TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Noise and 

Vibration

7.12

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-1

7.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION

7.12.1 Introduction

This section describes noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors in the Affected Environment and

includes the evaluation of potential Environmental Consequences of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action Alternatives on these resources. 

7.12.1.1 Definition of Resource

Noise—typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound—is generated by railway-related sources 

such as vehicle engines, wheel-rail interaction, and audible warning devices, including train horns,

which may cause annoyance at nearby sensitive receptors. In the case of high-speed rail, aerodynamic 

noise can be generated when train speeds start to exceed 160 miles per hour (mph).

Vibration—defined as oscillatory motion—is generated by wheel-rail interaction from railway 

operations. Such vibration is transmitted through the track structure into the ground and may be 

perceptible and disturb people or sensitive activities in nearby buildings.

Appendix E, Section E.12, provides more-detailed definitions of noise and vibration. 

7.12.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) developed a specific effects-assessment methodology for 

each of the resource categories identified in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

Methodology, Appendix E. The methodology provides a detailed definition of each category, 

describes the data sources used for the evaluation, and explains how the Affected Environment was 

defined and established and how the effects on each resource were evaluated and reported. 

Table 7.12-1 summarizes key factors associated with the methodologies for each resource category 

evaluated.

Table 7.12-1: Methodological Summary: Noise and Vibration

Resource

Category

Affected 

Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

Noise

5,000-foot-wide

swath centered 

along Representative 

Route for each 

Action Alternative

Quantitative:

Day-Night Sound 

Level, Ldn (dBA)

Estimated population within noise impact zones; presence of 

parks, ecologically sensitive habitats and cultural/historic 

properties within the Affected Environment potentially affected 

by the Representative Route of the Action Alternatives

Vibration Quantitative:

Vibration Velocity 

Level (VdB)

Estimated population within vibration impact zones; presence 

of parks, ecologically sensitive habitats and cultural/historic 

properties within the Affected Environment potentially affected 

by the Representative Route of the Action Alternatives

Source: NEC FUTURE Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.12, 2014

Field measurements were not conducted for this Tier 1 analysis. All reported existing and future noise 

and vibration levels are estimates. Noise and vibration from rail sources were estimated using FRA 

and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) prediction models based on data for existing and future rail 

operations. The estimated noise from rail operations was combined with estimates of noise from 
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

nearby major highways and airports, as well as estimates of typical levels of community background 

noise to estimate overall existing and future noise exposure levels.

7.12.2 Resource Overview

Within the Study Area, the areas of greatest concern for noise and vibration effects include densely 

populated areas, particularly those that are not currently within existing rail or highway corridors and 

therefore have lower existing noise and vibration levels. Within the Affected Environment of all the 

Action Alternatives, these areas include dense urban areas in Baltimore, Philadelphia, northern New 

Jersey, and New York City, as well as suburban areas in Long Island, NY, Westchester County, NY, and 

a number of communities in Connecticut. Areas with concentrations of other sensitive land use, such 

as parks, wildlife refuges and cultural/historic resources, are also of concern. Within the Affected 

Environment, locations where these resources are concentrated include Washington, D.C., Baltimore, 

Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, and Boston, as well as suburban and rural areas of Maryland, 

northern New Jersey, Long Island, coastal Connecticut, and rural areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

and Massachusetts.

7.12.3 Affected Environment

Existing transportation-related noise and vibration sources within the Affected Environment include 

passenger trains, freight trains, highways, and airports. Land uses sensitive to noise and vibration 

within the Affected Environment include residential, institutional, and park lands. Table 7.12-2

summarizes these sensitive land uses by state and county. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, includes 

graphics that identify various types of land use.

For purposes of this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the FRA did not identify detailed data on the specific uses at 

parks. As such, the FRA is considering all parks as potentially sensitive. Furthermore, the FRA did not 

identify specific community facilities such as churches, schools, or hospitals. During more-detailed 

Tier 2 analysis, specific park uses would be identified to determine if a park resource should be 

considered as a sensitive receptor and specific community facilities that may be affected by noise and 

vibration would be identified.

The FRA used a distance of 100 feet—a standard reference for railway noise and vibration in the 

United States—as a reference distance to estimate existing noise and vibration levels from the 

Representative Routes for the existing NEC and Action Alternatives.

