TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternatives 

Considered

4.

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | i

Table of Contents

4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Initial Alternatives............................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.2 Preliminary Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.1.2.1 Preliminary Alternatives Dismissed ............................................................................................................ 4-7

4.1.3 No Action and Action Alternatives...................................................................................................... 4-7

4.1.3.1 Technology Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 4-8

4.1.3.2 Related Projects.......................................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.1.4 Balancing Near-Term and Long-Term Needs...................................................................................... 4-9

4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.1 Markets Served................................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.2.1.1 Interregional and Regional Markets......................................................................................................... 4-11

4.2.2 Service and Station Types................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.2.2.1 Service Concepts and Operating Efficiencies............................................................................................ 4-13

4.2.2.2 Service Planning Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 4-14

4.2.2.3 Connecting Transit and Rail Services........................................................................................................ 4-17

4.2.2.4 Station Typology....................................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.2.3 Infrastructure Elements.................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.2.4 Representative Route ....................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.2.5 Ancillary Facilities and Supporting Structures .................................................................................. 4-31

4.2.5.1 Storage and Maintenance Facilities.......................................................................................................... 4-31

4.2.5.2 Train Control Systems............................................................................................................................... 4-33

4.2.5.3 Communication and Signal Systems......................................................................................................... 4-33

4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................................ 4-33

4.3.1 Disinvestment Scenario .................................................................................................................... 4-35

4.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................ 4-36

4.4.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.4.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.4.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.5 MARKETS AND SERVICE ............................................................................................................................... 4-38

4.5.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 4-38

4.5.2 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.3 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.4 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-42

4.5.5 Stations/Metropolitan Areas Served ................................................................................................ 4-43

4.6 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 4-44

4.6.1 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-45

4.6.1.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects ....................................................................................................................... 4-45

4.6.1.2 New Track................................................................................................................................................. 4-45

4.6.1.3 New Segment ........................................................................................................................................... 4-46

4.6.2 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-48

4.6.2.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects ....................................................................................................................... 4-48

4.6.2.2 New Track................................................................................................................................................. 4-48

4.6.2.3 New Segment ........................................................................................................................................... 4-49

4.6.3 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-51

4.6.3.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects ....................................................................................................................... 4-51

4.6.3.2 New Track................................................................................................................................................. 4-51

4.6.3.3 New Segment ........................................................................................................................................... 4-52

4.7 GEOGRAPHIC DEPICTION AND ORIENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 4-54

4.7.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 4-54

4.7.1.1 Washington, D.C....................................................................................................................................... 4-54
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | ii Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.7.1.2 Maryland .................................................................................................................................................. 4-54

4.7.1.3 Delaware .................................................................................................................................................. 4-57

4.7.1.4 Pennsylvania............................................................................................................................................. 4-57

4.7.1.5 New Jersey................................................................................................................................................ 4-58

4.7.1.6 New York .................................................................................................................................................. 4-58

4.7.1.7 Connecticut .............................................................................................................................................. 4-59

4.7.1.8 Rhode Island............................................................................................................................................. 4-59

4.7.1.9 Massachusetts.......................................................................................................................................... 4-60

4.7.1.10 Ownership of the existing NEC ................................................................................................................. 4-61

4.7.2 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-62

4.7.2.1 Maryland .................................................................................................................................................. 4-62

4.7.2.2 New Jersey................................................................................................................................................ 4-63

4.7.2.3 New York .................................................................................................................................................. 4-63

4.7.2.4 Connecticut .............................................................................................................................................. 4-63

4.7.2.5 Rhode Island............................................................................................................................................. 4-64

4.7.3 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-64

4.7.3.1 Maryland .................................................................................................................................................. 4-65

4.7.3.2 Delaware .................................................................................................................................................. 4-66

4.7.3.3 Pennsylvania............................................................................................................................................. 4-66

4.7.3.4 New Jersey................................................................................................................................................ 4-68

4.7.3.5 New York .................................................................................................................................................. 4-69

4.7.3.6 Connecticut .............................................................................................................................................. 4-69

4.7.3.7 Rhode Island............................................................................................................................................. 4-69

4.7.3.8 Massachusetts.......................................................................................................................................... 4-70

4.7.4 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-70

4.7.4.1 Washington, D.C., to New York City ......................................................................................................... 4-70

4.7.4.2 New York City to Hartford ........................................................................................................................ 4-73

4.7.4.3 Hartford to Boston ................................................................................................................................... 4-75

4.8 COST ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-78

4.8.1 Capital Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 4-78

4.8.2 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ..................................................................................... 4-79

4.9 PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 4-80
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | iii

Tables

TABLE 4-1: INITIAL ALTERNATIVES BUILDING BLOCKS ..................................................................................4-3

TABLE 4-2: SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................................4-5

TABLE 4-3: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA ....................................................................4-7

TABLE 4-4: ROLLING STOCK ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR SERVICE PLANNING PURPOSES ......................................4-16

TABLE 4-5: NEC FUTURE STATIONS ....................................................................................................4-22

TABLE 4-6: FOOTPRINT WIDTH OF THE REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE..................................................................4-29

TABLE 4-7: POTENTIAL INTERCITY RAIL STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ............................................4-32

TABLE 4-8: TRAINS PER PEAK HOUR, EXISTING AND 2040 PEAK-HOUR PEAK DIRECTION AT SELECT 

SCREENLINES – ALL ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................4-39

TABLE 4-9: TRAINS PER PEAK HOUR, 2040 PEAK-HOUR PEAK DIRECTION AT SELECT SCREENLINES –

ALTERNATIVE 3 ROUTE OPTIONS ...........................................................................................4-40

TABLE 4-10: EXISTING NEC STATIONS (EXCLUDING CONNECTING CORRIDORS) SERVED UNDER THE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................................................4-43

TABLE 4-11: STATION TYPE FOR NO ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES........................................................4-44

TABLE 4-12: MAPPING ATLAS REFERENCE GUIDE.......................................................................................4-55

TABLE 4-13: CAPITAL COSTS – ACTION ALTERNATIVES ($2014 BILLIONS).......................................................4-79

TABLE 4-14: CAPITAL COSTS – ALTERNATIVE 3 ROUTE OPTIONS ($2014 BILLIONS) (END-TO-END COSTS).............4-79

TABLE 4-15: ANNUAL INTERCITY O&M COSTS AND REVENUES BY ALTERNATIVE ($2014 MILLIONS)....................4-79

TABLE 4-16: ANNUAL INTERCITY O&M COSTS AND REVENUES – ALTERNATIVE 3 ($2014 MILLIONS)...................4-80
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | iv Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figures

FIGURE 4-1: ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS....................................................................................4-2

FIGURE 4-2: INITIAL ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................................4-4

FIGURE 4-3: STUDY AREA CONNECTING CORRIDORS...................................................................................4-20

FIGURE 4-4: ALTERNATIVE 1 (CHOKEPOINT, NEW TRACK, AND NEW SEGMENT LOCATIONS)...............................4-47

FIGURE 4-5: ALTERNATIVE 2 (CHOKEPOINT, NEW TRACK, AND NEW SEGMENT LOCATIONS)...............................4-50

FIGURE 4-6: ALTERNATIVE 3 (CHOKEPOINT, NEW TRACK, AND NEW SEGMENT LOCATIONS)...............................4-53

FIGURE 4-7: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (EXISTING NEC THROUGH BALTIMORE) ...............................................4-57

FIGURE 4-8: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (EXISTING NEC THROUGH NEW YORK CITY) .........................................4-59

FIGURE 4-9: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (EXISTING NEC THROUGH PROVIDENCE)..............................................4-60

FIGURE 4-10: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (EXISTING NEC NEAR BOSTON)..........................................................4-61

FIGURE 4-11: ALTERNATIVE 1 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENT THROUGH BALTIMORE).................................4-62

FIGURE 4-12: ALTERNATIVE 1 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENT THROUGH NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN 

AREA)..............................................................................................................................4-63

FIGURE 4-13: ALTERNATIVE 1 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENT NEAR OLD SAYBROOK, CT AND KENYON, RI).....4-64

FIGURE 4-14: ALTERNATIVE 2 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENT THROUGH MARYLAND AND DELAWARE) ...........4-66

FIGURE 4-15: ALTERNATIVE 2 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENT THROUGH PHILADELPHIA)..............................4-67

FIGURE 4-16: ALTERNATIVE 2 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENT THROUGH NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN 

AREA)..............................................................................................................................4-68

FIGURE 4-17: ALTERNATIVE 3 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENTS THROUGH BALTIMORE)................................4-71

FIGURE 4-18: ALTERNATIVE 3 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENTS THROUGH PHILADELPHIA) ............................4-72

FIGURE 4-19: ALTERNATIVE 3 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENTS THROUGH NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN 

AREA)..............................................................................................................................4-73

FIGURE 4-20: ALTERNATIVE 3 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENTS THROUGH PROVIDENCE) ..............................4-76

FIGURE 4-21: ALTERNATIVE 3 (EXISTING NEC AND NEW SEGMENTS THOUGH BOSTON)......................................4-77
Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-1

4. Alternatives Considered

This chapter describes the No Action and Action 

Alternatives considered in this Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS).

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

developed these alternatives through a 

comprehensive and collaborative alternatives 

development process to consider a broad array of

distinct alternatives that address the program’s 

Purpose and Need. This chapter summarizes that 

alternatives development process and presents the Action Alternatives assessed in the remainder of 

this Tier 1 Draft EIS. (Appendix B provides further details and supporting documentation related to 

this chapter.)

The FRA has defined the No Action and Action Alternatives to a level of detail consistent with a 

programmatic EIS and sufficient to evaluate benefits and effects to both the built and natural 

environments. Characteristics for the No Action and Action Alternatives described in this Tier 1 Draft 

EIS include markets or cities served, service types, infrastructure improvements and routing, and 

costs. For each Action Alternative, the FRA defined the markets or city-pairs and representative 

routings linking those markets, but not specific alignments. This allows the FRA to better understand 

the regional benefits or impacts resulting from the proposed construction of required infrastructure, 

as well as the implementation of service. To facilitate the environmental assessment of the Action 

Alternatives, this chapter provides the physical description of the No Action and Action Alternatives 

from south to north by state and metropolitan area. This chapter presents some features of each 

Action Alternative—such as service characteristics, capital costs, and operations and maintenance 

(O&M) costs—corridor-wide rather than by geographic location. This chapter does not present the 

ways in which the No Action and Action Alternatives address the Purpose and Need (as described in 

Chapter 3); subsequent chapters (see Chapter 5, 6, and 7) provide more detail on the transportation, 

economic, and environmental benefits and effects.

4.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW

There are many possible futures for the NEC. Some 

involve significant changes in the way passenger 

service is provided, while others focus on

modifications to the existing system, keeping service

much as it istoday. Some options focus improvements 

only on the existing NEC, while others include service

to new locations or different types of service.

Decisions about the future of the NEC affect a wide 

range of stakeholders and FRA’s alternatives 

development process included extensive public 

A cornerstone for the alternatives development 

process was open and transparent engagement

with a wide range of stakeholders, from rail 

passengers, agencies, and service operators on 

the NEC to the residents, travelers, businesses, 

and communities potentially affected by the 

outcomes of NEC FUTURE.

The assumptions made herein at the Tier 1 level 

are representative and illustrative to support 

analysis in both the alternatives development 

process and the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The service and 

infrastructure assumptions are not intended to be 

prescriptive.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

involvement and agency consultation activities including Scoping, consultation meetings, briefings, 

workshops, and presentations.

Because of the unique geographic, technical, and institutional complexity of the program, the FRA 

took an innovative approach to developing the NEC FUTURE alternatives, organizing the process into 

three steps (Figure 4-1). The three-step process allowed for the preparation of corridor-wide service 

plans and infrastructure projects, and subsequent testing, refining, and optimizing of different service 

and geographic markets within the NEC. This process also provided the FRA with an understanding of

how discrete elements perform relative to one another so that the strongest “package” of separate 

service, infrastructure, and route options could be crafted into different alternatives that meet the

needs of various markets along the NEC. 

Figure 4-1: Alternatives Development Process

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

In evaluating the alternatives, the FRA used a number of technical tools (as described in Appendix B) 

to assess engineering feasibility, ridership, operational impacts, capital and operating costs, 

environmental impacts, and public benefits. The level of technical analysis and associated tools to 

develop applicable data becomes more detailed as the alternatives advance through the 

development process. This approach was designed to allow for the refinement and re-packaging of 

elements of alternatives leading to FRA’s identification of the Action Alternatives to be further 

analyzed and compared to a No Action Alternative.

The FRA defined and developed the Action Alternatives to a programmatic level, to focus on corridorwide solutions within the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The FRA’s approach to the alternatives development 

process allows for holistic solutions that meet the needs of the entire Study Area to be considered, 

free from constraints on existing physical assets and those imposed by institutional and jurisdictional 

operating agreements. These alternatives establish a comprehensive, long-term vision for the 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-3

corridor’s future development and are defined by (1) a range of corridor-wide service options (Service 

Plans) required to meet varying degrees of projected growth and demand and (2) broad 

infrastructure needs to accommodate the service. Assumptions made at the Tier 1 level are 

representative and illustrative, to support analysis in both the alternatives development process and 

the Tier 1 Draft EIS. These service and infrastructure assumptions are not intended to be prescriptive.

The Action Alternatives provide the FRA and other stakeholders with a range of options and 

information over the No Action Alternative to determine the appropriate role of rail within the 

region’s future transportation network. While focused on rail solutions (addressing the Purpose and 

Need), the alternatives have different implications for other transportation modes, including the 

region’s airports, highways, and transit networks. In this way, they provide important information for 

policymakers to make decisions with this broader transportation system in mind. 

4.1.1 Initial Alternatives

Developing a list of “Initial Alternatives” was the first step in the alternatives development process. 

To develop these alternatives, the FRA began with an analysis of Study Area travel demand and 

growth data to understand where people are traveling, where growth in population and employment 

is forecast to occur, and how travel patterns are likely to change in the coming decades. In addition, 

numerous route and service concepts were identified through input and data collected during 

Scoping. The FRA organized these ideas into a combination of “building blocks,” including how trains 

will potentially access the markets (network/route), the amount of service to provide to each market

(investment level), and the type of service to be provided (service). Mixing and matching these 

building blocks provided the basis for testing and comparing multiple market, investment, and service 

options. Table 4-1 describes these three building blocks.

Table 4-1: Initial Alternatives Building Blocks

Building Blocks Variations

Network/Route

§ How can markets be accessed by 

rail? 

§ Existing NEC 

§ Potential second-spine

§ Potential new right-of-way segments 

§ Potential connecting corridor links

Investment Level 

§ How robust is the program?

§ How much service can be provided?

§ Which new markets can be served?

§ Low (A): 2040 growth on existing NEC serving existing markets

§ Medium-low (B): Additional capacity on existing NEC to add new 

types of express, regional, and connecting corridor services 

§ Medium-high (C): Targeted expansion of the NEC to serve new offcorridor markets and expand service options to NEC and 

connecting corridor markets 

§ High (D): Extensive end-to-end expansion of the NEC to serve new 

markets and high-speed rail service

Service 

§ How can markets be best served? 

§ Standard service mix (services similar to today)

§ Enhanced service mix (new types of service and operations)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Using these three building blocks, the FRA identified approximately 100 Initial Alternatives to address

a broad spectrum of opportunities to upgrade and expand the NEC, serve existing and new markets 

both on and off the corridor, provide better connectivity to other rail markets, transit, and airports, 

and develop new high-speed rail service.

1 Some of the initial ideas proposed, such as modifying the 

existing NEC to serve markets off of the existing spine when those markets could be better served 

through existing and/or future connecting corridors2 did not advance. The FRA also dismissed less 

efficient routing options, such as New York City to Boston via Albany. Figure 4-2 provides a schematic 

representation of Initial Alternatives. (Appendix B, Initial Alternatives Report, provides additional

documentation on the Initial Alternatives.)

Figure 4-2: Initial Alternatives

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

 

1 The definition of high-speed rail varies depending on context and purpose. For NEC FUTURE, high-speed rail 

consists of service provided by Intercity-Express trains operating at a range of speeds from 150 to 220 mph. 2 In NEC FUTURE, a connecting corridor is defined as a passenger rail corridor that connects directly to another rail 

corridor (in this instance, the NEC) via a station transfer or through-train service.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-5

In December 2012, the FRA hosted a set of regional workshops. 3 These December Dialogues

presented the market-based approach underpinning the alternatives development process, the 

results of Scoping, and the framework used to generate the Initial Alternatives. The feedback from 

participants at the December Dialogues underscored the importance of providing a range of 

investment scenarios for the NEC, as well as a flexible approach for the use of additional railroad 

capacity, allowing operators to respond to changing needs. More information on the December 

Dialogues is included in Chapter 10, Agency and Public Involvement.

4.1.2 Preliminary Alternatives

For the next step of the alternatives development process, the FRA organized the Initial Alternatives 

into four program levels to facilitate a comparison of the benefits and impacts of distinct levels of 

investment in the NEC. Some Initial Alternatives were not advanced into Preliminary Alternatives, 

particularly those alternatives that included specific engineering and alignment solutions not 

germane to a corridor-wide, programmatic planning process.

The four program levels (Table 4-2) differed by the level and types of rail service they provided to the 

region and supported a broad range of options for the role that passenger rail could play on the NEC 

and in the Study Area, from upgrading the existing NEC to building a second-spine to support highspeed rail operations for existing and future markets. As program levels increase from A to D, larger 

investments in service and infrastructure are required. 

Table 4-2: Summary of Preliminary Alternatives

Program 

Level Alt. Service Objective Possible Service Option

A 1 Addresses state of good repair and 

provides some increase in service 

and capacity along existing NEC

Standard (financially constrained)

2 Standard

3 Enhanced (mixture of services)

B 4 Substantially increases service to 

existing and connecting markets 

along existing NEC with high capacity 

operations

Standard 

5 Enhanced: Maximum frequency of trains 

6 Enhanced: Maximum trip time savings

7 Enhanced: Maximum service to connecting corridors 

C 8 Targeted expansion of existing NEC 

to serve new markets, reduce trip 

time, and introduce robust Regional 

rail service 

Standard 

9 Enhanced: Maximum frequency of trains 

10 Enhanced: Maximum trip time savings

11 Enhanced: Maximum service to connecting corridors 

D 12 Achieves world-class high-speed rail 

potential through the addition of 

new spine

Second-spine generally parallel to existing NEC 

13 Second-spine via Danbury-Hartford-Providence 

14 Second-spine via Ronkonkoma-Hartford-Worcester 

15 Second-spine via Delmarva and Nassau CountyStamford-Danbury-Springfield

Source: NEC FUTURE Appendix B, Preliminary Alternatives Report, April 2013

 

3 A summary of this meeting is available on the NEC FUTURE website: 

http://necfuture.com/get_involved/public_meetings.aspx
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Within each program level, the FRA developed multiple alternatives to better understand and 

quantify key market and service dynamics, such as the trade-offs between frequency of service, trip 

time, and the convenience of one-seat end-to-end service. This allowed the FRA to test and compare 

different operating scenarios, or, in the case of the second-spine, different route options. In all, the 

FRA defined 15 Preliminary Alternatives (Table 4-2). Within Program Levels A, B, and C, the FRA 

developed two different service scenarios for testing and comparison: 

4 Standard service serves markets in much the same manner as they are served today, with 

Intercity trains stopping at major stations along the corridor and commuter trains taking 

passengers from suburban markets into urban centers.

4 Enhanced service involves the evaluation and testing of new operating approaches and services 

that allow for more intensive use of existing or new infrastructure.

Because enhanced service, as defined, encompasses a broad range of potential new service options, 

the FRA developed separate alternatives in Program Levels B and C to focus on three different 

enhanced service objectives: maximizing the frequency of trains; providing the fastest express trip 

time; or maximizing service to connecting corridors. (See Appendix B for additional information.)

In April 2013, the FRA hosted a second set of regional workshops to present the Preliminary 

Alternatives to the general public. The feedback from participants at the April Dialogues confirmed 

the importance of preserving a range of program levels in the Tier 1 Draft EIS to reflect different 

visions for the future of the NEC. Participant feedback also highlighted the importance of evaluating 

multiple route options. More information on the April Dialogues is included in Chapter 11, Agency 

and Public Involvement.

In the final step of the alternatives development process, the FRA evaluated the 15 Preliminary 

Alternatives by comparing them to understand whether and how each met the Purpose and Need

(Chapter 3), and analyzing their benefits in terms of ridership, travel time, and service quality. 

