TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Purpose and 

Need

3.

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-i

Table of Contents

3. PURPOSE AND NEED.............................................................................................................3-1

3.1 OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED.........................................................................................3-2

3.3 PURPOSE OF THE NEC FUTURE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................3-3

3.4 THE NEED FOR PASSENGER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................3-3

3.4.1 Aging Infrastructure............................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4.2 Insufficient Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.2.1 Physical and Operational Constraints......................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.2.2 Passenger Travel Growth and Changing Trends......................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.3 Gaps in Connectivity ......................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4.3.1 Air-to-Rail Connections............................................................................................................................. 3-11

3.4.3.2 Rail-to-Rail Connections ........................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.4.4 Compromised Performance.............................................................................................................. 3-12

3.4.5 Lack of Resiliency .............................................................................................................................. 3-14

3.4.6 Environmental Sustainability ............................................................................................................ 3-15

3.4.7 Economic Growth ............................................................................................................................. 3-16

Tables

TABLE 3-1: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR....................................................3-6

TABLE 3-2: PEAK AND OFF-PEAK WEEKDAY INBOUND COMMUTER-RAIL ARRIVALS AT PENN STATION NEW 

YORK (1990–2012) .................................................................................................................3-9

TABLE 3-3: COMPARATIVE TRAVEL TIMES BY MODE......................................................................................3-13

TABLE 3-4: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COST SAVINGS (2011).........................................................................3-17

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-1

3. Purpose and Need

This chapter describes the purpose of and need for the NEC FUTURE program (NEC FUTURE). 

Passenger-rail services that operate along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) rail network are a critical 

component of the transportation system in the NEC FUTURE Study Area (Study Area) (see Chapter 2,

Readers’ Guide). By 2040, continued population and employment growth in the Study Area is 

expected to create increasing demand for travel options 

across the passenger transportation system—rail, air, auto, 

transit, and intercity bus. Yet the aging infrastructure and 

capacity limitations of the NEC already result in congestion 

and delays for daily commuters, and for regional 1 and 

interregional2 travelers. Forecast growth in population and 

employment in the Study Area will put increasing pressures 

on this already constrained NEC rail network. NEC FUTURE 

will define a long-term vision to improve passenger rail 

service on the NEC in a manner that will enhance mobility options and expand passenger rail service 

in support of future population and employment growth in the Study Area.3 This chapter documents 

existing and forecast deficiencies in the NEC rail network and defines the Purpose and Need for NEC 

FUTURE. 

3.1 OVERVIEW

The 457-mile NEC and its connecting rail corridors form the most heavily utilized rail network in the 

United States. The NEC ranks among the busiest rail corridors in the world, moving more than 750,000 

passengers every day4 on 2,200 trains operated by Amtrak and eight commuter railroads.

5 Ownership 

of the NEC is divided among Amtrak, MTA-Metro-North Railroad, Connecticut Department of 

Transportation, and Massachusetts. Freight operators share the NEC with passenger railroads and 

are responsible for the movement of over 350,000 car loads of freight per year on the NEC.

6 This 

volume of traffic and diversity of service today operates on an NEC with capacity constraints that 

require scheduled and real-time trade-offs in frequency, speed, and performance of passenger and 

freight services. The congestion caused by these capacity constraints limits operations and 

 

1 Regional trips (see Chapter 13, Glossary) refer to trips that start and end within the same metropolitan area.

2 Interregional trips (see Chapter 13, Glossary) refer to trips that start and end in different metropolitan areas.

3 Consistent with the long-term vision to improve passenger rail service on the NEC, NEC FUTURE focuses specifically on the 

need for improving passenger rail. Alternatives that specified modes other than passenger rail were eliminated early in the 

alternatives development process since they did not meet the Purpose and Need. However, the NEC FUTURE Action 

Alternatives are considered in the context of the multi-modal transportation system.

4 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (February 2014). State of the Northeast Corridor 

Region Transportation System. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.

5 Amtrak. (2014). NEC Maps & Data: Growing Demand for Rail Services in the Northeast. Retrieved January 2015 from 

http://nec.amtrak.com/content/growing-demand-rail-services-northeast

6 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (February 2014). State of the Northeast Corridor 

Region Transportation System.

NEC FUTURE focuses on the passenger 

rail network, the needs of today’s 

customers, and the changing demands of 

future travelers—all in the context of the 

broader multimodal transportation system.
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

opportunities to improve or expand passenger rail services. The NEC’s aging infrastructure further 

limits operations and constrains the ability to improve and expand services. This infrastructure, in 

many cases built over 100 years ago, does not provide the resiliency or redundancy necessary to 

respond to unanticipated natural disasters or other disruptive events.

Growth in population and employment in the Study Area combined with changes in travel preference 

will increasingly require a level of service, integration of services, capacity, and connectivity that is 

not supported by the existing NEC. Challenges to passenger rail travelers today include poorly 

coordinated transfers and unattractive service frequencies. A well-defined and coordinated 

investment program to support both preservation and enhancement of the NEC is essential to meet 

the needs of the NEC’s passenger rail market in the coming decades. 

An investment program is also critical to the economic health of the region to connect passenger and 

freight markets with established and growing business centers in the Study Area. Approximately 

20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) comes from areas within the Study Area,7

making the NEC an economic engine for the nation. In fact, if the Study Area were an independent 

country, it would represent the fifth largest economy in the world.8 The NEC is a key element of the 

mobility necessary to support economic activity in the Study Area. Failure to improve the NEC and 

address existing and forecast deficiencies will undermine the Study Area’s global competitiveness. 

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED

As part of the scoping process for this Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS), 

the FRA requested public and agency input regarding the goals for the NEC and for the NEC FUTURE 

process. This initial input resulted in the identification of five broad goals, which were developed

based on comments received during the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 Draft EIS Scoping process and through a 

series of public workshops known as the “December Dialogues” (see Chapter 11). These broad goals 

include the following:

4 Provide attractive, equitable, competitive, high-quality, safe and reliable passenger rail service 

with the capacity and connectivity required to meet growing demand from existing and new 

markets

4 Define an integrated passenger rail network that cost effectively strengthens intermodal 

passenger connections, maximizes the interoperability of existing and new infrastructure, and 

accommodates freight rail growth

4 Develop a passenger rail investment plan that addresses near- and long-term mobility solutions 

and prioritizes critical NEC needs

 

7 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2015). Regional Economic Accounts. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm

8 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (April 2014). The Northeast Corridor and the American 

Economy. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NEC_american_economy_report.pdf
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-3

4 Promote environmental sustainability with positive effects on transportation energy 

consumption and reduced vulnerability to climate change factors

4 Maintain and enhance the economic viability of the region

These broad goals identified during scoping provided important input into the development of the 

purpose and need statement for this Tier 1 Draft EIS. The purpose and need statement incorporates

all of the elements contained within the initial set of five goals. The purpose and need statement also 

incorporates, and was informed by, the overall goals for the NEC identified by the Northeast Corridor 

Infrastructure & Operations Advisory Commission (NEC Commission) pursuant to legislative direction 

in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (49 USC 24905(b)). (See 

Chapter 1, Introduction, for more information regarding the NEC Commission and PRIIA.)