Table 7.12-3 provides ranges for the existing noise and vibration levels by state and county, which 

represent conditions at sensitive receptors closest to the Representative Routes. (Appendix E, 

Section E.12, contains a more detailed description of the noise and vibration within the Affected 

Environment, including noise and vibration levels 50–800 feet from the Representative Routes.)
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-3

Table 7.12-2: Affected Environment: Noise and Vibration – Sensitive Land Uses

Geography County Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Use

D.C. Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

MD

Prince George’s Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Anne Arundel Residences, religious facilities, and parks

Baltimore Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, hospital, and parks

Harford Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Cecil Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

DE New Castle Residences, schools, religious facilities, health care center, prison, and parks

PA

Delaware Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Philadelphia Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemetery, hospital, prison, and parks

Bucks Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, and parks

NJ

Mercer Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Middlesex Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Union Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, and parks

Essex Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, and parks

Hudson Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

NY

New York Residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals, hotels, and parks

Kings Residences

Queens Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, and parks

Bronx Residences, schools, religious facilities, hospital, hotel, and parks

Westchester Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, library, prison, and parks

Putnam Low-density residential development

Nassau Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Suffolk Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, and parks

CT

Fairfield Residences, schools, religious facilities, hotels, cemeteries, hospitals, and parks

New Haven Residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals, cemeteries, hotel, library, performing 

arts center, and parks

Hartford Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, hospitals, and parks

Tolland Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

Windham Residences

Middlesex Residences, schools, religious facilities, and parks

New London Residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals, hotels, and parks

RI

Washington Residences, schools, religious facilities, medical facilities, cemeteries, and parks

Kent Residences, school, religious facility, library, and hotels

Providence Residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals, hotel, prison, cemetery, library, parks, 

and the Rhode Island State House

MA

Bristol Residences, schools, and religious facilities

Worcester Residences, schools, religious facilities, hotels, hospitals, cemeteries, library, theater, 

and parks

Middlesex Residences, schools, religious facilities, and a hospital

Norfolk Residences, schools, religious facilities, cemeteries, and parks

Suffolk Residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals, and parks

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-3: Affected Environment: Noise and Vibration – Existing Levels

Geography County

Noise Exposure (Ldn) at 100 ft. from 

Representative Route (dBA)

Max. Vibration Velocity Level at 100 ft. 

from Representative Route (VdB)

Existing

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Existing

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

D.C. 68 68 68–69 69 87 87 87 87

MD

Prince George’s 72 72 72–73 72–73 87 87 87 87

Anne Arundel 72 72 72 72 87 87 87 87

Baltimore Co. 72–75 72–75 72–75 66–75 87 87 87 61–87

Baltimore City 60-71 60-71 60-71 60-71 87 50-87 50-87 50-87

Harford 71–75 71–75 71–75 66–75 87 87 87 50–87

Cecil 74–75 74–75 50–75 50–75 87 87 50–87 50–87

DE New Castle 66–74 66–74 55–74 55–74 87 87 87 50–87

PA

Delaware 66–70 66–70 66–70 60–70 87 87 79–87 50–87

Philadelphia 60–68 60–68 60–69 60–72 87 87 79–87 50–87

Bucks 71–72 71–72 71–72 71–72 87 87 87 87

NJ

Mercer 68–73 68–73 69–73 68–73 87 87 87 77–87

Middlesex 69–74 69–74 55–74 55–74 87 87 50–87 50–87

Union 75 75 70–75 73–75 87 87 87 87

Essex 70–71 70–71 70–71 70–71 87 87 87 87

Hudson 60–75 60–75 60–75 55–75 87 87 87 50–87

NY

New York 60-73 60-73 60-73 60–73 77–87 77–87 77–87 50–87

Kings — — — 60 — — — 50

Queens 60–68 60–68 60–68 60–68 77–87 77–87 50–87 50–87

Bronx 65–68 65–68 65–68 60–69 77–87 77–87 77–87 50–87

Westchester 70–71 70–71 66–71 50–71 87 87 61–87 50–87

Putnam — — — 50 — — — 50

Nassau — — — 55–71 — — — 50–74

Suffolk — — — 55–72 — — — 50–74

CT

Fairfield 65–71 65–71 55–71 55–71 87 87 61–87 50–87

New Haven 55–70 55–70 55–70 50–70 87 87 50–87 50–87

Hartford — — 55–66 55–66 87 87 50–79 50–79

Tolland — — 50–55 50–66 87 87 50 50–61

Windham — — 50 50-66 — — 50-61 50-61

Middlesex 68 68 68 68 87 87 87 87

New London 66–75 50–75 66–75 66–75 87 50–87 87 87

RI

Washington 66–69 50–69 66–69 66–69 87 50–87 87 87

Kent 69–71 69–71 69–71 69–71 87 87 87 87

Providence 60–71 60–71 50–71 50–71 87 87 50–87 50–87

MA

Bristol 68 68 66–68 66–68 87 87 79–87 79–87

Worcester — — — 50–66 87 87 — 50–79

Middlesex — — — 55–69 87 87 — 50–79

Norfolk 67–68 67–68 67–68 65–68 87 87 87 79–87

Suffolk 60–68 60–68 60–68 60–68 87 87 87 61–87

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-5

Predicted noise and vibration levels vary by specific location along the Representative Routes because 

of differences in rail operations and the presence or absence of other noise and vibration sources; 

therefore, some of the results in Table 7.12-3 exhibit wide ranges in noise and vibration levels within 

a given county. For example, in areas adjacent to routes that are not along rail or highway corridors, 

existing noise and vibration levels are much lower than in other areas where there are major sources 

of noise and vibration.

