SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 1

Record of Decision (ROD)

RECORD OF DECISION

FOR THE

TIER I SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT

This document records the decision of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with regard to the proposed Southeast High Speed

Rail (SEHSR) project from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC. In making this decision, the

agencies considered the information, analysis, and public comments contained in the Tier I

Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the proposed Southeast High Speed Rail

Project.

This Record of Decision (ROD) has been drafted in accordance with the regulations

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Title 40 Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 1505.2, Record of decision in cases requiring environmental impact

statements (40 CFR § 1505.2). Specifically, this ROD:

• Provides a background of the NEPA process for the Tier I Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS); (See pages 2-4)

• Summarizes comments on the SEHSR EIS; (See pages 4-11)

• States the FRA’s and the FHWA’s decision specifying the preferred alternative; (See page

11)

• Presents the comparative evaluation of the study area alternatives and how the preferred

alternative was selected; (See pages 11-16) and

• Summarizes practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected

alternative that will be explored during the Tier II process. (See pages 16-17)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project would extend high speed rail service

from the Northeast Corridor (NEC) southward along a designated high speed rail corridor from

Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC. The proposed service would consist of four round trips per

day between Charlotte and Washington and four additional trips between Raleigh and Charlotte.

Nine study area alternatives and one no-build alternative were examined for the proposed

corridor. The estimated end-to-end travel time for the nine alternatives ranges from 6 hours to

7.5 hours, compared to 10 hours for the no-build alternative. The projected total ridership in

2025 for the nine alternatives ranges from 1.3 million to 1.8 million passengers. Projected net

operating contributions range from a $22.497 million gain to a $2.44 million loss. Fossil fuel

powered trains are proposed to be used with a top operating speed of 110 mph (180 kph).

Since the SEHSR could potentially be funded with federal funds and may require federal

permits, an Environmental Impact Statement process was required, pursuant to the NEPA.

Because of the magnitude of the project study area, approximately 500 miles long, and the

conceptual level of project detail, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)

Rail Division, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), and the federal

partners chose a “tiered” approach in developing the environmental documents for this project.

This Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a program level environmental document

that presents a corridor level review of the study area alternatives. All known potential impacts

(environmental resources) are presented at the macro level in order to determine the general
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 2

Record of Decision (ROD)

location for further study. The buffer area used to analyze each resource to help identify

potential impacts ranged from a width of 300 feet to six miles. The estimated total potential

impacts discussed in the SEHSR Tier I EIS represents the known resources that exist within the

defined buffer. The broad buffer areas allow for avoidance and minimization during subsequent

Tier II studies. Actual impacts would be reduced based upon the footprint of the final design.

Tier II environmental documents will be initiated once refined high speed rail programs are

developed by North Carolina and Virginia. These final plans will identify the specific actions

needed in each state to fully implement high speed rail in the selected build alternative corridor,

including the identification of specific alignments, station locations, the number of train stops,

detailed environmental and engineering analyses, and more accurate capital cost estimates.

Schedules for the Tier II actions will be developed and initiated. During the Tier II efforts,

detailed agency coordination will take place including the securing of permits following the

appropriate environmental documentation. The Tier II environmental documents will provide a

more precise and detailed environmental impact analysis, which will evaluate specific segments

of the preferred study area alternative with additional research, coordination, and field surveys.

Reduced buffer widths and avoidance/minimization activities will be identified during the Tier II

process and are expected to substantially lower potential impacts for the preferred alternative.

The anticipated type of site specific environmental documentation (Categorical Exclusion,

Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact, or Environmental Impact

Statement/Record of Decision) needed for each action, or group of actions, will be determined

by the NCDOT and the VDRPT in conjunction with the FRA and the FHWA, and a phased

program of project development will then be established based on the availability of resources

and on the priorities of North Carolina and Virginia.

BACKGROUND

The proposed SEHSR project is part of a plan by the US Department of Transportation

(USDOT) and the states to develop a nationwide high speed rail network as one component of a

nationwide intermodal transportation network. The purpose of the SEHSR project is to offer a

competitive transportation mode that will divert travelers from air and auto travel within the

SEHSR corridor. Authorization for a program of national high speed rail corridors was included

in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and continued in the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In 1992, the USDOT designated the SEHSR

Corridor as one of five original national high speed rail corridors. This designation allowed for

federal funds to be spent on improvements to the existing rail system in order to achieve high

speed rail service. The USDOT designated an extension of the SEHSR from Richmond to

Hampton Roads in 1996. In 1998, the USDOT extended the corridor into South Carolina,

Georgia, and Florida. Further extensions in 2000 added additional corridor connections in

Georgia and Florida.

Since the initial corridor designation, the FRA and the FHWA have worked with North Carolina

and Virginia to facilitate development of rail transportation options. In early 1998, FRA, FHWA,

NCDOT Rail Division, and VDRPT entered into a joint Memorandum of Understanding to

coordinate and document each agency’s respective roles and responsibilities in developing

environmental documentation for the proposed high speed rail programs in both states.

