TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.18 Safety

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.18-1

7.18 SAFETY

7.18.1 Introduction

A critical element of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) mission is the safe operation of the 

passenger and freight rail systems in the United States. This section addresses how the Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) No Action and Action Alternatives could affect 

railroad safety, railroad users, and those who live and work along the Northeast Corridor (NEC). This 

assessment takes a corridor-wide, multimodal approach and considers highways, public 

transportation, Intercity and regional passenger rail, freight rail, and aviation. The FRA analyzed data 

for the 2012 calendar year, or where noted, highlighted trends from 2009 through 2013.

7.18.1.1 Definition of Resource

For purposes of this analysis, the FRA divided safety into three categories: modal safety, railroad

operational safety, and railroad infrastructure safety and security. These categories are defined 

below. The NEC FUTURE safety analysis of the Action Alternatives focuses on the following:

4 Overall safety of passenger rail compared to the other modes in the Affected Environment

4 The effects of the Action Alternatives on passenger rail service operations

4 Rail incidents resulting from infrastructure deficiencies or failures

The FRA considered safety in the following contexts:

4 Modal Safety: This term refers to the overall safety of passenger rail as a transportation mode 

when compared to other transportation modes, including highway and air travel. The FRA 

considered the safety of passenger rail as a mode compared to other modes based on the number 

and rate of accidents.

4 Railroad Operational Safety: The Intercity and Regional rail operators on the NEC operate 

different equipment types, at different speeds, and with different stopping patterns. The 

multiplicity of operators with distinct operating practices together influences the overall safety 

of the railroad. Train collisions or derailments represent the types of incidents related to 

operating practices. 

4 Railroad Infrastructure Safety and Security: This term refers to accidents or incidents caused by 

the failure of existing railroad infrastructure. Infrastructure failures can contribute to either trainor station-related incidents that involve operating personnel and passengers. Security-related 

vulnerabilities include incidents resulting from unwanted intrusions or trespassing on the railroad 

infrastructure, whether unintended or intentional.

7.18.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology to evaluate safety, which is provided in 

Appendix E, Section E.18. The methodology provides a detailed definition of each resource, data 

sources, an explanation on how the Affected Environment was defined and established, and how the 

effects on each resource were evaluated and reported. Table 7.18-1 summarizes key factors and data 

application associated with the methodologies for each safety resource evaluated.
7.18. Safety

Page | 7.18-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.18-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Safety

Resource

Affected 

Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

Modal Safety Study Area § Number of accidents, injuries and 

deaths from motor vehicle crashes

§ Data on a variety of driver and vehicle 

types with their respective safety 

records

§ Data on accidents in the aviation 

industry

§ Summary of aviation accident statistics

§ Safety statistics on a variety of 

transportation modes

§ Accident data for aviation, railroad, and 

highway transportation modes.

§ Quantification of overall 

safety measures presented 

by mode to establish an 

understanding of relative 

modal safety 

Railroad 

Operational 

Safety

Study Area § Data on highway grade-crossing

accidents for the railroad system

§ Accidents by railroad by type

§ Summary statistics on accidents by type

§ Data on trespasser incidents by railroad 

by location

§ Summary statistics on overall safety of 

regional railroads by railroad and type 

of incident

§ Regional railroad specific statistics on 

number of safety incidents by type

§ Summary data on overall regional rail 

safety

§ Quantification of overall 

safety for the passenger rail

network within the Study 

Area presented by type of 

rail operations to isolate the 

role that operating practices 

contribute to overall 

passenger rail system safety 

Railroad 

Infrastructure 

Safety and 

Security

Study Area § Accidents by railroad by type

§ Summary statistics on accidents by type

§ Data on trespasser incidents by railroad 

by location

§ Quantification of overall 

safety for the passenger rail

network within the Study 

Area manifested by 

infrastructure failure to 

isolate the role of 

infrastructure in overall 

passenger rail system safety 

Source: NEC FUTURE Safety Effect-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.18, 2014