Similarly, among the different Program Level D second-spine route alternatives, the FRA compared 

performance (in terms of service and ridership) and environmental impacts. 

To conduct the analyses of the 15 Preliminary Alternatives, the FRA developed evaluation criteria and 

associated performance measures derived from the Purpose and Need. This set of evaluation criteria 

is based on (i) best practices; (ii) results from models used in transportation investment programs of 

similar physical and programmatic magnitude, (iii) available data; and (iv) stakeholder input. Table 4-3

details the criteria and data used to evaluate the Preliminary Alternatives.

The FRA’s key findings during this stage of the alternatives development process were related to 1) 

defining service dynamics—evaluating passenger preferences for frequency of service, trip time, and 

one-seat-ride services; and 2) defining the role that rail can play in transporting travelers across the 

NEC region. (Appendix B, Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Report, provides additional details on 

this process.)
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-7

Table 4-3: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Metrics

Growth and Capacity Expansion § Annual trips

§ Annual passenger miles

§ Peak-hour passengers at major screenlines*

§ Peak-hour trains, Hudson River screenline

Aging Infrastructure § NEC in a state of good repair

Service Effectiveness and Performance § Express trip time savings

§ Maximum trains per hour

§ Peak-hour trains operating on NEC

Connectivity § Stations served by Intercity trains

§ Station-pairs served by Intercity trains

§ Airport stations

Environmental Consequences § Acres of environmental sensitivity

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

* A screenline is an imaginary line used to count rail traffic at a specific location in the Study Area (e.g., the Hudson River, 

recognizing the capacity restrictions of the tunnels and/or to analyze certain defined types of service/markets). 

4.1.2.1 Preliminary Alternatives Dismissed

The FRA used the metrics and data for each criterion (Table 4-3) to compare Program Levels A through 

D, as well as to compare the separate alternatives within each program level. After evaluating the 

environmental impacts of the Preliminary Alternatives, the FRA determined that each was likely to 

result in environmental effects. The FRA dismissed Preliminary Alternative 12 (which represented a 

second spine parallel to the entire existing NEC from Washington, D.C. to Boston) for service, cost, 

and constructability reasons. Based on feedback received during the April Dialogues, the FRA 

dismissed the Delmarva routing in Preliminary Alternative 15, because of public concerns that the 

route was not viable for a variety of reasons, including the potential for environmental impacts as 

well as from a growth and market perspective. 

The FRA considered three route options for a second spine between New York City and Hartford, CT, 

and three new off-corridor routes for a second spine from Hartford, CT, to Boston. Based on an 

evaluation of service, ridership, and capital cost, the FRA narrowed the six route options to four. The 

Nassau Hub in Uniondale, NY, routing (between New York City and Hartford, CT), and the Springfield, 

MA, routing (between Hartford, CT and Boston) underperformed when compared to the other route 

options and were not advanced for further consideration in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. These route options 

could become part of a longer-term investment program to improve access to markets beyond the 

NEC or along connecting corridors. (Appendix B, Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Report and Tier 

1 EIS Alternatives Report provide additional information on the route options considered.)

4.1.3 No Action and Action Alternatives

The FRA re-packaged the Preliminary Alternatives into three distinct Action Alternatives that meet 

the Purpose and Need. Each Action Alternative includes the following: 

4 A set of geographic markets to be served and assumptions about the level of passenger rail 

service that will be provided to these markets (see Section 4.5).
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Infrastructure improvements that support this level-of-service (see Section 4.6).

4 A Representative Route (or footprint) that connects these markets (see Section 4.7)

The FRA also defined a No Action Alternative to establish a baseline for comparative purposes. The 

No Action Alternative represents a “snapshot in time,” developed using current information 

regarding planning and funding for transportation projects within the Study Area. Refer to Section 

4.3 and Appendix B, No Action Alternative Report, for additional information regarding the No Action 

Alternative.

The FRA compared the Action Alternatives to the No Action Alternative (see Sections 4.3 and 4.4), 

using ridership and service planning characteristics estimated with models4 created and customized 

for this effort. Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, present transportation effects, economic effects,

environmental consequences, and construction effects, respectively, of the Action Alternatives.

4.1.3.1 Technology Considerations

Emerging and new technologies may be applicable to rail service on the NEC and other transportation 

needs across the Study Area. These technologies might include new information systems and 

services, new train propulsion and guideway systems, fare collection innovations, and safety 

enhancements. The FRA plays an important role in researching new rail transportation approaches 

and technologies, as well as demonstrating their specific capabilities and role in the broader 

multimodal transportation system. For example, the FRA sponsored development of next-generation 

propulsion systems for locomotives and has explored the potential use of magnetic levitation train 

technology.

5

An advanced guideway system, such as magnetic levitation technology, could be used to develop a 

second spine or portions thereof. This system would require separate stations, and would not support 

run-through trains from connecting corridors nor offer proven integration efficiencies with today’s 

NEC infrastructure and operators. Furthermore, these technologies remain under development, with 

few systems in operation internationally. For these reasons, the FRA did not incorporate advanced 

guideway or similar new technologies in the Action Alternatives. However, such technologies could 

be studied separately, and are not precluded as a future transformative investment in the regional 

transportation system. Other potential applications of new technology transportation systems could 

support the NEC passenger rail network by connecting off-corridor markets to the NEC, or a major 

market to the NEC. 

 

4 Additional documentation regarding specific models created for NEC FUTURE is located in the technical 

memorandum specific to that subject. Appendix B contains these technical memorandums. 5 Magnetic levitation is an advanced transportation technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a 

vehicle over a specially designed guideway. For more information on magnetic levitation technology, see Federal 

Railroad Administration, Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program. 49 CFR Part 268. 

[FRA Docket No. FRA–98–4545; Notice No.3]. RIN 2130–AB29.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-9

4.1.3.2 Related Projects

There are several ongoing independent rail projects located within the Study Area that are not 

included in the No Action Alternative. Instead, these projects are referred to as “Related Projects”

since they generally fall within one of the following three categories:

4 Fully or partially funded projects located in a connecting corridor and not on the NEC 

4 Unfunded projects along the NEC with ongoing or completed NEPA/PE 

4 Fully or partially funded transit (e.g., NJ TRANSIT, MTA-LIRR) or freight projects located off of but 

connecting to the NEC

These Related Projects, such as the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor – Washington, D.C., to 

Richmond, VA, have independent utility and many are currently undergoing their own separate NEPA 

processes. Other Related Projects, such as Boston South Station expansion, Portal Bridge

replacement, and the B&P Tunnel replacement, are intended to address some of the NEC’s most 

pressing reliability, safety, and capacity needs. As such, some of these projects or their components 

may be included in an Action Alternative.

The FRA has considered these reasonably foreseeable projects in the cumulative impact analysis 

(Chapter 7.20, Cumulative Effects), and is coordinating with Related Project sponsors to ensure that 

those projects remain compatible with, and do not preclude, the future design and construction of 

the NEC FUTURE No Action and Action Alternatives. 

4.1.4 Balancing Near-Term and Long-Term Needs

While NEC FUTURE uses 2040 as a horizon year for planning purposes, the Action Alternatives could 

take decades to fully implement. While considering a long-term vision, therefore, the immediate 

needs of the NEC in the near-term will need to be addressed in a manner consistent with that longerterm vision. In defining Action Alternatives, the FRA considered the importance of incremental 

implementation in phases, by multiple stakeholders, over many years, with specific timing dictated 

in part by availability of funding, local needs, and construction considerations. Therefore, the FRA 

designed each Action Alternative to be incrementally implemented. (Chapter 10, Phasing and 

Implementation, describes specific priorities for advancing projects.)

At this point in the planning process, and given the 

significant backlog of need identified for the NEC, 

some near-term improvements would apply to all 

of the Action Alternatives. These improvements, 

known as the Universal First Phase, are a collection 

of projects that would support enhancements to 

service and address critical infrastructure 

improvements for further advancing whichever 

Action Alternative is recommended as the Preferred Alternative. These projects would not affect the 

outcome of the subsequent decisions about a Preferred Alternative. (Chapter 10, Phasing and 

Implementation, discusses additional information regarding the Universal First Phase.) 

Challenges to project implementation, particularly 

in areas with known constraints, will be 

addressed during subsequent project-specific 

analyses. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Beyond this initial set of improvements, decisions about priorities and phasing would vary depending 

on the Action Alternative and future vision. Public and stakeholder feedback on both near-term 

priorities and the longer-term vision are therefore key inputs to the FRA’s decision-making process.

A key element of the NEC FUTURE planning process is to ensure improvements to the NEC are 

prioritized, integrated, and packaged for optimal service benefits across the entire rail network.

4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Aging infrastructure, insufficient capacity, and gaps in connectivity with other transportation modes 

and between different rail services limit the current passenger rail network, resulting in congestion 

and delays on the NEC. The Action Alternatives address these needs, improving service to existing 

markets and providing service to new markets. The Action Alternatives represent a broad range of 

options and the FRA developed them with sufficient information to evaluate and make reliable, longterm decisions about the appropriate role of rail in the multimodal transportation system.

The FRA developed Action Alternatives to understand and quantify key rail market and service 

dynamics, such as the trade-offs between frequency of service, travel time, fares, and the 

convenience of one-seat service between markets. Action Alternatives are defined by markets, 

service and station types, and infrastructure. Each Action Alternative represents a unique long-term 

vision for improving passenger rail service that will enhance mobility options, improve performance,

and better serve existing and new markets to support future population and employment growth in

the Study Area. Although the visions are unique, each Action Alternative shares the following 

attributes:

4 Maintain and improve service on the existing NEC.

4 Bring the NEC to a state of good repair6 by replacing or renewing aging infrastructure on the 

existing NEC and eliminating the backlog of infrastructure requiring replacement so that all future 

capital upgrades are planned and implemented according to a regular replacement cycle.

4 Address the most pressing capacity and service chokepoints that constrain capacity on the 

existing NEC.

4 Protect freight rail access and the opportunity for future expansion.

4 Incorporate national and international best practices to address capacity constraints, broaden 

the mix of station pairs served, improve performance, and generate operating cost efficiencies.

The focus of the Action Alternatives is passenger rail. However, the Action Alternatives would have 

different effects on the multimodal transportation system (air, highway, intercity bus, transit, and 

rail). The FRA evaluated the potential effects of the Action Alternatives on other modes, particularly 

 

6 State of good repair: 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. The FTA is required to establish “a 

definition of the term state of good repair (SGR) that includes objective standards for measuring the condition of 

capital assets of recipients, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and facilities.” (Section 20008(b) of 

MAP-21). The definition is currently under development.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-11

if travelers are attracted to passenger rail from congested highways and airports, in Chapter 5, 

Transportation Effects, and Chapter 6, Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects. While 

focused on passenger rail, the FRA considered the overall effects on travel across the entire 

transportation system in evaluating the benefits and effects of each Action Alternative. Chapter 9, 

Evaluation of Alternatives, also presents these broader system-wide effects.

4.2.1 Markets Served

For the NEC FUTURE alternatives development 

process, the FRA took a market-based approach, first 

identifying current travel patterns and how they have

changed over the past three to four decades, and 

then identifying potential new rail markets. The FRA 

identified four primary markets—Washington, D.C., 

Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston—based on 

analysis of current travel demand and population 

growth projections, ridership projections, data from states and planning organizations, and public 

and agency comment during Scoping and other interactions. The data also show that there are other 

important rail markets within the Study Area, including smaller intermediate cities or urban and 

suburban areas. Some of these markets are located directly on the NEC, such as Baltimore, MD, 

Wilmington, DE, and New Haven, CT. Others markets are located away from the NEC, such as 

Hartford, CT, Ronkonkoma, NY, and Worcester, MA.7

4.2.1.1 Interregional and Regional Markets

The interregional travel market includes trips that start and end in different metropolitan areas (e.g., 

beginning in Philadelphia and ending in Boston). A significant number of interregional trips include 

travel from intermediate cities to a primary metropolitan area, or between two intermediate cities

(e.g., beginning in Wilmington, DE, and ending in Stamford, CT). Interregional trips today are primarily 

served by Amtrak, the NEC’s Intercity rail operator. Regional travel includes trips within a

metropolitan area, such as journey-to-work trips (e.g., Canton, MA, to Boston). These trips are 

primarily served by commuter or Regional rail operators (e.g., Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority).

For regional travel, demand exceeds capacity during peak periods in some locations, affecting system 

performance and often leading to delays and queuing at major stations or terminals and standingroom-only conditions on trains in certain areas of the existing NEC. For some regional markets such 

as northern New Jersey/New York, peak-period capacity constraints combined with growth in travel 

demand result in higher volumes of travel for extended periods of time. As demand for Regional rail 

services grows beyond the peak periods, railroads are left with only small windows of time within 

which to accomplish maintenance activities, or they become limited in their ability to respond to 

unforeseen events without service disruptions. 

 

7 Intercity travel between these geographic market areas generally is assigned to stations or groups of stations.

The FRA’s market-based approach incorporated 

analysis of current travel demand, population 

growth projections, ridership projections, data

from states and planning organizations, and

public and agency comments.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.2.2 Service and Station Types

For NEC FUTURE, the FRA categorized passenger rail 

service into two types—Intercity and Regional. 

Intercity is passenger rail service between cities or 

metropolitan areas, operating at speeds and 

distances greater than that of Regional or commuter 

rail. Intercity serves large, midsize, and selected 

smaller markets, with station stops typically every 10

to 25 miles. Regional rail serves local markets, often 

within one metropolitan area, with station stops 

typically every 2 to 10 miles. Details on each of these 

passenger rail service types are outlined below:

4 Intercity-Express is premium Intercity rail service 

operating at speeds of 160–220 miles per hour 

(mph) on the NEC, making limited stops and only 

serving the largest markets. Intercity-Express

service offers the shortest travel times for 

Intercity trips, higher-quality on-board amenities, 

at a premium price, using high-performance 8

trainsets. Amtrak’s Acela Express provides similar service today between Washington, D.C., and 

Boston, although Acela Express operates at top speeds of 150 mph.

9

4 Intercity-Corridor is conventional Intercity rail service that operates at speeds of 110–160 mph10

on the NEC and on connecting corridors to markets beyond the electrified territory of the NEC. 

This service provides connectivity and direct one-seat rides to large and midsize markets on the 

NEC. The most prominent of the connecting corridors are the Keystone Corridor between 

Harrisburg and Philadelphia, PA; the Southeast High-Speed Rail corridor south of Washington, 

D.C., serving Virginia; the Knowledge Corridor serving central Massachusetts and Vermont; and 

the Inland Route between Springfield and Boston, MA. In this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the IntercityCorridor trains are assumed to be the successors to today’s Amtrak Northeast Regional service. 

Intercity-Corridor also includes long-distance service (Intercity-Corridor-Other), such as the 

existing Amtrak services to Florida, New Orleans, Chicago, and Canada. For the purposes of this 

analysis, these services are assumed to operate on the NEC outside of the travel peaks.

Intercity-Corridor includes a new service concept—Metropolitan—which offers improved service 

to new and intermediate markets and key transfer locations, and stops at more stations than the 

 

8 “High-performance trainsets” refers to new state-of-the-art rolling stock consisting of electric multiple units 

(EMU) cars with high rates of acceleration and deceleration and capable of operating at speeds of 160 mph or 

greater. An EMU is a multiple unit train consisting of self-propelled carriages, using electricity as the motive power. 

An EMU requires no separate locomotive since electric traction motors are incorporated within one or a number of 

the carriages. 9 Acela Express service is considered Intercity-Express service because it provides higher onboard amenities and 

premium price points. 10 Operating speeds of Intercity-Corridor service is determined by the type of equipment being used and whether 

the service is operating on the existing NEC or a connecting corridor. 

The term “Intercity” is defined as passenger rail 

service between metropolitan areas. The term 

“interregional” describes travel flows that start 

and end in a different metropolitan area. 

“Interregional" and "Intercity" may be used 

interchangeably when referring to markets, 

passengers, trips, and passenger rail service. 

“Regional” describes travel within a metropolitan 

area. “Regional rail” is defined as passenger rail 

service within the travel shed of a metropolitan 

area. “Regional rail” provides local and 

commuter-focused service characterized by a 

high-percentage of regular travelers. Regional rail 

is a broad term that reflects the expanded role of 

commuter railroads to also serve metropolitan 

travel needs throughout the day and beyond the 

work week. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-13

current Amtrak Northeast Regional service (including some stations that are served today by only 

Regional rail trains). Metropolitan service would operate wholly within the electrified NEC with 

high-performance trainsets at up to 160 mph achieving travel times within the NEC competitive 

with current Intercity-Corridor service (even while making additional stops). Metropolitan service 

would operate on regular schedules with high frequency (2–4 trains per hour), increasing the 

number and frequency of direct station-pair connections. The service would also provide a travel 

choice for longer-distance commuters.

4 Regional rail refers to service concentrated within a single metropolitan region. Regional rail 

trains provide local and commuter-focused service with a high percentage of regular travelers 

and fares discounted for weekly or monthly travel. Regional rail encompasses current services 

provided by Virginia Railway Express (VRE), Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC), 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), NJ TRANSIT, MTA-Long Island Rail 

Road (LIRR), MTA-Metro-North Railroad (MNR), Connecticut Shore Line East, and Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Regional rail operations incorporate a variety of stopping 

patterns, which vary by location and the available capacity provided in the Action Alternatives.

Representative stopping patterns considered for Regional rail service include the following:

All-stop local service

Zone express service (typically a weekday peak service that stops at a group of adjacent 

stations and then operates express to the main terminal)

Limited stop service focusing on selected key stations. 

4.2.2.1 Service Concepts and Operating Efficiencies

To fully understand the dynamic operating 

environment in which passenger rail service on the 

NEC functions, the FRA explored the potential benefits 

of enhanced service concepts, aimed at increasing the 

efficiency of operations since the Action Alternatives

would eliminate chokepoints and expand capacity. 

Enhanced services make efficient use of new rail 

infrastructure investments by enhancing the 

attractiveness and convenience of train services,

increasing the efficiency of operations, and lowering the cost per capita of delivering rail service.

The Action Alternatives also incorporate the following representative operational improvements to 

better integrate train service across today’s separate markets:

4 Expand the number of stations served by Intercity-Corridor trains, including numerous stations 

that today are served only by Regional trains, which will increase travel options for many travelers 

and could fill connectivity gaps in the existing passenger rail network.

4 Incorporate “through-service” at major stations to reduce the need to transfer between trains

and operators. For example, a higher level of through-running Regional rail service in New York 

Representative service plans for each Action 

Alternative are based on information and data 

gathered by the FRA or provided by rail operators 

along the NEC. The FRA developed the service 

plans to permit the comparison of alternatives 

and are not intended to be prescriptive. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

and Washington, D.C., would increase train throughput and improve the effectiveness of terminal 

operations.

4 Provide “clockface” train departures (i.e., regular and consistent departure time; 1:15, 2:15, 3:15, 

etc.) and standard stopping patterns (i.e., consistent stopping patterns for particular service type 

or service or run as noted on a timetable), to improve travel time and capacity.

4 Integrate ticketing and fares across the NEC to improve passenger convenience, and reduce dwell 

time at stations and overall travel times.

4 Develop Regional rail slot catalogues, which is a concept to improve schedule flexibility where 

schedule slots are assigned to services types, rather than a specific operator, where and when 

demand is greatest. 

4 Define scheduling policiesto accommodate less reliable off-corridor operations without affecting 

NEC operations(e.g., extended dwells at NEC entry point, open slots utilized for schedule padding

or late Intercity trains entering the NEC, etc.).

Appendix B, Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report, provides more information on enhanced service concepts 

used in the Action Alternatives. 

Representative service plans developed for the Action 

Alternatives 11 incorporated various elements of the 

above service concepts and operating efficiencies. For 

example, the FRA evaluated an enhanced service 

concept to maximize benefits to targeted markets and 

minimize investment in infrastructure, referred to as 

transit-style service as an alternative to zone express 

service in areas of heavy demand. This concept is 

illustrative of the range of possible service concepts 

that could be operated with varying benefits to 

targeted markets. (Refer to Appendix B, Service Plans 

and Train Equipment Options Technical Memorandum,

for additional information on transit-style services.)

4.2.2.2 Service Planning Assumptions

Representational service plans evaluated for each Action Alternative also incorporated assumptions 

about fare policy, shared track use, rolling stock, and availability of connecting transit services. These 

assumptions are discussed below.

