TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phasing and 

Implementation

10.

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-i

Contents

10. PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................10-1

10.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................10-2

10.2 UNIVERSAL FIRST PHASE...................................................................................................................10-3

10.2.1 Service Benefits................................................................................................................................. 10-7

10.2.2 Transportation Benefits.................................................................................................................... 10-9

10.2.3 Capital Cost....................................................................................................................................... 10-9

10.3 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES ...............................................................................10-10

10.3.1 Coordinated Corridor-Wide Planning ............................................................................................. 10-11

10.3.2 Construction Staging and Planning Strategies................................................................................ 10-12

10.4 DIFFERENCES IN DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION BETWEEN THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................10-14

Tables

TABLE 10-1: UNIVERSAL FIRST PHASE PROJECTS – AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAJOR CHOKEPOINTS ...............10-4

TABLE 10-2: UNIVERSAL FIRST PHASE – ESTIMATED RAIL RIDERSHIP................................................................10-9

TABLE 10-3: UNIVERSAL FIRST PHASE – CAPITAL COSTS...............................................................................10-10

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-1

10. Phasing and Implementation

As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, the outcome of NEC FUTURE is that the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) will select a long-term vision for passenger rail in the Study Area. The Preferred 

Alternative, which the FRA will describe in the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 

Final EIS), will define that vision. As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives Considered, the FRA 

anticipates that implementation of the Action Alternatives would follow an incremental or phased 

approach. The FRA will develop and describe a phasing plan for the Preferred Alternative in the Tier 

1 Final EIS. The phasing plan will identify the priorities and describe the proposed approach for

incrementally implementing new service in the Study Area and building the proposed improvements 

necessary to support and maximize the benefits of the Preferred Alternative.

In advance of identifying a Preferred Alternative, it is useful to understand the approach, feasibility,

and benefits of incrementally implementing any one of the proposed Action Alternatives. The FRA 

does not intend to use this initial phasing discussion as a factor in evaluating the Action Alternatives.

Furthermore, the Preferred Alternative could include components of one or more Action 

Alternatives. Therefore, the FRA developed a representative initial phase that could apply to any one 

of the Action Alternatives. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate a representative first phase of 

projects that respond to market and service needs relevant to all the Action Alternatives. As defined, 

the initial phase is a collection of projects that would improve service and address critical 

infrastructure improvements for any of the Action Alternatives. This initial phase is referred to as a 

Universal First Phase since it does not prejudice the outcome of the subsequent decisions about a 

Preferred Alternative and a Selected Alterative. 1

The ability to implement expanded passenger rail service as envisioned in the Action Alternatives, 

and to make the improvements necessary to support such service, will depend on many factors, 

including funding, environmental approvals, market growth, regional cooperation, and practical 

constraints relating to construction on a very busy rail corridor. Therefore, project sponsors will 

implement improvements incrementally. Some work, such as state-of-good-repair projects, could 

advance on a continual basis through annual bridge, track, electric-traction, systems, and structures 

programs, while larger projects would be planned and implemented separately.

The Service Development Plan—to be prepared following completion of the Tier 1 Final EIS and 

Record of Decision—will provide a detailed phasing plan for the Selected Alternative. The Universal 

First Phase described in this chapter includes the fundamental building blocks applicable to any of 

the Action Alternatives. These building blocks collectively address the Study Area’s most pressing 

capacity and state-of-good-repair challenges. While the future project proponents would refine the

scope and design of the projects within the Universal First Phase based on specific requirements of 

the Selected Alternative, implementation of these projects creates a starting point from which to 

advance the Selected Alternative. Importantly, the improvements would enable the states and the 

NEC railroads to realize near-term benefits of investment in the NEC (e.g., increased service, 

improved reliability, shorter travel time, and advancing state-of-good-repair priorities). The 

 

1 See Chapter 1 for the discussion of and differences between the Preferred Alternative and Selected Alternative.
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

successful implementation of the complex, integrated program of service and infrastructure 

improvements included in the Universal First Phase will require ongoing partnerships. While there is 

no target date for completion of the Universal First Phase, projects included could be constructed 

and be in service within 10 to 15 years.

The FRA did not assess environmental or economic effects of the Universal First Phase separately in 

the Tier 1 Draft EIS (Chapters 5, 6, and 7). While the FRA will consider the feasibility of incrementally 

implementing each Action Alternative in its recommendation of a Preferred Alternative, the FRA did 

not consider the representative Universal First Phase in the evaluation of alternatives described in 

Chapter 9, Evaluation of Alternatives. Moreover, the Universal First Phase, as defined, applies to each 

of the Action Alternatives and therefore is not a differentiator among them. However, by defining a 

Universal First Phase, the FRA describes how the collection of projects included in this Universal First 

Phase could be implemented and the benefits that could be achieved from them in the near term.

