February 2020 | ES-1 

 Executive Summary

ES.1 Introduction 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is proposing to undertake the Sawtooth Bridges 

Replacement Project (Proposed Project) to replace Amtrak Bridges No. 7.80 and No. 7.96, collectively 

referred to as the “Sawtooth Bridges.” The Proposed Project site is in the Town of Kearny, Hudson County, 

New Jersey between Newark Penn Station and Secaucus Junction (see Figure 1-1) and includes an 

approximately 1.1-mile long segment of existing transportation right-of-way along Amtrak’s Northeast 

Corridor (NEC), located roughly between Mile Post (MP) 8.3 (“Hudson Interlocking”) on the west end and 

MP 7.2 (“Swift Interlocking”) on the east end. The Sawtooth Bridges do not cross any bodies of water; 

rather, they span over other rail tracks. Amtrak Bridge No. 7.80 carries two NEC tracks over four New 

Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) rail tracks that serve the NJ TRANSIT Morris & Essex Line. 

Amtrak Bridge No. 7.96 carries the two NEC tracks over one Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation 

(PATH) Newark–World Trade Center (WTC) rail track and one Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) 

freight rail track (see Figure 1-2). 

The Proposed Project would include three new rail-carrying bridges and result in a new four-track segment 

of the NEC with higher design speeds. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to achieve a state of good 

repair, and to improve the reliability and resiliency of rail service along this critical segment of the NEC.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the lead federal agency for this Environmental Assessment 

(EA). Amtrak, as the Sawtooth Bridges owner and operator, is providing conceptual and preliminary 

engineering designs. NJ TRANSIT is serving as a Participating Agency. 

FRA and Amtrak prepared this EA and draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Proposed Project in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and other applicable 

federal statutes, rules, and regulations to evaluate alternatives and assess potential environmental effects of 

the Proposed Project. This EA examines the environmental effects of the No Action Alternative and the 

Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Project. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the environmental effects 

resulting from the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Project. 

ES.2 Purpose and Need

The increasing age of the Sawtooth Bridges, their poor structural condition, and their two tracks (which are 

restricted to 60 miles per hour [mph]) limit the efficiency and reliability of rail operations throughout this 

segment of the NEC. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to achieve a state of good repair and to improve 

the reliability and resiliency of rail service along this critical segment of the NEC, while preserving the 

current functionality of Amtrak’s NEC service and NJ TRANSIT’s commuter rail service. 

Aging Infrastructure

The Sawtooth Bridges are critical links on Amtrak’s NEC. They currently present an existing bottleneck

on this significant portion of the NEC. The Sawtooth Bridges date to 1907 and are nearing the end of their 

functional life. Amtrak rehabilitated the bridges in the early 1980s to strengthen selected columns, remove 

deteriorated concrete encasement from columns, perform bearing repairs, and install deck waterproofing 

and deck drains. Despite this rehabilitation effort, recent inspections of both bridges indicate that the 

Sawtooth Bridges continue to deteriorate. Amtrak conducted a special inspection and condition survey in 
Executive Summary

February 2020 | ES-2 

2013 and concluded the Sawtooth Bridges are in poor to very poor condition. Thus, Amtrak must replace 

the existing Sawtooth Bridges to achieve a state of good repair. 

Reliability and Resiliency Challenges 

Under normal peak period conditions, the existing two-track Sawtooth Bridges are at capacity. The 

Sawtooth Bridges do not provide redundancy for reliable train operations during maintenance work nor do 

they guarantee resiliency in the event of unexpected service disruptions. Therefore, any service disruption 

results in major passenger delays and substantial reductions to overall system flexibility, reliability, and ontime performance. These delays affect not only Amtrak passengers, but also NJ TRANSIT passengers 

because any NEC maintenance causes service disruptions to both railroads. 

The Proposed Project would result in a total of four NEC tracks, which would provide the redundancy 

needed to divert trains to alternate tracks during scheduled maintenance and unexpected disruptions, 

therefore minimizing delays and resulting in more reliable and resilient rail service. In the longer-term, the 

additional capacity would accommodate future planned rail service increases, which would be possible only 

with other infrastructure improvements along the NEC. Therefore, as stated above, the purpose of the 

Proposed Project is to achieve a state of good repair and to improve the reliability and resiliency of rail 

service along this critical segment of the NEC, while preserving the current functionality of Amtrak’s NEC 

service and NJ TRANSIT’s commuter rail service. 

Proposed Project Goals

FRA and Amtrak considered the Proposed Project’s Purpose and Need, the larger planning context, and the 

design constraints to identify the following goals for the Proposed Project: 

Primary Goals 

1. Achieve a state of good repair for the bridges and their approach structures; 

2. Reduce service disruptions and delays to improve rail service reliability and resiliency by providing 

redundant capacity; and 

3. Reduce service disruptions and delays to improve rail service reliability and resiliency by 

increasing design speeds. 

Secondary Goals

1. Maintain service and connectivity along the NEC during construction; 

2. Optimize the use of existing infrastructure;

3. Accommodate current and planned future rail operations; 

4. Minimize permanent and temporary impacts to the surrounding environment; and

5. Benefit the environment by improving the rail system as an energy-efficient mode of travel.

These Proposed Project goals are consistent with FRA’s overall goals to improve the NEC, as envisioned 

in FRA’s NEC FUTURE initiative. These goals support the Proposed Project’s Purpose and Need, while 

not precluding the Gateway Program (i.e., the planned expansion and renovation of the NEC between 

Newark Penn Station, NJ and New York Penn Station) or other planned projects along this segment of the 

NEC in the long term.

ES.3 Project Alternatives 

As part of the conceptual design phase, FRA and Amtrak conducted a rigorous alternatives development 

process that considered the spatial and operational constraints within the Proposed Project site, as well as 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | ES-3 

the need to maintain existing service along the NEC and adjacent rail lines. As a result, FRA and Amtrak 

identified the No Action Alternative, Rehabilitation Alternative, On-Line Replacement Alternative, and the 

New Alignment Alternative (including four alignment options). FRA and Amtrak performed a screening 

analysis that included a “fatal flaw” assessment, which evaluated the ability of the alternatives to meet the 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project. FRA and Amtrak developed three primary goals and five 

secondary goals for the Proposed Project and used these goals in evaluating the alternatives. The primary 

goals are directly related to the Proposed Project’s Purpose and Need. FRA and Amtrak eliminated the 

alternatives that would not meet all three of the primary goals, as they were considered fatally flawed. FRA 

and Amtrak also evaluated each of the alternatives with respect to the secondary goals but did not consider 

the inability of an alternative to meet one or more of the secondary goals as fatally flawed. A description 

of each of the alternatives is included below. 

No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, Amtrak would not replace the existing Sawtooth 

Bridges, and they would remain in service in their poor structural condition. Amtrak would continue to 

make critical repairs on an as-needed basis and continue the current maintenance regime. Eventually, 

Amtrak would be forced to take the Sawtooth Bridges out of service to avoid catastrophic failure.

Rehabilitation Alternative – The Rehabilitation Alternative would involve the proactive replacement of 

identified deficiencies, one at a time, thus extending the service life of the Sawtooth Bridges by another 10 

to 20 years and allowing for a 90-mph design speed on the two existing NEC tracks. The Rehabilitation 

Alternative would not bring the Sawtooth Bridges to a state of good repair. 

On-Line Replacement Alternative – The On-Line Replacement Alternative would include the 

replacement of the entire Sawtooth Bridges structures along their current alignment. With this alternative, 

Amtrak would need to completely shut down rail service along this segment of the NEC for an extended 

period of time (i.e., several years). 

New Alignment Alternative – The New Alignment Alternative would include the construction of new 

Sawtooth Bridges that would carry a total of four NEC tracks. These new bridges would provide the 

redundant capacity needed for reliable and resilient service, and support the capacity expansion and service 

growth planned as part of NEC FUTURE and the Gateway Program. The New Alignment Alternative 

would replace the two existing bridges that carry two NEC tracks along a single alignment with two or three 

new parallel bridges that would carry four NEC tracks. 

The No Action Alternative, Rehabilitation Alternative, and the On-Line Replacement Alternative do not 

meet the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project and are therefore fatally flawed. The New Alignment 

Alternative meets the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project and either meets or partially meets each of 

the secondary goals for the Proposed Project. Therefore, Amtrak further developed the New Alignment 

Alternative and considered four Alignment Options as part of the conceptual design phase to address 

operational and spatial constraints, maximize design speeds, and optimize the use of existing infrastructure.

All Alignment Options would result in four NEC tracks, maintain the existing two NEC tracks in service 

during construction, and be compatible with other planned rail projects. The Alignment Options are as 

follows: 

• New Alignment Alternative – Option 1 

o 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the north of the existing alignment 
Executive Summary

February 2020 | ES-4 

o 2 NEC tracks on a viaduct structure along the existing alignment 

o 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the south of the existing alignment 

o Morris & Essex Line Track 5 would be reconstructed on a new viaduct structure north of 

the existing Morris & Essex Line Track 5 alignment 

• New Alignment Alternative – Option 2 

o 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the north of the existing alignment

o 3 NEC tracks on a viaduct structure along the existing alignment and to the south of the 

existing alignment 

o Morris & Essex Line Track 5 would be reconstructed on a new viaduct structure north of 

the existing Morris & Essex Line Track 5 alignment 

• New Alignment Alternative – Option 2A 

o 2 NEC tracks to the north of the existing alignment, referred to as Sawtooth Bridge North 

o 2 NEC tracks along the existing alignment, referred to as Sawtooth Bridge South 

o Morris & Essex Line Track 5 would be reconstructed on a new viaduct structure north of 

the existing Morris & Essex Line Track 5 alignment 

• New Alignment Alternative – Option 3 

o 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the north of the existing alignment 

o 2 NEC tracks on a viaduct structure along the existing alignment 

o 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the south of the existing alignment 

o Morris & Essex Line Track 5 would not need to be reconstructed and would only require 

minor realignment 

Amtrak evaluated each of the four Alignment Options based on their ability to meet primary goal number 

3 and secondary goal number 2 of the Proposed Project. The ability of the Alignment Options to meet these 

two goals was based on the following criteria: 

• Allows for 90 mph for all permanent and temporary NEC tracks; 

• Avoids NJ TRANSIT Red Bridge reconstruction and major Eastbound Waterfront Connection 

realignment;

• Avoids major realignment of the NJ TRANSIT Morris & Essex Line Track 5;

• Minimizes the number of viaducts; 

• Minimizes reconstruction/realignment of temporary tracks; and

• Minimizes minor realignment and changes to interlockings, turnouts, and crossovers.

