological resources in Shockoe Bottom. Map overlays were created using historic maps and 

previously identified historic sites to assure that known sites and buildings were included in the 

analysis. In addition, Project boundaries were compared to the conceptual outlines of the 

proposed Shockoe Bottom Memorial Park, a proposed memorial to the Richmond slave trade 

and slave jail, which operated on land in the vicinity of Main Street Station. 

Additional trains planned in the DC2RVA Project would follow the current track alignment and 

remain within the existing CSXT right-of-way in this area. Proposed new tracks would be 

located on the existing viaducts where tracks existed previously. The only ground disturbance 

necessary for passenger rail operations in this area would be from support piers for passenger 

platforms on the east and west side of Main Street Station. These would be constructed adjacent 

to the existing rail viaduct and would not impact known archaeological sites.

The Project will continue its cultural resource investigations in Shockoe Bottom in the winter 

and spring of 2018. As this work progresses, the Commonwealth is committed to avoiding 

sensitive archaeological sites and minimizing the footprint of station infrastructure overall.

Based on the above past study conclusions, FRA guidance, operational considerations, 

infrastructure modifications to avoid sensitive resources, and DRPT’s commitment to 

minimize the Project footprint to reduce potential impacts to sensitive cultural and 

archeological resources around Main Street Station, the Commonwealth’s Recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Area 6 is Build Alternative 6F (Full Service Staples Mill Road / 

Main Street Stations), as defined in the Draft EIS, and the Commonwealth seeks FRA 

concurrence to adopt this as the Preferred Alternative for Area 6 through Richmond in the 

Final EIS for the DC2RVA Project.
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-11

Figure 2-1 presents the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative and includes a brief 

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

Alternative for each alternative area is provided in the following sections.

Figure 2-1: Commonwealth Recommended Preferred Alternative
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-12

2.3 ALTERNATIVE AREA 1: ARLINGTON 

LONG BRIDGE APPROACH—CFP 110 TO CFP 109.3

This less than one-mile-long section of the 

DC2RVA corridor provides the transition 

between the DC2RVA corridor and the 

approach to the Long Bridge across the 

Potomac River. DRPT is working with FRA 

and DDOT to evaluate possible alternatives 

for increasing the rail corridor’s capacity 

across the Potomac River via the Long 

Bridge as part of a separate EIS (Long Bridge 

Rail Capacity Study, anticipated to be 

completed in 2019). The DC2RVA Project 

assumes that expanded capacity across the 

Potomac River will be required to 

accommodate both the future year No Build 

and Build service plans expanded service 

south of Washington, D.C.

In the Draft EIS, DRPT evaluated three 

different configurations for the short section 

of track south of the Potomac River, which 

will become the connection between the 

Long Bridge preferred alternative and the 

DC2RVA corridor. The maximum 

authorized speed in this section is designed 

for 45 mph. DRPT considered the 

environmental, social, and economic 

impacts of each of the three Build 

Alternatives, in addition to each 

alternative’s ability to meet the Project 

Purpose and Need. DRPT determined that 

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

and 1C, as shown in Figure 2-2) are very 

similar in their impacts, and there are no 

overriding issues that would drive DRPT to 

select one over the other. To avoid 

unnecessarily limiting the options that could 

be considered as part of the separate 

FRA/DDOT Long Bridge Project 

Alternatives Development Report, DRPT 

determined that any of the three Build 

Alternatives would be acceptable and 

recommends retaining all three Build 

Alternatives in order to support a deferred 

selection of a preferred alternative to 

Figure 2-2: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Arlington Area)
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-13

physically align with the preferred alignment of the Long Bridge EIS. DRPT is participating as a 

cooperating agency in the Long Bridge study.

2.4 ALTERNATIVE AREA 2: NORTHERN VIRGINIA

CFP 109.3 TO CFP 62

DRPT determined that additional rail 

capacity is required in the Northern Virginia 

area to increase train service and improve 

reliability. The Draft EIS evaluates the 

impacts of a single alternative Build 

Alternative 2A: Add One Track/Improve 

Existing Track. All other alternatives were 

removed from consideration during the 

screening process due to their higher levels of 

impacts to the human and natural 

environment or they did not meet the 

Purpose and Need of the Project, as described 

in the Alternatives Technical Report 

(Appendix A of the Draft EIS). 

As shown in Figure 2-3, Alternative 2A would 

construct one additional main line track 

adjacent to the existing tracks in some 

sections and no additional track in some 

sections to create a corridor with four 

interoperable main tracks north of Alexandria 

and three interoperable main tracks from 

Alexandria to Fredericksburg. Due to 

constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed by 

design in this section is 79 mph. 

DRPT determined that because this 

alternative would generally be located within 

the existing CSXT right-of-way, it avoids 

impacts to the natural and human resources 

to the extent practicable. This alternative does 

have some unavoidable impacts, including 

those associated with several new bridge 

crossings of major waterways. Table 2-1 summarizes the performance of Build Alternative 2A 

against the Purpose and Need evaluation criteria and its impact on the human and natural 

environment.

Figure 2-3: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Northern Virginia Area)
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-14

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

2) Other avoidance alternatives do not exist that would meet the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. 3) Does not include rolling stock.

Table 2-1: Evaluation of Northern Virginia Area Alternative Against the Purpose and Need 

and its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment

Purpose and Need Elements & 

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

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources:

Wetland impacts 5.19 acres

Section 4(f) park impacts2 0.04 acres

Historic properties impacts2 1 property

Right-of-way acquisition 33 acres

Residential relocations 2 residential relocations

Commercial relocations 0

Optimizes cost:

Construction costs (2025)3 $1,652.6 million

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity Yes

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

Supports ridership demand within the corridor and beyond Yes

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

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

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

for on-time performance 

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

Travel time DC-Richmond Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan 

for reduced travel time 

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations

Accommodates VRE commuter rail service operations Incorporates VRE planned infrastructure 

improvements at VRE stations and integrates 

VRE schedules.

Accommodate freight rail service operations

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

Accommodates rail freight future growth, yard operations, access to 

local customers, and sidings for crew changes and layovers

Yes

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for station facilities, and 

state and local plans

Yes

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

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

roadways at stations)

<1%

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of public at-grade crossings 0

Closure of public at-grade crossings 1

Safety improvements of public at-grade crossings (four quadrant

gates and/or median treatment) 

2

New public crossings 0

Provides platform and station improvements Yes

Provides upgrades to signals and communication systems Yes

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

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes

Supports decreases in energy consumption Yes 
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-15

2.5 ALTERNATIVE AREA 3: FREDERICKSBURG 

DAHLGREN SPUR TO CROSSROADS—CFP 62 TO CFP 48

DRPT evaluated three Build 

Alternatives in the Fredericksburg 

area. The Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Build Alternative 3B: 

Add One Track East of Existing, as 

shown in Figure 2-4) would add a 

new third main line adjacent to the 

existing tracks on the east, which 

would provide the capacity needed 

to increase train service and 

improve reliability. Due to 

constraints of the geography 

through this location, the maximum 

authorized speed in this section by 

design is 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3A would 

maintain the existing two tracks 

through Fredericksburg. DRPT 

concludes that Build Alternative 3A 

would not provide the capacity 

needed to meet the DC2RVA 

service plan objectives. Build 

Alternative 3C would construct a 

two-track bypass to the east of Fredericksburg. While a new bypass would provide the capacity 

required to meet the DC2RVA service plan objectives, DRPT concludes that, compared with 

adding a new third main line through Fredericksburg, the bypass alternative would have 

greater cost and greater impacts to the natural and human environment and would result in 

more residential relocations. 

While the Recommended Preferred Alternative’s impacts to historic resources would be greater 

than the two other Fredericksburg area Build Alternatives, it remains primarily within the 

existing CSXT right-of-way, and its impacts to wetlands and residential and commercial 

properties would be substantially lower than the bypass alternative (3C). Both Build Alternatives 

with additional track include new bridge crossings of the Rappahannock River, a parallel singletrack bridge for Build Alternative 3B, and a new double-track bridge for Build Alternative 3C. The 

construction costs for Build Alternative 3B would be less than the bypass, and Build Alternative 

3B is included in the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan. In summary, DRPT prefers Build 

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

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

still providing improved operations for the DC2RVA corridor. Table 2-2 summarizes the 

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

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

Figure 2-4: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Fredericksburg Area)
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-16

Table 2-2: Evaluation of Fredericksburg Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and 

their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives

3A. Maintain Two 

Tracks Through 

Town

3B. Add One Track 

East of Existing

3C. Add Two-Track 

Bypass East

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources:

Wetland impacts 5.24 acres 5.29 acres 23.82 acres

Section 4(f) park impacts 0 0 0

Historic properties impacts 

(parks and historic properties)2 

1 property 5 properties 1 property

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

Residential relocations 0 0 19 residential 

relocations

Commercial relocations 0 1 commercial 

relocation

1 commercial relocation

Optimizes cost:

Construction costs (2025 $) (millions)3 $240.2 $506.9 $977.5

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity No Yes Yes

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

Supports ridership demand within the 

corridor and beyond

Would not support the 

DC2RVA proposed 

service plan of 9 

additional round trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA proposed 

service plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan of 

9 additional round trips

Increases passenger train frequency by up to 

9 round trips per day

Yes Yes Yes

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

Passenger Train On-Time Performance 

(2045 OTP)

Does not meet 

DC2RVA service plan 

objectives for OTP

Supports the 

DC2RVA proposed 

service plan for ontime performance

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

for on-time 

performance)

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

Travel time DC-Richmond Would not support 

DC2RVA service plan 

objectives for improved 

travel time

Supports the 

DC2RVA proposed 

service plan 

objectives for 

improved travel 

time

Supports the DC2RVA 

proposed service plan 

objectives for improved 

travel time

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations

Accommodates VRE commuter rail service 

operations

No Yes Yes

Accommodate freight rail service operations

Freight time delay (2045) Increases freight delay Meets DC2RVA 

objectives for freight 

impacts

Increases freight traffic 

travel time and distance

Accommodates rail freight future growth, 

yard operations, access to local customers, 

and sidings for crew changes and layovers

No Yes Yes

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-17

Table 2-2: Evaluation of Fredericksburg Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and 

their Impact on the Human and Natural Environment

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors Considered1

Build Alternatives

3A. Maintain Two 

Tracks Through 

Town

3B. Add One Track 

East of Existing

3C. Add Two-Track 

Bypass East

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for 

station facilities, and state and local plans

Yes Yes Yes

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% change 

from No Build)

6% increase 60% decrease 10% decrease

Changes in roadway travel patterns (% change 

in traffic, adjacent roadways at stations)

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

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

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

Closure of public at-grade crossings 0 0 0

Safety improvements of public at-grade 

crossings (four quadrant gates and/or median 

treatment)

4 3 9

New grade-separated public crossings 0 0 5

Provides platform and station improvements Yes Yes Yes

Provides upgrades to signals and 

communication systems

Yes Yes Yes

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

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes Yes Yes 

Supports decreases in energy consumption Yes Yes Yes

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

Alternative. 2) Other avoidance alternatives do not exist that would meet the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. 3) Does not 

include rolling stock.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-18

2.6 ALTERNATIVE AREA 4: CENTRAL VIRGINIA

CROSSROADS TO DOSWELL—CFP 48 TO CFP 19

DRPT determined that additional rail capacity is 

required in the Central Virginia area to increase 

train service and improve reliability. The Draft 

EIS evaluates the impacts of constructing one 

additional main line track adjacent to the existing 

tracks, identified as Build Alternative 4A: Add 

One Track/Improve Existing Track (as shown in

Figure 2-5). DRPT prefers this alternative because 

it would generally be located within the existing 

CSXT right-of-way, avoids impacts to natural 

and human resources to the extent practicable, 

and provides the greatest contiguous section 

along the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum 

authorized speed up to 90 mph. All other 

alternatives were removed from consideration 

during the screening process due to their higher 

levels of impacts to the human and natural 

environment or they did not meet the Purpose 

and Need of the Project, as described in the 

Alternatives Technical Report (Appendix A of 

the Draft EIS).

Table 2-3 summarizes the performance of Build 

Alternative 4A against the Purpose and Need 

evaluation criteria and its impact on the human 

and natural environment.

Figure 2-5: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Central Virginia Area)
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-19

Table 2-3: Evaluation of the Central Virginia Area Alternative Against the Purpose and Need 

and Its Impact on the Human and Natural Environment

Purpose and Need Elements & 

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

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources:

Wetland impacts 8.39 acres

Section 4(f) park impacts 0 acres

Historic properties impacts (parks and historic properties)2 3 properties

Right-of-way acquisition 2.4 acres

Residential relocations 0

Commercial relocations 0

Optimizes cost:

Construction costs (2025 $, millions)3 $643.2 million

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity Yes

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

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

additional round trips

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

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

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

on-time performance

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

Travel time DC-Richmond Supports the DC2RVA proposed service plan 

objectives for improved travel time

Accommodate VRE commuter rail service operations

Accommodates VRE commuter rail service operations No VRE stations present

Accommodate freight rail service operations

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

Accommodates rail freight future growth, yard operations, access 

to local customers, and sidings for crew changes and layovers

Yes

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines for station facilities, and 

state and local plans

No stations in the Central Virginia area

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

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

roadways at stations)

n/a

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of public at-grade crossings 0

Closure of public at-grade crossings 1

Safety improvements of public at-grade crossings (four quadrant

gates and/or median treatment) 

6

New public crossings 0

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

Provides upgrades to signals and communication systems Yes

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

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes

Supports decreases in energy consumption Yes
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-20

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

2) Other avoidance alternatives do not exist that would meet the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. 3) Does not include rolling 

stock.

2.7 ALTERNATIVE AREA 5: 

ASHLAND 

DOSWELL TO I-295—CFP 

19 TO CFP 9

DRPT evaluated seven Build Alternatives in 

the Ashland/Hanover area in the Draft EIS. As 

identified in the Draft EIS, DRPT conducted 

extensive outreach, as discussed in Sections 3.1

and 3.3. The Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Build Alternative 5A: Maintain 

Two Tracks Through Town (also known as “3-

2-3”, as shown in Figure 2-6) would maintain 

the existing two tracks (i.e., no construction of 

new track) through Ashland, which would be 

used by freight and passenger trains similar to 

current conditions. A station stop in Ashland

would remain in town, and two public 

roadway at-grade crossings in Ashland, West 

Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road, would be 

grade separated. All other public roadway and/or pedestrian crossings within town remain atgrade, with safety improvements. One new track would be constructed north and south of 

town, and there are some shifts of existing tracks to improve speed throughout the area. Rail 

improvements are generally within existing right-of-way. The maximum authorized speed in 

this section is designed for 90 mph, where feasible. Existing speed restrictions for all trains 

operating through the Town of Ashland (35 mph during the day, 45 mph at night) would 

remain.

Build Alternative 5B and 5B-Ashcake would add a new third main line adjacent to the existing 

tracks on the east through the Town of Ashland, which generally requires additional railroad 

right-of-way within the town. Similarly, Build Alternative 5D-Ashcake would require 

construction of one additional main line track and centering all three main line tracks on the 

existing alignment through the town, which would require additional right-of-way. In addition,

Build Alternatives 5B, 5B-Ashcake and 5D-Ashcake would require closure of a short portion of 

Railroad Avenue/Center Street, parallel to the railroad corridor. Build Alternative 5C and 5CAshcake would construct a two-track bypass to the west of Ashland within Hanover County. 

While a new bypass would provide the most capacity to support the DC2RVA service plan 

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

Ashland, the bypass alternative would have greater cost and greater impacts to natural and 

human resources and would result in more residential relocations.