In addition to projects that address the NEC’s most pressing capacity and state-of-good-repair 

priorities for each of the three Action Alternatives, the Universal First Phase also includes

implementation of operational efficiencies and corridor-wide service enhancements that would 

change the way passenger service is operated today. These changes could influence cost-sharing 

agreements that are discussed by the NEC railroads through the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure 

and Operations Advisory Commission (NEC Commission). Cost-effective and timely implementation 

of the types and quantity of service included in the Action Alternatives would reflect the ability of 

NEC stakeholders to make changes to existing institutional, governance, or cost-sharing agreements.

These changes would affect the funding, feasibility, and schedule of any of the Action Alternatives.

10.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The Universal First Phase is not part of the No Action Alternative. The passenger rail improvements 

included in the No Action Alternative, by definition, already are planned, programmed, and in some 

cases, under construction. The Universal First Phase would build on the completion of those No 

Action Alternative projects already programmed for the near term. In this way, the FRA can 

incorporate the No Action Alternative projects, and their associated operational and capacity 

benefits, into the service and construction planning for the Universal First Phase. The Universal First 

Phase does not include the following improvements already included in the No Action Alternative:

4 Mid-Line Loop project in New Brunswick, NJ

4 East Side Access Project in New York City, NY

4 Harold Interlocking upgrade in Queens, NY

4 Walk (movable) Bridge replacement in Norwalk, CT

4 Third-Track Project in Rhode Island
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-3

10.2 UNIVERSAL FIRST PHASE

The Universal First Phase of work consists of the projects required to implement any of the three 

Action Alternatives. It builds upon the No Action Alternative and incorporates those projects included 

in all Action Alternatives, but does not include projects specific to each Action Alternative’s distinct

long-term service objective (maintain, grow, transform). As noted, in some cases, the specific scope 

and design of a project in this Universal First Phase would be determined in subsequent project-level 

(Tier 2) analyses and could vary depending on the Action Alternative selected by the FRA. 

Implementation of this phase would support a modest increase in both Intercity and Regional rail 

services, greatly enhance the overall reliability of passenger rail on the NEC, and prepare the NEC for 

future phases of work.

The Universal First Phase consists of the following:

4 Major projects to replace aging infrastructure (as part of the effort to return the NEC to a state

of good repair) and to address major chokepoints

4 Projects necessary to minimize adverse impacts on passengers and rail operations during 

construction (e.g., additional interlockings so that trains can change tracks more frequently, and 

additional trackage at some locations)

4 Operational, efficiency, and appropriate organizational changes required to maximize the benefit 

and cost-effectiveness of investment in the NEC and provide for an enhanced passenger 

experience

4 Passenger equipment with consistent performance standards across the NEC

Universal Projects to Replace Aging Infrastructure and Address Major Chokepoints 

The Universal First Phase includes major projects to replace aging infrastructure and relieve 

chokepoints. While these projects are universal in need across the Action Alternatives, they could

differ to some extent in scope and design. For example, a new bridge could require two to four tracks 

in Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, but six tracks for Alternative 3.

Table 10-1 lists the projects included in the Universal First Phase intended to replace aging 

infrastructure and address major chokepoints for the Action Alternatives. The table also indicates if 

the improvement would take place primarily on the existing NEC right-of-way (requiring lengthy 

outages during construction that could adversely affect ongoing passenger rail operations) or 

primarily off the NEC (where construction work could proceed with fewer outages and impacts).
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 10-1: Universal First Phase Projects – Aging Infrastructure and Major Chokepoints

Project

Construction 

Generally On or 

Off the NEC Description

Replace Aging Infrastructure

Electrification System 

Modernization: Washington, D.C.—

New Rochelle, NY

On Modernization of the existing electrification system, 

including constant-tension catenary

Signal System Modernization:

Washington, D.C.–New Rochelle, NY

On Modernization of the existing signal and traffic control 

systems 

Replacement of Major Bridges

< Gunpowder River (MD)

< Bush River (MD)

< Susquehanna River (MD)

< Pelham Bay (NY)

< Cos Cob (CT)

< Saugatuck River (CT)

< Devon (CT)

< Connecticut River (CT) 

Off the NEC if built 

as new structure; 

on the NEC if 

rebuilt or 

upgraded in place

Replacement generally in kind with movable or fixed 

structures

Address Chokepoints 

Washington Union Station, Master 

Plan Phase 1 and Phase 2 

(Washington, D.C.)