Fare Policy

The FRA derived Intercity rail pricing fares from existing Amtrak fare policy to estimate ridership and 

revenues but not as a fare-maximizing or ridership-maximizing analysis. The FRA considered changes 

 

11 The representative service and infrastructure assumptions are not intended to be prescriptive.

Transit-style Regional rail makes more intensive 

use of existing track capacity to significantly 

reduce the need for additional rail infrastructure, 

offering a simpler array of service patterns, 

dedicated to and optimized for each main track in 

the right-of-way. Transit-style service exists or 

has been operated in the past on various rail 

transit lines, notably in Chicago, New York City, 

and Philadelphia.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-15

to the existing Amtrak fare policy to understand the price-sensitivity of passengers, but established a 

threshold for analysis requiring that Intercity revenues cover operating expenses.

The FRA tested a range of fare discounts to establish a point in which revenues covered operating 

expenses. This analysis determined that a 30-percent discount from current fares on non-express 

services would attract additional riders and still cover operating expenses. The FRA used this fare 

policy assumption to estimate ridership, revenues, and O&M costs.

O&M costs and revenue estimates related to Regional rail operations depend more on localized 

choices and are less likely to be informative in the NEC FUTURE decision-making process. They are 

not included in this estimate. (Appendix B, Ridership Analysis Technical Memorandum, provides 

additional information on ridership and rail pricing fares.)

Shared Access and Consideration of Freight

The NEC FUTURE Scoping process, along with input received from freight rail operators and state and 

regional stakeholders, identified the preservation and enhancement of freight rail as an important 

concern, and the identification of opportunities to facilitate improved freight rail service as an 

important objective of NEC FUTURE. 

In all Action Alternatives, the FRA assumes that the existing NEC would continue to operate as a 

shared-use corridor. Each Action Alternative preserves freight access and operations on the NEC and 

does not preclude future expansion opportunities. The FRA developed specific assumptions for the 

mixed operations of freight and passenger traffic on the same tracks and in the same right-of-way, 

consistent with the current FRA regulatory framework:

4 Freight will not operate on high-speed tracks in mixed traffic with Tier III passenger trains 

operating above 160 mph.

4 Mixed Tier 1 and Tier III traffic operations are assumed to be permissible in the future on existing 

NEC tracks with passenger train speeds up to 160 mph.12

4 Temporal separation may be required for portions of existing NEC where high-speed tracks are 

closely parallel to existing tracks.

The FRA also considered opportunities to accommodate future growth and improvement of freight 

rail service within the Study Area when defining infrastructure requirements for passenger services.

Additional infrastructure associated with the Action Alternatives could provide additional capacity to 

accommodate an increase in freight traffic at select locations. 

In addition to preserving freight rail access to industries along the NEC and not precluding future 

expansion of freight rail service, the FRA reviewed the Action Alternatives with respect to their 

potential effects on four specific freight traffic growth opportunities:

4 Freight access to the Port of Baltimore, Port of Wilmington, and Delmarva Peninsula

 

12 Appendix B, Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report, describes more fully the railroad operating characteristics and 

limitations on permissible maximum speeds and the mixing of freight and passenger traffic.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Freight access along the NEC in southeastern Connecticut and Rhode Island

4 Potential high-capacity, high-clearance freight line parallel to NEC between Washington, D.C., and 

northern New Jersey

4 Freight access to Long Island and New England

Rolling Stock

The service plans for the Action Alternatives assume the use of high-performance trainsets, which is 

consistent with the projected pace of rolling stock technology development and which utilize rail 

infrastructure more efficiently by minimizing the variations in train performance (e.g., top speed,

acceleration and braking rates). Table 4-4 identifies the various types and configurations of rolling 

stock.

Table 4-4: Rolling Stock Assumptions Used for Service Planning Purposes

Rolling Stock Tier

Locomotive Type/ 

Traction Power Type

Train Length 

(Locomotives + 

Coaches, ft) [2]

Seats/ 

Car

OffCorridor 

Ops

Max. Speed 

on NEC 

(mph)

Intercity-Express HighPerformance Trainset III Concentrated or distributed 

power w/Catenary

595–1,190 50–60 No 220

Intercity-Corridor

Trainset

III Concentrated or distributed 

power w/Catenary

595–1,190 60–70 No 220

III Dual Power/Cat. + 3rd Rail 1,020 60–70 Yes 160–220[3]

III High-Performance Dual 

Mode[3]

1,020 60–70 Yes 160–220

III Dual Mode/3rd Rail + Diesel 1,020 60–70 Yes 160–220

Intercity-Corridor

Train

I High-Performance Dual 

Mode[3]

1,000 60–70 Yes 125

I Diesel locomotive 1,170 60–70 Yes 110

I Electric locomotive/Catenary 1,170 60–70 Yes 125

Regional rail Electric 

Multiple-Unit (EMU) [4]

I EMU/Catenary or 3rd Rail 1,020 105 Yes 100–125

I EMU/Catenary or 3rd Rail 1,020 135 Yes 100–125

Regional rail PushPull, 

Single level or Bilevel[4]

Electric, Diesel or Dual-Mode 

locomotive

1,000 135 Yes 125/100

I Electric, Diesel or Dual-Mode 

locomotive

755 135 Yes 125/100

Intercity LongDistance TrainI Same locomotive options as 

Intercity-Corridor trains

1,170 n.a. Yes 125

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

[1] Measured in equivalent 85-foot car lengths. Also can be operated in smaller consists as warranted by demand. Highperformance equipment assumed to comprise one or two intact trainset modules.

[2] Based on 85-foot-long passenger cars and 75-foot-long locomotives, or the equivalent length of intact trainset modules.

[3] There is currently no high-performance trainset 220 mph-capable that has both overhead electrification and third-rail 

equipment. Also of note, this trainset would need to be compatible with the three types of AC power present on the existing 

NEC.

[4] Includes through-running services, assuming compatibility with traction power system (if any) on all lines served.

However, NEC FUTURE is not prescriptive with respect to the use of particular equipment types, and 

the Action Alternatives are flexible with respect to the mix of equipment that could be operated. In 

light of the individual fleet standards and requirements for the Regional rail operators, rolling stock 

assumptions for Action Alternatives are not prescriptive for Regional rail. The FRA considered, 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-17

particularly in Alternative 1, the continued use of diesel-hauled trains for some Regional services as 

an alternative to converting to all-electric operations. It should be noted that there are consequences 

associated with decisions to utilize rolling stock with greater variability in performance.

Consequences include reduced scheduling flexibility (i.e., the need to schedule around other trains in 

locations where tracks are shared), reduction in the number of train frequencies, particularly in the 

standard peak hour, and needs for additional infrastructure for trains with different operating 

characteristics to pass or overtake one another while en route. (Appendix B, Service Plans and Train 

Equipment Options Technical Memorandum, contains additional information regarding rolling stock 

assumptions.)

4.2.2.3 Connecting Transit and Rail Services

The FRA considered existing transit and passenger rail services at passenger rail stations in defining 

the Action Alternatives, particularly since they contribute to the attractiveness and connectivity of 

the passenger rail network with the overall transportation system. While the Action Alternatives do 

consider the range of available public transit services—local and intercity bus, light rail and urban rail 

transit, and passenger rail—at individual stations, resulting increases in service demands for these 

connecting transit services were not evaluated in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. However, the FRA generally 

considered improved connectivity at stationsin the assessment of benefits and consequences of each 

Action Alternative. Chapter 5, Transportation Effects, and Chapter 6, Economic Effects and Growth, 

and Indirect Effects, discuss the range of possible effects on existing transit services. Of particular 

note are the indirect effects on Regional rail operator’s branch lines and network of services beyond 

those on the NEC. These and related requirements for additional improvements to existing or planned 

connecting transit services would be considered in subsequent project-level assessments. Similarly, 

the improvements proposed with Action Alternatives extend to related projects (defined in 

Section 4.1.3.1), which provide connecting transit services and thereby expand the reach of the 

Action Alternatives.

Several NEC connecting corridors13 extend the passenger rail network to markets throughout the 

Northeast and to points in the mid-Atlantic and New England. NEC connecting corridors include the 

following:

4 South of Washington, D.C. 

4 Keystone – Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia

4 Empire – Western New York; Albany, NY; and New York City

4 New Haven-Hartford-Springfield – New Haven, CT; Hartford, CT; and Springfield, MA 

South of Washington, D.C.

Connecting corridors south of Washington, D.C. provide intercity service to markets in Virginia (e.g., 

Lynchburg, Richmond, Newport News, Norfolk), North Carolina (e.g., Raleigh, Charlotte) and points 

south such as Atlanta, GA and Jacksonville, FL. Regional rail service operates between Fredericksburg, 

 

13 In NEC FUTURE, a connecting corridor is defined as a passenger rail corridor that connects directly to another rail 

corridor (in this instance, the NEC) via a station transfer or through-train service.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

VA and Washington, D.C.; and between Bristow, VA and Washington, D.C. The connecting corridors

south of Washington, D.C., are owned by CSX Transportation or Norfolk Southern.

The Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) program is a series of improvement projects that would 

improve passenger rail service between Washington, D.C., south through Richmond, VA; Raleigh and 

Charlotte in North Carolina and as far south as Florida. The SEHSR network connects to the existing 

NEC and all Action Alternatives at Washington Union Station.

Multiple segments of the SEHSR network are going through the planning and environmental review 

process. The FRA also signed a Record of Decision on the segment between Richmond, VA and 

Hampton Roads, VA, in 2012. The Departments of Transportation for North Carolina and Virginia 

prepared a Tier 2 EIS for the segment between Petersburg, VA, and Raleigh, NC. The FRA signed the 

Final EIS in September 2015. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is 

preparing a Tier 2 Draft EIS for the segment between Richmond, VA, and Washington, D.C., referred 

to as DC2RVA14. A Tier 2 Record of Decision is expected in 2017.

Keystone Corridor

Pennsylvania’s Keystone Corridor connects Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, PA, to Philadelphia. Amtrak 

owns the Keystone Corridor between Harrisburg, PA, and Philadelphia. Norfolk Southern owns the 

corridor between Pittsburgh, PA, and Harrisburg, PA. Intercity service operates along the entire 

length of the corridor; with more frequent service between Harrisburg, PA, and Philadelphia 30th

Station, with continuing service to New York City. Regional rail service operates between Thorndale, 

PA, and 30th Street Station, through to Center City Philadelphia. The Keystone Corridor Intercity 

service connects to the existing NEC at Philadelphia 30th Street Station.

Since 2000, over $400 million in infrastructure improvements have been made on the segment 

between Harrisburg, PA, and Philadelphia, resulting in more frequent service, reduced travel times

and higher operating speeds15 along the corridor. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

(Penn DOT) and the FRA studied options to reduce passenger rail travel times and increase trip 

frequency—without hindering the important freight service that runs on the same tracks—between 

Pittsburgh, PA and Harrisburg, PA. The study was completed in 2014.

Empire Corridor

The Empire Corridor connects Niagara Falls, and Albany, NY to New York City. Ownership of the 

corridor is shared between Amtrak, Metro-North Railroad, and CSX Transportation. Amtrak owns the 

territory between Penn Station New York and Bronx, NY. Metro-North Railroad owns the tracks 

between Bronx, NY, and Poughkeepsie, NY. CSX Transportation owns the territory between 

Poughkeepsie, NY, and Niagara Falls, NY.

Intercity service operates along the entire length of the corridor, providing service from New York 

City to markets in the Hudson River Valley and western New York. Regional rail service operates from 

New York City north to Poughkeepsie, however, service terminates at Grand Central Terminal in New 

 

14 D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail. http://www.dc2rvarail.com/ (accessed September, 28 2015) 15 Plan the Keystone. http://www.planthekeystone.com. (accessed September 28, 2015)
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-19

York City, not Penn Station New York, which is the terminal for Intercity services. The Empire Corridor 

Intercity service connects to the existing NEC at Penn Station New York.

The FRA and the New York State Department of Transportation completed a draft Tier 1 EIS to 

evaluate proposed system improvements between Penn Station New York and Niagara Falls Station.

A Public Comment period, which included public hearings, was held in 2014.

16

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Corridor

The Amtrak-owned New Haven-Hartford-Springfield 

Corridor connects Springfield, MA, and Hartford, CT, to New 

Haven, CT. Intercity service operates between along the 

entire length of the corridor between Springfield, MA, and 

New Haven, CT; with some continuing service operating to

New York City and Washington, D.C.; and north to St. 

Alban’s, VT. Regional rail service currently does not operate 

on the corridor. The New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Corridor connects to the existing NEC at New 

Haven Station.

The New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS) Program, 17 sponsored by the State of Connecticut,

would add Regional rail service and improve Regional and Intercity service between Connecticut and 

western Massachusetts. With the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 this connecting service 

would provide improved access to the NEC at New Haven. The new service is expected in be 

implemented in late 2016.

The Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI)18 is examining opportunities for more 

frequent and/or higher speed intercity passenger rail service on two major rail corridors that connect 

New Haven, CT, Springfield, MA, and Boston; and Springfield, MA, to Montreal, Canada, through 

northern Massachusetts and Vermont. NNEIRI would create connections in Springfield, MA, to the 

south and the west–south via the planned New Haven Hartford Springfield (NHHS) connecting 

corridor services; and east to Boston via the Inland Route.

In Alternatives 2 and 3 (which provide direct service to Hartford, CT), the opportunity exists for 

improved Intercity service connections with in Harford to/from Massachusetts (Springfield and the 

Knowledge Corridor) and Vermont. Additional services on the NHHS as well as the proposed 

Springfield to Vermont segment of NNEIRI would allow travelers from Massachusetts and Vermont 

to connect at Hartford for service to Boston along a new NEC Spine proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3.

 

16 Empire Corridor Tier 1 EIS. https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor (accessed September 28, 2015) 17 Additional information regarding the NHHS Rail Program can be found in the FRA’s Environmental 

Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation for the New Haven – Hartford- Springfield High-Speed Intercity Rail 

Program (2012). 18 The Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) is being conducted by the Massachusetts Department 

of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTRANS), in collaboration with the 

Connecticut Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration. The Inland Route corridor 

runs between South Station in Boston and western Massachusetts via Worcester and Springfield, MA and 

southerly from Springfield to New Haven, CT for connections to the Northeast Corridor.

It is estimated that NHHS Rail Program 

improvements will result in 1.26 million 

new annual trips and divert 1.15 million car 

trips to rail by 2030.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Additionally, Regional rail connections would be possible via Springfield in all Action Alternatives. The 

additional services on the NHHS connecting corridor and the proposed NNEIRI service to Vermont 

and points north also provide opportunities for connections to Bradley International Airport, located 

north of Hartford, CT; and Burlington International Airport in northern Vermont.

Figure 4-3 depicts the Study Area connecting corridors.

Figure 4-3: Study Area Connecting Corridors

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

4.2.2.4 Station Typology

The FRA developed a hierarchy of station types, based on market size, quantities of, and types of rail 

services offered. This typology applies to existing and future stations included in each of the Action 

Alternatives. (Appendix B, Stations Location and Access Analysis Technical Memorandum, further 

describes the station types for each alternative.) Stations are grouped into one of the following types: 

4 Major Hub stations serve the largest markets in the Study Area and offer Intercity-Express, 

Intercity-Corridor, and Regional rail services. Major Hub stations serve the four primary markets: 

Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, as well as other major markets within 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-21

the Study Area, including but not limited to Baltimore, MD; New Haven, CT; Hartford, CT; and 

Providence, RI. Major Hub stations are located in the most populous and densely developed 

metropolitan areas along the NEC.

4 Hub stations offer Intercity-Express and Intercity-Corridor service, although the Intercity-Express 

service is more limited than the service levels offered at Major Hub stations. Hub stations include 

existing smaller, intermediate Amtrak stations such as Newark, DE, and New London, CT, as well 

as selected key Regional rail stations and new stations proposed to fill connectivity gaps in the 

existing passenger rail network and serve special trip generators and/or provide important 

intermodal connections. Specific examples of these stations include T.F. Green Airport, RI, and 

Secaucus, NJ. 

4 Local stations offer only Regional service. Examples of local stations include Halethorpe, MD;

Edison, NJ; and Attleboro, MA.

The FRA evaluated both services provided at 

stations as well as physical improvements 

associated with station tracks, platforms, 

passenger waiting areas and facilities, access 

and parking, and ancillary buildings. Each 

Action Alternative defines the proposed types 

of service and levels of service for each 

station. Service type and frequency are the 

focus of the transportation analysis (see 

Chapter 5, Transportation Effects), in which

the FRA evaluated connectivity, service 

frequency, travel times, and ridership. The 

FRA estimated the size of a station area 

footprint to capture the physical 

improvements associated with each station 

type as follows:

4 Major Hub (excluding Washington, D.C., 

Philadelphia, New York City, and 

Boston 19 ): 1,500 feet x 600 feet; 

approximately 20 acres

4 Hub: 2,000 feet x 900 feet; approximately 40 acres 

4 Local : 1,500 feet x 600 feet; approximately 20 acres

The station area footprint takes into consideration the types of service provided as well as adjacent

land uses. Local and Major Hub stations (with the exception of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New 

York City, and Boston) have the same size footprint, but for different reasons. Local stations currently 

provide Regional rail services and would continue to do so. Local stations are usually smaller than 

 

19 The FRA determined the station areas for Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston on a caseby-case basis, relying on previous planning and programming efforts by other agencies.

Source: Amtrak

Laying the groundwork for Union Station’s second century, 

the Washington Union Station Master Plan envisions an 

expanded and modernized multimodal station that can 

accommodate three times as many passengers and twice 

as many trains. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

those with multiple service types, requiring less space for parking, smaller waiting areas and 

associated facilities. Major Hub stations are served by both Regional and Intercity rail (both now and 

in the future), but are often located in urban areas where land availability is constrained and modal 

access to the station is more diverse, thus requiring a smaller footprint than other multi-service 

stations such as Hub stations.

Major Hub stations in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston are each undergoing 

their own expansion plans. The FRA incorporated the assumptions in these expansion plans as inputs 

into the Action Alternative service plans, to determine whether the capacity needs of each Action 

Alternative are consistent with their respective expansion plans. (Appendix B, Service Plans and Train 

Equipment Options Technical Memorandum, contains additional assumptions regarding these Major 

Hub stations.)

Table 4-5 contains a complete list of stations, their locations, and the Action Alternative(s) in which 

each station appears. The FRA used the station ID (the third column of Table 4-5) to refer to each 

station in its assessment of station area Environmental Consequences for applicable resources. The 

station ID is also a reference for information displayed in Chapter 7.