Table 2-4 summarizes the performance of the Ashland area Build Alternatives against the 

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

Figure 2-6: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Ashland Area)
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-21

Table 2-4: Evaluation of Ashland Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and Their Impact on the Human and Natural 

Environment

Build Alternatives

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors 

Considered1

5A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town5A–A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town(Relocate Station to Ashcake)5B. Add One Track Through Town East of Existing5B

–A. Add One Track 

Through Town East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake)5C. Add Two-Track West Bypass5C

–A. Add Two-Track 

West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake)5D

–A. Three Tracks 

Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake)

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources:

Wetland impacts 0.41 acres 0.41 acres 0.41 acres 0.45 acres 8.44 acres 8.48 acres 0.45 acres

Section 4(f) park impacts2 0 acres 0.01 acres 0.03 acres 0.04 acres 0 acres 0.01 acres 0.01 acres

Historic properties impacts2 0 properties 0 properties 7 properties 7 properties 1 property 1 property 7 properties

Right-of-way acquisition 21.9 acres 20.5 acres 29.4 acres 29.9 acres 147.8 acres 146.4 acres 36.4 acres

Residential relocations 0 residential 

relocations

0 residential 

relocations

0 residential 

relocations

0 residential 

relocations

21 residential 

relocations

21 residential 

relocations

0 residential 

relocations

Commercial relocations 1 Commercial 

relocation

1 Commercial 

relocation

1 Commercial 

relocation

1 Commercial 

relocation

1 Commercial 

relocation

1 Commercial 

relocation

1 Commercial 

relocation

Optimizes cost:

Construction costs (2025)3

(millions)

$349.5 $350.3 $388.3 $388.8 $599.2 $600.0 $398.8

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

Supports ridership demand within the 

corridor and beyond 

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed 

service plan of 

9 additional 

round trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed service 

plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed service 

plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed service 

plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed service 

plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed service 

plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Supports the 

DC2RVA 

proposed service 

plan of 9 

additional round 

trips

Increases passenger train frequency by 

up to 9 round trips per day

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-22

Build Alternatives

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors 

Considered1

5A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town5A–A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town(Relocate Station to Ashcake)5B. Add One Track Through Town East of Existing5B

–A. Add One Track 

Through Town East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake)5C. Add Two-Track West Bypass5C

–A. Add Two-Track 

West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake)5D

–A. Three Tracks 

Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake)

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

Passenger Train On-Time 

Performance (2025 OTP): Meets 

DC2RVA proposed service plan for 

on-time performance)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

Supports the DC2RVA Proposed 

Service Plan Objectives for Improved 

Travel Time

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

Accommodates VRE commuter rail 

service operations

N/A (No VRE Stations Present in Ashland Area 5)

Accommodate freight rail service operations

Freight time delay (2025): Meets 

DC2RVA objectives for freight 

impacts

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Accommodates rail freight future 

growth, yard operations, access to 

local customers, and sidings for crew 

changes and layovers

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 Continued – see end of table for notes.

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak guidelines 

for station facilities, and state and local 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-23

Build Alternatives

Purpose and Need Elements & 

Summary of Factors 

Considered1

5A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town5A–A. Maintain Two Tracks Through Town(Relocate Station to Ashcake)5B. Add One Track Through Town East of Existing5B

–A. Add One Track 

Through Town East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake)5C. Add Two-Track West Bypass5C

–A. Add Two-Track 

West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake)5D

–A. Three Tracks 

Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake)

plans

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% 

change from No Build)

24% decrease 24% decrease 26% decrease 26% decrease 87% decrease 87% decrease 26% decrease

Changes in roadway travel patterns (% 

change in traffic, adjacent roadways at 

stations)

<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of existing public atgrade crossings2 2 2 2 0 0 2

Closure of existing public at-grade 

crossings 

1 0 1 0 1 0 0

Safety improvements of existing public 

at-grade crossings (four quadrant gates 

and/or median treatment)

8 9 8 9 10 11 9

New public at-grade crossings 0 0 0 0 8 8 0

Provides platform and station 

improvements 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Provides upgrades to signals and 

communication systems

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

Supports reduction of CO2 emissions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Supports decreases in energy 

consumption

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Notes: 1) Refer to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Draft EIS for complete list of factors evaluated and the evaluation results for each Build Alternative. 2) Alternative 5A is the Preferred Alternative because no 

other avoidance alternatives exist that meet the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. 3) Does not include rolling stock. DRPT developed operating and maintenance costs and estimates of 

revenue, but neither were differentiators between the Build Alternatives and were therefore not used by DRPT in selecting the Recommended Preferred Alternative.
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-24

Figure 2-7: DRPT Recommended Preferred 

Alternative (Richmond Area)

2.8 ALTERNATIVE AREA 6: RICHMOND I-295 TO 

CENTRALIA—CFP 9 TO A011

DRPT evaluated two primary route alignment 

alternatives for the Richmond area, with one 

passing west of downtown on the CSXT A-Line 

and another passing through downtown via the 

CSXT S-Line, to determine which route was best 

capable of providing the capacity required to 

support the DC2RVA Purpose and Need. In 

addition to the routing options, DRPT evaluated

four unique station locations with eight different 

station service alternatives in the Richmond area

serving multiple route and station combinations. 

The eight station service alternatives included

five single-station alternatives that would 

consolidate passenger service to one station, and 

three two-station alternatives that offer 

combinations of services and rail line routes 

using Main Street Station and Staples Mill Road 

Station:

 Single-Station Build Alternatives:

- 6A: Staples Mill Road Station Only

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

- 6B–S-Line: Boulevard Station Only, 

S-Line

- 6C: Broad Street Station Only

- 6D Main Street Station Only

 Two-Station Build Alternatives:

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Organization. In addition, DRPT held three public meetings and a formal public 

hearing in Richmond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

downtown Richmond. However, DRPT also recognizes that Richmond’s Staples Mill Road 
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-25

Station currently has the highest ridership volumes of any passenger rail station in Virginia, in 

part due to the higher level of train service at the station. DRPT reviewed the cost estimates, 

level of impacts, and ridership projections, and determined that having both a downtown 

station and a suburban station would best meet the Purpose and Need. DRPT determined that

Build Alternative 6F: Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations provides the most 

optimal solution for providing downtown Richmond rail service at Main Street Station and 

convenient connections to Richmond’s transit system, including multiple bus routes and the 

new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system under construction along Broad Street. By nature of the 

respective environments of each location, Main Street Station would provide expanded 

multimodal connectivity, while Staples Mills Road Station could continue to accommodate the 

parking needs of regional rail passengers who are not located in the downtown Richmond area 

(see Figure 2-7). The two-station service in Build Alternative 6F also reflects FRA’s Guidance 

Manual for Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans (2005), which states that “each city should 

have a station located in or near the central business district,” but also that “one or more 

suburban stations need to be provided in the larger metropolitan areas.”1

In this alternative, all Long-Distance, Interstate Corridor, and Northeast Regional passenger trains 

moving north-south through Richmond would be routed through Staples Mill Road Station to the 

west side of Main Street Station and then to Centralia using the S-Line. The Northeast Regional 

service to Newport News would continue to use the east side of Main Street Station on the 

Peninsula Subdivision line. This alternative includes improvements between Greendale and 

Centralia along the S-Line and includes station and service improvements at Main Street Station, 

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

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

exception of Amtrak’s Auto Train) serving Downtown Richmond via the CSXT S-Line, the CSXT

A-Line will become a primarily freight route bypassing downtown and reducing delays for both 

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

Preferred Alternative for the Richmond area.

Table 2-5 summarizes the performance of the Richmond Area Build Alternatives against the 

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

 

1 FRA Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04161
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-26

Table 2-5: Evaluation of Richmond Area Alternatives Against the Purpose and Need and Their Impact on the Human and Natural 

Environment

Purpose and Need Elements 

& Summary of Factors 

Considered1

Build Alternatives

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two-Station Options

6A. Staples Mill Road Station Only6B

–A-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only A-Line6B

–

S-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only S-Line6C. Broad Street Station Only A-Line6D. Main Street Station Only S-Line6E. Split Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6F. Full Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6G. Shared Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Provide an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor

Impacts to human and natural resources:

Wetland impacts 3.21 acres 2.91 acres 3.47 acres 2.99 acres 3.47 acres 3.31 acres 3.52 acres 3.74 acres

Section 4(f) park impacts2 0.19 acres 0.19 acres 0.17 acres 0.19 acres 0.17 acres 0.19 acres 0.17 acres 0.17 acres

Historic properties impacts2 8 properties 16 properties 16 properties 16 properties 10 properties 7 properties 10 properties 13 properties

Right-of-way acquisition 76.0 acres 101.0 acres 78.7 acres 128.1 acres 73.7 acres 89.1 acres 83.0 acres 81.0 acres

Residential relocations 12 residential 

relocations

12 residential 

relocations

7 residential 

relocations

112 residential 

relocations

7 residential 

relocations

12 residential 

relocations

7 residential 

relocations

7 residential 

relocations

Commercial relocations 10 

Commercial 

relocations

18 

Commercial 

relocations

10 

Commercial 

relocations

15 

Commercial 

relocations

10 

Commercial 

relocations

10 

Commercial 

relocations

10 

Commercial 

relocations

10 

Commercial 

relocations

Optimizes cost:

Construction costs (2025)3

(millions)

$1,087.7 $1,524.1 $1,451.2 $1,488.7 $1,323.5 $1,266.5 $1,482.9 $1,599.1

Increase the capacity of the multimodal rail system through infrastructure improvements

Increases multimodal rail capacity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Improve the frequency of passenger rail operations

Annual Ridership, DC-Richmond

(2025) (millions)

2.579 2.509 2.509 2.474 2.521 2.519 2.553 2.556

Annual Ridership, DC-Richmond

(2045) (millions)

3.295 3.203 3.203 3.160 3.213 3.218 3.258 3.261

 Continued – see end of table for notes.

Increases passenger train frequency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-27

Purpose and Need Elements 

& Summary of Factors 

Considered1

Build Alternatives

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two-Station Options

6A. Staples Mill Road Station Only6B

–

A-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only A-Line6B

–

S-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only S-Line6C. Broad Street Station Only A-Line6D. Main Street Station Only S-Line6E. Split Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6F. Full Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6G. Shared Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

by up to 9 round trips per day

Supports ridership demand within 

the corridor and beyond

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Improve the reliability of passenger rail operations

Passenger Train On-Time 

Performance (2045 OTP):

Meets DC2RVA proposed service 

plan for on-time performance4,5

No No Yes No No No Yes No

Operational Impacts (passenger 

train delay and freight conflicts) 3,4

High Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate

Improve the travel time of passenger rail operations

Travel time DC–Richmond 

(hour:minute)6

1:50 1:56 1:56 2:01 2:06 1:50 2:15 2:15

Reduces current passenger train 

trip time DC-Richmond?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

Accommodates VRE commuter rail 

service operations

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

Accommodate freight rail service operations

Freight time delay (2045) (minutes 

of delay per 100 train-miles) 4,5

11.5 12 9 12 11 12 9 12

Accommodates rail freight future 

growth, yard operations, access to 

local customers, and sidings for 

crew changes and layovers

No No Yes No Yes No Yes No

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

2-28

Purpose and Need Elements 

& Summary of Factors 

Considered1

Build Alternatives

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two-Station Options

6A. Staples Mill Road Station Only6B

–

A-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only A-Line6B

–

S-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only S-Line6C. Broad Street Station Only A-Line6D. Main Street Station Only S-Line6E. Split Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6F. Full Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6G. Shared Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Improve modal connectivity with other public transportation systems

Aligns with FRA and Amtrak 

guidelines for station facilities, and 

state and local plans

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines.

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines.

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines.

No. Does not 

meet FRA 

downtown 

station 

guidelines.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

At-grade crossing total daily delay (% 

change from No Build)

66% decrease 66% decrease 76% decrease 38% decrease 59% decrease 66% decrease 59% decrease 60% decrease

Changes in roadway travel patterns 

(% change in traffic, adjacent 

roadways at stations)

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

Improve multimodal rail operations safety

Grade-separation of public at-grade

crossings

3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3

Closure of public at-grade crossings 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5

Safety improvements of public atgrade crossings (four quadrant

gates and/or median treatment)

3 3 7 4 8 3 8 8

New public at-grade crossings7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Provides platform and station 

improvements

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Provides upgrades to signals and 

communication systems

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
R E C O M M E N D E D P R E F E R R E D A L T E R N A T I V E

2-29

Purpose and Need Elements 

& Summary of Factors 

Considered1

Build Alternatives

Richmond Single-Station Options Richmond Two-Station Options

6A. Staples Mill Road Station Only6B

–

A-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only A-Line6B

–

S-Line. 

Boulevard Station Only S-Line6C. Broad Street Station Only A-Line6D. Main Street Station Only S-Line6E. Split Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6F. Full Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations6G. Shared Service

–

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations

Improve Air Quality & Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CO2 Emissions, Change Compared 

to No Build (tons per year, 2025)

-6,696 -6,003 -6,003 -5,663 -5,947 -6,051 -6,518 -6,869

Energy Consumption, Change 

Compared to No Build (Billions of 

BTUs, 2025)

-307 -277 -277 -265 -280 -286 -293 -299

Notes: 1) Refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS for complete list of factors evaluated and the evaluation results for each Build Alternative. 2) Other avoidance alternatives do not exist that 

would meet the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. 3) Does not include rolling stock. 4) Fredericksburg and Ashland operations data assumes use of Richmond Alternative 6F. 5) Richmond 

operations data assumes construction of the recommended alternatives for each of the sections and additional third main track capacity through Ashland. A Boulevard Station S-Line option (all trains via SLine and East Acca bypass) was not modeled, but is assumed by DRPT to have similar operating parameters as Alternative 6D Main Street Station. 6) Travel times are for limited stop southbound Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) trains only from Washington Union Station to the station closest to downtown Richmond. Northbound Interstate Corridor trains are about 2 minutes longer. Regional trains, which 

make more stops, operate 6 to 8 minutes longer. 7) New at-grade crossings would require a variance of Virginia State Code and/or coordination with VDOT.

DRPT developed operating and maintenance costs and estimates of revenue, but neither were differentiators between the Build Alternatives and were therefore not used by DRPT in selecting the 

Recommended Preferred Alternative.
3-1

REFINED OPERATIONS ANALYSIS MODELING

3.1 OPERATIONS MODELING OVERVIEW 

3.1.1 Background and Federal Requirements of Operations Simulations in 

Passenger Projects

DRPT conducted computer-based operations simulations (also known as operations modeling) 

to estimate rail performance in the corridor, in order to estimate if alternatives defined in the 

Draft EIS might be anticipated to provide the infrastructure capacity and service performance 

necessary to meet the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project. This work was conducted 

using Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) simulation software.

Operations modeling is conducted to compare rail performance under different scenarios to 

simulate existing and future railroad operations. The rail performance results generated from 

the simulations are estimates, not guarantees, and U.S. railroad companies use the performance 

estimates that are generated as a tool to determine trends in operational performance between 

different infrastructure alternatives, rather than focusing on the exact performance estimate 

generated by the software.

The goals of the operations modeling conducted by DRPT for the DC2RVA Project were to:

 Estimate the operating performance of:

- Existing and proposed intercity passenger service,

- Existing and planned VRE commuter rail service, and

- Existing and forecasted CSXT freight service.

 Estimate the ability of infrastructure proposed for the DC2RVA Corridor to provide the 

capacity and service performance necessary for intercity passenger trains identified in 

the Purpose and Need for the Project while not unduly or unreasonably interfering with 

the performance of freight and commuter rail passenger trains. 

DRPT used the intercity passenger and freight train performance goals established under 

Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) and 

published in the Federal Register as the Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service as base guidelines for the performance thresholds in DRPT’s operations modeling.

Under PRIIA, intercity passenger rail projects must provide for a sufficient level of 

infrastructure that will:

 Enable the existing and proposed passenger rail service to run on time; i.e., achieve 90

percent or better on-time performance for all NEC Regional and state-supported 

passenger trains and 85 percent for Long Distance trains operating outside the NEC.

3
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

3-2

 Accommodate and allow for the future growth of existing and projected intercity, 

commuter, and freight rail service.

 Not unreasonably delay the freight operations of the host railroad on account of the 

proposed additional passenger train frequencies.

DRPT applied a threshold of 90 percent on-time performance for all existing and proposed 

passenger and commuter trains in the DC2RVA corridor. In addition, the DC2RVA Project 

Purpose and Need specifically includes a goal of being able to reliably accommodate 18 

additional intercity passenger trains (nine round-trips), as well as reduce travel time and 

accommodate freight growth.

