CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
 1-1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) are proposing passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements 

in the 123-mile north-south corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA—collectively 

known as the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project. 

Sections 1.2 and 1.3 provide a brief background and overview of this Project, respectively. 

1.1 FINAL EIS READER’S GUIDE 

The purpose of this section is to inform the reader on how to review the information presented 

in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

 Section 1.1.1 presents an overview of the EIS process, including guiding federal laws and 

regulations, and explains the consistency of this Final EIS with previous documentation. 

 Section 1.1.2 summarizes how to use this Final EIS document, which is presented in a 

condensed format in order to streamline the reader’s review of the information, 

particularly that which has been revised or updated since the Draft EIS. The condensed 

document format is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

recommendations by allowing the reader to easily focus on the reasons for selecting the 

Preferred Alternative and the potential environmental impacts and avoidance and 

mitigation measures associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

 Section 1.1.3 summarizes how comments on the Draft EIS are addressed in this Final EIS. 

 Section 1.1.4 summarizes the errata table for the Draft EIS, which is provided in lieu of 

rewriting the Draft EIS documentation in its entirety. 

 Section 1.1.5 summarizes the content included in the chapters of this Final EIS. 

Existing Intercity Passenger Service in the DC2RVA Corridor 

1
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-2 

1.1.1 EIS Process Overview 

The DC2RVA Project is being evaluated through the mechanism of an EIS to satisfy the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is a federal 

environmental law that establishes study policies and facilitates public disclosure of a proposed 

project. Per NEPA, an EIS must be prepared by a federal agency for any major federal action 

significantly affecting or with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the natural and 

built environment. FRA, as the lead federal agency, prepared this EIS to evaluate the potential 

impacts to the human and natural environment resulting from the DC2RVA Project. FRA 

published the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the Project in the Federal Register on 

October 23, 2014. 

This EIS was developed in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR part 1500 et. seq.) 

implementing NEPA and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999). In addition to NEPA, this EIS addresses other applicable statutes, 

regulations, and executive orders, including the 1980 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental 

Justice. This EIS provides FRA, reviewing and cooperating agencies, and the public with 

information to assess alternatives that will: meet the Project’s Purpose and Need; evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts; and identify potential avoidance and mitigation measures. 

As described in 23 CFR 777.111(g)1 and CEQ regulations 1502.20 and 1508.28, a tiered approach 

to NEPA documentation occurs when a first-level document (Tier I) evaluates what is to be done 

at the program level and a second-level document (Tier II) provides a more detailed analysis of 

specific actions necessary to implement Tier I decisions. This document is a Tier II Final EIS for 

the DC2RVA Project, and follows publication of the Tier II Draft EIS. 

Consistency with the 2002 Tier I EIS and Record of Decision. The DC2RVA Project is the second 

part of a two-tiered environmental process. In October 2002, FRA, in coordination with DRPT 

and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), completed a first-level Tier I 

EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Tier I EIS).2 The 2002 Tier 

I EIS defined the physical limits for passenger rail improvements in the 500-mile corridor between 

the endpoint cities, from which subsequent Tier II studies (e.g., this DC2RVA Project) would 

define the specific alignment and infrastructure improvements and service plan for a section 

within the larger corridor. The 2002 Tier I EIS also determined programmatic-level environmental 

decisions that are the basis of this Project, which are summarized in Section 1.2. 

Consistency with the Tier II Draft EIS. Pursuant to NEPA, this Final EIS is being published 

subsequent to the public review of and comments received on the Draft EIS,3 which are 

incorporated and addressed herein. A comparison of the Draft and Final EIS documents, and 

details on how comments on the Draft EIS were addressed, are provided in the following sections. 

Chapter 7 describes the future steps in the Project process following publication of this Final EIS. 

 

1 Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to the Federal Highway Administration. FRA can, however, use 

Title 23 as guidance for preparation of FRA’s NEPA documents. 

2 The 2002 Tier I EIS and ROD is available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0427 

3 The Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project was published on September 8, 2017, and is available on the Project website: 

http://dc2rvarail.com/draft/ 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-3 

1.1.2 How to Use this Document 

In accordance with CEQ guidance promulgated in 40 CFR 1502.14(e) and 23 CFR 771.125(a), a Final 

EIS should: 

 Reference and summarize Draft EIS information 

 Identify the Preferred Alternative, the basis for its selection, and document any changes 

or ongoing activities since the publication of the Draft EIS 

 Describe coordination efforts and include public and agency comments, and responses to 

these comments 

 Present any required findings or determinations, such as mitigations and the Final Section 

4(f) evaluation 

Additionally, Section 1304 of the FAST Act “Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decision 

Making” and Section 1319 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) 

“Accelerated Decision-making in Environmental Reviews” allow for an approach that does not 

require republishing the entirety of the Draft EIS content. 

In accordance with these directives, this Final EIS is presented in a “condensed” format that 

avoids duplication with content previously presented in the Draft EIS4 that remains unchanged 

and does not affect the NEPA decisions to be made.This Final EIS does not republish all data and 

analyses at the same level of detail as the Draft EIS and its technical appendices; rather, each 

chapter of this condensed Final EIS focuses on the Preferred Alternative by referencing the 

corresponding section(s) of the Draft EIS and presenting any noteworthy changes that may have 

occurred since the publication of the Draft EIS. The condensed document format is intended to 

allow the reader to focus on the reasons for selecting the Preferred Alternative and the potential 

environmental impacts and avoidance and mitigation measures associated with the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The key elements of the Draft EIS are provided below, with a comparison to this Final EIS. 