Table 4-5: NEC FUTURE Stations

Geography County

Station 

ID Station Name

Station 

Type

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alternative 3

Alt 

3.1

Alt 

3.2

Alt 

3.3

Alt 

3.4

D.C. 1 Washington Union Existing X X X X X X

MD

Prince George’s

2 New Carrolton

Existing

X X X X X X

3 Seabrook X X X X X X

4 Bowie State X X X X X X

Anne Arundel

5 Odenton Existing X X X X X X

6 BWI Airport X X X X X X

6 BWI Airport H.S. New X X X X

Baltimore County 7 Halethorpe Existing

X X X X X X

15 Martin Airport X X X X X X

Baltimore City

8 West Baltimore Existing X X X X X X

9 Upton New X X X X X X

10 Baltimore Penn Station Existing X X X X X X

11 Baltimore Downtown

New

X X X X

12 Broadway X X X X X X

13 Bayview X X X X X X

14 Bayview H.S. X X X X

Harford 16 Edgewood Existing

X X X X X X

17 Aberdeen (NEC) X X X X X X

Cecil 22 Perryville Existing X X X X X X

23 Elkton New X X X X X X

DE New Castle

24 Newark, DE Existing X X X X X X

25 Churchman's Crossing X X X X X X

26 Newport New X X X X X X

27 Wilmington Station Existing X X X X X X

28 Edgemoor New X X X X X X

29 Claymont Existing X X X X X X
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-23

Table 4-5: NEC FUTURE Stations (continued)

Geography County

Statio

n ID Station Name

Station 

Type

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alternative 3

Alt 

3.1

Alt 

3.2

Alt 

3.3

Alt 

3.4

PA

Delaware

30 Marcus Hook

Existing

X X X X X X

31 Highland Avenue X X X X X X

32 Chester X X X X X X

33 Eddystone X X X X X X

34 Baldwin New X X X X X X

35 Crum Lynne

Existing 

X X X X X X

36 Ridley Park X X X X X X

37 Prospect Park X X X X X X

38 Norwood X X X X X X

39 Glenolden X X X X X X

40 Folcroft X X X X X X

41 Sharon Hill X X X X X X

42 Curtis Park X X X X X X

43 Darby X X X X X X

Philadelphia

44 Philadelphia Airport* New X X X X X

45 Philadelphia 30th St

Existing

X X X X X X

46 Philadelphia Market East X X X X

47 North Philadelphia X X X X X X

48 Bridesburg X X X X X X

49 Wissinoming X X X X X X

50 Tacony X X X X X X

51 Holmesburg Junction X X X X X X

52 Torresdale X X X X X X

Bucks

53 Cornwells Heights

Existing

X X X X X X

54 Eddington X X X X X X

55 Croyton X X X X X X

56 Bristol X X X X X X

57 Levittown X X X X X X

NJ

Mercer

58 Trenton

Existing

X X X X X X

60 Hamilton X X X X X X

61 Princeton Junction X X X X X X

Middlesex

62 North Brunswick New X X X X X X

63 Jersey Avenue

Existing

X X X X X X

64 New Brunswick X X X X X X

65 Edison X X X X

66 Metuchen X X X X X X

67 Metropark X X X X X X

68 Metropark H.S. New X X X X

Union

69 Rahway

Existing

X X X X X X

70 Linden X X X X X X

71 Elizabeth X X X X X X

72 North Elizabeth X X X X X X

Essex

73 Newark Airport Existing X X X X X

74 Newark Penn Station X X X X X X

75 Newark Penn Station H.S. New X X X X

Hudson 76 Secaucus Existing X X X X X X
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-24 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 4-5: NEC FUTURE Stations (continued)

Geography County

Station 

ID Station Name

Station 

Type

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alternative 3

Alt 

3.1

Alt 

3.2

Alt 

3.3

Alt 

3.4

NY

New York 77 Penn Station New York

Existing

X X X X X X

9993 Grand Central Terminal X X

Queens

144 Jamaica Existing X X

145 Jamaica H.S. New X X

Bronx

78 Hunts Point

New

X X X X X X

79 Parkchester X X X X X X

80 Morris Park X X X X X X

81 Co-op City X X X X X X

Westchester

82 New Rochelle

Existing

X X X X X X

83 Larchmont X X X X X X

84 Mamaroneck X X X X X X

85 Harrison X X X X X X

86 Rye X X X X X X

87 Cross-Westchester New X X X X X X

88 Port Chester Existing X X X X X X

151 White Plains East New X X

Putnam 153 Brewster - Katonah New X X

Nassau 146 Nassau Hub New X X

Suffolk 148 Suffolk Hub New X X

149 Ronkonkoma Existing X X

CT Fairfield

89 Greenwich

Existing

X X X X X X

90 Cos Cob X X X X X X

91 Riverside X X X X X X

92 Old Greenwich X X X X X X

93 Stamford X X X X X X

94 Stamford H.S. New X

95 Noroton Heights

Existing

X X X X X X

96 Darien X X X X X X

97 Rowayton X X X X X X

98 South Norwalk X X X X X X

99 East Norwalk X X X X X X

100 Westport X X X X X X

101 Greens Farms X X X X X X

102 Southport X X X X X X

103 Fairfield X X X X X X

104 Fairfield Metro X X X X X X

105 Bridgeport X X X X X X

107 East Bridgeport New X X X X X X

108 Stratford Existing X X X X X X

154 Danbury New X X
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-25

Table 4-5: NEC FUTURE Stations (continued)

Geography County

Station 

ID Station Name

Station 

Type

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alternative 3

Alt 

3.1

Alt 

3.2

Alt 

3.3

Alt 

3.4

CT (cont’d) New Haven

109 Milford

Existing

X X X X X X

110 West Haven X X X X X X

111 New Haven Station X X X X X X

112 New Haven Station H.S. New X X X

113 New Haven State Street Existing X X X X X X

156 Meriden H.S. New X X X

114 Branford

Existing

X X X X X X

115 Guilford X X X X X X

116 Madison X X X X X X

155 Waterbury South New X X

CT (cont’d)

Middlesex

117 Clinton

Existing

X X X X X X

118 Westbrook X X X X X X

119 Old Saybrook X X X X X X

120 Old Saybrook H.S. New X

New London

121 New London Existing X X X X X X

124

Mystic/New London 

H.S. New X

122 Mystic Existing X X X X X X

Hartford

160 West Hartford New X

160 Berlin Existing X

161 Newington NewX

164 Hartford (New) X X X X X

Tolland 165 Willimantic/StorrsNew

X X X

166 Tolland/Storrs X X

RI

Washington

123 Westerly

Existing

X X X X X X

125 Kingston X X X X X X

126 Wickford Junction X X X X X X

Kent 127 T.F. Green Existing X X X X X X

Providence

128 Providence Station Existing X X X X X X

129 Providence Station H.S.

New

X X X X X

130 Pawtucket X X X X X X

MA

Bristol

131 South Attleboro

Existing

X X X X X X

132 Attleboro X X X X X X

133 Mansfield X X X X X X

Worcester

172 Worcester Existing X X

173 Grafton-Shrewsbury

New

X X

174 Westborough X X

175 Blue Star Hwy (I-495) X X

Middlesex

176 Southborough/Ashland

New

X X

178 Framingham X X

181 Riverside (I-95) X X

Suffolk 182 Beacon Park New X X

Norfolk

134 Sharon

Existing

X X X X X X

135 Canton Junction X X X X X X

136 Rte 128 X X X X X X
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-26 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 4-5: NEC FUTURE Stations (continued)

Geography County

Station 

ID Station Name

Station 

Type

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alternative 3

Alt 

3.1

Alt 

3.2

Alt 

3.3

Alt 

3.4

MA (cont’d) Suffolk

137 Readville

Existing

X X X X X X

138 Hyde Park X X X X X X

139 Forest Hills X X X X X X

140 Ruggles Street X X X X X X

141 Back Bay X X X X X X

142 Back Bay H.S. New X X X X

143 Boston South Station Existing X X X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

* The airport is currently served by Regional rail service located off the existing NEC. The Philadelphia International Airport 

Station identified in the Action Alternatives would be built as part of the NEC FUTURE. The station area is co-located in 

Delaware County, PA. 

H.S. = high speed
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-27

4.2.3 Infrastructure Elements

Individual infrastructure elements comprise an Action Alternative’s path or horizontal location. The 

FRA developed the geographic extent of each linear element using aerial photography, taking into 

consideration topography and known areas of environmental sensitivity. These elements describe 

the proposed physical infrastructure relative to the existing NEC. The four infrastructure elements 

are: 

4 Junction – Major track connections or interlockings20 at points where tracks converge or diverge 

allowing trains to switch from one set of tracks to another. The footprint for these major 

connections can extend beyond the rights-of-way to accommodate grade-separated, conflict-free 

movement between tracks. As a result, the footprint of junctions could be contained within the 

rights-of-way defined for new track, new segments, or curve modifications but could also flare 

beyond those linear dimensions.

4 Curve Modification – Modifications to the existing NEC where the existing track alignment is 

shifted, thereby straightening a curve or eliminating the curve entirely. Curve modifications 

address performance of the existing NEC by reducing, or even eliminating, speed restrictions at 

certain locations. 

4 New Track – Additional track and/or associated systems improvements along the existing NEC. 

These upgrades are defined as the addition of one or two tracks to the existing NEC, or an upgrade 

to the catenary or signal systems. New track includes associated junctions or interlockings 

similarly assumed to be within the rights-of-way of the existing NEC.

4 New Route Segment – Sections of new track that may be constructed outside the existing NEC 

right-of-way. New segments diverge from and reconnect to the existing NEC providing additional 

track capacity to relieve chokepoints.

4.2.4 Representative Route

The FRA linked infrastructure elements together to create a 

two-dimensional Representative Route for the purposes of 

conducting the environmental review. The term 

Representative Route is intentionally used to capture the 

highly conceptual and representative nature of a proposed 

route for an Action Alternative. At this Tier 1 level, the FRA 

has not defined specific alignments. The Representative 

Route provides a basis for programmatic evaluation of the 

environmental effects of each Action Alternative. Consistent 

with the overall intended outcome of the Tier 1 EIS, the Representative Route establishes the markets 

to be served and the “corridor” or “envelope” within which the improvements would occur. It is not 

the intent of this Tier 1 Draft EIS to select a site-specific alignment.

 

20 Interlockings are locations on multi-track rail lines where lines join or where crossovers between tracks are 

placed to permit trains to change from one track to another. They are part of the signaling and train control system 

and are centrally controlled by train dispatchers on the NEC.

The term Representative Route is 

intentionally used to capture the highly 

conceptual and representative nature of 

a proposed route for an Action 

Alternative. At this Tier 1 level, the FRA 

has not defined specific alignments. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-28 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The Representative Route includes the physical footprint of the improvements associated with the 

Action Alternatives. The dimensions of the footprint of the Representative Route are based on cross 

sections identifying construction type (e.g., tunnel, viaduct, bridge, embankment, at-grade) that are 

applied to topography or land use type, stations supporting facilities, and right-of-way requirements.

The footprints associated with the Representative Route range from 150 feet to 300 feet wide.

Improvements associated with stations and supporting facilities (e.g., tracks, platforms, parking) 

could flare out beyond the dimensions of the Representative Route. The width of the Representative 

Route for an Action Alternative includes the existing NEC and any new segment(s), where applicable.

The FRA standardized the width of the existing NEC to 150 feet, conservatively accounting for a fourtrack right-of-way between Washington, D.C., and Boston. 

For some areas of the Representative Route, both the existing NEC and new segments are adjacent 

to each other. In these cases, where footprint dimensions vary by more than 100 feet because of offcorridor segments or typical cross section requirements, the FRA adjusted the Representative Route 

width. For example, Alternative 2 includes additional tracks along the NEC between New Haven and 

Hartford, CT, and therefore flares out to 250 feet for that segment; the Representative Route then 

returns to 150 feet where a new two-track configuration is proposed between Hartford, CT, and 

Providence, RI. Similarly, the current track configuration of the existing NEC between Washington, 

D.C., and New York City varies between two and six tracks. The Representative Route width of 

Alternative 3 in this area is 300 feet, for two tracks designed for speeds up to 220 mph adjacent to an 

existing, six-track right-of-way. Although the existing NEC configuration varies, a 300-foot-wide 

Representative Route is a conservative envelope and provides a smooth, encompassing footprint 

over a longer stretch of the Study Area in which to conduct the environmental review. Table 4-6

describes the dimensions of the Representative Route of the No Action and Action Alternatives.

The FRA prepared the environmental effects assessment, presented in Chapter 7, using the 

Representative Route, and in some cases, the construction type, of the Action Alternatives, 

categorizing potential effects by both geography and construction type. (Appendix A, Mapping Atlas,

provides a graphical depiction of the Representative Routes of the Action Alternatives relative to 

environmental features analyzed in Chapter 7.)
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-29

Table 4-6: Footprint Width of the Representative Route

Alternative From To

Width 

(feet) Representative Typical Cross Section

Alternative 1 Washington, D.C. Boston 150 150 feet existing NEC

Alternative 2

Washington, D.C. New Haven 150 150 feet existing NEC

New Haven Providence 150 150 feet existing NEC

New Haven Hartford 250 New tracks in center of existing, At-grade, existing track centers

Hartford Providence 150 Two-track typical – At-grade

Providence Boston 150 150 feet existing NEC + New Segments + Curve Modifications

Alternative 3

Washington, D.C. to New York City

Washington, D.C. Penn Station 280 New tracks adjacent to Existing, 6-Track At-grade

New York City to Hartford, CT

Penn Station New York Hartford 150 Two-track typical – At-grade

Penn Station New York Ronkonkoma 250 New tracks adjacent 2 Exist At-grade 100 feet 

Ronkonkoma Centereach 150 Two-track typical – At-grade

New Haven Hartford 250 New tracks adjacent 2 Exist At-grade 100 feet

Hartford to Boston

Hartford Providence 150 Two-track typical – At-grade 

Providence Boston 250 New tracks adjacent to Existing, 2-Track At-grade

Hartford Worcester 150 Two-track typical – At-grade 

Worcester Boston 150 Two-track typical – At-grade 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-30 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Defining construction types allowed the FRA to highlight effects on resources based on 

Representative Route widths, as well as, sensitivity to construction-specific methods. For example, 

the climate change environmental effects assessment includes analysis specific to at-grade and 

trench construction types, as these types would be more vulnerable to flood risk than other methods 

not constructed at the surface (e.g., tunnel, aerial, embankment and major bridge). (Chapter 8, 

Construction Effects, contains additional information on construction methods and effects.) The FRA 

is considering the following six construction types:

4 Tunnel construction types are generally applied to the Representative Route where the 

topography is submersed beneath a large body of water, such as the Hudson River, where the 

topography is too steep for track designed for speeds of 160 to 220 mph to accomplish the 

grades21 for climbing or braking, as is the case in northern Connecticut, and in densely developed 

areas where surface operations are not practical like downtown Baltimore, New York City, and 

Providence.

4 Trench construction places the tracks in an open cut that is supported by retaining walls. Trench 

construction types were applied to a Representative Route in transition areas where the tunnel 

returns to at-grade or embankment. 

4 At-grade construction is used where the topography is flat or locations where effects on 

environmental resources would be minimal. The at-grade construction type would generally be 

applied to the Representative Route where existing highway and roadway rights-of-way are grade 

separated on aerial structures above the tracks. 

4 Embankment construction places the tracks atop an earthen embankment or retaining wall of 

varying height that slopes down to meet the existing grade. The embankment construction type 

generally would be applied to the Representative Route prior to and following an aerial structure. 

4 Aerial Structure construction elevates the tracks on infrastructure above the ground. The aerial 

structure construction type generally would be applied to the Representative Route in heavily 

urbanized areas where at-grade construction is not practical. Aerial structures would also be 

constructed at river crossings, wetland areas, valleys, or crossings over existing 

highways/roadways where vertical grade changes do not permit at-grade construction. Aerial 

structures consist of both bridges and viaducts, depending on topography, land use, and presence 

of environmental resources. 

4 Major Bridge construction is used over large water crossings. The major bridge construction types 

for Action Alternatives would be applied where marine traffic requires adequate vertical 

clearance during ordinary high tides.

22

 

21 The desired maximum grade for high-speed track is 2.5% with 3.0% permitted in limited situations. The 

maximum length of continuous run at the maximum grade should be less than 10,000 feet. In order to comply with 

these criteria, the contours of the existing terrain may require tunneling or viaducts to meet these conditions.

Vertical alignment guidelines are based on American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association

(AREMA) design criteria used on recent high-speed rail studies, including the California High-Speed Train Project 

(California high-Speed Rail Authority, Alignment Design Standards for High-Speed Train Operation TM 2.1.2. (2009, 

April 4). Retrieved August 17, 2015. 22 Minimum vertical distance required for marine vessels traveling under a major bridge at Mean Higher High 

Water (MHHW) levels
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-31

The FRA developed a set of typical cross sections to understand the physical footprint associated with 

the possible combinations of construction type and required track configuration. Track configurations 

describe the number of tracks, structures, ancillary facilities, or station areas associated with 

proposed service and infrastructure improvements. The FRA considered three possible track 

configuration templates for NEC FUTURE: 

4 New tracks within the existing NEC 

4 New tracks adjacent to the existing NEC

4 New tracks outside of the existing NEC

The FRA customized the physical dimensions of these track configurations for construction type and 

mix of services. As such, the FRA developed 46 possible combinations of six different construction 

types and track configurations both on and off the existing NEC. For example, tunnel construction 

types are represented in two typical cross sections: 1) tunnel, which is applied to tunnel lengths less 

than or equal to 10 miles; and 2) long tunnel, which is applied to tunnels greater than 10 miles in 

length. The FRA used these typical cross sections to develop capital costs.23

Section 4.7 describes the geographic location and orientation of the Representative Route of each 

Action Alternative. The description highlights key environmental features, including existing rail 

stations, interstate and county roadways, parks, water features, and political boundaries (i.e., state, 

county, major metropolitan areas, etc.). The descriptions orient the reader to recognizable features 

along the path and are referenced throughout this Tier 1 Draft EIS to facilitate review of the No Action 

and Action Alternatives. (Section 4.6 provides additional details regarding the infrastructure 

requirements associated with the Action Alternatives.)

4.2.5 Ancillary Facilities and Supporting Structures 

The FRA did not evaluate the physical footprint or service-related effects associated with ancillary 

facilities and supporting structures for storage and maintenance facilities, train control systems, and 

communication and signal systems in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. The specific geographic placement of these 

features would depend on further more-detailed analysis. From a programmatic perspective, the FRA 

identified the overall requirements, possible features, and potential locations. The assumptions for 

how the FRA considered each of these facilities or supporting structures are described below. 

4.2.5.1 Storage and Maintenance Facilities

The FRA considered existing storage and maintenance facility locations where capacity could be 

added to accommodate the rolling stock requirements of the Action Alternatives. Potential sites 

could be located within, or could flare out beyond, the dimensions of the Representative Route. The 

potential locations, summarized in Table 4-7, are representative of the types of locations where 

storage and maintenance facilities would be located, and take into consideration the functional 

requirements of each Action Alternative.

 

23 Refer to Appendix B, Capital Cost Technical Memorandum, for more information on typical cross sections.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-32 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 4-7: Potential Intercity Rail Storage and Maintenance Facilities 

Intercity Facility 

Location Current Principal Functions NEC FUTURE assumptions

Washington, D.C. Ivy City Facility: storage and 

maintenance of Acela Express, NE 

Regional, off-corridor and LongDistance equipment

Yard expansion for growth; shop expansion for 

longer high-performance trainsets; new site 

required to accommodate full growth; storage and 

servicing of Metropolitan trainsets in northern VA 

(Alts. 2 & 3)

Philadelphia Philadelphia Coach Yard: storage 

and maintenance of Keystone 

Corridor equipment

Expanded storage, servicing and inspection of NEC 

equipment required for peak service

New York City Sunnyside Yard: storage and 

maintenance of Acela Express, NE 

Regional and Long-Distance 

equipment

Yard expansion for growth; shop expansion for 

longer high-performance trainsets; new site in 

northern NJ may be required for full growth

New Haven, CT New Haven Yard: storage and 

maintenance of Hartford Line 

equipment, including diesel 

engines

Expanded storage, servicing and inspection of NEC 

equipment required for peak service

Boston Southampton Street Yard: storage 

and maintenance of Acela Express 

and NE Regional equipment

Yard expansion for growth; shop expansion for 

longer high-performance trainsets; new site 

required to accommodate full growth

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

Note: The location and principle functions of each location are applicable to all Action Alternatives.

The Action Alternatives would continue to use facilities in or near Washington, D.C., New York City,

and Boston, where most trains would start and end service. Additional facilities could be located in 

Philadelphia and New Haven, CT, which are considered the “quarter points” of the existing NEC, and 

would support the beginning and end of the service day and tapering of the peak-period services. 

The FRA did not consider footprint- and service-based environmental effects from storage and 

maintenance facilities for the Action Alternatives. The programming requirements and their potential 

effects on the local environment would be considered in subsequent project-level assessments. 

Specific locations for new facilities would consider, to the extent practical, the compatibility of 

adjacent land uses (e.g., industrial, consistent with manufacturing or warehouse uses) and resources 

considered in an effects assessment would include the possibility of existing hazardous materials, 

noise and vibration effects associated with overnight storage and layover of equipment, and visual 

effects of storage and maintenance facilities. As noted, to the extent possible, existing storage and 

maintenance facilities would be used and expanded as necessary to accommodate additional 

trainsets and service. 

The potential sites are representative of future locations. They are included as placeholders and are 

based on current available information and a scan of potential locations with sufficient size and access 

to accommodate storage and maintenance requirements. (Appendix B, Service Plans and Train 

Equipment Options Technical Memorandum, provides additional details regarding representative 

Intercity and Regional rail storage and maintenance facilities.)
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-33

The FRA did not identify Regional rail storage and maintenance facilities requirements. Similar to 

Intercity service, storage and maintenance facilities would be located at the end points of the 

Regional rail network, where most trains would start and end service. However, the location and 

requirements for storage and maintenance facilities would depend on the specific operating patterns 

identified by individual Regional rail operators and how those services were integrated with each 

Regional rail operator’s system, including branch line services not on the NEC. The requirements for 

additional Regional rail storage and maintenance facilities would be considered in subsequent 

project-level analyses.

4.2.5.2 Train Control Systems

Positive Train Control (PTC) is a control technology used to improve safety conditions on the railroad 

by preventing or avoiding train collisions and derailments due to excessive speeding. 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 (RISA) 

requires that PTC is implemented over much of the passenger and freight rail network by December 

31, 2015.24

Although no specific specifications for PTC are provided in NEC FUTURE, it is assumed that the 

concept of PTC would be implemented in the No Action and Action Alternatives and the railroad 

network would be compliant with all FRA safety regulations.