3.1.2 Passenger and Freight Train Performance Goals

PRIIA’s performance goals for intercity passenger trains are for all passenger trains, except 

Long Distance trains, to arrive on-time at each station (“all-stations” performance) and at 

corridor endpoints (“endpoint” performance) at least 90 percent of the time. On-time, as defined 

by PRIIA, means arrival at a station at the scheduled time or within a set “late tolerance” period 

following the scheduled time. The length of the late tolerance period varies by the type of 

intercity passenger service and the total distance between the train’s scheduled endpoints. For 

most intercity passenger trains operating on the DC2RVA corridor, the PRIIA standard is for 

the train to arrive at its end-point station within 10 minutes of its published schedule. In this 

analysis, DRPT defined the end-point stations as follows: Washington, D.C. for all northbound 

trains; Petersburg, VA (Ettrick) for all trains operating south of Richmond, VA; and Richmond 

Main Street Station for all trains terminating in Richmond or extending east to Newport News. 

PRIIA’s performance goal for freight service is for intercity passenger rail service to not unduly 

or unreasonably delay the movement of freight. The performance of freight trains is compared 

for different alternatives by estimating future freight train delay under the 2045 Build 

Alternatives with the 2045 No-Build Alternative. Freight train delay is measured as minutes of 

delay per train, per 100 train-miles. This metric compares the simulated time a freight train took 

to cover its route inclusive of interactions with other trains, passenger and freight, compared to 

the time the freight train would have taken to cover its route had it encountered no delays enroute.

3.2 OPERATIONS MODELING CONDUCTED FOR DC2RVA

3.2.1 Purpose and Phases of Operations Modeling Conducted for DC2RVA 

Project

The purpose of the operations analysis undertaken by DRPT for the DC2RVA Project was to use 

computer-based operations simulations to estimate the operational performance of intercity 

passenger, freight, and commuter trains under four different “build case” operations 

simulations that were identified by DRPT, as well as a “No Build case” to which the four build 

case simulations were compared.

Preliminary Operations Modeling to Compare Local Alternatives. During the preparation of 

the Draft EIS, DRPT conducted several preliminary operations simulations that evaluated 

multiple infrastructure alternatives in the Ashland area, including alternatives with two tracks 
R E F I N E D O P E R A T I O N S A N A L Y S I S M O D E L I N G

3-3

and three tracks. DRPT evaluated these preliminary operations simulations against the Project’s 

need to accommodate an additional 18 intercity passenger trains per day (nine round-trips), 

accommodate projected CSXT freight growth, and meet PRIIA’s passenger and freight train ontime performance targets through 2045. The train performance estimates derived by DRPT from 

this preliminary work suggested that either a third main track through Ashland or a two-track 

bypass around Ashland would provide the highest likelihood that trains throughout the Project 

corridor would meet their performance goals under the service level and schedule projected. 

FRA staff also expressed concern regarding the incorporation of a modeling assumption that 

enabled commuter and passenger trains to use any available mainline track and station 

platform when operating within the corridor, rather than applying an operating protocol that 

directed passenger and commuter trains to use specific tracks and station platforms in a 

consistent operating pattern when traveling within the corridor. DRPT therefore determined 

that other rail infrastructure and service scenarios should be considered, perhaps in concert 

with schedule modifications, which could also achieve the Project’s Purpose and Need goals. 

Service Assumptions. The following service assumptions for intercity passenger, commuter, 

and freight trains were used for scenarios modeled as part of the Phase 1 “Refined Operations 

Analysis” and Phase 2 “Network-Wide Analysis) simulations conducted for the DC2RVA 

Project in 2017.

 Future Amtrak intercity passenger services were modeled based on the following 

assumptions of increased service frequencies:

- Eighteen additional intercity passenger trains per day (nine new round trips) between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond, which is the service increase proposed by the 

DC2RVA Project.

- Two additional intercity passenger trains between Washington, D.C. and Lynchburg. 

South of Washington, D.C. these trains exit the DC2RVA Corridor south of

Alexandria station. These trains are included in the No-Build Alternative as they are 

fully-funded and presumed to be introduced regardless of whether or not the 

DC2RVA Project is implemented.

- An increase in Cardinal long-distance service between Washington, D.C. and Chicago 

from three times per week in each direction to once per day in each direction. South 

of Washington, D.C., these trains exit the DC2RVA Corridor at Alexandria. This 

service is included in the No-Build Alternative as the increase is presumed to occur 

regardless of whether or not the DC2RVA Project is implemented.

- No additional changes in intercity passenger trains would occur between the 

DC2RVA Project’s proposed implementation year of 2025 and the horizon year of 

2045.

 All intercity passenger trains in Richmond (Alternative Area 6) used the “Full Service, 

Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations” infrastructure and service alternative. 

 All existing and new Virginia-supported Northeast Regional passenger trains made a 

station stop at each Amtrak station in the corridor, including Ashland, and excluding the 

Lorton Auto Train station.

 Future VRE commuter train services were modeled based on the following assumptions:

- VRE commuter train frequencies were assumed to increase from 34 weekday trains in 

2015 to a projected 38 weekday trains for the years 2025 through 2045. These trains
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

3-4

are included in the No-Build Alternative as they are fully-funded and presumed to be 

introduced regardless of whether or not the DC2RVA Project is implemented.

 Future increases in CSXT freight train services were modeled based on the following 

assumptions of forecasted freight growth:

- To forecast freight train growth from existing (2015) levels, DRPT solicited input from 

CSXT about future increases in freight traffic in the corridor for the future years 2025 

and 2045. DRPT used the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Freight Analysis 

Framework to forecast how rail freight traffic in the corridor would increase and 

change in 2025 and 2045.

- CSXT freight growth is independent of the DC2RVA Project and is presumed to occur 

by itself regardless of whether or not the DC2RVA Project is implemented. These 

trains are included in the No-Build Alternative as they reflect the DRPT forecast 

estimates and presumed to be introduced regardless of whether or not the DC2RVA 

Project is implemented.

CSXT actual freight growth will be driven by market forces and may be greater or less 

than the projected growth rates.

Phase 1: “Refined Operations Analysis.” The purpose of the refined operations analysis was to 

improve the performance results of all trains operating on the corridor by applying

modifications to the proposed infrastructure and operating plan based on assessments of the 

preliminary operations modeling assumptions and results. The Refined Operations Analysis 

simulations had the following objectives and characteristics:

 Measurement of passenger and freight train performance focused on performance

within the DC2RVA Corridor, rather than the entire DC2RVA Modeling Limits, which 

included contiguous sections of shared-use track north and south of the corridor.

 Review and revise the configuration of the proposed infrastructure to improve 

operational consistency and performance along the corridor:

- Changes to the Project’s proposed track infrastructure, in particular reconfigured 

crossovers, sidings, and station platforms.

 Review and revise the operating characteristics and assumptions applied to the model to 

reduce delays associated with schedule conflicts:

- Incorporation of a platform assignment plan for intercity passenger and commuter 

trains operating within the corridor.

- Revise intercity passenger train schedules between Washington and Richmond, 

where feasible, to capture changes in passenger train running times and recovery 

times made to enable trains to achieve PRIIA-mandated on-time performance goals in 

normal real-world operation under the revised corridor infrastructure and platform 

assignment plan described above.

Phase 2: “Network-Wide Analysis.” The work in this phase consisted of running operations 

simulations to estimate potential effects to passenger, freight, and commuter train performance 

within a larger territory of shared-use track in the Northeastern United States, to estimate the 

potential effects of the Project on rail operations in territory adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor. 

The Network-Wide Analysis simulations had the following characteristics:
R E F I N E D O P E R A T I O N S A N A L Y S I S M O D E L I N G

3-5

 The revised infrastructure, operating, and train schedule modifications made for the 

Phase 1 modeling were applied in the Phase 2 modeling.

 Passenger and freight train performance were measured across a larger portion of the 

shared-use rail network, which included contiguous sections of track in the 

Northeastern United States programmed into the simulation software that constituted 

the DC2RVA Modeling Limits. 

- Performance was measured on a shared-use network of track stretching from 

Philadelphia, PA, and Cumberland, MD, to Newport News, VA, and Rocky Mount, 

NC.

 Additional freight train performance outputs were generated.

3.2.2 Modeling Scenarios for Phases 1 and 2

The modeling scenarios simulated by DRPT were identical for Phases 1 and 2 and consisted of 

the following four build cases and one No Build case. In all cases described below, the 

infrastructure alternatives were tested for proposed operations in the year 2045, which 

represents the concluding year of a 20-year horizon for the Project, based on the Project’s 

proposed implementation year of 2025.

1. DC2RVA 2045 No Build: This case measured performance on the DC2RVA corridor 

with the No Build infrastructure and no-build train operations (without adding 18 new 

intercity passenger trains) identified in the DC2RVA Draft EIS.

2. DC2RVA 2045 Build: This Build case measured performance on the DC2RVA corridor 

with infrastructure that reflects the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred 

Alternative for the full length of the DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from 

Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill Road, with a test of the three-track alternatives in 

Area 5 (Alternatives 5B, 5B-Ashcake, and 5D-Ashcake) through Ashland. This case 

included 18 new intercity passenger trains (nine round-trip) in addition to the no-build 

train operations.

3. DC2RVA 2045 Build, 2 tracks Ashland: This Build case measured performance on the

DC2RVA corridor with infrastructure that reflects the Commonwealth’s Recommended 

Preferred Alternative for the full length of the DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks 

from Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill Road, with a test of the two-track alternative 

in Area 5 (Alternative 5A, also known as “3-2-3”). This case includes a reduction to two 

main tracks for two miles through the Town of Ashland. This case included 18 new 

intercity passenger trains (nine round-trip) in addition to the no-build train operations.

4. DC2RVA 2045 Build, 2 tracks Ashland + Track Out of Service North (MOW Outage):

This Build case measured performance on the DC2RVA corridor with infrastructure that

reflects the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for the full length of 

the DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill 

Road, with a test of the two-track alternative in Area 5 (Alternative 5A, also known as

“3-2-3”). This case included a reduction to two main tracks for two miles through the 

Town of Ashland as well as an additional segment of track taken out of service for 

maintenance north of Crossroads. This case included a randomly selected segment of 

approximately 10 miles in length between Alexandria and Crossroads that would be 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

3-6

taken out of service in order to test the response of the network to a daytime 

maintenance-of-way (i.e., rail upkeep and repair) outage. In this case, the 10-mile section 

would have two main tracks during the maintenance-of-way outage and three main 

tracks at other times. This case included 18 new intercity passenger trains (nine roundtrip) in addition to the no-build train operations. 

5. DC2RVA 2045 Build, 2 tracks south of Crossroads: This Build case measured 

performance on the DC2RVA corridor with infrastructure that reflects a modification to 

the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative with three main tracks from 

Alexandria to Crossroads, and reduced to two main tracks from Crossroads to 

Richmond Staples Mill Road. This case included 18 new intercity passenger trains (nine 

round-trip) in addition to the no-build train operations.

3.2.3 Results of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Modeling

Table 3-1 summarizes the modeling results from the “Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis” 

simulations undertaken by DRPT. In the Build Case of Alternative 5A, with three main tracks 

from Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill Road and with a constrained two-track alignment in 

Area 5 through Ashland (the middle column of the five-case result columns), the model 

estimated that Regional and Interstate Corridor passenger trains in this case cumulatively met 

the PRIIA passenger train endpoint on-time performance target of 90 percent and the passenger 

train all-stations on-time performance target of 90 percent, and cumulative freight train 

performance, measured in delay minutes per 100 train-miles, had a decrease of 2.4 minutes 

from the No Build case performance estimate.

Table 3-1: Summary of Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis Modeling Results 

(Averaged Results from 5 Randomized Cases)

Case

DC2RVA 

2045 

No Build

DC2RVA 

2045 

Build

DC2RVA 

2045 

Build 2 

Tracks in 

Ashland

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 

2 Tracks in 

Ashland + 

Track outof-Service

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 

with 2 

Tracks 

South of 

Crossroads 

Infrastructure Tested No Build 3 Tracks 

south of 

Alexandria

3 Tracks 

south of 

Alexandria, 

except 2 

tracks 

through 

Ashland

3 Tracks south 

of Alexandria, 

except 2 tracks 

through 

Ashland, with 1 

track out of 

service north of 

Fredericksburg

3 Tracks 

south of 

Alexandria, 

and 2 tracks 

south of 

Crossroads

Passenger Train End-Point On-Time Performance (OTP), Petersburg to Washington Union Station

Amtrak Long-Distance Intercity Passenger Train 

OTP 69.6% 95.8% 97.2% 96.9% 97.1%

 Continued
R E F I N E D O P E R A T I O N S A N A L Y S I S M O D E L I N G

3-7

Table 3-1: Summary of Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis Modeling Results 

(Averaged Results from 5 Randomized Cases)

Case

DC2RVA 

2045 

No Build

DC2RVA 

2045 

Build

DC2RVA 

2045 

Build 2 

Tracks in 

Ashland

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 

2 Tracks in 

Ashland + 

Track outof-Service

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 

with 2 

Tracks 

South of 

Crossroads 

Amtrak Regional and Interstate Corridor Intercity 

Passenger Train OTP 76.9% 93.0% 93.0% 93.2% 92.6%

All Amtrak Intercity Passenger Trains Aggregated 

OTP 73.3% 93.8% 94.2% 94.3% 93.9%

Virginia Railway Express Commuter Train OTP 97.0% 98.5% 98.7% 94.1% 97.9%

Passenger Train All-Stations On-Time Performance (OTP), Petersburg to Washington Union Station

Amtrak Long-Distance Intercity Passenger Train 

OTP 72.3% 94.9% 95.5% 96.1% 95.0%

Amtrak Regional and Interstate Corridor Intercity 

Passenger Train OTP 82.3% 96.7% 96.8% 96.7% 96.2%

All Amtrak Intercity Passenger Trains Aggregated 

OTP 78.7% 96.3% 96.5% 96.6% 95.9%

Virginia Railway Express Commuter Train OTP 99.7% 99.7% 99.9% 98.9% 99.5%

Freight Train Minutes of Delay per 100 Train-Miles

All Freight Trains 30.8 24.8 28.4 31.2 42.2

Table 3-2 summarizes the modeling results from the “Phase 2 Network-Wide Analysis” 

operations simulations undertaken by DRPT. In the Build Case of Alternative 5A, with three 

main tracks from Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill Road and with a constrained two-track 

alignment in Area 5 through Ashland (the middle column of the five-case result columns), the 

model estimated that Northeast Regional and Interstate Corridor passenger trains in this case 

cumulatively met the PRIIA passenger train endpoint on-time performance target of 90 percent, 

and cumulative freight train performance, measured in delay minutes per 100 train-miles, had 

an increase of 2.6 minutes from the No Build case performance estimate.