On Expand existing Main Concourse and increase east side

tracks/platforms

Hanson Interlocking (Landover, MD) On Reconfiguration of existing Landover Interlocking

New Carrollton Station 

Improvements (New Carrolton, MD)

On Additional track and platforms to create a station with 

platforms on all four tracks

Odenton Station improvements

(Odenton, MD)

On Additional track and platforms on express and local 

tracks; new interlocking south of Odenton

Baltimore-Washington International 

Airport Station Center-Island 

Platform (Ann Arundel County, MD)

On Additional track and center-island platform

Fourth track between Odenton and 

Halethorpe (Maryland)

On Eliminates chokepoint and supports expansion of BWI 

Airport station

Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel 

Replacement (Baltimore, MD)

Off Replacement of existing two-track tunnel with four new 

tunnel tracks

Aberdeen Station Platforms

(Aberdeen, MD)

On New four-track station with platforms on express and 

local tracks

Newark Transportation Center and 

Davis Interlocking Reconfiguration

(Newark, DE)

On Partial chokepoint relief; station reconstruction, track 

shifts and new interlockings

Trenton improvements (Trenton, NJ) On Chokepoint relief; grade separated track connections for 

Regional rail yard access and turn-backs

Metropark Station – express track 

platforms (Metropark, NJ)

On Reconfiguration of station and track alignments in 

station area to provide platforms on the express tracks

North Brunswick Station (North 

Brunswick, NJ)

On New station

Hunter Flyover (Newark NJ) On Eliminates at-grade rail connection between Raritan 

Valley line and NEC

Newark Penn Station capacity 

improvements (Newark, NJ)

On Track, interlocking, signaling and station improvements 

to maximize throughput capacity of existing station
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-5

Table 10-1: Universal First Phase Projects – Aging Infrastructure and Major Chokepoints

(continued)

Project

Construction 

Generally On or 

Off the NEC Description

Address Chokepoints (continued)

Portal Bridge replacement (Newark 

NJ)

Off Replacement of existing movable Portal Bridge with 

fixed-span two-track north and two-track south bridges

Secaucus Station Expansion 

(Secaucus, NJ)

Off Expands existing station to accommodate platforms on 

tracks feeding the new Hudson River Tunnel and to 

provide parallel movement capability between the new 

tunnels and the new third and fourth tracks between 

Newark and Secaucus

4-track Mainline between Newark 

and Secaucus (New Jersey)

On Supports increased capacity resulting from Portal

Bridge, Secaucus Loop and Hudson River tunnel projects

Hudson River Tunnel Replacements 

(NJ/NY)

Off Additional of two new tracks under the Hudson River 

and restoration of the two existing tracks to provide 

four-track capacity

Penn Station NY Expansion (New 

York City, NY)

Off Six to eight additional platform tracks

Hell Gate Line 4-tracking and four 

new Bronx stations (Bronx, NY)

On Initial phase of New Haven Line Penn Station New York 

access

Shell Flyover (New Rochelle, NY) On Construct flyover connecting Hell Gate Line tracks to 

center tracks of the New Haven line

Cross-Westchester turn-back (Port 

Chester, NY)

On Facilitates conflict-free Regional rail train turns

Barnum Station at East Bridgeport

(East Bridgeport, CT)

Off Track reconfiguration and new station with platforms 

on express and local tracks

Canton Jct. to Readville 3rd track On Add third track to NEC main line

South Station Expansion (Boston) On Addition of tracks and platforms; interlocking 

reconstruction; yard capacity expansion

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

Projects to Support Construction

The Universal First Phase includes temporary and permanent improvements to the NEC to support 

the management of train traffic during construction and to minimize adverse effects to customers 

and ongoing passenger rail operations. These projects include the following types of improvements:

4 Additional interlockings approaching and through construction areas to better manage train 

traffic 

4 Additional segments of track to bypass construction work and to support operations when other 

tracks are out of service

The location for these temporary and permanent traffic management enhancements would be 

determined during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Tier 2 project-level analysis and 

would depend on the location of specific projects and the construction staging and sequencing 

planned for the work. These traffic management enhancements would be identified and designed in 

parallel with the underlying projects and would be installed prior to construction. 
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Importantly, segments of new track added to support construction could be planned during the NEPA 

Tier 2 project-level analysis to serve in the future as segments of a second spine or to provide 

additional capacity for train traffic. Thus, the planning for such construction mitigation should be 

strategic in nature to support future opportunities.