3.3 PURPOSE OF THE NEC FUTURE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of NEC FUTURE is to upgrade aging infrastructure and to improve the reliability, capacity, 

connectivity, performance, and resiliency of future passengerrail service on the NEC for both Intercity 

and Regional trips, while promoting environmental sustainability and continued economic growth.

The proposed action of NEC FUTURE evaluated in this Tier 1 Draft EIS is the adoption of an investment 

program to improve passenger rail service within the Study Area. Chapter 4, Alternatives Considered, 

describes the multistep alternatives development process undertaken in support of this Tier 1 Draft 

EIS. Each Action Alternative evaluated in this Tier 1 Draft EIS represents an investment program that 

articulates a different vision for the role of passenger rail services in the Study Area. As described 

further in Chapter 10, Phasing Implementation, it is expected that each Action Alternative would be 

implemented incrementally.

3.4 THE NEED FOR PASSENGER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS

The focus of NEC FUTURE is to meet current and future passenger rail transportation needs in the 

Study Area. For the purposes of analysis, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) established a 

planning horizon of 2040. However, the investments proposed in NEC FUTURE are likely to include 

infrastructure improvements expected to last well beyond 2040 and into the next century. Therefore, 

while 2040 is the horizon year, the FRA considered future needs of the NEC beyond the 2040 planning 

horizon in the development and analysis of alternatives. 

The overall needs addressed by NEC FUTURE include aging infrastructure, insufficient capacity, gaps 

in connectivity, compromised performance, and lack of resiliency. Addressing these needs is 

essential to support the reliability of the passenger rail system. In addition, the FRA is committed to 

promoting environmental sustainability and economic growth. These needs are summarized below:

4 Aging Infrastructure: The quality of service on the NEC currently falls short due to the aging and 

obsolete infrastructure that has resulted from insufficient investment to maintain a state of good 
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

repair.

9 Aging infrastructure also increases the cost and 

complexity of continuing railroad operations. Achieving 

and maintaining a state of good repair is needed to 

improve service quality.

4 Insufficient Capacity: Severe capacity constraints at 

critical infrastructure chokepoints limit service 

expansion and improvement as well as recovery from service disruptions, making it difficult to 

offer reliable service and accommodate growth in ridership. These constraints are further 

exacerbated by individual railroad operating practices,

10 which are driven by their individual 

policies or customer needs.

4 Gaps in Connectivity: The reach and effectiveness of the passenger rail network are limited by 

gaps in connectivity among transportation modes and between different rail services. In some 

cases, rail services between stations require lengthy layovers or difficult transfers, limiting

mobility options for passengers on the NEC. The railroads operating on the NEC today share the 

infrastructure but in many cases operate different equipment with different performance 

capabilities. Both infrastructure (track configuration, power source) and equipment (diesel, 

electric) further limit the ability to provide passengers with direct service to some city pairs along 

the NEC or via connecting corridors.

4 Compromised Performance: In many markets, the travel times on passenger rail within the Study 

Area are not competitive with travel by air or highway. Improvements in train frequency, travel 

time and ticket price are needed to make passenger rail competitive with other modes. 

4 Lack of Resiliency: The NEC is vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise, severe storms, extreme 

heat events, and other unanticipated weather-related events. It is similarly subject to delay and 

suspension of service as a result of routine or emergency maintenance, often in portions of the 

passenger rail network without the redundancy necessary to respond to or compensate for these 

disruptions. As a result, both natural and human-caused events can result in extensive service 

disruptions and delays. Without sufficient resilience and redundant capacity to work around 

these events, the NEC is vulnerable and reduces the reliability of the region’s transportation 

system. 

The FRA will address the above needs in a manner that supports environmental policies and practices 

and promotes continued economic growth. Therefore, although not passenger rail specific needs, 

environmental sustainability and economic growth are important considerations for NEC FUTURE:

4 Environmental Sustainability: Throughout the Study Area, energy use and emissions associated 

with transportation diminish the environmental quality of the built and natural environments. 

Expanding the availability of more energy-efficient transportation modes, including passenger 

 

9 State of good repair is a condition in which assets are fit for the purpose for which they were intended. American Public 

Transportation Association. (2013). Defining a Transit Asset Management Framework to Achieve a State of Good Repair. 

Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association. Note: As part of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (P.L. 112-141), the Federal Transit Administration is required to establish a definition of the term state of good repair.

10 Operating practices include the specification of service levels, stopping patterns, dwell times, and equipment types.

Aging infrastructure, insufficient capacity, 

and gaps in connectivity are each factors 

that degrade the overall reliability of 

passenger service on the NEC.
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-5

rail, is need to support desired improvements in air quality and environmentally-friendly growth 

patterns.

4 Continued Economic Growth: A transportation system that provides options for reliable, 

efficient, and cost-effective movement of passengers and goods is needed to support continued 

economic growth, including the retention of, and increase in, jobs in the Study Area. 

The overall needs addressed by NEC FUTURE are described in more detail in the rest of this section.

3.4.1 Aging Infrastructure

The NEC rail network dates back to the mid-1800s, with portions built as early as the 1830s.11

Investments have been made over two centuries to maintain and improve that rail network to 

accommodate contemporary railroad operations. Examples of these investments include 

improvements to the track, signal and communications systems, overhead catenary and power 

systems, and the rolling stock (i.e., train equipment) itself. However, in recent decades these 

investments have fallen short of the improvements necessary to maintain system reliability or to add 

service to meet growing demand. Intercity12 and Regional13 rail service quality is constrained by 

numerous state-of-good-repair needs throughout the NEC. In 2010, Amtrak and the eight commuter 

railroads operating passenger services over the NEC rail network together identified approximately 

$9 billion in state-of-good-repair needs.14

Reliably meeting the demand of today’s Intercity and Regional rail passengers requires a continued 

investment to maintain existing infrastructure and bring the NEC rail network to a state of good 

repair.