Table 3-2: Summary of Phase 2 Network-Wide Analysis Modeling Results

(Averaged Results from 5 Randomized Cases)

Case

DC2RVA 

2045 

No Build

DC2RVA 

2045 

Build

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 2 

Tracks in 

Ashland

DC2RVA 2045 

Build 2 Tracks 

in Ashland + 

Track out-ofService

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 

with 2 

Tracks South 

of 

Crossroads
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

3-8

Table 3-2: Summary of Phase 2 Network-Wide Analysis Modeling Results

(Averaged Results from 5 Randomized Cases)

Case

DC2RVA 

2045 

No Build

DC2RVA 

2045 

Build

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 2 

Tracks in 

Ashland

DC2RVA 2045 

Build 2 Tracks 

in Ashland + 

Track out-ofService

DC2RVA 

2045 Build 

with 2 

Tracks South 

of 

Crossroads

Infrastructure Tested No Build 3 Tracks 

south of 

Alexandria

3 Tracks south 

of Alexandria, 

except 2 tracks 

through Ashland

3 Tracks south of 

Alexandria, except 

2 tracks through 

Ashland, and with 

1 track out of 

service north of 

Fredericksburg

3 Tracks south of 

Alexandria, and 2 

tracks south of 

Crossroads

Passenger Train End-Point On-Time Performance (OTP), Petersburg to Washington Union Station

Amtrak Long-Distance Intercity Passenger 

Train OTP 71.32% 96.64% 95.77% 95.49% 95.57%

Amtrak Regional and Interstate Corridor 

Intercity Passenger Train OTP 77.87% 91.41% 91.90% 90.88% 90.58%

Virginia Railway Express Commuter Train 

OTP 96.97% 97.82% 98.88% 96.39% 98.60%

Freight Train Delay Minutes per 100 Train-Miles, Network-Wide, by Train Type

All Freight Trains (cumulative) 42.9 43.4 45.5 46.2 48.0

Expedited Intermodal Freight Trains 16.8 31.3 34.3 33.8 37.0

Intermodal (non-expedited) Freight Trains 21.3 32.0 32.4 35.1 36.5

Merchandise Freight Trains 48.0 38.6 40.7 41.1 42.9

All Other Freight Train Types 65.1 64.6 67.5 68.1 69.0

Number of Freight Trains Delayed per Day, by Number of Hours, Network-Wide

1 Hour 38.3 43.3 43.7 44.0 44.8

2 Hours 21.7 23.9 25.4 25.8 26.9

3 Hours 13.1 13.1 13.9 14.3 15.4

4 Hours 8.3 7.2 8.2 7.9 9.0

5 Hours 5.3 4.2 4.9 4.9 5.4

6 Hours 3.6 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.5

7 Hours 2.4 1.5 2.0 2.4 1.9

8 Hours 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.3

9 Hours 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0

10 Hours 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7

Cumulative Freight Train Hours of Delay, Over 12 Days, Network-Wide

Cumulative Hours of Delay 1,532.9 1,550.6 1,631.0 1,655.0 1,711.1

Number of Trains Recrewed per Day, Network-Wide

Number of Trains Recrewed per Day 19.4 13.8 13.4 21.6 18.3
R E F I N E D O P E R A T I O N S A N A L Y S I S M O D E L I N G

3-9

3.2.4 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Modeling Summary 

The operations analysis performed as part of the EIS for the DC2RVA Project provided the basis 

to estimate the infrastructure required to deliver the operational improvements defined in the 

Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. DRPT performed the operations analysis using 

RTC software with sample data from actual CSXT freight operations from 2014. The analysis 

included DRPT-forecasted freight growth through 2045 and a proposed future intercity 

passenger rail and VRE commuter operating schedule for 2025 and 2045 (prepared in 2015 and 

revised through 2017). The results of this analysis represent estimates of future operations and 

are not intended to predict actual performance, operating conditions, or train schedules. DRPT, 

CSXT, and the project stakeholders will continue to review and update the operations analysis 

for the DC2RVA corridor through the life of the Project to help assess whether the infrastructure 

proposed in the EIS meets the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project. 

The purpose of the No-Build alternative is to estimate the future condition of the railroad 

operating environment due to forecasted freight growth and planned, programmed, or funded 

passenger and commuter rail increases without the construction of the improvements or 

implementation of the intercity passenger rail service (nine new round-trip trains) proposed in 

the DC2RVA Project. Note: the No-Build analysis did not include consideration of maintenanceof-way outages, which could be anticipated to increase estimated freight, passenger, and 

commuter train delays above the 2045 No-Build Alternatives results shown in Section 3.2.3. [A 

comparison of modeling results between the 2045 Build, 2 Tracks Ashland case with the 2045 

Build, 2 Tracks Ashland + Track Out of Service North (MOW Outage) provides an example of 

how passenger and freight train performance can be affected by maintenance outages.]

Figure 3-1 provides an illustrative summary of the modeling results from the “Phase 1 Refined 

Operations Analysis” simulations undertaken by DRPT. The figure shows the on-time 

performance for passenger trains and VRE commuter trains estimated in the 2045 No-Build case 

as well as all four 2045 Build cases, and also shows the freight train delay per 100 train-miles 

estimated in the 2045 No-Build case as well as all four 2045 Build cases. The figure shows that, 

in the modeling case testing the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for the 

full length of the DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from Alexandria to Richmond 

Staples Mill Road and with a constrained two-track alignment in Area 5 through Ashland 

(Alternative 5A, also known as “3-2-3”), both intercity passenger trains and VRE commuter 

trains exceeded their performance goal of 90 percent on-time performance and freight train 

performance, measured in delay minutes per 100 train-miles, improved from the No-Build 

performance results. The modeling case depicting Alternative 5A is identified in Figure 3-1 as 

“DC2RVA 2045 BUILD 2ASH.”
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

3-10

Figure 3-1: Passenger and Freight Train Performance Modeling Results From Phase 1 

Refined Operations Analysis Simulations (Averaged Results from 5 Randomized 

Cases)
R E F I N E D O P E R A T I O N S A N A L Y S I S M O D E L I N G

3-11

Figure 3-2 provides an illustrative summary of the modeling results from the “Phase 2 

Network-Wide Analysis” operations simulations undertaken by DRPT. The figure shows the 

on-time performance for passenger trains and VRE commuter trains estimated in the 2045 NoBuild case as well as all four 2045 Build cases, and also shows the freight train delay per 100 

train-miles estimated in the 2045 No-Build case as well as all four 2045 Build cases. The figure 

shows that, in the modeling case testing the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred 

Alternative for the full length of the DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from Alexandria 

to Richmond Staples Mill Road and with a constrained two-track alignment in Area 5 through 

Ashland (Alternative 5A, also known as “3-2-3”), both passenger trains and VRE commuter 

trains exceeded their performance goal of 90 percent on-time performance. Freight train 

performance, measured in delay minutes per 100 train-miles, did not improve from the NoBuild performance results. The modeling case depicting Alternative 5A is identified in Figure 3-

2 as “DC2RVA 2045 BUILD 2ASH.”

Figure 3-2: Passenger and Freight Train Performance Modeling Results From Phase 2 

Network-Wide Analysis Simulations (Averaged Results from 5 Randomized 

Cases)
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

3-12

As presented in the tables in Section 3.2.3 and Figures 3-1 and 3-2, all four of the DC2RVA 2045 

Build cases delivered improved on-time performance for intercity passenger and VRE 

commuter trains compared to the 2045 No-Build case. In both the Phase 1 Refined Operations 

Analysis, which was constrained to the DC2RVA Corridor, and the Phase 2 Network-Wide 

Analysis, the on-time performance for intercity passenger and VRE commuter services 

exceeded the 90 percent goal. Generally, the higher performing cases corresponded to those 

with the most additional infrastructure (tracks); however, both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 analyses 

estimated that the two track cases provided sufficient capacity to deliver the intercity passenger 

and VRE performance goals for the DC2RVA Project. (Prior to the Refined Operations Analysis 

modeling work, preliminary operations modeling was conducted that also included a case

estimating existing passenger train performance, based on 2014 data, where intercity passenger 

on-time performance averaged between 70 and 80 percent and VRE commuter service 

performed near 95 percent in 2014. Although results from that preliminary operations modeling 

are not directly comparable, since infrastructure and passenger train operating characteristics 

and assumptions were modified for the Refined Operations Analysis modeling, the results from 

the Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis and Phase 2 Network-Wide Analysis estimated that 

the DC2RVA 2045 Build Alternatives would achieve improved intercity passenger on-time 

performance from the existing levels, based on 2014 data.) 

For the freight operations, the cases with the most additional infrastructure also produced the 

most favorable results. The baseline to compare the effect on freight delays in the 2045 No-Build 

alternative estimated approximately 30 minutes of delay (per 100 train-miles) within the 

DC2RVA Corridor and 40 minutes of delay network-wide. For the Phase 1 Refined Operations 

Analysis, which was constrained to the DC2RVA Corridor, the DC2RVA 2045 Build case with 

three tracks south of Alexandria estimated an improvement of 6.0 minutes of freight train delay 

compared to the DC2RVA 2045 No-Build alternative, and the DC2RVA 2045 Build case with 

two tracks through Ashland estimated an improvement of 2.4 minutes of freight train delay 

compared to the DC2RVA 2045 No-Build alternative. When continuing the analysis to take one 

track out of service north of Crossroads for maintenance-of-way, the freight delays begin to 

exceed that of the 2045 No-Build alternative. For the Phase-2 Network-Wide Analysis, which 

estimated train performance across the entire modeled territory, the freight performance in the 

DC2RVA 2045 Build cases with either three or two tracks fell below that of the DC2RVA 2045 

No-Build case, estimating the potential need for additional capacity either within or outside of 

the DC2RVA Corridor to accommodate the intercity passenger rail service proposed by the 

DC2RVA Project as well as forecasted CSXT traffic levels for 2045. CSXT has reviewed the 

results of the Phase 1 Refined Operations Analysis for the DC2RVA Corridor and Phase 2 

Network-Wide Analysis and has expressed concern that the DC2RVA Project with a 

constrained two-track alignment through Ashland (Alternative 5A and 5A-Ashcake) will 

negatively impact the freight network performance in 2045. DRPT and FRA have reviewed the 

modeling results with consideration for CSXT’s concern and have determined that the potential 

impacts imposed by constraining the corridor to two tracks through Ashland at forecasted 2045 

traffic levels are negligible and can be mitigated through continued analysis of the intercity 

passenger, VRE commuter, and freight operating plan or potential capital improvements on the 

CSXT freight network either within or outside the limits of the DC2RVA Project.

Table 3-3 compares the modeling results from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations simulations 

with the passenger and freight train performance goals established for the Project. The 

modeling case depicting Alternative 5A with a constrained two-track alignment through 
R E F I N E D O P E R A T I O N S A N A L Y S I S M O D E L I N G

3-13

Ashland (also known as “3-2-3”) is identified in Table 3-3 as “DC2RVA 2045 BUILD 2ASH”. The 

table shows that, in the modeling case testing the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred 

Alternative for the full length of the DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from Alexandria 

to Richmond Staples Mill Road with a test of the two-track alternative in Area 5 (Alternative 

5A), both passenger trains and VRE commuter trains exceeded their performance goal of 90

percent on-time performance, and freight train delay was reduced from the No-Build results in 

the Phase 1 modeling but was not reduced from the No-Build results in the Phase 2 modeling. 

Table 3-3: Phase 1 and 2 Modeling Results Compared with Performance Goals

Case

DC2RVA 2045 

NO BUILD

DC2RVA 

2045 BUILD

DC2RVA 2045 

BUILD 2ASH

DC2RVA 2045 

BUILD 2ASH 

+ TOS

DC2RVA 

2045 BUILD 

XR2

Passenger Train OnTime Performance of 

90% or Higher Achieved

NO YES YES YES YEs

VRE Commuter OnTime Performance of 

90% or Higher Achieved

YES YES YES YES YES

Freight Train Delay 

Reduced from No-Build

YES (Phase 1) YES (Phase 1)

NO NO

NO (Phase 2) NO (Phase 2)

DRPT intends to prepare a Service Development Plan (SDP) to incrementally implement the 

service improvements planned in the DC2RVA Project. As part of this SDP effort, DRPT will 

prepare additional operations analysis to help define the infrastructure required to deliver 

phased intercity passenger rail service growth through the 2045 Build Alternative. These

operations analyses will be based on the 2014 data provided by CSXT and the project 

stakeholders and will continue to estimate the same infrastructure and operating characteristics 

presented in the EIS for the DC2RVA Project. DRPT and FRA recognize that future operations 

analysis may suggest modifications to the infrastructure or the proposed operating plan beyond 

that presented in the EIS. Should potential modifications include a significant increase in 

environmental impacts or a reduction in the benefits presented in the EIS, a supplemental 

NEPA analysis may be required, as applicable under current or future NEPA regulations.

Separate from the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project, DRPT and FRA also recognize 

that CSXT, VRE, or other project stakeholders may pursue additional capital improvements 

along the DC2RVA Corridor between Centralia and Washington, D.C., or on the adjacent 

railroad network. Additional operations analysis performed as part of the SDP, or in 

subsequent iterations through the life of the DC2RVA Project, will need to include the 

modifications to the railroad network constructed by others to continue to estimate that the 

infrastructure defined in the EIS for the DC2RVA Project remains effective to meet the Purpose 

and Need of the Project.
4-1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH

The DC2RVA Project has followed an extensive public participation process that began in 2014 

with FRA’s publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register and continues today. The 

outreach plan was developed to comply with the requirements, as well as to solicit public input 

and promote informed decision-making by federal, state, and local agencies.

The overall goal of the public involvement program is to provide an open, dynamic process that 

includes as many residents, businesses, agencies, stakeholders, and community groups within 

the project area as possible. DRPT has used a variety of outreach tools including public 

meetings, online meetings, mailings and emails, newspaper and social media postings, 

workshops and informational sessions, and an interactive project website to document all 

Project-related materials. DRPT is committed to involving stakeholders and the public early and 

often and sharing information as it becomes available.

4.1.1 Notice of Availability (NOA)

On October 6, 2014, 30 days in advance of the first Scoping public meeting, DRPT initiated the 

Project’s public outreach to alert the public, agencies, and media of the Project’s inception. The 

Project launch included formal publication by FRA of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Project in 

the Federal Register on October 23, 2014.

On September 8, 2017, the DC2RVA Tier II Draft EIS Notice of Availability (NOA) was 

published in the Federal Register2 in accordance with NEPA, and a 60-day comment period 

extending through November 7, 2017, was opened. Also on September 8, 2017, the FRA posted 

information about the Draft EIS on their website3 including links to the full Draft EIS and 

Appendices, which were posted on the DC2RVA website maintained by DRPT. A printed copy 

of the Draft EIS Executive Summary accompanied by a digital copy of the entire Draft EIS was 

made available in nearly 80 locations along the corridor, including libraries and State offices. 

DRPT developed and implemented an extensive outreach campaign to ensure stakeholders and 

the interested public were aware of the opportunity to offer public comments on the project, 

 

2 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/08/2017-19059/environmental-impact-statements-noticeof-availability

3 https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0729

4
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-2

alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS, and DRPT’s recommended preferred alternative during 

the Draft EIS comment period. 

4.1.2 Project Website

DRPT maintains and updates the Project website to include the most current information about 

the DC2RVA Project. In preparation for the public comment period, the Draft EIS, including all

appendices were posted to the website in advance of the NOA. DRPT also updated the Project 

website with the following:

 Hearing location details

 How to request special accommodations to attend the hearing

 A list of locations where hard copies of the Draft EIS were available

 Instructions on how to provide comments 

 An interactive map showing the DRPT Recommended Preferred Alternative conceptual 

build components overlaid with parcel information

 Project flyers and press releases

The electronic comment form was maintained on the “Contact Us” page of the Project website.

4.1.3 Postcard Mailing

Property owners within a 500-foot distance from the centerline of the Project study area 

received a postcard notice of the Draft EIS and an invitation to the public hearings. DRPT 

mailed a total of 9,057 postcards. 

Additional postcards were packaged in bundles of 100 and distributed to the following for 

further distribution:

 Lincoln Housing (USMC Base Quantico)

 Town of Ashland 

 Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO)

 Crater Planning District Commission 

 Richmond Regional Planning District Commission

4.1.4 Email

The Project team sent several emails to the Project distribution list, as well as to elected officials 

and to Title VI advocacy groups, to notify them of the Draft EIS comment period and in-person 

and online meetings. 

The email distribution lists included the following groups: 

 Individuals who requested to be included on the Project mailing list

 State, Regional, and Local Agencies

 State, Regional, and Local Elected Officials
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-3

 Public involvement offices 

 Transit/transportation organizations and advocacy groups

 Business/institutional communities

 Community organizations & special interest groups

 Title VI Organizations (i.e., Seniors, Low Income, Persons with Disabilities, Ethnic, 

Minorities, Religious)

 Environmental Justice populations and Low English Proficiency (translated to Spanish)

4.1.5 Social Media

The DC2RVA Facebook and Twitter accounts announced the upcoming comment period and 

hearings and directed viewers to the Project website for more information. 