Based on the findings of earlier feasibility studies, NCDOT, VDRPT, FRA, and FHWA, focused

on an incremental development approach to High Speed Rail (HSR) to formulate and analyze

the SEHSR project in the Tier I EIS. This approach minimizes the impacts to both the human

and natural environments by utilizing the existing rail infrastructure, an established
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 3

Record of Decision (ROD)

transportation corridor and railroad right-of-way. By maximizing use of existing infrastructure,

the initial capital investment required by the system is also reduced.

Although rail infrastructure already exists in most locations, the incremental HSR approach

would require improvements at various locations within the travel corridor. The improvements

would accommodate higher passenger train speeds and increase the capacity of the

infrastructure to handle additional passenger and freight rail traffic. Freight rail service efficiency

must be maintained or enhanced as passenger service increases. Daily freight train traffic

peaks at over 40 trains per day in the segments from Richmond, VA to Selma, NC and from

Greensboro, NC to Charlotte, NC. There are no freight trains currently on the four segments

where track has been removed and there are six segments with fewer than five freight trains per

day. For the Raleigh to Greensboro to Charlotte corridor, currently proposed improvements

include signalization, curve and interlocking improvements, and additional track.

Together, the NCDOT Rail Division and VDRPT coordinated and consulted with federal

agencies, freight railroad companies, state resource and regulatory agencies, and the public to

allow for early and on-going input on the proposed SEHSR project.

At the federal level, FRA and FHWA are the lead federal transportation agencies. Under an

existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Virginia, the US Coast Guard, the US Army

Corps of Engineers, and the US Fish & Wildlife Service are cooperating agencies. A Notice of

Intent to prepare a Tier I EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 5, 1999.

The SEHSR team developed a scoping process to gather input from federal, state, and local

agencies with areas of responsibility relevant to the project and from the public who are in some

way affected by the project. The Tier I EIS scoping process was composed of the following:

• Informal communications with agencies about the project;

• Formal joint bi-state scoping meeting;

• Information briefings and small-group meetings;

• Written data and input requests;

• The formation of an advisory committee; and

• An extensive public involvement program.

In August 2001, the Tier I DEIS was distributed to state, federal, and local agencies in Virginia

and North Carolina and was distributed to public viewing locations along all nine study area

alternatives. The Executive Summary of the DEIS was available on the project web site, and

CDs of the full document were made available upon request. This distribution was followed by a

series of 18 public hearings with comments being received through December 2001. Public

comments were recorded at workshops, through a hotline, with mail-in comment forms, and in

interviews. Between 500 and 600 comments were received. Over 250 of these were substantive

feedback, e.g. identification of community concerns. The remaining comments were requests for

further project information or clarification. Typical issues included:

• Safety, noise, vibration, and impact on property values,

• Mix of commuter and freight rail and increased congestion,

• Access to high speed passenger rail service, and

• Impact on tourism and preservation of historic districts.

The public comments received from these hearings were reviewed and analyzed to determine

the public’s overall support of, or opposition to, SEHSR. Six hundred and fifty comments were

supportive with eleven comments opposed.
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 4

Record of Decision (ROD)

Public and Agency comments were compiled and responded to in the Final EIS. To complete

the Final EIS, all the study area alternatives and the no-build alternative were reviewed and

compared to determine a preferred alternative (discussed in detail in the following section). In

July 2002, the Tier I FEIS was distributed to state, federal, and local agencies in Virginia and

North Carolina and was distributed to public viewing locations along all nine study area

alternatives. A Notice of Availability for the Tier I FEIS was published in the Federal Register on

July 26, 2002. The public comment period on the Tier I FEIS officially ended on August 29,

2002.

COMMENTS

Regulatory Agencies

The following agencies wrote in reference to the SEHSR Tier I FEIS:

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3;

• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Department

of Water Quality;

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Norfolk District;

• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ);

• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Habitat Conservation Program;

and

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

These agencies concurred with the FEIS and the selection of the preferred alternative except

the FEMA, which did not provide an opinion on the document. In the agency comments, the

EPA stated that it does not expect the alternative, if implemented, will have a major impact to

the natural environment. Noise, vibration and safety issues remain the highest concern for the

EPA, however the EPA is satisfied that these will be addressed through public outreach and

design level approaches. NCDENR noted that the project might require written concurrence of

Section 401 Water Quality Certification and nationwide or regional permits. The COE

suggested incorporating measures to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands,

such as bridging, wherever practicable as the project moves forward. Relocation of streams

should be avoided. The COE also recommended including conceptual options for

compensating for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources within the Tier II

Draft EIS. The DEQ prefers maximizing the use of existing rail lines and corridors to the extent

practicable and stated that the following environmental concerns will need to be addressed in

detail in the Tier II environmental documentation: air quality (particularly in non-attainment or

maintenance zones), historic and archaeological resources, water quality, natural heritage and

wildlife resources, subaqueous vegetation beds, coastal zones, and regional plans. The DEQ

also stated that specific Federal and State environmental laws and regulations will need to be

adhered to concurrent with Agency coordination. NCWRC is pleased that the preferred

alternative will be constructed within existing rail rights-of-way, which should limit impacts to

streams, wetlands, and upland habitat. The agency is still concerned with wildlife habitat loss

and degradation from construction of the proposed project and subsequent secondary

development. The Tier II documents should include the linear feet of stream impacted and

detailed design measures that will be employed to avoid and minimize impacts ton streams,

wetlands, and sensitive species and habitats within the selected corridor. Also, a discussion of

secondary impacts should be presented. NCDOT should also commit to using natural stream

channel designs on all stream relocations and to use NCDOT Best Management practices.
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 5

Record of Decision (ROD)

FEMA noted the requirements of Executive Order 11988, which requires avoidance of adverse

impacts to floodplains wherever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA further noted that to

prove that the flood carrying capacity of impacted streams will be maintained, an engineering

study and completion of the Conditional Letter of Map Revisions Application may be required.