In January 2013, the NEC Commission15 published Critical Infrastructure Needs of the Northeast 

Corridor,

16 which identified the most critical upgrades, by segment, necessary to renew and enhance 

the NEC: Washington, D.C., to Baltimore; Baltimore to Philadelphia; Philadelphia to Newark; Newark 

to New York City; New York City to New Rochelle; New Rochelle to New Haven; New Haven to Boston;

and corridor-wide. As shown in Table 3-1, each segment faces capacity constraints and reliability 

challenges due to multiple chokepoints and state-of-good-repair needs. Examples of infrastructure 

beyond its useful life include the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnels (B&P Tunnels, built in 1873) in 

 

11 The Northeast Alliance for Rail. (2014). Northeast Corridor. http://www.northeastallianceforrail.org/corridor/

12 Intercity rail refers to the passenger rail service that provides transportation between cities or metropolitan areas at speeds 

and distances greater than that of Regional rail (see Chapter 13, Glossary).

13 Regional rail refers to the commuter or regional rail operators that serve journey-to-work and other travel within a 

metropolitan area (see Chapter 13, Glossary).

14 The NEC Master Plan Working Group. (2010). The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf

15 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (NEC Commission) to 

develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network. The NEC Commission is governed by a board 

composed of one member from each of the NEC states (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, 

Rhode Island, and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation.

16 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (January 2013). Critical Infrastructure Needs on the 

Northeast Corridor. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Maryland, 10 movable bridges in Connecticut, and the North River Tunnels (built in 1910) connecting 

New Jersey and New York City under the Hudson River. By way of example, when one of the two 

North River Tunnels is taken out of service to make required repairs, service disruptions are 

unavoidable. To minimize service disruptions during heavy weekday commuting periods, the repairs 

are done on weekends only. Repairing the tunnels in this fashion, however, reduces weekend service 

into New York from New Jersey, increases the cost of constructing the improvements, extends the 

timeframe needed to complete improvements, and constrains the ability to make all necessary 

improvements in a timely manner.

Table 3-1: Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor

SOUTHERN REGION CENTRAL REGION NORTHERN REGION

Washington, D.C., Maryland, 

Delaware, Pennsylvania New Jersey and New York

Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts

■ Washington Union Station 

Improvements

■ Ivy City Yard Facilities Renewal /

Service & Inspection Expansion

■ Grove to Hanson Fourth Track

■ BWI Marshall Airport 

Improvements and Fourth Track

■ B&P Tunnel Replacement

■ Gunpowder River Bridge 

Replacement

■ Bush River Bridge Replacement

■ Susquehanna River Bridge 

Replacement

■ Maryland Track Stabilization

■ Wilmington Third Track and New 

Brandywine River Bridge

■ Bellevue Flyover

■ Philadelphia Interlocking Flyover

■ Trenton Capacity Improvements

■ North Brunswick Loop

■ Elizabeth Area Improvements

■ Hunter Flyover

■ Newark to New York Fourth 

Track & High Line Bridges

■ Portal Bridge

■ Hudson River Tunnels

■ Moynihan Station & Penn Station 

New York Capacity 

Improvements

■ East River Tunnel Track 

Replacement & Signal Upgrades

■ Sunnyside Yard Facilities 

Renewal and Service & 

Inspection Expansion

■ Pelham Bay Bridge Replacement

■ Cos Cob Bridge Replacement

■ Norwalk River Bridge 

Rehabilitation

■ Saugatuck River Bridge 

Rehabilitation

■ Devon Bridge Replacement

■ New Haven Mainline Catenary 

and Bridge Replacement 

Program

■ MTA-Metro-North Railroad New 

Haven Communication and 

Signal Upgrades

■ Connecticut River Shoreline 

Movable Bridge Replacement

■ Massachusetts Third Track: 

Sharon to Attleboro Third Track

& Readville to Canton Third 

Track

■ Boston South Station 

Improvements

■ Southampton Yard

Source: Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (January 2013). Critical Infrastructure Needs on 

the Northeast Corridor. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf

Amtrak and the eight commuter railroads operate more than 2,200 trains a day over this aging 

infrastructure. 17 The difficulties of maintaining outdated infrastructure create daily service 

disruptions. As noted in the Critical Infrastructure Needs report, Amtrak reports that track and signal 

malfunctions are responsible for more than 50 percent of NEC delays. 

 

17 Amtrak. (2014). NEC Maps & Data: Amtrak Competetive Advantage. Retrieved January 2015, from Amtrak, The Northeast 

Corridor: http://nec.amtrak.com/content/amtrak® competitive-advantage
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-7

Incremental maintenance and repairs to address problems resulting from aging infrastructure have 

proven insufficient to address a backlog of needs; continued underinvestment will result in further 

service disruptions and degradations in service quality. A long-term vision and investment program 

is needed to make improvements in a unified and coherent way.

3.4.2 Insufficient Capacity

The NEC lacks adequate capacity to meet today’s demand for rail service. Thus, it cannot 

accommodate the projected demand from growing regional population and employment. The 

capacity of the NEC is defined as the number of trains per hour (tph) or the volume of traffic passing 

through a rail segment. The NEC’s capacity is a function of both track and station capacity. 

Chokepoints result where track or station capacities are insufficient to meet rail-service requirements 

or where operations and infrastructure are out of balance. Capacity chokepoints along the NEC have 

repercussions throughout the NEC since they limit the overall system capacity. Operating the NEC at 

or near capacity further limits each operator’s ability to recover from unanticipated events, often 

resulting in service delays and reduced reliability.

3.4.2.1 Physical and Operational Constraints

Many segments of the NEC are operating at or near capacity. Of the 2,200 daily trains operated on 

the NEC, over 1,000 operate into and out of Penn Station New York (PSNY), which serves over 500,000 

daily riders.18 In peak hours, the volume of inbound traffic from west of the Hudson River into PSNY 

operates at the maximum capacity of 24 tph.19 Operating at the limits of available capacity for 

sustained periods of time erodes any ability to recover from unanticipated events, which degrades 

the overall reliability and on-time performance of all services on the NEC. 

The NEC is a shared operating environment with Intercity, Regional rail, and freight railroads 

operating different types of equipment at different speeds and stopping patterns. Combined with 

capacity-constrained infrastructure, the service attributes of the multiple operators further limit 

capacity. Sharing tracks constrains the ability for a rail operator to add capacity because the rail 

operator has to consider the operating requirements, stopping patterns, and capacity needs of other 

rail operators in the shared right-of-way. Between New Rochelle, NY, and Stamford, CT, current rail 

operations exceed 75 percent of capacity 20 (MTA-Metro-North Railroad’s New Haven Line and 

Amtrak’s Northeast Regional, Acela, and Shore Line East services share the same tracks). Disruptions 

on any one of these services can affect the operations of the others. Between Newark, DE, and 

Trenton, NJ, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), NJ TRANSIT, and 

 

18 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (January 2013). Critical Infrastructure Needs on the 

Northeast Corridor. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf

19 The maximum capacity of trains per hour in the peak period consists of 21 NJ TRANSIT regional passenger trains, and three 

Amtrak intercity trains. One of the North River Tunnels must be preserved for service operating in the outbound direction.