7.18.2 Resource Overview 

In light of the network characteristics of the passenger rail system, the FRA considered the entire 

Study Area for the safety analysis. The Study Area includes a broad geographic area, spanning

457 miles from Washington, D.C., to Boston, MA. The Action Alternatives assume that the passenger 

railsystem throughout the Study Area will achieve a state of good repair by 2040. The FRA considered 

the overall safety of the transportation network, with a specific focus on the passenger rail network

for the modes presently operating and expected to be operating in 2040. Safety is principally a 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.18-3

function of the travel mode that users select. Within the passenger rail mode, rail operations and 

infrastructure influence overall passenger rail system safety.

7.18.3 Affected Environment 

7.18.3.1 Modal Safety

This section compares safety data, including the number of fatalities for the various transportation 

modes in the Affected Environment. Table 7.18-2 identifies the total number of fatalities, by 

transportation mode, for the primary transportation services in the Affected Environment. This table 

includes highway fatalities—which include all roadway travel—and public transportation, rail, and 

aviation fatalities, encompassing the motorized modes of travel available to the traveling public. 

Public transportation travel is often a part of a rail or air trip as passengers travel to access airports 

or rail stations. For comparison, the table includes the modal fatalities for the United States.

Table 7.18-2: Affected Environment: Fatalities by Transportation Mode (2009–2013 Average)

Transportation Mode U.S.

Affected Environment Portion of Each State Affected 

Environment 

D.C. MD DE PA NJ NY CT RI MA Total

Highway 33,172 24 286 48 174 175 544 227 61 205 1,744

Public Transportation*

Bus 87 2 1 0 3 3 7 1 0 2 20

Demand Response 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Heavy Rail (Subway) 51 4 1 0 3 0 30 0 0 1 38

Light Rail 27 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

All Other 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 179 6 2 1 6 5 37 1 0 4 62

Rail

Regional 5 — — — 0 1 2 1 — — 4

Intercity (Amtrak) 19 — — — — — — 0 0 — 0

Freight 120 — — — 1 1 — 0 — — 2

TOTAL* 145 — — — 1 2 2 1 0 — 7

Aviation 441 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 1 9

Sources: 

Highway: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts for States, FARS query for years 2009-

2013

Public Transportation: National Transit Database Safety & Security Time Series Data for years 2009-2013, excluding suicides

Aviation: NTSB Aviation Database & Synopses for 2012 for United States and also by state and county U.S. Department of 

Transportation–Research and Innovative Technology Administration; Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

* Public transportation data do not include suicides, and rail data do not include trespassers. Totals may not sum due to 

rounding.

Highway fatalities rank the highest among all modes for the United States as well as for the Affected 

Environment. Highway fatalities within the Affected Environment represented 5 percent of all 

highway fatalities within the United States and totaled 1,744 fatalities within the states comprising 

the Study Area. Public transportation fatalities within the Affected Environment represented 

35 percent of all public transportation-related fatalities within the United States.
7.18. Safety

Page | 7.18-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

As shown in Table 7.18-2, there was an average of 4 passenger rail fatalities within the Affected 

Environment each year over the 5-year period and an average of 2 freight rail fatalities annually. Over 

the 5-year period in the Affected Environment, there were 5 passenger fatalities on Regional trains 

and no passenger fatalities on Intercity (Amtrak). Over the 5-year period within the Affected 

Environment, there were 34 fatalities of contractors, employees, or other non-passengers related to 

railroad operations across all passenger and freight rails. The passenger rail fatality rate within the 

Affected Environment was below 0.01 per 100,000 people. These performance metrics signify the 

exceptional safety of rail as it pertains to the traveling public. 

The numbers included within the table for rail and public transportation fatalities are related to the 

traveling public’s safety experience in actual conditions. Rail trespasser fatalities are included in 

Section 7.18.3.2, Railroad Operational Safety.