Based on this screening process, Amtrak selected the New Alignment Alternative – Option 2A as the 

Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Project. Option 2A would entail the construction of two new tracks 

and associated viaduct structures to the north of the existing Sawtooth Bridges (referred to as the Sawtooth 

Bridge North) while the existing bridges and tracks remain in service. Once construction of the new tracks 

is complete, Amtrak would move service from the existing bridges onto the new Sawtooth Bridge North

and demolish the existing bridges. Amtrak would then construct a new bridge with two tracks along the 

existing alignment (referred to as the Sawtooth Bridge South).

ES.4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table ES-1 below summarizes the potential environmental effects resulting from both the No Action 

Alternative and the Proposed Project. 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | ES-5 

Table ES-1: Summary of Environmental Effects

Environmental Category Alternative Environmental Effects

Transportation

No Action 

• Continued deterioration of the Sawtooth Bridges

• Increasingly unpredictable bridge maintenance costs and disruptions

• Eventual lack of service affecting mobility and the regional economy

Proposed Project

• Four-track crossing and design speeds of 90 mph to improve railroad operations

• Improved resiliency, redundancy and reliability, continued rail connectivity, and supports possibility of 

future capacity increases in conjunction with other planned rail improvement projects

• Temporary track outages throughout construction with no significant adverse effects to Amtrak or 

other railroad operators

• No anticipated roadway, traffic or parking changes

Land Use

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project

• No residential or commercial property acquisition

• 5.25 acres of property acquired from Conrail

• No impacts to parkland or land use

• No anticipated construction-period adverse effects to land use

Zoning / Public Policy

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project • Consistent with surrounding zoning classifications during construction and operation of the Proposed 

Project

Socioeconomic Conditions 

/ Environmental Justice

No Action • No disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations

• Suspension of service would have significant adverse effects to the regional economy and mobility

Proposed Project • No disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations from construction or operation of 

the Proposed Project

Visual / Aesthetic 

Resources

No Action • No change to visual and aesthetic conditions with the exception of further deterioration to the Sawtooth 

Bridges

Proposed Project

• No permanent or temporary adverse impacts to visual or aesthetic resources

• Elevation of the new Sawtooth Bridges would be up to approximately 5 feet higher

• Project elements would remain in context with the Proposed Project site and industrial surroundings

Cultural Resources

No Action • Extensive repairs to the existing Sawtooth Bridges would likely diminish their historic integrity

Proposed Project

• Adverse effect to the Pennsylvania Railroad New York to Philadelphia Historic District (the existing 

Sawtooth Bridges are a contributing element)

• Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects to cultural resources are included in the Section 106

Programmatic Agreement (PA)

• No anticipated adverse effects to archaeological resources

• Qualified archaeologist would review additional information regarding potential for specific subsurface impacts 
Executive Summary

February 2020 | ES-6 

Environmental Category Alternative Environmental Effects

Floodplains /

Riparian Zones

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project • No impact

Coastal Zone No Action • No impact

Proposed Project • No impact

Wetlands, Open Water, 

Water Quality

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project

• No adverse impacts to water quality

• 1.04 acres of potential permanent regulated wetland impacts

• Temporary disturbance of up to one acre of wetlands and open waters due to construction activity 

• Coordination with regulatory agencies to identify measures to minimize the temporary and permanent 

effects on wetlands

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project • No adverse impacts to critical habitats or threatened and endangered species from operation of the 

Proposed Project

Air Quality

No Action • Sawtooth Bridges would eventually be taken out of service and would disrupt NEC passenger rail 

service, thus resulting in more vehicular traffic and increasing air pollutant emissions

Proposed Project

• No significant adverse air quality impacts

• Operation of the Proposed Project would result in regional air quality benefits when considered with 

other rail improvements

• Construction would not interfere with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for applicable National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and would not require a conformity determination

Noise and Vibration No Action • No impact

Proposed Project • No adverse noise or vibration impacts

Contaminated / Hazardous 

Materials

No Action • No impact

• Ongoing remediation activities within the study area would continue

Proposed Project

• No adverse impacts to contaminated and hazardous materials

• Protocols for managing, excavating, transporting, and disposing of potential hazardous materials to 

avoid adverse impacts during construction

Public Health and Safety

No Action • Amtrak would eventually need to take the existing Sawtooth Bridges out of service to avoid safety 

problems and catastrophic failure

Proposed Project

• No adverse impacts to public health and safety

• More reliable infrastructure for continued safe rail passenger service

• Site-specific plans to be incorporated into all contract documents to ensure health and safety

Irreversible & Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project

• No impact

• Proposed Project would use construction materials, fossil fuels, and electricity, but would not have 

adverse impacts on their continued availability
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | ES-7 

Environmental Category Alternative Environmental Effects

Indirect and Cumulative 

Effects

No Action • No impact

Proposed Project

• No adverse indirect impacts to land use; zoning and public policy; visual and aesthetic resources; 

cultural or natural resources; air quality; noise and vibration; contaminated and hazardous materials; 

public health, safety and security

• Beneficial indirect impacts to the local economy

• Cumulative transportation benefit with the implementation of other NEC FUTURE elements

Draft Section 4(f)

Evaluation

No Action • No Section 4(f) use

Proposed Project

• Use of Section 4(f) property: Pennsylvania Railroad New York to Philadelphia Historic District due to 

the demolition of the Sawtooth Bridges, which are contributing resources to the Historic District

• No feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid use of Section 4(f) property

• Amtrak and FRA, in conjunction with NJ Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO), developed measures 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect on the contributing resources of the Pennsylvania 

Railroad New York to Philadelphia Historic District, as set forth in the Section 106 PA
February 2020 | 1-1 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is proposing to replace Amtrak Bridges No. 7.80 

and No. 7.96, collectively referred to as the “Sawtooth Bridges,” which are critical links and existing 

bottlenecks on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC). The NEC is one of the busiest transportation systems 

in the world. The Sawtooth Bridges are in the Town of Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey between 

Newark Penn Station and Secaucus Junction (see Figure 1-1). The Sawtooth Bridges do not cross any bodies 

of water; rather, they span over other rail tracks. Amtrak Bridge No. 7.80 carries two NEC tracks over four 

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) rail tracks that serve the NJ TRANSIT Morris & Essex 

Line. Amtrak Bridge No. 7.96 carries the two NEC tracks over one Port Authority Trans-Hudson 

Corporation (PATH) Newark–World Trade Center (WTC) rail track and one Consolidated Rail Corporation 

(Conrail) freight rail track (see Figure 1-2). Figures 1-3A through 1-3E present photographs of the existing 

Sawtooth Bridges. 

The age of the Sawtooth Bridges, their poor structural condition, and their two tracks (which are restricted 

to 60 miles per hour [mph]) limit the efficiency and reliability of rail operations throughout this segment of 

the NEC. The purpose of the Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project (Proposed Project) is to achieve a state 

of good repair and to improve the reliability and resiliency of rail service along this critical segment of the 

NEC, while preserving the current functionality of Amtrak’s NEC service and NJ TRANSIT’s commuter 

rail service. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

and draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA Environmental Procedures) (64 Federal 

Register [FR] 28545 [May 26, 1999] and 78 FR 2713 [January 14, 2013]); Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) Act of 1966; Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and other applicable federal statutes, rules, and 

regulations. NJ TRANSIT is serving as a Participating Agency.

1.2 Project Location 

The Proposed Project site includes an approximately 1.1-mile long segment of existing transportation rightof-way along the NEC, located roughly between Mile Post (MP) 8.3 (“Hudson Interlocking”) on the west 

end and MP 7.2 (“Swift Interlocking”) on the east end (see Figure 1-4). The segment of the NEC that 

includes the Proposed Project site is known as the Highline. The Highline extends from Newark, NJ to the 

entrance of the North River Tunnel in Weehawken, NJ, which carries the NEC under the Hudson River. 

Industrial uses, major roadways, rail corridors, the Passaic River, wetlands, and landfills characterize the 

750-foot-wide study area surrounding the Proposed Project site. Roadways within the Proposed Project site 

include Interstate-95 (New Jersey Turnpike), Interstate-280 (Essex Freeway), and the Newark-Jersey City 

Turnpike. Rail lines within the 750-foot-wide study area include Amtrak’s NEC, NJ TRANSIT’s Morris & 

Essex Line, NJ TRANSIT’s Eastbound Waterfront Connection, Conrail’s Center Street Industrial Track

(former Conrail Center Street Branch), and the PATH Newark–WTC rail line. The Proposed Project site is 

within the Hackensack Meadowlands District.
^_

^_

E A S T R I V E R

Hudson

County

§ ̈¦495

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦478

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦278

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦278

Bergen

County

Essex

County

Hudson

County

Passaic

County

Union

County

Bronx

County

Kings

County

New York

County

Queens

County

Elizabeth

Bayonne

Union

City

Kearny

East

Orange

City of

Orange

Township

Jersey

City

Fort Lee

Borough

Hoboken

West

New York

North

Arlington

Borough Secaucus

Belleville

Township

Lyndhurst

Township

North

Bergen

Township

West

Orange

Township

Fairview

Borough

Cliffside

Park

Borough Nutley

Township

Rutherford

Borough

Ridgefield

Borough

Bloomfield

Township

Carlstadt

Borough

East

Rutherford

Borough

Moonachie

Borough

Montclair

Township

Clifton

Hillside

Township

Harrison

Irvington

Township

Newark

8/3/2018

0 5 Miles

Figure 1-1

Proposed Project Site

 Meadowlands District

Project Context

SAWTOOTH BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Secaucus Junction

Newark Penn Station Northeast Corridor

^_

^_
8/3/2018

Figure 1-2

Existing Rail Tracks and Operators

SAWTOOTH BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT

NJT M&E Track 5

PATH

PATH

Conrail

NJT EWC

NEC

NEC

NJT M&E

NJT M&E

NJT M&E

NJ Transit Red Bridge

Amtrak Bridge No. 7.80

Amtrak Bridge No. 7.96
AMTRAK BRIDGE

7.96 (OVER PATH AND CONRAIL)

AMTRAK BRIDGE

7.80 (OVER NJT)

2

6,7,8

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦95

5

3,4

1

Newark Tpke

Newark Tpke

Lister Ave

Pennsylvania Ave

Harrison Ave

Bergen Ave

Blanchard St

Jacobus Ave

4/11/2018

0 1,000 FEET Proposed Project Site

Photograph View Direction and Reference Number (Refer to Figures 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E for photographs)

Proposed Project Site 

SAWTOOTH BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 1­3A

1

Amtrak Bridge 7.96

Amtrak Bridge 7.80

AREA OF DETAIL

Interstate 280

New Jersey Tpke
"#$% &'($()*+,'-

$!""!"%

"#$%&&%' ()*+,-" )-./#0-1-2% .)&3-0%

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 879;< ',=#(0 $,1) " 