20 The NEC Master Plan Working Group. (2010). The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Amtrak also share the same tracks, which constrains scheduling and the ability to add capacity to this 

passenger rail network.21

Chokepoints on the NEC also exist where physical constraints, such as track geometry, or curvature 

of the tracks, require reduced-speed operations. Examples of this kind of capacity constraint include 

the B&P Tunnels that connect Baltimore Penn Station with points south, where trains are limited to 

operating at reduced speeds of 30 mph for two miles because of the tunnel’s difficult track 

geometry.

22 As such, the B&P Tunnels constrain capacity of the passenger rail network in both 

directions (see Chapter 5, Transportation, Section 5.5, Environmental Consequences, for additional 

details). Without such a constraint, Intercity and Regional rail could operate more frequent service. 

Within the infrastructure constraints of the NEC, capacity is further limited by the need to 

accommodate a range of different services, from express to local, Intercity to Regional rail, passenger 

to freight. For example, one of the more critical freight rail infrastructure needs is in Rhode Island, 

where Intercity, Regional rail, and freight share the same two tracks between Central Falls and 

Quonset. As passenger rail demand and corresponding passenger train volume grows, freight rail

operations will become increasingly constrained.23

Intercity passenger rail capacity constraints and delays from congestion are a growing problem in the 

Study Area. The travel markets around Trenton, NJ; New York City; and Stamford, CT, are among the 

most congested along the NEC, where 36 percent of rail segments exceed 75 percent of practical 

capacity,

24 and 12 percent of rail segments exceed 100 percent of practical capacity. 25 Intensive 

development adjacent to transportation corridors and hubs further limits the space to expand the 

existing NEC track and station infrastructure to address congestion and capacity constraints. By 2030, 

the number of over-capacity NEC infrastructure segments is forecast to more than triple without 

substantial improvements and operational changes.26 Without addressing these chokepoints, the 

NEC cannot accommodate peak-service increases. 

3.4.2.2 Passenger Travel Growth and Changing Trends

Growing demand for travel in the Study Area will strain the capacity of the passenger rail system. 

Within the Study Area, the population of approximately 51 million is expected to grow by 

approximately 7 million and employment of approximately 24 million is projected to grow by 

 

21 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (2008). Speeding Up SEPTA: Finding Ways to Move Passengers Faster.

http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/08066.pdf

22 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration. (2005). Baltimore's Railroad Network: Challenges and 

Alternatives. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration.

23 Department of Administration, Division of Planning, Statewide Planning Program. (2014). Rhode Island State Rail Plan 2014, 

Report 117: State Guide Plan Element 661. http://www.planning.ri.gov/documents/trans/Rail/RI_State_Rail_Plan_2014.pdf

24 Capacity is the number of trains that can pass through an area in a certain period of time, depending on quantity and 

configuration of tracks. Practical capacity considers factors such as possible disruptions, maintenance, human decisions, 

weather, equipment failures, supply and demand imbalances, and seasonal demand. Association of American Railroads. (2007). 

National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study. Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

25 The NEC Master Plan Working Group. (2010). The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf

26 Ibid.
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-9

approximately 3 million from 2012 to 2040, representing a 14 percent growth in population and 

13 percent growth in employment throughout the Study Area.

27 Projected growth in specific areas 

such as the Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston markets is significantly higher.

This increase in overall population and employment will result in a growth in total Intercity trips on 

all modes within the Study Area of 159 million to 183 million per year by 2040—an increase between 

10 and 26 percent.

28

As an example, for Intercity rail services (Acela and Northeast Regional trains) operated by Amtrak 

between Washington, D.C., and Boston, passenger demand often exceeds capacity. Amtrak manages 

this demand by varying ticket prices when demand is highest. During these peak travel times, Amtrak 

often operates “sold out” trains, reaching the limit of available capacity on the train equipment and 

track infrastructure. These capacity limitations of both infrastructure and equipment limit passenger 

rail’s ability to serve the growing interregional travel market. 

Regional travel trends over the past three decades have already put new pressures on the aging and 

capacity-constrained infrastructure of the NEC. Both NJ TRANSIT and MTA-Long Island Rail Road 

(LIRR) have seen dramatic increases in off-peak travel into PSNY (Table 3-2).

29 The LIRR experienced 

small decreases in AM peak travel (7:00–9:00 a.m.) but did see increases in the shoulders of the peak 

(6:00–7:00 a.m. and 9:00–10:00 a.m.). Overall, LIRR growth between 1990 and 2012 was largely 

caused by a 50 percent increase in off-peak travel. Similarly, while NJ TRANSIT experienced the most 

significant growth in the AM peak in terms of actual numbers, the percentage increase in off-peak 

travel was nearly four times the ridership in 1990. 

Table 3-2: Peak and Off-Peak Weekday Inbound Commuter-Rail Arrivals at Penn Station 

New York (1990–2012)

Time Period 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

% Change 

1990–2012

Total AM Peak (6-10) 104,177 104,389 127,564 125,670 126,502 127,795 23%

Total AM Peak (7-9) 81,925 80,490 96,557 88,812 88,351 88,303 8%

Total Shoulders 22,252 23,899 31,007 36,858 38,151 39,492 77%

Total All Day 132,687 134,274 171,982 174,488 184,586 180,343 36%

Total Off-Peak 28,510 29,885 44,418 48,818 58,084 52,548 84%

Pct. Peak Travel 79% 78% 74% 72% 69% 71% -10%

Pct. Off-Peak Travel 21% 22% 26% 28% 31% 29% 36%

Source: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, Hub Bound Travel, January 2014. MTA-Long Island Rail Road and 

NJ TRANSIT arrivals

Changing trends in highway travel are also likely to add demand for passenger rail. A decrease in 

highway travel demand is driven in part by the changing travel behavior of the Baby Boom generation 

 

27Moody’s Analytics, Inc. (2012), U. S. County Forecast, December 2012

28 NEC FUTURE (2014) and Moody's Analytics, Inc. (2012).

29 New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. (2014). Hub Bound Travel. http://www.nymtc.org/data_services/HBT.html
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