 Purpose and Need. Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS provided the full detail of the Purpose and 

Need of the Project. There are no changes to the Purpose and Need between the Draft and 

Final EIS. Refer to Section 1.3.1 in this chapter for a summary of the Purpose and Need of 

the Project, which includes additional clarification regarding the consistency between the 

Tier I and Tier II Purpose and Need statements. 

 Alternatives. The Draft EIS summarized the alternatives development process and 

provided details on the six alternative areas of the corridor and the 23 Build Alternatives 

within those areas (refer to Section 1.3.3 of this chapter for a summary, and Chapter 2 and 

Appendix A of the Draft EIS for full details). This Final EIS evaluates the Preferred 

Alternative; it connects a Build Alternative from each of the six alternative areas evaluated 

in the Draft EIS to form the 123-mile Preferred Alternative route through the Project 

corridor. Any conceptual design modifications that occurred between the Draft and Final 

EIS are noted within this document (refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS for details). 

 

4 As previously mentioned, the Draft EIS is available on the Project website and is incorporated herein by reference: 

http://dc2rvarail.com/draft/
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-4 

 Affected Environment. Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS presented a full description of the 

affected environment of the DC2RVA corridor. There have been no noteworthy changes 

to the existing conditions since the completion of the Draft EIS; therefore, there is no 

corresponding chapter in this Final EIS. 

 Environmental Consequences. Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS presented the potential effects 

on the environment of all 23 Build Alternatives. This Final EIS presents potential impacts 

of only the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 5. Both Draft and Final EIS impact evaluations 

are based on conceptual engineering design; refinements to the conceptual engineering 

resulted in design changes to Project infrastructure—and therefore changes to the 

anticipated environmental impacts—between the Draft and Final EIS, which are fully 

detailed in this Final EIS. 

 Section 4(f) Evaluation. There are no changes to the Section 4(f) evaluation process 

between the Draft and Final EIS. The Draft EIS presented a Draft Section 4(f) evaluation 

in accordance with the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and this Final EIS 

presents the Final Section 4(f) evaluation in the same format as the Draft. In addition, the 

Final EIS includes updates to and documentation on any additional coordination and 

analyses conducted for the final evaluation. FRA’s Final Section 4(f) determination will be 

included with the Record of Decision. 

 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination. The Draft EIS summarized the agency 

coordination and public outreach efforts during the development of the Draft EIS. This 

Final EIS expands upon that information by summarizing all outreach activities that have 

occurred since the FRA’s Notice of Intent to prepare a Tier II EIS for the DC2RVA corridor 

and documents the responses to public and agency comments that were received on the 

Draft EIS. 

 Corrections to the Draft EIS. The content of this Final EIS presents up-to-date analysis 

and conditions of the Preferred Alternative. Any minor clarifications to content of the 

Draft EIS that are not fully republished as part of this Final EIS are presented as errata to 

the Draft EIS, as detailed in Section 1.1.4 below. 

1.1.3 How Comments on the Draft EIS Were Addressed 

The Draft EIS was made available for public review and comment, and was distributed to 

agencies and stakeholders with jurisdiction, expertise, or interest in the issues involved in the 

Project (see Chapter 2 of this Final EIS for details). DRPT and FRA have reviewed and taken into 

consideration all comments received on the Draft EIS during the decision-making process, which 

led to the selection of the Preferred Alternative in this Final EIS. DRPT and FRA do not view the 

public comment process as a “vote counting” exercise but rather one seeking substantive 

comments that benefit the final decision-making process. The public comment process is also an 

opportunity for the public to inform FRA or DRPT of potential concerns or conditions that were 

not identified during the preparation of the Draft EIS. 

The following types of comments were received: 

 Overall position or opinion for or against the Project 

 Preference for or opposition to a specific Build Alternative or element that was evaluated 

in the Draft EIS, both in general as well as with specific concerns 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-5 

 Suggestion of additional alternatives to consider, most of which were considered but 

dismissed during the 2002 Tier I EIS, or do not align with the implementing actions that 

were the outcome of the 2002 Tier I EIS and ROD 

 Request for detailed information or data that is beyond the scope of an environmental 

document and would be developed during future phases of design and permitting 

Responses to substantive comments are incorporated and addressed by way of providing 

additional or revised information and analyses, as needed, in the appropriate sections of this Final 

EIS. Substantive comments are those that question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of 

information and methodology in the Draft EIS or present new information not considered in the 

Draft EIS, and cause changes or revisions in one or more alternative or environmental resource. 

Detailed responses to comments from federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and the 

general public are provided in appendices to this Final EIS: 

 Appendix B of this Final EIS provides specific detailed responses to each agency and 

organization letter. 

 Appendix C of this Final EIS provides responses by topic to substantive comments that 

appeared in individual comments and form letters from the public, either in writing or at 

the public hearings. 

Where appropriate, the responses in these appendices indicate the section(s) in this Final EIS 

where additional/revised information is provided, including the errata table for the Draft EIS, 

which is Appendix A of this Final EIS. 