Table 7.18-3 summarizes the number of passenger rail accidents reported within the Affected 

Environment in the 5-year period (2009–2013). These accidents included slips, falls, natural causes, 

and other injuries reported on trains, including any reported crimes, bug or bee stings, or accidents 

related to passenger behavior. New York and New Jersey reported the greatest number of passenger 

accidents, although New York and New Jersey also carried the largest number of passenger rail

passengers in the Affected Environment.

Table 7.18-3: Affected Environment: Passenger Accidents (2009–2013)

Geography

Passenger rail Accidents 2009–2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average

D.C. 19 23 27 26 32 25.4

MD 26 36 28 20 31 28.2

DE 0 7 7 8 5 5.4

PA 101 94 55 68 57 75.0

NJ 68 121 218 216 254 175.4

NY 163 197 201 303 339 240.6

CT 19 30 20 25 141 47.0

RI 2 5 4 6 9 5.2

MA 66 48 38 47 34 46.6

TOTAL 464 561 598 719 902 3,244

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis: Table 4.12 - Query by State and County and by Type Person 

(Calendar Years 2009-2013). Retrieved from http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/casabbr.aspx.

7.18.3.2 Railroad Operational Safety

Table 7.18-4 highlights accident totals on the Intercity, passenger, and freight rail networks located 

within the Affected Environment related to rail operations. This table indicates rail accidents involving 

rail equipment that resulted in monetary damage as well as fatalities that occurred on railroad 

equipment or property. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.18-5

Table 7.18-4: Affected Environment: Rail Accidents (2012)

Geography TOTAL Derailments Collisions* Other**

United States 1,931 1,466 303 658

D.C. 5 5 0 1

MD 14 5 2 8

DE 3 2 0 1

PA 14 7 2 7

NJ 47 26 7 26

NY 16 8 0 11

CT 10 5 0 6

RI 2 3 0 0

MA 4 3 2 0

TOTAL 115 64 13 60

Source: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis; U.S. Data: FRA Office of Safety Analysis: Table 3.01; Rail 

Accidents: FRA Office of Safety Analysis: Table 3.18 - Query by State and County and Type Accident (Calendar Year 2012)

* Collisions include those occurring at highway at-grade crossings.

** “Other” includes obstructions, explosions, fire/rupture and other impacts.

Within the Affected Environment, there were 115 railroad accidents involving 137 trains reported in 

2012. (If two trains collide, it is counted as one accident.) Derailments accounted for 48 percent of 

the accident causes for all trains involved, with collisions (including those occurring at highway atgrade crossings) accounting for 9 percent of the trains involved in accidents. In the United States,

76 percent of all trains involved in accidents were involved in derailments, which is a much 

higher percentage than the 48 percent of trains in the Affected Environment. 

While many of the railroad lines within the Affected Environment contain at-grade crossings, the NEC 

is predominantly grade-separated. In 2012, six fatalities were reported at grade crossings within the 

Affected Environment.1

Table 7.18-5 provides the rail fatalities related to operational incidents along the NEC. The number 

of accidents for each state is reported for each train involved.

There were 152 rail-related fatalities in the United States in 2012, not including trespassers. Seven 

rail fatalities in the Affected Environment were related to passenger rail operations, and one was 

related to freight rail operation. Nationally, 20 percent of rail fatalities related to passenger rail 

operations and 80 percent related to freight rail operations.

The “Other” category represents fatalities for those listed as non-trespassers, including highway 

grade-crossing incidents. 

 

1 Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis, Table 5.15 Consolidated Hwy Rail Accident Incidents: Query by 

State, County and Tot Kld.
7.18. Safety

Page | 7.18-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.18-5: Affected Environment: Rail Fatalities (2012)

Geography TOTAL

Passenger rail Operations Freight rail Operations

Passengers Employees/Contractors Other Employees/Contractors Other

United States 152 5 2 23 17 105

D.C. 0 0 0 0 0 0

MD 0 0 0 0 0 0

DE 0 0 0 0 0 0

PA 0 0 0 0 0 0

NJ 3 1 1 0 1 0

NY 3 0 1 2 0 0

CT 2 0 0 2 0 0

RI 0 0 0 0 0 0

MA 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 8 1 2 4 1 0

Sources: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis; U.S. Data: Rail Fatalities: FRA Office of Safety Analysis:

Table 4.12 - Query by State and County and Condition and Type Person (Calendar Year 2012)

Note: Fatalities do not include trespassers.