(born between 1946 and 1964) and Generation Y or Millennials (persons born after 1980). Both Baby 

Boomers and Millennials are increasingly choosing to live in urban areas where they have readily 

available access to public transportation.30 Among the Baby Boom generation, the number of privatevehicle trips rose sharply through the 1970s and 1980s but began to decline after 1995, while transit 

trips increased steadily and increased significantly between 2001 and 2009.31 Between 2001 and 

2009, the number of public transportation trips by persons 65 and older increased approximately 

51 percent. 32 Similarly, Millennials are driving less and using public transportation more than 

generations before them.33

In addition to increases in Intercity and Regional rail trips, overall population and economic growth 

in the Study Area is expected to generate growth in goods movement and associated freight 

movement. The existing freight rail moves approximately 400 million tons of freight in the Study Area 

annually.34 As the population of the Study Area continues to grow, so too will the absolute volume of 

freight. Estimates from the Federal Highway Administration’s Freight Analysis Framework predict that 

by 2040, freight movement to and from the eight states and Washington, D.C., included in the Study 

Area will increase by 34 percent over 2010 totals, including 31 percent and 26 percent increases in 

truck and freight rail volumes, respectively.35

Current conditions make it difficult to both accommodate existing Intercity and Regional rail 

passengers and attract new riders. The NEC’s limited track capacity and aging infrastructure is unable 

to deliver the quantity and quality of service needed today. If unchanged, these conditions will 

prevent the NEC from achieving its potential in accommodating future Intercity and Regional rail 

transportation demand. 

3.4.3 Gaps in Connectivity

The existing NEC is the backbone for Intercity and Regional rail service between Washington, D.C., 

and Boston, and to connecting corridors. The effectiveness of this comprehensive passenger rail 

network is further limited by gaps in connectivity. Connectivity gaps exist where service, 

infrastructure, or equipment does not accommodate trips that require transfers between modes, 

such as air-to-rail or Intercity-to-Regional rail connections. The reach and effectiveness of the 

passenger rail network could be further expanded with improved accessibility and connectivity both 

within the NEC rail network and between the NEC and the multimodal transportation system. 

 

30 Baxandall, P., & Dutzik, T. (Spring 2013). A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving and the Implications for

America's Future. U.S. PIRG Education Fund.

31 McGuckin, N., & Lynott, J. (October 2012). Impact of Baby Boomers on U.S. Travel, 1969 to 2009. Washington, D.C.: AARP 

Public Policy Institute.

32 Transportation for America. (2011). Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options: Fixing the Mobility Crisis Threatening the Baby 

Boom Generation. Transportation for America.

33 Baxandall, P., & Dutzik, T. (Spring 2013). A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving and the Implications for 

America's Future. U.S. PIRG Education Fund.

34 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (April 2014). The Northeast Corridor and the 

American Economy. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.

35 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Freight Analysis Framework: FAF3. Retrieved 

January 2015, from Freight Management and Operations: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-11

3.4.3.1 Air-to-Rail Connections

In markets that exhibit high-quality connectivity between Intercity service and airports, rail service 

complements air travel. This connectivity increases the number of markets served by the combined 

air-to-rail mode and provides access to and from the airports. Airlines are increasingly turning to 

these complementary rail connections to improve airport access, to address capacity constraints at 

busy airports, and to provide redundancy necessary to accommodate travelers when inclement 

weather or other service issues limit air travel. In Europe and Asia, rail systems have been successfully 

integrated with aviation systems. This results in a rail system that gains more riders going to an airport 

for longer-distance flights, and an air system that gets better-quality ground access for its air 

passengers. 

Forecast growth in air travel will add pressure to an already constrained aviation network, resulting 

in increased air traffic congestion in the Study Area. By 2040, enplanements at Newark, Boston, and 

New York City are projected to grow approximately 83, 81, and 79 percent, respectively, making them 

among the fastest-growing airports nationally. 36 The top four most delay-prone airports in the 

country are also found in the Study Area.37 The percentage of delayed flights caused by heavy air 

traffic volume has increased by approximately 44 percent over the past decade, with approximately 

31 percent of all delayed flights in the Study Area caused by heavy traffic volume. 38 However, 

improved rail capacity and connectivity that complements air travel could alleviate congestion on the 

aviation network. 

A recent study by the Airport Cooperative Research Program concluded that, when looking at air and 

rail together in Europe, rail serving in a complementary mode with air had higher numbers of 

passengers than the number of air passengers diverted from air to rail.

39 Specifically, the study 

documented approximately 6 million40 air passengers who had been diverted to Intercity-Long

Distance service, and approximately 26 million41 air passengers who had gained access to the airport 

using Intercity service. This suggests that Intercity rail can provide key access to airports offering longdistance or international flights. Several such airports are located within the large metropolitan areas 

along the NEC: BWI Marshall Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, Newark International 

Airport, and JFK International Airport. As such, there is potential for growth in Intercity rail service on 

the NEC to these international airports.

 

36 Federal Aviation Administration: Forecast and Performance Analysis Division. (2014). Terminal Area Forecast Summary: Fiscal 

Years 2013-2040. Federal Aviation Administration. 37United States Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2012). Chronically Delayed Flights. 

Retrieved April 2012, from Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

38United States Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2015, February). Airline On-Time Statistics 

and Delay Causes. Retrieved 2015, from Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

39 Airport Cooperative Research Program. (2015). ACRP Report 118: Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning. 

Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board

40 Ibid. Table 4.1, page 55

41 Ibid. Table 1.1, page 3
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

3.4.3.2 Rail-to-Rail Connections

Nearly all of the Intercity and Regional rail stations along the NEC provide travelers with rail-to-rail 

connectivity. As shown in Chapter 5, Transportation, 90 percent of the NEC Intercity stations connect 

to Regional rail service and 90 percent connect to local transit. However, many of these types of 

connections suffer from a lack of coordinated service, infrequent service, or insufficient infrastructure 

to make convenient connections. For example, BWI Marshall Airport Station connects Amtrak’s 

Intercity service with the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) service. However, the station,

track, and platform configuration makes transfers difficult for passengers and restricts the frequency 

of service, which hinders the experience for both Intercity and Regional rail passengers.42

Several different owners and operators share responsibility for delivering passenger and freight rail 

service along the NEC. The different operating requirements for Intercity, Regional rail, and freight 

railroads, in combination with their specific service requirements, affect the connectivity and 

reliability of Intercity and Regional rail service overall. Each of the rail operators sets its own schedules 

within the constraints of existing network capacity and fleet availability, uses its own equipment, and 

manages its own ticketing systems. The result is a fragmented network that limits connectivity. Rail

service providers have responded to passenger needs with a variety of transportation options that 

are sometimes uncoordinated with other providers and can be inefficient in how they consume 

available transportation infrastructure capacity.