1.1.4 Use of the Errata Table for the Draft EIS 

Pursuant to Section 1304 of the FAST Act “Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decision 

Making” and Section 1319 of MAP-21 “Accelerated Decision-making in Environmental Reviews,” 

Appendix A of this Final EIS provides an errata table for the Draft EIS in lieu of rewriting the 

Draft EIS documentation in its entirety. 

As previously explained, this Final EIS is presented in a format that allows the reader to readily 

focus on the Preferred Alternative, and does not republish all data and analyses at the same level 

of detail as the Draft EIS such as: re-documentation of existing conditions or all 23 Build 

Alternatives that were developed and evaluated in the Draft EIS. The purpose of the Appendix 

A errata table, therefore, is to document factual corrections and/or minor clarifications to the 

portions of the Draft EIS that were not fully re-issued as part of this Final EIS. It is not intended 

to provide a summary of substantive comments received, which are separately addressed in this 

Final EIS in Appendix B; any modifications as a result of substantive comments received are 

incorporated into the appropriate chapters of this Final EIS and are not part of the errata table. 

Each errata entry includes references to relevant page, table, and/or figure numbers from the 

Draft EIS and presents the original Draft EIS text next to the revised or replacement text. The 

factual corrections and/or minor clarifications and updates that are itemized within the errata 

table were identified from agency and public comments as well as ongoing coordination and 

documentation that has occurred since the publication of the Draft EIS. This approach is 

appropriate as comments received specific to the Draft EIS content were minor and do not affect 

the decisions made or the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-6 

1.1.5 Contents of this Document 

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

of events since the publication of the Draft EIS. The content focuses on the presentation of the 

Preferred Alternative and its potential effects. 

 Final EIS Chapter 2: Overview of Public Involvement and Agency Coordination. This 

chapter describes the public involvement and agency outreach that has occurred since the 

initiation of the Project. It includes a summary of comments received on the Draft EIS; a 

complete compilation of comments and responses are included as Appendices B and C to 

this Final EIS. 

 Final EIS Chapter 3: Additional Information. This chapter presents additional material 

that provides the reader with a better understanding of various Project elements and 

potential impacts to human and natural resources, in response to comments received on 

the Draft EIS. FRA and DRPT developed this additional material to document ongoing 

activities and coordination efforts that extended beyond the Draft EIS. 

 Final EIS Chapter 4: Selection of the Preferred Alternative. This chapter presents the 

elements of the Preferred Alternative in each of the six alternative areas in the Project 

corridor, and the reason for the selection of each. It also describes any modifications to the 

Preferred Alternative since publication of the Draft EIS. 

 Final EIS Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative. This 

chapter documents the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative to each of the 

environmental resources presented in the Draft EIS. The quantitative range of impacts of 

the other Build Alternatives from the Draft EIS are provided for comparison purposes 

only, and efforts to further minimize and mitigate impacts are described. 

 Final EIS Chapter 6: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. This chapter presents the Final Section 

4(f) evaluation, which includes updates since the Draft Section 4(f) evaluation, results of 

agency coordination, a summary of all Section 4(f) comments, a least harm analysis, and 

the basis for a finding that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the use of any 

Section 4(f) properties, when applicable. 

 Final EIS Chapter 7: Overview of Future Steps. This chapter describes the anticipated 

sequence of events following the publication of this Final EIS. 

 Final EIS Appendices. The text and figures that comprise this Final EIS are supported by 

a series of detailed appendices that contain material too lengthy to include in the body of 

the document5 and include: errata for the Draft EIS (Appendix A); detailed responses to 

agency and public comments (Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively); detailed 

cultural resources documentation (Appendix D); documentation of agency coordination 

and consultation for Section 106 and Section 4(f) (Appendix E); detailed rail operations 

simulation modeling since the Draft EIS (Appendix F); documentation of relevant agency 

resolutions, agreements, and reports (Appendices G through I, and Appendix K) and 

detailed design information, including mapbooks, of the Preferred Alternative (Appendix 

J, Appendix L, and Appendix M). 

 

5 As stated in CEQ’s NEPA regulations, an EIS should be kept concise and be no longer than necessary to comply 

with NEPA and its implementing regulations. 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-7 

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 

The DC2RVA Project is one part of a larger series of rail improvement projects throughout the 

state, region, and eastern portion of the U.S. intended to improve passenger rail service and make 

rail a competitive choice for travelers within intercity corridors of 100 to 600 miles. Studies of the 

SEHSR corridor and its extensions, collectively referred to as the SEHSR program, have been 

ongoing since the early 1990s and have called for developing a range of improved intercity 

passenger rail speeds, from 79 mph to 110 mph on shared track (freight and passenger service), 

and possibly up to 150 mph on dedicated track (passenger service only). 

 In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) became law, under 

which Section 1036 authorized a program of high speed rail corridors in the United States. 

 In 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) designated the SEHSR corridor 

from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC as one of the original national high speed rail 

corridors. In 1996, U.S. DOT administratively designated an extension of the SEHSR 

corridor from Richmond to Hampton Roads. 

 In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) became law, under 

which Section 7201 authorized the designation of additional high speed rail corridors and 

extensions of existing corridors. Later that same year, U.S. DOT extended the SEHSR 

corridor into South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In 2000, further extensions added 

connections in Georgia and Florida. 