Social Media Profiles:

 Twitter: @dc2rvarail

 Facebook: dc2rvarail

4.1.6 Static Displays, Fliers, and Rack Cards

Large display boards, fliers, and rack cards were developed, printed, and posted throughout the 

Project corridor, particularly in areas identified as having greater environmental justice and 

limited English proficiency populations. The display boards provided information about the 

Project and details about the public hearings. In addition, Virginia Railway Express (VRE)

placed posters in their stations.

Flyers produced in English and Spanish were hand-delivered and mailed to 44 locations along 

the Project corridor and in the areas surrounding potential rail stations. PDF versions of the 

flyers were provided to Public Information Officers via email and also were made available for 

download on the Project website. 

4.1.7 Media Relations

To facilitate media, coverage, DRPT sent English and Spanish press releases and media 

advisories to members of the press. On September 8, 2017, DRPT distributed a press release 

notifying interested parties of the opening of the Draft EIS comment period, and a press release 

was distributed on September 25, 2017, providing information on the public hearing locations. 

In addition to press releases, DRPT distributed Media Advisories to the media during the weeks 

of the hearings to remind them of the hearing dates and to encourage their attendance at the 

hearings. Advertisements with information on the public hearings and the Draft EIS comment 

period were also published in eleven local papers along the Project corridor.

Key media outlets were called and/or emailed to follow up on their receipt of the releases and 

to offer interviews. As a result, approximately 25 mentions/news stories appeared between 

September 8 and November 7, 2017. VRE included an article on the Project in their October 2017 

issue of RIDE Magazine, and Richmond Magazine published an article on October 11, 2017.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-4

4.1.8 Public Information Officer/Communication Manager Outreach 

Coordination

To broaden the reach and diversity of the public outreach efforts, DRPT communicated with 377 

public information officers and community outreach managers for key agencies and 

organizations in the Project area (i.e., planning districts, transportation organizations, Title VI 

organizations, City Council and Board of Supervisor liaisons and clerks) and asked for their

assistance in the notification effort. They were encouraged to send emails to their groups, post 

information on their websites, post information on community bulletin boards, and 

more. DRPT sent these groups an initial email message that offered them various outreach tools 

(i.e., flyer, news release, and community calendar graphic) to distribute to citizens and 

stakeholders. Follow up phone calls and emails were made in advance of the public hearings.

4.1.9 Environmental Justice and Other Special Targeted Outreach

DRPT conducted special targeted outreach to ensure that diverse segments of the population 

were given the opportunity to become involved with the Project at an early stage. Targeted 

outreach included identifying contacts representing low income, minority, seniors, disabled, 

human service groups and organizations that advocate and/or provide services on their behalf. 

All groups and individuals identified through this process were provided information 

regarding the Project and the public meetings and were asked for detailed contact information 

so that they could be included in future communications. Social Services, Disabilities Boards, 

the Area Agency on Aging, Hispanic business and advocacy groups, and the NAACP were 

included in addition to community centers, universities, neighborhood associations, and 

businesses.

4.1.10 Title VI and Limited English Proficiency 

The Project team ensured that all federal Title VI requirements were met in the distribution and 

notification of project materials to populations along the study corridor with limited proficiency 

in English.

 Spanish statements were included on outreach materials describing how to request 

assistance/translation for meetings.

 By advance request (48 hours), foreign language translators and American Sign 

Language (ASL) interpreters were provided at in-person meetings. For the public 

hearings, there were two requests for ASL and no requests for Spanish translation.

 Flyers and static displays were distributed to libraries in areas with higher populations 

of Title VI communities and Limited English communities. 

 Public hearing locations were ADA accessible.

 TDD and TYY numbers were included in outreach materials.

 Ads translated to Spanish for Spanish newspapers were placed in the following:

- Las Nuevas Raices

- El Tiempo Latino

 Press releases were translated to Spanish for Spanish media outlets. 
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-5

 98 Title VI groups were included on the Project distribution list to receive email updates 

and information.

 Emails were translated to Spanish for more than 20 Hispanic organizations and 

advocacy groups and sent on the same dates as the English versions. Hispanic 

community leaders were asked to forward and share the information.

 Rack card sized brochures were distributed with English content on one side and 

Spanish content on the other.

 The team connected with past meeting participants who had required special assistance 

to attend and again provided the assistance for the hearings.

 The statewide chapter of the NAACP was contacted and sent information to forward. 

 A website translation tool and font enlargement tool were provided.

4.2 DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT 

PERIOD

FRA and DRPT held five formal public hearings between Washington, D.C., and Richmond to 

solicit public comments on the Draft EIS. The dates, locations, and attendance at each public 

hearing are included in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Public Hearings

Richmond Ashland Alexandria Fredericksburg Quantico

Tuesday, 

October 10, 2017

6-9 p.m.

Wednesday, October 

11, 2017

6-9 p.m.

Tuesday,

October 17, 2017

7-10 p.m.

Wednesday,

October 18, 2017

7-10 p.m.

Thursday,

October 19, 2017

7-10 p.m.

Main Street Station

1500 East Main St.,

Richmond

Patrick Henry High 

School

12449 W. Patrick 

Henry, Ashland

Hilton Alexandria 

Old Town

1767 King St.,

Alexandria

James Monroe High 

School

2300 Washington Ave.,

Fredericksburg

National Museum of 

the Marine Corps

18900 Jefferson Davis 

Hwy., Triangle

94 attendees 169 attendees 77 attendees 43 attendees 27 attendees

An open house was held from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Richmond and Ashland, and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

in Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Quantico. The open house included 19 informational boards 

as well as detailed maps and mapbooks. Project team members were available during the open 

house to answer questions. The open house remained open during the public hearing portion of 

the meetings. The public hearings were held in a separate space and began at 6:30 p.m. in 

Richmond and Ashland, and 7:30 p.m. in Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Quantico. Attendees 

of the open house and public hearings were invited to submit a written comment during the 

meeting, by mail, or online to be included in the record. Attendees were also invited to provide 

verbal comments of up to three minutes per person during the public hearings; all such verbal 

comments were recorded by a stenographer. A self-guided online meeting was also made 

available on the Project website. In total, 410 attendees signed in at the public hearings, and 118 

users participated in the online meeting, with an average duration of 4:08 minutes on the site 

per session. 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-6

Comment submissions were accepted during the comment period, which opened on September 

8, 2017, and closed on November 7, 2017, by the following methods:

 Complete the electronic form: www.DC2RVArail.com/contact-us

 Provide verbal or written comments at the public hearing

 Provide comments to the court reporter at the public hearing or leave comments on the 

toll-free project hotline: 888-832-0900 or TDD 711

 Mail written comments to Emily Stock, DRPT, 600 East Main Street, Suite 2102, 

Richmond, VA 23219

A total of 76 comments were provided verbally during the public hearings, and 37 written 

comments were placed in the comment box at the meetings. A summary of all comments 

received during the DC2RVA Draft EIS comment period will be available in the DC2RVA Final 

EIS. 

4.3 OVERVIEW OF DRAFT EIS COMMENTS

During the 60-day Draft EIS public comment period, 4,234 comments were submitted to DRPT. 

For this comment period, a comment was defined as a single verbal or written communication 

(such as email or web-based comment form). One comment may have included multiple 

specific issues. DRPT read and reviewed all of the comments submitted, and DRPT individually 

identified and coded the specific issues in each comment. Comments frequently contained

multiple issues. At the conclusion of the public comment period, 14,098 separate primary issues 

were identified and coded from the 4,234 comments submitted. In addition, there were 8,903 

secondary issues coded. A secondary issue is a more specific topic or preference within a 

primary issue. For example, a commenter might have called out Ashland alignments as a

primary issue and a preference for a western bypass as a secondary issue.

Comments were received through each of the channels provided by DRPT as discussed in 

Section 4.2. Email was the preferred method for submission, with over 2,500 emailed comments 

received. During the series of Draft EIS Public Hearings in October, 70 comments were 

provided verbally and transcribed by a stenographer for the record. Other methods are listed in 

Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2: Comments Received

Method Number Received

CAC Ashland/Hanover Comments

(received during the official Draft EIS public comment period) 5

Agency Letter/Email 43

Email 2,564

Letter 72

Phone Call 2

Stenographer Transcript—Alexandria 10

Stenographer Transcript—Ashland 40
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-7

Table 4-2: Comments Received

Method Number Received

Stenographer Transcript—Fredericksburg 6

Stenographer Transcript—Quantico 2

Stenographer Transcript—Richmond 12

 Continued

Hotline Voicemail Transcript 12

Petition 3

Web Comment Form 1,463

Total 4,234

Petitions that were sent in as form letters were captured as separate comments for the purposes 

of the count in Table 4-2. For example, the Virginians for High Speed Rail form letters received

in support of increased passenger rail service at Main Street Station were counted as separate 

comments and included in the “Alignments-Richmond” category. Each petition sent in as one 

letter with an attached table of signatures was captured as one comment. Form letters were 

coded with the same issues for each letter sent because the body text was identical across all 

letters. 

4.3.1 Comment Trends

DRPT analyzed comment trends by grouping and comparing the frequency of primary and 

secondary issues. DRPT identified 14,098 primary issue topics as it coded the contents of all 

comments received during the Draft EIS public comment period. Primary issue topics are 

shown in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-3 below. 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-8

Figure 4-1: Top Primary Issues Coded

* General Opposition issues comprised 0.5% of total primary issues coded, while General Support issues comprised 7.4% of total primary issues

coded.

5,639

1,436

1,065 949 774 617 572 381 218 174

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Number of Issues Coded

Table 4-3: Other Primary Issues Coded

Bicycle and Pedestrian Technology Community Facilities 

and Services

Historic and Cultural 

Resources

Stations General Opposition* Noise and Vibration Construction

Water Resources General Support* Mitigation Information Request

Parks and Recreation Fredericksburg 

Alignments Biological Resources Parking

Mailing List Request Visual/Viewshed Alternatives Right-of-Way (ROW)

EIS Process Agency Coordination Public Involvement Compatibility 

Projects/Plans

Other Hazardous Materials 

Transport Purpose and Need EJ/Social/Title VI

Land Use ADA Accommodations Section 4(f) Health Impacts

Mobility Project Schedule Cumulative Impacts Errata

Ownership/Operations Energy Air Quality
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-9

4.3.2 Ashland/Hanover County Area (Alternatives Area 5) Alignments

In light of the public concerns over Project alternatives in the Ashland/Hanover area expressed 

during the alternatives development process, and the expressed desire of the community to be 

more engaged, DRPT established the Town of Ashland/Hanover County CAC. This forum

provided more opportunity for the community to review and consider all of the alternatives.

The Town of Ashland/Hanover County CAC was active as the Draft EIS was released, and 

DRPT did not recommend an alternative for Area 5 within the Draft EIS. Ashland/Hanover 

area alignment issues dominated the Draft EIS public comments, representing approximately 40

percent of the primary DC2RVA issues coded. Of the Ashland/Hanover area issues, 42 percent

of the secondary issues coded indicated support for one or more of the alternatives in the 

Ashland/Hanover area, while 58 percent indicated opposition to one or more of the 

alternatives.

Among issues coded that indicated support for an alternative in the Ashland/Hanover area, 29

percent supported a below-grade alternative (a below-grade version of Alternatives 5B-Ashcake 

or 5D-Ashcake), which had the highest level of stated support for a capacity-increasing 

alternative in this area. 27 percent stated support for a 3-2-3 alternative (reflective of 

Alternatives 5A and 5A-Ashcake), 22 percent indicated support for a western bypass (reflective 

of Alternatives 5C and 5C-Ashcake), and 16 percent supported adding a third track through

town (reflective of Alternatives 5B, 5B-Ashcake, and 5D-Ashcake). Additionally, less than 5 

percent of the comments received stated support for other alternatives that were evaluated 

during the screening phase of the DC2RVA Project but were not advanced as alternatives in the 

Draft EIS, including: either an eastern bypass, I-95 alignment, and/or a Buckingham Branch 

alignment. DRPT coded the comments that mentioned any of these options favorably as 

“support” issues. 

The spread of the Ashland alignment issues coded indicating opposition to an alternative 

tended to call out specific capacity-increasing alternatives, with approximately 42 percent

indicating opposition to a western bypass option (reflective of Alternatives 5C and 5CAshcake), 27 percent indicating opposition to a third track through town (reflective of 

Alternatives 5B and 5B-Ashcake or 5D-Ashcake), and 27 percent indicating opposition to a 

below-grade through town alternative (a below-grade version of Alternatives 5B-Ashcake or 

5D-Ashcake). Of all the Ashland/Hanover alignment opposition issues coded, less than 2

percent specifically expressed opposition to a 3-2-3 alternative (reflective of Alternatives 5A and 

5A-Ashcake). Comment trends indicated that reaction was strongest to alternatives that created 

the greatest disruption to personal property and the environment.

4.3.3 Richmond Area (Alternatives Area 6) Alignments

DRPT received 1,034 comments with Richmond area alignments coded as the primary issue. 

Among those comments, close to 950 (92 percent) were form letters in support of DRPT’s 

recommendations, including the recommendation for increased passenger rail service at Main 

Street Station (which is included in Alternatives 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G). Among the Richmond 

alignment primary issues coded, 96 percent mention Main Street Station. Less than 5 percent

mention Staples Mill Road Station (which is included in Alternatives 6A, 6E, 6F, and 6G), 

Boulevard Station (which is included in Alternatives 6B-A and 6B-S), or Broad Street Station

(which is included in Alternative 6C). Verbal comments from the Draft EIS Public Hearing in 

Richmond on October 10, 2017, generally supported the DC2RVA Project, but expressed 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-10

concern that the Project needed to demonstrate more sensitivity to cultural resources related to 

the slave trade in the Shockoe Bottom area surrounding Main Street Station. 

4.3.4 Secondary Issue Trends

DRPT found that comments tended to contain common primary and secondary issue pairs, 

which indicated trends shown in the list below:

 The majority of economics comments related to construction costs (84 percent)

 The majority of roads/bridges comments related to vehicular traffic (97 percent)

 The majority of landowner-specific comments related to potential displacements (67.4

percent)

 Almost a third of the landowner-specific comments related to potential project effects on 

property access (29 percent)

These secondary issues represented the largest groups of recurring topics found in the Draft EIS 

comments and were consistent with the level of interest and outreach for these issues 

throughout the Draft EIS process.

4.3.5 Agency Comments

Of the 4,234 comments received, approximately 33 were from federal, state, or local agencies, 

organizations, or elected officials. Attachment B contains a broad summary of the comments 

received from these agencies, organizations, and elected officials. Note that all comments from 

all individuals and groups will be documented and addressed in the Final EIS; the description 

in Attachment B is a high-level summary only.

4.4 TOWN OF ASHLAND/HANOVER COUNTY AREA CAC PROCESS

The DC2RVA Draft EIS includes DRPT recommendations for a preferred alternative for most of 

the 123-mile DC2RVA rail corridor with the exception of Areas 1 and 5. Through the scoping, 

screening and alternatives analysis phases of the DC2RVA Project, DRPT considered nearly 30

different options and alternatives for adding rail capacity in Ashland and advanced seven Build 

Alternatives for evaluation in the Draft EIS. During the course of preparing the Draft EIS, DRPT

met with the Town of Ashland, Hanover County, the public, and other stakeholders, and 

conducted a tour of the Ashland area with the CTB. In addition, DRPT received numerous 

comments and input from stakeholders in the Town of Ashland and Hanover County 

communities, as well as Randolph-Macon College. DRPT recognized that many of the 

alternatives for greater rail capacity in the Town of Ashland and Hanover County area 

generated community concerns. 

DRPT recognized that each of the proposed Build Alternatives in Area 5 would have adverse 

consequences on the citizens and resources of the Town of Ashland or Hanover County, and 

there was no local consensus or preference for a Build Alternative. DRPT determined that 

expanded community involvement would inform decision-making. DRPT therefore did not 

identify a Recommended Preferred Alternative for the Ashland area in the Draft EIS. Within the 

Draft EIS, DRPT concluded the following: 
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-11

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

new track or new infrastructure will require additional ROW. 