4.2.5.3 Communication and Signal Systems

The existing NEC signaling system would be upgraded where needed to permit the higher-density 

operations called for in the service plans. Service planning specifications include a fixed block (cab, 

no wayside) signal system and an overlay PTC system. Shorter block signal lengths provide for higherdensity operation at shorter headways than the existing signal system. 

Moving block technology was not assumed for the NEC or connecting corridors in the NEC FUTURE 

analysis. (Appendix B, Service Plans and Train Equipment Options Technical Memorandum, provides

additional information.)

4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

As a baseline for comparison, consistent with NEPA requirements, the FRA defined a No Action 

Alternative that identifies improvements to highway, freight rail, transit, air, and maritime modes 

that will occur by 2040 regardless of NEC FUTURE. The No Action Alternative represents a “snapshot 

in time” of reasonably foreseeable future transportation conditions in the Study Area while avoiding 

being speculative, since there is uncertainty in economic conditions, available funding, and political 

support for transportation projects. 

The No Action Alternative is used to understand the consequences of continuing to invest in and 

operate the NEC as it operates today, particularly in comparison with the Action Alternatives. Given 

 

24 U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848, 49 U.S.C. § 20101. Approved 2008-10-

16
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-34 Tier 1 Draft EIS

the growing population and economy of the Northeast 

region, operating the NEC at these current services levels in 

the year 2040 will mean more people riding the same 

number of trains, resulting in overcrowded trains and 

stations and a general worsening of train performance.

(Appendix B, No Action Alternative Report, provides 

additional information on the No Action Alternative.)

The No Action Alternative continues today’s service levels in the peak hours of operation—defined 

as the number of trains per hour by operator and type of service. The No Action Alternative assumes

annual investments in programmed and funded major projects and in maintaining existing 

infrastructure sufficient to operate today’s level of rail service. The capital cost of the No Action 

Alternative establishes a baseline from which to compare the incremental effects of the Action 

Alternatives. The capital cost estimate for the No Action Alternative is approximately $20 billion 

($2014) and includes the estimated costs for planned rail projects grouped into three categories: 

4 Category 1: Funded projects or projects with approved funding plans – Approximately $8 billion

4 Category 2: Funded or unfunded mandates – Approximately $1 billion

4 Category 3: Unfunded projects necessary to keep the railroad running – Approximately $11 billion

This cost estimate represents a reasonable best-case approximation for the amount of capital 

spending required to continue current NEC services. Examples of funded projects (Category 1) that 

are included in the No Action Alternative include NJ TRANSIT’s Mid-Line Loop project, MTA-LIRR’s 

East Side Access, MTA-MNR’s Penn Station Access Improvements (initial funded phase); Connecticut 

DOT’s Norwalk River Bridge Replacement, NJ TRANSIT/Amtrak’s Raceway project, and various fleet 

acquisition programs (including Amtrak, Connecticut, and Massachusetts). Even when considered 

together with the other unfunded improvements (Categories 2 and 3), the No Action Alternative will 

fall short of bringing the NEC to a state of good repair. Therefore, in the No Action Alternative, the

existing NEC will remain at heightened risk of service disruption due to infrastructure failures or 

external impacts, such as severe weather events. Unpredictable failures of antiquated system 

components and major structures are likely to remain under this alternative, but the specific scope 

or scale of cost impacts from these failures is highly uncertain. Nonetheless, additional capital costs 

will result from emergency or unplanned repairs, and substantial impacts to ongoing operations will 

be likely as well. (Appendix B, No Action Alternative Report, contains additional details regarding the 

rail project selection process.)

The FRA assumes that the No Action Alternative continues current service levels provided on the NEC,

and—because the implications of continuing current funding levels on service are hard to predict—

that sufficient funding will be made available. However, even with sufficient funding available to 

continue service levels, the No Action Alternative will not achieve a corridor-wide state of good repair

or meet the needs of the Study Area, including addressing existing capacity constraints, gaps in 

connectivity, or expansion to markets that are underserved by rail.

The No Action includes both funded and 

unfunded improvements necessary to 

continue operations on the NEC. It 

provides a baseline for understanding the 

consequences of continuing to invest in 

and operate the NEC as it operates today.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-35

The No Action Alternative will require annual funding levels in excess of current or historical funding 

trends of averaged approximately $600 million per year over the last 10 years.

25 At an estimated cost 

of approximately $20 billion, the No Action Alternative will require an additional $200 million per 

year (in today’s dollars)26 above these historical levels and in excess of capital funding from federal, 

state, and local sources. Even at this level of investment, the No Action Alternative will fall short of 

bringing the existing NEC to a state of good repair.

4.3.1 Disinvestment Scenario

The FRA also considered defining a disinvestment scenario in which the current funding levels are 

maintained (but are not increased to allow for the maintenance of the current service levels as 

described in Section 4.3). Forecasting the implications of insufficient funding on the performance of 

the eight commuter railroads and Amtrak is difficult because of the uncertainty of what 

improvements would be funded and the related performance implications. However, given the 

condition of the aging infrastructure on the NEC, it is likely that the NEC’s reliability, capacity, and 

services levels will decline under any scenario in which the current funding levels are not increased. 

It remains uncertain if sufficient funding will be provided to sustain the increasing level of investment 

necessary to support the No Action Alternative. If sufficient funding is not made available, the NEC’s 

reliability, capacity, and service levels will continue to degrade with the possible following 

repercussions: 

4 Reliability will decline, resulting in more frequent and longer delays, and reduced on-time 

performance of train service. This reduction in reliability will result from unscheduled delays, as 

well as “scheduled” delays required periodically (and randomly) to allow engineering crews to 

access the railroad to make remedial repairs.

4 Scheduled travel times will increase as the deteriorating condition of NEC infrastructure—

particularly rail, bridge, and foundation that the tracks are built on—will require trains to operate 

more slowly on some portions of the railroad to ensure safety.

4 Operating costs for infrastructure maintenance will rise in response to the need for more 

frequent maintenance and unscheduled and sometimes substantial repairs.

4 Costs for train operations will increase as longer cycle times for equipment will require greater 

fleet sizes and more crew time and overtime.

4 Ridership will decline in response to the reduced level and performance of passenger rail service,

leading to declines in revenue and greater operating losses. 

However, as mentioned earlier, the FRA has decided that, for the purposes of providing a baseline 

for comparison against the Action Alternatives, the No Action Alternative assumes sufficient funding 

to maintain current service levels. In this way, the FRA can separate the discussion of historical or 

future funding trends from the assessment of positive and negative impacts of the Action 

Alternatives.

 

25 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (2014). Northeast Corridor Five-Year 

Capital Needs Assessment: Fiscal Years 2015 to 2019. 26 Assumes $20 billion cost of the No Action Alternative spent evenly over a 25-year timeframe. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-36 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The FRA developed three distinct Action Alternatives for detailed study in this Tier 1 Draft EIS, drawing 

from the evaluation of the Preliminary Alternatives, interim analysis, and public and stakeholder 

outreach. These Action Alternatives are presented in the following sections.

The Action Alternatives represent a range of possible future visions for the Study Area, each intended 

to capture a different role for passenger rail in the future. The descriptions of the Action Alternatives 

are intended to represent what the NEC could be (but not prescribe) and would be influenced by 

many variables. The naming (to maintain, grow, or transform) captures the intent of each Action 

Alternative in describing a different vision for the future of passenger rail; however, the terminology 

is not intended to be a measurable outcome of the Action Alternatives but an organizing principle.

The specific features of each Action Alternative represent the service and investment necessary to 

achieve three separate visions for passenger rail on the NEC.

4.4.1 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 maintains the role of rail as it is today in the region, with the level of rail service keeping 

pace with the growth in population in the Study Area. Alternative 1 includes new rail services and 

commensurate investment in the NEC to expand capacity, add tracks, and relieve key chokepoints.

Alternative 1 would bring the existing NEC to a state of good repair.

4.4.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 grows the role of rail, expanding rail service at a rate greater than the proportional 

growth in regional population and employment. Alternative 2 maximizes capacity of the existing NEC

and removes speed restrictions where practical and safe. Alternative 2 would bring the existing NEC 

to a state of good repair. Alternative 2 provides a new segment between New Haven and Hartford, 

CT, and Providence, RI, improving performance between New York City and Boston while connecting 

to new markets in the Connecticut River Valley.

4.4.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 transforms the role of rail, supporting trips over longer distances and to places not 

currently well connected by passenger rail, positioning rail as the dominant mode for interregional

travel to urban centers along the NEC. Alternative 3 includes a continuous second spine operating 

between Washington, D.C., and Boston. The second spine would be separate from the existing NEC, 

but connected to and integrated with services offered on the existing NEC at designated Major Hub 

and Hub stations. The second spine would support speeds up to 220 mph between major NEC 

markets and provide additional capacity for Intercity and Regional rail services throughout the Study 

Area. Alternative 3 would also include service and infrastructure improvements on the existing NEC

to increase capacity, eliminate chokepoints, and bring the existing NEC to a state of good repair.

Between Washington, D.C., and New York City, Alternative 3 includes a single route for the second 

spine, located parallel to the existing NEC. This section of the second spine would connect to the 

existing NEC at several Major Hub stations, including Washington, D.C.; Baltimore-Washington 

International (BWI) Airport; Wilmington, DE; and Newark Penn Station, NJ.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-37

Between New York City and Boston, Alternative 3 includes four “route options,” all of which connect 

through Hartford, CT. The four route options give the FRA flexibility to consider different intermediate 

markets north of New York City should Alternative 3 be selected as the Preferred Alternative. There 

are two options for connecting New York City to Hartford and two options for connecting Hartford to 

Boston. These options include:

4 New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut – interacting with the existing NEC at Hub stations in Bronx and 

Westchester Counties, NY; providing service to new markets in northern Fairfield and 

Hartford Counties, CT.

Via Long Island – providing service to new markets in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, and 

northern New Haven and Hartford Counties, CT.

4 Hartford to Boston (two routing options): 

Via Providence, RI – interacting with the existing NEC at Major Hubs in Providence, Boston 

Back Bay, and Boston South Station; providing service to new markets in Hartford and Tolland 

Counties, CT.

Via Worcester, MA – providing service to new markets in Tolland County, CT, and Worcester, 

Middlesex, and Suffolk Counties, MA.

To measure the corridor-wide effects, the four route options between New York City and Boston were 

combined with the single Washington, D.C., to Boston section into four end-to-end versions of 

Alternative 3 as follows:

4 Alternative 3.1: Washington, D.C., to Boston via Central Connecticut/Providence

Via Washington, D.C.; New York City; Danbury and Hartford, CT; Providence, RI; and Boston

4 Alternative 3.2: Washington, D.C. to Boston via Long Island/Providence

Via Washington, D.C.; New York City; Ronkonkoma, NY; New Haven and Hartford, CT;

Providence, RI; and Boston

4 Alternative 3.3: Washington, D.C. to Boston via Long Island/Worcester

Via Washington, D.C.; New York City; Ronkonkoma, NY; New Haven and Hartford, CT;

Worcester and Boston, MA

4 Alternative 3.4: Washington, D.C. to Boston via Central Connecticut/Worcester

Via Washington, D.C.; New York City; Danbury and Hartford, CT; Worcester and Boston, MA

Section 4.7.4 explains the Alternative 3 routing options and their relationship to the existing NEC.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-38 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.5 MARKETS AND SERVICE

The No Action Alternative operates similarly to and at the same approximate level as today’s service 

in the peak hours. The No Action Alternative serves the same stations and market areas along the 

NEC that are served today with one exception: East Side Access, a project currently under 

construction and thus part of the No Action Alternative, which will provide new LIRR service into 

Grand Central Terminal in New York City.

The Action Alternatives each offer the same service types: Intercity-Express, Intercity-Corridor, and 

Regional rail. Action Alternatives also incorporate enhanced service concepts (see Section 4.2.2.1).

The differences between the No Action and Action Alternatives are measured in the total number of 

trains, travel times, and passenger and train capacities for existing and new markets. (Table 4-8 and 

Table 4-9 describe the service for the No Action and Action Alternatives by service type and train 

frequency at selected screenlines27 along the NEC). Screenlines are used to capture the volume of 

passenger rail traffic at key locations along the NEC, particularly where capacity or utilization might 

change. The following screenlines along the NEC express the volume of passenger rail traffic as trains 

per hour per direction by service type:

4 Washington, D.C.

4 Philadelphia, PA

4 Hudson River, between New Jersey and New York County

4 East River, between New York County and Queens County

4 New Rochelle, NY

4 Boston

Service types are summarized by Intercity, which includes Intercity-Express and Intercity-Corridor,

and Regional rail service. Existing (2012) service levels are compared to services levels under the No 

Action Alternative and Action Alternatives (2040) for the peak-hour peak direction.

28

4.5.1 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative assumes the same types of Amtrak interregional services, including 

Intercity-Express (Acela), Intercity-Corridor (Regional), and connecting corridors (i.e., to Springfield,

MA; Harrisburg, PA; Albany, NY; or Richmond, VA). The No Action Alternative also assumes the same 

types of Regional rail services offered by the eight commuter railroads currently operating on the 

NEC. The No Action Alternative service levels for the peak hour, in the peak directionare the same as 

existing (2012) service levels as shown in Table 4-8. 

 

27 Screenlines are imaginary lines across which rail and passenger traffic can be counted or measured. 28 “Peak hour” refers to when demand for transportation services is greatest. Peak direction refers to the direction 

of travel within the peak hour. In the morning, the peak direction is often toward metropolitan centers. In the 

evening, the peak direction is often away from metropolitan centers. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 

(2003). TCRP Report 100, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Washington, D.C.: Transportation 

Research Board.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-39

Table 4-8: Trains per Peak Hour, Existing and 2040 Peak-Hour Peak Direction at Select 

Screenlines – All Alternatives

Screenline Existing No Action

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 3

(range)

Washington, D.C. (north of Washington, D.C., at Anacostia River)

Intercity 2 2 6 10 12

Regional rail 4 4 6 10 12

TOTAL 6 6 12 20 24

Philadelphia South (Chester, Pennsylvania)

Intercity 2 2 6 10 12

Regional rail 3 3 6 8 8

TOTAL 5 5 12 18 20

Hudson River (between New Jersey and New York)

Intercity 3 3 7 10 16

Regional rail 21 21 30 42 54

TOTAL 24 24 37 52 70

East River (between Manhattan and Queens)

Intercity 4 4 7 10 8–16

Regional rail 36 36 68 74 76-82

TOTAL 40 64 75 84 84–98

New Rochelle (near New Rochelle Station)

Intercity 0 0 6 10 8-16

Regional rail 21 21 26 32 36-42

TOTAL 21 21 32 42 44-58

Boston (south of Back Bay Station)

Intercity 1 1 5 8 6–14

Regional rail 9 9 12 14 20

TOTAL 10 10 17 22 26–34

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

Note: Where all Alternative 3 route options are the same, a single number is used.

* Connecting corridors include Springfield, Empire, Keystone, and Virginia service south of Washington Union Station.

** Only includes service to stations on the existing NEC; excludes new LIRR service to Grand Central Terminal with the East Side 

Access project. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-40 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 4-9: Trains per Peak Hour, 2040 Peak-Hour Peak Direction at Select Screenlines –

Alternative 3 Route Options

Screenline

Alternative 3

Central CT/ 

Providence

Long Island/ 

Providence

Long Island/ 

Worcester

Central CT/ 

Worcester

Washington, D.C. (north of Washington, D.C., at Anacostia River)

Intercity 12 12 12 12

Regional rail 12 12 12 12

TOTAL 24 24 24 24

Philadelphia South (Chester, Pennsylvania)

Intercity 16 16 16 16

Regional rail 8 8 8 8

TOTAL 24 24 24 24

Hudson River (between New Jersey and New York)

Intercity 16 16 16 16

Regional rail 54 54 54 54

TOTAL 70 70 70 70

East River (between Manhattan and Queens)

Intercity 8 16 16 8

Regional rail 76 82 82 76

TOTAL 84 98 98 84

New Rochelle (between Shell Junction and New Rochelle Station)

Intercity 16 8 8 16

Regional rail 42 36 36 42

TOTAL 58 44 44 58

Boston (south of Back Bay Station)

Intercity 14 14 6 6

Regional rail 20 20 20 20

TOTAL 34 34 26 26

Source: NEC FUTURE Intercity Travel Demand Model outputs, April 2015; Regional Travel Demand Model outputs, April 2015

Note: Intercity-Corridor service includes Metropolitan and Intercity-Corridor-Other (off-corridor and long-distance services).
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-41

4.5.2 Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, Intercity service would increase two to threefold for markets between 

Washington, D.C., and New York. In markets from New York City to Boston where Intercity service 

today is 1 or less than 1 train per hour, service increases would be more dramatic with an increase 

from 1 to 8 trains an hour at the Boston screenline and an increase from 0 to 6 trains an hour at the 

New Rochelle, NY, screenline.

Intercity-Express travel times, representing the fastest travel times, between representative citypairs are:

4 Washington, D.C., to New York City: 2 hours 40 minutes (a decrease of 5 minutes from the No 

Action Alternative)

4 New York City to Boston: 3 hours (a decrease of 30 minutes from the No Action Alternative)

4 Washington, D.C., to Boston: 5 hours 40 minutes (a decrease of 35 minutes from the No Action 

Alternatives)

Alternative 1 provides opportunities for improvements for through trips on connecting corridor 

services in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, New Haven, CT, and Boston. Connecting 

corridor services would benefit from Action Alternative 1 travel time savings for those trips continuing 

on to the NEC.

Regional rail service to existing NEC markets increases to meet demand but varies by market within 

the Study Area. Peak-hour Regional rail service in markets from Washington, D.C., to New York City 

would more than double. Increases in peak-hour trains along with expansion of trainset lengths, 

where possible, would meet the forecasted increase in ridership and maintain the Regional rail share

of journey-to-work trips to and from the major metropolitan central business districts. Reverse-peak 

and off-peak service continues to be operated where it is provided today.

4.5.3 Alternative 2

Intercity peak-hour service would be five times that available in the No Action Alternative at some 

screenlines with Alternative 2. Peak service would be greatest south of New York City, but the 

increase from the No Action Alternative would be most dramatic between New York City and Boston, 

with increases up to eight- or tenfold at New Rochelle, NY and Boston screenlines. 

Intercity-Express travel times, representing the fastest travel times, between representative citypairs are:

4 Washington, D.C., to New York City: 2 hours 30 minutes (a decrease of 15 minutes from the No 

Action Alternative)

4 New York City to Boston: 2 hours 40 minutes (a decrease of 50 minutes from the No Action 

Alternative)

4 Washington, D.C., to Boston: 5 hours 10 minutes (a decrease of 1 hour 5 minutes from the No 

Action Alternative)
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-42 Tier 1 Draft EIS

As with Alternative 1, Alternative 2 provides opportunities for improvement to through trips with

connecting corridor services in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, New Haven, CT, and 

Boston. Connecting corridor services would benefit from Action Alternative 2 travel time savings for 

those trips continuing on to the NEC.

Regional rail peak-hour service would more than double in Alternative 2. At heavily traveled

screenlines, such as the Hudson River, Regional rail service would increase from 21 trains per hour to 

42. Alternative 2 also includes additional service zones to increase peak zone express service and 

reduce average trip times. In addition, Alternative 2 increases service to Regional branch lines where 

sufficient capacity exists.

4.5.4 Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, Intercity peak hour service would be six times greater than the No Action 

Alternative service. For screenlines north of New York City, service would increase to 8 to 10 peakhour trains where No Action Alternative frequency is 1 or less than 1 train per hour. In Alternative 3, 

these service increases would be distributed to both the existing NEC and the new second spine route 

option.

Intercity-Express travel times, representing the fastest travel times, between representative citypairs are:

4 Washington, D.C., to New York City: 1 hour 40 minutes (an average decrease of 1 hour 5 minutes 

from the No Action Alternative)

4 New York City to Boston: 1 hour 40 minutes (an average decrease of 1 hour 50 minutes from the 

No Action Alternative)

4 Washington, D.C., to Boston: 5 hours 10 minutes (an average decrease of 2 hours 55 minutes 

from the No Action Alternative)

As with Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 provides opportunities for improvement to through trips 

with connecting corridor services in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, New Haven, CT, 

and Boston. Connecting corridor services would benefit from Action Alternative 3 travel time savings 

for those trips continuing on to the NEC.