The SEHSR program has evolved since its inception in 1992 to reflect additional studies and 

planning, national and state transportation priorities and funding, and demand for intercity 

passenger rail services. This evolution of the SEHSR program and its relation to the DC2RVA 

Project is exhibited in the following key documents, each of which is described below: 

 The 2002 SEHSR Tier I EIS and ROD6 

 The 2012 SEHSR Tier I EIS and ROD for the Richmond to Hampton Roads (R2HR) project7

 The FRA Vision for Higher Speed Rail in America8 

 The Virginia Interstate 95 (I-95) High Speed Rail Corridor & Service Development Plan9 

 The Commonwealth’s 2017 Statewide Rail Plan10

1.2.1 2002 SEHSR Tier I EIS 

In 2002, FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) completed a Tier I EIS and ROD 

for the original SEHSR corridor from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC that established the 

overall Purpose and Need and defined the route for providing a competitive transportation 

 

6 The 2002 Tier I EIS and ROD documents are available on the Project website at: 

http://dc2rvarail.com/resources/documents/ 

7 Project documents related to the R2HR project are available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0481 

8 The FRA Vision for Higher Speed Rail in America document is available at: 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1468 

9 The Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor & Service Development Plan is available on the Project website at: 

http://dc2rvarail.com/resources/documents/ 

10 The Virginia Statewide Rail Plan (2017) is available at: 

http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/rail/reference-materials/virginia-state-rail-plan/ 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-8 

choice for travelers with the corridor. The 2002 Tier I EIS selected an incremental approach to 

develop the rail corridor with upgraded intercity passenger rail service between Washington, 

D.C. and Charlotte, NC, including using existing fossil fuel locomotive technology, upgrading 

existing rail corridors instead of developing new corridors, and building the corridor in 

incremental sections as funds became available. The incremental approach selected in Tier I 

sought to minimize cost and potential impacts to the environment by utilizing existing railroad 

tracks and rail rights-of-way as much as possible. Refer to Draft EIS Section 1.6 for full discussion 

of the 2002 Tier I EIS and its effect on the DC2RVA Project segment of the 500-mile corridor. 

The 2002 Tier I EIS assumed a maximum speed of 110 mph with an average speed of 

approximately 70 mph along the full length of the SEHSR corridor between Washington, D.C. 

and Charlotte, NC. The 2002 Tier I EIS concluded that additional track would be required along 

sections of the CSX Transportation (CSXT) rail corridor between Alexandria and Richmond to 

accommodate the freight and passenger growth needs of all rail users and institute higher speed 

passenger service; however, the Tier I EIS did not specify the extent of additional track required 

or the possible higher speed that could be accommodated between Alexandria and Richmond. 

The 2002 Tier I EIS proposed up to eight new roundtrips per day along portions of the corridor, 

and that these trains would serve all stations where Amtrak already provided service (but not 

every train would stop at all stations). Four of these new daily round trips were proposed to be 

interstate service between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC (and are included in the DC2RVA 

Project service plan, as summarized in Section 1.3.2), with four additional round trips per day 

between Raleigh and Charlotte in North Carolina only. 

1.2.2 2012 SEHSR Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I EIS and ROD 

Subsequent to the 2002 Tier I EIS, the SEHSR corridor was extended south and east to Hampton 

Roads (to destinations in Norfolk and Newport News). In 2012, FRA and DRPT completed a Tier 

I EIS and ROD for the Richmond to Hampton Roads project, which defined the route and 

proposed up to nine daily round trips, consisting of existing and new frequencies, to and from 

Hampton Roads. The service plan for the DC2RVA Project, which is summarized in Section 1.3.2, 

includes five new daily round trips between Washington, D.C. and Virginia, of which four extend to 

Hampton Roads to complete the service plan defined in the R2HR project. 

1.2.3 FRA Vision for Higher Speed Rail in America 

In 2009, FRA released its strategic plan for higher speed rail in America. FRA’s plan envisioned a 

combination of express and regional high-speed rail corridors developing from upgraded, 

reliable intercity passenger rail systems in key travel corridors. The 2009 Plan called for a longterm strategy to build an efficient higher-speed passenger rail network of 100- to 600-mile 

intercity corridors, as one element of a modernized transportation system. The American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and a high-speed rail grant program were applied to 

strategic investments in intercity rail infrastructure, equipment, and performance, including 

within the expanded SEHSR corridor. FRA’s near-term investment strategy was to: 

 Upgrade reliability and service on conventional intercity rail services (operating speeds 

up to 79 to 90 mph on shared track), with the intent of providing travel options and 

developing the passenger rail market. 

 Develop emerging and regional higher-speed corridor services (operating speeds up to 90 

to 110 mph on shared track and 110 to 150 mph on dedicated track) in corridors of 100 to 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-9 

500 miles, with the intent of developing the passenger rail market and providing some 

relief to other travel modes. 

 Advance new express high-speed corridor services (operating speeds above 150 mph on 

primarily dedicated track) in select dedicated corridors of 200 to 600 miles), intended to 

relieve air and highway capacity constraints. 