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

additional opportunities to be engaged in evaluating alternatives and developing 

possible mitigation strategies for the Ashland/Hanover County area. 

 The seven Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS provide a reasonable range of 

alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need of the Project.

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

identification of the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative through the 

Ashland area, while meeting the Purpose and Need for the full DC2RVA Project.

 The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for the Central Virginia and 

Richmond Areas (Areas 4 and 6, respectively) are neither contingent on nor do they limit 

any one specific alternative for the Ashland area (Area 5).

DRPT recommended a community-based effort to FRA to supplement DC2RVA public 

involvement activities and help inform selection of a Preferred Alternative that meets the 

Purpose and Need for the full DC2RVA Project with consideration for the potential impacts 

through the Ashland/Hanover County area.

4.4.1 Purpose of the CAC

DRPT convened the Town of Ashland/Hanover County CAC to review all previously

considered options for greater rail capacity in the Ashland/Hanover County area, and to 

identify potential options that could meet the Purpose and Need of the full DC2RVA Project, 

while also minimizing or avoiding potential impacts to the community. The CAC was 

specifically requested to:

 Review all alternatives studied to date in the Draft EIS, including those presented in the 

Draft EIS or considered during the scoping and screening phases of the DC2RVA 

Project.

 Recommend alternative(s), including new alternatives or modifications to alternatives, 

to meet the Purpose and Need of the full DC2RVA Project. Should an alternative emerge 

that was not considered in the Draft EIS or was a modification to those presented, DRPT 

and FRA would define such an alternative in the Final EIS. 

 Identify and represent the concerns of members’ communities.

 Apply a structured and transparent approach seeking consensus.

4.4.2 CAC Approach

The CAC, composed of locally-appointed members of Hanover County, the Town of Ashland, 

Randolph-Macon College, the Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization, and 

CSXT, met five times in the Ashland/Hanover area between May and September of 2017.

 All meetings were open to the public.

 Meetings were video recorded and posted to the project website, www.dc2rvarail.com.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-12

 Meeting materials were posted to the project website.

 Committee members were requested to share comments directed to them individually 

with other CAC members and the project team.

DRPT Director Jennifer Mitchell acted as chairperson for the meetings. DRPT staff and members 

of the DC2RVA consultant team provided the CAC with technical information and 

presentations on:

 Project background and regulatory requirements;

 Rail operations, modeling, and engineering;

 Potential effects of different alternatives; and 

 Addressed questions posed by the CAC members and the public.

4.4.3 CAC Meetings

The CAC met monthly from May through September 2017, as follows:

 CAC Meeting #1: May 22, 2017

 CAC Meeting #2: June 26, 2017

 CAC Meeting #3: July 24, 2017

 CAC Meeting #4: August 28, 2017

 CAC Meeting #5: September 11, 2017

At the third CAC meeting, DRPT included in their presentation an overview of the refined 

operations modeling to validate the appropriateness of the infrastructure proposed by the 

Project. DRPT noted that a two-track alternative in Ashland was tested as part of the modeling

(reflective of Alternatives 5A and 5A-Ashcake), and that the scenario met DC2RVA

performance targets. 

In addition to the five CAC meetings, the Town of Ashland hosted a meeting on September 6, 

2017, to solicit public input regarding the through-town three-track trench option (a belowgrade version of Alternatives 5B-Ashcake or 5D-Ashcake). DRPT attended the Town’s meeting 

and presented information on the trench option including construction sequencing and 

potential effects. This meeting was open to the public.

DRPT staff and members of the DC2RVA consultant team also met individually with members 

of the CAC upon request to discuss members’ technical questions. A summary of these 

questions, DRPT responses, and any materials generated were then shared with the rest of the 

CAC and posted to the project website.

4.4.4 Build Alternatives Considered by the CAC

The following list includes all of the alternatives that were considered by the CAC. Unless 

otherwise noted, alternatives listed were reviewed by DRPT in the Alternatives Technical 

Report (Appendix A of the Draft EIS), but not carried forward for detailed review in the Draft 

EIS.

Through-Town Alignments:
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-13

 At-Grade Options: 

- Minor Improvements in Ashland (“3-2-3” Option, with no additional track 

downtown)

(Alternative 5A or 5A-Ashcake)

- Add one track on the west of existing tracks 

- Add one track on the east of existing tracks (Alternative 5B or 5B-Ashcake)

- Add one track and shift existing two tracks to center the three tracks (Alternative 5DAshcake)

- Add one track and shift existing two tracks to center the three tracks AND remove 

station

 Elevated Options: 

- Elevate 1 track above existing two tracks 

- Elevate 2 tracks above existing two tracks 

- Elevate 3 tracks above existing right-of-way and remove at-grade tracks 

 Below-Grade Options: 

- 1-track tunnel – Cut and cover tunnel east of existing two tracks 

- 1-track tunnel – Bore tunnel 

- 1-track tunnel – Deep bore tunnel 

- 2-track tunnel – One east and one centered 

- 3-track tunnel – Cut and cover continuous cover below existing right-of-way and 

remove at-grade tracks 

- Shallow bore 1-track tunnel for passenger trains only (proposed through CAC

process) 

- 3-track trench (proposed through CAC process)

Eastern Bypass Alignments:

 Ashland East Bypass (AEB 1) 

 Ashland East Bypass to BBRR (AEB 2) 

 Ashland East Bypass That Does Not Cross I-95 (AEB 3) 

 Ashland East Bypass in the I-95 Median (AEB 4) 

 Ashland East Bypass White Paper Route (AEB 5) 

 Buckingham Branch (BBRR):

- Freight Diversion onto BBRR 

- Passenger Diversion onto BBRR 

 Doswell Area Connections to Buckingham Branch Railroad:

- Wye Options #1 - #5 

Western Bypass Alignments:

- Ashland West Bypass (AWB 1)

- Ashland West Bypass Revision #1 (AWB 2) 

- Ashland West Bypass Revision #2 (AWB 3) 

- Ashland West Bypass Revision #3 (AWB 4) (Alternatives 5C and 5C-Ashcake)
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-14

4.4.5 Public Comments

All CAC meetings were open to the public, and a majority of Meeting #3 was set aside 

specifically for verbal public comment. In addition, the public was provided with several 

opportunities to participate and comment as described below:

 Public comment cards that were available at each meeting.

 Online comment submittals to www.dc2rvarail.com at any time.

 Post-meeting review of all meeting materials and presentations made available for 

public review on www.dc2rvarail.com.

 Public comments submitted to the project team and/or individual CAC members that 

were shared with the CAC.

 All public comments and questions were reviewed by the DRPT staff, and, as 

appropriate, responses were prepared and shared with the CAC.

It is important to note that the CAC process was not meant to replace the Draft EIS public 

hearings and public comment period. Members of the public were encouraged to also provide 

comments on the Draft EIS once the document was made publicly available on September 8, 

2017.

4.4.6 Least Objectionable Alternatives

Over the course of five months, the CAC reviewed and fully evaluated over 30 different 

alternatives for the Town of Ashland/Hanover County area, including the seven alternatives

for Area 5 that were included in the Draft EIS and new or modified alternatives suggested by 

the public or developed by the CAC. The CAC also considered hundreds of comments and 

questions provided by the public. The CAC determined that many of the alternatives were not 

practical, primarily due to cost or diminished ability to meet the Purpose and Need of the 

DC2RVA Project, including use of the Buckingham Branch Railroad, a deep bore tunnel, and 

adding tracks to the median of I-95. The CAC also unanimously rejected any option with three 

tracks at-grade through Ashland (reflective of Alternatives 5B, 5B-Ashcake or 5D-Ashcake) due 

to the perceived impacts to the residences, businesses, and Randolph-Macon College in 

downtown Ashland from Project construction and future rail operations. The committee 

recognized that all of the alternatives would have substantial adverse impacts to residents, 

commercial interests, and communities, and would be objectionable to one or more groups of 

stakeholders.

The CAC chose not to endorse any specific alternative. Instead, as documented in DRPT’s 

September 19, 2017, memorandum to the CTB, the CAC identified three “least objectionable”

alternatives, outlined below:

 Least Objectionable Through-Town Alternative —“3-2-3” Option (Alternative 5A in 

the Draft EIS): A third track would be added to the existing CSXT right-of-way north 

and south of the Town of Ashland, while the existing two tracks would remain in 

service through Ashland. Road overpasses would be added at Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road. The crossing at England Street would remain at-grade.

 Least Objectionable Below-Grade Alternative—Three-Track Trench (modified belowgrade version of Alternatives 5B-Ashcake and 5D-Ashcake): A trench would be 
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-15

constructed through Ashland approximately 50 feet wide and 33 feet deep, extending 

from north of Vaughan Road to south of Ashcake Road. The two existing tracks through 

the Town of Ashland, along with a third new track, would pass through Ashland within 

the trench. The trench would be provided with strategically placed covers interspersed 

with open areas, allowing motor vehicle and pedestrian crossings, landscaping, and 

other amenities. Details associated with the placement and length of covered spaces 

would be determined in final design. The downtown Ashland station would be closed.

 Least Objectionable Bypass Alternative—Western Bypass Alignment “AWB 1”

(modified version of Alternatives 5C and 5C-Ashcake): In this option, a two-track 

bypass approximately seven miles long would extend around the Town of Ashland to 

the west. Roads bisecting the new bypass would be modified to avoid creating any new 

at-grade road/rail crossings. The two tracks through town would remain in service. This 

alternative includes the provision that the alignment would be adjusted to avoid directly 

impacting a commercial facility, and to minimize impacts to residential properties.

The CAC’s review of alternatives and identification of a range of least objectionable alternatives 

was intended to inform the final determination of a Preferred Alternative for the 

Ashland/Hanover County area. The Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for 

Area 5 is Alternative 5A, which meets the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project with the 

least amount of impacts. Alternative 5A will have no Section 106 or 4(f) impacts, where all other 

alternatives considered or developed by the CAC include at least some impacts to cultural or 

historic resources.

4.5 COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD ENGAGEMENT

Because of the scale of the DC2RVA Project area and budget, DRPT began briefing the CTB on 

DC2RVA in advance of procurement to prepare the EIS for the Project at the CTB Workshop on 

July 16, 2014. DRPT updated the Rail Committee informally through the scoping and 

alternatives development process as the Draft EIS was developed. DRPT provided a formal 

update at the September 20, 2016, Rail Committee and Workshop. 

DRPT presented its preliminary recommendations for DC2RVA at the CTB Workshop on 

December 6, 2016, at the completion of the Administrative Draft EIS while it was in review by 

FRA. The recommendations presented in December 2016 were identical to those documented in 

this Recommendation Report, with deferral of a recommendation of a Preferred Alternative for 

Area 5 in the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Area. 

As described in Section 3.4, Town of Ashland/Hanover County CAC Process, comments from 

local officials and citizens of this area requested that DRPT review its alternatives development 

process with greater public involvement. DRPT and community members engaged the CTB 

through updates and public comments at CTB workshops and Rail Committee meetings, as 

well as a CTB tour of the Town of Ashland and Hanover County on November 1, 2016. The tour 

served as a fact-finding mission for the CTB so that they could view the scale of potential rail 

alignments in relation to the existing landscape and receive an update on the overall Project. 

Local officials from the Town of Ashland, Hanover County, and Randolph-Macon College 

made welcoming remarks. These officials, along with citizen representatives from the 

community and representatives from CSXT, made up the CAC, which convened the following 

year. 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

4-16

DRPT made formal presentations to the full CTB and CTB Rail Committee throughout 2017:

 February 15, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Reported on status of FRA’s Draft EIS review, and DRPT’s request to conduct a 

separate NEPA effort for the Ashland/Hanover area due to unique land use 

conditions and longer-range need.

 April 18, 2017 CTB Rail Committee

- Reported that DRPT was preparing refined operations analysis to estimate that the 

infrastructure proposed in the Draft EIS will meet the Purpose and Need of the full 

DC2RVA Project, particularly with regard to the proposal to retain a two-track 

railroad through the Town of Ashland.

- Reported that FRA could not separate the section for Area 5 through Ashland from 

the DC2RVA Project for further analysis in a separate NEPA effort, since the EIS for 

the DC2RVA Project provides an FRA Record of Decision for a contiguous corridorwide service improvement from Washington, D.C., through Richmond, VA.

- Conveyed that the CAC will be convened for the Ashland/Hanover area, and FRA 

supports the CAC process as additional community involvement to inform the 

development of the alternatives presented in the EIS.

- Reviewed DRPT recommendations for Areas 1–6 and reported that the Draft EIS 

would not contain a DRPT recommendation of a preferred alternative for Arlington 

(Area 1) and Ashland/Hanover (Area 5). 

 September 19, 2017 CTB Rail Committee and CTB Workshop

- Presented results of the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Area CAC, in 

collaboration with CAC Member Barbara Nelson of the Richmond Regional 

Transportation Planning Organization. 

- CSXT expressed its concern that the DC2RVA Project with a constrained two-track 

alignment through Ashland (Alternative 5A and 5A-Ashcake) will negatively impact 

the freight network performance in 2045.

 October 23, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Reported results of refined operations analysis validation modeling, which estimated

that most freight delays outside of the Project corridor are caused by forecasted 

freight growth through 2045 and are not attributable infrastructure constructed or 

service improvements implemented under the DC2RVA Project, particularly with a 

two-track railroad through Ashland in Alternative 5A.

- Recommended phased implementation and coordination with the

railroads/operators to address potential future delays both inside and outside the 

corridor. 

 October 23, 2017 CTB Workshop 

- Reviewed previous DRPT recommendations for each area of the DC2RVA corridor 

from north to south.

- Reported on the Draft EIS Public Hearings and presented an interim comment 

summary.

 November 9, 2017 CTB Rail Committee
P U B L I C I N V O L V E M E N T

4-17

- Held in Ashland. The Virginia Secretary of Transportation encouraged participation 

by all CTB members, not just CTB Rail Committee Members. 10 out of 17 CTB 

Members attended. 

- Presented results of the DC2RVA Public Hearing process and Draft EIS comment 

period.

- Announced DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative as Alternative 5A, as 

defined in the Draft EIS, also known as “3-2-3”, for the Town of Ashland/Hanover 

County area (Area 5).

- Reviewed DRPT’s rationale for both the Ashland/Hanover area and Richmond area 

recommendations.

- Presented Draft CTB Resolution for the December CTB action. 

 December 6, 2017 CTB Action Meeting

- CTB voted to adopt a resolution with DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative 

for DC2RVA (Attachment A), defined as the Commonwealth’s Recommended 

Preferred Alternative.