Projects and Actions to Enhance Service Efficiency and Customer Experience

The infrastructure projects included in the Universal First Phase would eliminate chokepoints and 

expand the capacity of the railroad. Thus, these improvements would support an increase in both 

Intercity and Regional train service. However, the extent to which service is improved—and the 

degree to which passengers benefit—would be greatly enhanced if the NEC railroads were to jointly 

implement key changes in the operation and scheduling of trains. These coordinated efforts—

building off work today to operate across the NEC—would further increase capacity, reduce operating 

costs, and support more convenient service to NEC passengers.

Key operational and efficiency improvements include the following:

4 Passenger Capacity – Train consists should maximize carrying capacity through use of longer 

trains and high-capacity coaches.

4 Service Integration – The customer experience would be greatly enhanced through development 

of better-coordinated Intercity and Regional train schedules on the NEC. This would facilitate

scheduled transfers between services and from one operator to another, with fewer delays and 

faster connections. 

4 Slot-Based Operations – Comprehensive expansion of a standardized slot-based service schedule 

across the NEC network, which would optimize the use of available capacity, improve reliability,

and assist with the coordination of corridor-wide service.

4 Reduced Dwell Time – Enforcement of standardized dwell times, and changes in boarding and 

de-boarding practices, would improve reliability and reduce travel time.

4 Common Fare System – A common ticketing and fare collection system (supporting use of a single 

fare medium for all NEC operations) and consolidated corridor-wide schedules, train information 

and trip-planning applications, which would simplify the travel experience.

Incorporation of these operating efficiencies across the NEC becomes feasible with completion of

the Universal First Phase projects, which would help to maximize the benefits of the physical 

improvements to the NEC and enhance the passenger experience. Importantly, they would also 

demonstrate the ability and commitment of the NEC railroads to work together to transition the NEC 

to a more integrated passenger rail network. Implementation of these operational changes is

sufficiently important for achieving the full benefit of NEC investment that the FRA may consider 

making their timely implementation a condition for future federal funding awarded to advance 

Universal First Phase projects. Stakeholder and public comment on such a requirement will help to 

shape the FRA’s policy in this regard.
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-7

Equipment

The acquisition of new Intercity passenger rail equipment would be essential to expand and enhance 

Intercity rail service on the NEC. State-of-the-art high-performance train equipment operates at 

higher speeds, accelerates and decelerates faster, and accommodates a greater number of 

passengers per car than existing trains. These attributes are critical to maximizing the benefits from 

physical improvements to the NEC infrastructure.

Modernization of train equipment used by the NEC commuter rail authorities, and expansion of their 

fleets to maximize the number of seats per train, would further enhance the benefits from 

implementation of the Universal First Phase. While the FRA makes no specific assumptions in this 

regard, the FRA anticipates that the operators of regional service would move toward building a fleet

that incorporates state-of-the-art technology and efficiencies, and provides more consistent and 

better performance characteristics.

The Universal First Phase assumes that Amtrak would acquire new Intercity-Express train equipment 

to supplement or replace the current Acela trainsets. While not specifically included as a Universal 

First Phase component, the phased replacement of the Intercity-Corridor equipment used wholly on 

the NEC with high-performance train equipment would expand carrying capacity and performance, 

and facilitate introduction of Metropolitan service.

10.2.1 Service Benefits

Implementation of the Universal First Phase would relieve the most serious capacity constraints on 

the NEC and accommodate near-term ridership growth. 

4 Intercity-Express – Washington, D.C.-New York City Intercity-Express service would expand to 

two trains per hour during portions of the day. The seating capacity of Intercity-Express trains

would grow by replacing current Acela trainsets with new higher-capacity equipment. This would 

help to address current constraints on Intercity-Express service across the NEC. New equipment 

and elimination of chokepoints would reduce travel time and recovery (pad).

4 Intercity-Corridor – A second hourly Washington, D.C.-Boston Intercity-Corridor train would be

added during portions of the day to support growing demand. Some additional stations would be 

added to the stopping pattern for Intercity-Corridor trains if existing train equipment is replaced 

with new high-performance trains. As noted, the FRA does not assume replacement of the 

Intercity-Corridor fleet—a prerequisite for introduction of Metropolitan service—as part of the 

Universal First Phase.