7.12.3.1 Existing NEC

As shown in Table 7.12-3, the existing noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the existing NEC are 

fairly high, with noise exposure levels (Ldn) that are typically in the range of 65–75 dBA. To put these 

levels into perspective, the Department of Housing and Urban Development defines an Ldn of 65 dBA 

as the onset of a normally unacceptable housing environment, and the Federal Aviation 

Administration considers residential land uses not compatible with noise environments where Ldn is 

greater than 65 dBA. Along the existing NEC, noise levels are generally highest in Maryland, Delaware, 

and New Jersey, and lowest in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts. 

For vibration, Table 7.12-3 indicates existing maximum levels of 77–87 VdB at 100 feet from the 

existing NEC, above the FRA/FTA criteria of 72–75 VdB for residential land use based on the current 

train volumes. The maximum vibration levels along this route are similar in all states.

7.12.3.2 Alternative 1

The existing noise and vibration level ranges along the Representative Route for Alternative 1 are the 

same as those along the existing NEC, except in a few areas along new off-corridor routes where there 

are no major existing noise and vibration sources and where the existing levels are low.

7.12.3.3 Alternative 2

The existing noise and vibration level ranges along the Representative Route for Alternative 2 are 

typically 0–1 dB higher than those along the routes for the existing NEC and Alternative 1, except in 

areas along new off-corridor routes where the noise and vibration levels from existing sources are 

lower.

7.12.3.4 Alternative 3

The upper limits of the existing noise level ranges along the Representative Route for Alternative 3

are 0–1 dB higher than along the existing NEC and the routes for the other alternatives, except in 

Philadelphia County where they are 3–4 dB higher. The minimum noise levels for Alternative 3 are

generally lower than for the other alternatives in areas where there are new off-corridor route 

options. For vibration, the upper end of the existing range is the same as for the existing NEC in most 

counties, and the lower end of the range typically represents the existing vibration levels along new 

route options.

7.12.4 Environmental Consequences

To determine effects, this analysis focused on identifying the population within the projected noise 

and vibration impact zones for the Representative Routes. Areas of severe and moderate noise 
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

impact and areas of vibration impact were determined based on the estimated existing and future 

noise and vibration levels using applicable FRA/FTA prediction methods and criteria. The populations 

with potential impacts were then identified based on census tract data for the impact areas. The 

following sections discuss the key findings of the Environmental Consequences analysis.

7.12.4.1 No Action Alternative

Except for a few minor differences in train equipment, operations under the No Action Alternative 

are expected to be the same as for the existing conditions; therefore, no new noise or vibration 

impacts will occur.

7.12.4.2 Action Alternatives

Table 7.12-4 summarizes by state and county the future noise and vibration conditions in terms of

the estimated changes in noise and vibration levels (from existing to future conditions) at a distance 

of 100 feet from the Representative Routes for the Action Alternatives. These results typically 

indicate projected increases in noise and vibration levels, with the greatest increases for Alternative 

3 and locations with no existing trains. However, in some cases, the results project decreases in noise 

or vibration levels caused by future changes in train equipment and operations.

Because noise and vibration impact depend on both existing and future levels according to FRA/FTA 

criteria, the estimated ranges of level changes in Table 7.12-4 are not always directly indicative of 

potential impact. For example, noise impact can occur even when the projected noise increase is 

small if the existing noise levels are very high. In the case of vibration, the future levels must exceed 

the criteria for impact to occur, which may require large increases in areas where the existing levels 

are imperceptible and well below the limit. Thus, to supplement the information in the table, the 

counties that include areas where impact is projected are highlighted in the table for each of the 

Action Alternatives. Specifically, the counties that include areas of noise and vibration impact are 

indicated by gray shading, and bold type font is used to indicate those with areas of severe noise 

impact. These results suggest that Alternative 1 would have the fewest impacts, with a route and 

operations that are most similar to the existing conditions, and that Alternative 3, which includes a 

number of new route options and higher speed train operations, would have the most impacts. The 

specific areas of impacts for the Action Alternatives are shown in Appendix A, Mapping Atlas.

Table 7.12-5 lists by state and county the estimated populations within the projected FRA/FTA severe 

and moderate noise impact zones for the Action Alternatives. Table 7.12-6 and Table 7.12-7 provide 

breakdowns by area of the projected severe and moderate residential impacts, respectively, for the 

Alternative 3 route options.

Table 7.12-8 lists by state and county the estimated populations within the projected FRA/FTA 

vibration impact zones for the Action Alternatives, and Table 7.12-9 provides breakdowns by area of 

the projected residential vibration impacts for the Alternative 3 route options.

