TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

S.Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | S-i

Table of Contents

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................S-1

S.1 TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............................................................................S-1

S.2 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER TRANSPORTATION MODES AND FREIGHT RAIL SERVICE ....................................S-3

S.3 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................S-3

S.4 NEED FOR NEC FUTURE .................................................................................................................S-4

S.5 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED (CHAPTER 3) ................................................................................S-5

S.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (CHAPTER 4)............................................................................................S-6

S.6.1 Service Types .....................................................................................................................................S-11

S.6.2 Technology.........................................................................................................................................S-12

S.7 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................S-12

S.7.1 Transportation Effects (Chapter 5) ....................................................................................................S-12

S.7.2 Economic Effects (Chapter 6).............................................................................................................S-14

Economic Development Response .......................................................................................................................... S-14

Travel Market Effects............................................................................................................................................... S-15

Construction and Rail Sector Employment Effects.................................................................................................. S-15

Indirect Effects......................................................................................................................................................... S-16

S.7.3 Environmental Consequences (Chapter 7) ........................................................................................S-16

S.7.3.1 Approach to Analyzing Environmental Consequences............................................................................. S-16

S.7.3.2 Key Resource Areas.................................................................................................................................. S-18

S.7.3.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................... S-19

S.7.3.4 Action Alternatives................................................................................................................................... S-19

S.7.4 Construction Effects (Chapter 8)........................................................................................................S-23

S.7.5 Costs...................................................................................................................................................S-23

S.7.6 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Findings (Chapter 9) ........................................................S-25

S.7.7 Phasing and Implementation (Chapter 10)........................................................................................S-25

S.8 NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................................................S-32
Summary

Page | S-ii Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figures

FIGURE S-1: STUDY AREA MAP ...................................................................................................................S-2

FIGURE S-2: ALTERNATIVE 1 (CHOKEPOINT, NEW TRACK, AND NEW SEGMENT LOCATIONS)..................................S-8

FIGURE S-3: ALTERNATIVE 2 (CHOKEPOINT, NEW TRACK, AND NEW SEGMENT LOCATIONS)..................................S-9

FIGURE S-4: ALTERNATIVE 3 (CHOKEPOINT, NEW TRACK, AND NEW SEGMENT LOCATIONS)................................S-10

FIGURE S-5: PERCENTAGE OF ROUTE MILES BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE – WASHINGTON, D.C., TO BOSTON, MA .....S-24

Tables

TABLE S-1: NUMBER OF ANNUAL ONE-WAY TRIPS (1,000S) BY SERVICE TYPE FOR THE NO ACTION AND 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES (2040)................................................................................................S-13

TABLE S-2: NUMBER OF ANNUAL ONE-WAY TRIPS (1,000S) BY SERVICE TYPE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE 3

ROUTE OPTIONS (2040).........................................................................................................S-13

TABLE S-3: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND LIMITS OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................S-16

TABLE S-4: SUMMARY OF KEY RESOURCE FINDINGS BY ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................S-20

TABLE S-5: CAPITAL COSTS – ACTION ALTERNATIVES ($2014 BILLIONS).........................................................S-25

TABLE S-6: CAPITAL COSTS – ALTERNATIVE 3 ROUTE OPTIONS ($2014 BILLIONS) (END-TO-END COSTS) .............S-25

TABLE S-7: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES – CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION FACTORS.................................S-27
Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | S-1

Summary

NEC FUTURE is a comprehensive planning effort to define, evaluate, and prioritize future investments 

in the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from Washington, D.C., to Boston. The NEC is the rail transportation 

spine of the Northeast and a key component of the region’s transportation system. The NEC supports 

the operation of eight Regional rail authorities and Amtrak—the Intercity rail service provider—as 

well as four freight railroads.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) launched 

NEC FUTURE in 2012 to evaluate improvements to 

address passenger rail transportation needs within the 

Study Area shown in Figure S-1. NEC FUTURE will result 

in a Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan (PRCIP) for 

the NEC that will establish a framework for future 

investment in the corridor through 2040 and beyond. 

The PRCIP comprises a Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement (Tier 1 EIS) and a Service Development Plan 

(SDP). Together, these documents will provide a longterm vision for the role of passenger rail on the NEC in 

the regional transportation system and a phased 

investment plan to accomplish that vision. 

S.1 TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

This document is the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) for the NEC FUTURE 

program. This Tier 1 Draft EIS was prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(42 USC §4332 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) (NEPA), and other 

applicable laws and regulations. It presents the analysis completed by the FRA to assess the potential 

effects of NEC FUTURE rail investment alternatives on the economy, transportation system, and the 

human and natural environment within the Study Area. It provides information to inform the public 

and stakeholders about the findings of the analysis, and to help inform the FRA’s decision on a 

Preferred Alternative for NEC FUTURE. Concurrent with the Tier 1 Draft EIS, the FRA is conducting a 

review of potential effects on historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. (Appendix G presents a Draft Programmatic Agreement under Section 106.) 

The term “Tier 1” in the title of this document refers to a “tiered” approach to environmental review. 

NEPA provides the flexibility to assess projects in a staged approach known as “tiering,” which 

addresses broad programs and issues in an initial (Tier 1) analysis, and analyzes site-specific, projectlevel (Tier 2) proposals and impacts in subsequent studies. The FRA determined that a Tier 1 EIS was 

the appropriate level of NEPA documentation for NEC FUTURE. 

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. 
Summary

Page | S-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure S-1: Study Area Map

Source: NEC FUTURE, 2015 
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-3

Both a Tier 1 EIS and project-level (or Tier 2) EIS follow the same process. The major difference is the 

level of detail and analysis that are presented. For a Tier 1 EIS, since the federal action is broad or 

programmatic in nature, the information required by decision-makers includes “big picture” 

constraints and opportunities. In this case, the proposed federal action being evaluated in this Tier 1 

Draft EIS is the adoption of an investment program to improve passengerrail service within the Study 

Area. The Action Alternatives that the FRA examined in this Tier 1 Draft EIS represent various levels 

of investment in passenger rail.

If the FRA adopts an investment program, the projects would be implemented incrementally over the 

next few decades; the FRA will prepare a phasing and implementation plan in the SDP to be published 

after the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision. An example of a Tier 2 project that might take place 

would be adding a new bridge at an existing river crossing. A Tier 1 EIS identifies the train service a 

bridge will need to carry, but the specifics of the operations, bridge design, and localized impacts of 

that bridge are not identified. A subsequent Tier 2 project and NEPA process would focus on the 

specific design and construction of the bridge crossing and local impacts of that structure. 

S.2 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER TRANSPORTATION MODES AND FREIGHT RAIL SERVICE

While NEC FUTURE focuses on passenger rail, it is important to understand the connectivity and 

interface of rail with other modes in the Northeast transportation network. Travelers within the NEC

have multiple transportation options to move through and along it, including air, rail, automobiles,

and buses. To better understand the role of rail within this transportation network, the FRA began by 

examining the role that rail service plays today in the Northeast transportation network and 

considering what role it could play in the future. These questions are fundamental to how the FRA 

has developed the rail alternatives being evaluated in this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

While NEC FUTURE is focused on passenger rail services, the investment program will be defined in a 

way that preserves current and planned service levels for freight railroad operations. Opportunities 

are also being considered to accommodate improvement of freight rail service within the 

NEC FUTURE Study Area. 