Response: Efforts will continue to be made during Tier II environmental documentation to

avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to the human and natural environments as noted in the

above agency comments. Additional engineering and other applicable studies will be

implemented during the Tier II process to further define and quantify potential impacts to these

resources. Continued coordination with resource agencies will be an integral part of that

process.

Business/Citizen

The following businesses wrote in reference to the SEHSR Tier I FEIS:

• CSX Transportation (CSXT);

• Keystone Association of Railroad Passengers;

• Sierra Club, Falls of the James Group; and

• Pegram Agency and the Embassy Cultural Center Foundation, Inc.

Sixty-five (65) citizens wrote to provide comments on the SEHSR Tier I FEIS.

CSXT generally supports Alternative A/B, but is concerned that the Tier I EIS does not elaborate

on certain issues of importance to CSXT. These issues specifically include: ownership and

control of railroads; the interaction of freight and high-speed passenger operations located on

the same track; safety (mixed passenger-freight train operations on the same track, grade

separations); liability on CSXT owned right-of-way; compensation for use of CSXT’s right-of-way

at fair market value; and no reduction in current or future capacity of the freight network. CSXT

expressed similar concerns in their comments on the Tier I DEIS.

The Keystone Association of Railroad Passengers submitted a letter that supported the SEHSR

corridor extending through Norlina, North Carolina rather than through Weldon, North Carolina.

They noted that the path of the preferred alternative would support future operations at the 150

mph design speeds of the Acela locomotives. The letter also suggests integrating intercity bus

service before train service is implemented. The bus service would connect trains to

communities that will not be served by the train.

The Sierra Club, Falls of the James Group, wrote a comment letter which several issues and

concerns. In this letter, the club stated that it is unacceptable that the SEHSR could not share

its route with bike and pedestrian paths and trails since a local planned trail system in the area

has been studied for over five years in Dinwiddie with Virginia Trails. Adequate review was

requested regarding intermodal hubs and methods of transportation in the Petersburg area.

Response: The Tier I SEHSR EIS is only the first phase of the proposed SEHSR project. This

phase specifically focuses on a high-level planning and environmental review. The level of

detail requested in the above comments is beyond the level of analysis for the Tier I SEHSR

EIS. The level of analysis required to review these issues will be performed during Tier II

SEHSR environmental studies, coordination, negotiations, and design. Please be assured that

all these comments will be fully considered and addressed at the appropriate phase and prior to

implementation of the proposed project.
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 6

Record of Decision (ROD)

The Sierra Club letter stated that the public was not given adequate public hearing on the Final

Tier I Environmental Impact of SEHSR. The Sierra Club letter also stated that the viewing

location for the EIS in the Petersburg area was not a good choice and that the public was told

that the environmental assessment had not yet been funded. The letter also stated that

Alternative A/B was selected as the Tier I path before citizens were aware Alternative A/B was

added.

The letter commented on potential impacts to Historic Resources. Specifically, the Sierra Club

believes that Alternative A/B would dissect the historic civil war battlefields of Dinwiddie. The

letter stated that there are farm properties with endangered fortifications under review by the

Virginia Department of Historic Resources for potential listing under the National and State

Historic Register. These properties are within the Alternative AB study area. Designations may

be in place for Tier II studies.

Forty-seven form letters were received from private citizens that reflected the above comments

from the Sierra Club letter.

Response: Under the National Environmental Policy Act, a public hearing is not required for a

Final EIS. The regulations require public notification and a 30-day review period of the

document. The Notice of Availability was published in the key news publications in the study

corridors and in the Federal Register on June 29, 2002. The locations for public review of the

FEIS were chosen based on input from local agencies and the study advisory committee as well

as prior locations where the DEIS was placed for public review and comments made during the

DEIS public hearings (eighteen public hearings were held on the DEIS). In addition, electronic

and paper copies of the FEIS were made available on request. Additional copies of the FEIS

were also available to the public from the North Carolina Department of Transportation through

letter, e-mail, fax, or phone requests.

Tier II environmental studies have not been funded. Funding for Tier II studies cannot be

committed for the proposed SEHSR unless and until a signed Record of Decision specifically

recommends and adopts a SEHSR corridor.

No alternatives were added to the study process between the DEIS and the FEIS. Alternative

A/B is a naming convention to represent the choice of both Alternatives A and B for further study

(they are the same routing with the exception of a connection to Winston-Salem in Alternative

B).

Tier II studies will fully review potential impacts to historic resources such as the civil war

battlefields of Dinwiddie and will avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts as appropriate. Tier II

environmental studies will provide more detailed and refined analysis of impacts to resources

such as those outlined in the Sierra Club letter. Any coordination with the State Historic

Preservation Officer and local groups will take place as necessary during the Tier II studies to

include appropriate Memoranda of Understanding and Memoranda of Agreement.

The Sierra Club also questioned the level of analysis for potential river impacts provided in the

DEIS. The group suggests that failing to consider potential impacts to smaller streams and

creeks may eliminate potentially better, more environmentally friendly routes prior to more
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 7

Record of Decision (ROD)

detailed Tier II studies. Based on this opinion, the Sierra Club does not believe that the Tier I

FEIS should be an accepted study but should wait for further review under Tier II.

Response: The Tier I study process used a large overview of potential impacts in the project

study areas to compare the different corridors. This overview allowed consideration of potential

large-scale impacts to rivers and watersheds that would be more difficult to avoid or mitigate

under the proposed action. Specific impacts to smaller streams and creeks are not identifiable

in the scale of the Tier I study process since the exact position of the proposed rail-line in the

corridor has not been determined. Regulatory agencies such as EPA, VA DEQ, NC DENR, the

Coast Guard, and the COE have reviewed and concurred with the study process and resulting

analysis. The Tier II process will define the specific alignment of the proposed SEHSR within

the study corridor. The Tier II studies will review potential impacts to specific resources and will

refine proposed rail alignments to reduce, eliminate, or mitigate impacts to these resources.

Coordination with regulatory agencies will continue during Tier II studies.

A private citizen stated that responses to comment numbers 110 and 111 were inadequate and

failed to recognize the very large dollar costs and complicated operating aspects involved in

trying to run any passenger services to and from Main Street Station (Richmond, Virginia), much

less high speed rail service.

Response: Responses to comment numbers 110 and 111 directly and specifically answered

the questions posed. The comments did not request information about potential costs or

complications associated with high-speed rail service at the Main Street Station. Information

pertaining to costs and specific operating issues as discussed in this comment letter are beyond

the scope of the Tier I study process. However, these issues will be addressed in Tier II studies

as applicable. Currently, the City of Richmond is leading the effort to renovate the Main Street

Station and re-introduce passenger service.

Another private citizen commented that he supports Alternative (plan) B for high-speed

passenger rail service. He feels this alternative needs more stations to properly serve such

communities as Concord, Kannapolis, Kernersville, Hillsborough, and Wake Forest. This citizen

also stated that the ranking system used to identify the preferred alternative is arbitrary and

capricious as it lacks sensitivity based upon small variations and it does not include service to

on-line stations in Alternative B. He believes a more sensitive ranking system would find

Alternative B best. The project should not focus on minimizing end-to-end travel time since that

market would continue to use air-travel.

Response: Alternative B was chosen in combination with Alternative A as the preferred

alternative providing all the benefits of both corridors. The identification of exact station and

train stop locations is not within the scope of the Tier I process and, therefore, could not be used

in the comparison of study alternatives. The ranking system focused on which corridors best

met the project purpose and need while minimizing environmental impacts and presenting a

viable business case. This approach was deemed appropriate by the regulatory and resource

agencies with statutory authority over the planning process. Station locations and train stops

will be determined in the Tier II environmental documentation.

Other comments in that letter included:

• Dedicated feeder buses are needed to connect high-speed rail to locations outside the

proposed corridor.
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 8

Record of Decision (ROD)

• The FEIS does not address Richmond to Washington service other than four round trips.

Twelve round trips are needed, with two to Newport News, three to Florida and three

terminating in Richmond in addition to the Carolina four.

• Success of Talgo trains in the Pacific-Northwest suggests their use between Raleigh and

Charlotte.

• The S-line is the shorter and more reliable line of the available options.

• Congestion at Washington Union Station was not addressed in the Tier I document. A

solution to avoid potential changes of locomotives or passenger train changes at

Washington Union Station would be to extend the Northeast Corridor electrification to

Richmond. Train changes could be accomplished at Staples Mill near Richmond, Virginia.

• Where will the funding come from?

Response: The level of detail requested in the above comments is not within the scope of study

of the Tier I SEHSR EIS. The required level of analysis will be performed during Tier II SEHSR

environmental studies, coordination, negotiations, and design.

More specifically, the proposed SEHSR project is being accomplished in incremental phases.

Feeder bus service will be reviewed and analyzed during future phases of the project. Potential

projects such as electrification to Richmond will be considered in future expansions and

modifications to the rail system if implemented. Potential high-speed rail service to the Newport

News/Hampton Roads area is the subject of a separate study being conducted by VDRPT and

Virginia DOT. Other issues such as train types, track usage, and numbers of trips outside the

SEHSR study corridor would be considered later in the study process as appropriate.

Although funding mechanisms won’t be determined until later in the implementation process,

potential sources include the High-Speed Rail Funding Bill currently being discussed in

Congress and the upcoming Transit Funding Bill. Other innovative funding mechanisms will be

identified and investigated as the proposed project approaches actual implementation.

Sixteen letters were received from private citizens who wrote to support the SEHSR. Two of

those specifically supported the inclusion of Winston-Salem. One supported Alternative A and

opposed Alternatives such as C. One of those citizens also requested consideration to allow

small, crated cats and dogs to travel with passengers.

Response: Policy decisions such as whether or not to allow crated pets on the SEHSR will be

made by the operating organization or agency. At this time, the SEHSR operator has not been

identified. Questions such as this will be recorded for further consideration once the operator

has been identified.

The Pegram Agency and the Embassy Cultural Center Foundation, Inc wrote to support the

inclusion of Henderson, North Carolina in the SEHSR corridor.

Local Officials/Governments

The following local officials/governments wrote in reference to the SEHSR Tier I FEIS:

• Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC);

• Mayor of the Town of La Crosse;

• Richmond Regional Planning District Commission;

• Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization;
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 9

Record of Decision (ROD)

• Mayor of the City of Henderson;

• City of Henderson Planning Board;

• Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission;

• Henderson-Vance County Chamber of Commerce;

• Vance County Transportation Advisory Committee

• Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments;

• Kerr-Tar Rural Transportation Planning Organization;

• Cabarrus/South Rowan Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CSR MPO);

• Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors;

• Downtown Durham, Inc.;

• Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce;

• Rocky Mount Area Chamber of Commerce;

• Wilson Chamber of Commerce;

• Mayor of the City of Rocky Mount

• Mayor of the City of Wilson;

• Halifax County;

• City of Roanoke Rapids;

• Northampton County; and

• Halifax County Tourism Development Authority.

NVRC reviewed the FEIS and replied with no comment.

The Mayor of the Town of La Crosse supported a SEHSR stop in the town limits. He

commented that a station stop in La Cross would be a great asset to that town as well as the

area from the Town of South Hill to the Town of Lawrenceville.

The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission forwarded a letter from the United States

Historical Society in full support of high-speed passenger rail service. The Mecklenburg-Union

Metropolitan Planning Organization wrote to support the proposed SEHSR and the preferred

alternative. The Mayor of the City of Henderson wrote to strongly endorse the preferred

alternative and believes a stop in Henderson is important. The City of Henderson Planning

Board, the Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission, the Henderson-Vance

County Chamber of Commerce, the Vance County Transportation Advisory Committee, the

Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments, and the Kerr-Tar Rural Transportation Planning

Organization also expressed this opinion.

CSR MPO supports the preferred alternative. The CSR MPO does, however, encourage the

use of wayside horns to mitigate noise impacts through their urban core and requests that any

excessive noise be minimized. Specific noise studies and potential mitigation such as the one

suggested will be fully analyzed and reviewed in the SEHSR Tier II environmental studies.

Response: These issues will be fully considered and analyzed in the Tier II study and design

process.

The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors submitted a resolution supporting implementation

of the SEHSR through Chesterfield County. In summary, this support was dependent on five

considerations:

• High-speed rail service is provided within the county;

• Construction of high speed rail through the county will accommodate future light rail service;
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 10

Record of Decision (ROD)

• Construction of high speed rail through the county will accommodate proposed Petersburg

to South Hampton Roads rail service;

• S-line between Centralia and Petersburg will not be used due to potential impacts on

adjoining neighborhoods, an existing park facility, and future highway construction; and

• Funds for high-speed rail are not diverted from highway improvements.

Downtown Durham, Inc. requested additional information as follows:

• The SEHSR could “divide” downtown Durham. What will be the impacts to future

development projects in Durham?

• Has the estimate of how often the SEHSR train would stop in Durham (projected at 6 of the

8 roundtrips) changed?

• How fast will the SEHSR train be going when it passes through Durham?

• The Tier II environmental studies will need to fully evaluate roadway and pedestrian

crossings. The Tier II study will also need to determine by which method the trains will pass

through Durham (at grade, tunnel, ditch).

Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce questioned if Durham would be a stop for the SEHSR

and would the Amtrak service continue to operate. The Chamber of Commerce was concerned

about disruption that potential construction and noise impacts could have on central city

businesses. They are also concerned with construction interference on arterial streets in

Durham and resulting impacts on businesses. The chamber expressed their hope that the

SEHSR will not disrupt proposed Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) system. The chamber feels

that if the SEHSR will not stop in Durham, that the railroad should not pass though the city.

Response: The purpose of the Tier I study was to identify the study corridor(s) to be carried

forward for more detailed study during the Tier II process. The preferred SEHSR corridor does

pass through Chesterfield County and through Durham; however, specific alignments and

issues such as station locations, train stops, identification of specific rail right-of-way

requirements, intermodal coordination (such as with TTA and Amtrak), frequency of rail trips,

development impacts, and funding are not within the scope of the Tier I study process. These

and associated issues will be addressed during the Tier II study process as appropriate.

The Rocky Mount Area Chamber of Commerce stated that locating the proposed SEHSR in the

Weldon, Rocky Mount, Wilson, Selma corridor would expand and enhance service options.

Utilizing this corridor for the SEHSR could also conceivably ease existing north-south freight

traffic congestion and could provide economic benefit to eastern North Carolina. The Wilson

Chamber of Commerce and the mayors of the City of Rocky Mount and the City of Wilson also

wrote to express these concerns and to support the SEHSR in eastern North Carolina,

specifically on Alternatives G, H, or J.

The County of Halifax wrote to support any of the alternatives that would travel through the

County. The City of Roanoke Rapids, Northampton County, and the Halifax County Tourism

Development Authority also wrote to support any of the alternatives that would travel through

the Roanoke Rapids/Weldon area and eastern North Carolina.

Response: Although the Tier I process identified Alternatives A and B as the preferred corridor,

connections to the high speed corridor will be accessible to eastern North Carolina in

Petersburg and Raleigh via the existing Amtrak passenger service in the Rocky Mount, Wilson,

Smithfield, and Selma areas. Service through these areas is anticipated to continue and will
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 11

Record of Decision (ROD)

Figure 1

Preferred Alternative

Alt. A + Alt. B

benefit from equipment improvements and congestion mitigation efforts being undertaken by

both states.

DECISION

The FRA and the FHWA working closely with NCDOT and VDRPT have selected the following

build alternative for the SEHSR project for further Tier II environmental studies:

The preferred alternative consists of Alternative A (utilizing the S-line and the NCRR rights-ofways) modified to include passenger connectivity to Winston-Salem, NC (Alternative B via the

Winston Salem South Bound –WSSB and the K-line railroad rights-of-ways). The combination of

Alternatives A and B best meets the project’s purpose and need, while minimizing

environmental impacts and has the highest level of public and agency support. VDRPT and

NCDOT recommend that the Alternative A portion be developed first and that the Alternative B

portion be developed in conjunction with the efforts of the Piedmont Authority for Regional

Transportation (PART), as appropriate. PART is responsible for coordinating the regional

transportation system in the counties around the Winston-Salem connection. The combination

of Alternative A and Alternative B has:

• Minimized potential impacts to wetlands and

threatened and endangered species;

• Moderate levels of potential environmental

complexity;

• Strongest agency support;

• Highest level of service;

• Highest projected annual ridership;

• Largest combined trip diversions from auto and air

to rail, with competitive total travel time;

• Second best net reduction in NOx emissions and

overall net energy use reduction;

• Best potential operating cost recovery; and

• Highest level of public support.

As identified in the FEIS, the preferred alternative is

also the environmentally preferred alternative.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES

The SEHSR Tier I EIS considered nine alternatives in addition to the no-build option (Figure 1).

Each study area alternative was a six-mile wide corridor, centered on existing rail rights-of-way,

between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC. (passing through Richmond, VA. and Raleigh,

NC.). Each study area alternative was made up of different combinations of twenty-one different

railroad line segments, active and abandoned, and new track. Proposed improvements for

these alternatives generally include track upgrades, double tracking, additional sidings, curve

straightening, signal improvements, and grade crossing safety. Table 1 provides a concise

summary of the operational and physical characteristics of the nine study area alternatives.

A comparative evaluation of the study area alternatives was conducted to identify the preferred

alternative based on potential environmental impacts as well as the physical and operational

characteristics of each alternative. This evaluation specifically considered public and agency

comments on the proposed SEHSR and evaluative criteria based on the purpose and need.
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 12

Record of Decision (ROD)

The comparative evaluation began by reviewing public and agency comments for the proposed

SEHSR. Public comments were reviewed and analyzed to determine the public’s overall

support of or opposition to SEHSR. Six hundred and fifty comments were supportive with only

eleven comments opposed. Thirty-nine of those comments expressed a preference for or

against a specific study area alternative, with support for Alternative A receiving most of those

comments. Over all, sixty-nine percent of the comments received indicated a desire for

passenger service to the Winston–Salem area, which is satisfied through Alternatives B, E, and

H. The primary difference between Alternative A and B is the connecting service to the

Winston-Salem area. Alternatives A and B received the most support from those

regulatory/resource agencies that expressed support for specific alternatives.

Ten criteria were used to assess how well each study area alternative fit the Purpose and Need.

Each alternative was ranked based on these criteria, which included:

• Annual Ridership

• Annual Diversions in 2025

• Net energy reduction (fuel gal/yr.)

• Number of at grade crossings

• Air Quality – Reduction in NOx

• Average Total Travel Time

• Net Operating Contribution

• Capital Cost Efficiency Factor

• Environmental Complexity Index

• Engineering and Operations Complexity Index

Of these criteria, six refer to operating/engineering characteristics, three refer to a composite

index or individual environmental factors and one refers to public safety. The emphasis on the

operating characteristics is due to the requirement that the preferred alternative be a viable

business alternative with a minimum of environmental impacts. The results of this evaluation

are shown in the Figure 2.

Alternative A ranks highest because it is the best of all nine alternatives for five of the 10

assessment criteria, namely annual ridership, annual air to rail diversions in 2025, net operating

contribution, capital cost efficiency, and areas of engineering complexity. Alternative A is

second best for four of the 10 criteria, namely annual auto to rail diversions in 2025, net energy

reduction, net reduction in NOx emissions, and average total travel time for the route. From a

permitting standpoint, Alternative A is among the lowest for potential wetland impacts and has

the lowest potential impacts to threatened & endangered species. Alternative G ranks best in

three of the ten criteria, namely annual auto to rail diversions in 2025, net reduction in NOx

emissions, and net energy reduction.

The SEHSR project’s “business case” requires the preferred alternative to be economically

viable. In order to determine relative economic viability (between the different study areas), the

study area comparative evaluation examined the study area alternatives based on the potential

net operating contribution and the conceptual capital cost. Figure 3 shows the comparison of

study area alternatives based on these two elements.
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 13

Record of Decision (ROD)

Figure 2

SEHSR Study Area Alternatives
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 14

Record of Decision (ROD)

Figure 3

Relative Ranking of Study Area Alternatives

At this point, Alternatives A, B, D, and G are the most viable candidates for the preferred

alternative based on their highest relative ranking using the purpose and need factors (Figure

3). Of those four alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B show the strongest potential for

economic vitality (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Analysis of Study Area Alternatives Based on SEHSR Economic Viability Factors

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

A (S-line + NCRR)

B (S-line + NCRR + WS)

C ( S-line + ACWR)D (SA-line + NCRR)

E (SA-line + NCRR + WS

F (SA-line + ACWR)

G (A-line + NCRR)

H (A-line + NCRR +WS)

J (A-line + ACWR

Net operating

contribution 2025 (in $

millions) 

Capital Cost Efficiency

Factor
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 15

Record of Decision (ROD)

The comparative evaluation of the study area alternatives further reviewed which alternative

would have the least potential environmental and social impacts. Table 2 provides a summary

of the potential impacts of the proposed SEHSR for each study area alternative by impact area.

Alternative A and Alternative B were found to minimize potential wetland impacts. Alternative A

offers a moderate level of environmental complexity. It ranks second highest in net energy

reduction and net reduction in NOx primarily because it offers service along the most populated

areas of the NCRR and it offers the greatest combined passenger diversion from auto and air to

rail. Alternative B is similar to Alternative A but has some increased environmental complexity

due to grade issues in the Winston Salem area. Alternative D has the lowest level of

environmental complexity but also has the greatest potential impact for prime farmland,

protected species, and estimated residential relocations. Alternative G has a moderate level of

environmental complexity but has potentially greater impacts to wetlands, which are more

prevalent in eastern North Carolina. Given the complexity of avoiding and/or mitigating for

significant wetland acreage, substantial protected species, and prime farmland impacts,

Alternatives A and B are the environmentally preferred among those candidates satisfying the

purpose and need criteria and economic viability requirements.

The no build scenario was also evaluated and compared to the study area alternatives. Under

the no build scenario, similar kinds of impacts as discussed for the build alternatives could be

expected due to improvements required for anticipated expansion of the existing freight and

conventional passenger rail system. It is anticipated that these improvements will result in fewer

delays and congestion for freight services. CSXT, Norfolk Southern (NS) and its subsidiaries,

and the Aberdeen, Carolina & Western (ACWR) provide freight rail service in the nine Study

Area Alternatives. CSXT increased the number of carloads originated system-wide in 2000 by

5.1% over 1999 carloads. During the same period, NS increased the number of carloads

originated system-wide by 19.0%. Both CSXT and NS have identified the I-95 corridor as one

of the growth corridors for freight services. Currently proposed improvements include

improvements to infrastructure (signalization, passenger station improvements, improvements

to track capacity, and highway-rail crossing improvements) and to the fleet of locomotives and

cars, which would allow for higher average speeds, provide better acceleration, and mitigate the

need to slow for curves.

Proposed regional rail and expanding commuter rail passenger services in the study areas

would further increase the daily train traffic and contribute to congestion.

The planned improvements to the existing rail line will improve capacity, reliability and travel

times along some segments of the Washington, DC to Charlotte corridor. However, without the

full implementation of improvements associated with the SEHSR program, freight and

passenger services along the study areas from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC are projected

to experience greater delays and congestion over time.

The no build alternative also includes existing and planned improvements to the highway and air

travel networks. Committed improvements to the highway networks focus primarily on the I85/I-95 corridor. Other interstate improvements are planned for the I-40 corridor between

Winston-Salem and Raleigh, North Carolina. Of the six major airports within the study areas,

five have either recently implemented airport expansion plans or are currently expanding their

facilities to meet increasing air travel demands. Projections show that by 2003, the major east

coast airports linking the northeast and southeast are estimated to generate 20,000 annual

hours of flight delays. For many of these airports, the FAA has determined that recommended

improvements alone would not adequately meet the projected growth in demand. While the

anticipated no-build impacts are potentially spread out over a longer period of time (due to
SEHSR Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC 16

Record of Decision (ROD)

slower expansion of the systems), they could be accompanied by other impacts due to

additional auto or air capacity needed to handle the trips which would not be diverted under the

no build alternative. The no build alternative lacks the positive benefits of improved air quality

and net energy reduction per passenger mile traveled in the corridor. It also fails to meet the

other key purpose and need factors of offering additional transportation choices, easing of

congestion, while improving overall transportation system safety and effectiveness minimizing

environmental impacts. Thus the no build alternative is not considered appropriate in light of the

project purpose and need.

From this evaluation, the study area alternative that best meets the purpose and need, meets

the business model requirements, and minimizes environmental impacts is a combination of

Alternatives A and B.

SECTION 4(f) AND 6 (f) APPROVALS

The program level Tier I EIS did not complete the documentation requirements of Sections 4(f)

and 6(f) which are federally enacted laws that specify requirements for documentation and

analysis regarding potential impacts from a proposed action involving federal funds to parks,

recreational areas, cultural resources or publicly owned lands. The formal 4(f) process and any

needed 4(f) or 6(f) documentation, coordination and agency consultation will be undertaken, as

appropriate, during the Tier II analysis when specific boundaries and uses are determined.

However, a general assessment of potentially impacted sites (within 1500 ft of the preferred

alternative) was conducted. The preferred alternative could potentially impact 14 to 15 parks,

5.7 acres of gamelands/public lands and up to 435 national register and Study List sites.

Design refinement during Tier II may substantially minimize or avoid these potential impacts.

When comparing the study area alternatives that best fit the Purpose and Need (Alternatives A,

B, D, and G), Alternatives A and B have the least amount of potential impacts to 4(f) or 6(f)

sites.

FUTURE ACTIONS TO REDUCE POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The incremental HSR approach reduces the potential for environmental impacts by maximizing

the use of the existing infrastructure and right of way.

By using a tiered document, the overall program concept is examined, allowing opportunity to

best minimize potential environmental impacts while still meeting the project purpose and need.

All practicable means appropriate for a Tier I level document have been adopted to avoid or

minimize environmental harm. During the Tier II process, planning will be done to avoid and

minimize impacts to both the human and natural environment by accurately identifying

resources at the detail level and subsequently examining different design options.

Consideration will be given to potential construction and operational impacts.

The actions for implementing the proposed HSR service in the SEHSR corridor would each

receive the appropriate level of environmental documentation during the Tier II process.

Detailed noise and vibration studies would be done as appropriate to identify mitigation needs.

Potential mitigation techniques range from noise walls and ballast pads, to quiet zones and

modification in the design of actual train sets.

Potential relocations will be minimized by staying within existing right-of-way to the maximum

extent possible. All persons whose property is acquired or who are displaced as a result of a

 to Charlotte, NC 19

D), 11/20/02

Table 1

Study Area Alternatives: Operational and Physical Characteristics

A B C D E F G H J

448 miles 463 miles 428 miles 468 miles 483 miles 448 miles 481 miles 496 miles 461 miles

677.8 acres 731.31 acres 929.95 acres 620.13 acres 673.59 acres 872.23 acres 544.99 acres 598.0 acres 579.0 acres

6.23 hours 6.90 hours 6.20 hours 6.55 hours 7.23 hours 6.53 hours 6.75 hours 7.43 hours 6.73 hours

72.6 mph 68.7 mph 70.0 mph 73.1 mph 69.3 mph 70.5 mph 72.1 mph 68.5 mph 69.6 mph

10,015,119 9,724,939 6,679,376 9,924,448 9,557,693 6,564,192 10,433,752 9,993,470 6,910,545

$2.611

billion

$2.720

billion

$2.515

billion $2.711 billion $2.820 billion $2.6215bill ion $2.848 billion $2.957 billion $2.752 billion

1,644,900 1,612,000 1,239,400 1,556,000 1,517,700 1,174,900 1,523,500 1,480,700 1,152,900

$103.33

million

$105.39

million

$81.66

million

$95.21

million

$97.72

million

$75.72

million

$90.37

million

$92.66

million

$72.35

million

$80.83

million

$83.75

million

$74.75

million

$80.42

million

$83.48

million

$74.81

million

$80.22

million

$83.32

million

$74.79

million

$22.497

million

$21.649

million

$6.914

million

$14.789

million

$14.237

million

$.908

million

$10.150

million

$9.341

million

$(2.44)

million

s November 2000: KPMG Model Forecast Data, October 2000.

es are expected from mail, express and baggage. These numbers are for the 8-modeled SEHSR trains.
 to Charlotte, NC 20

D), 11/20/02

Table 2

Summary of Potential Impacts and Benefits of the Study Area Alternatives

Study Area Alternatives

Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Alternative

G

Alternative

H

Alternative

J

 Rivers

2729

3328

19

9

2831

3530

2133

2729

3428

2131

117.3 115.8 117.0 124.0 122.5 123.7 190.7 189.2 190.4

ys

plain 83 76 44 89 82 50 97 90 58

es

36 37 40 37 38 41 33 34 37

es

412 441 252 427 456 267 454 483 294

bs/yr) *

554,889 530,895 279, 065 547,392 517,065 269,540 589,505 553,099 298,179

on

333 342 259 371 371 287 369 372 284

ons) 403 432.3 383.5 421.2 450.5 401.7 434.2 463.5 414.7

37,219 39,360 26,523 45,137 46,992 34,308 57,346 59,134 46,670

33 35 45 44 46 56 43 49 51
 to Charlotte, NC 21

D), 11/20/02

Study Area Alternatives

Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Alternative

G

Alternative

H

Alternative

J

11 11 13 10 11 13 12 13 14

as of

5 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 4

9)

39%47%

39%48%

37%43%

43%48%

43%48%

43%46%

41%47%

41%47%

40%44%

678365

65,145

731371

110,920

930220

57,374

620405

62,191

674411

107,966

872260

54,420

545301

70,344

598307

116,119

797156

62,573

*

548 613 544 601 666 597 600 665 596

333102

333102

304

58

333165

333165

304121

320168

320168

211124

es)

14

5.7

15

5.7

1114

14

5.7

15

15.7

11

15.3

15

5.7

16

5.7

12

15.3

ndard EPA emissions models. Assume average car in 1997 operating on a typical summer day (72 to 96 degrees F)

e crossings