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 879;< ',=#(0 %$1) #

Figure 1­3B
$!""!"%

"#$%&&%' ()*+,-" )-./#0-1-2% .)&3-0%

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 87>?< ',=#(0 1&@)*%$1) $

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 87>?< ',=#(0 1&@)* %

"#$% &'($()*+,'-

Figure 1­3C
"#$% &'($()*+,'-

$!""!"%

"#$%&&%' ()*+,-" )-./#0-1-2% .)&3-0%

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 87>?< )& )*$ A$') ,(/ 

)*$ 6B C.,(1#) Red Bridge )& )*$ .#0*)H ',=#(0 (&.)*$,1) 

&

Figure 1­3D
"#$% &'($()*+,'-

$!""!"%

"#$%&&%' ()*+,-" )-./#0-1-2% .)&3-0%

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 

234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 879;< ',=#(0 1&@)*%$1) 

"#$% '.&4 @(/$.($,)* &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 

234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 879;< ',=#(0 %$1)

"#$% &' &($ &' )*$ +,%)&&)* -.#/0$1 

234).,5 -.#/0$ 6&7 879;< ',=#(0 %$1) 

' (

)

Figure 1­3E
§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦95

Kearny

Harrison

Newark

Newark Tpke

Newark Tpke

Lockwood St

Albert Ave

BlanchardSt

Sanford Ave

3Rd St

Lister Ave

Pennsylvania Ave

Harrison Ave

Bergen Ave

Boylan Ave

Catherine St

Cornelia St

Joseph St

Esther St

Chapel St

Jacobus Ave

8/3/2018

0 1,000 FEET

Figure 1-4

Study Area

Municipal Boundary

Project Site

SAWTOOTH BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Passaic River

Hudson Interlocking

Swift Interlocking

Proposed Project Site
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 1-2 

1.3 Project Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to achieve a state of good repair and to improve the reliability and 

resiliency of rail service along this critical segment of the NEC, while preserving the current functionality 

of Amtrak’s NEC service and NJ TRANSIT’s commuter rail service. The following subsections describe 

the need for the Proposed Project. 

1.3.1 Aging Infrastructure

The Sawtooth Bridges date to 1907 and are nearing the end of their functional life. The existing bridges 

carry two tracks on staggered viaduct structures, giving the bridges their “sawtooth” appearance. Amtrak 

rehabilitated the bridges in the early 1980s to strengthen selected columns, remove deteriorated concrete 

encasement from columns, perform bearing repairs, and install deck waterproofing and deck drains. Despite 

this rehabilitation effort, recent inspections of both bridges indicate that the Sawtooth Bridges continue to 

deteriorate. Amtrak conducted a special inspection and condition survey in 2013 and concluded the 

Sawtooth Bridges are in poor to very poor condition. The inspection also noted that the floor beams are not 

visible (except for the bottom flanges) at both bridges. The deck waterproofing has broken down and 

seepage, coupled with calcite formation, has contributed to corrosion of the floor beam webs. Previous 

inspections have noted the girders of Bridge No. 7.96 have developed cracks on two separate occasions

requiring immediate repairs.

1 These conditions are indicative of the age and shortcomings of the bridge’s 

design. As Bridge No. 7.80 is of a similar design, Amtrak expects similar deficiencies to develop on this 

bridge. Moreover, as these bridges are over 110 years old, they do not meet current design standards, 

including track clearances. 

The Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor2 report, prepared by the Northeast Corridor 

Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission, discusses the structural conditions of the various 

bridges on the Highline, including the Sawtooth Bridges, and recommends replacement. Based on these

findings, Amtrak concluded that the Sawtooth Bridges have reached, if not exceeded, their functional life

and that they must be replaced to achieve a state of good repair. FRA concurs with this assessment of the 

Sawtooth Bridges. 

1.3.2 Reliability and Resiliency Challenges 

The Sawtooth Bridges do not provide redundancy for reliable train operations during maintenance work 

nor do they guarantee resiliency in the event of unexpected service disruptions. Therefore, any service 

disruption results in major passenger delays and substantial reductions to overall system flexibility, 

reliability, and on-time performance. These delays affect not only Amtrak passengers, but also NJ 

TRANSIT passengers because any NEC maintenance causes service disruptions to both railroads. To avoid 

taking a track out of service during peak periods, Amtrak typically must perform scheduled maintenance 

during nights and weekends. 

Without the Proposed Project, the challenge of providing reliable and resilient service will be greater in the 

future and the lack of redundant capacity will become increasingly problematic. Under normal peak period 

conditions, the existing two-track Sawtooth Bridges are at capacity. As traffic along the NEC increases, 

fewer suitable time periods will be available for maintenance, creating additional operational constraints.

1 Bridge Condition Inspection Report of Amtrak UG7.96 Northeast Corridor over Conrail and PATH, City of Harrison, Hudson 

County, NJ – Inspection Date: August 25, 1997. 2 Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor Report, the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 

Commission, published January 2013 (http://www.nec-commission.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf).
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

February 2020 | 1-3 

The Highline—along with the North River Tunnel and Portal Bridge — already forms part of the most 

significant capacity bottleneck on the NEC.3

 

The Proposed Project would result in a total of four NEC tracks, which would provide the redundancy 

needed to divert trains to alternate tracks during scheduled maintenance and unexpected disruptions, 

therefore minimizing delays and resulting in more reliable and resilient rail service. Building two additional 

tracks, also referred to as "run around" or "bypass" tracks, would enable continuous rail service while 

Amtrak demolishes and replaces the existing Sawtooth Bridges. In the longer-term, the additional capacity 

in this location would accommodate future planned rail service increases; however, such increase would

only be possible with other infrastructure improvements along the NEC. 

1.4 Planning Context 

The NEC is one of the busiest, most complex, and economically vital transportation systems in the world, 

connecting eight states and the District of Columbia (DC). The NEC Main Line is 457 miles long, traversing 

major cities in the northeast region including Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and 

Boston. With the addition of connecting corridors to Richmond, VA, Harrisburg, PA, Albany, NY, and

Springfield, MA, the NEC network spans a total of 899 miles.4

 

The NEC accommodates more than 260 million passenger trips per year, a figure that is projected to reach 

412 million by 2030.

5 More than 2,100 passenger trains (approximately 820,000 passenger trips) and 60 

freight trains operate on some portion of the NEC each day.6

 Approximately 26 percent of the 2,100 daily 

passenger trains on the NEC pass through the Highline, with a total of 347 trains traveling on the Sawtooth 

Bridges (see Table 1-1).7

Table 1-1

Existing Weekday Train Volumes Across the Sawtooth Bridges

NEC Service Daily 

(Both Directions)

Peak PM Hour

Peak Direction

(Westbound)

Reverse Peak 

Direction

(Eastbound)

Total Peak 

(Peak and Reverse 

Peak Direction)

Amtrak 107 4 5 9 

NJ TRANSIT 240 11 6 17

Total 347 15 11 26

Source: Amtrak Operations, April 2018.

Note: The peak hour for NJ TRANSIT trains is different from the peak hour for Amtrak trains. The table 

shows train volumes for the Friday afternoon 6 PM to 7 PM peak, which is the hour when the total 

number of trains over the Sawtooth Bridges is greatest.

The demand for rail service along the NEC is at record levels. This growth is due in part to a relative 

rebound in population and employment growth in urban centers along the NEC; increasing delays in

3 Ibid.

4 About the NEC. Retrieved February 9, 2018 (https://nec.amtrak.com/about-the-nec/) 5 Amtrak, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan published May 2010. Retrieved March 25, 2019. 6 About the NEC. Retrieved February 9, 2018 (https://nec.amtrak.com/about-the-nec/) 7 Amtrak Operations, data based on schedules for trains crossing the Sawtooth Bridges.
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 1-4 

highway and air travel; and the convenience of intercity and local rail travel.8

 In the context of such heavy 

daily use of this segment of the NEC and its vital importance to the regional mobility and economy, Amtrak 

must maintain service along the corridor throughout the Proposed Project construction. 

1.4.1 Related Transportation Plans and Projects 

There are two major rail transportation initiatives that include the Proposed Project – 1) NEC FUTURE, 

FRA’s comprehensive plan for future investment in the Northeast Corridor, and 2) the Gateway Program, 

Amtrak’s investment program to improve current rail services, enhance resiliency, and create new capacity 

for a critical section of the NEC. Both initiatives recognize that the Sawtooth Bridges are aging and are 

existing bottlenecks; thus, these initiatives envision their replacement. While the Proposed Project has 

independent utility because it can achieve an independent purpose without the completion of other adjacent 

rail transportation infrastructure projects, it supports the larger vision and goals of NEC FUTURE and the 

Gateway Program, which are progressing separate from the Proposed Project. Amtrak would design the 

Proposed Project so as not to preclude these larger initiatives and to integrate the Proposed Project with the

long-term rail service improvements envisioned for the region, including improvements that would increase 

capacity, which would be realized by making other system-wide enhancements. In addition, several planned 

projects and projects underway relate to the Proposed Project. The following sections describe each of these 

initiatives and explain the need to design the Proposed Project so as not to preclude these other efforts. 

1.4.1.1 NEC FUTURE

Led by FRA, NEC FUTURE is a comprehensive planning effort that considers the future role of passenger 

rail service on the NEC in the context of current and future transportation demands. The purpose of NEC 

FUTURE 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 

trips9

, while promoting environmental sustainability and economic growth. 

In July 2017, FRA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the NEC FUTURE Tier I Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS).

10 The ROD identifies the Selected Alternative, which represents FRA’s vision for 

growth along the NEC. The NEC FUTURE Selected Alternative includes replacement of the Sawtooth 

Bridges to relieve this bottleneck on the NEC. The ROD also envisions a new segment between North 

Brunswick and Secaucus, NJ, which includes the Proposed Project site, to create a four- to six-track NEC 

that would accommodate a mix of passenger rail services. The Proposed Project is consistent with the NEC 

FUTURE Selected Alternative because it upgrades aging infrastructure, improves reliability, redundancy

and resiliency, and supports future capacity increases. While NEC FUTURE design speed targets range 

from 110 to 160 mph, such speeds are not feasible in the Proposed Project site. The proximity of rail stations 

(Secaucus Junction, Harrison PATH Station, and Newark Penn Station), neighboring river rail bridges 

(Amtrak’s Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River and Amtrak’s Dock Bridge over the Passaic River), 

the curvature of the track alignment, limited rights-of-way, and the proximity of other active railroads, limit 

the maximum achievable speed through the Proposed Project site (see Figure 1-5). As discussed further in 

Chapter 2, “Alternatives” Amtrak determined that the maximum feasible design speed for the Proposed 

8 Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor Report, the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 

Commission, published January 2013 (http://www.nec-commission.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf). 9 Intercity trips refer to rail service between metropolitan areas, whereas regional trips refer to rail service within a metropolitan 

area.

