Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report June 19, 2018 Long Bridge Project EIS Draft Alternatives Development Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. NEPA Requirements for Alternatives Development ..................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Concept Screening Process ........................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Organization of this Report .......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Why is the Project needed? .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Will the Long Bridge consider bicycle and pedestrian access? .................................................... 8 3.0 Alternatives Development Process ................................................................................ 9 3.1. Pre-NEPA Alternatives Development (Phases I and II) ................................................................. 9 3.2. Scoping Process .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3. Concept Screening Process ......................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Level 1 Concept Screening ........................................................................................... 19 4.1. Level 1 Concept Screening Criteria ............................................................................................. 19 4.2. Level 1 Concept Screening Analysis ............................................................................................ 22 4.3. Concepts Retained for Level 2 Screening ................................................................................... 34 4.4. Feedback from the Public and Agencies on the Level 1 Concept Screening ............................. 35 5.0 Level 2 Concept Screening ........................................................................................... 36 5.1. Level 2 Concept Screening Criteria ............................................................................................. 36 5.2. Level 2, Step 1 Concept Screening Analysis ................................................................................ 39 5.3. Level 2, Step 2 Concept Screening Analysis ................................................................................ 42 5.4. Feedback from the Public and Agencies on the Level 2 Concept Screening ............................. 54 6.0 Opportunities for a Bike-Pedestrian Crossing .............................................................. 57 Long Bridge Project EIS i Alternatives Development Report June 2018 i 7.0 Alternatives to Be Evaluated in the DEIS ..................................................................... 60 7.1. Action Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 60 7.2. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................. 60 8.0 Conclusion and Next Steps .......................................................................................... 65 List of Figures Figure 1-1 | Long Bridge Corridor Map ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3-1 | Long Bridge Project Screening Process ................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-2 | Alternatives Development and the EIS Process ...................................................................... 18 Figure 5-1 | Alignment Options Evaluated in Level 2, Step 2 Concept Screening ...................................... 43 Figure 6-1 | Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Alignment Options ......................................................................... 58 Figure 7-1 | No Action Alternative Projects ................................................................................................ 61 List of Tables Table 3-1 | Summary of Pre-NEPA Public Outreach ................................................................................... 10 Table 3-2 | Preliminary Concepts Presented During Scoping ..................................................................... 13 Table 3-3 | Potential for Impacts Based on Location of New Tracks .......................................................... 16 Table 4-1 | Long Bridge Concepts for Screening ........................................................................................ 20 Table 4-2 | Level 1 Concept Screening Results ........................................................................................... 23 Table 5-1 | Results of Level 2 Concept Screening, Step 1 ........................................................................... 39 Table 5-2 | Results of Level 2 Concept Screening, Step 2 ........................................................................... 44 Table 7-1 | Train Volumes in the Long Bridge Corridor .............................................................................. 64 Appendix Conceptual Engineering Plans of Level 2 Concept Screening Alignment Options Long Bridge Project EIS ii Alternatives Development Report June 2018 ii 1.0 Introduction The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), jointly with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Long Bridge Project (Project).1 The Project consists of proposed improvements to Long Bridge and related railroad infrastructure located between the RO Interlocking near Long Bridge Park in Arlington, Virginia, and the L’Enfant (LE) Interlocking near 10th Street SW in the District (collectively, the Long Bridge Corridor, shown in Figure 1-1).2 This report describes the alternatives development process to identify alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIS (DEIS). 1.1. NEPA Requirements for Alternatives Development Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies “use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed action that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.”3 The regulations call for the EIS to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.”4 Although the No Action Alternative was not formally evaluated in this report, analysis of a No Action Alternative is required pursuant to CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA.5 FRA and DDOT will utilize the No Action Alternative to serve as a baseline for comparing the impact evaluation to the alternatives studied in the DEIS. The No Action Alternative is described in Section 6.2. 1.2. Purpose of this Report This Alternatives Development Report documents the development of the Project concepts and the concept screening process that identified the Action Alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS. FRA and DDOT identified a broad and reasonable range of concepts, in addition to a No Action Alternative. They examined the results of a pre-NEPA two-phase feasibility study, considered input from the agency and public outreach process, and coordinated with railroad owners and operators (CSX Transportation [CSXT], Amtrak, and Virginia Railway Express [VRE]). FRA and DDOT screened these concepts in a two- level process using criteria and metrics based on the Project’s Purpose and Need statement, in addition to feasibility, to identify the Action Alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS. 1 42 USC 4321 2 Note that “RO” is the proper name of this interlocking. It is not an acronym. 3 40 CFR 1500.2 4 40 CFR 1502.14 5 40 CFR 1502.14 Long Bridge Project EIS 1 Alternatives Development Report June 2018 1 Figure 1-1 | Long Bridge Corridor Map Long Bridge Project EIS 2 Alternatives Development Report June 2018 2 1.3. Project Background The existing Long Bridge is a two-track railroad bridge, constructed in 1904, that is owned and operated by CSXT, a Class I freight railroad. The Long Bridge Corridor serves freight (CSXT), intercity passenger (Amtrak), and commuter rail (VRE). Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) service, which currently terminates at Washington Union Station (WUS) in the District, plans to expand across the Long Bridge to L’Enfant Plaza and Northern Virginia.6 Norfolk Southern (NS), also a Class I freight railroad, has trackage rights on the Long Bridge, but does not currently exercise those rights. Passenger, commuter, and freight railroad services play an important part in supporting the economic growth and vitality of the DC region. The Long Bridge