4 Regional Rail Service – Regional rail service would increase incrementally, generally following the 

growth plans of the current operators. Improvements would be targeted to those lines and 

service zones that are overcrowded or that are expected to grow beyond the limits of current 

capacity. The length and capacity of existing trains would be increased to the extent practical, 

given the physical limitations of platform and yard track lengths. Service frequencies would be

increased where capacity is needed beyond what is achievable by lengthening trains. Specific 

Regional rail service initiatives could include the following:
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

– VRE: 

§ Lengthen existing trains as practical to increase capacity

§ Increase peak service and introduce reverse-peak and off-peak service as planned, as 

projects are completed to expand capacity in the Long Bridge corridor and at the 

Washington Terminal yards

– MARC: 

§ Lengthen existing trains as practical to increase capacity

§ Increase frequency of peak service on Penn Line as 4th track project through BWI Airport 

is completed and yard capacity is expanded

– DelDOT: 

§ Increase express service to Philadelphia, PA from Wilmington and Newark, DE

– SEPTA: 

§ Lengthen existing trains as needed to accommodate growth

– NJ TRANSIT: 

§ Increase in peak service on existing lines to Penn Station New York, following completion 

of new Hudson River tunnels (and rehab of existing tunnels) and construction of the MidLine Loop and Hunter Flyover projects

– LIRR: 

§ Following opening of East Side Access project and initial break-in period, ramp up to full 

service to Grand Central Terminal

§ Potential temporary reduction in service to Penn Station New York following institution 

of full service to Grand Central Terminal, to facilitate reconstruction and upgrading 

infrastructure serving the Penn Station New York complex, with service to be restored as 

demand grows

– New Haven Line: 

§ Existing trains lengthened to the extent practical

§ Operations are streamlined to enable improved utilization of existing tracks

§ Investment is made in island platforms at express stations (e.g., Port Chester, South 

Norwalk, Bridgeport) to support introduction of limited-stop service 

§ Increase in total service consistent with planned initial increment of Penn Station Access

– Shore Line East: 

§ Additional service to New London, CT, as currently planned
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-9

– MBTA: 

§ Introduction of limited South Coast service as currently planned

§ Increased zone express service beyond Canton Junction, with Stoughton and South Coast 

trains preserving headways at local stops north of Canton Junction

§ Lengthen existing trains as practical to increase capacity, within limits of available 

platform capacity at Boston South Station

10.2.2 Transportation Benefits

Demonstrating tangible service benefits from the implementation of early projects will assist NEC 

stakeholders in making the case for future investment in the NEC. The Universal First Phase generates 

the following important service benefits:

4 Relieves current overcrowding on Intercity and Regional rail trains and accommodating the 

continuing underlying growth in travel demand in existing NEC markets

4 Improves service reliability 

4 Provides shorter travel time for Intercity service

4 Integrates scheduling of trains to support easier and faster connections between different 

services and operators

4 Develops an integrated NEC train schedule and trip-planning information and a common ticketing 

and fare collection system

Table 10-2 compares projected ridership upon completion of the Universal First Phase (estimated for 

this purpose as the increase in underlying growth between the years 2025 and 2030) with existing 

(2014) ridership.

Table 10-2: Universal First Phase – Estimated Rail Ridership

Type of Service

2014

Total Ridership

(millions of annual trips)

2015–2030

Projected Ridership Universal First Phase

(millions of annual trips)

Intercity 14.3 18.2–19.5

Regional 180.0 220.0–240.0

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

10.2.3 Capital Cost

Consistent with Appendix B, Capital Costs Technical Memorandum, the capital cost estimate provides 

a conceptual cost estimate to implement the Universal First Phase. The conceptual level of detail is a 

function of deliberation, analysis, engineering assessment, and understanding of those components 

aggregated by the capital cost model. As such, the FRA did not develop a cost estimate for each 

individual improvement, but instead applied the same programmatic approach that was used to 

estimate the capital cost for each Action Alternative to estimate the system-wide capital cost for the 

Universal First Phase.
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 10-1 identifies the Universal First Phase projects to replace aging infrastructure and address 

major chokepoints. This list of projects includes linear element costs (e.g., new segments and new 

tracks) and supporting infrastructure costs (e.g., stations and junctions, and rolling stock 

requirements). These costs are included in the capital cost estimate of the Action Alternatives. For 

consistency purposes, the FRA relied on the capital cost estimate for Alternative 1 to develop a 

representative capital cost for the Universal First Phase projects.

The capital cost includes the following:

4 New Tracks – catenary upgrades, signal upgrades, and the addition of one or two additional tracks 

to the existing NEC

4 New Segments – construction of new major bridges and new tunnels

4 Stations – construction of new stations, station upgrades, and other capacity or pedestrian 

circulation improvements

4 Junctions – construction of new junctions, interchanges, and connections

Table 10-3 presents a range for the capital cost estimate of the Universal First Phase projects in 2014 

dollars.

Table 10-3: Universal First Phase – Capital Costs

Category

Capital Cost Range

($2014 billions)

Infrastructure $21–22

Vehicles $3

Subtotal $24–25

No Action Alternative Projects $9

TOTAL $33–34

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

10.3 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES

The scope and schedule for implementation of any of the projects included in Universal First Phase

depend on a broad range of factors, including funding, regulatory and permitting approvals, 

completion of planning and engineering, duration of construction, and coordination of construction 

activities with railroads operating on the NEC. Thus, implementation of the Universal First Phase

would be challenging and require a higher degree of coordination and planning by all the NEC 

railroads than has been required in the past.