The DC2RVA Project was designed to fit the near-term strategy of upgrading reliability and 

service of conventional intercity rail services at speeds up to 90 mph in a corridor shared with 

commuter and freight services. The DC2RVA Project also provides a critical link between 

Amtrak’s heavily traveled Northeast Corridor (NEC) and the developing SEHSR corridor. 

1.2.4 Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor & Service Development Plan 

DRPT’s September 2009 Corridor & Service Development Plan (Plan) details the Commonwealth 

of Virginia’s vision for the Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor and lays out a detailed series 

of projects that would create a 90-mph corridor between Petersburg, Richmond, and Washington, 

D.C. (i.e., the DC2RVA corridor is contained within the limits of this plan). The proposed projects 

described in the Plan are designed to improve passenger rail service and “...ensure the 

preservation of existing freight capacity, and to protect future capacity to allow the continued 

growth of freight traffic and operations in the corridor.” The Plan is based on co-mingled freight, 

commuter, and intercity passenger operations, and envisions a program of infrastructure 

improvements to reliably accommodate the mix and volume of intercity passenger, commuter, 

and freight services projected through 2030. This Plan envisions incremental improvements to 

the corridor yielding improvements to reliability, on-time performance, and reductions in 

scheduled running times. New intercity service starts to Hampton Roads and Raleigh, NC would 

be implemented after completion of the off-corridor improvements. The Plan notes that CSXT, 

the owner and operator of the corridor, has concurred with the Commonwealth’s approach to a 

90 mph corridor with commingled freight, commuter, and intercity passenger rail operations. The 

2009 Corridor & Service Development Plan provides an update and compilation of two previous 

reports submitted to FRA by DRPT: “Potential Improvements to the Washington, D.C.–

Richmond Railroad Corridor,” dated May 199911, and “Technical Monograph: Transportation 

Planning for the Richmond-Charlotte Railroad Corridor,” dated January 200412. 

1.2.5 2017 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan and Related Projects 

Virginia’s 2017 Statewide Rail Plan recognizes the rail network as an asset for the 

Commonwealth. The state rail network provides an efficient means of moving passengers and 

freight both within and through the state. The Commonwealth recognizes the privately-owned 

rail network as part of a multimodal system with public benefits and growing economic impacts. 

By diverting passenger and freight traffic from road to rail, Virginia’s rail network relieves 

congestion, saves lives, improves air quality, helps grow the economy, and complements the 

Virginia highway network while reducing capital and maintenance expenditures. In addition, 

railroads provide a direct revenue benefit by contributing to the local tax base, creating jobs and 

supporting tourism. The Commonwealth also recognizes that the state rail network is a critical 

 

11 Copies of the 1999 report (Volumes I and II) are available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/17466

and https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2757. 

12 Copies of the 2004 report (Volumes I and II) are available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1308 and 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2755. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-10 

link in a larger rail system within the eastern U.S.; it connects the state’s ports, businesses, and 

communities to other major population centers, customers, and manufacturing regions 

throughout the nation and the world. 

Virginia’s 2017 Statewide Rail Plan supports FRA’s initiative to improve passenger rail in the 

Southeast. As such, the Commonwealth plans to continue to engage in the following initiatives 

to advance passenger rail projects in this region and to supplement the DC2RVA Project: 

 Virginia-North Carolina High Speed Rail Compact 

 SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh (R2R) Final Design and Implementation 

 SEHSR Richmond to Hampton Roads (R2HR) Tier II Study 

 Atlantic Gateway Program 

 Long Bridge Capacity Expansion 

Virginia-North Carolina High Speed Rail Compact. The Virginia-North Carolina High Speed 

Rail Compact (Compact) was authorized by Congress13 and established through legislation 

enacted by the Virginia and North Carolina General Assemblies in May 2010. The purpose of the 

Compact is to examine and discuss strategies to advance multi-state high-speed rail initiatives. 

Through the Atlantic Gateway Program, Virginia has also planned for the acquisition of CSXT’s 

abandoned S-line between the Petersburg area and Norlina, NC, which is slated to be used for 

dedicated, higher speed (110 mph) intercity passenger rail service. 

SEHSR Richmond to Raleigh (SEHSR R2R Project) Final Design and Implementation. In 2015, 

FRA and NCDOT completed a Tier II EIS, and in 2017 FRA signed a ROD for the SEHSR R2R 

project.14 The study covered the 162-mile segment of the SEHSR corridor between Main Street 

Station in Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC and called for reactivation of 76 miles of CSXT’s 

abandoned S-line running southwest from Petersburg, VA to Norlina, NC. The SEHSR R2R 

project proposed operating four daily Interstate Corridor round trips between New York and 

Raleigh via Richmond and the DC2RVA corridor. 

As part of the Atlantic Gateway suite of projects, the Commonwealth of Virginia and CSXT intend 

to enter into an agreement to establish a process for transferring ownership of the abandoned SLine right-of-way to continue advancing work on this segment of the SEHSR corridor. A similar 

agreement between the State of North Carolina and CSXT will be required for that portion of the 

S-Line in North Carolina. For the purposes of NEPA, the DC2RVA Project overlaps and 

supersedes the R2R SEHSR project for the segment between Main Street Station and Centralia, 

VA; all track and roadway improvements and the effects of additional train frequencies between 

Main Street Station and Centralia are evaluated as part of DC2RVA, which is detailed in Chapter 

4 of this Final EIS. 