In addition to DRPT’s presentations, members of the CTB had the opportunity to discuss issues 

and ask questions. Public comment periods were provided at each CTB Rail Committee and 

each CTB Action Meeting. Meeting minutes and video recordings of these meetings are 

available online at www.ctb.virginia.gov/public_meetings.
A-1

ATTACHMENT A: CTB RESOLUTION
Agenda item #14

RESOLUTION

OF THE

COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD

December 6, 2017

MOTION

Made by: Mr. Brown, Seconded by: Ms. Valentine

Action: Motion Carried, Unanimously

Title: Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted Recommended 

Alternative A-Plus (see Attachment A), as set forth in the Study Area Alternatives 

Recommendation Report for the Southeast High Speed Rail Tier I Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, dated March 5, 2002 which was subsequently adopted by the Federal Railroad 

Administration in the Tier I Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision; and,

WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), in 

conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration, have continued to further the effort of 

implementing higher speed passenger rail service within the Southeast Rail Corridor by 

developing the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project, a 

Tier II Environmental Impact Statement to identify a preferred alternative within the selected 

123- mile corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond; and,

WHEREAS, DRPT conducted significant public and stakeholder involvement for the 

DC2RVA project including direct mail, newspaper advertisements, project website and social 

media campaigns, ten public meetings, five formal public hearings, and multiple local meetings

and workshops; and, 

WHEREAS, the DC2RVA Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement that evaluated 

multiple alternatives in six Alternative Areas along the CSX Transportation corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond was published on September 8, 2017 and was followed by a 

60-day public comment period; and,

WHEREAS, DRPT included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement a 

recommended preferred alternative for Alternative Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the DC2RVA study 

corridor as shown in Attachment B; and,
Resolution of the Board

Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative 

for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement

December 6, 2017

Page Two 

WHEREAS, DRPT limited the footprint of potential construction activities for 

DC2RVA project alternatives at Main Street Station, located in the Shockoe Bottom area of 

Richmond, in order to avoid and/or limit any potential impacts after evaluating, in a manner 

consistent with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources guidelines, and per the process set 

forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the cultural resources in 

the Shockoe Bottom area of Richmond; and,

WHEREAS, DRPT has relied on a broad array of historical research to inform its layout 

of the DC2RVA improvements and to summarize available historical research and assets 

associated with the Shockoe Bottom slave trade, including areas for future slavery museums and 

memorials, five known archaeological sites, scholarly research on the Shockoe Bottom slave 

trade, current public commentary, and possible locations for additional historical and 

archaeological research and preservation, all to be summarized in a separate chapter of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement as supplemental information that may be beneficial to future 

public and private decisions and actions in the Shockoe Bottom area; and,

WHEREAS, recognizing the unique nature of the region and concerns from the 

community over Draft EIS alternatives in Alternative Area 5 as shown in Attachment B, DRPT 

convened the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Community Advisory Committee, to take a 

more intensive look at all rail options that could meet the purpose and need of the DC2RVA 

project, while also minimizing or avoiding any potential impacts of those options; and,

WHEREAS, DRPT briefed the Commonwealth Transportation Board on DRPT’s 

recommendation at its October 23, 2017 Workshop meeting and at its November 9, 2017 Rail 

Committee meeting on the outcome of the CAC process, being the following three leastobjectionable alternatives for Alternative Area 5: maintain two tracks through the town of 

Ashland (5A), add a two-track west bypass (AWB1, previously screened out), and add a threetrack trench through the Town of Ashland (variation of tunnel option previously screened out).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation 

Board recommends to Federal Railroad Administration the following preferred alternative for 

inclusion in the forthcoming Rail Alignment Recommendation Report, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision, in concurrence with DRPT’s recommendation, in the 

following areas of the DC2RVA study corridor, as shown in Attachment B: Alternative Area 1-

1A, 1B, or 1C; Alternative Area 2-2A; Alternative Area 3-3B; Alternative Area 4-4A; 

Alternative Area 5-5A; Alternative Area 6-6F.
Resolution of the Board

Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative 

for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement

December 6, 2017

Page Three

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recommended preferred alternative for 

Alternative Area 1 (Arlington) will include the retention of all three alternatives 1A, 1B and 1C 

until after completion of the Long Bridge Tier II Environmental Impact Statement, whereby one 

of the three retained alternatives will be selected as the recommended preferred alternative based 

on compatibility with the Long Bridge Tier II Environmental Impact Statement preferred 

alternative.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Commonwealth Transportation Board on the 

recommendation of DRPT determines that additional rail capacity is needed in Alternative Area 

5 to meet the performance standards required for additional passenger trains, DRPT shall

conduct a new study based on updated information, including but not limited to future freight 

volumes, land uses, and capacity needs within the overall rail network. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commonwealth Transportation Board hereby 

directs DRPT to avoid and/or minimize any permanent property acquisitions, to the extent 

practicable, in areas where only two mainline tracks on the current alignment are recommended, 

and to avoid any permanent property acquisitions related to the DC2RVA project that would 

affect the operations of Randolph-Macon College.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Commonwealth Transportation Board hereby

directs DRPT to explore the need for other potential improvements in downtown Ashland 

(Alternative Area 5) that will help protect the safety of motorized and non-motorized roadway 

users, and to facilitate emergency access.

# # #
Resolution of the Board

Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative 

for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement

December 6, 2017

Page Four

Attachment A 

Excerpt from Record of Decision for the Tier I Southeast High Speed Rail Project

November 20, 2002
Resolution of the Board

Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative 

for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement

December 6, 2017

Page Five

Attachment B

Description of DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for DC2RVA
B-1

ATTACHMENT B: SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS

B.1 FEDERAL

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

The ACHP requested clarification on the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)’s coordination process with ACHP with 

regard to the Process Programmatic Agreement4 and Memorandum of Agreement5 for Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and indicated a need for continued coordination 

in the future. 

American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), National Park Service (NPS) 

The ABPP reviewed battlefield resources included in the archaeological and architectural Area 

of Potential Effect (APE) and expressed concern about the proposed project alignment and 

potential impacts to Civil War battlefield sites. ABPP requested that project reports be 

submitted as they are completed rather than as a group, and that they show actual Limits of 

Disturbance for proposed alignments instead of the buffers from the alignment centerline. The 

ABPP determined that the project APE intersects 11 priority battlefields identified by the Civil 

War Sites Advisory Commission in 1993 and again in 2011 by the ABPP. The ABPP 

recommended a “Key Terrain Observation and Fields of Fire, Cover and Concealment, 

Obstacles, Avenues of Approach” (KOCOA) analysis be completed for the battlefields identified 

and recommended that rail lines be evaluated for their connections to the battlefields.

Department of the Interior (DOI)

The DOI encouraged continued outreach and coordination with relevant agencies on the 

Section 4(f) Evaluation and identified the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the 

Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail as potential additional targets of outreach and inclusion 

in an agreement to be drafted with affected agencies determining the effects on NPS and other 

Section 4(f) properties. The DOI stated that it was unable to provide concurrence until a formal 

determination is provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Final 

Section 4(f) Evaluation. The DOI expressed concern regarding some “de minimis” impact 

determinations made at NPS sites, citing that impacts should be assessed on the smaller, 

 

4 “Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Railroad Administration, the Virginia State Historic Preservation 

Officer, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division, and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the 

Proposed Southeast High-Speed Rail Project,” April 12, 2016.

5 “Memorandum of Agreement Among the Virginia Historic Preservation Office, the Federal Railroad 

Administration, and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Regarding the Southeast High Speed 

Rail Project, Richmond, Virginia to the North Carolina State Line,” January 11, 2017.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

B-2

individual units of which some of the sites are comprised, and that the historic nature of some 

of the resources may require Section 106 review. DOI also indicated that removal and 

replacement of vegetation along the corridor should be a consideration in impact 

determinations.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA requested that the Project team work in cooperation with EPA, the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), and other federal agencies throughout the EIS process, noting that 

additional analysis may be necessary if new alternatives develop. EPA assigned a rating of the 

Preferred Alternative as Environmental Concerns- Insufficient Information (EC-2) and 

Arlington section as Lack of Objections (LO).

EPA requested clarification on why accommodation of freight traffic is a project purpose and 

need, but not mentioned as a need for the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) program, 

and suggests identification of hazardous materials being moved in the corridor and addressing 

how an accidental release would be managed. EPA requested clarification on whether impacts

from construction and operations are considered in the limits of disturbance. EPA suggested 

clarification of assessment methodologies used for aquatic impacts and continued coordination 

with the USACE. The EPA also suggested that potentially unmitigable habitats be identified, 

and that assessment of potential for drinking water contamination and efforts to minimize risk 

to drinking water be clearly described in the document. 

EPA requested coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

other state and federal agencies to identify and protect rare and endangered species, and that 

infrastructure resiliency to extreme weather events be discussed. EPA recommended that 

stormwater management facilities utilize green infrastructure where appropriate and that 

facilities not be placed in wetlands or aquatic habitats. Clarification was sought by EPA on noise 

analysis in the corridor and suggested adding future commuter/freight rail to the project 

analysis. EPA stressed the importance of fully considering impacts to Environmental Justice 

communities, and asked that aquatic habitats, environmental fragmentation, and noise be 

addressed as indirect and cumulative impacts.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The FAA voiced support for the project and determined that it presently had no federal action 

or approval on the effort. The FAA did stress that rail improvements in the project corridor 

were just one part of a solution to aviation congestion at the national level.

National Park Service (NPS)

The National Capital Region of the NPS commented that the Draft EIS did not specify any 

actions such as access permits, special use permits, or land exchanges that might require a 

federal decision from NPS, nor did it indicate areas where NPS would be directly impacted. 

NPS commented that the Purpose and Need should recognize multimodal connections and 

identify connections to outdoor recreational activities, and should include a thorough 

description of mitigation opportunities. The NPS requested that the George Washington 

Memorial Parkway (GWMP) be added as a Section 106 Consulting Party, and requested that the 

GWMP be added as a cooperating agency if it is anticipated that the Parkway would be 

approached for any type of permit.

NPS indicated that the boundaries shown in the Draft EIS for Roaches Run were not consistent 

with NPS records. NPS requested that the Parkways of the National Capital Region and the 
A T T A C H M E N T B : S U M M A R Y O F M A J O R C O M M E N T S

B-3

Green Scenic Easement Area be included, and that the NPS be mentioned in the “Parklands, 

Recreational Areas, and Refuges” section. They asked for clarification of noise and vibration 

impacts, as well as the potential impacts of permanent or temporary vegetation removal, and 

suggested that connections between stations for cyclists and pedestrians should be included in 

project design. NPS asked for further clarification/information on stormwater management and 

the possible effects of the project on runoff.

The NPS submitted comments on behalf of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 

Historic Trail. Concerns included the misidentification of the trail and recognition solely for the 

portion in the Richmond section (trail extends throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its major 

tributaries). The NPS indicated that many of the water crossings within the project area are 

either on or within the viewshed of the trail and that a new crossing of the Rappahannock or the 

James rivers should be evaluated for visual impacts and that navigational/construction impacts 

of other bridges along the trail should be minimized for recreational users.

The NPS submitted comments on behalf of Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military 

Park (FRSP) and Richmond National Battlefield Park (RICH). NPS indicated that the boundary 

of the railroad right-of-way through the FRSP shown in the Draft EIS does not agree with park 

records and that NPS permission must be sought for construction on park property. NPS raised 

concerns over trains potentially queueing along rail right-of-way in the parks due to timetable 

changes and the associated scenic impacts. NPS did voice appreciation over DRPT coordination 

over the Richmond National Battlefield Park and Maggie Walker National Historic Site.

NPS also submitted comments on behalf of the ABPP. These comments included a 

recommendation for a KOCOA analysis to be performed for the battlefields that intersect with 

the project APE. The NPS voiced support for alternative 3A (maintain two tracks through town) 

and alternative 3C (East Bypass) through the Fredericksburg area due to fewer impacts to 

battlefield resources. NPS offered ABPP staff resources to provide technical assistance and 

materials for identifying battlefield resources near Richmond, and asked for clarification on 

how increases in visits to battlefields in the corridor were considered in assessing impacts.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

The USACE recommended continued coordination on the Preferred Alternative. USACE will 

consider the Preferred Alternative with regard to aquatic resource impacts and practicability.

USACE noted a shift to greater emphasis on freight rail in the Draft EIS as compared with the 

SEHSR Tier I Purpose and Need. The USACE requested an analysis of the practicability of 

continuing to accommodate freight and passenger rail traffic on existing rail facilities, which 

could have bearing on relative impacts to aquatic resources.

B.2 STATE

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

DEQ noted several state permits related to wastewater and streams, and directed DRPT to 

coordinate with the USACE on any proposed wetlands impacts. DEQ recommended specific 

construction techniques for repairing and replacing wetlands post-construction. In addition, 

DEQ asked DRPT to consider using sustainable and context-sensitive construction techniques 

such as permeable parking lots and consideration of low-emissions construction equipment use 

in areas with pollutants at non-attainment levels. DEQ also recommended that DRPT take care 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

B-4

in disposal of hazardous waste from railroad sites along the corridor and dispose of all waste in 

accordance with federal and state laws and guidelines.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR)

DHR requested that DRPT continue its consultation with DHR on issues related to the Section 

106 process.

B.3 LOCAL

Arlington County

Arlington County requested that DRPT verify that any proposed infrastructure south of Long 

Bridge (Area 1) would not impact plans for an expanded aquatics center at Long Bridge Park to 

the west of the tracks. In addition, the County had concerns about potential impacts to Roaches 

Run Waterfowl Park on the east side of the tracks in Area 1 of the study. Habitat protection and 

control of invasive plants in these sections of the corridor were the County’s highest concerns, 

as well as preservation of open space around Long Bridge Park and the planned extension of 

the pedestrian esplanade at the park. 

City of Alexandria

Alexandria expressed concerns about potential private property impacts within the City and 

possible impacts on future planned development. Alexandria sought clarification on the 

impacts and scheduling of construction activities and the potential impacts of these activities on 

adjacent improvement projects. The City expressed particular concern about the potential for 

increased noise and vibration from increased train traffic in the corridor and from associated 

construction impacts. The City requested more information on potential impacts on existing 

bridges and on maintenance of rail operations during construction, as well as traffic impacts 

generated by increased ridership. The City had numerous questions and corrections relating to 

parks and recreational resources including potential impacts and resources that had not been 

identified in the document. The City also voiced concerns about potential impacts to wetlands 

and impacts to water quality.

Fairfax County

Fairfax County voiced support for the project and for increased rail capacity in the corridor. The 

County expressed concerns about potential impacts to water quality in the Pohick Seeps 

conservation area and requested continuing consultation with County staff. The County 

identified a number of potential impacts to parklands, with particular concern for Old 

Colchester and Mason Neck West parks.

Prince William County

Prince William County requested that DRPT plan for at least one of the highest speed trains (the 

County used the term “ACELA”) to stop at the Woodbridge Station. The County indicated that 

a stop at Woodbridge would better serve the surrounding community than a stop at FranconiaSpringfield. The County requested that the Firestone Road crossing be planned for gradeseparation to enable better emergency response to the neighborhoods on the east side of the 

tracks. The County shared several requested text changes to the body of the Draft EIS. Prince 

William requested that DRPT coordinate with the County on construction of a new Occoquan 

River bridge, as it would be a highly visible gateway landmark into the north portion of the 

County from Route 1. The County was concerned about visual impacts to the viewshed to 
A T T A C H M E N T B : S U M M A R Y O F M A J O R C O M M E N T S

B-5

Neabsco Creek from Rippon Lodge and requested that potential impacts to Rippon Lodge be 

included in the Final EIS and any future Section 106 Memoranda of Agreements. The County 

expressed concern about potential impacts to Cockpit Point Civil War Park, as the eastern side 

of the park is not currently accessible over the railroad tracks today. Future increases in train 

traffic could eliminate the potential for creating a public crossing. The County requested that 

such a crossing be considered during mitigation.

Spotsylvania County

Spotsylvania County asked about the presence of an alternative to the main DC2RVA corridor 

in the event of a natural or man-made disaster, and questioned if three tracks in one location for 

the entire length of the corridor would be “putting all eggs in one basket.” The County 

mentioned proposed greenways and pedestrian paths planned in the corridor and stressed that 

bike/pedestrian-friendly crossings should be taken into consideration. The County corrected 

the spelling of a roadway and raised issues with flow/tone of certain sections of the Draft EIS. 

The County also suggested to DRPT to consider the Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan 

to widen Lansdowne Road in the design for a road bridge at this location. Finally, Spotsylvania 

pointed to an unsafe situation at the intersection of Mine and Benchmark Roads, and called on 

the study to indicate an upgraded quad-gate configuration at this location.

City of Fredericksburg

The City of Fredericksburg’s comment identified planned railroad crossings that the City would 

like to see widened from their current size to accommodate future roadway capacity. The City 

also asked that DPRT work with the City to ensure any new passenger station elements are 

constructed in keeping with the architectural and historical nature of the City, including any 

parking facilities. They also asked that DRPT consider constructing two separate sound walls in 

areas of the City where the third track will come close to structures. The structural integrity of 

the existing rail viaduct was a major concern for the City and will require further coordination 

to improve pedestrian crossings under the railroad tracks when improvements are made.

Hanover County

The comments received from Hanover County focused on the bypass and through-town 

alignment alternatives examined by the project for the Ashland/Hanover area. The County 

commented that Alternative 5A (Maintain Two Tracks Through Town)—also known as “3-2-3”

—is the sole alternative that warrants further consideration. The County pointed to potential 

impacts of 5C (Add Two Track West Bypass) related to wetlands, water quality, property, noise 

and vibration, aesthetics, cultural resources, wildlife habitat, and transportation. The County 

also included a resolution of the Hanover County Board of Supervisors dated October 11, 2017 

stating the County’s opposition to a Western Bypass alternative and to the addition of a third 

track at-grade through the Town of Ashland.