10 FRA. NEC FUTURE Record of Decision published July 2017. Accessed August 16, 2018. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture/tier1_eis/rod/
Newark

Jersey City

Kearny

Harrison

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri

(Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

8/3/2018

Figure 1-5

Proposed Project Site

NEC Infrastructure

SAWTOOTH BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Northeast Corridor

Portal Bridge

Newark

Penn Station

Dock Bridge

Harrison PATH

Station

Swift Interlocking

Amtrak Bridge

No. 7.80

Amtrak Bridge

No. 7.96

NJ Transit

Waterfront

Connection

Hudson Interlocking
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

February 2020 | 1-5 

Project is 90 mph. A design speed of 90 mph would be a 30-mph improvement to the existing 60 mph speed 

restriction over the Sawtooth Bridges and is therefore consistent with the spirit of increasing the speeds 

along the corridor, envisioned by NEC FUTURE.

1.4.1.2 Gateway Program 

The Gateway Program is the planned expansion and renovation of the NEC between Newark Penn Station, 

NJ and New York Penn Station. This comprehensive program of strategic rail infrastructure improvements 

will enhance current services and create new capacity that will allow doubling of the number of passenger 

trains crossing under the Hudson River. The program will increase track, tunnel, bridge, and station 

capacity, eventually creating four mainline tracks between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn 

Station, including a new two-track Hudson River Tunnel, two new Portal Bridges across the Hackensack 

River, and the new Sawtooth Bridges.

The program also includes updates to, and modernization of, existing infrastructure, such as the electrical 

system that supplies power to the roughly 450 weekday trains using this segment of the NEC. By 

eliminating these bottlenecks and creating additional tunnel, track, and station capacity in the most 

congested segment of the NEC, the Gateway Program will provide greater levels of service, increase 

redundancy, add reliability for shared operations, and add capacity for the future increases in commuter and 

intercity rail service. 

A continuous four-track service planned as part of the Gateway Program is also essential to unlocking the 

full capacity gains envisioned by NEC FUTURE.

11 The Proposed Project needs the additional tracks to 

provide system redundancy, thereby improving reliability and resiliency, as well as to maintain continued 

service during construction. The design of the Proposed Project would not preclude the planned capacity 

increase between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn Station; therefore, the Purpose and Need for 

the Proposed Project is consistent with the Gateway Program. 

1.4.1.3 NJ TRANSIT Rail Operations and Infrastructure Planning Services: NEC Initiatives Between 

DOCK 8.5 and SWIFT 7.2 (Final Recommendation Report) 

NJ TRANSIT completed the NEC Initiatives Between DOCK 8.5 and SWIFT 7.2 Final Recommendations 

Report (NEC Initiatives Report) in 2015, which outlines the various improvement projects being undertaken 

by NJ TRANSIT, Amtrak, and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) along the NEC 

between Dock Interlocking and Swift Interlocking in New Jersey. The purpose of the report was to 

document the various discrete yet interconnected rail transportation initiatives occurring between Dock and 

Swift Interlockings in order to establish a high level of coordination among the involved transportation 

agencies. In doing so, rail operators could maximize the operational benefits derived from these projects, 

exclude elements of projects that might affect the mutual constructability of other initiatives, and take 

advantage of mutually beneficial service and track outages that would reduce overall schedule and capital 

costs. The report analyzed the following initiatives: NJ TRANSIT Westbound Waterfront Connection, NJ 

TRANSIT Harrison-Kingsland Branch, Amtrak Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project, Amtrak Portal 

Bridge, and PATH Harrison Station Improvements. The NEC Initiatives Report concluded that these 

planned improvements would temporarily affect NJ TRANSIT’s operations and enumerated specific 

recommended implementation strategies including but not limited to improvements to Rea and Hudson 

11 Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor Report, the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 

Commission, published January 2013 (http://www.nec-commission.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf).
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 1-6 

Interlockings. The conceptual design of the Proposed Project would not preclude these planned 

improvement initiatives discussed in the NEC Initiatives Report. 

1.4.1.4 Portal North Bridge Project

In its role as project sponsor for the Portal North Bridge project, NJ TRANSIT has submitted a financial 

plan in coordination with the Gateway project partners to the Federal Transit Administration in the Capital 

Investment Grant (CIG) Core Capacity grant program. The FTA will evaluate and rate the most recent 

financial plan for inclusion in the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget. NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak have 

previously completed the design and FRA-led environmental review to replace the aging swing-span Portal 

Bridge over the Hackensack River with a two-track fixed-span bridge, known as Portal North Bridge. 

Approximately 450 trains per day cross the Portal Bridge, which is a major bottleneck and source of delay 

of train traffic along the NEC. As the alignment of the Portal North Bridge Project is already designed, the 

track alignment design for the Sawtooth Bridges must meet the alignments of the Portal North Bridge 

Project. 

1.4.1.5 Hudson Tunnel Project

The purpose of the Hudson Tunnel Project is to rehabilitate the existing NEC tunnel beneath the Hudson 

River (known as the North River Tunnel), while maintaining uninterrupted passenger rail service. The 

existing tunnel is over a century old and was damaged during Superstorm Sandy. When completed, the 

Hudson Tunnel Project will provide redundancy at the critical NEC Hudson River crossing. However, while 

the Hudson Tunnel Project addresses maintenance and resilience of the NEC Hudson River crossing, it will 

not increase rail capacity and therefore will not facilitate an increase in rail service. Ultimately, an increase 

in peak period rail capacity and service between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn Station cannot 

be realized until other substantial infrastructure capacity improvements are built in addition to a new 

Hudson River rail tunnel. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Hudson Tunnel Project is a component of the 

Gateway Program and is consistent with the Selected Alternative identified in the NEC FUTURE Record 

of Decision. Furthermore, similar to the Proposed Project, the Hudson Tunnel Project addresses an urgent 

need to rehabilitate existing infrastructure and maintain existing passenger rail service, while not precluding 

other future projects to expand capacity.

1.4.1.6 Moynihan Train Hall at Penn Station 

The Moynihan Train Hall at Penn Station project will renovate and expand the existing station into the 

historic James A. Farley Post Office Building. Moynihan Station is being constructed in two phases. Phase 

I, now complete, created the “West End Concourse”. The new concourse provides new stairs and elevators 

to boarding platforms, passenger circulation space and a new entrance across 8th Avenue from Penn Station.

Phase II, now in early-stage construction, will create the Moynihan Train Hall, a world-class intercity and 

commuter passenger boarding concourse for Amtrak and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) passengers. The facility will provide relief to Penn Station’s crowded 

boarding conditions for Amtrak’s intercity passengers and MTA LIRR commuter rail passengers. 

1.4.1.7 NJ TRANSIT Westbound Waterfront Connection 

The existing Eastbound Waterfront Connection provides a link on the NJ TRANSIT Morris & Essex Line 

between Newark Penn Station, the Meadows Maintenance Complex (MMC), and Hoboken Terminal in 

New Jersey. Currently, the Eastbound Waterfront Connection is also used for westbound movements, which 

creates conflicts as westbound trains using the Eastbound Waterfront Connection cut across multiple other 

tracks to reach the westbound platforms at Newark Penn Station. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

February 2020 | 1-7 

NJ TRANSIT is undertaking the Westbound Waterfront Connection project to eliminate these conflicts and 

provide a westbound route for trains on the Morris & Essex Line from Hoboken and from the MMC to 

connect with the NEC just east of Newark Penn Station. Its importance has become more significant with 

the increased need for revenue service12 capacity between Newark Penn Station and Hoboken Terminal, 

especially after Superstorm Sandy. The Westbound Waterfront Connection would provide the opportunity 

to run additional service and meet expected passenger demand on the Raritan Valley Line, the NEC, and 

the North Jersey Coast Line to Newark and then to Hoboken Terminal. 

In addition, the Westbound Waterfront Connection is a resiliency measure, which would enable quick 

movement of NJ TRANSIT trains during severe weather events from the MMC and Hoboken to safe-harbor 

storage locations to the west. Amtrak would design the Proposed Project so as not to preclude the 

construction of the proposed NJ TRANSIT Westbound Waterfront Connection and will continue to 

coordinate with NJ TRANSIT. 

1.5 Existing Operations and Site Constraints 

The Sawtooth Bridges are in an area where four different railroads use the tracks: Amtrak, NJ TRANSIT, 

PATH, and Conrail. The tracks serve the NEC, the Morris & Essex Line, the Eastbound Waterfront 

Connection, Conrail Center Street Industrial Track, and the PATH’s Newark-WTC Branch. The narrow 

space between the Passaic River to the south and regulated wetlands to the north constrain the existing track 

layout and design of the Proposed Project. At the location of Amtrak Bridge No. 7.96, the distance between 

the Passaic River and the wetland area is less than 300 feet. This narrow strip of land currently 

accommodates 13 rail tracks. Considering the number of tracks, coupled with the need for clearances 

between tracks, catenary systems, retaining walls, and bridge piers, the spatial constraints greatly limit the 

design options for the Proposed Project. 

Furthermore, two New Jersey Turnpike overpasses cross over the Proposed Project site, with rail tracks 

passing under the highway and in between the highway piers (see Figure 1-3B and Figure 1-3D). A total of 

13 tracks currently pass under the two New Jersey Turnpike overpasses (the western and eastern spur). 

There are three slots between the piers of the New Jersey Turnpike western spur overpass, and four slots 

between the piers of the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur overpass that the NEC, New Jersey Transit, 

PATH, and Conrail tracks currently pass through. There is limited space for additional tracks to pass 

through these slots between the New Jersey Turnpike piers, presenting another design constraint. 

The existing Sawtooth Bridges further constrain the existing rail right-of-way. The bridges consist of 

staggered viaduct structures (three staggered viaducts for Amtrak Bridge No. 7.80 and two staggered 

viaducts for Amtrak Bridge No. 7.96 [see Figure 1-6]). The existing structures constrain not only the design 

of the Proposed Project, but also the construction methods that Amtrak can employ since the existing 

bridges must remain in service while Amtrak builds the replacement bridges. For example, certain cranes 

and other large equipment may be unable to access the site due to the proximity of active rail lines. The 

existing bridge structures also limit improvements to horizontal and vertical clearances to the tracks that 

run beneath the bridges. 

Furthermore, the tracks along this segment of the rail corridor are skewed. The curvature of the tracks limits 

speeds and creates additional design constraints. Maintaining Amtrak and other railroad service during 

12 Revenue service is service associated with transporting passengers or freight (as opposed to non-revenue service, 

which includes empty trains, trains transporting employees, or rail equipment). 
8/3/2018

Figure 1-6

Staggered Viaducts on the Existing Sawtooth Bridges

SAWTOOTH BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT

2 Staggered Viaducts

Amtrak Bridge No. 7.80

Amtrak Bridge No. 7.96

3 Staggered Viaducts
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 1-8 

construction is critical, given the high train volumes through the Proposed Project site, including the 

volumes across the Sawtooth Bridges (see Table 1-1). Maintaining existing operations with minimal 

disruption to schedules, while building new structures within the tight confines of the Proposed Project site 

and linking new and existing infrastructure is a considerable challenge for the Proposed Project. 