SEHSR Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier II Study. DRPT is in the process of identifying 

funding sources to initiate a Tier II environmental study within the next six years for the 

Richmond-Hampton Roads segment of the SEHSR corridor. As described in Section 1.2.2 above, 

in 2012 FRA and DRPT completed a Tier I EIS and FRA signed a ROD for the R2HR project for 

the extension of the SEHSR corridor from Richmond south and east to Hampton Roads; the R2HR 

 

13 49 U.S.C. § 24101, Interstate Compacts 

14 Project documents related to the R2R project are available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0482 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-11 

project will expand upon existing passenger rail service to Hampton Roads at a maximum 

authorized speed of 79 mph and to Norfolk at a maximum authorized speed of 90 mph. 

Atlantic Gateway Program. Virginia is also continuing to advance the Atlantic Gateway 

Program. In 2016, U.S. DOT selected Virginia to receive an award of $165 million from the 

FASTLANE grant program to expand rail and highway capacity in Northern Virginia as part of 

the Atlantic Gateway Program. The Atlantic Gateway suite of projects includes a $1.4 billion 

package of rail and highway expansion projects intended to address some of the worst freight 

and passenger transportation bottlenecks on the I-95 corridor. The Atlantic Gateway Program 

contains five distinct rail capacity and engineering projects: 

 Construct 6 miles of fourth mainline track from the bank of the Potomac River in 

Arlington to the AF interlocking in Alexandria, where passenger and commuter trains 

bound for Manassas diverge from the DC2RVA corridor.15

 Construct 8 miles of third mainline track from the Franconia-Springfield Virginia Railway 

Express (VRE) station to a location just north of the Occoquan River. 

 Construct two interlockings south of Fredericksburg to improve operational flexibility 

and network fluidity just south of the VRE commuter territory.16

 Long Bridge development funding to advance engineering, stakeholder agreements, and 

outreach in support of the long-term, multi-agency initiative to increase rail capacity 

across the Potomac River through the expansion or replacement of the Long Bridge. 

 S-Line transfer mechanism to allow for the transfer from CSXT to public ownership of an 

abandoned portion of the S-Line that runs from Petersburg, VA to Norlina, NC. 

Long Bridge Capacity Expansion. The Long Bridge is a double-track railroad bridge built in 1904 

and owned by CSXT, which crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. and Arlington, 

VA. The bridge is used by all Amtrak intercity passenger trains, VRE commuter trains, and CSXT 

freight trains entering or passing through the Washington, D.C. area from Virginia. Intercity 

passenger and commuter trains now comprise more than two-thirds of the train traffic crossing 

Long Bridge. The increasing train traffic on the two-track bridge has created the most significant 

rail network bottleneck for Virginia. 

The Washington, D.C. District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is studying the expansion 

of capacity on the Long Bridge in coordination with DRPT, VRE, CSXT, and FRA, which is a 

separate project from DC2RVA. In June 2018, DDOT and FRA released an Alternatives Report17

identifying the two Long Bridge project build alternatives, each of which consists of a total of four 

tracks across the Potomac River composed of a new two-track bridge immediately upstream 

(west) of the existing bridge, and either a rehabilitated or new two-track bridge where the existing 

bridge stands. A Final EIS and ROD for the Long Bridge Capacity Expansion Study are 

anticipated in 2020. 

 

15 Note that these 6 miles of track are included as a component of the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Project 

in Areas 1 and 2; refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS for details. 

16 Note that these two interlockings are components of the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Project in Area 4; 

refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS for details. 

17 Study documents for the Long Bridge project are available at: http://longbridgeproject.com/study-documents/ 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-12 

1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The purpose of this section is to provide the reader a concise synopsis of the basis of the DC2RVA 

Project’s Purpose and Need and summary of the Project service plan, alternatives development 

process, and Draft EIS documentation. 

1.3.1 Summary of Project Purpose & Need 

This section summarizes the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project—both of which are based 

upon the Purpose and Need of the 2002 Tier I EIS—and provides additional clarification on the 

unique needs of the DC2RVA corridor, as well as developments since the 2002 Tier I EIS. Refer to 

Draft EIS Section 1.4 and 1.5 for full details. 

The DC2RVA Project will increase railroad capacity between Washington, D.C. and Richmond to 

deliver higher speed passenger rail service, while also supporting the planned expansion of VRE 

commuter rail service and accommodating the forecasted growth of freight rail service by 

developing an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. This DC2RVA Tier II EIS carries 

forward the Purpose and Need of the 2002 Tier I EIS within the specific Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond segment of the larger corridor: 

 The 2002 Tier I EIS established the overall Purpose and Need for the 500-mile SEHSR 

corridor between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte, NC: to provide a competitive 

transportation choice to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh, and 

Charlotte travel corridor. 

 The 2002 Tier I EIS established the needs for the overall SEHSR program, including this 

Project. The following needs for the SEHSR program were identified in the 2002 Tier I EIS 

and remain current for the SEHSR corridor, including the 123-mile DC2RVA Project 

corridor: population growth; freight growth; congestion in the I-95 travel corridor; air 

travel congestion; rail capacity in the corridor; reliable and convenient movement of 

people and goods; air quality; safety; and energy efficiency. 