In addition, there are two unique challenges that the NEC railroads and states must address:

4 Changes in the way the NEC railroads plan and pay for projects and operate their services 

4 Detailed construction staging and operations planning
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-11

10.3.1 Coordinated Corridor-Wide Planning

Eight commuter rail operators and Amtrak provide passenger rail service on the NEC today. Each 

controls its own operations and schedules. Despite the growth in demand for passenger rail service 

that extends well beyond the service area of each commuter rail operator, there has been little 

movement toward integrating service planning across systems. The planning and funding of capital 

projects that benefit multiple operators also has been challenging and a source of focus by the 

railroads through the NEC Commission.

As noted, the Universal First Phase assumes, and the FRA expects, improvements in the operation 

and scheduling of NEC trains to address these issues. If achieved, the NEC would begin the important

transition from today’s separate service areas to a rail network of integrated services. In addition, 

construction of some of the improvements included in the Action Alternatives may require financial 

support from multiple states and railroads, and would require construction and operations planning 

by all entities across the NEC.

Numerous institutional, governance, and organizational issues must be addressed to achieve a 

network approach to NEC operations and to facilitate the long-term upgrade of the NEC. Some of 

these require forums for discussion, planning, and negotiation between railroad operators and states; 

others may require legislative and statutory changes at the national and state levels. These issues 

include the following:

4 Operation of trains beyond the service area and/or in another state. This would occur with 

through-service options—e.g., at Penn Station New York (LIRR and NJ TRANSIT trains) and at 

Washington, D.C. (MARC and VRE trains)—affecting labor agreements, liability, maintenance, and 

the scheduling of trains.

4 Expenditure of state funds on improvements located in another state. Implementation of a longterm, multi-billion dollar program of improvements may require the means to pool funds from 

NEC states to support major projects with corridor-wide benefits, such as new tunnels or 

expansion of major terminals.

4 Development of program phasing plans and the prioritization of projects between different 

program phases.

4 Consensus on future rolling stock specifications and possible corridor-wide equipment purchases.

4 Management of operations across the NEC, particularly during construction when capacity may 

be most constrained.

4 Allocation of revenue from integrated and through-train train operations.

The No Action and Action Alternatives include improvements to the existing NEC and new off-corridor 

segments. However, specific details about who owns, operates, or maintains both the new 

infrastructure and proposed passenger rail service have yet to be determined. As such, it is premature 

to assign either benefits or costs to a specific state or jurisdiction based on the geographic location 

of a proposed improvement. Investments in the NEC may be subject to the provisions of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). In particular, PRIIA, Section 212, 

directs all NEC infrastructure owners and service operators to develop cost-sharing agreements for 
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

shared-benefit capital and operating expenses associated with the NEC. The FRA anticipates working 

with the NEC Commission, Amtrak, the NEC commuter authorities, and the eight states plus the 

District of Columbia to develop finance strategies and funding plans that reflect the corridor-wide 

value of proposed improvements.

Resolving these issues is beyond the scope of NEC FUTURE. Nonetheless, the degree and depth of 

coordination and planning by the NEC stakeholders would largely determine the success and speed 

at which the Universal First Phase and subsequent phases of work are implemented. As noted, the 

FRA considers these issues of great importance and would consider conditioning future federal 

funding on the commitment to achieving necessary governance and institutional changes upon 

completion of projects.

The NEC Commission—which includes the NEC states, the District of Columbia, and passenger and 

freight railroads operating on the NEC—is one forum for defining and advancing corridor-wide 

collaboration on some of the changes necessary to plan, coordinate, and expedite implementation 

of needed service and infrastructure projects. The NEC Commission is working with its stakeholders 

to develop a prioritized short-term capital plan and to develop the mechanism for allocating funds 

pooled from railroad users under PRIIA, Section 212.

Public and stakeholder input on how best to coordinate and integrate service and project planning 

will play an important role in framing a solution to these issues.

10.3.2 Construction Staging and Planning Strategies

Railroad operators have only limited ability to take tracks out of service to make repairs or implement 

projects without shutting down or severely limiting ongoing operations. With the NEC already at 

capacity in numerous key locations, implementing many of the major projects included in the 

Universal First Phase without adversely affecting train operations would be extremely challenging.