1.5.1 Project Goals

FRA and Amtrak considered the Proposed Project’s Purpose and Need, the larger planning context, and the 

design constraints to identify the following goals for the Proposed Project: 

Primary Goals: 

1. Achieve a state of good repair for the bridges and their approach structures;

2. Reduce service disruptions and delays to improve rail service reliability and resiliency by providing 

redundant capacity; and 

3. Reduce service disruptions and delays to improve rail service reliability and resiliency by 

increasing design speeds. 

Secondary Goals: 

1. Maintain service and connectivity along the NEC during construction; 

2. Optimize the use of existing infrastructure;

3. Accommodate current and planned future rail operations; 

4. Minimize permanent and temporary impacts to the surrounding environment; and

5. Benefit the environment by improving the rail system as an energy-efficient mode of travel. 

These Proposed Project goals are consistent with FRA’s overall goals to improve the NEC, as envisioned 

in NEC FUTURE. The Proposed Project goals support the Proposed Project’s Purpose and Need, while not 

precluding the Gateway Program or other planned projects along the Highline segment of the NEC in the 

long term. 

1.6 Applicable Permits, Regulations and Approvals 

The Proposed Project would require federal and state permits and approvals. In addition to these permits, 

the Proposed Project must comply with numerous laws, including those regarding worker and public safety. 

As the Proposed Project proceeds, Amtrak will continue to coordinate with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NJ Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), US Department of the Interior (USDOI), NJ Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) and other 

applicable agencies to identify and acquire the required federal and state permits and approvals. Amtrak 

will submit permit applications during subsequent preliminary design and permitting phase of the Proposed 

Project. Table 1-2 lists the permits and approvals that Amtrak currently anticipates would be needed. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

February 2020 | 1-9 

Table 1-2 

Potentially Applicable Permits, Regulations, and Approvals 

Permit/Approval Responsible Agency Activity

National Historic Preservation 

Act, Section 106 FRA, NJHPO Consultation pursuant to National Historic Preservation Act

Policy on lands, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, and historic 

sites (referred to as Section 4(f)) 

FRA, USDOI, NJHPO Analysis of use of Section 4(f) 

properties 

Section 404, Clean Water Act USACE Wetlands and water quality

Endangered Species Act, 

Section 7 Consultation NMFS/USFWS Effects to federally-listed rare, threatened or endangered species 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Act

NOAA Essential fish habitat consultation 

Clean Water Act, Section 401 NJDEP Water quality certificate

New Jersey Soil Erosion and 

Sediment Control Act

Hudson-Essex-Passaic 

Soil Conservation District

Applicable soil erosion and sediment 

control measures during construction

New Jersey Site Remediation 

Reform Act NJDEP Excavation of contaminated materials

New Jersey Flood Hazard Area

Control Act NJDEP Structures within a floodway

Note: Other permits may be required.
February 2020 | 2-1 

Chapter 2: Alternatives 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the alternatives development and screening process, discusses the No Action

Alternative, and identifies the Preferred Alternative retained for detailed study in this EA. The No Action

Alternative is the baseline condition for evaluation of the Proposed Project. 

As discussed in the following sections of this chapter, the New Alignment Alternative is the only alternative

that meets the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project. Based on the Purpose and Need and goals of the 

Proposed Project discussed in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” FRA and Amtrak selected the New

Alignment Alternative—Option 2A as the Preferred Alternative. Amtrak and FRA considered other

alternatives including the Rehabilitation Alternative, the On-Line Replacement Alternative, and the New 

Alignment Alternative, and its three other Alignment Options (Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3) and two 

Bridge Span Designs Options for the New Alignment Alternative. For the reasons discussed below, FRA 

and Amtrak did not consider those alternatives for further analysis in the EA. 

This chapter discusses each of these Alternatives, Alignment Options, and Bridge Span Designs, their

evaluation with respect to the Purpose and Need and goals for the Proposed Project, and the identification

of the Preferred Alternative.

2.2 Alternatives Development 

As described in Chapter 1, spatial and operational constraints within the Proposed Project site limit the 

range of reasonable alternatives. Figure 2-1 presents the existing operational conditions along the Sawtooth 

Bridges, and Figure 2-2 presents the existing NEC track and structural configuration schematic. 

Furthermore, the need to maintain existing service along the NEC and adjacent rail lines during construction 

limits the range and number of alternatives considered. Amtrak identified three Build Alternatives to assess 

in the alternatives development and screening process—the Rehabilitation Alternative, the On-Line 

Replacement Alternative, and the New Alignment Alternative. The following text describes the No Action 

Alternative and potential Build Alternatives.

2.2.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Amtrak would not replace the existing Sawtooth Bridges. The existing

Sawtooth Bridges would remain in service in their current structural condition. Amtrak would continue to

make critical repairs on an as-needed basis and continue the current maintenance regime. The Sawtooth 

Bridges would continue to deteriorate, causing safety and operational problems. Amtrak would conduct 

more inspections and repairs, with the nature and timing of these repairs becoming increasingly 

unpredictable. Eventually, Amtrak would be forced to take the Sawtooth Bridges out of service to avoid 

catastrophic failure. 

2.2.2 Rehabilitation Alternative

The Rehabilitation Alternative would involve the proactive replacement of identified deficiencies, one at a 

time. The Rehabilitation Alternative would not bring the Sawtooth Bridges to a state of good repair; 

however, it could extend their service life by another 10 to 20 years and allow for a 90-mph design speed 

on the two existing NEC tracks. The work would include one-by-one replacement of columns supporting 

the bridges. The Rehabilitation Alternative would involve work on every weekend and some weekday work 

over a three- to four-year period. 
A pril 2 0 1 8

E xisti n g O p er ati o n al C o n diti o ns 

S A W T O O T H B RI D G E S R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T Fi g ur e 2- 1
#20

#20

Tk 11

Tk 4

Tk 10

#20

#26.5

#26.5

#15 #15Eq

#20

#20

#26.5 #26.5

#26.5

#20 #20

WB PATH

ConRail

Hunter

Yard

#10

PATH

Tk A

#20

#20

#20 #20

#20 #20

#10

#10

#10

#10 #10

#10

#15

#15 #15

#20

#15

#15

#15

#15

#20

#20

#20

#20

#15

#15

#15

#15

#15 #15

#10

#20

#20

#20

#20

#15

#15

#20

#32

#20

NEC 

Tunnels

“BERGEN”

“ALLIED”

“ERIE”

“LACK”

“SWIFT” “PORTAL”

“REA” “HUDSON”

“DOCK”

“EAST”

“DOCK”

“WEST”

“CLIFF”

“HUNTER”

To:

Raritan Valley Line

West Trenton Line

W

3

W

4

W

5

W

6

W

7

W

8 11 10 9 8 7

“HAYNES”

Prepared for NJ Transit / Amtrak: ajg Newark to New York City - Operations Planning Prepared by GTHP: ajg 3/26/2019

To:

MMC

Hoboken

Tk 1

Tk 4

Tk 3

Tk 3

Tk 3

Tk 2 Tk 2

Tk 2

Tk 5

Tk A

Tk B

Tk A

22 TPH

To NYP 12 TPH 12 TPH 22 TPH NEC Tunnel System

Eastbound Track 2 Utilization

Secaucus Newark

Penn Sta.

Newark

Airport

County

Rd.

To:

Morristown Line

Gladstone Branch

Boonton/Montclair Line

To:

Raritan Valley Line

Operational Schematic: Newark to Weehawken, NJ

EXISTING NEC TRACK/STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

Prior to Sawtooth / Portal North Bridge Projects

Not to Scale

Portal

Movable

Bridge

(60 mph)

Tk 5

NJT Harrison 

Yard

NYS&WCSXT

M&E

18 TPH

All Tracks

Tk 1

#20 #20

Curve #240

Existing Maximum Peak Use 

in 60 min. period 

22 TPH in AM Peak

Lower Level 

Main Line

Bergen County Line 

Port Jervis Line

Sports Line

Pascack Valley Line

#20

To Hoboken

Sawtooth

Bridge 

Project

Location

Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project Existing NEC Track/Structure Configuration

Figure 2-2
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-2 

2.2.3 On-Line Replacement Alternative

The On-Line Replacement Alternative would include replacement of the entire Sawtooth Bridges structures 

along their current alignment. This alternative would result in new Sawtooth Bridges with an acceptable

service life and avoid open water and wetland impacts. With this alternative, Amtrak would need to

completely shut down rail service along this segment of the NEC for an extended period during project 

construction, likely several years. 

2.2.4 New Alignment Alternative

The New Alignment Alternative would include the construction of new Sawtooth Bridges that would carry 

a total of four NEC tracks. Amtrak would first construct one or two new bridges (depending upon the 

Alignment Option) parallel to the alignment of the existing Sawtooth Bridges, while the two existing

Sawtooth Bridges remain in service. Once Amtrak completes construction of the new bridges (which would 

carry a total of two NEC tracks) the existing NEC service would move to the new bridge(s). Amtrak would 

then demolish both existing Sawtooth Bridges. Next, Amtrak would construct another new two-track 

Sawtooth Bridge, approximately along the alignment of the existing Sawtooth Bridges. This new bridge

would provide the redundant capacity needed for reliable and resilient service in the near-term and support 

the capacity expansion and service growth planned as part of NEC FUTURE and the Gateway Program. In

essence, the New Alignment Alternative would replace the two existing bridges that currently carry two

NEC tracks along a single alignment with two or three new parallel bridges that would carry four NEC

tracks. 

2.3 Alternatives Screening

Presented below is the screening analysis that FRA and Amtrak performed to identify alternatives that are

viable and warrant further consideration. The screening analysis included a “fatal flaw” assessment, which

evaluated the ability of the alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project. Amtrak

eliminated the alternatives that would not meet the three primary Proposed Project goals as fatally flawed.

Amtrak also evaluated each of the alternatives with respect to the secondary goals in the screening analysis. 

Amtrak evaluated each alternative as meeting the goal, partially meeting the goal, or not meeting the goal. 

The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 2-1 and further discussed in this chapter. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

February 2020 | 2-3 

Table 2-1

Alternative Screening & Project Goals

Primary Goals No Action Rehabilitation

Alternative

On-Line 

Replacement

Alternative

New Alignment

Alternative

Achieve a state of good repair for the bridges 

and their approach structures

Reduce service disruptions and delays to 

improve rail service reliability and resiliency 

by providing redundant capacity

Reduce service disruptions and delays to 

improve rail service reliability and resiliency 

by increasing design speeds

Meets Purpose and Need    

Secondary Goals No Action Rehabilitation

Alternative

On-Line 

Replacement

Alternative

New Alignment

Alternative

Maintain service and connectivity during 

construction

Optimize the use of existing infrastructure

Accommodate current and planned future rail 

operations

Minimize permanent and temporary impacts 

to the surrounding environment

Benefit the environment by improving the rail 

system as an energy-efficient mode of travel

 Meets goal Partially meets goal Does not meet goal Not applicable

 Meets Purpose and Need  Does not meet Purpose and Need

2.3.1 No Action Alternative

As noted in Table 2-1, the No Action Alternative does not meet the primary goals or the Purpose and Need 

because it would not achieve a state of good repair and it would not improve the reliability and resiliency

of rail service along this critical segment of the NEC. If the existing Sawtooth Bridges deteriorate to the

point that Amtrak would need to take them out of service, Amtrak, NJ Transit, PATH, and Conrail

operations would be severely disrupted, affecting the movement of people and goods throughout the region.