Town of Ashland

The Town of Ashland sent a letter with a link to a video produced by Kathy Abbot, a member of 

the Ashland Town Council. The video described how a trench would be detrimental to the town 

during both construction and post-construction periods. The video urged citizens of Ashland to 

support the 3-2-3 alternative, rather than a trench through town. The Town also provided 

comments supporting a deep bore trench beneath the Town as a preferred alternative.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

B-6

Henrico County

Henrico County was supportive of the recommended preferred alternative in the Richmond 

area (Alternative 6F). The County recognized revitalization and reinvestment opportunities 

possible around Staples Mill Road Station. The station and the adjacent Staples Mill Road 

corridor were included in the Henrico County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan, with the 

station as the focal point of redevelopment. The County also indicated that additional 

mitigation measures might be necessary for residential parcels affected by construction noise 

and loss of vegetation along the railroad tracks when an additional rail is built north of Staples 

Mill Road Station. 

B.4 TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS

CSX Transportation (CSXT)

CSXT submitted comments accompanied by a report performed by Cambridge Systematics that 

analyzed results of operations modeling performed by DRPT. CSXT commented that 

infrastructure improvements proposed in the Draft EIS are insufficient to support contemplated 

increases in passenger traffic. The following themes were prevalent throughout CSXT 

comments:

 Draft EIS is consistent with FRA requirements, however, there are weaknesses in 

DRPT’s capacity analysis, including:

- Proposed infrastructure improvements are not sufficient to enable reliable operations 

of projected train schedules

- The burden of extended running times and freight delays fall on CSXT’s freight traffic

- Modeling does not “follow best practices”

 Passenger trains will hinder CSXT’s future use of any available capacity

 “3-2-3” Alternative in Ashland will be a major bottleneck for freight operations

 Recommended preferred alternative does not have significant freight benefits

 Projected freight delays were expected to be much higher than base case delays

 None of the original 2045 modeling cases “dispatched” to completion—the second 

round of revised modeling did better, but not overall satisfactorily

 Consider alternative capacity configurations, including:

- Four tracks in parts of the corridor

- Use of the Buckingham Branch for some through-traffic and integrating the 

Buckingham Branch into full modeling, not just as a stand-alone analysis

Norfolk Southern (NS)

Norfolk Southern indicated that they were concerned with the Draft EIS proposing operational 

changes to Amtrak trains outside the immediate corridor of study. Specifically, NS cites the 

assumption to add three daily round-trip frequencies to the Norfolk service as problematic. NS 

claimed that the three additional trains could not be added to service without an agreement 

from them, which has not been negotiated at this point. In addition, NS took issue with the No 

Build scenario containing mention of the Amtrak Cardinal long distance train being made a 

daily service, from its current three-times-weekly frequency. NS also took issue with the 
A T T A C H M E N T B : S U M M A R Y O F M A J O R C O M M E N T S

B-7

assumption of a second round-trip frequency to Lynchburg in the no-build scenario. For these 

additional trains to be added, NS claimed that additional environmental review, as well as an 

operating agreement, would need to be signed.

Virginia Railway Express (VRE)

VRE expressed appreciation for the Draft EIS effort by DRPT and its collaboration. VRE 

supported the conclusions of the Draft EIS that improvements to railroad capacity will bring 

benefits to both VRE and other rail users. VRE expressed issues with design details of proposed 

additional tracks through VRE stations, however, were eager to help resolve these issues. In 

addition, VRE had questions about noise and vibration analyses, but was confident that the 

Final EIS will resolve these issues. VRE supported the goals of DC2RVA and welcomed the 

opportunity to work with DRPT on capital and operating plans that will meet the intercity and 

commuter train needs of the corridor.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

WMATA commented that it has a “zone of influence” policy for all construction projects 

adjacent to its right-of-way. All construction actions taking place within this zone (a zone 

boundary that often falls outside of WMATA’s right-of-way) must be coordinated with 

WMATA’s Joint Development and Adjacent Construction (JDAC) Office and approved by 

WMATA. WMATA also drew attention to the construction of the Potomac Yard metro station 

as a project that requires coordination between DC2RVA and WMATA. Additionally, WMATA 

urged DRPT to verify ownership of parcels in the Potomac Yards area, especially the parcels 

that contain CSXT’s right-of-way. WMATA also indicated that the construction of a retaining 

wall in the Alexandria area proposed by DC2RVA would create a reflective surface for 

WMATA train noise to the detriment of those who live on the side of the tracks. WMATA urged 

DPRT to include this additional impact in the EIS.

B.5 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Randolph-Macon College

Randolph-Macon College was adamant in its opposition to a third rail through Ashland and 

proposed parking facilities on campus land at the Ashland station. The College commented that 

a 3-2-3 option will have negative impacts in the long term on the ability for students to safely 

cross the tracks to access both sides of campus. The College requested that DRPT consider 

pedestrian under/overpasses at more than one location to accommodate this passage. The 

College supported the western bypass option AWB 1 as its preferred alternative in the 

Ashland/Hanover area. 

Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce

The Hampton Roads Chamber expressed their concern that proposed infrastructure in the Draft 

EIS should be sufficient to accommodate present and future freight demands to the Port of 

Virginia, a major economic driver in the region. The Chamber generally supported increased 

passenger rail service to Hampton Roads, but without limiting the value of freight service to the 

region.
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

B-8

Historic Richmond

Historic Richmond supports DRPT’s recommended preferred alternative 6F in the Richmond 

area. The group expressed their desire to see Main Street Station as the “gateway to the city” 

like it was years ago. Historic Richmond mentioned that Main Street Station provides the 

traveling public with: a connection to downtown, expanded multimodal connectivity, a 

connection to Richmond’s vibrant historic urban core, and a competitive transportation choice 

for intercity travelers. Historic Richmond warned that extra care should be taken to preserve 

historic structures in Shockoe Bottom, including the Loving’s Produce Company building. In 

addition, the group asked DRPT to do the following things: commission a thorough 

archeological, historic, and cultural resources study in Shockoe Bottom, conduct a 

comprehensive archeological survey, create a Devil’s Half Acre Memorial Park through donated 

funds, encourage the City to adopt a form-based code or design overlay district in Shockoe 

Bottom, conduct research on nearby named resources, and coordinate with other projects in the 

area. Finally, Historic Richmond stated that if alternative 6F were not selected, the group would 

support either a single station location at the Boulevard or Broad Street.

National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)

The NTHP asserts that potential impacts to Shockoe Bottom have not been adequately 

addressed in the study. They point to the history of the slave trade and the efforts to build a 

nine-acre memorial park to memorialize the activities that occurred at the site. The NTHP 

recommends that the Area of Potential Effect be expanded to include two additional sites, 

pointing out that they have “in-place” significance for their association with historical events. 

The NHTP states that the Draft EIS does not fully consider potential indirect and cumulative 

impacts in Shockoe Bottom and recommends they be studied fully and mitigation efforts 

considered. They further state that the project will result in a Constructive Use of the resources 

under Section 4(f) within Shockoe Bottom and that avoidance or mitigation of the potential 

impacts must be considered.

Preservation Virginia

Preservation Virginia noted that Shockoe Bottom has important archaeological, cultural, and 

historic resources, much of which has been paved over, and the Devil’s Half Acre is the only 

portion of Shockoe Bottom that has been evaluated. They recommended that prior to 

finalization of the study, a comprehensive analysis for those resources located in Shockoe 

Bottom be conducted, that the area should be evaluated for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places, and that the Area of Potential Effects for the study be expanded to include those 

resources identified by the comprehensive analysis. Preservation Virginia also requested that 

direct and cumulative impacts to the resources in Shockoe Bottom be considered, and noted that 

they have worked with the NTHP on a conceptual plan for a memorial park in that location.

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club (Falls of the James section) expressed support for the project and advocated that 

toll money from HOT lanes in the corridor should be available for rail projects. The Club also 

supports a station location at Main Street, and indicates that a new station in a new location 

would be wasteful of investment already made in Main Street Station. The Club indicated that 

construction should meet high standards for sediment and erosion control and promoted a 

proposed north-south bikeway along the rail corridor. The Sierra Club also expressed its 

preference for solar powered facilities in future rail projects.
A T T A C H M E N T B : S U M M A R Y O F M A J O R C O M M E N T S

B-9

Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)

The SELC expressed strong support for the project and efforts to provide improved passenger 

rail service in the corridor. The SELC recommended that the final set of recommendations for 

the corridor identify specific near- and intermediate-term projects and the anticipated costs and 

benefits of each project, to reduce the resistance to cost of the total package of 

recommendations. SELC urged DRPT to continue efforts in the spirit of the Tier I EIS by 

advancing projects incrementally and within the existing right-of-way wherever possible to 

minimize harm to the natural and physical environments. In addition, the SELC expressed 

concern for the western bypass in Hanover, and recommended that the trench option in 

Ashland be considered due to potential impacts of the western bypass. The Fredericksburg east 

bypass should also be removed from consideration due to potential adverse impacts. The SELC 

supported a two-station option in Richmond, with Staples Mill and Main Street stations serving 

as the suburban and urban stations, respectively. The A-Line passenger train rights should not 

be ceded to CSXT, and Virginia should be very careful about giving up any capacity or access 

that may be needed later. The SELC is aware of DRPT’s cooperation with the City of Richmond 

and stakeholder groups on preserving and protecting the integrity of the Devil’s Half-Acre 

slave site, however, the SELC requested that these resources be cited in the Final EIS. Finally, 

the SELC expressed its concern with the project’s relationship with the host railroad CSXT and 

the practicalities of various potential improvements given this relationship.

The Civil War Trust

The Civil War Trust commended DRPT for carefully studying and identifying potential impacts 

to all battlefield sites in the corridor. The Trust indicated that it has an interest in continuing to 

monitor the DC2VA effort and requested that DRPT provide the Trust the opportunity to 

consult with the DC2RVA team at the earliest time. Furthermore, the Trust encouraged DRPT to 

continue coordination with NPS’s American Battlefield Protection Program, especially with any 

future KOCOA analyses required.

Virginians for High Speed Rail 

VHSR urged DRPT to complete the DC2RVA study in a timely manner and pointed to 

congestion on I-95 and population growth projections as reasons not to delay the study. VHSR 

endorsed further study of a trench option in Ashland to provide future capacity. The 3-2-3 

option, according to VHSR, would create a bottleneck later in time that has the potential to 

negatively affect passenger rail service on the entire east coast. In Richmond, VHSR asked that 

rail service be high-performance, if not high-speed—competing with highway travel for 

multiple types of users. The state should not cede access to the A-Line for passenger rail, as 

retention of the A-Line allows for a redundant rail system in the event of a system disruption on 

the S-Line. Retention of the A- Line also prevents a situation where CSXT no longer has the 

obligation to maintain the line to passenger rail standards. In addition, VHSR questioned 

whether all trains would need to stop at Main Street Station as service is added incrementally. 

VHSR recommended that DRPT show cost projections that reflect incremental implementation 

with focus on near-term projects with realistic opportunities for funding. In addition, VHSR 

enumerated several text errors found in the body of the Draft EIS. 

Virginia Chamber of Commerce

The Virginia Chamber indicated its support for the goal of additional passenger service 

between Richmond and Washington, D.C., but urged DRPT to attain this goal without 

negatively influencing Virginia’s freight rail network. The Chamber indicated that without the 
D C 2 R V A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

B-10

necessary capacity, bottlenecks will delay passenger and freight trains and negatively affect 

state and regional economies.

Virginia Maritime Association (VMA)

VMA encouraged a comprehensive assessment of impacts to freight rail and steps to ensure 

efficiencies in the freight rail system that will meet the current and future needs of Virginia 

businesses and a growing Port of Virginia.

B.6 ELECTED OFFICIALS

Spotsylvania County Supervisor Greg Cebula

Mr. Cebula commented that there is no support for Alternative 3C (Fredericksburg East Bypass) 

and stated that he supported DRPT’s recommended preferred alternative in Area 3: one 

additional track built to the east of the existing two tracks through Fredericksburg.

Virginia Delegate Buddy Fowler Jr.

Delegate Fowler pointed to the data in the Draft EIS that indicates that two tracks through 

Ashland would have far fewer impacts on environmental resources, farmland, and commercial 

properties than any other alternative. The 3-2-3 is consistent with the Tier I EIS’s Record of 

Decision, which calls for an incremental approach to building the corridor. He mentioned that 

any changes in technology in the future might make current predictions uncertain. 

Furthermore, the Delegate mentioned that it would be impossible to predict federal funding 

levels for projects such as these 25 years in to the future.

Hanover County Supervisor Wayne Hazzard

Mr. Hazzard commented that two tracks in Ashland will be sufficient to handle the traffic 

projected in the future. He asked that the community support the 3-2-3 option in Ashland and 

that DRPT endorse that alternative. The 3-2-3, according to Supervisor Hazzard, would 

eliminate a cloud of uncertainty that is hanging over Ashland’s business community and 

western Hanover’s residents.

Hanover County Supervisor Aubrey Stanley

Mr. Stanley indicated his support for a 3-2-3 option in Ashland and pointed to a Hanover 

County resolution that the Hanover County Board passed recently that urges DPRT to endorse 

the same. He mentioned the prospect of future transportation technology that may change 

transportation operations and/or needs in the corridor. He mentioned the possibility of using 

the Buckingham Branch for some freight diversion and indicated that overpasses at Vaughan 

and Ashcake Roads are much less expensive to construct than a bypass or third track though 

town, and are needed in the community today to address safety access and traffic backups.

Town of Ashland Mayor James Foley

Mayor Foley stated that he supported the 3-2-3 option, however, recognized that it would be a 

short-term solution to a longer-term issue. He stated that a third track through town in any 

form, be it a trench or an at-grade solution, would irreparably harm the Town of Ashland. The 

Mayor understood that the western bypass opponents who were advocating for a trench in 

Ashland were not necessarily advocating for the destruction of the town, rather that they did 

not want a railroad where there was not already one.
A T T A C H M E N T B : S U M M A R Y O F M A J O R C O M M E N T S

B-11

City of Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney

Mayor Stoney applauded DRPT for selection of an alternative in Richmond that preserves and 

enhances Main Street station as a rail gateway. He commented that he expected DRPT will 

correct minor copy errors in the text of the Draft EIS that omitted certain trains from the list of 

trains planned to stop at Main Street Station. Additionally, Mayor Stoney requested that DRPT 

consider 1200-foot platforms and full checked baggage service at Main Street Station in the 

Service Development Plan and included in 30 percent Preliminary Engineering. In addition, 

Mayor Stoney requested that safe crossings for pedestrians and cyclists be maintained at all 

grade crossings in the City, and to verify that plans for grade crossings are up-to-date with City 

plans for pedestrian and cyclist facilities at these crossings. The mayor’s comments indicated 

that care should be taken when considering land disturbing activities within the Shockoe Valley 

and Tobacco Row historic districts. The Cultural Context and Thematic Study for the Proposed 

Revitalize RVA Project prepared by Dutton + Associates LLC in 2013 identified a number of 

areas with potential for significant archaeological deposits within the Area of Potential Effects 

(APE) on the east side of the train shed extending from Main Street to the I-95 interchange. The 

DC2RVA Project should be coordinated with the VDOT I-95/Broad Street interchange upgrades 

project to assess the combined impact on historic resources in the Shockoe Valley historic 

district.

City of Richmond Councilwoman Kimberly Gray

Ms. Gray indicated her support for a single rail stop in Richmond at the Boulevard. She 

mentioned that the two-station stop is costly and does not save enough rail travel time. She 

expressed concern about the potential for traffic caused by a busier Main Street Station. In 

addition, Ms. Gray commented that the Devil’s Half-Acre slave jail site is the greatest asset near 

Main Street Station and needs to be memorialized with a site and museum.