S.3 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Decisions about the future of the NEC affect a wide range of stakeholders, from today’s rail 

passengers as well as the agencies and operators currently providing services on the NEC, to the

residents, travelers, businesses, and communities potentially affected by the outcomes of 

NEC FUTURE. The FRA has conducted an extensive agency and public involvement process to engage 

these stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process for NEC FUTURE. This effort began 

with an agency and public scoping process in 2012 that elicited over 2,000 comments from 800 

participants. These comments helped shape the alternatives that have been analyzed and the 

technical analyses conducted for this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Rail transportation projects are typically sponsored by a locality, state, or railroad. However, the NEC 

covers a 457-mile corridor through eight states and Washington, D.C., and is used by multiple 

railroads that share the NEC’s limited infrastructure. The FRA has sponsored NEC FUTURE to provide 
Summary

Page | S-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

a uniform look at the NEC as a whole in order to ensure an integrated and prioritized approach to 

investments in the NEC that benefits not only all users and operators of the NEC, but that also

promotes economic activity and environmental sustainability of the entire Northeast region of the 

Unites States. The FRA is serving as the lead federal agency for the Tier 1 EIS, working in coordination 

with other federal and state agencies and stakeholders, including the Federal Transit Administration,

which is a Cooperating Agency to the NEPA process, the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and 

Advisory Commission (NEC Commission), and the metropolitan planning organizations in the corridor.

The FRA has conducted a variety of public involvement activities, including 18 public meetings, six 

regional workshops, multiple webinars, direct outreach at 18 rail stations, presentations to interested 

organizations, and outreach to organizations and local officials representing Environmental Justice 

populations. Communication tools were developed to support the public outreach and 

environmental review process, including a comprehensive website, contact database, newsletters,

fact sheets, and media outreach, including press advisories and media briefings. The information 

gained through agency and public engagement was used by the FRA team to better understand 

stakeholder concerns and to integrate information and ideas provided by the public and stakeholders 

into the work process.

S.4 NEED FOR NEC FUTURE

Passenger rail services that operate along the NEC rail network are a critical component of the 

transportation system in the Study Area. By 2040, continued population and employment growth in 

the Study Area is expected to create increasing demand for travel options across the passenger 

transportation system—rail, air, auto, transit, and intercity bus. Yet the aging infrastructure and 

capacity limitations of the NEC already result in congestion and delays for daily commuters and for 

regional1 and interregional2 travelers. Forecast growth in population and employment in the Study 

Area will put increasing pressures on this already constrained NEC rail network. 

The 457-mile NEC and its connecting rail corridors3 form the most heavily utilized rail network in the 

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

passengers every day4 on 2,200 trains.5 Freight operators share the NEC with passenger railroads and 

 

1 Interregional refers to the interregional travel market, and includes trips that start and end in different 

metropolitan areas (see Chapter 13, Glossary). 2 Regional refers to the regional travel market, and includes trips that start and end within the same metropolitan 

area (see Chapter 13, Glossary). 3 Connecting corridors are those rail corridors that connect directly to a station on the NEC. These include (1) 

corridor service south of Washington Union Station to markets in Virginia and North Carolina including Lynchburg, 

Richmond, Newport News, Norfolk, and Charlotte; (2) Keystone (connects Philadelphia 30th Street Station to 

Harrisburg Station); (3) Empire (connects Penn Station New York to Niagara Falls Station); and (4) New HavenHartford-Springfield (connects New Haven Union Station to Springfield Union Station) as described in Chapter 13: 

Glossary.

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

Corridor Region Transportation System. State of the Northeast Corridor Region Transportation System. 5 Amtrak. (2014). NEC Maps & Data: Growing Demand for Rail Services in the Northeast. Retrieved January 2015, 

from Amtrak, The Northeast Corridor: http://nec.amtrak.com/content/growing-demand-rail-services-northeast
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-5

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

6 This 

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

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

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

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

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

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

respond to unanticipated natural disasters or other disruptive events.

Growth in population and employment in the region, combined with changes in travel preference,

will increasingly require a level of service and connectivity that cannot be supported by the existing 

NEC infrastructure. Challenges to passenger rail travelers today include poorly coordinated transfers 

and unattractive service frequencies, which make other travel choices more appealing. A well-defined 

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

essential to meet the needs of the NEC’s passenger and freight markets in the coming decades. A rail 

transportation system that better connects residents and visitors with established and growing 

business centers in the Study Area is critical to the economic health of the region.

S.5 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED (CHAPTER 3)

The following is the statement of Purpose and Need adopted for the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 EIS:

The purpose of the NEC FUTURE program is to upgrade aging infrastructure and to improve the 

reliability, capacity, connectivity, performance, and resiliency of future passenger rail service on the 

NEC for both Intercity and Regional trips, while promoting environmental sustainability and 

continued economic growth. 

Overall needs addressed by NEC FUTURE include aging infrastructure, insufficient capacity, gaps in 

connectivity, compromised performance, and lack of resiliency. These needs are essential to support 

the reliability of the passenger rail system. In addition, there is a need to promote environmental 

sustainability and economic growth. These needs are summarized below:

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

obsolete infrastructure that has resulted from insufficient investment to maintain a state of good 

repair. 7 Aging infrastructure also increases the cost and complexity of continuing railroad 

operations. Achieving and maintaining a state of good repair is needed to improve service quality.

4 Insufficient Capacity: Severe capacity constraints at critical infrastructure chokepoints limit 

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

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

 

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

Corridor Region Transportation System. State of the Northeast Corridor Region Transportation System. 7 State of good repair is a condition in which assets are fit for the purpose for which they were intended. American 

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

Good Repair. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association.
Summary

Page | S-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

further exacerbated by individual railroad operating practices, 8 which are driven by their 

individual policies or customer needs.

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

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

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

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

infrastructure but in many cases operate different equipment with different performance 

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

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

the NEC or via connecting corridors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system. 

In addressing the overall needs of aging infrastructure, insufficient capacity, gaps in connectivity, 

compromised performance, and lack of resiliency, the FRA is committed to the NEC FUTURE Action 

Alternatives promoting environmental sustainability and continued economic growth:

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

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

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

rail, is needed to support desired improvements in air quality and growth patterns.

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

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

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

S.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (CHAPTER 4)

In developing the alternatives for evaluation in this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the FRA considered a broad 

spectrum of future possibilities to meet the Purpose and Need. The unique geographic, technical, and 

institutional complexity of NEC FUTURE led the FRA to an innovative approach to developing and 

evaluating alternatives, focused on analysis of markets and services. This process is described in 

greater detail in various alternatives documents, including the Initial Alternatives Report, Preliminary 

 

8 Operating practices include the specification of service levels, stopping patterns, dwell times, and equipment 

types.
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-7

Alternatives Report, Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Report, and Tier 1 EIS Alternatives Report

(see Appendix B). 

The FRA began the evaluation of alternatives with an initial list of 98 rail market and service options, 

developed through extensive outreach with the NEC FUTURE stakeholders, the Northeast Corridor 

Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (NEC Commission), and the general public. These 

Initial Alternatives were then organized into 15 Preliminary Alternatives representative of the broad 

spectrum of approaches that could be used to serve existing and new markets in the region. (See 

Appendix B, Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Report, for additional information regarding the 

Preliminary Alternatives and their evaluation.) The FRA considered whether and how the Preliminary 

Alternative met the Purpose and Need, and analyzed their benefits in terms of ridership, travel time, 

service quality, and performance (for those that included second-spine route options). Based on this 

analysis, the FRA repackaged the Preliminary Alternatives to form the alternatives analyzed in this

Tier 1 Draft EIS.