Moreover, the No Action Alternative would not accommodate projected future ridership demand along the

Highline. The No Action Alternative would be inconsistent with larger planned improvements to the NEC, 

including those envisioned as part of NEC FUTURE and the Gateway Program, and would not result in an

environmental benefit associated with improvements to rail transportation as an energy-efficient mode of

travel. 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-4 

2.3.2 Rehabilitation Alternative

The Rehabilitation Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project. Amtrak has 

already encased the columns in concrete to reinforce the structure, but further repairs would be necessary 

as this temporary measure does not provide the needed structural stability over the long term. The

Rehabilitation Alternative would address the structural deficiencies of the Sawtooth Bridges but would not

achieve a lasting state of good repair. Amtrak has determined that incremental repairs would not restore the

Sawtooth Bridges to an acceptable condition as irreparable damage has already occurred. The

Rehabilitation Alternative would not allow for continued rail use due to the current condition of the 

Sawtooth Bridges and the infeasibility of rehabilitating the bridges to a state of good repair without 

significant cost and disruptions to rail operations. Rehabilitating the existing bridges without a new adjacent

bridge already in service would result in prolonged shutdowns of rail operations during costly rehabilitation

and would adversely affect the operations of Amtrak, NJ Transit, PATH, and Conrail, all while achieving

a limited benefit. The Rehabilitation Alternative would not increase the number of tracks across the

Proposed Project site and would therefore not result in the redundant capacity needed to achieve the 

reliability and resiliency goals. The Rehabilitation Alternative would also be inconsistent with NEC

FUTURE and the Gateway Program. FRA and Amtrak therefore eliminated the Rehabilitation Alternative

from further consideration. 

2.3.3 On-Line Replacement Alternative 

With the On-Line Replacement Alternative, Amtrak could achieve a state of good repair; however, the OnLine Replacement Alternative would not include additional tracks and would therefore not provide the 

redundant capacity needed for reliable and resilient service. Thus, the On-Line Replacement Alternative

would not meet the primary Proposed Project goals. During construction, the two NEC tracks would need

to be taken out of service entirely for several years, resulting in a significant adverse effect to rail operations

and regional mobility. Therefore, the On-Line Replacement Alternative would not meet the secondary 

Proposed Project goal of maintaining service and connectivity during construction. Furthermore, the OnLine Replacement Alternative would not meet the goal to accommodate planned future rail operations, 

including increased capacity and ridership envisioned by NEC FUTURE and the Gateway Program. Thus, 

FRA and Amtrak eliminated the On-Line Replacement Alternative from further consideration. 

2.3.4 New Alignment Alternative

The New Alignment Alternative would meet all three primary project goals, achieving a state of good repair

and improving reliability and resiliency (see Table 2-1). It would also meet or contribute to meeting the 

secondary project goals by maintaining current service throughout construction, accommodating current

and planned operations, and benefiting the environment by improving the rail system. Amtrak, in

consultation with FRA, advanced the design of the New Alignment Alternative and evaluated several track

alignment options (Alignment Options 1, 2, 2A, and 3), as discussed in the following sections of this 

chapter. All Alignment Options would equally meet the three primary goals and meet or partially meet the 

secondary goals but would differ in the extent to which they optimize the use of existing infrastructure and 

the extent to which they maximize design speeds. 

2.4 New Alignment Alternative – Alignment Options 

Amtrak considered the Alignment Options described below as part of the conceptual design phase to

address operational and spatial constraints, maximize design speeds and optimize the use of existing
Chapter 2: Alternatives

February 2020 | 2-5 

infrastructure. FRA concurred with Amtrak’s assessment. Amtrak developed the Alignment Options using 

the following criteria as the basis of design: 

• Maintain passenger rail service throughout construction; 

• Keep existing two NEC tracks in service throughout construction of the new bridges; 

• Maximize design speed, with a minimum of 60 mph; 

• Ensure that the east end of the new Sawtooth Bridges track alignments meets the proposed 

alignments of the Portal North Bridge Project; 

• Ensure compatibility of the west end of the new Sawtooth Bridges track alignment with the 

Hudson Interlocking; 

• Minimize realignment of tracks owned and operated by other railroads between Swift 

Interlocking and Hudson Interlocking and minimize service disruption on those tracks1

; and 

• Does not preclude the construction of the proposed NJ Transit Westbound Waterfront

Connection. 

All Alignment Options would keep the existing two NEC tracks in service during construction, be 

compatible with the Portal North Bridge Project alignment, and would not preclude the proposed Portal 

South Bridge Project or the Westbound Waterfront Connection. 

The Alignment Options differ with respect to the locations of the four proposed NEC tracks in relation to

the existing Sawtooth Bridges, the need to relocate other existing tracks and associated rail infrastructure

(including the Hudson Interlocking), and the achievable design speeds on temporary tracks. See Figure 2-

3 for a schematic representation of the Alignment Options. The Alignment Options also differ because 

some would require structures for temporary tracks (“runaround” or “bypass” tracks) that Amtrak would 

need to demolish and then reconstruct for the permanent alignment. During construction, Amtrak would

continue to provide existing service on the temporary tracks.

2.4.1 New Alignment Alternative – Option 1 

Option 1 would result in four NEC tracks as follows:

• 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the north of the existing alignment

• 2 NEC tracks on a viaduct structure along the existing alignment

• 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the south of the existing alignment 

Option 1 would construct two new tracks and associated elevated structures—one to the south of the

existing Sawtooth Bridges and one to the north of the existing Sawtooth Bridges—while the existing

Sawtooth Bridges remain in service. Once Amtrak constructs the new tracks, Amtrak would move service

from the existing bridges onto the new tracks and demolish the existing Sawtooth Bridges. Finally, Amtrak

would construct a new, two-track bridge along the existing alignment. See Figure 2-4 for an illustration of 

the New Alignment Alternative – Option 1. 

The new track to the north of the existing alignment would be on a viaduct structure between Hudson 

Interlocking and the New Jersey Turnpike overpasses. The new track to the south of the existing alignment 

would be on a viaduct structure from the current approach to the NJ Transit Bridge 0.35 (also called the 

1 Amtrak considers minor realignment acceptable. Minor realignment of tracks is realignment that can be 

accomplished by taking one or two tracks out of service during weekends and off-peak weekday periods without 

affecting passenger schedules.
Newark Penn Station Secaucus Junction

Option 1

Legend

New NEC Track Viaducts

Proposed NEC Tracks

Location of the Existing Sawtooth Bridges

NJT Red Bridge Demolition and Reconstruction

NJT M&E Track 5 Relocation

Schematic Representation of New

Alignment Alternative Options 

Figure 2-3

X

X

X

Option 2

Option 2A

Option 3

Temporary Permanent

X

X

No change to 

structure or tracks

Two temporary 

tracks at 60 mph 

reconstructed to 

one permanent 

track at 90 mph

X

Temporary track 

at 60 mph 

realigned to 

achieve 90 mph 

for the permanent 

track

Temporary track 

at 60 mph 

realigned to 

achieve 90 mph 

for the permanent 

track

X Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project New Alignment Alternative - Option 1 

Figure 2-4
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project New Alignment Alternative - Option 2

Figure 2-5
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project New Alignment Alternative - Option 2A

Figure 2-6
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project New Alignment Alternative - Option 3

Figure 2-7
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-6 

“Red Bridge”,2

 which serves NJ Transit’s Eastbound Waterfront Connection), across PATH, Conrail, and

NJ Transit tracks, and under the New Jersey Turnpike overpasses to Amtrak’s Substation 41. To 

accommodate the new southern NEC track, Amtrak would demolish and reconstruct the Red Bridge. 

To accommodate the new northern NEC track in between the New Jersey Turnpike piers, Option 1 would 

require the reconstruction of the NJ Transit Morris & Essex Line Track 5 through a new slot between the 

New Jersey Turnpike piers north of the existing Morris & Essex Line Track 5 location. The new Morris & 

Essex Line Track 5 would be on a new permanent viaduct structure from the west end of Swift Interlocking, 

over wetlands, to just east of Hudson Interlocking where it would connect to the existing Morris & Essex 

Line Track 5 at grade. 

2.4.1.1 Design Speed

All four tracks would have a design speed of 90 mph upon completion of the Proposed Project. During 

construction of the two-track structure along the existing alignment, the design speed for the temporary 

runaround track on the structure to the north of the existing alignment would be 60 mph. 

2.4.1.2 Temporary Tracks

The speed on the temporary track to the north of the existing alignment would be limited to 60 mph due to 

the track curvature, which Amtrak could not optimize until the completion of the permanent structure along 

the existing alignment. The temporary track to the north would therefore be realigned for use as a permanent 

NEC track with a design speed of 90 mph. 

2.4.1.3 Existing Infrastructure Modification

Option 1 would demolish and reconstruct the Red Bridge to realign the Eastbound Waterfront Connection 

track. It would also construct a new viaduct structure to realign the Morris & Essex Line Track 5. Less 

extensive infrastructure changes for Option 1 include the construction of a temporary turnout3 at Swift 

Interlocking and the realignment of PATH tracks. The temporary turnout at Swift Interlocking would enable 

routing of service from one of the existing NEC tracks onto the temporary runaround NEC track to the 

south of the existing alignment.

2.4.2 New Alignment Alternative – Option 2 

Option 2 would result in four NEC tracks as follows: 

• 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the north of the existing alignment

• 3 NEC tracks on a viaduct structure along the existing alignment and to the south of the existing 

alignment 

Option 2 would involve the construction of two new temporary tracks and associated viaduct structures to 

the north of the existing Sawtooth Bridges while the existing bridges and tracks remain in service. Once the 

construction of the new tracks is complete, Amtrak would move service from the existing Sawtooth Bridges 

onto the two new tracks and demolish the existing bridges. Amtrak would then construct a new bridge with 

three tracks along the existing alignment and to the south of the existing alignment and move the service 

from one of the temporary tracks onto the three-track structure (see Figure 2-5). Amtrak would then remove 

2 The Red Bridge is located adjacent to the existing Sawtooth Bridge No. 7.96 and carries the NJ Transit Eastbound 

Waterfront Connection over PATH and Conrail tracks.