In addition to residential population, Table 7.12-10 and Table 7.12-11 summarize the related 

resources—including parks, ecologically sensitive habitats, and cultural resources/historic 

properties—that could be affected by noise and vibration, respectively. These tables note by state 

and county the presence of related resources where residential impacts exist within the Affected 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-7

Environment of the Action Alternatives. The vibration impacts apply only to resources that contain 

building structures and do not apply to open land. See Appendix E, Section E.12, for a more detailed 

description of the Environmental Consequences for noise and vibration.

Table 7.12-4: Environmental Consequences: Noise and Vibration – Future Conditions

Geography County

Change in Noise Exposure (Ldn) at 

100 ft. from Representative Route (dBA)

Change in Maximum Vibration Level at 

100 ft. from Representative Route (VdB)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

D.C. 2 2 to 3 5 0 0 0

MD

Prince George’s 2 2 to 3 5 to 10 0 0 0

Anne Arundel 2 3 1 to 6 0 0 0

Baltimore Co. 1 to 2 1 to 3 -1 to 6 0 0 0 to 14

Baltimore City 0 to 2 -3 to 3 0 to 8 0 to 37 0 to 37 0 to 37

Harford 1 -3 to 2 -1 to 27 0 0 0 to 35

Cecil 0 to 1 -1 to 26 -1 to 31 0 -2 to 37 0 to 35

DE New Castle 1 to 2 -1 to 3 -1 to 17 0 -2 to 0 0 to 35

PA

Delaware 1 to 2 -5 to 10 2 to 12 0 -8 to 8 0 to 30

Philadelphia 0 to2 -3 to 6 2 to 8 0 -8 to 8 0 to 30

Bucks 1 to 2 2 to 3 6 to 7 0 0 0

NJ

Mercer 1 1 to 2 5 to 7 0 0 0

Middlesex 1 -3 to 13 0 to 15 0 0 to 35 -2 to 37

Union 0 -4 to 1 2 to 7 0 0 -2 to 0

Essex 1 to 2 -2 to 4 1 to 6 0 0 0

Hudson 2 3 0 to 15 0 0 -2 to 37

NY

New York 3 5 7 0 0 0 to 37

Kings — — 0 — — 30

Queens 3 2 to 8 0 to 8 0 0 to 37 0 to 37

Bronx 1 to 4 2 to 6 1 to 16 0 0 0 to 10

Westchester 3 to 4 4 to 10 5 to 26 0 0 to 26 0 to 30

Putnam — — 0 — — 30

Nassau — — 0 to 16 — — 6 to 30

Suffolk — — -6 to 24 — — 0 to 30

CT

Fairfield 3 to 8 -2 to 10 0 to 23 0 -8 to 26 -8 to 37

New Haven 2 to 4 1 to 20 3 to 26 0 -8 to 17 -7 to 30

Hartford — 2 to 11 6 to 25 — 0 to 27 1 to 30

Tolland — 15 to 20 6 to 26 — 27 9 to 30

Windham — 15 to 24 21 to 30 — 17 to 27 20 to 30

Middlesex 3 1 3 to 5 0 -8 -7

New London -2 to 21 -1 to 1 1 to 7 0 to 27 -8 -7

RI

Washington -1 to 21 0 to 2 1 to 7 0 to 27 -8 to -2 -7 to -2

Kent 2 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 5 0 -2 -2

Providence 2 to 3 1 to 20 2 to 26 0 -2 to 27 -7 to 35

MA

Bristol 4 3 to 5 4 to11 0 -2 to 0 -2 to 6

Worcester — — 6 to 21 — — 0 to 35

Middlesex — — 0 — — 6 to 35

Norfolk 4 to 5 5 to 7 6 to 15 0 -2 -2 to 6

Suffolk 2 to 4 3 to 6 3 to 11 0 -2 to 0 -2 to 24

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: A value of “0” indicates that no projected FRA/FTA severe or moderate noise impact zones occur in that county.

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.

Gray shading = Areas with noise or vibration impact.

Bold type font = Areas with severe noise impact.
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-5: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Noise – Residential 