The division of ownership of the NEC among numerous institutions complicates the coordination 

necessary to improve service to existing markets or reach new markets. As a result, passenger rail 

options are limited in some markets. For example, Regional travel between Philadelphia and points 

north of Trenton, NJ, requires a transfer between NJ TRANSIT and SEPTA in Trenton. An 

approximately 20-mile gap in MARC and SEPTA service between Perryville, MD, and Newark, DE, 

limits rail travel between these points and between markets south of Perryville and north of Newark. 

In New York City, Regional rail passengers arriving from west of the Hudson River must take local 

transit to travel east of the Hudson River. Likewise, Regional rail passengers arriving from east of the 

Hudson River must take local transit to travel west of the Hudson River. 

In some instances, incompatible infrastructure, such as different rail power delivery systems,

inconvenient pedestrian connections between modes, or operating limitations create inefficiencies 

for operations and passenger travel. For example, passenger rail service operating north of New 

Haven, CT, on the NEC currently requires a change in equipment from electric to diesel to continue 

north along the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield line, increasing travel times for passengers.

3.4.4 Compromised Performance

Travelers in the Study Area have a range of travel options. In many markets, however, Intercity 

passenger rail is not competitive with travel by air or highway. Congestion on passenger rail and 

concerns regarding reliability further erode the ability of passenger rail to offer time-competitive 

 

42 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (January 2013). Critical Infrastructure Needs on the 

Northeast Corridor. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-13

travel. Improvements in travel times, frequency of service, or span of service are necessary to make 

passenger rail competitive with other modes. 

As shown in Table 3-3, for trips among the major markets of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New 

York City, and Boston, travel by air offers faster travel times than passenger rail. Furthermore, in 

certain markets, passenger rail is not price-competitive with air and highway travel. Particularly in 

markets served by discount air carriers, fares are often 30–50 percent below rail fares although travel 

times may be comparable.

Table 3-3: Comparative Travel Times by Mode

Travel Mode

Average Travel Time (h:mm)

Washington, D.C. –

New York City

New York City –

Boston

Washington, D.C. –

Philadelphia

Boston –

Philadelphia

Air 1:50 1:40 1:20 2:10

Highway 5:20 5:30 3:20 7:00

Rail: Northeast Regional 3:20 4:20 2:00 6:00

Rail: Acela 2:50 3:30 1:40 4:50

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 

Notes:

1. Air and Rail: average weekday travel times for city center to city center interchanges

2. Highway: average weekday travel times, accounting for free-flow and congested traffic conditions

Contributing to the compromised performance is the shared use of track by the Intercity and Regional

rail operators. The mix of Intercity and Regional rail services with different service and operating 

attributes reduces the practical capacity of the existing NEC. Faster Intercity trains must pass slower 

Regional trains; Intercity-Express trains are slowed down by following trains making local stops. This 

shared use of track requires carefully managed and coordinated schedules by the Intercity and 

Regional rail operators to support reliable train operations, often limiting when trains can operate 

and where they can stop. SEPTA, for example, experiences slow speeds caused by capacity constraints 

from shared track with Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT at many points throughout its rail network.43

In addition, the use of the NEC by freight operators exacerbates the issue of shared track for 

passenger rail. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, for example, portions of the NEC 

mainline tracks are shared during daytime hours by both freight and passenger rail. This creates 

challenges for scheduling and dispatching, especially on heavily traveled routes such as between 

Rhode Island and Connecticut where the Providence and Worcester Railroad Company freight trains 

serve local shippers on the same line used for higher-speed Intercity and Regional passenger services.

Consistent with Section 3.4.2, Insufficient Capacity, capacity constraints create a congested 

passenger rail network, which affects reliability. Reliability is measured by on-time performance, 

which reflects how often passenger trains arrive at their destinations on time.44 The most recent 

 

43 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (2008). Speeding Up SEPTA: Finding Ways to Move Passengers Faster.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

44 On-time performance is a measure of train performance. It is calculated by taking the total number of trains arriving “ontime” at its last stop, divided by the total number of trains operated, and expressed as a percent. A train is considered “on-
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

performance results shows that Acela Express trains arrive on time approximately 74 percent of the 

time, while Northeast Regional trains arrive on time approximately 80 percent of the time.45 This is 

well below Amtrak’s on-time performance goal of 95 percent for Acela Express trains, and 90 percent

for Northeast Regional trains.46 A primary cause of delays, accounting for approximately 24 percent

and 26 percent of all delays on Acela Express and Northeast Regional, respectively, involves train 

interference, which is caused by freight, Regional rail, and other Intercity passenger train 

movements.47

3.4.5 Lack of Resiliency

Resiliency of the NEC passenger rail network is based on its ability to continue to function even during 

unanticipated outages, catastrophic, or weather-related events. The resiliency of the NEC is 

constrained by poor infrastructure, capacity, and redundancy, all of which are necessary to plan for 

and maintain operations during unplanned events. System redundancy is needed to support the 

reliability of the transportation system in the Study Area and to ensure that it is resilient and 

adaptable to changing circumstances. In the event of the unforeseen loss of essential network links, 

the availability of redundant components provides the necessary back-up that can maintain the 

services on which the economies of the larger urban areas depend (see Section 3.4.7, Economic 

Growth). 

The NEC Commission’s Critical Infrastructure Needs report has identified the need for additional 

capacity and redundancy, particularly under the Hudson River to/from New Jersey and New York 

City.

48 With only two single-track tunnels for in- and outbound service, any events that may affect the 

tunnel infrastructure and render it unusable would adversely affect not only service between New 

Jersey and New York City, but also service between any two points north and south of New York City 

on the NEC. In October 2012, all Intercity and Regional rail service that runs through these tunnels 

was suspended for several days as a result of flooding from Superstorm Sandy. This and other 

Intercity and Regional rail passenger rail disruptions caused by flooding in the New York City 

metropolitan area increased pressures on other modes.49

In addition, redundancy in parts of the rail network is needed to minimize service disruptions while 

maintaining and upgrading the NEC infrastructure. Redundant rail infrastructure provides not only 

additional capacity, but also flexibility for service operators to manage the challenges of maintaining 

 

time” if it arrives at its last stop within an allowed number of minutes of its scheduled time. Amtrak. (2015). Route Performance 

Glossary of Terms. Retrieved February 2015, from Amtrak: 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Satellite?c=AM_Content_C&cid=1241245662251&pagename=am/Popup

45 Amtrak. (2015). Route Performance. Retrieved February 2015, from Amtrak: http://www.amtrak.com/historical-on-timeperformance

46 The NEC Master Plan Working Group. (2010). The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. Washington, D.C.: NEC 

Master Plan Working Group.