3 A turnout or switch enables the train to change route onto a different track.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

February 2020 | 2-7 

one of the temporary tracks from the structure to the north and realign the remaining track to achieve a 

higher design speed. 

The new temporary tracks to the north of the existing alignment would tie into the existing NEC tracks at

Hudson Interlocking and under the New Jersey Turnpike. Between these points, the tracks would be on a 

viaduct that would cross over PATH, Conrail and NJ Transit tracks. The permanent Sawtooth Bridge

alignment would be a three‐track bridge with two tracks approximately in their existing location, and one 

track immediately to the south. 

2.4.2.1 Design Speed

All four tracks would have a design speed of 90 mph upon completion of the Proposed Project. During 

construction, the two temporary tracks to the north of the existing alignment would have a design speed of 

60 mph. After the reconstruction of the NEC tracks along the existing alignment, the new structure to the 

north would be modified to carry just one NEC track with a design speed of 90 mph. 

2.4.2.2 Temporary Tracks

During construction, the viaduct structure to the north would accommodate two temporary NEC tracks. 

Due to the curvature of the temporary tracks, the speed on these tracks would be limited to 60 mph. Once 

Amtrak completes construction of the new three-track structure along the existing alignment and to the 

south, only one track would need to remain on the viaduct to the north (see Figure 2-3, Option 2). Amtrak 

would not need to reconstruct the viaduct but would demolish the two temporary tracks and construct one 

permanent track that would decrease curvature and allow for 90 mph design speeds. 

2.4.2.3 Existing Infrastructure Modification

Option 2 would require the reconstruction of the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 on a viaduct structure to 

accommodate the new northern NEC tracks in between the New Jersey Turnpike piers. Amtrak would 

design a crash wall to fit against the south piers of the New Jersey Turnpike due to limited space between 

the proposed NEC tracks and the piers. Option 2 would also demolish and reconstruct the Red Bridge to 

realign the Eastbound Waterfront Connection track. Track 5 realignment would not affect NJ Transit 

operations because Amtrak would complete the construction of the Track 5 viaduct and the new rail tracks 

before taking the existing Morris & Essex Line Track 5 out of service.

2.4.3 New Alignment Alternative – Option 2A 

Option 2A would result in four NEC tracks as follows: 

• 2 NEC tracks to the north of the existing alignment, referred to as Sawtooth Bridge North 

• 2 NEC tracks along the existing alignment, referred to as Sawtooth Bridge South

Option 2A would involve the construction of two new tracks and associated viaduct structures to the north 

of the existing Sawtooth Bridges (Sawtooth Bridge North) while the existing bridges and tracks remain in 

service. Once construction of the new tracks is complete, Amtrak would move service from the existing 

bridges onto the new tracks and demolish the existing bridges. Amtrak would then construct a new bridge 

with two tracks along the existing alignment (Sawtooth Bridge South) (see Figure 2-6).

With Option 2A, the Hudson Interlocking would shift approximately 500 feet to the west to reduce track 

curvature and thereby enable a design speed of 90 mph. Sawtooth Bridge North would be on a viaduct 

structure from the shifted Hudson Interlocking, across PATH, Conrail, and NJ Transit tracks to the existing 

NEC tracks at grade under the New Jersey Turnpike overpasses. 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-8 

2.4.3.1 Design Speed

With Option 2A, all four tracks would have a design speed of 90 mph, both during and after construction. 

2.4.3.2 Temporary Tracks

With Option 2A the runaround tracks and the viaducts constructed to carry the runaround tracks would 

remain and continue to be used for permanent NEC service. 

2.4.3.3 Existing Infrastructure Modification

Similar to Option 1 and Option 2, Option 2A would require the reconstruction of the Morris & Essex Line

Track 5 on a viaduct structure to a new slot between New Jersey Turnpike piers. The alignment of Track 5 

would be the same under these three options. As with Option 2, Amtrak would design a crash wall to fit 

against the south piers of the New Jersey Turnpike due to limited space between the proposed NEC tracks 

and the piers. Unlike Option 1 and Option 2, Option 2A would not require the demolition of the Red Bridge. 

Less extensive infrastructure changes for Option 2A would include the removal or relocation of the Hudson 

Interlocking, relocation of a crossover4 to support the realignment of the Morris & Essex Line Track 5, a 

new turnout to the Eastbound Waterfront Connection track, the realignment of the Eastbound Waterfront 

Connection track west of the Red Bridge, the realignment of the Conrail track, and the relocation of a 

Conrail crossover to a NJ Transit track. 

Whether Amtrak would remove or relocate the Hudson Interlocking depends on the timing of the Proposed 

Project construction and the timing of the construction of Portal North Bridge Project. If the construction 

of Portal North Bridge Project is completed before the Proposed Project construction phase that would tie 

the new NEC tracks to the Hudson Interlocking, Amtrak would remove the interlocking. Otherwise, Amtrak 

would relocate the interlocking. Amtrak would coordinate any necessary outages with NJ Transit and 

Conrail. Amtrak anticipates that temporary track outages on the NJ Transit Morris & Essex Line would be 

necessary to support construction of the new structures (see Section 3.1.4.1 for a detailed explanation). 

2.4.4 New Alignment Alternative – Option 3 

Option 3 would result in four NEC tracks as follows: 

• 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the north of the existing alignment

• 2 NEC tracks on a viaduct structure along the existing alignment

• 1 NEC track on a viaduct structure to the south of the existing alignment 

Option 3 would be the same as Option 1, except that the NEC track to the north of the existing alignment 

would pass through a slot between New Jersey Turnpike piers north of the slot between the existing piers 

(approximately at the location proposed for the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 under Option 1) and Morris 

& Essex Line Track 5 would not need to be relocated (see Figure 2-7).The track to the north of the existing 

alignment would be on a viaduct structure from the west end of Swift Interlocking to Hudson Interlocking, 

crossing over wetlands, then over NJ Transit, Conrail, and PATH tracks. 

2.4.4.1 Design Speed

As with Option 1, all four tracks under Option 3 would have a design speed of 90 mph upon completion of 

the Proposed Project. During construction, the design speed for the track on the structure to the north of the 

existing alignment would be 60 mph. 

4 A crossover connects two rail tracks, allowing a train on one track to cross over to the other.
Chapter 2: Alternatives

February 2020 | 2-9 

2.4.4.2 Temporary Tracks

The speed on the temporary track to the north of the existing alignment would be limited to 60 mph due to 

the track curvature, which Amtrak could not optimize until the completion of the permanent structure along 

the existing alignment. Therefore, the temporary track to the north would need to be realigned for use as a 

permanent NEC track with design speed of 90 mph. 

2.4.4.3 Existing Infrastructure Modification

Option 3 would demolish and reconstruct the Red Bridge to realign the Eastbound Waterfront Connection 

track. Less extensive infrastructure changes include the construction of a temporary turnout at Swift 

Interlocking, a minor realignment of Track 5 to the north, and the realignment of PATH tracks. The 

reconstruction of the Red Bridge would result in a major disruption of service on the Eastbound Waterfront 

Connection line. The realignment of Track 5 and the PATH tracks would not result in a major disruption 

to passenger service, as Amtrak could accomplish the work during weekend and off-peak track outages.

2.5 Alignment Options Screening

Amtrak evaluated each of the four Alignment Options based on the extent to which they meet the primary 

and secondary goals of the Proposed Project. The number of existing infrastructure elements that would 

require modification with the various Alignment Options was not the critical factor; rather, Amtrak 

considered the level of effort and service disruption associated with the modification of each rail 

infrastructure element and with the construction of each new element. 

The original construction of the Red Bridge, as part of the Eastbound Waterfront Connection completed in 

1991, was a major undertaking that cost $16 million. While this cost is relatively small as compared to the 

cost of the Proposed Project, it is much larger than the cost of minor track realignment. In addition, the need 

to demolish and reconstruct the Red Bridge as part of the Proposed Project would require extensive effort

and more time than minor track realignment and would result in a prolonged disruption of service to the 

Eastbound Waterfront Connection track.

The realignment of the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 would not result in extensive disruption of service. 

However, the realignment of the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 is not a minor realignment because it requires 

the construction of a new viaduct structure across a wetland area, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 

Amtrak strived to minimize the number and footprint of structures over other railroads, as the construction 

over existing, actively-used, electrified tracks is challenging. Moreover, fewer viaducts and associated 

structural supports would also result in less ground disturbance and associated environmental concerns. 

With fewer viaducts, there would also be less need for maintenance of elevated structures and less challenge 

with maintenance of tracks that pass below the viaducts. 

Therefore, in evaluating the Alignment Options, Amtrak placed a greater importance on avoiding the 

reconstruction of the Red Bridge, minimizing the construction of new viaducts (including Morris & Essex 

Line Track 5), and minimizing the footprint of structures that would pass over existing rail lines, than it did 

on avoiding minor infrastructure changes. Minor infrastructure changes include minor shifts in existing 

track alignment (e.g., laterally moving tracks several feet from their existing location without crossing or 

needing to realign other existing tracks) and moving or installing new turnouts or crossovers. Amtrak could 

modify turnouts and crossovers and relocate the Hudson Interlocking during weekends over several months, 

with single-track outages, which would not disrupt service. Amtrak also considered the ability of the 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-10 

Alignment Options to minimize the need to reconstruct or realign temporary tracks, and the extent to which 

the Alignment Options would optimize operations and maintenance.

Table 2-2 presents a comparison of the Alignment Options based on the primary goal of design speed and 

the infrastructure element factors considered in evaluating performance with respect to the secondary goal

to optimize the use of existing infrastructure. 

Table 2-2

Comparison of Alignment Options

Factor Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Option 3

Allows 90 mph for all permanent and 

temporary NEC tracks

   

Avoids Red Bridge reconstruction 

and major EWC realignment

   

Avoids major Track 5 realignment    

Minimizes the number of viaducts    

Minimizes 

reconstruction/realignment of 

temporary tracks

   

Minimizes minor realignment and 

changes to interlockings, turnouts, 

and crossovers

   

Note: EWC – NJ Transit’s Eastbound Waterfront Connection track

2.5.1 Evaluation Based on Design Speed

As Table 2-2 shows, Alignment Option 2A is the only alignment with which a 90-mph design speed would 

achievable for all four NEC tracks during and after construction. Under Option 1 and Option 3, the design 

speed for the temporary track on the northern viaduct structure would be 60 mph. Under Option 2, the 

design speed for two temporary tracks would be 60 mph. 

2.5.2 Evaluation Based on Avoidance of the Red Bridge 

Alignment Option 2A is the only alignment that would avoid the reconstruction of NJ Transit’s Red Bridge 

and the major realignment of the Eastbound Waterfront Connection track. 