Operations-related fatalities on the passenger rail network are overwhelmingly the result of 

trespassing. Trespassers are people who have entered railroad property without permission. In 2012, 

there were 8 rail-operations-related fatalities in the Affected Environment and 45 fatalities of 

trespassers (Table 7.18-6). In 2012, 9 percent of nationwide trespasser fatalities occurred in the 

Affected Environment. Trespassers are often members of the public who have allegedly committed 

suicide. These are often deliberate and not related to the nature of the rail operations. The FRA works 

continuously with railroads and public authorities to prevent railroad suicides and promote 

responsible behavior near rail infrastructure through Operation Lifesaver, Inc.2

Table 7.18-6: Affected Environment: Rail Fatalities of Trespassers (2012)

Geography TOTAL

United States 524

D.C. 0

MD 5

DE 0

PA 15

NJ 2

NY 12

CT 3

RI 1

MA 7

TOTAL 45

Source: U.S. Data: Rail Fatalities: FRA Office of Safety Analysis:

Table 4.12 – Query by State and County and Condition and Type Person 

(Calendar Year 2012)

 

2 Operation Lifesaver is a 501(c)(3) educational organization in the United States dedicated to promoting safety at 

railroad grade crossings and railroad rights-of-way.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.18-7

7.18.3.3 Railroad Infrastructure Safety

According to FRA statistics, approximately 40 percent of rail accidents in 2012 were the result of 

equipment or infrastructure deficiencies or failures. Equipment and infrastructure deficiencies or 

failures can contribute to train- or station-related accidents involving passengers, employees, 

contractors, visitors, or others with permission to be on railroad property. These infrastructure 

deficiencies or failures include (but are not limited to) the following:

4 Broken/bent railroad car axle

4 Broken rim

4 Catenary system defect

4 Current collector system defect

4 Defective/missing crossties (wide gauge)

4 Pantograph defect

4 Roller bearing overheating

4 Switch point worn or broken

4 Track bent/broken/or misplaced

4 Transverse/compound fissure

Table 7.18-7 summarizes the number of rail accidents reported within the Affected Environment that 

were the result of infrastructure or equipment failures or malfunctions. This included anything 

reported as track, signal, or equipment as the primary cause. In 2012, 42 percent of rail accidents 

resulted from infrastructure and equipment failure or malfunction.

Table 7.18-7: Affected Environment: Rail Accidents from Infrastructure or Equipment 

Failures/Malfunctions (2012)

Geography TOTAL

Accidents Resulting from Infrastructure or 

Equipment Failures/Malfunctions

D.C. 5 2

MD 14 9

DE 3 1

PA 14 9

NJ 47 14

NY 16 5

CT 10 5

RI 2 0

MA 4 3

TOTAL 115 48

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis: Table 3.18 - Query by State and County and Primary Cause 

(Calendar Year 2012) (Primary Cause: Equipment, Track, and Signals). http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.aspx
7.18. Safety

Page | 7.18-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.18.4 Environmental Consequences

7.18.4.1 Modal Safety

The NEC FUTURE Travel Demand Model anticipates that interregional travel within the transportation 

network in the Affected Environment will shift between modes in 2040. Model outputs estimate that 

in the No Action Alternative, the percentage of interregional travel occurring on rail for 2040 will be 

5.9 percent. For the Action Alternatives for 2040, interregional travel is projected to range from 

8.4 percent to 9.5 percent. Relocating trips anticipated for highways onto increased Intercity rail 

capacity, operating on a combination of safer shared-rail corridor and segregated rail right-of-way,

would result in a safer overall mix of transportation tripmaking in 2040. Table 7.18-8 identifies the 

anticipated modal shift for interregional travel.