Regional rail service would increase nearly three times the peak-hour service in the No Action 

Alternative for many screenlines south of New York City. Regional service north of New York City 

would be nearly double the No Action Alternative’s peak-hour trains per hour. Alternative 3 also 

includes additional service zones that would be created to increase peak zone express service and 

reduce average trip times. Service to branch lines would increase and more through service would be 

available where transfers are required in the No Action Alternative. Regional rail service would share

the new second spine tracks with Intercity trains, offering significantly reduced trip times for longdistance commuters. In areas with heaviest demand, Regional rail services would operate at 

frequencies close to 1 train per minute.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-43

4.5.5 Stations/Metropolitan Areas Served 

The No Action Alternative will continue to serve the same 110 stations that exist on the NEC today.

Table 4-10 identifies the stations that will be served under the No Action Alternative. Regional rail 

serves all stations unless noted.

Table 4-10: Existing NEC Stations (excluding Connecting Corridors) Served under the No 

Action Alternative 

Geography Total NEC Stations (excluding Connecting Corridors) 

Washington, D.C. 1 Washington Union Station*

Maryland 12 New Carrollton*, Seabrook, Bowie State, Odenton, BWI Airport*, Halethorpe, West 

Baltimore, Baltimore Penn Station*, Martin Airport, Edgewood, Aberdeen*, 

Perryville

Delaware 4 Newark, DE*, Churchman's Crossing, Wilmington Station*, Claymont

Pennsylvania 25 Marcus Hook, Highland Ave, Chester, Eddystone, Crum Lynne, Ridley Park, Prospect 

Park, Norwood, Glenolden, Folcroft, Sharon Hill, Curtis Park, Darby, Philadelphia 

30th St*, North Philadelphia*, Bridesburg, Wissinoming, Tacony, Holmesburg 

Junction, Torresdale, Cornwells Heights*, Eddington, Croydon, Bristol, Levittown

New Jersey 15 Trenton*, Hamilton, Princeton Junction*, Jersey Avenue, New Brunswick*, Edison, 

Metuchen, Metropark*, Rahway, Linden, Elizabeth, North Elizabeth, Newark 

Airport*, Newark Penn Station*, Secaucus

New York 7 Penn Station New York*, New Rochelle*, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Harrison, Rye, 

Port Chester 

Connecticut 29 Greenwich, Cos Cob, Riverside, Old Greenwich, Stamford*, Noroton Heights, 

Darien, Rowayton, South Norwalk, East Norwalk, Westport, Green’s Farms, 

Southport, Fairfield, Fairfield Metro, Bridgeport*, Stratford, Milford, West Haven, 

New Haven Union Station*, New Haven State Street, Branford, Guilford, Madison, 

Clinton, Westbrook, Old Saybrook*, New London*, Mystic**

Rhode Island 5 Westerly**, Kingston*, Wickford Junction, T.F. Green, Providence Station*

Massachusetts 12 South Attleboro, Attleboro, Mansfield, Sharon, Canton Junction, Route 128*, 

Readville, Hyde Park, Forest Hills, Ruggles, Back Bay*, Boston South Station*

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Stations that do not have an asterisk are served by Regional rail only.

* Serves Intercity and Regional rail services

** Serves Intercity services only

Alternative 1 adds 19 new stations for a total of 129 stations. Five new stations are located in New 

York, the most of any state within the Study Area. Four stations each are added in both Maryland and 

Connecticut. The following five Local Hub stations would be upgraded to Hub stations to 

accommodate new service types and improve gaps in connectivity: 

4 Odenton (Maryland)

4 West Baltimore (Maryland)

4 Secaucus (New Jersey)

4 Greens Farms (Connecticut)

4 T.F. Green Airport (Rhode Island)
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-44 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 2 includes 134 stations: 24 are new, including 6 in Connecticut and 5 in New York. A new 

station at Philadelphia International Airport would serve Intercity services.

Alternative 3 brings the most change to the Study Area, with 141–151 stations. Most of the stations 

would continue to operate as they do today with some improvements to keep up with increased local 

demand. Between 4 and 7 stations would be upgraded to Hub stations to accommodate new service 

types. Hartford Station would be upgraded from Hub to Major Hub to accommodate Intercity-Express

service.

The remaining new stations would serve new or underserved markets (such as Long Island and 

Central Connecticut) or stations with highway access to the NEC (such as Baldwin Station near 

Chester, PA) or are adjacent to existing stations and designed to accommodate multiple service types 

with multiple levels of tracks and platforms and convenient passenger connections to the existing 

station. Table 4-11 lists the quantities of stations, by type, for the No Action and Action Alternatives.

Table 4-11: Station Type for No Action and Action Alternatives

Station Type Existing NEC No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (range)

Major Hub 14 14 17 18 22–24

Hub 16 19 25 27 30–36

Local 80 77 87 89 88–92

TOTAL 110 110 129 134 141–151

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Table 4-5 provides a complete list of stations, their locations, and the Action Alternative(s) in which each station appears.

Appendix B, Stations Location and Access Analysis Technical Memorandum, further describes the selection of specific station 

types for each alternative.

4.6 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS

Individual infrastructure elements identify the construction type and physical improvement 

associated with the Representative Route of the Action Alternatives. The FRA organized 

infrastructure elements by their functionality: chokepoint relief projects, new track, or new segment 

(see Section 4.2.5). Sections 4.6.1 through 4.6.3 describe the infrastructure elements for each Action 

Alternative. Consideration of service plans consistent with the vision of the Action Alternatives when 

determining the appropriate infrastructure allows improvements to be considered across different 

NEC markets and provides a framework for considering incremental or alternative combinations, but 

still within the long-term vision for a system-wide integrated passenger rail network.

The Action Alternatives use existing and proposed infrastructure to support the operations necessary 

to meet market growth. All Action Alternatives accommodate different types of trains; however, 

some segments in Alternatives 2 and 3 are dedicated to high-performance trainsets. This integration 

of service, performance, and infrastructure allows for a smaller infrastructure footprint, compared to 

a more typical approach where infrastructure is designed to accommodate shared use by a variety of 

operators with different operating requirements. (Appendix B, Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report, contains 

further information on the location of selected infrastructure elements for the Action Alternatives.)
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-45

4.6.1 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would support increases in Intercity and Regional rail services, eliminating key 

chokepoints along the corridor, and increasing capacity at selected locations by adding additional 

track within the existing NEC and new segments parallel to and outside the existing NEC right-of-way.

4.6.1.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects

Alternative 1 contains 11 chokepoint relief projects. Eight are located south of New York City in 

Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Two projects north of New York City would 

address conflicting train movements near the New Rochelle station and South Norwalk and 

Bridgeport, CT. The FRA identified chokepoint projects at the following locations, which are keyed to 

Figure 4-4:

4 New Carrollton Station (MD), four platform tracks, to permit express and local trains to operate 

on separate tracks

4 Newark, DE, station relocation and track reconfiguration, to provide for smoother Intercity, 

Regional rail, and freight train movements

4 Holly Interlocking reconfiguration, DE, to separate local and express train traffic

4 Philadelphia flyover, to facilitate regional rail local train movements

4 Trenton Station and yard access, to facilitate regional rail terminal operations

4 Metropark Station (NJ) platforms on express tracks, to permit Intercity-Express and IntercityCorridor trains to stop at this station without switching to the local tracks

4 Hunter flyover and Westbound Waterfront Connection (NJ), improving access to the NEC from 

the Raritan Valley Line and from Hoboken Terminal

4 New Rochelle (Shell Junction) grade separation (NY), to provide smoother train flows between 

the Hell Gate Line and New Haven Line.

4 South Norwalk and Devon junction improvements (CT), to facilitate Danbury and Waterbury 

regional rail branch line train movements

4 East Bridgeport yard access and turnback track (CT), to facilitate turning of local regional rail 

services

4 Canton Junction to Readville track and junction improvements (MA), to facilitate a smoother flow 

of trains

4.6.1.2 New Track

Alternative 1 includes five new track projects (Figure 4-4). Of the three located south of Midtown 

Manhattan, two are in Maryland where the existing NEC is currently a two- and three-track railroad.

There are two new track projects north of Midtown Manhattan. Two tracks are included on the Hell 

Gate Line in Queens, NY and Bronx, NY, and one or two additional tracks are included near Route 128 

station in Westwood, MA. New track projects, identified from junction to junction, are listed below:

4 Odenton, MD, to Halethorpe, MD, fourth track
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-46 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Bayview, MD to Newark, DE, additional track(s)

4 Elizabeth, NJ to Newark Airport, NJ, additional track(s)

4 Hell Gate Line, Queens, NY and Bronx, NY, expanded to four tracks

4 East Greenwich, RI-Warwick, RI, additional track(s)

4 Canton Junction, MA to Westwood/Route 128, MA, additional track(s)

4.6.1.3 New Segment

Alternative 1 has three new segments29 parallel to and outside of the existing NEC right-of-way. Two 

new segments are located south of New York City: a new tunnel near Baltimore Penn Station and a 

third and fourth tunnel under the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York. New segments 

are listed below (approximate length in parentheses):

4 New Baltimore tunnel (approximately 2 miles)

4 Hudson River third and fourth tunnels and expanded Penn Station New York (approximately 3 

miles)

4 Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment (approximately 50 miles)

All of these new segments are locations where the railroad is capacity-constrained, where expanding 

capacity within the existing right-of-way is difficult or impractical, or, in the case of the New Baltimore 

Tunnel, where existing facilities require life-cycle replacement.

Alternative 1 includes the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment, between Old Saybrook, CT, and 

Kenyon, RI. This new segment would provide a more direct and faster route and would circumvent 

the existing movable bridges over navigable waterways connected to Long Island Sound, over which 

daily train movements are capped by current agreements and where approval for significant 

increases in future train traffic could be difficult to obtain. The new segment would save 

approximately 30 minutes of travel time compared to the existing Shore Line route and would free 

capacity on the existing Shore Line route. 

Figure 4-4 depicts the chokepoint, new track, and new segment locations in Alternative 1.

 

29 New segments contribute to the representative route of an alternative and are described in greater detail in 

Section 4.2.4.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-47

Figure 4-4: Alternative 1 (Chokepoint, New Track, and New Segment Locations)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-48 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.6.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 enhances the capacity of the existing NEC. Alternative 2 includes chokepoint relief 

projects, new track projects, and new segments to improve travel times in and around the major 

urban areas, on antiquated bridges, and in southeast Connecticut. 

4.6.2.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects

Most of the chokepoint projects in Alternative 2 are the same as those identified for Alternative 1, 

addressing chokepoints near stations, at railroad junctions, and at yard locations where trains lay 

over and change direction. The inclusion of new segments or new tracks at certain locations obviates 

the need for a separate chokepoint project. The FRA identified chokepoint projects at the following 

locations, which are keyed to Figure 4-5:

4 New Carrollton Station (MD), 4 platform tracks, to permit express and local trains to operate on 

separate tracks

4 Newark, DE, station relocation and track reconfiguration, to provide for smoother Intercity, 

Regional rail and freight train movements

4 Philadelphia 30th Street – Penn Interlocking – four-track approaches, to enable the station to 

operate as a pulse hub with coordinated transfers between train services at timed intervals

4 Trenton Station and yard access (NJ), to facilitate regional rail terminal operations

4 Metropark Station platforms on express tracks (NJ), to enable Intercity-Express and IntercityCorridor trains, including Metropolitan trains, to stop at this station on the express tracks

4 Hunter Flyover and Westbound Waterfront Connection (NJ), improving access to the NEC from 

the Raritan Valley Line and from Hoboken Terminal

4 New Rochelle (Shell Junction) grade separation (NY), to provide smoother train flows between 

the Hell Gate Line and New Haven Line

4 New Haven Station (CT), to facilitate the smooth movement of Intercity and Regional rail trains 

into and out of the station

4 Canton Junction to Readville track and junction improvements (MA), to facilitate a smoother flow 

of trains

4.6.2.2 New Track

Alternative 2 includes the construction of several new track projects. Three are located in Maryland

where the existing NEC is currently a two- and three-track railroad. One project is located north of 

Midtown Manhattan, adding two tracks to the Hell Gate Line in Bronx, NY.

4 Washington, D.C., to New Carrollton, MD, third track

4 New Carrollton, MD, to Halethorpe, MD, fourth track
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-49

4 Bayview, MD, to Perryville, MD, four-track railroad

4 Hell Gate Line, Queens, NY and Bronx, NY, expanded to four tracks 

4 Providence, RI, to Hyde Park, MA, four tracks

4.6.2.3 New Segment

Alternative 2 includes 11 new segments, parallel to and outside of the existing NEC right-of-way, at 

the following locations (approximate length in parentheses):

4 Baltimore Tunnel (approximately 2 miles)

4 Aberdeen, MD, to Newark, DE (approximately 23 miles)

4 Wilmington, DE, Bypass (approximately 8 miles)

4 Baldwin, PA, to Philadelphia 30th Street Station via Philadelphia International Airport 

(approximately 10 miles)

4 Philadelphia 30th Street Station to Bridesburg, PA, through North Philadelphia, PA (approximately 

8 miles)

4 North Brunswick, NJ, to Colonia, NJ (approximately 16 miles) 

4 Elizabeth, NJ, to Secaucus, NJ (approximately 12 miles)

4 Secaucus, NJ, to Hell Gate Viaduct, Queens, NY via new Hudson and East River Tunnels and 

expanded Penn Station New York (approximately 8 miles)

4 New Rochelle, NY, to Westport, CT (approximately 29 miles)

4 Sharon, MA to Canton Junction, MA (approximately 3 miles)

The biggest change in the Representative Route between the No Action Alternative and Alternative 

2 is in eastern Connecticut and western Rhode Island. Alternative 2 includes a New Haven-HartfordProvidence new segment, providing a second route between New Haven, CT, and Providence, RI, that 

would remove train traffic from 120 miles of the Shore Line route that has capacity-limited, movable 

bridges and over which Providence and Worcester, MA, freight trains operate in addition to Shore 

Line East and MBTA Regional rail services. Figure 4-5 depicts the chokepoint, new track, and new 

segment locations in Alternative 2.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-50 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure 4-5: Alternative 2 (Chokepoint, New Track, and New Segment Locations)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-51

4.6.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 provides major new rail capacity throughout the entire NEC with two new tracks 

between Washington, D.C., and Boston, as well as upgrades to the existing NEC similar to Alternative 

1, which would bring the existing NEC to a state of good repair and would provide capacity and 

chokepoint relief along the corridor.

4.6.3.1 Chokepoint Relief Projects

These projects address chokepoints near stations, at railroad junctions, and at yard locations where 

trains lay over and change direction. The FRA identified chokepoint projects at the following 

locations, which are keyed to Figure 4-6:

4 New Carrollton Station, four platform tracks, to permit express and local trains to operate on 

separate tracks

4 Odenton Station island platforms, to enable Metropolitan trains to stop at this station on the 

express tracks

4 Newark, DE, station relocation and track reconfiguration, to provide for smoother intercity, 

regional rail and freight train movements

4 Philadelphia flyover, to facilitate regional rail local train movements

4 Trenton Station and yard access, to facilitate regional rail terminal operations

4 Metropark Station platforms on express tracks, to enable Intercity-Express and Intercity-Corridor 

trains, including Metropolitan trains, to stop at this station on the express tracks

4 Hunter Flyover and Westbound Waterfront Connection, improving access to the NEC from the 

Raritan Valley Line and from Hoboken Terminal

4 New Rochelle (Shell Junction) grade separation, to provide smoother train flows between the Hell 

Gate Line and New Haven Line.

4 Canton Junction to Readville track and junction improvements (MA), to facilitate a smoother flow 

of trains

4.6.3.2 New Track

There are fewer new track projects on the existing NEC in Alternative 3 since the need for additional 

tracks on the existing NEC is reduced with the construction of new high-speed tracks along the entire 

corridor. The locations of the most prominent new track projects are:

4 Odenton, MD, to Halethorpe, MD, fourth track

4 Bayview, MD, to Perryville, MD, additional track(s)

4 Hell Gate Line, Queens, NY and Bronx, NY, expanded to four tracks

4 Providence, RI, to Hyde Park, MA, four tracks
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-52 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.6.3.3 New Segment

Alternative 3 includes new segments parallel to and outside of the existing NEC right-of-way, 

providing a second spine route between Washington, D.C., and Boston, MA.

30. Alternative 3 also 

increases the capacity of the existing NEC with the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel and new segments 

parallel to the existing NEC between New Rochelle, NY, and Stamford, CT.

Alternative 3 includes a new route through New York City, resulting in six tracks in tunnels beneath 

the Hudson and East Rivers, along with station facilities for all service types, which would address the 

most critical capacity issues within the Study Area. Additional infrastructure improvements in 

Alternative 3 include downtown routing in Baltimore and Philadelphia and terminal capacity 

expansion in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Boston. Alternative 3 includes new stations in 

downtown Baltimore, Philadelphia International Airport, and Center City Philadelphia. North of New 

York, new stations are specific to each routing option, as shown below.

4 Central CT/Providence: New stations – Danbury, CT, Willimantic/Storrs, CT

4 Long Island/Providence: New stations – Ronkonkoma, NY, Tolland/Storrs, CT

4 Long Island/Worcester: New stations – Nassau, NY, Framingham, MA

4 Central CT/Worcester: New stations – White Plains, NY, Beacon Park, MA

There are several new six-track sections of railroad, locations where there is a new, two-track

segment adjacent to a four-track NEC Spine, south of New York in Alternative 3. Six-track segments 

extend from Washington, D.C., to Baltimore, MD, and Philadelphia to New York City. Six-track sections 

are also located in coastal Fairfield County.

Figure 4-6 depicts the chokepoint, new track, and new segment locations included in Alternative 3.

 

30 Alternative 3 does not include the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-53

Figure 4-6: Alternative 3 (Chokepoint, New Track, and New Segment Locations)
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-54 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.7 GEOGRAPHIC DEPICTION AND ORIENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a state-by-state description of the Representative Route for each of the 

alternatives. The descriptions highlight key geographic features of the built and natural 

environments, how the alternative is positioned relative to the existing NEC, and the typical 

construction type. Where Action Alternatives have similar features, those features are described 

when they are first introduced and then referenced in subsequent alternative descriptions.

Descriptions of the routes are organized south to north (or west to east) by state, metropolitan area 

or construction type being assigned—beginning in Washington, D.C., and ending in Boston. Appendix 

A, Mapping Atlas, provides the spatial location of each Representative Route relative to the general 

location of selected environmental resources. Table 4-12 provides a reference table to the map 

sheet(s) relative to the following subsection(s).

4.7.1 No Action Alternative

The rail component of the No Action Alternative includes the existing NEC between Washington 

Union Station in Washington, D.C., and Boston South Station in Boston, and the MTA-LIRR East Side 

Access project (currently under construction). The Representative Route of the existing NEC is 

described for each state the corridor passes through.31 The East Side Access project is described in 

New York only since the project extent is entirely within that state. 

4.7.1.1 Washington, D.C.

The existing NEC exits Washington Union Station in Washington, D.C., at-grade or on embankment 

and parallel to U.S. Route 50. The railroad is on embankment through the National Arboretum before 

crossing the Anacostia River into Prince George’s County, Maryland. 

4.7.1.2 Maryland

The existing NEC is usually at-grade or on embankment, parallel to U.S. Route 50 through New 

Carrollton, crossing under Interstate 495 (I-495) at-grade near the suburban town of Seabrook and 

Bowie State University. The railroad crosses the Patuxent River into Anne Arundel County on 

embankment adjacent to the Patuxent Research Refuge before transitioning at-grade near Odenton

and continuing north near BWI Rail Station and BWI Airport. The railroad is at-grade near State Route 

(S.R.) 295 and Patapsco Valley State Park crossing the Patapsco River into Baltimore County near 

I-895.