Impacts

Geography County

Estimated Population within

Severe Noise Impact Zones

Estimated Population within 

Moderate Noise Impact Zones

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

D.C. 0 8,570 21,790 13,170 14,090 17,380

MD

Prince 

George’s 0 21,480 79,980 31,850 52,300 73,190

Anne 

Arundel 0 16,840 34,240 22,180 30,910 34,960

Baltimore 

Co. 0 11,190 43,400 26,150 38,670 43,090

Baltimore 

City 0 17,930 7,860 25,900 32,130 23,090

Harford 0 0 73,740 13,510 17,500 59,770

Cecil 0 16,140 43,550 9,540 29,520 90,300

DE New Castle 0 19,100 71,870 41,720 60,070 79,710

PA

Delaware 0 10,720 46,790 47,930 13,500 64,470

Philadelphia 0 71,960 151,280 109,330 96,000 143,470

Bucks 0 5,720 58,920 18,360 47,610 66,710

NJ

Mercer 0 6,650 53,890 18,320 32,790 48,450

Middlesex 0 10,080 107,870 64,140 133,130 141,500

Union 0 9,000 115,880 61,690 41,910 167,350

Essex 11,730 1,680 32,100 18,830 2,460 28,340

Hudson 3,830 4,940 18,520 10,520 11,640 19,890

NY

New York 1,630 3,260 4,710 3,320 3,720 4,200

Kings — — 0 — — 0

Queens 34,150 75,760 87,880–192,860 44,770 58,090 90,330-209,650

Bronx 59,570 89,180 123,470–222,190 76,750 96,060 158,570-243,470

Westchester 58,130 107,300 123,370–303,720 97,580 139,750 122,450-191,090

Putnam — — 0 — — 0

Nassau — — 0–49,110 — — 0–49,500

Suffolk — — 0–29,740 — — 0–24,400

CT

Fairfield 123,380 170,700 156,110–174,780 169,240 199,490 146,440-161,450

New Haven 47,480 60,920 90,880–157,990 74,050 90,830 108,220-150,490

Hartford — 56,410 46,840–66,340 — 66,710 51,260-60,790

Tolland — 2,890 7,890–31,940 — 4,800 14,180-51,850

Windham — 4,050 1,020–15,130 — 6,530 2,130-24,580

Middlesex 2,190 0 3,140–5,700 5,950 0 6,240-8,670

New London 9,990 0 17,680–31,650 19,270 3,540 36,000-47,610

RI

Washington 8,800 0 8,340–18,280 18,520 2,680 20,690-36,910

Kent 5,330 0 7,950–15,040 15,740 12,400 16,610-20,950

Providence 28,770 22,800 71,920–73,610 73,680 71,080 83,480-131,070

MA

Bristol 19,790 23,910 33,150–58,000 25,210 38,880 33,540-40,090

Worcester — — 107,920 — — 115,470

Middlesex — — 120 — — 280

Norfolk 14,270 18,870 29,010–45,450 16,540 24,210 24,170-27,680

Suffolk 73,480 86,790 156,130–219,140 76,890 112,520 123,390-190,520

TOTAL 502,520 954,840 2,245,530–2,477,490 1,250,650 1,585,520 2,405,040–2,633,920

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: A value of “0” indicates that no projected FRA/FTA severe or moderate noise impact zones occur in that county. 

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-9

Table 7.12-6: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Noise – Severe Residential Impacts

Geography County

Estimated Population Within Severe Noise Impact Zones

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via

Long Island

via

Providence

via

Worcester

D.C. 21,790 — — — —

MD

Prince 

George’s 79,980 — — — —

Anne Arundel 34,240 — — — —

Baltimore Co. 43,400 — — — —

Baltimore City 7,860 — — — —

Harford 73,740 — — — —

Cecil 43,550 — — — —

DE New Castle 71,870 — — — —

PA

Delaware 46,790 — — — —

Philadelphia 151,280 — — — —

Bucks 58,920 — — — —

NJ

Mercer 53,890 — — — —

Middlesex 107,870 — — — —

Union 115,880 — — — —

Essex 32,100 — — — —

Hudson 18,520 — — — —

NY

New York — 4,710 4,710 — —

Kings — — 0 — —

Queens — 87,880 192,860 — —

Bronx — 222,190 123,470 — —

Westchester — 303,720 123,370 — —

Putnam — 0 — — —

Nassau — — 49,110 — —

Suffolk — — 29,540 — —

CT

Fairfield — 174,780 156,110–157,060 — —

New Haven — 90,880–109,280 145,760–157,990 — —

Hartford — 38,980 26,340–27,360 15,310

Tolland — — 7,890 31,940

Windham — — 11,250–15,130 1,020

Middlesex — — 3,140 5,700

New London — — 17,680–17,910 31,490-31,650

RI

Washington — — 8,340–8,610 18,120-18,280

Kent — — 7,950 15,040

Providence — — 73,150–73,610 71,920

MA

Bristol — — 57,980–58,000 33,150-33,170

Worcester — — — 107,920

Middlesex — — — 120

Norfolk — — 41,390–45,450 29,010-33,770

Suffolk — — 156,130–159,680 216,040-219,140

TOTAL 953,820 915,690–934,090 863,910–877,090 411,240–424,730 576,780–584,980

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Noise – Moderate Residential Impacts