2.5.3 Evaluation Based on Avoidance of Major Track 5 Realignment 

Option 3 is the only alignment that would avoid the major realignment of the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 

and thereby the construction of the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 viaduct structure over the wetland area to 

the north of the existing alignment. However, Option 3 would place one of the NEC tracks on a viaduct 

over the wetland area. Option 3 would therefore neither avoid the construction of a single-track viaduct 

structure, nor avoid the effect on the wetlands. Under the options that require the major realignment of the 

Morris & Essex Line Track 5 (Option 1, Option 2, and Option 2A), Amtrak would minimize the disruption 

to NJ Transit’s service by first building the viaduct structure, while existing Morris & Essex Line Track 5 

remains in service and then transferring the Morris & Essex Line Track 5 operations to the new viaduct. 

Amtrak anticipates that service could be transferred to the new Morris & Essex Line Track 5 viaduct with 

minimal effect to NJ Transit service. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives

February 2020 | 2-11 

2.5.4 Evaluation Based on Minimization of Viaducts and Reconstruction/Realignment of 

Temporary Tracks

Both Option 1 and Option 3 would construct three viaduct structures for the NEC tracks. Option 1 would 

additionally include the Track 5 viaduct, for a total of four viaduct structures. Therefore, these two

Alignment Options do not minimize structures over other railroads. While Option 2 and Option 2A would 

also construct viaducts, there would be two, rather than three, permanent viaducts for the NEC tracks and 

one viaduct for the Morris & Essex Line Track 5. Overall, Option 2 and Option 2A would have a smaller 

viaduct footprint than Option 1 and Option 3, with Option 2 having a slightly smaller permanent footprint 

than Option 2A. 

Option 2A is the only option with which Amtrak would not have to reconstruct or realign the temporary

runaround tracks. The temporary runaround tracks that Amtrak would use during construction of Option 

2A could seamlessly become the permanent tracks as part of Phase II for construction of the Proposed 

Project (see Section 2.8). 

2.5.5 Evaluation Based on Minor Infrastructure Changes

Option 2 would not require any minor track realignment or infrastructure changes. Option 1 and Option 3 

would both require the realignment of PATH tracks. Amtrak could realign the PATH tracks during weekend 

and other off-peak track outages, without affecting passenger service. While Option 2A would require the 

realignment of the Conrail track, the train volumes on this track are relatively low and short-term outages 

during construction would have a lesser effect than PATH outages would have under Option 1 and Option 

3. Option 1 and Option 3 would require a temporary turnout at Swift Interlocking. Option 2A would require 

a greater number of minor infrastructure changes, including: 

• Removal of Hudson Interlocking or relocation approximately 500 feet to the west to connect the 

tracks along the new northern alignment (Sawtooth Bridge North) to the existing NEC tracks;

• Relocation of the No. 15 crossover at the west end of NJ Transit’s Kearny Junction Interlocking to 

accommodate the realignment of Track 5; 

• Installation of a new No. 15 turnout to NJ Transit’s Eastbound Waterfront Connection; and 

• Relocation of the Conrail crossover to a NJ Transit track. 

Overall, while the minor infrastructure changes under Option 2A are numerous, they require less effort, 

time, and disruption than the reconstruction of the Red Bridge and realignment of the Eastbound Waterfront 

Connection track. All options would also include new catenary supports throughout the Proposed Project

site to electrify the relocated tracks. Amtrak would continue to coordinate with NJ Transit and would install 

new catenary poles so as not to preclude future electrification along the Conrail track if NJ Transit proceeds 

with the Westbound Waterfront Connection. All options would also include the installation of new 

crossovers and turnouts, which would be identified in future design phases to connect the new alignment 

to the east and west and provide operational flexibility. 

2.6 Preferred Alternative 

All Alignment Options would demolish the existing Sawtooth Bridges (which are contributing resources to 

the Pennsylvania Railroad Historic District from New York to Philadelphia). All Alignment Options would 

also construct a viaduct structure over the wetland area to the north of the existing Sawtooth Bridges. As 

such, all Alignment Options affect resources protected under Section 106 of the NHPA, Section 4(f) of the 

USDOT Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as fully described in the remaining chapters of this 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-12 

EA. Based on the Proposed Project’s Purpose and Need, the project goals, and constructability constraints

(see Tables 2-1 and 2-2), FRA, in concert with Amtrak, selected the New Alignment Alternative – Option 

2A as the Preferred Alternative. FRA and Amtrak eliminated Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 from further 

evaluation in this EA. The Preferred Alternative would also address aging infrastructure and improve rail

system reliability and resiliency along this critical segment of the NEC. The Preferred Alternative would 

also minimize disruption to existing service, optimize speeds, and maximize the use of existing 

infrastructure, with minimum adverse effects and maximum beneficial effects on the environment. The 

term “Proposed Project” refers to the Preferred Alternative (New Alignment Alternative – Option 2A) 

throughout the remainder of this EA.

2.7 Bridge Span Design 

As part of the conceptual design, Amtrak considered both short-span and long-span options for the viaduct 

structures and determined that both would be viable. Span refers to the distance between support structures 

(piers or columns) that hold up the bridge deck and rail tracks. Short spans are typically less than 40 feet 

long and long spans are typically more than 100 feet long. The long-span option would place the 

superstructure (deck and tracks) on fewer but sturdier supports (concrete columns) than the short-span 

option, which would place the deck on a greater number of thinner supports (thin wall concrete piers). 

While the short-span design would require extensive and potentially disruptive substructure (i.e., pier) 

construction, Amtrak could construct the substructure within the tight confines of the Proposed Project site.

Amtrak could construct the long-span substructure with less disruption, but the placement and launching of

the long span superstructure during construction in such a confined space would be very challenging and 

require long track outages. In other words, the construction of the long-span would be more challenging 

but faster, whereas the short-span would be simpler but take longer. There would be fewer track outages 

during the long-span design, as compared with the short-span design, but each of the outages would last 

longer than and outage with the short-span design. 

During preliminary engineering, Amtrak would further evaluate both the short-span and long-span design. 

Amtrak based this EA on the short-span design, since the short-span design provides a conservative estimate

of subsurface disruption and wetland impacts. 

2.8 Project Phasing, Schedule, and Cost 

Amtrak would construct the Proposed Project in two phases to maintain service on the NEC, as summarized 

in the list below. 

Phase I (Partial Build-Out):

• Build new Morris & Essex Track 5 viaduct and move Track 5 service to this new alignment; 

• Construct the new Sawtooth Bridge North; 

• Relocate the service from the two existing NEC tracks to the new Sawtooth Bridge North; and

• Decommission and remove the existing Sawtooth Bridges. 

Phase II (Full Build-Out):

• Construct the new Sawtooth Bridge South (along the alignment of the existing Sawtooth Bridges); 

• Move one of the tracks from the new Sawtooth Bridge North to the new Sawtooth Bridge South 

(for optimal full build-out alignment); and
Chapter 2: Alternatives

February 2020 | 2-13 

• Add one new track to Sawtooth Bridge North and one new track to Sawtooth Bridge South. 

The Proposed Project requires scheduling and coordination between various railroad operators. Before 

construction commences, Amtrak must complete preliminary and final design, environmental permitting, 

and contractor procurement. The Phase I and Phase II of the Proposed Project would take a total of 

approximately seven years to build, primarily due to the site constraints and the need to maintain active rail

operations. Depending on funding availability, construction could begin in 2022, after the final design and

permitting phase. Both Phase I and Phase II could be completed and operational by 2029. 

2.9 Construction Considerations 

The construction means and methods discussed in this EA are based on the current conceptual design and 

Amtrak’s experience on similar projects. While Amtrak’s construction contractors would ultimately 

determine the construction techniques for the Proposed Project, Chapter 3 represents an assessment of 

reasonable worst-case conditions and the identified measures to minimize adverse effects would likely be 

similar.

Construction activities for the Proposed Project would include demolition and decommissioning of the 

existing Sawtooth Bridges; excavation and grading; removal of contaminated soils, if any; pile driving, 

construction of concrete foundations and substructure units; superstructure erection; installation of tracks 

and rail systems equipment (overhead contact system, signals, etc.) and associated utility work. 

The process of demolishing, removing and decommissioning the existing bridges in an area with a 

complicated infrastructure network, including multiple actively-used rail tracks, is a difficult construction 

task. Amtrak would need to complete all demolition and removal work within limited work windows to 

minimize rail power and service outages. An additional construction challenge stems from inadequate space 

for large cranes. Amtrak would therefore limit the size and weight of construction cranes. 

Within the limited space and limited duration of track outages, placing the new bridge spans onto the 

support structures (columns or piers) would be challenging. In cases when an entire span of the 

superstructure cannot be set into place during the allotted track outage, Amtrak would have to secure the 

span to the span launching device so that train service can resume.

Based on preliminary research, there are several major public utility components within the Proposed 

Project site. Amtrak would coordinate with the utility companies, including Williams Gas, Public Service 

Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), and fiber optic companies regarding any potential utility relocations 

before commencing construction.

2.9.1 Site Access and Staging

Access along the Proposed Project site is significantly limited, and the presence of substantial railroad 

infrastructure further limits access opportunities. Based on conceptual design, the main corridors for access 

would likely be through the following: 

• 5th Street in Harrison – To the west of the Proposed Project site, there is an access point to an 

existing gravel road between the NEC and Morris & Essex Line. This roadway continues east to 

the existing Sawtooth Bridge No. 7.96. 

• Harrison Avenue – Adjacent to the inactive Harrison Branch Bridge on Harrison Avenue, access 

to the Proposed Project site may be possible via the driveway to the Weldon Asphalt Plant and 

contractor equipment storage area (Block 284). NJ Transit owns a swath of right-of-way through 
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project

February 2020 | 2-14 

Block 284, which Amtrak could potentially use to access the existing gravel road parallel to the 

Morris & Essex Line (along the westbound track on the north side). 

• New Jersey Turnpike and Newark‐Jersey City Turnpike – Access to existing gravel roadways is 

available below the New Jersey Turnpike overpasses. In addition, the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike 

(Route 7) provides access via a roadway adjacent to 1-D Landfill and parallel to the New Jersey 

Turnpike overpasses western spur. There is also an existing gravel road to Substation 41 that 

Amtrak may use as a supplemental access point.

The following features may be necessary to facilitate access to the above-mentioned roads and for 

construction of the replacement structures (tracks, bridges and rail system components): 

• Timber matting within Cedar Creek Marsh and the lagoon area adjacent to the landfill, along the 

proposed reconstructed Morris & Essex Line Track 5;

• A grade transition between the proposed Morris & Essex Line Track 5 and the existing railroad 

embankment, from the existing access roadways up to track level (to facilitate construction). 

For the duration of construction, Amtrak would need staging areas likely at the intersection of the main 

access roads mentioned above. If as part of future design efforts Amtrak concludes that additional 

commercial properties would be needed for site access or for material staging, Amtrak would seek consent 

and approval of the property owners.