 

31 The Representative Route of the Action Alternatives is described relative to the Representative Route of the No 

Action Alternative. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-55

Table 4-12: Mapping Atlas Reference Guide

Sheet 

#1

Existing 

NEC Alt 1 Alt 2

Alternative 3

Regional Coverage (State and County)

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central CT via LI via PVD via WOR

1 X X X X Washington D.C.; Prince George's County, MD

2 X X X X Anne Arundel, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, MD

3 X X X X Baltimore City, Baltimore County, MD

4 X X X X Harford County, MD

5 X X X X Cecil County, MD

6 X X X X New Castle County, DE

7 X X X X Delaware County, PA

8 X X X X Philadelphia County, PA

9 X X X X Bucks County, PA

10 X X X X Mercer, Middlesex County, NJ

11 X X X X Union, Essex, Hudson County, NJ; New York County, NY

12 X X X X X X New York, Bronx County, NY

13 X X X X X X Westchester County, NY; Fairfield County, CT

14 X X X X Mercer, Middlesex County, NJ

15 X X X X Fairfield County, CT

16 X X X X New Haven County, CT

17 X X X X X New Haven County, CT

18 X X X X X X New York, Kings, Queens County, NY

19 X Nassau, Suffolk County, NY

20 X Suffolk County, NY

21 X X Suffolk County, NY; Long Island Sound

22 X X X Westchester County, NY

23 X Westchester County, NY

24 X Fairfield County, CT

25 X New Haven County, CT

26 X X X X X Hartford County, CT
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-56 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 4-12: Mapping Atlas Reference Guide (continued)

Sheet 

#1

Existing 

NEC Alt 1 Alt 2

Alternative 3

Regional Coverage (State and County)

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central CT via LI via PVD via WOR

27 X X X X X Hartford County, CT

28 X X X Tolland County, CT

29 X X Windham County, CT

30 X X X X Providence County, RI

31 X X X New Haven County, CT

32 X X Middlesex, New London County, CT

33 X X New London County, CT

34 X X Washington County, RI

35 Washington, Kent County, RI

36 X X Providence County, RI; Bristol County, MA

37 X X X Norfolk County, MA

38 X X X Tolland County, CT

39 X Worcester County, MA

40 X Worcester, Middlesex County, MA

41 X X X X Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk County, MA

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 1 Sheet # refers to Map Sheet in Appendix A, Mapping Atlas.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-57

The existing NEC is at-grade adjacent to U.S. Route 1 crossing into the city of Baltimore (Baltimore); 

shifting northeast on embankment and crossing Gwynns Falls on the west side of the Baltimore. The 

railroad shifts northeast in tunnel and trench system known as the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnels 

before crossing under I-83 and shifting southeast at-grade east of Baltimore Penn Station. The 

railroad is on embankment and aerial structure east of Baltimore Penn Station, transitioning to atgrade west of I-895, reentering Baltimore County near I-95 (Figure 4-7). The railroad is at-grade or on 

embankment, adjacent to Martin State Airport, between U.S. Route 40 and the Chesapeake Bay, 

crossing the Gunpowder River into Harford County. The existing NEC is at-grade or on embankment 

through Harford County, crossing the Bush River in Aberdeen, north of Aberdeen Proving Ground. 

The corridor crosses the Susquehanna River into suburban Cecil County, shifting at-grade to the north 

side of U.S. Route 40 and I-95, before entering New Castle County, DE, just east of Newark. 

Figure 4-7: No Action Alternative (Existing NEC through Baltimore)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.1.3 Delaware

The existing NEC is at-grade on the north side of I-95 through Newark, Stanton, and Newport, shifting 

east under I-95 on embankment and aerial structure through Wilmington’s Central Business District

on the north side of the Christina River. The railroad shifts north, crossing the Brandywine River, 

continuing at-grade between I-495 and the Delaware River through Edgemoor and Claymont into 

Delaware County, PA.

4.7.1.4 Pennsylvania

The existing NEC is at-grade or on embankment between I-95 and the Delaware River through the 

industrial towns of Marcus Hook and Trainer in southern Delaware County. The railroad transitions 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-58 Tier 1 Draft EIS

to a series of embankments and aerial structures through Chester, shifting north and crossing I-95 

east of I-476 in Crum Lynne. The railroad continues at-grade or on embankment northeast through 

suburban Ridley Park, Glenolden, and Sharon Hill, crossing Cobbs Creek near Colwyn into the City of 

Philadelphia near I-76 and the Schuylkill River. The existing NEC follows the contour of the Schuylkill 

River north through Philadelphia 30th Street Station in University City, crossing the Schuylkill River 

near the Philadelphia Zoo, and continuing on embankment through the Bridesburg, Tacony, and 

Holmesburg sections of Philadelphia, before crossing Poquessing Creek into Bucks County, at-grade 

and parallel to I-95 and the Delaware River. The railroad is at-grade through Cornwells Heights,

crossing the Neshaminy Creek into Croydon and transitioning to embankment, then shifting east and 

transitioning back to grade near U.S. Route 13 in Bristol. The existing NEC crosses at-grade under 

I-276 through northern Bucks County, crossing the Delaware River into Mercer County, NJ.

4.7.1.5 New Jersey 

The existing NEC crosses the Delaware River into the City of Trenton, Hamilton, and West Windsor.

The railroad crosses the Millstone River on aerial structure into Middlesex County, continuing north 

parallel to U.S. Route 1 and the New Jersey Turnpike. The existing NEC transitions mostly at-grade 

from an urban setting in Trenton, to a suburban setting in Monmouth Junction, back to an urban 

setting in the City of New Brunswick. The railroad crosses the Raritan River into Highland Park and 

continues usually on embankment through northern Middlesex County, Elizabeth in Union County, 

and Newark in Essex County. The existing NEC crosses the Passaic River into Hudson County northeast 

usually on embankment through Secaucus, before shifting east and in tunnel under the New Jersey 

Palisades and Hudson River into Midtown Manhattan.

4.7.1.6 New York 

The existing NEC remains in tunnel under Midtown Manhattan and the East River, transitioning atgrade near Hunters Point Avenue and I-495 in Queens County. The railroad shifts north onto

embankment and again onto an aerial structure known as the Hell Gate Viaduct in Astoria, Queens

(Figure 4-8). The railroad crosses the East River, Wards and Randalls Island, and Bronx Kill into Bronx 

County, continuing at-grade near I-278 in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx. The railroad is atgrade, parallel to I-278, shifting east near Bronx River Parkway, through the Parkchester, Morris Park, 

and Co-Op City sections of the Bronx. The existing NEC shifts north at-grade through Pelham Bay Park, 

entering Westchester County parallel to I-95. The railroad continues at-grade through New Rochelle, 

Mamaroneck, Rye, and Port Chester, crossing the Byram River into Fairfield County, CT.

As noted earlier, East Side Access, currently under construction, is also part of the No Action 

Alternative. That project will provide new LIRR service into Grand Central Terminal in New York. The 

rail infrastructure, described from east to west, consists of new tracks aboveground in Sunnyside Yard 

in Queens, extending north and connecting to the east side of the existing 63rd Street Tunnel near 

43rd Avenue in Long Island City section of Queens. A new tunnel will connect to the 63rd Street Tunnel 

on the west side in Manhattan under Second Avenue, shifting south under Park Avenue and 

terminating under Grand Central Terminal on the east side of Manhattan. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-59

Figure 4-8: No Action Alternative (Existing NEC through New York City)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.1.7 Connecticut

The existing NEC is at-grade on the north side of I-95 in western Fairfield County, shifting at-grade to 

the south side of I-95 in Cos Cob, crossing the Mianus River and continuing east between I-95 and the 

Long Island Sound. The railroad is on embankment through Stamford on the north side of I-95, shifting 

back to the south side in Darien. The existing NEC enters the City of Norwalk at-grade, before crossing 

the Norwalk and Saugatuck Rivers. The railroad continues at-grade or on embankment east through 

Fairfield and Bridgeport, crossing the Housatonic River into New Haven County.

The existing NEC is at-grade or on embankment through Milford and the City of New Haven, shifting 

northeast, adjacent to I-91 before crossing the Quinnipiac River and shifting toward the Long Island 

Sound. The railroad continues at-grade or on embankment south of I-95 through Branford, Guilford 

and Madison along coastal New Haven County. The existing NEC crosses the Hammonasset River into 

Middlesex County and continues east through Clinton, Westbrook, and Old Saybrook usually at-grade 

or on embankment. The railroad crosses the Connecticut River into New London County, continuing 

east at-grade or on embankment through Old Lyme, Niantic, and New London, crossing the Thames 

River and continuing at-grade or on embankment east along the Long Island Sound through Mystic 

and Stonington. The railroad crosses the Pawcatuck River on aerial structure into Westerly, RI.

4.7.1.8 Rhode Island

The existing NEC is usually at-grade or on embankment through Westerly, Hopkinton, Charlestown, 

and Richmond in southern Washington County, shifting northeast near South Kingston, and north in 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-60 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exeter. The railroad continues at-grade or on embankment through North Kingston, crossing the Huet 

River into Kent County, continuing north through East Greenwich and Warwick, before crossing the 

Pawtuxet River into Providence County. The existing NEC is adjacent to I-95 through Cranston,

entering the City of Providence at-grade and parallel to S.R. 10 before shifting east through 

downtown Providence. The railroad shifts north again near the Rhode Island State House and the 

Moshassuck River, and continues at-grade adjacent to I-95 through Pawtucket and Central Falls, 

crossing the Seekonk River into Bristol County, MA (Figure 4-9).

Figure 4-9: No Action Alternative (Existing NEC through Providence)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.1.9 Massachusetts

The existing NEC continues east, parallel to I-95 in Attleboro, shifting north near Ten Mile River, 

usually at-grade or on embankment, through Attleboro and Mansfield. The railroad crosses I-495 atgrade in northern Mansfield, entering Norfolk County near the Rumford River. The railroad continues 

north through Foxborough, entering Sharon near the Canoe River and continuing north at-grade or 

on embankment through Canton. The existing NEC crosses the Neponset River and I-95 into 

Westwood near Route 128 Rail Station and continues north on embankment through Neponset River 

State Reservation in Dedham. The railroad enters the City of Boston near Sprague Street and 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-61

continues usually at-grade north, parallel to Hyde Park Avenue. The existing NEC shifts northeast 

entering a series of trenches and tunnels near S.R. 203 near Columbus Avenue and Northeastern 

University, shifting east to the south side of I-90, and continuing at-grade east of Boston Back Bay 

Station. The railroad shifts north near I-93 and terminates at Boston South Station near Fort Point 

Channel (Figure 4-10).

Figure 4-10: No Action Alternative (Existing NEC near Boston)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.1.10 Ownership of the existing NEC

As mentioned in Chapter 3, ownership of the NEC is divided among Amtrak, MTA-Metro-North 

Railroad, Connecticut Department of Transportation, and Massachusetts. Amtrak owns the existing 

NEC extending from Washington Union Station to New Rochelle, NY; and from Mill River, located east 

of New Haven, CT, to the Rhode Island/Massachusetts state border. Metro-North Railroad owns the 

existing NEC from New Rochelle, NY to the New York/Connecticut state border. The Connecticut 

Department of Transportation owns the existing NEC extending from the New York/Connecticut state 

border to Mill River. Massachusetts owns the existing NEC from the Rhode Island/Massachusetts 

state border to Boston South Station. A graphic depiction of ownership along the existing NEC is 

located in Appendix A, Mapping Atlas (Part 2). 32

 

32 Various states, cities, and agencies own stations along the existing NEC. For example, NJ TRANSIT owns 14 

stations along the NEC. 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-62 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.7.2 Alternative 1

The Representative Route of Alternative 1 is largely confined to the existing NEC between 

Washington, D.C., and Boston, except in locations where infrastructure is added to provide

chokepoint relief or add capacity.

The following describes the locations where Alternative 1 differs or varies from the Representative 

Route of the No Action Alternative described previously. The bulleted details highlight adjacent 

environmental features, metropolitan areas and major passenger rail stations and their location 

relative to the existing NEC.

4.7.2.1 Maryland

4 New, two-track infrastructure in tunnel, approaching Baltimore Penn Station from the west

(Figure 4-11). This new segment diverges from the existing NEC in West Baltimore, and continues

in an arching path under U.S. Route 1 (North Avenue), keeping to the south of Druid Hill Park, and 

crossing under I-83 before reconnecting at-grade to the existing NEC north of Baltimore Penn 

Station.

Figure 4-11: Alternative 1 (Existing NEC and New Segment through Baltimore)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-63

4.7.2.2 New Jersey

4 Two new tracks in one or two tunnels, beginning on embankment east of Secaucus Station 

adjacent to the existing NEC and continues east in tunnel west of U.S. Routes 1 & 9. The new 

segment continues in tunnel under the New Jersey Palisades and the Hudson River.

4.7.2.3 New York

4 Two new tracks in one or two tunnels continue from New Jersey at the Hudson River and 

terminate under 31st Street, south of Penn Station New York (Figure 4-12).

Figure 4-12: Alternative 1 (Existing NEC and New Segment through New York City 

Metropolitan Area)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.2.4 Connecticut

4 Two new segments adjacent to the existing NEC in Fairfield County. The western segment is on 

aerial structure, adjacent to the existing NEC near Stamford Station. The eastern segment is

parallel to the existing NEC between Noroton Heights Station and near Green’s Farms Station, 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-64 Tier 1 Draft EIS

near the Saugatuck River. Most of this segment is north of the existing NEC, parallel to I-95 and 

inland from the coast.

4 New, two-track segment beginning east of Old Saybrook Station, shifting north of the existing 

NEC, crossing the Connecticut River on aerial structure in Old Lyme, and continuing in a series of 

tunnels, trenches, and aerial structures parallel to I-95 through East Lyme. The new segment shifts 

northeast and continues a short distance parallel to I-395 in Waterford before crossing to the 

south of I-395 in tunnel and continuing east adjacent to I-95. The segment crosses the Thames 

River in New London, between the eastbound and westbound bridge spans of I-95 and continues 

on embankment or aerial structure parallel to I-95 through Groton and Stonington, crossing the 

Pawcatuck River north of the existing NEC into Westerly, Rhode Island (Figure 4-13).

Figure 4-13: Alternative 1 (Existing NEC and New Segment near Old Saybrook, CT and 

Kenyon, RI)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.2.5 Rhode Island

4 The Old Saybrook to Kenyon new segment continues east through Westerly, adjacent to the 

existing NEC, shifting south through Branford and Wood River Junction, reconnecting to the 

existing NEC in Kenyon, north of the Pawcatuck River.

4.7.3 Alternative 2

Much of the Representative Route of Alternative 2 is identical to the No Action Alternative between 

Washington, D.C., and New Haven, CT, with some exceptions where infrastructure is added or 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-65

modified to provide chokepoint relief, add capacity, or improve performance. Alternative 2 includes 

curve modifications—sections of the existing NEC that would be shifted to increase operating speeds 

and reduce travel times, as identified below. Section 4.7.1 describes the Representative Route for the 

No Action Alternative.

The following describes locations where Alternative 2 is different or varies from the No Action 

Alternative. Following the pattern of the No Action Alternative description, adjacent environmental 

features, metropolitan areas and major passenger rail stations and their location relative to the 

existing NEC or new segments are identified.

4.7.3.1 Maryland 

4 New, two-track infrastructure in tunnel, approaching Baltimore Penn Station from the west. This 

new segment diverges from the existing NEC in West Baltimore, and continues in an arching path 

under U.S. Route 1 (North Avenue), keeping to the south of Druid Hill Park, and crossing under I83 before reconnecting at-grade to the existing NEC north of Baltimore Penn Station.

4 The existing NEC shifts approximately 300 feet at the widest point from its current location in the 

city of Baltimore, east of Baltimore Penn Station and continues east of I-895. 

4 The existing NEC shifts approximately 500 feet at the widest point from its current location in 

Baltimore and Harford counties centered on the Gunpowder River.

4 The existing NEC shifts approximately 250 feet at the widest point from its current location just 

east of Aberdeen Rail Station.

4 New, two-track infrastructure in Cecil County, MD, beginning in Perryville, beginning west of 

Principio Creek, and shifting north of the existing NEC typically on an aerial structure and parallel 

to U.S. Route 40. The new segment continues at-grade or on embankment east through the town 

of North East, MD, shifting to the north side of I-95 and continuing through rural Cecil County.

The segment enters New Castle County north of the West Branch of the Christina River, 

reconnecting with the existing NEC west of the Newark Rail Station (Figure 4-14).
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-66 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure 4-14: Alternative 2 (Existing NEC and New Segment through Maryland and Delaware)

s

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

4.7.3.2 Delaware 

4 New, two-track infrastructure near Wilmington, beginning east of Banning Park, shifting south of 

the existing NEC and east of I-95, continuing at-grade or on embankment east, crossing the 

Christina River, U.S. Route 13, and the Christina River again in succession. The segment shifts 

north, running parallel to I-495, reconnecting with the existing NEC near Fox Point State Park in 

Edgemoor.

4.7.3.3 Pennsylvania

4 New, two-track infrastructure, south of Center City, Philadelphia, beginning near Eddystone Rail 

Station in Delaware County, shifting south of the existing NEC and running parallel to S.R. 291 

through Essington. The segment shifts north on embankment and major bridge, in close proximity 

to S.R. 291, through the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, continuing at-grade north, parallel 

to SEPTA’s “Airport Line.” The segment shifts east of the SEPTA Regional Rail “Airport Line,”

reconnecting with the existing NEC near the Schuylkill River and the University City section of 

Philadelphia.

4 New, two-track spur, separate from what is described in the previous bullet to provide direct 

service to Philadelphia International Airport. The new infrastructure begins east of I-95, 

continuing in tunnel under Philadelphia International Airport, reconnecting to the segment near 

Island Avenue.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-67

4 New two-track infrastructure north of 30th Street Station and continuing to the east of the 

Schuylkill River. The infrastructure follows I-76 on the east side.

4 The existing NEC shifts in North Philadelphia beginning east of the North Philadelphia Rail Station 

and ending just west of the Bridesburg Rail Station. The segment would be shifted in tunnel or 

trench approximately 1,800 feet at the widest point from its current location.

4 The existing NEC shifts in the Torresdale section of Philadelphia beginning near Holmesburg Rail 

Station and Pennypack Creek and ending west of the Bucks County border. The shift is 

approximately 300 feet from its current location.

Figure 4-15: Alternative 2 (Existing NEC and New Segment through Philadelphia)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-68 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.7.3.4 New Jersey

4 New, two-track infrastructure in central and northern New Jersey, beginning in North Brunswick, 

Middlesex County and continuing generally at-grade or on embankment adjacent to the existing 

NEC through central Middlesex County. The segment is in tunnel under the Raritan River through 

New Brunswick and Highland Park, and short tunnel segments near Metuchen in Middlesex 

County, Elizabeth in Union County, and Newark in Essex County. The new segment reconnects 

with the existing NEC in Kearney, Hudson County west of the Passaic River.

4 New third and fourth Hudson River tunnels, beginning on embankment east of Secaucus Rail 

Station, adjacent to the existing NEC, continuing east in tunnel west of U.S. Routes 1 & 9, adjacent 

to the existing NEC, under the New Jersey Palisades and Hudson River, terminating south of the 

existing NEC and Penn Station New York, under West 31st Street (Figure 4-16). 

Figure 4-16: Alternative 2 (Existing NEC and New Segment through New York City

Metropolitan Area)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-69

4.7.3.5 New York

4 New fifth and sixth East River Tunnels, beginning at Penn Station New York in Midtown 

Manhattan, and continuing east under the East River south of the existing NEC through 

Woodside, Queens. The tunnels rise to an aerial structure, connecting with the Hell Gate Viaduct 

in Astoria, Queens (Figure 4-16). 

4 The existing NEC in Bronx County, near I-895 and I-95, shifts approximately 500 feet at the widest 

point from its current location on the east side of the Bronx River.

4 The existing NEC shifts approximately 300 feet at the widest point from its current location in 

Bronx County, near Pelham Bay Park. The improvement includes a new crossing over the 

Hutchinson River (Pelham Bay).

4 The existing NEC shifts approximately 150 feet at its widest point from its current location near 

New Rochelle rail Station.

4 New, two-track infrastructure, beginning west of the New Rochelle Rail Station and continuing 

at-grade or on embankment parallel to the existing NEC to Rye in eastern Westchester County, 

into Fairfield County, CT.

4.7.3.6 Connecticut

4 New, two-track infrastructure, continuing from Westchester County, NY, through coastal Fairfield 

County, parallel to I-95 typically on embankment or aerial structure through Greenwich, 

Stamford, and Norwalk; terminating in Westport west of Green’s Farms Rail Station.

4 Alternative 2 diverges from the existing NEC at New Haven, and continues inland on new 

infrastructure to Providence, RI, via Hartford, CT. Beginning in New Haven, CT, Alternative 2 

continues north at-grade or embankment, crossing I-91 and the Quinnipiac River through North 

Haven. The new segment continues at-grade or on embankment north, parallel to I-91 through 

Wallingford and Meriden entering Hartford County near U.S. Route 5, continuing north through 

New Britain and Newington. In New Britain, Alternative 2 shifts east toward the City of Hartford, 

entering downtown Hartford in tunnel and continuing east in tunnel under the Connecticut River 

to East Hartford. The new segment continues east into Tolland County, shifting northeast, usually 

in tunnel or embankment, south of Storrs into Windham County, crossing into central Providence 

County, RI. 