Moreover, construction work must be implemented without impinging on annual maintenance 

activities and other state-of-good-repair work and priority projects (such as those included in the No 

Action Alternative). Thus, it would be essential for the NEC railroads and states to extensively plan 

how and when projects are to be implemented, and to understand and mitigate potential adverse 

impacts on train operations. 

The NEC railroads have decades of experience planning major work on the NEC, such as the 

electrification of the New Haven-Boston segment of the NEC in the 1990s, and the recent 

replacement of the Niantic River Bridge in Connecticut. While improvements on the scale included in 

the Universal First Phase and subsequent phases of the Selected Alternative would exceed any such 

prior coordinated action, these projects have demonstrated that, with adequate planning, trains can 

continue to safety and reliably operate during periods of heavy construction on or adjacent to the 

railroad right-of-way. How much service is to be affected, and the degree to which impacts are 

acceptable to passengers, would be important factors in scheduling construction activities.

Engagement with passengers through a robust communications program would be essential to 

finding the appropriate balance between the efficient scheduling of construction activities and 

continued operation of the rail services.
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-13

Funding is a critical element and would be a determining factor in the sequencing and scheduling of 

projects. As noted, the timeframe to implement the Universal First Phase projects must also reflect 

other work planned for the NEC, including maintenance and other planned projects. With so many 

unknowns, it would be essential for NEC stakeholders planning the improvements to be flexible and 

creative, and to be able to expedite planning and construction activities to take advantage of 

opportunities that may arise.

Chapter 8, Construction Effects, describes the potential construction sequencing that would likely be 

required for implementing any of the Action Alternatives and identifies potential construction effects

from the work. Many of the same approaches and effects would be applicable to implementation of 

the Universal First Phase. Implementation planning for the Universal First Phase should include 

several additional key strategies to reduce impacts to customers and passengers:

4 Integrated Projects – Some individual projects combine as a system and should be implemented 

in an integrated manner in order to fully achieve desired benefits. For example, the numerous 

projects planned between Newark Penn Station in New Jersey and Penn Station New York are 

designed to function together to eliminate major chokepoints and increase capacity. Planned 

benefits from each individual project would not be realized until all are completed. Therefore, 

implementation of these projects should be planned and sequenced in an integrated and 

mutually beneficial way.

Examples of integrated project groups within the Universal First Phase include the following:

– Projects located between New Carrollton and Halethorpe, MD (i.e., New Carrollton Station

improvements, Hanson interlocking, Odenton Station improvements, the BWI Airport Station 

center-island platform; and fourth track Odenton to Halethorpe)

– Newark NJ-Penn Station New York (i.e., Newark Penn Station capacity improvements, the 

four-track Mainline between Newark and Secaucus, Portal Bridge replacement, Secaucus 

Station expansion, Hudson River Tunnel replacements, and Penn Station New York expansion)

– Hell Gate Line to Port Chester, NY (i.e., Hell Gate Line four-tracking and four new Bronx 

stations, Pelham Bay bridge replacement, Shell Flyover and the Cross-Westchester turn-back)

Integrated projects should be planned together to leverage outages, reduce construction time, 

plan train operations to minimize disruption to service, and optimize benefits on completion.

4 On or Off Corridor. As indicated on Table 10-1, projects in the Universal First Phase would be 

built either primarily adjacent to and off the existing NEC right-of-way (minimizing long-term 

operational impacts) or require work on the existing right-of-way (necessitating extended track 

outages and potential slow orders).

Fortunately, many of the largest and most complex projects included in the Universal First Phase

could be built largely off the NEC. These projects include many (and possibly all) of the nine major 

bridge replacements as well as the B&P Tunnel replacement and the new tracks under the Hudson 

River. Construction of this new infrastructure off the NEC right-of-way would not entirely 

eliminate operational impacts—the new infrastructure must be built in close proximity to and 

connect with the existing NEC—but extended impacts would be minimized through night-time 

and weekend scheduling of work and shorter-term outages as required. 
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

In contrast, projects built on the NEC right-of-way, including the system-wide replacement of the 

electric catenary system and station improvements at Washington, D.C., New Carrolton, and 

Boston South Station, must be carefully planned and staged to avoid serious disruptions to 

service. Strategies for managing adverse impacts include the following:

– Space out the scheduling of major projects across the NEC to reduce extended service 

disruptions in the same area.

– Sequence work to maximize the use of available track outages.

– Shut down service (and provide substitute transportation) for specific periods of time to 

permit the acceleration of work.

– Build project components off-site.

– Create a robust public outreach and communications program to ensure passengers are 

aware of scheduled work and potential disruptions of service.