47 Amtrak. (2015). Route Performance. Retrieved February 2015, from Amtrak: http://www.amtrak.com/historical-on-timeperformance

48 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (January 2013). Critical Infrastructure Needs on the 

Northeast Corridor. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.

49 Hanson, M., Kaufman, S., Levenson, N., & Qin, C. (November 2012). Transportation During and After Hurricane Sandy. New 

York, NY: Rudin Center for Transportation, NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-15

and upgrading infrastructure under operating conditions, where around-the-clock service prohibits 

shutting down service for maintenance or other activities. 

Extreme weather events have become more commonplace. Severe storms have revealed both the 

vulnerability of the existing rail infrastructure and the lack of resiliency of that infrastructure to 

withstand flooding and other damage associated with storm surge events, such as Hurricane Irene or 

Superstorm Sandy. As described in the Coastal Resources section (Chapter 7.5, Hydrologic/Water 

Resources) approximately 40 percent of the NEC is located 

within a coastal zone, where the tracks are vulnerable to 

rises in sea level. Within Delaware and Connecticut,

100 percent of the NEC is located within a coastal zone, and 

in Pennsylvania nearly 60 percent is located within a 

coastal zone. To protect the rail transportation 

infrastructure and keep the riding public safe, Amtrak and 

Regional railroads operating along the NEC have had to 

shut down service in anticipation of severe storms. In other 

cases, the overhead catenary systems or power supplies 

are vulnerable to severe winds or flooding. In extreme heat 

events, railroad tracks can buckle and become distorted, which may cause derailments. To reduce 

the risk of track buckling and train derailment during a heat event, Amtrak and the commuter 

railroads operating along the NEC temporarily reduce train speed, which is costly since that action 

affects the schedule, reduces service quality, and affects time-sensitive freight rail shipments.50

3.4.6 Environmental Sustainability

There is national, regional,state, and local interest in how the transportation system, and in particular 

the rail network, can positively contribute to the overall environmental quality of the region. A 

coalition of Northeast and mid-Atlantic states created the Transportation and Climate Initiative51 to 

consider the linkages between passenger and freight transportation and environmental benefits such 

as reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Individually, several Northeast cities are taking 

similar steps to develop climate action plans.52

As described in Chapter 7.13, Air Quality, almost every county along the NEC, except for counties in 

Rhode Island and Massachusetts, fails to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for one or 

more criteria air pollutants, such as ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Air pollutants 

and GHG can be harmful to human or animal health, reduce the productivity of crops or natural 

vegetation, and contribute to climate change. Transportation is a major source of air pollutants and 

 

50 Safety Advisory 2012-03; Buckling-Prone Conditions in Continuous Welded Rail Track. (2012, July 16). Federal Register, 77, 

No. 136, 41881. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-16/pdf/2012-17343.pdf 51 The Transportation and Climate Initiative is regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and mid-Atlantic jurisdictions that seeks to 

develop the clean energy economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. Georgetown Climate 

Center. (2012). Transportation & Climate Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from 

Georgetown Law: http://www.georgetownclimate.org/state-action/transportation-and-climate-initiative

52 Baltimore Commission on Sustainability. (2013). Baltimore Climate Action Plan. Baltimore, MD: Balitmore City Planning 

Commission.

The destruction caused by Hurricane Irene 

and Superstorm Sandy has raised 

awareness of the vulnerability of the NEC 

and connecting services as well as the 

need to improve resiliency and to provide 

redundancy to create a more sustainable 

rail network.
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

GHG emissions. Increasing rail’s role in serving Intercity and Regional rail modes could reduce 

environmental impacts from transportation sources of air pollutants. As described in Chapter 7.14, 

Energy, Intercity and Regional rail consume less energy per passenger mile than do automobiles and 

other modes of transportation.

The Northeast’s overall high-density settlement pattern is a legacy of an era before widespread use 

of the automobile. Settlement patterns of recent decades consistent with widespread use of the 

automobile are typically land-intensive, low-density developments. As previously discussed, 

substantial population and employment growth of more than 10 percent is expected within the Study 

Area through 2040. If this future growth is accommodated in the land-intensive manner of recent 

decades consistent with widespread use of the automobile, there will be greater development 

pressure on ecological and natural systems, resulting in the loss of important rural and open spaces.

There is also the need to invest in expanded NEC passenger rail service to complement local efforts 

to promote transit-oriented development. Throughout the Study Area, local and statewide policies, 

initiatives, and plans call for increased emphasis on passenger rail and transit-related land use 

changes. The Capitol Region Council of Governments—a metropolitan planning organization that 

includes Hartford, CT—has identified recommendations and land use plans to encourage transitoriented development.53 Such recommendations and plans support goals to protect and preserve 

wildlife and water resources from land-intensive development patterns. Similarly, the New Jersey 

State Development and Redevelopment Plan identifies goals and objectives for transit-supportive 

development to protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas.54 A majority of Americans 

surveyed (56 percent) prefer smart-growth communities with nearby access to public transportation, 

compared to communities where public transportation is distant or unavailable. 55 These smartgrowth communities are characterized by compact development where markets and services are 

within walking distance and are supported by public transportation, and Intercity, and Regional rail 

services. 

3.4.7 Economic Growth

A transportation system that provides options for reliable, efficient, and cost-effective movement of 

goods and passengers is needed for continued economic growth in the Study Area. The four largest 

metropolitan areas in the Study Area—Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and Boston—are 

projected to continue to account for approximately 70 percent of the Study Area’s GDP, and 

approximately two-thirds of the Study Area’s employment and population.56 The Study Area’s GDP is 

projected to grow by approximately 2 percent per year through 2040 (inflation-adjusted growth using 

2004 as the reference year)57 compared to GDP in the United States, which is forecast to grow 

 

53 Capitol Region Council of Governments. (2011). Capitol Region Transportation Plan: A Guide for Transportaion Investments 

Through The Year 2040. Hartford, CT: Capitol Region Council of Governments.

54 New Jersey State Planning Commission. (2001). The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan. New Jersey 

State Planning Commission.

55 Belden Russonello & Stewart. (2011). The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans Are Looking For When 

Deciding Where to Live. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Realtors.

56 Moody's Analytics, Inc. (2012).

57 Ibid.
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-17

approximately 2.5 percent per year.58 The lower rate of growth in GDP for the Study Area reflects the 

high cost of doing business, based on historical labor costs, energy costs, and tax rates. 