However, the Purpose and Need of the Tier I and Tier II documents, while similar, address 

different actions: the 2002 Tier I Purpose and Need addressed the larger corridor and associated 

program-level decisions whereas the DC2RVA Tier II addresses the infrastructure improvements 

necessary to implement the Tier I decisions within the specific Washington, D.C. to Richmond 

rail corridor. Accordingly, the Tier II Purpose and Need builds upon the Tier I Purpose and Need 

by recognizing and incorporating several key items that are unique to the DC2RVA corridor: 

 Existing rail infrastructure and right-of-way is privately owned by CSXT and serves 

CSXT’s I-95 and National Gateway18 freight rail corridors. CSXT’s I-95 Corridor spans the 

entire Eastern U.S., linking cities, ports, and manufacturing regions. CSXT’s National 

Gateway Corridor diverges from the I-95 Corridor in Washington, D.C. to link the Port of 

Virginia and other mid-Atlantic ports with cities and markets in the U.S. Midwest. 

 Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail service and VRE’s commuter service operate on CSXT 

property through a series of negotiated agreements. The majority of Virginia’s Amtrak 

intercity passenger services rely on CSXT’s rail infrastructure in the DC2RVA corridor. 

 

18 Information on CSXT’s National Freight Gateway is available at: 

 https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/projects-and-partnerships/national-gateway/ 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-13 

 Several major studies of rail capacity improvements in the corridor have been conducted 

by FRA, DRPT, VRE, Amtrak, and CSXT all of which identified the need for additional 

track capacity to provide frequent and reliable passenger rail service. 

 DRPT’s 2009 Virginia I-95 High Speed Rail Corridor & Service Development Plan, with 

CSXT concurrence, establishes a service goal of 90-mph maximum achievable speed for 

intercity passenger service, plans for co-mingled freight, commuter and passenger service 

on the corridor, and proposes intercity and high speed rail improvements that would 

preserve existing freight capacity, and protect future capacity to allow the continued 

growth of freight traffic and operations in the corridor. 

 The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), which was enacted 

subsequent to the 2002 Tier I EIS, required the development of metrics for on-time 

performance of intercity passenger rail service. In response, FRA, working with Amtrak, 

the Surface Transportation Board, host railroads, and other stakeholders, developed ontime performance goals for most intercity passenger service of 90 percent or greater, with 

an 85 percent on-time performance goal for long-distance passenger service.19 DRPT has 

applied these FRA on-time performance goals to the DC2RVA Project, in keeping with the 

Project’s Purpose and Need to improve the reliability of passenger rail operation, and has 

applied a 90 percent on-time performance metric as the DC2RVA goal for all intercity 

passenger trains operating in the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT applied a higher standard of 

95 percent for commuter trains to reflect VRE’s service performance goal. 

 The DC2RVA Purpose and Need also requires the Project to accommodate freight rail 

service operations, in accordance with PRIIA and the 2009 Corridor & Service Plan, 

including accommodation and allowance for future growth of existing and projected 

intercity, commuter, and freight rail service. Accommodation of existing and projected 

freight, commuter and intercity passenger service is critical to meet the needs of the 

corridor’s owners and operator and support the Commonwealth’s goals for its overall 

multimodal transportation system. 

While the DC2RVA Project accommodates the future growth of these types of trains, the 

infrastructure and service proposed for the DC2RVA Project are not expected to create freight or 

VRE volume. Additionally, neither FRA nor DRPT anticipate that the addition of the 9 new daily 

intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day) proposed by the Project will change either 

the types or quantities of freight shipped on the corridor, which respond to economic demands 

created by commercial activities and independent market forces, separate from this Project. 

In addition, in its 2017 Statewide Rail Plan, the Commonwealth of Virginia recognizes the 

privately-owned rail network as part of a multimodal system with public benefits and growing 

economic impacts. Since the 2000s, state investments have leveraged private and federal funds to 

improve freight and passenger rail transportation and support the overall transportation system. 

1.3.2 Summary of Project Service Plan 

The Project includes a service plan to improve the reliability of the intercity passenger service 

while adding 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day). As described 

in Section 1.2.1 and Section 1.2.2 above, the Project service plan expands on eight new daily 

 

19 FRA published proposed “Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service” in the Federal Register on 

May 12, 2010, which is available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02875 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-14 

intercity passenger round trips recommended in the 2002 Tier I EIS and the 2012 R2HR Tier I EIS 

by adding a ninth train originating in Richmond at Main Street Station. This ninth train was 

added to the Project to provide an early morning departure north to Washington, D.C. and the 

NEC and a corresponding late evening return trip. 

From Washington, D.C. to the north, 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 improved trip reliability and improved on-time performance of the 

intercity passenger train service. 

Section 4.2 of this Final EIS provides full details of the service plan for the Preferred Alternative 

for the Project. 

1.3.3 Summary of Project Alternatives Development Process 

For evaluation in the Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project, DRPT identified six alternative areas in 

the corridor, each with unique existing conditions, constraints, and/or needs. The Draft EIS 

evaluated 23 Build Alternatives within those six alternative areas, as well as the No Build 

Alternative throughout the corridor. In the course of preparing the 2002 Tier I EIS and ROD, FRA 

and FHWA determined that the No Build Alternative did not meet Purpose and Need but the No 

Build was carried forward in the Tier II DC2RVA Project for purposes of comparison. 