Table 7.18-8: Anticipated Tripmaking by Mode (2040)

Mode

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Highway 438,576,127 431,772,804 430,144,159 429,236,242

Intercity Rail 28,846,063 41,538,334 44,657,266 46,808,455

Aviation 20,427,266 19,403,476 19,080,172 18,726,017

TOTAL 487,849,456 492,714,614 493,881,597 494,770,713

% of Overall Intercity Tripmaking 5.9% 8.4% 9.0% 9.5%

Source: NEC Future, Travel Demand Model Output, Group 2 MSA to MSA Intercity Trips

Note: Alternative 3 represents an average of its route options.

7.18.4.2 Railroad Operational Safety

Along the NEC, many different types of passenger and freight trains operate in physically and 

temporally shared lines. The NEC is unique in the Unites States in functioning simultaneously as a 

high-speed rail line, a corridor for Intercity and Regional passenger trains, and in various locations as 

a corridor that includes both through and local freight trains.

The FRA’s passenger-equipment safety standards currently govern the crashworthiness standards 

and emergency egress/rescue access systems of Tier I and Tier II passenger equipment. Tier I 

equipment operates at speeds not exceeding 125 mph. Tier II equipment operates at speeds between 

125 mph and 150 mph, and requires regulatory approval for the operation of Tier II equipment that 

has not been previously used in revenue service in the United States. The FRA’s track regulations also 

set the maximum allowable speed for different classes of track, and regulatory approval is required 

for equipment operating at speeds above 125 mph. 

Because the FRA has authorized the operation of Amtrak’s Acela Express at speeds up to 150 mph, 

the existing NEC has trains operating in both Tier I and Tier II environments. Because of this unique 

mix of services on the NEC, waivers to FRA regulations in certain cases are granted by the FRA to 

permit operating characteristics outside of the limits prescribed in the regulations. There are 

currently no Tier I restrictions regarding shared use of right-of-way with freight operations. The 

Connecting Corridors off the NEC also operate in the Tier I environment. 

Tier II standards govern operations along the portions of the NEC where maximum authorized speeds 

for passenger trains range between 125 mph and 150 mph. Amtrak Acela Express trains are the only 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.18-9

Tier II train equipment permitted to operate at these speeds. Under its current FRA waiver, the Acela 

equipment can operate intermixed with other Tier I passenger and freight operations and operate 

above 125 mph, provided that freight operations and passenger operations occur at separate times 

(i.e., temporal separation). Intermixed operations currently include Amtrak Intercity-Corridor and 

long-distance trains, along with Regional rail and freight trains along significant portions of the NEC. 

Amtrak has petitioned the FRA to increase the top speed of its Tier II operations to 160 mph in certain 

locations, which would require modification to its current waiver.

The FRA is currently developing Tier III passenger-equipment safety standards. The Tier III standards 

would represent a new national standard for rail operations and equipment, which will apply to the 

California high-speed rail system, and are assumed for future NEC operations in all of the Action 

Alternatives as further described in Section 7.18.3.4. 

The FRA’s track safety standards also govern other factors, such as at-grade crossings. No at-grade 

crossings are permitted when operating speeds exceed 125 mph (Class 8 and Class 9 track). This is 

generally not an issue on the NEC: there are no at-grade crossings south of Waterford, CT, or north 

of Stonington, CT. Eight crossings remain between Waterford and Stonington, where the maximum 

authorized speed of trains is 125 mph or less. 

The implications for operational safety of the No Action Alternative is that safety conditions would 

be expected to remain fairly consistent with 2012 figures and in general proportion to increases in 

overall travel. Under several of the Action Alternatives, separating passenger rail from freight rail 

would decrease the number of accidents, especially those accidents associated with Intercity

passenger rail.