Millions of workers in the Study Area depend on train service to commute to and from work each day 

and for access to business markets across the NEC. Because passenger rail serves the downtown 

centers of the NEC’s largest cities, it often provides the fastest and most convenient means of access 

to jobs and business. Improvements in passenger and freight mobility to address increased 

congestion from population and workforce growth would improve productivity and support 

economic growth by lowering the cost of doing business. As shown in Table 3-4, the Texas 

Transportation Institute estimates that public transportation in the New York City–Newark urban 

area saved over 440 million hours of delay and over $9 billion in congestion costs in 2011. If public 

transportation had been discontinued in 2011, urban areas nationwide with populations over 

3 million would have experienced, on average, a 24 percent increase over current congestion costs.59

Table 3-4: Public Transportation Cost Savings (2011)

Urban Area Delay (1,000 hours) Value ($ million)

Washington, D.C.–VA–MD 33,810 $711.0

Baltimore, MD 11,219 $248.6

Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 30,167 $654.9

New York City–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 440,647 $9,586.8

Bridgeport–Stamford, CT–NY 382 $8.2

New Haven, CT 336 $7.0

Hartford, CT 1,460 $30.4

Springfield, MA–CT 349 $7.3

Providence, RI 1,184 $24.2

Boston, MA–NH–RI 37,943 $809.4

Source: Eisele, B., Lomax, T., & Schrank, D. (December 2012). 2012 Urban Mobility Report. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 

The Texas A&M University System.

Furthermore, the cost of doing business in the Study Area is relatively high compared to other 

locations in the United States and abroad. In fact, the NEC’s eight states and Washington, D.C., rank 

among the top 10 most expensive states.60 Already a high-cost region, the cost of congestion is a 

constraint to the Study Area’s economic growth prospects. Productivity has been shown to be tied to 

the state of transportation infrastructure and system performance, both generally and with specific 

regard to locations within the Study Area. 61 A recent study on transportation’s critical role in 

 

58 U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2013). Annual Energy Outlook 2013: With Projections to 2040. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis.

59Eisele, B., Lomax, T., & Schrank, D. (December 2012). 2012 Urban Mobility Report. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, The 

Texas A&M University System.

60 Moody’s Analytics rankings of states based on business costs based on costs of labor, energy and taxes, 2012

61 Aarabi, S., Graham, D. J., Levinson, D., & Melo, P. C. (January 13-17, 2013). Agglomeration, Accessibility, and Productivity: 

Evidence for Urbanized Areas in the US. Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.: University of 

Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
3. Purpose and Need

Page | 3-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Massachusetts explored the cost of doing nothing with regard to transportation investments.62 The 

study found that by 2030, doing nothing would result in increased operating and safety costs of 

$6.6 billion to $11.1 billion, increased business costs for the shipping industry, $11.1 billion to 

$14.9 billion in lost productivity as a result of increased congestion and greater travel times and 

distances, and the loss of 12,300 to 15,600 jobs caused by deficiencies of the highway network and 

environmental costs.63

Economic growth depends on connectivity and access to labor markets. Connectivity and access 

create economies of scale or agglomeration effects for individual metropolitan areas along the NEC.

The economies of the individual metropolitan areas along the NEC benefit from the strength of the 

New York City metropolitan area economy. In workshops64 conducted for NEC FUTURE, participants 

representing a wide range of public and private sector entities agreed on the importance of frequent, 

reliable, and fast access to New York City. Passenger rail connectivity and competitive travel times to 

major business and commercial centers in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and Boston 

would create the potential for labor markets to become more interlinked as more people and places 

are accessible by rail and would promote economic growth in the Study Area. 

Eliminating connectivity gaps at the stations increases the number of Intercity rail and Regional rail 

services that can access the region. Likewise, improvements to passenger rail travel times to station 

areas serving urban areas increases the distance from which passengers can travel in a given amount 

of time. Increasing the number of businesses and jobs accessible within a 20-minute travel time can 

lead to productivity benefits, such as an approximately 7-percent increase in average wages for 

employees, and a larger pool of diversified labor for employers.

65 For major metropolitan areas like 

New York City, where population and employment are very dense, these benefits can extend to 

places up to 60 minutes from the city center. The service industry tends to show the greatest benefit 

from transportation improvements because it depends more on proximity to large urban areas.66

In addition, economic growth depends on the continued viability of the knowledge-based economic 

sector in the Study Area. The numerous academic and research facilities located along the existing 

NEC depend on travel to connect academics, researchers, and medical professionals and their 

patients between facilities located along the NEC. For example, Yale University representatives have 

identified the dependence of associated medical facilities and research and research-related 

businesses in New Haven, CT, and surrounding areas on convenient, reliable, frequent rail access.67

 

62 The Boston Foundation and The Massachusetts Competitive Partnership. (2013). The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Economic 

Case for Transportation Investment in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.

63 Costs are forecast in discounted 2008 dollars. The Boston Foundation and The Massachusetts Competitive Partnership. (2013). 

The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Economic Case for Transportation Investment in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: The Boston 

Foundation.

64 See Appendix D, Economic Development Workshop Technical Memorandum.

65 Aarabi, Sarah, Daniel J. Graham, David Levinson, and Patricia C. Melo. (2012). Agglomeration, Accessibility, and Productivity: 

Evidence for Urbanized Areas in the US. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting (2013).

66 Graham, Daniel J., Patricia C. Melo, and Robert B. Noland. “A Meta-Analysis of Estimates of urban Agglomeration Economies.”

Regional Science and Urban Economics 39, 2009: 332-342.

67 Parker, H., & Jacob, R. (2013, May 14). Yale University meeting with the City of New Haven. (City of New Haven, Interviewer)
3. Purpose and Need

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 3-19

Although transportation has been identified as an important factor for economic growth, formulating 

a regional approach to transportation has been a challenge because the Study Area consists of 

multiple independent states and jurisdictions, each with its own interests and transportation policies. 

Planning efforts like those undertaken by the I-95 Corridor Coalition and the Coalition of Northeastern 

Governors have helped to define the Northeast region's transportation needs. Similarly, the NEC 

Commission has recently brought the Intercity and Regional rail operators together to develop a 

comprehensive five-year capital plan for the NEC.

68 However, there has yet to be a long-term vision 

to improve passenger rail service on the NEC and define a way to implement a balanced, efficient 

passenger rail program that meets the economic needs of the entire Study Area.

 

68 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (2015, April). NEC Five-Year Capital Plan. 

http://www.nec-commission.com/five-year-capital-plan/