Geography County

Estimated Population Within Moderate Noise Impact Zones

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via

Long Island

via

Providence

via

Worcester

D.C. 17,380 — — — —

MD

Prince 

George’s 73,190 — — — —

Anne Arundel 34,960 — — — —

Baltimore Co. 43,090 — — — —

Baltimore City 23,090 — — — —

Harford 59,770 — — — —

Cecil 90,300 — — — —

DE New Castle 79,710 — — — —

PA

Delaware 64,470 — — — —

Philadelphia 143,470 — — — —

Bucks 66,710 — — — —

NJ

Mercer 48,450 — — — —

Middlesex 141,500 — — — —

Union 167,350 — — — —

Essex 28,340 — — — —

Hudson 19,890 — — — —

NY

New York — 4,200 4,200 — —

Kings — — 0 — —

Queens — 90,330 209,650 — —

Bronx — 243,470 158,570 — —

Westchester — 191,090 122,450 — —

Putnam — 0 — — —

Nassau — — 49,500 — —

Suffolk — — 24,400 — —

CT

Fairfield — 161,210–161,450 146,440–147,390 — —

New Haven — 108,220–126,330 132,130–150,490 — —

Hartford — 36,720 33,440 23,460–24,070 17,820

Tolland — — — 14,180–17,110 51,850

Windham — — — 16,330–24,580 2,130

Middlesex — — — 6,240 8,580 – 8,670

New London — — — 36,000–36,140 47,550-47,610

RI

Washington — — — 20,690–21,070 36,700-36,910

Kent — — — 16,610 20,950

Providence — — — 116,820–131,070 83,480

MA

Bristol — — — 40,070–40,090 33,540-33,550

Worcester — — — — 115,470

Middlesex — — — — 280

Norfolk — — — 26,450–27,680 24,170-25,430

Suffolk — — — 123,390–125,840 186,770-190,520

TOTAL 1,078,580 835,240–853,590 880,780–900,090 440,240–470,500 629,290–634,670

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: A value of “0” indicates that no projected FRA/FTA severe or moderate noise impact zones occur in that county.

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-11

Table 7.12-8: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Vibration – Residential 

Impacts

Geography County

Estimated Population Within Vibration Impact Zones

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. 0 0 0

MD

Prince George’s 0 0 0

Anne Arundel 0 0 0

Baltimore Co. 0 0 13,200

Baltimore City 54,570 54,570 180,130

Harford 0 0 17,950

Cecil 0 8,250 7,170

DE New Castle 0 3,700 20,990

PA

Delaware 0 4,090 950

Philadelphia 0 32,620 142,580

Bucks 0 0 0

NJ

Mercer 0 0 0

Middlesex 0 42,750 22,540

Union 0 0 0

Essex 0 0 0

Hudson 0 0 80,720

NY

New York 0 2,370 106,430–340,710

Kings — — 6,670

Queens 0 188,790 183,770–319,640

Bronx 0 0 0–1,230

Westchester 0 8,380 0–34,090

Putnam — — 0–2,040

Nassau — — 0–85,260

Suffolk — — 0–103,880

CT

Fairfield 0 74,030 38,970–51,500

New Haven 0 7,630 19,880–22,900

Hartford — 5,590 49,370–57,520

Tolland — 3,940 5,130–5,530

Windham — 1,910 140–2,490

Middlesex 50 0 0

New London 11,920 0 0

RI

Washington 3,940 0 0

Kent 0 0 0

Providence 0 44,480 0–76,330

MA

Bristol 0 0 0–3,960

Worcester — — 32,460

Middlesex — — 66,700

Norfolk 0 0 5,410

Suffolk 0 0 0–127,960

TOTAL 70,480 483,100 1,267,610–1,415,850

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: A value of “0” indicates that no projected FRA/FTA severe or moderate noise impact zones occur in that county.

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-9: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Vibration – Residential Impacts

Geography County

Estimated Population Within Vibration Impact Zones

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut via Long Island via Providence via Worcester

D.C. 0 — — — —

MD

Prince George’s 0 — — — —

Anne Arundel 0 — — — —

Baltimore Co. 13,200 — — — —

Baltimore City 180,130 — — — —

Harford 17,950 — — — —

Cecil 7,170 — — — —

DE New Castle 20,990 — — — —

PA

Delaware 950 — — — —

Philadelphia 142,580 — — — —

Bucks 0 — — — —

NJ

Mercer 0 — — — —

Middlesex 22,540 — — — —

Union 0 — — — —

Essex 0 — — — —

Hudson 80,720 — — — —

NY

New York — 340,710 106,430 — —

Kings — — 6,670 — —

Queens — 183,770 319,640 — —

Bronx — 1,230 0 — —

Westchester — 34,090 0 — —

Putnam — 2,040 — — —

Nassau — — 85,260 — —

Suffolk — — 103,880 — —

CT

Fairfield — 51,500 38,970 — —

New Haven — 22,900 19,880 — —

Hartford — 45,480 39,610 6,110–17,910 9,750

Tolland — — — 5,130 5,530

Windham — — — 2,490 140

Middlesex — — — 0 0

New London — — — 0 0

RI

Washington — — — 0 0

Kent — — — 0 0

Providence — — — 76,040–76,330 0

MA

Bristol — — — 3,820-3,960 0

Worcester — — — — 32,460

Middlesex — — — — 66,700

Norfolk — — — 0 5,410

Suffolk — — — 0 127,960

TOTAL 306,100 681,720 720,340 93,590-105,820 247,950

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: A value of “0” indicates that no projected FRA/FTA severe or moderate noise impact zones occur in that county.