In conjunction with the FRA’s track safety standards and other regulations, the pending Tier III 

standards will establish the crashworthiness standards for equipment that can operate on shared 

tracks or on separate tracks within a shared right-of-way and the infrastructure and systems required 

for safe operations. It is anticipated that Tier III passenger equipment safety standards (along with 

the FRA’s track safety standards) would permit higher-performance high-speed rail operations, with 

maximum authorized speeds above 125 mph and up to 220 mph. The Tier III environment would 

require exclusive right-of-way for high-performance trainsets operating above 125 mph and prohibit 

other equipment types from sharing the exclusive high-speed tracks. There would be no intermixing 

of high-speed operations with freight or non-Tier III passenger operations (Tier I or Tier II) at speeds 

above 125 mph. However, Tier III equipment could operate in a Tier I shared-use environment on 

tracks used by conventional passenger and freight equipment at speeds at or below 125 mph. With 

a waiver of these standards to permit Tier III high-performance trainsets to operate at up to 160 mph

in a shared-use environment, as assumed in the Action Alternatives, these trains would be able to 

match the performance of the Tier II Acela Express equipment when operating on the existing NEC.

Tier III passenger equipment is assumed to be able to operate with a waiver above 125 mph, up to 

160 mph (Class 8 track), on tracks that are also used by freight trains, provided the freight trains are 

temporally separated. As a result, freight service would be strictly limited to times of day and night 

during which passenger service with Tier III equipment is not operating.
7.18. Safety

Page | 7.18-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The use of Tier III equipment would preclude operation of freight trains on Class 9 track with speeds 

above 160 mph and up to 220 mph. The Action Alternatives provide for freight operations on 

separate conventional (non-high-speed) tracks. Where operation of freight trains on high-speed or 

express tracks (at Class 8 or below) would be unavoidable and could be accommodated—either for 

normal or contingency operations—restrictions may be placed on the type, weight, or maximum 

speed of freight trains operating on the high-speed tracks, with possible requirements for signaling, 

dragging equipment, overheated bearing, shifted load, and high-impact wheel detectors in place at 

entry points to such tracks. 

All new rail right-of-way included in the Action Alternatives would be completely grade-separated.

The eight existing at-grade crossings on the NEC in southeastern Connecticut would not be 

eliminated.

7.18.4.3 Railroad Infrastructure Safety

The implications for infrastructure safety of the No Action Alternative is that safety conditions will be 

expected to remain fairly constant with 2012 figures, in proportion to increases in overall travel. 

Under the Action Alternatives there would be numerous equipment and infrastructure upgrades that 

would likely reduce the number of accidents associated with equipment failures or infrastructure 

deficiencies. Additionally, separating passenger and freight trains would reduce the wear and tear on

rail infrastructure resulting from the hauling of heavier freight rail. Furthermore, the Action 

Alternatives propose a fully grade-separated NEC for the new route options, which would reduce the 

frequency of conflicts and potential accidents throughout the entirety of the NEC that would occur 

at highway-rail at-grade crossings.

Positive Train Control (PTC) is a control technology used to prevent or avoid train collisions and 

derailments. The purpose of PTC is to slow or stop a train that is operating at an excessive speed or 

operating in a manner inconsistent with the section of track it is traversing. The Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 requires that Positive Train Control is implemented over much of the 

passenger and freight rail network by December 31, 2015.3

7.18.5 Potential Mitigation Strategies 

No mitigation strategies are proposed for safety. The FRA assumes that the future Tier 2 actions 

would include all necessary analysis and coordination with the FRA to ensure that any improvements 

associated with implementing the Selected Alternative would be consistent with existing and 

proposed safety standards and regulations. 

7.18.6 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

Subsequent Tier 2 analysis to address safety concerns would occur for site-specific elements as 

needed.

 

3 Federal Railroad Administration, Positive Train Control Information, Accessed August 2, 2015, 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0152