4 Enhancing Train Movement Flexibility – Adding interlockings and signal blocks in proximity to 

construction areas can greatly enhance the flexibility of dispatchers to mitigate operational 

impacts from track outages. During the mid-1990s electrification of the NEC between New Haven, 

CT, and Boston, a number of permanent and temporary interlockings were added to facilitate the 

timely dispatching of trains across a 157-mile construction zone in which crews worked up to 12 

geographic areas at any given time. While train schedules would be lengthened and some 

frequencies adjusted, the added flexibility enabled train dispatchers to meet performance 

objectives and keep the trains running.

The planning, staging, and implementation of NEC upgrades should be coordinated on a corridorwide basis to provide efficiencies in construction and to minimize impacts to train operations and 

passenger service.

10.4 DIFFERENCES IN DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION BETWEEN THE ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES

The projects in the Universal First Phase are the same regardless of which Action Alternative would 

be selected as the Preferred Alternative. However, both the design and implementation of these 

projects may differ by alternative. While all three Action Alternatives expand service on the existing 

NEC, Alternative 2 adds a supplemental route between New Haven and Providence via Hartford, and 

Alternative 3 includes construction of a second spine from Washington, D.C., to Boston. For some of 

the projects in the Universal First Phase, these differences would generate unique designs and offer 

opportunities for different implementation strategies.

There are three types of projects where the design could differ, depending on which Action 

Alternative is selected:

4 Bridges – The Universal First Phase includes nine major river bridge crossing projects: the 

Gunpowder, Bush, and Susquehanna Bridges in Maryland; Portal Bridge in New Jersey; Pelham 

Bay Bridge in New York; and the Cos Cob, Saga, Devon and Connecticut River Bridges in 
10. Phasing and Implementation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 10-15

Connecticut. While the design objective for these bridges in Alternatives 1 and 2 would generally 

support a 2- to 4-track NEC, those designs may differ in Alternative 3, which contemplates a 6-

track NEC. Because the route for the second spine is representative only at this point, and several 

route options remain, specific design issues regarding how best to accommodate the second 

spine, and whether the bridges must be expanded or configured to support additional tracks, 

would be made after selection of an alternative.

4 Major Stations – The design of both Washington Union Station and Penn Station New York would

be similar for the three Action Alternatives, but each would incorporate unique elements that 

differ by Action Alternative.

– Washington Union Station: Phase 2 of the Washington Union Station Master Plan, included 

in the Universal First Phase, expands the number of tracks at ground level at the station 

sufficient to accommodate the growth in service assumed in Alternatives 1 and 2. However, 

if a second spine is to be added to the NEC, a lower level of tracks would eventually be 

required, which might necessitate the addition of slurry walls to preserve the ability to 

excavate below ground level to add the second spine tracks.

– Penn Station New York: The tracks leading to and from the new Penn Station New York 

platforms would be designed differently in all three Action Alternatives:

§ Alternative 1: The two additional tracks from New Jersey would stub end at the new 

platforms at Penn Station New York.

§ Alternative 2: Two new tracks would eventually be added under the East River, bringing 

a total of six tracks under the East River. As a result, the platform tracks at Penn Station 

New York would be configured to provide through connections between New Jersey and 

Queens and facilitate moves between multiple sets of tracks within the Penn Station New 

York complex.

§ Alternative 3: The second-spine tracks would be built under the new Penn Station New 

York platforms connecting to a new set of tunnels (Tracks 5 and 6) to New Jersey and into 

the six-track East River tunnels assumed in Alternative 2. This might necessitate the 

addition of slurry walls to preserve the ability to excavate below the new platform level 

to add the second-spine tracks.

Differences between the Action Alternatives may also result in different implementation strategies.

This primarily relates to Alternative 3, which includes the addition of a second spine. It may be 

possible to leverage the early construction of portions of the new second spine to reduce impacts to 

trains operating on the existing NEC. For example:

4 Early construction of the second-spine segment from New Carrollton to Baltimore would provide 

an alternative route for Intercity trains and some Regional trains during construction on the NEC, 

such as the fourth track Halethorpe-Odenton and BWI center-island platform. This would reduce 

impacts to passengers and speed construction. 

4 If the Preferred Alternative included the New York-Danbury-Hartford second-spine routing, early 

construction of the second-spine segment through New Rochelle would provide an alternate 
10. Phasing and Implementation

Page | 10-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

route for Intercity trains and some Regional trains during construction of the Shell Flyover, 

reducing adverse impacts to one of the most congested areas of the NEC.

The FRA will explore project implementation strategies in more detail focused specifically on the 

Selected Alternative in the phasing plan included in the Service Development Plan. The NEC 

Commission and the NEC railroads can build off the more detailed phasing plan to develop a longterm implementation plan that better reflects funding realities and project complexities.