The FRA is considering three Action Alternatives that represent unique visions for the role of rail in 

the transportation system of the Northeast, and enable a broad analysis of benefits and impacts in 

the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The FRA compared the Action Alternatives to a No Action Alternative using

ridership and service planning characteristics estimated with models customized for this effort. The 

transportation effects, economic effects, and environmental assessment of the Action Alternatives 

are presented in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

The No Action Alternative represents an NEC in 2040 that would operate at today’s service levels, 

which are defined as the number of trains per hour by operator9 and type of service. The No Action 

Alternative is a normalized baseline used to understand the consequences of continuing to invest in 

and operate the NEC as it is today, particularly in comparison with Action Alternatives. The No Action 

Alternative does not allow for increased peak-hour rail service but does allow for some modest 

increases in off-peak service, where there may be some existing unused capacity. The No Action 

Alternative does not increase or significantly change capacity, speeds, or the markets served. Instead,

it makes annual investments in programmed and funded major projects and in maintaining existing 

infrastructure sufficient to operate today’s level of rail service, but falls short of achieving a corridorwide state of good repair. 

Alternative 1 maintains the role of rail as it is today, keeping pace with the level of rail service 

required to support growth in population and employment. Future service plans developed by the 

NEC service operators were also examined to assess projected increases in travel demand that were 

assumed by the service operators. To keep pace with the demand generated by the region’s growing 

population and employment, Alternative 1 includes new rail services and commensurate investment 

in the NEC to expand capacity, add tracks, and relieve key chokepoints, particularly through northern

New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Figure S-2 shows the principal infrastructure investments 

included in Alternative 1.

 

9 Current operators on the NEC include Intercity services operated by Amtrak and Regional rail services operated 

by eight individual commuter railroads within the Study Area. 
Summary

Page | S-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure S-2: Alternative 1 (Chokepoint, New Track, and New Segment Locations)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-9

Alternative 2 grows the role of rail, expanding rail service and passenger use at a faster pace than the 

growth in regional population and employment. The existing NEC generally expands to four tracks, 

with six tracks through portions of New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut. South of New Haven, 

CT, service and infrastructure improvements are focused generally within the existing NEC. However, 

as shown in Figure S-3, north of New Haven, Alternative 2 adds a new supplemental, two-track route 

between New Haven and Hartford, CT, and Providence, RI, to increase resiliency, serve new markets, 

reduce trip times, and address capacity constraints.

Figure S-3: Alternative 2 (Chokepoint, New Track, and New Segment Locations)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
Summary

Page | S-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 3 transforms the role of rail, positioning it as a dominant mode for Intercity travelers and 

commuters across the NEC. Service and infrastructure improvements include upgrades on the 

existing NEC and the addition of a two-track second spine within the Study Area. This new spine 

supports high-performance rail services between major markets and provides additional capacity for 

anticipated growth (Figure S-4). 

Figure S-4: Alternative 3 (Chokepoint, New Track, and New Segment Locations)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-11

In Alternative 3, four route options are under consideration for the northern portion of the second 

spine, as shown in Figure S-4. These options include routings via Central Connecticut/Providence, 

Long Island/Providence, Long Island/Worcester, and Central Connecticut/ Worcester. In addition to 

comparing each Action Alternative against the No Action Alternative, the evaluation of alternatives 

in the Tier 1 Draft EIS includes comparisons of these route options as part of Alternative 3.

S.6.1 Service Types

The No Action and Action Alternatives incorporate assumptions about the mix of service types to be 

provided. For NEC FUTURE, the FRA categorized passenger rail service into two types: Intercity and 

Regional rail. 

Intercity is passenger rail service between cities or metropolitan areas, operating at speeds and 

distances greater than that of Regional rail. Intercity serves large, mid-size, and selected smaller 

markets, with station stops typically every 10 to 25 miles. Intercity is further categorized into two 

service sub-types: 

4 Intercity-Express is premium Intercity service operating on the NEC, making limited stops and 

serving only 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 

trainsets.

10

4 Intercity-Corridor is Intercity service operating both on the NEC and on connecting corridors that 

reach markets beyond the NEC. This service provides connectivity and direct one-seat rides to 

large and mid-size markets on the NEC. 

Regional rail is service within a single metropolitan area to local markets with station stops typically 

every 2 to 10 miles. Regional rail trains provide local and commuter-focused service characterized by 

relatively low fares and a high percentage of regular travelers.

Chapter 4, Alternatives Considered, provides additional detailed information about the mix of service

types included in each Action Alternative, as well as stations served and assumptions about the level 

of service by station. A hierarchy of station types was defined for this effort, including Major Hub, 

Hub, and Local stations. Major Hubs serve the largest markets in the Study Area and have a full 

complement of rail service types; Hub stations offer some Intercity service, and Local stations only 

offer Regional rail service. Each Action Alternative includes new stations, station upgrades (e.g., Local 

to Hub, Local to Major Hub, and Hub to Major Hub), and physical improvements to stations.

While each Action Alternative has a distinct vision for the NEC, they all include common elements

that address the following to varying degrees:

4 Maintain and improve service on the existing NEC

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

existing NEC and eliminating the backlog of infrastructure requiring replacement

 

10 New state-of-the-art train equipment consisting of electric multiple units cars with high rates of acceleration and 

deceleration and capable of operating at speeds of 150 mph or greater.
Summary

Page | S-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

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 efficiencies

S.6.2 Technology

As documented in Chapter 11, Agency and Public Involvement, in defining a long-term vision for the 

role of passenger rail on the NEC, the FRA actively sought stakeholder and public input via an early 

and proactive outreach process. The overwhelming message received is that the users of the NEC are 

seeking reliable, integrated, and expanded train service to meet both Intercity and Regional rail travel 

needs. As such, the FRA focused on Action Alternatives that meet that Purpose and Need by 

improving steel-wheel passenger train technology that is used today by all the railroads sharing the 

NEC, including both Intercity and Regional rail operations, as well as freight service.

Given the accelerating pace of change in consumer technology, business practices and transportation 

patterns, application of future emerging and new technologies may help to support rail service on 

the NEC and meet other transportation needs across the region. These might include new information 

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

safety enhancements. An advanced guideway system, such as magnetic levitation technology, could 

possibly be used to develop a second spine or portions thereof as envisioned in Alternative 3. Such 

technologies could be studied separately, and are not precluded as future transformative 

investments 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.

S.7 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The FRA has performed an extensive analysis of each Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative 

as a basis for an alternatives evaluation. As described in separate chapters of this Tier 1 Draft EIS, 

these analyses consider transportation effects, economic effects, environmental consequences, and 

construction effects, as well as capital and operations and maintenance costs. A variety of indicators 

and metrics are presented for each topic and used to compare each Action Alternative with the No 

Action Alternative. A cross-cutting evaluation links these findings to the needs defined in the Purpose 

and Need statement.

This summary briefly describes each of the analyses performed and highlights several key findings. 

However, the reader is referred to the appropriate chapters within this Tier 1 Draft EIS for additional

context, details, and conclusions. 

S.7.1 Transportation Effects (Chapter 5)

The No Action and Action Alternatives would result in both positive and negative effects to the 

multimodal transportation network within the Study Area. Chapter 5, Transportation Effects, 
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-13

describes the transportation effects of the Action Alternatives. A summary of these findings is 

presented below.

Each of the Action Alternatives creates new connections and travel options within the Study Area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 provide service to new off-corridor markets. By providing more travel options, 

the Action Alternatives generate significantly greater Intercity and Regional rail ridership compared 

to the No Action Alternative: the greater the improvement in frequency of service, types of services, 

travel times, and the number of metropolitan areas connected to the rail network, the higher the 

projected ridership. 

The Action Alternatives also improve connectivity at Intercity stations by increasing the daily duration

of rail service at many stations, making rail service available for longer periods of the day and hence 

more convenient to travelers. Alternatives 2 and 3 include service frequencies and daily durations of 

service that are more robust than the No Action Alternative, which expand mobility options for 

travelers and improve the attractiveness of passenger rail as a travel choice. The Action Alternatives 

result in more convenient passenger rail with increased service frequency at many Regional rail and 

Intercity stations. The greatest change in trip frequencies between stations is possible with the 

capacity and travel-time improvements included in Alternative 3.

As the frequency of service, types of services, and travel times improve with the Action Alternatives, 

passenger rail ridership increases. Table S-1 shows the number of trips for all passenger rail service 

types predicted for the No Action and Action Alternatives, and Table S-2: highlights the anticipated 

passenger rail trips by Alternative 3.

Table S-1: Number of Annual One-Way Trips (1,000s) by Service Type for the No Action 

and Action Alternatives (2040)

Mode

No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 

1

Change 

vs. No 

Action 

(%)

Alternative 

2

Change 

vs. No 

Action (%)

Alternative 

3 (average)

Change 

vs. No 

Action (%)

Intercity 19,300 33,700 75% 37,100 92% 39,000 102%

Regional 

rail 419,800 474,500 13% 495,400 18% 545,500 30%

Source: NEC FUTURE Travel Demand Model, April 2015

Table S-2: Number of Annual One-Way Trips (1,000s) by Service Type for the Alternative 3 

Route Options (2040) 

Service Type

via Central CT/

Providence 

(3.1)

via Long Island/

Providence 

(3.2) 

via Long Island/

Worcester 

(3.3) 

via Central CT/

Worcester 

(3.4) 

Intercity 38,900 38,700 39,800 38,600

Regional rail 545,500 545,500 545,500 545,500

TOTAL 584,500 584,200 585,300 584,100

Source: NEC FUTURE Travel Demand Model, April 2015
Summary

Page | S-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

In the No Action Alternative, approximately 439 million passenger rail trips are predicted, while in 

Alternative 3, there are 579–580 million passenger rail trips predicted, an increase of 32 percent 

compared to the No Action Alternative. The greatest growth is predicted for Regional rail tripmaking, 

which is the dominant passenger rail travel type, even within the No Action Alternative. Regional rail 

ridership shows steady gains in all Action Alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative, as 

capacity grows to support more robust peak-hour and off-peak service.

S.7.2 Economic Effects (Chapter 6)

The construction and operation of the rail improvements and services in the No Action and Action 

Alternatives would result in changes to economic activity throughout the Study Area. Some changes 

would be immediate, while others would take place over a long period of time. These economic 

effects include Economic Development Response, Travel Market Effects, Construction and Rail Sector 

Employment Effects, and Indirect Effects associated with potential economic growth, as summarized 

below.

Economic Development Response

The Action Alternatives accommodate greater numbers of rail travelers and allow these travelers to 

make their trips faster and to a greater variety of destinations within and between the urban 

economies that line the corridor. The expansion of regional travel choices would allow households to 

access a greater range of employment and leisure options via rail from their home location—thereby 

improving quality of life. Businesses gain access to a larger, more diverse, and specialized pool of 

labor—thereby increasing productivity. The Action Alternatives would also accommodate a greater 

flow of people between major commercial centers and metropolitan areas. 

4 The largest potential economic impact of the Action Alternatives would be a greater flow of 

people within the major metropolitan economies through the increased volume of Regional rail 

relative to the No Action Alternative. 

4 The No Action Alternative is capacity constrained and insufficient for future demand. Potential 

rail travelers would be forced to take their second-best choice, imposing a cost on the economy. 

Alternative 1 offers an improvement over the No Action Alternative that would lessen this 

economic penalty. Alternatives 2 and 3 fully address the capacity constraints present in the No 

Action Alternative. Alternative 3 provides service levels and capacity to accommodate demand 

beyond that forecast for 2040.

4 More-frequent service, faster travel times, and connections to new markets not currently served 

by rail would create opportunities for station area development. The support for station area 

development generally rises with the increase in travel-time savings, frequencies, and direct 

connections achieved across the Action Alternatives; gains are generally largest in the northern 

portion of the corridor.

4 Discussions with experts from academic, development, business, and planning communities 

highlighted the importance of other local factors, such as quality schools, supportive 

infrastructure, or planning and zoning, in creating opportunities for station area development. 

(See Economic Development Workshop description in Chapter 6.)
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-15

4 Improved passenger rail service to new markets has the potential to transform development 

patterns and in turn create greater demand for passenger rail. For the economics effects analysis, 

the FRA did not model local alternative economic growth or development scenarios, but did rely 

on insights from discussions with experts to understand the potential for economic growth with 

passenger rail improvements proposed in the Action Alternatives.

Travel Market Effects

Changes in mobility and connectivity proposed for each Action Alternative can be monetized to 

estimate the economic effects of transportation improvements as a function of travel time and cost 

savings as well as other factors such as safety and air quality impacts. The Action Alternatives offer 

faster travel times for many existing rail-served markets, expand service to markets not currently 

served, and offer a greater range of pricing. 

4 The volume of Intercity trips more than doubles under Alternative 3, over what is experienced in 

the No Action Alternative. All Action Alternatives would result in growth in intercity travel.

4 Collectively, the changes in service frequencies, pricing, and markets in the Action Alternatives 

would allow travelers to make different travel choices than under the No Action Alternative. This 

change in travel behavior can influence economic outcomes.

4 One of the key changes in travel behavior observed is that when offered a greater range of travel 

options, some travelers selected travel modes with longer travel times in order to save money. 

Thus, some existing rail and air travelers would shift from faster trains and planes to slower, less 

expensive rail options. When the value of the change in travel time was compared against the 

savings in travel cost, travelers realized a net savings. The travel cost savings, which are the 

smallest in Alternative 1 and greatest in Alternative 3, represent real gains in disposable income 

that support economic activity in the region.

4 All of the Action Alternatives offer an increase in direct connections relative to the No Action 

Alternative. The magnitude of the gains varies by Action Alternative and by individual market, but 

the general pattern is that markets between the Greater Boston metropolitan area and the New 

York—North Jersey metropolitan area would experience the greatest gains in direct connectivity. 

4 All three Action Alternatives would help ease select chokepoints in the corridor, offering benefits 

for freight movements as well as passenger service compared to the No Action Alternative. The 

Action Alternatives do not differ measurably with regard to freight-related economic outcomes.

Construction and Rail Sector Employment Effects

4 Potential construction effects occur primarily within the Affected Environment and represent a 

large, one-time stimulus to the economy. Construction jobs (measured as job-years) range from 

approximately 300,000 under the No Action Alternative to a high of 3.5 million for Alternative 3 

(average of Alternative 3 route options), rising with the level of capital investment.

4 Additional hiring would be required to operate and maintain the expanded rail service; the 

amount of employment supported rises incrementally across the No Action (lowest at 3,100 jobyears) and Action Alternatives. Alternative 3 offers the greatest expansion and accordingly 

supports the greatest employment gain (24,200 job-years).
Summary

Page | S-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 The expansion of Intercity service proposed in the Action Alternatives would generate revenues 

in excess of projected operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. As such, no additional public 

subsidy would be required for the operation of the representative Intercity service included in 

the Action Alternatives.

Indirect Effects

4 Induced growth can result in both positive and negative indirect effects. The potential for induced 

growth effects is higher under the Action Alternatives relative to the No Action Alternative and 

rises incrementally across Action Alternatives 1 through 3 with expansion of rail service offered. 

4 The north region would have the highest potential for indirect effects—the Greater Providence 

and Boston metropolitan areas under all Action Alternatives, and the greater Hartford 

metropolitan area under Alternatives 2 and 3. The New York-North Jersey metropolitan area also 

has the potential for indirect effects, largely attributed to improvements in travel time and 

capacity within the area to New York City.

Across the Action Alternatives, the Greater New York-North Jersey, Greater Philadelphia, and Greater 

Baltimore markets have the greatest gains in station connectivity. These markets have the greatest 

gains under Alternative 3 as compared to other Action Alternatives. Moreover, each Action 

Alternative gains one or more hub stations, which are focal points for development in the surrounding 

area. Hubs support greater development intensity than stations with just rail service. These stations 

have potential for indirect effects to occur as a result of induced growth.

S.7.3 Environmental Consequences (Chapter 7)

S.7.3.1 Approach to Analyzing Environmental Consequences

The FRA analyzed the effects of each Alternative on the resources shown in Table S-3. For each 

resource, an Affected Environment was studied to assess potential for impact and was defined 

generally as a “swath” of land centered on the Representative Route for each Action Alternative.

Some potential environmental effects are due to changes in the physical footprint of the rail 

infrastructure, while others are due to changes in the type and volume of passenger rail service

associated with each Action Alternative. The environmental effects assessment is based on readily 

available secondary source data, including geographic information system (GIS) data, published 

reports, and technical analyses. No field investigations occurred as part of this analysis. 

Table S-3: Environmental Resources and Limits of Affected Environment

Resource Description of Resource Affected Environment

Land Cover Land cover within the Affected Environment

1⁄2-mile-wide swath centered 

on the Representative Route 

for each Action Alternative 

Agricultural Lands 

(Prime Farmlands

and Timberlands)

Prime farmland and timberlands 

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-17

Table S-3: Environmental Resources and Limits of Affected Environment (continued)

Resource Description of Resource Affected Environment

Parklands and Wild 

and Scenic Rivers

Publicly owned parklands; parklands receiving 

funding from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act; Rivers identified as Wild and Scenic by 

the National Rivers Inventory within the Affected 

Environment

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Hydrologic/Water 

Resources

Coastal zones and saltwater wetlands, freshwater 

resources (including wetlands), and floodplains 

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered on the 

Representative Route

Ecological Resources Critical habitats and federally listed Threatened & 

Endangered Species

3,000-foot-wide swath

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Geologic Resources Soil, geological, groundwater and topographic 

resources

3,000-foot-wide swath

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Hazardous Waste 

and Contaminated 

Material Sites

Known sources and potential suspected sources of 

contaminated and hazardous materials

2-mile-wide swath centered 

along Representative Route 

for each Action Alternative

Cultural Resources

and Historic 

Properties

Resources listed in or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places within the 

Affected Environment or identified as significant by 

Indian Tribes

1-mile-wide swath centered 

along Representative Route 

for each Action Alternative

Visual and Aesthetic 

Resources

Prominent visual resources and aesthetic qualities 

within the Affected Environment

1-mile-wide swath centered 

along Representative Route 

for each Action Alternative

Environmental 

Justice

Minority and low-income populations within the 

Affected Environment

1-mile-wide swath centered 

along Representative Route 

for each Action Alternative

Noise and Vibration Ambient noise and vibration conditions, and noisesensitive land cover categories 

5,000-foot-wide swath

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Air Quality (including 

greenhouse gas 

emissions)

Current attainment status for criteria pollutants 

established by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency for air-sheds within the Study Area

Determined by metropolitan 

planning organization by 

state within the Study Area

Energy Energy consumed, particularly by the 

transportation sector Entire Study Area

Climate Change and 

Adaptation

(excluding 

greenhouse gas 

emissions)

Identification of areas susceptible to the impacts of 

climate change (sea-level rise, storm surge and/or 

extreme heat and cold events)

For flood hazards: 

2,000-foot-wide swath

For extreme heat and cold 

events: Entire Study Area
Summary

Page | S-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table S-3: Environmental Resources and Limits of Affected Environment (continued)

Resource Description of Resource Affected Environment

Section 4(f) and 

Section 6(f) 

Resources

Parklands converted to transportation use, 

including publicly owned public parks, recreation 

areas, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative Converted lands or facilities that were acquired 

with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act funds

Historic resources converted to transportation use, 

including historic sites of local, state or national 

significance (eligible or listed)

1-mile-wide swath centered 

along Representative Route 

for each Action Alternative

Electromagnetic 

Fields and 

Electromagnetic 

Interference

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) associated with 

electric conventional or high-speed train 

operations and electromagnetic interference that 

occurs when EMFs are produced 

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered on Representative 

Route for each Action 

Alternatives

Safety Operational, infrastructure and overall modal 

safety Entire Study Area

Public Health Potential public health-related effects for each of 

the relevant Tier 1 Draft EIS resource areas As per the resource areas

Cumulative Effects

Combined result of the incremental direct and 

indirect effects of the Tier 1 Draft EIS Action 

Alternatives as well as the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of agency, on key resources

Study Area, expanded to 

include connecting corridors

1. Chapter 5 addresses transportation effects and Chapter 6 addresses economic effects and growth. 

In general, impacts on environmental resources are greatest in areas where the Representative Route 

goes off-corridor, away from the existing NEC. These areas are often less developed than the current 

NEC. However, some impacts do exist to resources located along and within the existing NEC rightof-way. All Action Alternatives include improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, all effectsassessments consider potential effects that occur to both the existing NEC and any proposed offcorridor routing.

S.7.3.2 Key Resource Areas

While all environmental factors are important, some have greater potential to influence the 

identification of a Preferred Alternative as they are tied to Executive Orders, environmental laws, 

regulations and regulatory requirements, including but not limited to Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations), 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 

of the Endangered Species, and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act. Some of 

these laws require avoidance of impacts or selection of an alternative that has the least 

environmental impact. At a Tier 1 level of assessment, site-specific constructability or feasibility 

factors are unknown. The FRA is considering key effects on resources that could result from 

implementation of an Action Alternative and key findings from the NEC FUTURE analysis in deciding 

on a Preferred Alternative for the NEC FUTURE program, including: 
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-19

4 Land Cover (Chapter 7.2): Potential for land cover conversion to a transportation-related land 

use, or changes to existing land cover that could result in loss or fragmentation of ecological 

resources; loss of or changes to hydrologic resources; conversion of recreational resources; 

acquisitions and displacements; and conversion of prime farmlands or timberlands.

4 Parklands (Chapter 7.4): Conversion of parkland resources to non-recreational uses informs the 

Section 4(f) analysis (Chapter 7.16).

4 Hydrologic Resources (Chapter 7.5): Dredge or fill of wetlands; encroachment of floodplains; 

development within designated coastal zones; crossing Navigable Waterways. 

4 Ecological Resources (Chapter 7.6): Loss or fragmentation of habitat; changes to migratory 

patterns of transient species; effects on protected species.

4 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties (Chapter 7.9): Loss of or damage to cultural resources 

and historic properties.

4 Environmental Justice (Chapter 7.11): Concentrations of minority populations and low-income 

populations that could benefit or be affected by environmental impacts occurring in their 

communities.

4 Climate Change and Adaptation (Chapter 7.15): Areas at highest risk from inundation from sea 

level rise, storm surge flooding, and riverine flooding. 

4 Section 4(f) (Chapter 7.16): Conversion of recreational properties, cultural resources and historic 

properties to a transportation use.

S.7.3.3 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative includes projects and transportation improvements that range in scope 

and complexity. Most of the projects and activities included as part of the No Action Alternative occur 

within the existing NEC right-of-way. Under the No Action Alternative, passenger rail service along 

the NEC operates and provides approximately the same level of service as provided today. As a result, 

“service-related” effects on noise and vibration would be unlikely. However, service-related effects 

on air quality could result due to increased congestion on the overall multimodal transportation 

network. “Footprint” effects on environmental resources under the No Action Alternative would vary, 

depending on the scope of the project being implemented. In a few cases, projects that are part of 

the No Action Alternative have footprints and effects that extend beyond the existing NEC right-ofway. Those types of projects, depending on the scope and complexity, have a greater potential to 

affect environmental resources than those activities occurring within the existing NEC right-of-way. 

However, the majority of passenger rail projects included in the No Action Alternative occur within 

the existing NEC right-of-way.

S.7.3.4 Action Alternatives

A range of benefits and impacts would occur with each of the Action Alternatives since each proposes 

varying degrees of both service and infrastructure improvements. As such, benefits and impacts 

associated with each Action Alternative would differ due to the level of service and infrastructure 

proposed. All Action Alternatives would result in the following:
Summary

Page | S-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Travel options and improved mobility, and access to employment for all populations, including 

Environmental Justice populations.

4 Decrease of greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2040 due to predicted shifts in mode choice 

(reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in personal automobiles) and changes in renewable 

energy usage.

4 Decrease in energy usage from roadways from expected decrease in roadway VMT (autos) and 

an increase in energy use from power sources due to increase train service/frequencies. 

Each Action Alternative provides for improvements that may affect environmental resources. 

Table S-4 identifies the key findings for the key resources by Action Alternative. 

Table S-4: Summary of Key Resource Findings by Action Alternative

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Land Cover < Greatest total 

conversions – MD, 

CT

< Alternative with 

least total 

conversions

< Greatest total 

conversions – MD, CT

< Alternative with the 

greatest undeveloped 

land conversions (CT)

< Greatest total conversions –

MD, CT

< Alternative with the greatest 

total conversions (via Long 

Island/Worcester)

Parklands < State with 

greatest impacts 

to parklands – RI

< 97 parks affected 

< Key parks affected

– Greenway (RI), 

Great Swamp (RI)

< State with greatest 

impacts to parklands 

– RI

< 111 parks affected 

< Key parks affected –

Greenway (RI), 

Natchaug State Forest 

(CT)

< States with greatest impacts 

to parklands – NY, RI

< 116–130 parks affected

< Key parks affected –

Greenway (RI), Natchaug 

State Forest (CT), Pelham Bay 

Park (NY), Eisenhower County 

Park (NY), Patuxent Research 

Refuge (MD), Gunpowder 

Falls State Park (MD), Saxon 

Woods County Park (NY), 

Norfolk County Canoe River 

Wilderness (MA), Natchaug 

State Forest (CT)

Hydrologic < State with 

greatest effects: 

CT (particularly 

with water 

resources located 

in New Haven, 

Middlesex, and 

New London 

counties)

< State with greatest 

effects: CT

(particularly water 

resources located in 

New Haven, 

Middlesex, Hartford 

and New London 

counties)

< Only Alternative that 

bisects John Heinz 

Wildlife Refuge in 

Delaware and 

Philadelphia, PA

< State(s) with greatest effects 

NY and CT (resources 

associated with Long Island 

Sound)

< Crosses 11 Navigable 

Waterways
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-21

Table S-4: Summary of Key Resource Findings by Action Alternative (continued)

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Ecological Under all Action Alternatives:

< New Haven, New London, and Fairfield Counties, CT, are, in general, the counties 

with highest overall potential ecological resource impacts (ESH1

, T&E2, EFH3) 

< A number of large ESHs and wildlife refuges are clipped or bisected by the Action 

Alternatives: Patuxent Research Refuge, Anacostia and Gunpowder Falls (MD); John 

Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (PA), Laurel Ridge Setauket Woods Nature Preserve, 

Pelham Bay Park, and Saxon Woods County Park (NY); Great Swamp Management 

Area/Great Swamp (RI); and Paugussett State Forest and Rocky Neck State Park (CT).

< Suffolk County, NY, has the greatest potential T&E species occurrence by county in 

the Affect Environment for all the Action Alternatives.

Environmental 

Justice (Counties 

with EJ 

populations with 

highest number 

environmental 

impacts)

< Baltimore City, MD, 

< Fairfield County, CT

< Philadelphia County, 

PA

< Middlesex County, NJ

< Queens County, NY

< Fairfield County, CT

< Baltimore City and 

Harford Counties, MD

< Philadelphia County, PA

< Bronx and Queens 

Counties, NY

< Fairfield and Hartford 

Counties, CT

< Providence County, RI

< Worcester County, MA

Cultural/Historic 

Properties (total 

# of NRHP and 

NHL sites within 

Representative 

Route, and key 

cultural/historic 

property(ies) 

affected)

< NRHPs: 143

< NHLs: 2 (Fairmount 

Waterworks, 

Andalusia, PA)

< NRHPs: 171

< NHLs: 3 (Fairmount 

Waterworks, John 

Bartram House,

Andalusia, PA)

< NRHPs: 132-150

< NHLs: 3-4 (Washington 

Square West Historic 

District, Reading Terminal 

and Trainshed, Andalusia, 

PA, John B. Smith 

Building, MA)

Climate Change

(Counties that 

have or are 

proposed to 

have rail assets 

in areas at 

highest risk of 

inundation) 

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< New York City, NY

< New Haven, CT

< Fairfield, CT

< Provides 

resilience/redundancy 

with Old SaybrookKenyon Segment

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< Philadelphia, PA

< New London, CT

< New Haven, CT

< Provides 

resilience/redundancy 

with New HavenHartford-Providence 

Segment

< Hudson, NJ

< New Castle, DE

< New York City, NY

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< Provides 

resilience/redundancy 

with route options 

between New York City 

and Hartford and 

Hartford to Boston
Summary

Page | S-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table S-4: Summary of Key Resource Findings by Action Alternative (continued)

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Section 4(f) 

(parks with the 

highest acreage 

potentially 

affected and 

NHLs within the 

Representative 

Routes)

Parklands:

< The Greenway, RI

< The Great Swamp 

Management Area, RI

NHLs:

< Fairmount 

Waterworks, PA

< Andalusia, PA

Parklands:

< Natchaug State 

Forest, CT

< The Greenway, RI

NHLs

< Fairmount 

Waterworks, PA

< John Bartram House, 

PA

< Andalusia, PA

Parklands:

< Patuxent Research 

Refuge, MD

< Gunpowder State Falls, 

MD

< Natchaug State Forest, CT

< The Greenway, RI

< Pelham Bay Park, NY

< Eisenhower County Park, 

NY

< Saxon Woods County 

Park, NY

< Norfolk County Canoe 

River Wilderness, MA

NHLs

< Washington Square West 

Historic District, PA

< Reading Terminal and 

Trainshed, PA

< Andalusia, PA

< John B. Smith Building, 

MA

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

1. Ecologically Sensitive Habitat (ESH) is a term for those areas dedicated to conserving and maintaining biological diversity and 

natural resources, such as national wildlife refuges, parks, or forests. Other natural areas (such as wetlands, streams, and 

coastal areas) can also be considered ecologically sensitive. Federal or state agencies do not designate ESHs. 2.

Federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species are vulnerable to endangerment in the near future or are in 

imminent danger of becoming extinct due to the loss of habitat or the decline in population numbers. For some T&E species, 

federal agencies designate and protect critical habitats.

3.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) comprise all aquatic habitats where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity. These habitats

include wetlands, coral reefs, sea grasses, and rivers.
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-23

S.7.4 Construction Effects (Chapter 8)

The Action Alternatives involve construction of significant rail infrastructure—tunnels, bridges, 

embankments, stations, and ancillary roads and support facilities—across the Affected Environment 

over an extended time period. Since detailed project design and construction information is not 

available at the Tier 1 level of analysis, the FRA developed potential construction types based on 

available conceptual information for each Action Alternative.

Six construction types comprise the potential infrastructure associated with all of the Action 

Alternatives: tunnel, trench, at-grade, embankment, aerial structure (bridges and viaducts), and 

major bridge. The FRA considered existing NEC construction features, as well as land use, topographic 

and other environmental features, and cost in developing the construction types. Figure S-5 describes 

the percentage of construction types by route distance for the existing NEC and each Action 

Alternative. 

As presented in Figure S-5, the route miles by construction type for Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar 

to the existing NEC, with the exception of additional tunnel route miles as part of Alternatives 1 and 

2. For Alternative 3, the route miles by construction type increase for tunnel, aerial structure, and 

trench, along with a decrease in embankment and at-grade route miles.

Regardless of the alternative selected, minimizing construction impacts on on-going rail operations 

can be best planned and achieved through the packaging of projects into multiple phases of the 

Selected Alternative. Through such phasing, individual projects can be timed to meet a number of 

important objectives. These include optimizing the benefits across the NEC of complementary 

capacity and travel-time projects, balancing the demand on resources, and spacing projects to take 

maximum advantage of construction outages and minimize adverse impacts on on-going train 

operations. The SDP will include a full phasing plan for the Selected Alternative that seeks to achieve 

these benefits.

S.7.5 Costs 

Capital cost estimates were developed to understand the differences between the No Action 

Alternative and the Action Alternatives. An estimate of the capital cost of the No Action Alternative 

is $19.9 billion in 2014 dollars. This includes $8.35 billion in funded projects, $980 million in funded 

and unfunded mandates, and $10.53 billion in unfunded projects that are necessary to keep the 

railroad operating. The estimated $9 billion cost of the first two types of projects (funded or 

mandated projects) is also included in each of the Action Alternatives. The No Action Alternative may 

have additional costs from emergency or unplanned repairs since the corridor will remain at 

heightened risk of service disruption and unpredictable failures. These additional costs are not 

accounted for in the estimate.

Table S-5 provides estimates of the capital cost of each Action Alternative. The capital cost of 

Alternative 1 is estimated at between $64 billion and $66 billion in 2014 dollars; Alternative 2 is 

estimated at $131 billion to $136 billion, and Alternative 3 is estimated at $267 billion to $308 billion. 

The large range for Alternative 3 is due to the difference in cost associated with each route option, 

as shown in Table S-6.
Summary

Page | S-24 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure S-5: Percentage of Route Miles by Construction Type – Washington, D.C., to 

Boston, MA

* The percentage of route miles shown in Alternative 3 is the average route miles by construction type for all route options 

between Washington, D.C., and Boston, MA.
Summary

Tier 1 Draft EIS P age | S-25

Table S-5: 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. Cost does not include property acquisition costs for yards or stations.

Each of the Action Alternatives includes the $9 billion cost associated with the No Action Alternative projects.

Table S-6: 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. Cost does not include property acquisition costs for yards or stations.

The FRA also estimated annual operating and maintenance costs for each alternative. In the No Action 

Alternative and in Alternative 1, annual Intercity operating revenue is estimated at approximately 

$2 billion and O&M costs at $1 billion. In Alternatives 2 and 3, annual operating revenue would be 

approximately $3 billion and O&M costs approximately $2 billion. Surplus net operating revenues 

from Intercity service would be realized in each alternative and would range from an estimated $500 

million to $1 billion annually.

S.7.6 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Findings (Chapter 9)

Table S-7 summarizes the factors and metrics discussed in this Summary and in Chapter 9 of the Tier 

1 DEIS the FRA used to evaluate the similarities and differences between the No Action and Action 

Alternatives. Metrics such as service frequency, capacity, and annual passenger trips increase as the 

level of investment and service improvements increase, demonstrating the range of possibilities for

the role of rail in the Study Area. Table S-7 illustrates the overall potential for improved mobility and 

economic growth. Metrics that capture changes in service frequency and travel times demonstrate 

how each Action Alternative would change travel from a local perspective. Both the end-to-end and 

local (sub-region or city-pair) perspectives are important in considering the benefits and costs of the 

No Action and Action Alternatives.

S.7.7 Phasing and Implementation (Chapter 10)

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

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

Page | S-26 Tier 1 Draft EIS

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

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

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

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

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

To ensure that incremental capital investment in the NEC will result in benefits for the entire corridor, 

the FRA anticipates that the alternative selected in the Record of Decision (Selected Alternative) will 

be implemented in phases consisting of integrated, complementary projects. Phasing ensures that an 

appropriate integrated package of improvements is planned and implemented in order to meet 

specific service and operational objectives and to lay the foundation for future phases of work. In this 

way, travelers will experience near- and mid-term service benefits over the extended period of time 

that it will take to implement the full service plan envisioned by each Action Alternative. 

Each of the Action Alternatives assumes the implementation of a common set of projects, or 

“Universal First Phase,” that would support important enhancements to service and serve as a 

foundation for advancing subsequent work. In addition to a core set of projects common to the three 

Action Alternatives, the Universal First Phase includes operational efficiencies and corridor-wide 

service enhancements that will require significant coordination between the NEC railroads, including 

potential changes to existing institutional arrangements. 

The Universal First Phase consists of high priority projects currently in planning for replacing aging 

infrastructure and relieving major chokepoints; additional infrastructure needed to support 

construction activities and to minimize adverse impacts on passenger rail operations during 

construction; equipment, and operational and institutional changes required to maximize the benefit 

and cost-effectiveness of investment in the NEC and provide for an enhanced customer experience.

Chapter 10, Phasing Implementation, provides information on the projects included in the Universal 

First Phase. Implementation of these projects would support a modest increase in both Intercity and 

Regional rail service, greatly enhance the overall reliability of passenger rail on the NEC, and prepare 

the NEC for future phases of work.
Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table S-7: Summary of Alternatives – Characteristics and Evaluation Factors

Project Needs 

Addressed Metrics for Evaluating No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Aging Infrastructure < NEC in a state of good repair NO YES YES 

Capacity < Peak Rail Capacity utilization 

(# of trains, peak hour, peak 

direction)

Washington: 6

Hudson River:24

Boston: 11

Washington: 12

Hudson River: 37

Boston: 17

Washington

Hudson River

Boston

< Peak trains per hour (Intercity 

Trains at NYC)

— 2X the No Action 3X the No Ac

< Peak passenger capacity 

utilization (# of passengers, 

peak hour, peak direction)

WAS: 6,610

Hudson: 30,374

Boston: 9,562

WAS: 9,615

Hudson: 44,993

Boston: 13,528

WAS: 11,

Hudson: 61,

Boston: 14,

< Annual Passenger Rail Trips 

(1,000s of Trips) 439,100 508,100 532,

o Intercity 19,300 33,600 37,

o Regional Rail 419,800 474,500 495,

< Annual Passenger Miles (in 

1,000s) 13,957,565 17,640,308 19,142,

o Intercity 3,103,000 5,610,200 6,232,

o Regional Rail 11,264,400 12,547,100 13,455,

< Reduction in Annual VMT (in 

millions) N/A -2,000 -2,

< % Intercity Trips Diverted to 

Rail (% of trips on the NEC 

diverted from other modes)

— 36% 4
Summary

Page | S-28 T

Table S-7: Summary of Alternatives – Characteristics and Evaluation Factors (continued)

Project Needs 

Addressed Metrics for Evaluating No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Connectivity < Daily Trains Serving Airport 

Stations (total number of 

trains)

BWI: 141

PHL: 0

EWR: 152

T.F. Green: 25 

BWI: 252

PHL: 0

EWR: 240

T.F. Green: 81

BWI: 

PHL: 

EWR: 

T.F. Green

< Air-to-rail diversions (annual 

trips in 1,000s)

— WAS-NJ/NY: 83

NJ/NY-BOS: 216

PHL-BOS: 42

WAS-NJ/NY: 

NJ/NY-BOS: 

PHL-BOS

< Daily service volumes – train 

volume for key city-pairs and 

key stations

WAS-NYC: 36

NYC-BOS: 19

WAS-NYC: 70

NYC-BOS: 47

WAS-NYC

NYC-BOS

< Daily service volumes – train 

volume for connecting 

corridors

Richmond-NYC: 9

Harrisburg-NYC: 9

Albany-NYC: 12

Springfield-NYC: 2

Richmond-NYC: 13

Harrisburg-NYC: 13

Albany-NYC: 22

Springfield-NYC: 9

Richmond-NYC

Harrisburg-NYC

Albany-NYC

Springfield-NYC

< Number of Stops by Station 

(daily)

o Intercity Service Odenton: 0

PHL Airport: 0

Secaucus: 0

Providence: 38

Odenton: 44

PHL Airport: 0

Secaucus: 0

Providence: 98

Odenton

PHL Airport

Secaucus: 

Providence: 

o Regional rail Service Odenton: 59

PHL Airport: 72

Secaucus: 367

Providence: 74

Odenton: 108

PHL Airport: 72

Secaucus: 522

Providence: 84

Odenton: 

PHL Airport: 

Secaucus: 

Providence: 

o Total (Intercity Service + 

Regional rail Service)

Odenton: 59

PHL Airport: 72

Secaucus: 367

Providence: 74

Odenton: 152

PHL Airport: 72

Secaucus: 522

Providence: 182

Odenton: 

PHL Airport: 

Secaucus: 

Providence: 
Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table S-7: Summary of Alternatives – Characteristics and Evaluation Factors (continued)

Project Needs 

Addressed Metrics for Evaluating No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Performance < Travel-Time savings for key citypairs (Intercity-Corridor times in 

min)

— WAS-NYC: 15

NYC-BOS: 40

WAS-NYC

NYC-BOS

< Station-to-station travel times 

(h:mm) – Intercity-Corridor

ODN-TRE: —

WAS-HFD: 6:35

PHL-NHV: 3:23

ODN-TRE: 2:10

WAS-HFD: 5:14

PHL-NHV: 2:48

ODN-TRE: 2

WAS-HFD: 5

PHL-NHV: 2

< Top speed by segment WAS-NYC: 160

NYC-BOS: 150

WAS-NYC: 160

NYC-BOS: 160

WAS-NYC: 

NYC-BOS: 

Resiliency < Redundancy for key network 

links (# of routes WAS-BOS)

WAS-NYC: 1

NYC-BOS: 1

WAS-NYC: 1

NYC-BOS: 1

WAS-NY

NYC-BO

< Acres of the Representative 

Route vulnerable to flooding (Atgrade and Construction)

o Alternative 1: Old SaybrookKenyon New Segment 

(Existing NEC/Alt 1)

— SLR*:5/2

SSF*: 126/3

RF*:141/4

o Alternative 2: New HavenHartford-Providence (Existing 

NEC/Alt 2)

— — SLR

SSF: 138

RF:353/

o Alternative 3: New York 

County, NY, to Suffolk County, 

MA (Existing NEC/Alt 3 range)

< Number of Stations vulnerable to 

flooding – Current Climate 

Conditions, one or more flood 

hazards 

o New Stations — 7 

o Existing Stations — 54 

 

* Sea Level Rise (SLR); Storm Surge Flooding (SSF); Riverine Flooding (RF)
Summary

Page | S-30 T

Table S-7: Summary of Alternatives – Characteristics and Evaluation Factors (continued)

Project Needs 

Addressed Metrics for Evaluating No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Environmental 

Sustainability

< Change in Greenhouse Gas and 

Criteria Pollutants (tons/year)

o CO2e — -274,650 -327,180 

o CO — -2,480 -3,375 

o VOC — -30 -45 

o NOx — -75 -80 

o PM10 — -30 -35 

o PM2.5 — -10 -10 

o SO2 — 170 340 

< Change in energy use (MMBtu) -3,813,815 -4,899,110 

o Roadways — -4,815,105 -6,516,805 

o Diesel Trains — -1 -128,585 

o Electric Trains — 1,001,290 1,746,280 

Economic Growth < Employment Impacts in the 

Study Area (# of job-years) 300,900 784,670 1,583,000 

o Construction Effects

Employment 297,800 773,670 1,561,100 

o Rail Operations Effects 

Employment 3,100 11,000 21,900 

< Annual Travel Market Savings

o Total Intercity Travel-Time 

Savings (millions) — $1,973 $1,941 

o Total Emissions Savings — $22 $20 

< Number of New and Modified 

Stations 5 stations 24 stations 27 stations 

< Jobs Accessible in a 30-Minute 

Train Travel Time (000s of jobs, 

net of No Action

—

WAS: 60

NYP: 840

BOS: 0

WAS: 440

NYP: 1,410

BOS: 330
Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table S-7: Summary of Alternatives – Characteristics and Evaluation Factors (continued)

Project Needs 

Addressed Metrics for Evaluating No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Environmental 

Impacts

< Rating of magnitude of effects on 

environment:

o Population: Total population 

of census tracts intersecting 

the Affected Environment

4.4 million 4.5 million 4.9 mi

o EJ Census Tracts: Percentage

of EJ census tracts among all 

census tracts within the 

Affected Environment

59% census tracts 59% census tracts 57% census tr

o Land Cover Conversion:

Percentage of Representative 

Route with potential 

conversion of Undeveloped 

Land

18% of the 

Representative 

Route

19% of the 

Representative Route

21% of 

Representative Ro

o 6(f) Parks: Total Resources 20 21 

o 4(f) Parks: Total Resources 95 97 

o NRHP-Listed: Total Resources 30 resources 142 resources 171 resou

Cost < Total Capital Cost ($B 2014) $19.9 $63.6–$66.2 $131.0–$1

< Total O&M Net Revenue ($M 

2014) $970 $840 $

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2014
Summary

Page | S-32 Tier 1 Draft EIS

S.8 NEXT STEPS

The FRA encourages public dialogue on the evaluation of the No Action and Action Alternatives 

presented in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. A public comment period will be held, beginning with a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register and extending through January 30, 2016. During the public 

comment period, the FRA will host public hearings on this Tier 1 Draft EIS in various locations within 

the Study Area. Information on the public hearings and other methods of submitting comments will 

be available online at www.necfuture.com. The Tier 1 Draft EIS will be available for download from 

the website and in hard copy form at major libraries throughout the Study Area, including in all 

counties through which the existing NEC and Action Alternative Representative Routes run.

Following the public comment period, the FRA will identify a Preferred Investment Program 

(Preferred Alternative) that achieves a vision for passenger rail in the NEC. The Tier 1 Final EIS will 

describe the Preferred Alternative, which could be one of the Alternatives considered in this Tier 1 

Draft EIS or an Action Alternative that is made up of elements of the Action Alternatives considered 

in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

Finally, the FRA will formally select an alternative in a Record of Decision (ROD) to complete the Tier 1 

environmental review process. The FRA will then prepare an SDP for the Selected Alternative as 

defined in the ROD. Future decisions by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the NEC states and 

Washington, D.C., and rail operators will shape the manner in which NEC FUTURE will be 

incrementally implemented over several decades.