Alternatives were designed to increase rail capacity, improve frequency of service and 

performance, and accommodate higher passenger train speeds where practical, while minimizing 

potential impacts to natural and cultural resources and preserving the ability to meet the 

DC2RVA Project’s Purpose and Need. DRPT considered a wide range of options during the 

alternatives development process, which included the following elements: 

 Addition of main track along most of the corridor, and additional controlled sidings, 

crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other improvements at certain locations. 

 Upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating speeds, 

including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing sidings, 

and at-grade crossing improvements. 

 Station, platform, and parking improvements for intercity passenger rail stations and rail 

alignments, including accommodation of additional and/or extended VRE platforms 

and/or other improvements. 

 Improvements to highway and rail crossing infrastructure, including safety 

improvements to at-grade roadway crossings. 

Developing the location and configuration of the main line track was an iterative process. DRPT 

relied on previous studies and public scoping comments as the initial starting point; 

modifications were made to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on environmental 

resources and existing infrastructure and to minimize the need for additional new infrastructure. 

Most of the CSXT-owned corridor has sufficient existing right-of-way available to accommodate 

an additional main track. In Fredericksburg and Ashland, right-of-way limitations and potential 

impacts to the local communities led to consideration of additional alternatives outside the 

existing right-of-way (however, DRPT did not select these alternatives as part of the Preferred 

Alternative; refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS for details). 
INTRODUCTION 

 1-15 

In Richmond, where there are multiple potential rail routes through the city, alternative 

development was driven by potential routing options through the Richmond area, which were 

based on combinations of service at four potential station locations: Staples Mill Road Station, 

Boulevard Station, Broad Street Station, and Main Street Station as well as capacity limitations on 

the CSXT A-Line currently used by all through freight and passenger trains. 

The final screening evaluation to determine the Build Alternatives to be carried forward for 

evaluation in the Draft EIS focused on each rail alignment’s ability to meet the Project’s Purpose 

and Need by increasing the frequency and reliability of intercity passenger rail operations based 

upon added capacity, with the least potential environmental impact and consideration of cost to 

construct. 

Refer to Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Draft EIS for full details on all Build Alternatives that 

were evaluated in the Draft EIS, including the process that was used to evaluate and dismiss the 

less feasible alternatives. 

1.3.4 Summary of Tier II Draft EIS 

FRA approved the Tier II Draft EIS for the Project on August 30, 2017, and it was subsequently 

published for public review on September 8, 2017. The Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project: 

 Established the Purpose and Need for the Project. 

 Considered all significant issues related to the Project identified during scoping. 

 Disclosed the alternatives considered but dismissed from consideration. 

 Disclosed all environmental impacts potentially associated with the Project’s 23 Build 

Alternatives, either adverse or beneficial, and evaluated those build alternatives against 

the Purpose and Need and in comparison to the No Build Alternative. 

 Identified DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for the corridor based on the 

Purpose and Need for the Project and with consideration for potential environmental 

impacts. 

 Established a public and agency review and comment period on the document, including 

public hearings. 

The appendices of the Draft EIS presented detailed technical documentation and relevant 

coordination materials that supported the information and findings presented in the Draft EIS 

chapters. Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS detailed the distribution of the document, including agency 

distribution and public review locations. 

1.3.5 Project Roles and Responsibilities 

As sponsoring agencies for the Project, FRA and DRPT have maintained close coordination with 

the major stakeholders in the corridor, including rail operators Amtrak, VRE, and CSXT. FRA and 

DRPT have engaged federal and state agencies that have jurisdiction by law and/or special 

expertise to serve as Cooperating Agencies, including FHWA, Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). FRA and 

DRPT have also coordinated Project development with DDOT, NCDOT, and affected Virginia 

localities along the corridor. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1-16 

1.3.6 Tier II EIS Planning Dates 

For purposes of this Project, FRA and DRPT established two important planning dates. The first 

planning date is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate of when construction of 

the DC2RVA infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed 

in operation. FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening day” is dependent on 

many factors, not the least of which is finalizing the NEPA process. The date also assumes that 

federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be available at the level required to build 

all the proposed infrastructure improvements and acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. DRPT based this date on an aggressive but potentially achievable schedule assumption that 

all necessary permits, approvals, agreements, and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design 

would take one year (2021), right-of-way acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and 

construction would take three years (2023–2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the latest date 

when the physical impacts associated with DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, 

all the physical impact analyses presented in the Draft EIS on man-made and natural resources 

are estimated for 2025 and compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for that 

same year. The physical impacts reported for the Preferred Alternative in this Final EIS are also 

estimated for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new rail service in 2025. Both PRIIA and FRA 

guidance require that DRPT demonstrate that the proposed Project is sufficient to deliver the 

proposed passenger rail benefits and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-

year time horizon following the completion of the Project’s construction. DRPT uses operational 

simulations analysis, as discussed in Section 3.2 of this Final EIS, to test the proposed alternatives 

to determine if the rail capacity is adequate for both the opening day (2025) levels of projected 

passenger, commuter and freight rail traffic and to determine if the infrastructure remains 

adequate over the 20-year planning horizon of 2045. DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon 

date to estimate the longer-term effects of the proposed service such as ridership, energy use, and 

effects on air quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects.