Alternatives Under Study by SectionJanuary 11, 2017
The goal of the Washington, D.C to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project is to provide a competitive transportation option by improving rail infrastructure and increasing capacity for better on-time performance, frequency and reliability, and to accommodate at least nine future round trips in addition to the current intercity passenger rail service.
Additional tracks, better crossings between tracks, and fewer curves will help passenger and freight trains move more efficiently through the corridor, resulting in cumulative advantages for the greater rail network.
Currently, improvement alternatives are being evaluated as part of a federally-prescribed process that will analyze benefits, as well as potential environmental impacts and mitigations for each alternative. The complete assessment will be available to the public once the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is published. A series of public hearings will also be announced at that time, providing the public with further opportunities to comment.
In order to better analyze the local impacts in each area, the overall project corridor has been separated into several sections. Within each section, multiple options are being examined. Ultimately, the DC2RVA screening process will recommend a series of alternatives for the project. DRPT's recommendations are available for review on the project website, and include:
- adding additional track in northern Virginia; 4th track begins just south of Telegraph Road (CFP 104.4) and extends northward; and continuous 3rd track begins north of Furnace Road (CFP 90) and extends southward
- adding a third track through downtown Fredericksburg
- conducting a separate study to determine a plan for additional rail capacity in the Ashland area,
- improvements to provide full passenger service at both Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations via the S-line through Richmond
Choosing the alternative improvement options has been a collaborative process, consisting of a series of meetings with the public, agencies and localities to continually review and refine those options. A range of alternatives was evaluated, and the most feasible alternatives were carried forward based on a four-stage screening process and community input.