— = Representative Route is not applicable to state and county.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-13

Table 7.12-10: Environmental Consequences: Affected Environment – Noise – Summary of 

Related Resources

Geography County Resource of Interest

Summary of Related Resources

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alternative 3

DCNYC

New York City to 

Hartford

Hartford to 

Boston

Central 

CT

Long 

Island

ProvidenceWorcester

D.C.

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

MD

Prince 

George’s

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties

Anne Arundel

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Baltimore 

County

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Baltimore City

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Harford

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Cecil

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

DE New Castle

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

PA

Delaware

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Philadelphia

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Bucks

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-10: Environmental Consequences: Affected Environment – Noise – Summary of 

Related Resources (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Summary of Related Resources

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alt. 3

DCNYC

New York City to 

Hartford

Hartford to 

Boston

Central 

CT

Long 

Island

ProvidenceWorcester

NJ

Mercer

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Middlesex

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Union

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Essex

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Hudson

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

NY

New York

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Queens

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Bronx

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Westchester

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Nassau

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

Suffolk

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

CT

Fairfield

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

New Haven

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-15

Table 7.12-10: Environmental Consequences: Affected Environment – Noise – Summary of 

Related Resources (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Summary of Related Resources

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alt. 3

DCNYC

New York City to 

Hartford

Hartford to 

Boston

Central 

CT

Long 

Island

ProvidenceWorcester

CT (cont’d)

Hartford

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Tolland

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Windham

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Middlesex

Parks

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

New London

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

RI

Washington

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Kent

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Providence

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

MA

Bristol

Parks

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Worcester

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

Norfolk

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Suffolk

Parks X X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Parks, Ecologically Sensitive Habitat, and Cultural/Historic Properties could also be Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources.

Blank cell = No coinciding noise impacts with the resource of interest.

X = Resource presence was noted where noise impact is projected for people living within the Affected Environment.
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-11: Environmental Consequences: Affected Environment – Vibration – Summary 

of Related Resources

Geography County Resource of Interest

Summary of Related Resources

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alternative 3

DCNYC

New York City to 

Hartford Hartford to Boston

Central 

CT

Long 

Island

ProvidenceWorcester

MD

Baltimore 

County

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Baltimore 

City

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Harford

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

Cecil

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

DE New Castle

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

PA

Delaware

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Philadelphia

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

NJ

Middlesex

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Hudson

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

NY

New York

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Kings

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties

Queens

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Bronx

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Westchester

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-17

Table 7.12-11: Environmental Consequences: Affected Environment – Vibration – Summary 

of Related Resources (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Summary of Related Resources

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alternative 3

DCNYC

New York City to 

Hartford Hartford to Boston

Central 

CT

Long 

Island

ProvidenceWorcester

NY (cont’d)

Putnam

Parks

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat

Cultural/Historic Properties

Nassau

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

Suffolk

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

CT

Fairfield

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

New Haven

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Hartford

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X X

Tolland

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X X

Windham

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

New London

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

RI

Washington

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

Providence

Parks X X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

MA

Bristol

Parks

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X

Worcester

Parks X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X

Cultural/Historic Properties X
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.12-11: Environmental Consequences: Affected Environment – Vibration – Summary 

of Related Resources (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Summary of Related Resources

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alternative 3

DCNYC

New York City to 

Hartford Hartford to Boston

Central 

CT

Long

Island

ProvidenceWorcester

MA (cont’d)

Norfolk

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Suffolk

Parks X X

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat X X

Cultural/Historic Properties X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Parks, Ecologically Sensitive Habitat, and Cultural/Historic Properties could also be Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources

Blank cell = No coinciding noise impacts with the resource of interest.

X = Resource presence was noted where vibration impact is projected within the Affected Environment. Vibration impacts apply 

only to resources that contain building structures and do not apply to open land.

7.12.4.3 Alternative 1

In terms of the number of people affected, Alternative 1 would result in 502,520 severe noise 

impacts, 1,250,650 moderate noise impacts, and 70,480 vibration impacts. The most noise impacts 

would occur in Fairfield County, CT, where there are new route options in populated areas that 

deviate from the existing NEC. A high number of noise impacts would occur in Philadelphia County, 

PA; and Queens, Bronx, and Westchester Counties, NY; New Haven County, CT; Providence County, 

RI; and Suffolk County, MA, where there are densely populated areas along the route. Vibration 

impacts for Alternative 1 would be limited to Baltimore City, MD; New London County, CT; and 

Washington County, RI, where there are new route options that deviate from the existing NEC.