4.7.3.7 Rhode Island 

4 New, two-track infrastructure continues east from Windham County, CT, through rural western 

Providence County, usually on embankment. The infrastructure continues in tunnel beginning 

east of I-295, under the city of Providence, intersecting with the existing NEC at Providence rail 

station. The new segment continues in tunnel under the Seekonk River into East Providence and 

comes to grade in Rumford, east of the Ten Mile River, where the infrastructure continues atgrade north before entering Bristol County, MA.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-70 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.7.3.8 Massachusetts

4 New, two-track infrastructure continues north from Providence County, RI, reconnecting with the 

existing NEC near Ten Mile River at-grade in Bristol County.

4 New, two-track infrastructure, beginning north of Canton Junction Rail Station continuing north 

and reconnecting with the existing NEC near Route 128 Rail Station in Dedham.

4.7.4 Alternative 3

The following describes the Representative Route of Alternative 3, highlighting the location of the 

second spine relative to the existing NEC, environmental features, metropolitan areas, and major 

passenger rail stations.

Alternative 3 is organized into three segments with routing options in two of the three segments as 

described in Section 4.4.3, providing the FRA with the flexibility to analyze options that would serve 

various intermediate markets north of New York should the FRA select Alternative 3 as the Preferred 

Alternative. Section 4.7.2 describes improvements to the existing NEC under Alternative 3. Only the 

second spine separate from the existing NEC is described below. Section 4.7.1 describes the 

Representative Route for the existing NEC.

4.7.4.1 Washington, D.C., to New York City

Washington, D.C. 

Alternative 3 connects with existing NEC Intercity and Regional rail services at Washington Union 

Station in Washington, D.C., and exits Washington Union Station in tunnel adjacent to the existing 

NEC. The alternative emerges from tunnel east of Bladensburg Road, NE and continues northeast on 

embankment through the National Arboretum, crossing the Anacostia River into Prince George’s 

County, MD.

Maryland 

Alternative 3 continues at-grade or on embankment, through suburban Prince George’s County 

before crossing the Patuxent River and Patuxent Research Refuge into Anne Arundel County, 

continuing at-grade or on embankment northeast through Maryland, shifting approximately 

1,000 feet from the existing NEC for short distances near Odenton and BWI Rail Stations. North of 

BWI Rail Station, Alternative 3 is adjacent to the existing NEC, crossing the Patapsco River on an aerial 

structure, returning to at-grade or on embankmentthrough Patapsco Valley State Park into Baltimore 

County. Alternative 3 continues adjacent to the existing NEC and U.S. Route 1 (Figure 4-17) into 

Baltimore City where it shifts east of the existing NEC in tunnel through downtown Baltimore and

north of the Inner Harbor. The alternative continues at-grade near I-895 on the west side of 

Baltimore, continuing in the same general northeast direction, but not adjacent to, the existing NEC

through Rossville and White Marsh in suburban Baltimore County. Alternative 3 continues northeast,

parallel to U.S. Route 40 through Edgewood and Riverside in Harford County before shifting closer to 

the existing NEC near Aberdeen Proving Ground and Aberdeen Station in northern Harford County.

Alternative 3 crosses the Susquehanna River on an aerial structure parallel to the existing NEC into 

Cecil County, where it shifts away from the existing NEC near Perryville and continues parallel to U.S.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-71

Route 40 through rural Cecil County and into New Castle County, DE, north of the West Branch of the 

Christina River.

Figure 4-17: Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments through Baltimore)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

Delaware 

Alternative 3 continues northeast into Delaware, adjacent to the existing NEC between Newark and 

Wilmington, typically at-grade or on an aerial structure. The alternative shifts approximately one-mile 

south of the existing NEC near Wilmington Station, where it crosses the Christina and Brandywine 

Rivers on an aerial structure through an industrial section of the city. Alternative 3 continues north 

adjacent to the existing NEC east of I-495, and the Delaware River and Fox Point Park in Edgemoor, 

and continues north, adjacent to the existing NEC into Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania

Alternative 3 continues north, adjacent to the existing NEC in southern Delaware County to Chester, 

where the alternative shifts three-miles south of the existing NEC in tunnel under the Philadelphia 

International Airport, where a new station would be built under the airport. The alternative continues 

in tunnel under the Schuylkill River, Philadelphia Navy Yard, and Center City section of Philadelphia 

near Market Street Station (Figure 4-18). Alternative 3 is at-grade or on embankment adjacent to the 
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-72 Tier 1 Draft EIS

existing NEC east of Frankford Creek through northeast Philadelphia, crossing Poquessing Creek on 

an aerial structure into Bucks County. Alternative 3 continues adjacent to the existing NEC through 

Cornwells Heights, Bristol, and Morrisville before crossing the Delaware River into Mercer County, 

NJ.

Figure 4-18: Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments through Philadelphia)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015

New Jersey

Alternative 3 is typically at-grade or on embankment adjacent to the existing NEC from Trenton 

Station north through rural sections of northern Mercer County and southern Middlesex County. The 

alternative is in tunnel under the Raritan River through New Brunswick. Proceeding north, the route 

shifts from the existing NEC and is in short tunnel segments near Metuchen in Middlesex County,

Elizabeth in Union County, and Newark in Essex County. Alternative 3 is above grade across 

Hackensack River, shifting south of the existing NEC in tunnel east of the Hackensack River and 

continuing through Jersey City, Union City, and Hoboken in Hudson County.
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-73

New York

Alternative 3 includes six tracks under the Hudson River: two existing tunnels (North River Tunnels), 

two new tracks in one or two tunnels as described in Alternative 1, and two new tracks in one or two 

tunnels in Alternative 3 (Figure 4-19). The alternative continues in tunnel east under Midtown 

Manhattan entering Penn Station New York.

Figure 4-19: Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments through New York City

Metropolitan Area)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed February 2015

4.7.4.2 New York City to Hartford

New York (via Central Connecticut)

East of Penn Station New York, the six-track configuration for Alternative 3 continues east under the 

East River (four existing East River tunnels and two new tracks in one or two tunnels under the East 

River), and continues in tunnel south of the existing NEC through Woodside Queens, where the two
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-74 Tier 1 Draft EIS

tracks rise to connect with the Hell Gate Viaduct in Astoria. At Third Avenue, two tracks in one or two 

tunnels split from the six-track railroad headed east, continuing north along the east side of 

Manhattan in tunnel(s) under the East River, Wards Island, and Randall’s Island, continuing at-grade 

near the Bruckner and Sheridan Expressways in Bronx County at which point the two new tracks join 

and continue parallel to the existing NEC, generally at-grade or on embankment through Pelham Bay 

Park, entering Westchester County along the Long Island Sound.

In Mamaroneck, Westchester County, Alternative 3 veers north of the existing NEC near Mamaroneck 

Avenue and continues north primarily in tunnel or aerial structure through Scarsdale and White 

Plains, where the new White Plains East station is proposed. Alternative 3 continues northwest,

adjacent to Westchester County Airport in Harrison, crossing into Connecticut for a short distance 

before reentering Westchester County and continuing north through northern Westchester County 

and southern Putnam County parallel to I-684 in tunnel, on embankment or aerial structure.

Alternative 3 crosses the Connecticut state line again north of I-84.

Connecticut (via Central Connecticut)

Alternative 3 is in tunnel parallel to I-84, through northern Fairfield County to north of Danbury. The 

alternative crosses the Housatonic River via aerial structure into New Haven County and continues 

east in tunnel south of Waterbury. Alternative 3 crosses into Hartford County near I-691 and I-84 and 

continues northeast in tunnel to New Britain in the same general direction as I-84. In New Britain, 

Alternative 3 shifts north toward Hartford, entering downtown Hartford in tunnel.

New York City (via Long Island)

Alternative 3 continues east in six tracks under the East River (four existing East River tunnels and 

two new tracks in one or two tunnels under the East River), and continues in tunnel south of the 

existing NEC through Woodside Queens. At Woodside, the Representative Route splits into two; one 

segment rising to connect with the Hell Gate Viaduct in Astoria Queens. The other segment continues 

as Alternative 3, diverging south in one or two tunnels and continues south and east through Queens 

County, near the LIRR Montauk Branch. Alternative 3 continues on aerial structure or embankment 

east from I-678 to Floral Park in Nassau County, east of the Cross Island Parkway. The alternative 

shifts in tunnel south adjacent to the LIRR Hempstead Branch, continuing east in trench through 

Garden City. Alternative 3 continues in trench east parallel to Stewart Avenue, through Eisenhower 

Park and the village of Levittown. The alternative continues in trench east, reconnecting with the LIRR

Main Line in Farmingdale, and continues east, crossing in the Suffolk County, adjacent to the Main 

Line through Wyandanch, Brentwood, and Ronkonkoma. Alternative 3 shifts north near Long Island 

MacArthur Airport, crossing I-495 in tunnel and continuing typically on embankment or aerial 

structure north to Stony Brook. Alternative 3 transitions to trench and then into tunnel near Port 

Jefferson where the alternative continues across the Long Island Sound in tunnel, emerging in New 

Haven County, Connecticut.

Connecticut (via Long Island)

At New Haven Rail Station, Alternative 3 travels north, inland between New Haven and Hartford, CT,

on new infrastructure. Alternative 3 continues north at-grade or embankment, crossing I-91 and the 

Quinnipiac River through North Haven. Alternative 3 continues north, at-grade or on embankment, 
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-75

parallel to I-91 through Wallingford and Meriden entering Hartford County near U.S. Route 5. The 

alternative continues north through New Britain and Newington. In New Britain, Alternative 3 shifts 

east toward the city of Hartford, entering downtown Hartford in tunnel.

4.7.4.3 Hartford to Boston

Connecticut (via Providence)

Alternative 3 continues east in tunnel in downtown Hartford under the Connecticut River to East 

Hartford. The alternative continues east into Tolland County, shifting northeast, usually in tunnel or 

on embankment, continuing south of Storrs in to Windham County, and crossing the Rhode Island 

state line in central Providence County.

Rhode Island (via Providence)

New, two-track infrastructure continues east from Windham County, CT, through rural western 

Providence County, usually on embankment. The infrastructure continues in tunnel beginning east of 

I-295, under the city of Providence, intersecting with the existing NEC at Providence Rail Station.

Alternative 3 continues in tunnel under the Seekonk River into East Providence and comes to grade 

in Rumford, east of the Ten Mile River, where the infrastructure continues at-grade north before 

entering Bristol County, MA. (Figure 4-20)

Massachusetts (via Providence)

Alternative 3 continues north through Bristol County, usually at-grade, shifting adjacent to the 

existing NEC south of Attleboro Rail Station. Alternative 3 continues parallel to the existing NEC, 

usually at-grade or on embankment, deviating near Forest Hills, before it reaches its eastern terminus 

in Boston near Fort Point Channel. 

Connecticut (via Worcester)

Alternative 3 via Worcester from downtown Hartford is in trench through East Hartford, east of the 

Connecticut River. The alternative diverges north near Long Hill Road, continuing in a northwest 

direction parallel to I-84 through Tolland and Windham Counties entering Massachusetts in 

Worcester County.

Massachusetts (via Worcester)

Alternative 3 continues north, parallel to I-84, before veering east near I-90 in Sturbridge. The 

alternative continues east, parallel to I-90 (Figure 4-21), consisting of a mix of construction types 

through Charlton and Oxford, keeping north of I-90 and west of I-290.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-76 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure 4-20: Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments through Providence)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed February 2015
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-77

Figure 4-21: Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments though Boston)

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed February 2015

Refer to Appendix A, Mapping Atlas (Part 2) for a depiction of the Representative Route, by 

construction type, for each Action Alternatives.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-78 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4.8 COST

The FRA estimated capital and O&M costs for the No Action and Action Alternatives to better 

understand the associated costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining each Action Alternative 

relative to the amount of travel benefits each would provide. Section 4.3 provides the No Action 

Alternative capital cost estimating methodology and capital cost estimate. Cost estimates are highlevel, order-of-magnitude estimates, based on a set of reasonable assumptions related to railroad 

infrastructure, equipment, service plans, and fare policies. The FRA will use the capital and O&M cost 

estimates to evaluate the No Action and Action Alternatives (see Chapter 9, Evaluation of 

Alternatives). 

4.8.1 Capital Costs

The FRA based the capital cost estimates for the Action Alternatives on infrastructure element

quantities. Key elements include stations, shops, and lengths of infrastructure by construction type 

(e.g., tunnel, aerial, embankment), and rail systems. The FRA based vehicle costs on fleet 

requirements for the representative service plans and assumed vehicle performance specifications 

(e.g., speed, seating capacity and configuration, amenities). Rolling stock requirements were 

estimated for Intercity rail service only. Capital cost estimates include storage and maintenance 

facilities used for Intercity rail operations. Capital costs for these yards are non-site specific, and do 

not include acquisition costs for yard right-of-way. 

Capital cost estimates are summarized for infrastructure, rolling stock and No Action Alternative 

projects or programs, as described in Section 4.3. Action Alternative costs include only No Action 

Alternative Categories 1 and 2 (defined in Section 4.3). No Action Alternative Category 3 costs are 

eliminated in the Action Alternatives because they include the capital cost to replace or rehabilitate 

obsolete assets. (Appendix B, Capital Costs Technical Memorandum, details the methodology used to 

estimate capital costs.)

Table 4-13 presents the estimated costs of the Action Alternatives. Capital costs for Alternatives 1 

and 2 represent a range based on low to high allocated contingency rates33. An average capital cost 

estimate for the four Alternative 3 route options is presented as a range of lowest to highest values 

across all options. Table 4-14 presents a breakdown of capital costs for the individual Alternative 3 

route options. 

 

33 The low allocated contingency rate is based on typical historical project values. The high allocated contingency is 

50 percent greater than the low allocated contingency rates to reflect unknown risk
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-79

Table 4-13: Capital Costs – Action Alternatives ($2014 billions)

Category Alternative 1 (range) Alternative 2 (range) Alternative 3 (range)

Infrastructure $52–54 $116–$121 $252–$293

Vehicles $3 $5 $6

Subtotal $54–$57 $122–$127 $257–$299

No Action Alternative Projects $9 $9 $9

Total $64–$66 $131–$136 $267–$308

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Notes: Infrastructure costs include professional services; costs do not include property acquisition costs for yards or stations.

Table 4-14: Capital Costs – Alternative 3 Route Options ($2014 billions) (end-to-end costs)

Category

Central 

Connecticut/

via Providence

Long Island/

via Providence

Long Island/

via Worcester 

Central 

Connecticut/

via Worcester

Infrastructure $267–$279 $252–$262 $265–$276 $281–$293

Vehicles $6 $6 $6 $6

Subtotal $273–$285 $257–$268 $271–$281 $286–$299

No Action Alternative Projects $9 $9 $9 $9

Total $283–$294 $267–$277 $280–$291 $296–$308

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Notes: Infrastructure costs include professional services; costs do not include property acquisition costs for yards or stations.

4.8.2 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The FRA estimated NEC FUTURE O&M costs based on existing Intercity and Regional railroad 

operating costs for typical cost categories such as labor (e.g., train and maintenance crews), power 

and fuel, and management and administrative costs. The FRA developed the O&M cost estimates for 

the Action Alternatives through an iterative process, balancing operating costs with ridership and 

revenues. This process included cycles of review and validation and determining how the changes in 

service and operations, resulting from an Action Alternative, would require adjustments to estimated

future costs since some services would be different than what is operated today. For Intercity 

services, the FRA assessed service plans to determine if operating revenues were likely to exceed 

operating costs. Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 present the O&M cost estimates for Intercity services only.

(Appendix B, Operations & Maintenance Cost Technical Memorandum, details the O&M cost 

methodology.)

Table 4-15: Annual Intercity O&M Costs and Revenues by Alternative ($2014 millions)

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3 

(average)

Revenue $1,895 $2,065 $2,525 $2,740 

Cost $920 $1,220 $1,850 $2,165 

Operating Profit (Loss) $970 $840 $680 $570 

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
4. Alternatives Considered

Page | 4-80 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 4-16: Annual Intercity O&M Costs and Revenues – Alternative 3 ($2014 millions)

Central 

Connecticut/

via Providence

Long Island/

via Providence

Long Island/

via Worcester

Central 

Connecticut/

via Worcester

Revenue $2,685 $2,765 $2,805 $2,695 

Cost $2,245 $2,175 $2,150 $2,105 

Operating Profit (Loss) $445 $590 $660 $590 

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The No Action Alternative did not undergo this iterative balancing process due to the expectation 

that its service plan will continue current service levels and fares on the NEC as a baseline. Fares per 

passenger are therefore higher in the No Action Alternative than in each of the Action Alternatives. 

The significant expansion in total intercity seats offered in the Action Alternatives allows an intercity 

operator to generate substantial revenue through higher passenger volumes at lower per-passenger 

costs. The No Action Alternative may also incur additional operating costs due to the higher risk of 

unplanned service disruptions resulting from infrastructure that is not in a state of good repair, or 

due to increased costs caused by operating in a highly constrained environment with many 

chokepoints that limit operational flexibility and the ability to recover from service issues.

4.9 PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 

The FRA analyzes the No Action and Action Alternatives presented in this chapter in subsequent 

chapters of this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

The FRA defined each Action Alternative as an end-to-end routing with associated service plans, 

infrastructure requirements, and costs, at a level of detail consistent with the programmatic nature 

of the decisions to be made through this Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

While the FRA analyzed and considered the Action Alternatives in the context of corridor-wide 

benefits and consequences, it also evaluated the Action Alternatives in the context of varying regional 

and/or local needs, perspectives, and estimated demand for services. This layered approach builds in 

flexibility to customize the elements of a preferred investment program from across the full range of 

Action Alternative elements considered. Depending on the qualities or requirements of each subject 

area, analyses are organized around the following perspectives: 

4 As a corridor-wide investment program

4 As a geographic grouping within the corridor (South, Central, North)

4 Within an individual state or Washington, D.C. 

4 Within or between metropolitan areas 

4 Between existing and new stations
4. Alternatives Considered

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 4-81

Following from this layered structure, the analyses and findings presented in Chapters 5 through 9 of 

the Tier 1 Draft EIS are organized around one or more of these five perspectives, depending on the 

resource-specific requirements.

4 Chapter 5, Transportation Effects, analyzes the effects the No Action Alternative and Action 

Alternatives have on the multimodal transportation network. The FRA presents changes in travel 

mode, volume, and accessibility around station areas (among other data) within metropolitan 

areas (e.g., trips within the Greater Philadelphia Area) and between metropolitan areas (e.g.,

vehicle-miles traveled reduction between Washington, D.C., and New York City). The analysis 

allows effects to be compared at local and regional levels.

4 Chapter 6, Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects, provides an analysis of the effects 

the No Action Alternative and Action Alternatives have within the Study Area, as they relate to 

direct and indirect economic growth. The FRA presents employment data, induced growth, and 

travel cost savings (among other data) from multiple geographic perspectives. The FRA presents 

employment effects on capital spending corridor-wide. Induced growth at select stations is 

presented by region: South, Central, and North. The FRA presents the effects of the No Action 

Alternative and Action Alternatives on travel cost savings by metropolitan area.

4 Chapter 7, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies, 

presents potential benefits and consequences of the Action Alternatives on built and natural 

resources. The FRA organizes the presentation of the analysis by state, or resource-specific 

geographies where those are more relevant (e.g., coastal zones).

4 Chapter 8, Construction Effects, analyzes the potential construction activities associated with the 

Action Alternatives. Construction effects described in this Tier 1 Draft EIS are qualitative, 

representative of each Action Alternative, and are presented corridor-wide.

4 Chapter 9 synthesizes the above analyses and evaluates how well the No Action Alternative and 

Action Alternatives address the Purpose and Need for NEC FUTURE.

The FRA intends to select a Preferred Alternative based on the analysis of benefits and consequences 

for the No Action and Action Alternatives presented in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative

will be one that reflects stakeholder and public input, but that allows elements of all Action 

Alternatives to be considered to reflect regional and local priorities. This approach to analysis, 

evaluation, and presentation of findings allows the FRA to refine the Preferred Alternative using the 

full range of components for the Action Alternatives considered in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. It is possible 

that the Preferred Alternative may involve a re-packaging of elements of the Action Alternatives to 

best meet the service needs of specific markets.

Although the Preferred Alternative will articulate a long-term vision for the role of rail on the NEC, 

the timing for incrementally implementing infrastructure and service in particular markets could vary,

depending on how growth is expected to occur. Improvements required to meet rail demand in 

specific NEC markets would be added only as required, all within the framework of a consistent, 

comprehensive, long-term vision for a system-wide integrated passenger rail network.