7.12.4.4 Alternative 2

In terms of the number of people affected, Alternative 2 would result in 954,840 severe noise 

impacts, 1,585,520 moderate noise impacts, and 483,100 vibration impacts. The geographical 

distribution of noise impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, with generally greater numbers of 

impacts. However, in certain areas the projected impacts would be fewer for Alternative 2 than for 

Alternative 1. These areas include Essex County, NJ (where Intercity-Express trains would be diverted 

through a tunnel section), and areas along the existing NEC from Middlesex County, CT, through 

Providence County, RI (where Intercity-Express trains would be diverted along a bypass through 

Hartford, CT). There would also be noise impacts in Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties, CT,

because of train operations along the bypass through Hartford. For vibration, the greatest number of 

impacts for Alternative 2 would occur in Queens County, NY, where there would be a new tunnel 

bypass segment through a densely populated area.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.12-19

7.12.4.5 Alternative 3

Relative to Alternatives 1 and 2, the Alternative 3 route options, which include many new off-corridor 

routes with higher train speeds, would have many more noise and vibration impacts. The results are 

summarized below by route.

Washington, D.C., to New York City 

In terms of the number of people affected, the Alternative 3 portion between Washington, D.C., and 

New York City would result in 953,820 severe and 1,087,580 moderate noise impacts, and 306,100

vibration impacts. The greatest number of noise impacts would occur in densely populated 

Philadelphia County, PA, and in Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ. For vibration, the greatest number 

of impacts would occur in Baltimore, MD, and Philadelphia, PA, where there are major new tunnel 

sections.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut 

In terms of the number of people affected, Alternative 3 between New York City and Hartford via 

Central Connecticut would result in up to 934,090 severe and 853,590 moderate noise impacts, and 

681,720 vibration impacts. The most noise impacts would occur in densely populated Bronx and 

Westchester Counties, NY, and in Fairfield County, CT. For vibration, the most impacts would occur 

in densely populated New York and Queens Counties, NY, because of major new tunnel sections.

Via Long Island

In terms of the number of people affected, Alternative 3 between New York City and Hartford via 

Long Island would result in up to 877,090 severe and 900,090 moderate noise impacts, and 720,340

vibration impacts. Although these impacts would not be very different than those for the route option 

via Central Connecticut, slightly fewer noise impacts and slightly more vibration impacts would occur 

for the route option via Long Island. The greatest numbers of noise and vibration impacts would occur 

in densely populated Queens County, NY, where the new route option through Long Island begins.

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

In terms of the number of people affected, Alternative 3 between Hartford and Boston via Providence 

route option would result in up to 424,730 severe and 470,500 moderate noise impacts, and up to 

105,820 vibration impacts. The most noise impacts would occur in densely populated Providence 

County, RI, and Suffolk County, MA. For vibration, the most impacts would occur in Providence 

County, where there would be a major new tunnel section.

Via Worcester 

In terms of the number of people affected, Alternative 3 between Hartford and Boston via Worcester 

route option would result in up to 584,980 severe and 634,670 moderate noise impacts, and 247,950

vibration impacts. These impacts are significantly greater than for the route option via Providence.

The most noise and vibration impacts would occur along the new route option through densely

populated Suffolk County, MA.
7.12. Noise and Vibration

Page | 7.12-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.12.5 Context Area 

Within the Context Area, the areas of greatest concern are those with the greatest concentration of 

residences and parkland. A shift in the Representative Route of any of the Action Alternatives may 

result in noise and vibration impacts to these sensitive resources.

7.12.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies

Potential noise and vibration mitigation strategies will focus on minimizing impacts at the source (e.g.,

vehicle treatments, track treatments and horn-free quiet zones), along the transmission path (e.g.,

sound barriers and track vibration isolation treatments), and at the receiver (e.g., building sound 

insulation treatments).

7.12.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis

This Tier 1 analysis identifies the number of people, parks, wildlife preserves, cultural resources and 

historic properties, and Section 4(f)/6(f) resources that would be affected by noise and vibration 

impacts of the Action Alternatives. However, because of the lack of detailed design information, this 

Tier 1 Draft EIS does not include a quantitative analysis of impacts from ancillary facilities, stations,

and project-related changes in roadway and aircraft traffic. Tier 2 analyses would identify the actual 

numbers of affected residences, the types of land uses, and locations of sensitive receptors, and 

would include a quantitative evaluation of potential noise and vibration effects on wildlife and natural 

parks. The development of mitigation measures and designs that would avoid or minimize noise and 

vibration effects would also be included in the Tier 2 analyses.